"You hate freedom!" rant

[Eric]

Why is it, whenever you say anything against American policy, foreign policy in paticular, the really die-hard Republicans always claim that you "Hate Freedom" That isn't a viable argument! And why is "Iraqi" an insult in America these days! Saying someone hates freedom is just retarded. Who in their right mind hates freedom? Even the Iraqi Insurgency, who, according to the really die-hard rightists in America "hate freedom the most" is fighting for their freedom. Please, someone tell the Repubs that saying "You hate freedom" in a political argument automatically makes them stupider than I thought they were. Enough of "you hate freedom", "You hate America" and all that jazz, if you want to have a viable argument with anyone those phrases shouldn't even be in your vocabulary.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

It's simple. You want to know why some of them say it?

Because it's the easiest defense against any form of criticism.

Example:

"Bush used false evidence knowingly in order to convince the Senate to vote for his war proposition."

"Oh yeah, well if you think that, you must hate America!!"

And honestly, it works. Most recipients of the 'you-hate-freedom' line are so dumbfounded by their opponent's stupidity that they just stand there in stunned silence. Plus, it diverts the discussion. Then it becomes about the critic's level of patriotism, not the issue at hand. Crisis averted.

[Eric]

I know, but its still just plain annoying that when debating, instead of getting anything done the Liberals are attacked for their level of patriotism, averting focus from the issue at hand and preventing any progress from getting done.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Why is it, whenever you say anything against American policy, foreign policy in paticular, the really die-hard Republicans always claim that you "Hate Freedom" That isn't a viable argument! And why is "Iraqi" an insult in America these days! Saying someone hates freedom is just retarded. Who in their right mind hates freedom? Even the Iraqi Insurgency, who, according to the really die-hard rightists in America "hate freedom the most" is fighting for their freedom. Please, someone tell the Repubs that saying "You hate freedom" in a political argument automatically makes them stupider than I thought they were. Enough of "you hate freedom", "You hate America" and all that jazz, if you want to have a viable argument with anyone those phrases shouldn't even be in your vocabulary.

Several Counterpoints about this rant.

1. Who says "you hate freedom"? Honestly I don't know a single person who does. Link me if you can
2. How do you know what is an insult in America? you live in Canada don't you?
3. No one says "Iraqi" as an insult.
4. Iraqi insurgence fighting for freedom? from what? "American Occupation"??? but i thought we were still there to protect the People and Government.......FROM THE INSURGENCY. Smart thinkers those insurgents.
5.This thread is pretty weak, and it has no point what's more.

Most recipients of the 'you-hate-freedom' line are so dumbfounded by their opponent's stupidity that they just stand there in stunned silence.

Not that I've ever whitnessed such a "you hate freedom" line, but it does remind me of the "Bush is stupid" "you're in Iraq for Oil" "americans are fat" lines. can't deny that can you

I know, but its still just plain annoying that when debating, instead of getting anything done the Liberals are attacked for their level of patriotism, averting focus from the issue at hand and preventing any progress from getting done.

You know, this thread should be renamed to "I hate it so much when..." then you can have all the stupid rants you want without anyone expecting a well thought out discussion on an actual problem.

The Dems. fail to realize the single most important rule of debating, "Do not argue with an idiot. He will just bring you down to his level and beat you with experience".

A. because all non-dems are idiots
B. it's always a great excuse to use when you get beat in an argument isn't it. "He's just an idiot and i lowered myself to his level". you should never lose to an idiot, unless your a bigger idiot.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Whoa, I see the defense mechanism switching into place!!

Several Counterpoints about this rant.
2. How do you know what is an insult in America? you live in Canada don't you?

You know they live right on the border. They are capable of reading American news stories, and probably encounter Americans on a regular basis.

4. Iraqi insurgence fighting for freedom? from what? "American Occupation"??? but i thought we were still there to protect the People and Government.......FROM THE INSURGENCY. Smart thinkers those insurgents.

Well, you've got the guys fighting to return Iraq to the way it was before the invasion, when they felt like at least Iraqis had the power, not Americans. Then you've got the other guys who want the US to stop invading Muslim countries because they feel it threatens their freedoms as Muslims. So, yes, in their minds they are fighting for freedom as they see it. This is a point lost on many pro-Iraq people...freedom has more than one definition.

5.This thread is pretty weak, and it has no point what's more.

I've seen much worse, and yes it has a point.

Not that I've ever whitnessed such a "you hate freedom" line, but it does remind me of the "Bush is stupid" "you're in Iraq for Oil" "americans are fat" lines. can't deny that can you

Oh they're out there. And I agree, all of the above are things stupid people use to derail intelligent, reasoned debate.

[Garbarsardar]

Please dont make poor Garb. regret for re-opening this

All sides use ad hominem to discredit their opponents. The whole Goodwins law (and quirk's exception) are aknowledgments of this sad reality:

I. The Basics

1. What is Godwin's Law?

Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
(godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
the Jargon File:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.


2. What does it mean?

It pretty much means exactly what it says - as a Usenet thread
goes on, the chances of somebody or something being compared to a Nazi
approach one.


3. Yes, but what does it *mean*?

Aah, now *there's* the real question.

In case your head has been buried in the sand for the last sixty
years or so, the Nazis were a German political party led by Adolf Hitler
that slaughtered upwards of ten million people that didn't meet their
standards of "ethnic purity" and set off to conquer Europe and the world
in World War II. They are generally considered the most evil group of
people to live in modern times, and to compare something or someone to
them is usually considered the gravest insult imaginable.

As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as
more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to
insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely
notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find
the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a
Nazi comparison.


4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?

The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.

So, what this means in practical terms:

o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
other side.


5. So - *WHAT DOES IT MEAN*?

Fine, fine - it means that somebody's eventually going to say
something about the Nazis in any thread that lasts very long. When it
happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long
flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law. Either way, the thread
is effectively over, and you can safely killfile the thread and move on.


II. What does it mean?

1. Didn't we already spend the last section talking about this?

Well, yeah, but people don't seem to get the point...


2. What happens if we're actually talking about Nazis?

Then you've already invoked Godwin's Law, and the chances are that
your thread isn't going to last all that much longer as a sane discussion.
Them's the breaks.

That isn't to say, of course, that you can't talk about Nazis and
such on Usenet - this *is* Usenet, after all, where virtually every
conversation that goes on is fairly ludicrous in the first place. It's
just going to take you a lot more effort to find real information out of
there and to avoid getting yourself off on side-threads - which you'll
eventually do regardless, but you can try to put it off.

This also applies if a thread mutates into an actual discussion of
Nazis, of course.


3. What about arguing with Neo-Nazis?

Arguing with Neo-Nazis is probably the quickest path to getting
Nazi invocations, because, well, they're actually accurate. Still, trying
to invoke Godwin's Law near a Neo-Nazi isn't really a good idea because
it's not terribly original and they'll probably get off on it anyway.
Just ignore them and occasionally publish a FAQ detailing what actually
happened during the Holocaust and such; arguing probably isn't going to
help you.


4. How can I use Godwin's Law to my advantage?

In the proper kind of flamewar, Godwin's Law can be used as a
gambit - how can you force your opponent to invoke the Law? Actually
teaching these skills is tough, of course, and is best done through
experience. Experience with chess and alt.flame are recommended.


5. What should I do if somebody else invokes Godwin's Law?

The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over",
and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh.
I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
post is unnecessary.


6. "Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!

Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a
thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads
virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to
the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama :

Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
"Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.

Sorry, folks. Nice try, though.

[John Wayne]

The Dems. fail to realize the single most important rule of debating, "Do not argue with an idiot. He will just bring you down to his level and beat you with experience".

[danzig]

Why is it, whenever you say anything against American policy, foreign policy in paticular, the really die-hard Republicans always claim that you "Hate Freedom" That isn't a viable argument! And why is "Iraqi" an insult in America these days! Saying someone hates freedom is just retarded. Who in their right mind hates freedom? Even the Iraqi Insurgency, who, according to the really die-hard rightists in America "hate freedom the most" is fighting for their freedom. Please, someone tell the Repubs that saying "You hate freedom" in a political argument automatically makes them stupider than I thought they were. Enough of "you hate freedom", "You hate America" and all that jazz, if you want to have a viable argument with anyone those phrases shouldn't even be in your vocabulary.

Nice generalization about Republicans, didnt know I felt this way until you informed of me it...I apperciate it The Iraqi insurgency is broken up amoung various factions all fighting for themselves, ie their own future powerbase in the country or because their powerbase was stripped out from under them when Saddam was removed. There is of course also the element of Iraqi insurgency that are the 'outsiders' who simply want to use it as a battleground to create chaos so I think its fairly accurate to say they dont *care* about freedom of the majority of Iraqi civilizans. As Hicks said however Im not sure who you are refering to as most American politicans dont run around yelling they hate freedom, Ill assume you meant a comment by Bush awhile back about the insurgency in Iraq and I think my description above covers that. Not sure what exactly the point of your post is other then well a rant so not sure what responses you are intending to get

[greek302]

"They hate our freedom" Is a false ideal made up by the current government. Why they really dislike the US is becuase some US republicans have supported reppressive Dictatorships in the middle east such as: Saudi Arabia, Sadamn Hussein. Another reason is that the US supports the jewish people who "stole" Pallistinan land. If the US had not supported theese dictators & not supported Isreal the US would have no enemies in that region.

[trackjacket]

Even the Iraqi Insurgency, who, according to the really die-hard rightists in America "hate freedom the most" is fighting for their freedom.

I really only have contention with this, the rest I haven't ever heard. OK, they're fighting for freedom, the freedom to control other peoples through theocracy and Qur'an law.

[Ahiga]

I really only have contention with this, the rest I haven't ever heard. OK, they're fighting for freedom, the freedom to control other peoples through theocracy and Qur'an law.

Sharia. Not Koran.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

What the hell? No one's talking about Nazis???

EDIT: never mind, I get what your saying. but why so damned long man!!!!

[Garbarsardar]

What the hell? No one's talking about Nazis???

Nope, but this is the liberal slander towards conservatives, exactly as "freedom haters" and "traitors" is the conservative usual slander...
:wink:

PS: Me likes long posts

[GeneralLee]

Why is it, whenever you say anything against American policy, foreign policy in paticular, the really die-hard Republicans always claim that you "Hate Freedom" That isn't a viable argument! And why is "Iraqi" an insult in America these days! Saying someone hates freedom is just retarded. Who in their right mind hates freedom? Even the Iraqi Insurgency, who, according to the really die-hard rightists in America "hate freedom the most" is fighting for their freedom. Please, someone tell the Repubs that saying "You hate freedom" in a political argument automatically makes them stupider than I thought they were. Enough of "you hate freedom", "You hate America" and all that jazz, if you want to have a viable argument with anyone those phrases shouldn't even be in your vocabulary.

Baloney, I live in a very conservative state (read kentucky) and I've never heard anyone actually say it. It has been implied by several Rep. politicians but it's a rare tactic of last resort.

Edit: I leave what I typed but this thread is so off topic it doesnt make sence unless you go back to the top.

[gigagaia]

Why is it, whenever you say anything against American policy, foreign policy in paticular, the really die-hard Republicans always claim that you "Hate Freedom" That isn't a viable argument! And why is "Iraqi" an insult in America these days! Saying someone hates freedom is just retarded. Who in their right mind hates freedom? Even the Iraqi Insurgency, who, according to the really die-hard rightists in America "hate freedom the most" is fighting for their freedom. Please, someone tell the Repubs that saying "You hate freedom" in a political argument automatically makes them stupider than I thought they were. Enough of "you hate freedom", "You hate America" and all that jazz, if you want to have a viable argument with anyone those phrases shouldn't even be in your vocabulary.

I think this is a largely true statement Eric. Bush has transformed the talk into a "You're with us or against us" run, and it is saddeningly extending into within US borders between people who live there. If you don't support Bush, you aren't American, and you don't love our goals blah blah blah, while the arguments totally misrepresent liberalism and disregard how we both have the same goals, just different means.

However, all that being said, there is no moral high ground for liberals, who constantly claim that the right is a scheming, evil and conniving group of old men set out onto world domination. Liberals often forget that the goals are the same, but the means are different. So while this rant may be justified, I would say that any rant from the opposite side of the fence is equally justified; hence why people like Michael Moore disgust me, they merely degrade the liberal cause by associating themsleves and thier ludacris tactics with it.

[IronBrig4]

I haven't heard the "You hate freedom" defense, but I have heard the "Love America or leave it!" crowd. Damn they're annoying.

[Last Roman]

I haven't heard the "You hate freedom" defense, but I have heard the "Love America or leave it!" crowd. Damn they're annoying.

I have, but 99.9% of the time, they're just joking around. As for the "love it or leave it" thing, that's just as bad.

I agree with what Legio said. It is a simple diversion, nothing more.

[greek302]

The Insurgests are fighting for there freedom from the US. Most people educated on the subject think that The insurgents feel they have traded one dictatorship for another.
And other things that might make them not like The US is that you violated the geneva convension (abu Garab). aswell as the 25 -40 thousand innocent civillains that have been killed.


This still applies to the the arab enimes probolem: "They hate our freedom" Is a false ideal made up by the current government. Why they really dislike the US is becuase some US presidents have supported reppressive Dictatorships in the middle east such as: Saudi Arabia, Sadamn Hussein. Another reason is that the US supports the jewish people who "stole" Pallistinan land. If the US had not supported theese dictators & not supported Isreal the US would have no enemies in that region.

[Last Roman]

This still applies to the the arab enimes probolem: "They hate our freedom" Is a false ideal made up by the current government. Why they really dislike the US is becuase some US presidents have supported reppressive Dictatorships in the middle east such as: Saudi Arabia, Sadamn Hussein. Another reason is that the US supports the jewish people who "stole" Pallistinan land. If the US had not supported theese dictators & not supported Isreal the US would have no enemies in that region.

it's a bit more complicated than that. True, the US doesn't exactly have a clean record in the Middle East, but it is wrong to place all the blame on the US. Rather than the people being mad at their repressive rulers, those rulers manage to deflect that anger onto the US. Now, part of that anger is caused by us (America) because we do support those goverments. But part of the fault also lies with the governments for being so repressive in the first place.

[Zenith Darksea]

I imagine that some of the pro-British in 1776 might have said, "Love the British Empire or leave it!" Though I tend to agree with them when it comes to 1776... I'm just being provocative, don't worry.