General

Re: an open challenge to debate

Meistro — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:40:09 GMT

can u delete that plz? cluttering up my thread. i'm sure this would be fertile field for discussion in a different thread.

i will happily accept both debate challenges with regards to animal rights (I believe animals will have rights when they petition for them) and nightwatchmen state vs anarcho-capitalist utopia. please do set dates and times!

Re: an open challenge to debate

Anarcho-libertarian — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:35:54 GMT

FDR had every intention of trying to goad the Japanese into firing the first shot. Lincoln did the same with the South. FDR followed Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum's eight-step plan. Richard Maybury's book "World War II" goes over the chronological order of FDR following the plan and says "the chronological order is very important. Many of these events have been written about extensively, but as far as I know, no one has ever listed them in sequence so that the reader can clearly see the development."

It's too long for me to quote the rest, but here are some other interesting excerpts from the book on this idea:

I know it is hard to believe a President would deliberately sacrifice American lives. How do we know Roosevelt was really willing to do this? Journalist and navy World War II veteran Robert B. Stinnett is an expert on the Pearl Harbor attack. Stinnett points out that on September 7, 1940, President Roosevelt "called for sending cruisers into Japanese territory to antagonize the Japanese militarists so they would take over the civilian government. President Roosevelt called them pop-up cruisers. 'I want them popping up here and there, but I don't want to lose five or six cruisers. I don't mind losing one or two.' Well, if you lose one or two cruisers, you're losing 900 men each," writes Stinnett. "That was about 1,800 men he was prepared to lose to put this provocative action in place."

...

Here is an interesting fact to ponder. We have all seen hundreds of photos and newsreels of the attack on Pearl Harbor. One of the most famous pieces of motion picture film is of the battleship Arizona exploding. Shot in color (although usually shown in black and white) this film of the explosion is shocking. You can see color photos of the Battleship Arizona here.

The photos and films of Pearl Harbor were immediately shown around the country. Young men saw them and went straight to the nearest recruiting centers. Your grandfather tells of lines of men stretching hundreds of yards around the block at the recruiting center near his home.

These photos and films completely erased any serious opposition to the USG getting into the war. In every city and town, Americans were outraged and looking for revenge.

The strange thing is that in 1941, portable motion picture cameras were rare, and portable motion picture cameras shooting color film were almost unknown. The convenient videotape cameras did not come into wide use until the 1980s.

I have never heard anyone ask the question, how long after the attack began did the Arizona blow up?

I checked into it.

Logs of other ships in the harbor report that the explosion was 12 minutes after the attack began. The Arizona was one of the first ships hit.

So when the attack began, there on the scene within sight of battleship row, at 8:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning, was a photographer with a movie camera loaded with color film.

...The Solace was a hospital ship moored in a central location in Pearl Harbor with a view of battleship row. This was the safest spot in the harbor. Hospital ships are not considered legitimate military targets; the Solace was not hit and was not damaged in any way. At 8:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning, a photographer with a movie camera shooting color film was standing on the deck of the Solace. The photographer got clear pictures of the attack, including the destruction of the battleship Arizona. Was his presence there a coincidence, or did someone know the attack was coming and tell the photographer to be there?

Re: an open challenge to debate

Jargon — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:37:48 GMT

I'd debate you as a classical liberal v. propertarian anarchist along lines of Nat'l Defense.

Re: an open challenge to debate

thetabularasa — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:31:25 GMT

Meistro:

I'd like to propose a debate. You vs Me. Ideally I would like to debate state vs market but if you are all anarchists we could find something else to debate over. Please do suggest topics of debate! I am fairly orthodox Rothbardian. could have a debate on the merits of voting, for example, or what are the best tactics for making new libertarians. the debate would be conducted over googlehangouts and hosted after on my utube channel.

plz do let me know if ur interested, what subject ud like to debate on, and your availability for said debate

I'll debate you. I'm not a vegetarian and I don't consider non-human animals and humans equals, but I have found a flaw in many people's arguments for non-human animals not having rights. So I say there is no reason to perceive animals as not having rights. By our own meaning of natural rights, they must, simply for being alive, have the same rights implied, and merely being human does not imply any special case whatsoever.

Re: an open challenge to debate

shackleford — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:59:33 GMT

I think you're going just to see Dorian Electra. LOL. :p

Re: an open challenge to debate

shackleford — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:57:50 GMT

I don't think that anything in WW2 was an inside job.

Re: an open challenge to debate

Meistro — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:28:46 GMT

It's all good just let me know when

Re: an open challenge to debate

Wheylous — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:15:18 GMT

Weekends would be best for me. But next weekend I have the International Students for Liberty Conference coming up (2000 libertarians!), so maybe the weekend after. I'm sorry...

Re: an open challenge to debate

Meistro — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:57:10 GMT

awesome! but no throwing the debate to make an/cap look good :P when works best for you?

Re: an open challenge to debate

Wheylous — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:16:19 GMT

Sure, we can do video.

As to pearl harbor being an inside job, I have no idea. What I can do well is present a Social Democrat point of view.

Re: an open challenge to debate

Meistro — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 05:58:21 GMT

We could debate, for example, was pearl harbour an inside job (I don't have an opinion on this subject so wouldn't mind taking either side) was America right in entering WWII. I could also take the pro state issue I guess on some issues, not because I believe that but as an intellectual exercise.

Re: an open challenge to debate

Meistro — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 05:56:59 GMT

No I want to debate over googlehangouts, via webcam and / or voice chat to create footage for my youtube channel. Also we'll need a subject to debate...

Re: an open challenge to debate

Wheylous — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:01:05 GMT

Alright. Debate me. Take it over to the LibertyHQ forums. I've debated Skeptical Metal twice before and won both times:

http://mises.org/community/forums/p/31866/495404.aspx

http://mises.org/community/forums/t/32652.aspx?PageIndex=1

Re: an open challenge to debate

Anenome — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:27:19 GMT

You're orthodox Rothbardian and you come here to debate; you're pretty much preaching to the choir :P

Re: an open challenge to debate

proxyamenra — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 10:26:23 GMT

Go to www.intjforum.com and the politics section. Debate your heart out. ^_^