The great debate between pro life and pro choice advocates is always in the news. There is a basic disagreement on when life starts. Does it start at conception? quickening? Pro life advocates see abortion as murder. Which brings up another question of does abortion constitute murder? It is difficult to establish these basic definitions which is why abortion is still a heated subject.

Here's an interesting topic (sorry, I have been away all weekend and just have time for posting now) that I don't think anyone's really sat down to think about: The Internet.

We can see in the most general terms two sides of the fence. The internet savy - generally the younger generations who were born with it - and the technologically fearful/ignorant.

There's a lot of disagreement over what the internet actually is. We can all agree it's a method to move a lot of data around all over the world, but many don't understand where the information might be stored and the consequences of viewing that. A good example of this is our recent failure with the Al-queda internet server leak. We had a secret direct backdoor connection with an Al-queda site, which was investigated by a private company. When they informed the whitehouse, the information was leaked and suddenly everyone and their mom were accessing the site through the hole, which was promptly shut down.

Why does this happen? I think it's because people don't understand how the internet work. If we had set up a secure server and just cached the site here in america, everyone could have downloaded from here with no problem. Instead, we lost a valuable resource (again which I think people don't realize because they don't know what the internet is).

So, I believe it is necessary to look at and figure out what exactly the internet is, or at least what happens when one accesses it. We can accept that it is a method of information transfer. We then have to determine how exactly does the information get around? It would then have to be accepted that the information is stored on computer servers that can be located anywhere (the locations can be found through IP) and can also be viewed by the owners of those servers. So, if we log into that Al-queda site, the owner can see what we are doing there (assuming we come in en-masse). The information we can gather can be extremely important, and so must be treated the same way that confidential reports would be.

This may be less of an elenchus and more of a learning course, because I think the arguments are based on both ignorance and conflicting views. At the same time I think we need to prove to some people that technology and the data we store in that technology is very important in today's world, and not some kind of non-essential new fangled computer thingy.

As a member of the so-called "queer" community, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the gay marriage/civil unions issue, so I'll (predictably) be using that example.

The core disagreement here is that the queer community wants rights, which we have put in terms of "marriage," and the right-wing conservatives (and many moderates) feel this is an encroachment on the tradition of marriage, which theoretically should be between a man and a woman.

Now, many people believe this debate begins with our disagreement over what marriage means. I agree - but I believe marriage means different things to different people, specifically secular people and religious people, and even among the latter, people of different denominations or belief systems. Because we as a country certainly do not want to start down the road of telling someone their religion is flat-out wrong, we run into this issue: marriage is not a secular institution. At its roots, it belongs to the church and to the synagogue and to the mosque: in short, it does not belong to the federal or state government. My definition of marriage is this: a religious institution which has been improperly imposed upon political and legal issues.

From there, I can say I am one of the only queer people I know who does not champion gay marriage. I don't champion straight marriage, either - not in the legal sense. Definitionally, as a country built on a respect for different belief systems (theoretically, anyway) and a separation of church and state, we can only champion civil unions. Civil unions for everyone. Leave the religious institutions to decide who gets married - frankly, that's not the point. The point is that everyone be protected from discrimination under the laws of this country, as it's supposed to be, and that separate is never equal.

So my vote is this: truly enact our great separation of church and state with the discarding of legal marriages and the instatement of universal civil unions. This way, we don't risk asking religious institutions to change their core belief systems, whether I agree with them or not - because, honestly, they have every right to believe and practice what they do. I disagree with Niki's idea of redefining marriage. I find it counterproductive to moving towards a system of government which provides equal protection under its laws to say that a religion should change its doctrines because of what I believe, just as I find it counterproductive to say that I should have my civil liberties infringed upon because of someone else's religious doctrines. Perhaps this is a continuation of Saba's post.

I believe everyone can accept a definition of "civil union" as "a union that unites two people under the legal rights and protections which have previously been assigned to a legal marriage, but that implies none of the spiritual or religious implications." That's not to say there aren't spiritual implications for queer and straight couples alike, but this way, these are left where they belong - in the practices of the individual or the institution.

Perhaps too political. I'm too political.

Socrates elenchus may lead to a stalmate between the two parties discussing gay marriage just as Niki suggested. On the other hand, Socrates method may be able to discover the implicit asssumptions of each side. Just as Socrates caught Callicles confusing a better leader as a wise leader or a manly leader, this method may help pin down the arguments of each side and prevent "moving targets" so to speak. So what happens if we use this method? We may find out that marriage is a concept that is rooted in religion and we will need to find out if the government can adopt marriage as its own institution. I think this is a necessary step because there doesn't seem to be a clear line between religion and government so the definitions each institution provides seem to blur together. From that point, we can discuss the points Niki suggests such as agreeing on what concepts define a marriage and what are intrinisic to its existence. This may not lead to any agreements, but it may shed more light on the disagreements and make them more coherent.

In the first place, I would like to question the success of using Socrates' manner of argument in common-day situations. Even for Socrates the assumption that building syllogistically up from the most basic definitions will lead to common understanding only goes so far. Take, for example, Callicles' eventual frustration with Socrates' methods: "Let me tell you , Socrates, all the time that I have been listening to you and yielding your agreement, I have been remarking the puerile delight with which you cling to any concession one may make to you, even in jest" (p. 121). Add into the mix the famously short attention spans and fuses of today's "talking heads" and many political leaders, and the results could be less than useful.

However, assuming a small, simple debate between two well-educated people:

In applying this to a real-world example I'm going to choose gay marriage/civil unions, because I think the war in Iraq will be more than covered by most of my classmates. In the debate over whether we should we favor civil unions or gay marriage, the core disagreements are the right-/wrongness of homosexuality, and the proper place of marriage (completely religious marriage-in-a-church vs. acceptability of government-approved wedding by the justice of the peace).

The debate would likely have to start with a definition of the term marriage. If it were possible to get both parties to agree on a definition that included the phrase "bound by love and long-term committment" and not "defined by the Bible as being between a man and a woman," an argument leading towards the acceptance and preference of gay marriage would be much easier to produce -- the next question would be "are same-sex couples people, capable of feeling love and engaging in long-term committment?" This would also be the next question even if a suitable definition of marriage could not be produced; the answer would still need to be "yes" to create an argument for the suitability of civil unions.

The first definition that would need to be established is war. One definition that could be offered is that war is organized, systematic violence by the military of one nation-state against another, legitimized by the government of a nation that receives its legitimacy from its citizens. For contrast, rival gangs do not war. They conduct business by way of force in the absence of both moral opinion and an obligation to stability and peace. We are talking about the United States of America and Iraq being at war. Both are sovereign nations. The burden of proof, the evidence of legitimacy, lies with the aggressor. Therefore, the U.S. is responsible for proving that the war they started was necessary, reports of Saddam Hussein's fourth-rate military planning an invasion of the U.S. by way of their non-existent Navy notwithstanding. Should anybody feel that this is just more liberal claptrap, I welcome anybody to offer a definition of war that subsumes our reasons for invading Iraq while also keeping in mind the reasons that governments have institutions like the Pentagon, where wars are planned years in advance. The next necessary definition would have to be legitimate. In order for people to agree on this term would be much more time-consuming, considering that some people (hawks/conservatives/lovers of democracy) do not seem to believe that war requires as much legitimacy as do other people (doves/liberals/Honda drivers). Another required definition is purpose; or, to be less abstract, indicators of success in the War on Terror. Or the War for Freedom. Or the War for Propagation of Democracy. Or the war against Tyranny and WMD's. Or the War to End All Wars. The Last Good War. So, we can see how difficult it would be to establish a clear departure point for this discussion about the Iraq War. The "Fog of War" isn't meant to convey only the confusion that occurs in a firefight; it also applies to the qualifiers and definitions of the events, values, and histories that sometimes culminates in the executive branch of a government of a sovereign nation deciding to amass a nation's resources with the goal of destroying, and then possibly rebuilding, another nation.

Necessary definitions:
1. War
2. Legitimate
3. Indicators of success

These definitions may be best viewed, in the interest of coming closer to truth, as the little things that must first be understood before we are to know great things; in this case, the great being whether or not the war in Iraq was necessary, and how do we get out (I have emphasized the origins of the war over the eventual withdrawal because the debate right now is still focused on the origins; which, until clearly defined, will result in a continued military presence in justification of the initial, and continually shifting, reasons for invasion). Our country is suffering fiscally, domestically, and internationally as a result of the invasion of Iraq. This administration has shown its adeptness at equivocating the reasons for this war. The result has been a citizenry in absolute confusion as to the past, present, or future situation in the Middle East. This confusion/ignorance is apparent in the silence we meet the rumors of another war with. By ingeniously changing the core terms of their argument for war, the country has not been able to engage the administration nor Congress in any type of extended elenchus, all but precluding the possibility of a "firm point of agreement for departure." The extent to which mass media can be blamed for this is debatable. Were the three above terms to be defined, the people of this nation would be more well-equipped to come to decisions about the utility and justifiability of military force without help from Cheney and Rice sketching Doomsday designs in the form of a smoking gun. The building up of these definitions would achieve nothing less than a healthier democracy. As to how one goes about initiating the construction of these definitions would require a definition of our nation that I'm not comfortable thinking about without a drink in my hand (Hint: define sacrifice, and see where it takes you. Apply to America.).

I would tell Andy that we already had several "hard" military installations in the Middle East prior to invading Iraq (Yemen, Qatar, and Kuwait). These, in addition to a very significant presence at Incirlik, Turkey, where airstrikes had been being conducted into Iraq well into Clinton's second term.

I would tell Bobby to keep his views quiet lest he invite Alex Jones/Ron Paul comparisons.

I would tell Cathy that we have alot of wars to fight if our goal is the blanketing of the planet with democracy. We're coming for you Myanmar!!!

I would tell Debbie that things are much worse RIGHT NOW (Shhh... did you hear that? Another civilian shot by a Blackwater "contractor.") than before we went in. I would also ask her to define term three.

I would find a way to expose Eddie to massive amounts of radiation to ensure that his potential for reproduction is as impotent as his thought process. Then, I would politely ask if we could change the radio station from the Hannity show to something more intelligible and useful, like the Hungarian knitting hour, live from Budapest.

I should first apologize for what follows. I am apolitical - ignorant - the ancient Greco/Romans would say. My great plan was to wait for the other discussion leader to make a post on some current issue and then play off that... but I'm the only dl. That having been made:

Let our nation’s presence in Iraq be the issue of debate. I list the five members of the ‘Open Minded Iraq Club’ with some premises about what we are doing in Iraq that they each bring (and, being open minded, are willing to change) to their first and only meeting. Their purpose is to argue for understanding of what course(s) of action would be good (or right, or laudable, or most effective, etc.) for our country to take now. I don’t mean this to be a complete or accurate representation of views on the subject, but if I have neglected key view(s) that would shed light on the issue, either add the view(s) to some present member, or: Freddy, Gabby, Harry, etc., would of course be welcome at this meeting of open minds.

First- these five members share the common premises that Sadaam was a bad guy and that for all we knew at the time, he could have had WMDs or again could have been trying to get them.

Andy: U.S. has been staying to secure a more firm military foothold in/launchpad from the M.E.

Bobby: We have been maintaining our presence so that U.S. companies can make money building infrastructure, and to secure better oil prices.

Cathy: Democratic government is now almost universal, Iraq was one of the few holdouts. we are still there to ensure that a democratic government takes firm root.

Debbie: Sadaam’s government kept groups that hate each other in a state of mutual toleration. If we leave pull out presently, the new government will crumble and things will be much worse than before we went in.

Eddie: We went into Iraq to fight terror. We are currently fighting terror.

Before these members engage in elenchus to find each other’s background premises, what are some words that could equivocate in such away that some people talk past each other ? After they break down to premises: What are some possible disagreements at the definitional level? What definitions might which people agree on? With everyone being open-minded, is it possible that some disagreements might still be incommensurable? What agreements can be reached? Which course(s) of action for the U.S. to take would most (if not all) of our members support?