From Democracy to Tyranny

[strayrider]

The article is intriguing only because it directs to reader to things more profound ... http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html I read this back in high school (civics, government, sociology?), don't really recall. Wasn't into it back then. More into "dope" and chicks. Now, my aged, wizened brain devours it with relish. -stray-

[FoodFight]

Reading to understand their idiocy is not the same thing as choosing not to waste time on sub-par writing. There is a difference. I don't read bad books, I don't watch bad films and I don't read bad articles. Get the picture? You're confusing two different things with each other. I do read bad books and articles as well as view bad films. How do I know that they are bad? Because I view them in their entirety. I don't stop short and leap to a conclusion which may very well be unfounded. To do anything less is intellectually dishonest. I occasionally find some nuggets amongst the gravel (and I do stress occasionally). Why do I do this? Because I challenge myself and my beliefs. I'm not going to dismiss an entire political party because I don't agree with their views as some do. I deal with the issues and try not to poison the well (there's that pesky logic again). As the man said "The unexamined life is not worth living". Get the picture?

[EvilNed]

I do read bad books and articles as well as view bad films. How do I know that they are bad? Because I view them in their entirety. I don't stop short and leap to a conclusion which may very well be unfounded. I don't know about you, but if I start reading something that starts with a stupid or ignorant starting point I dismiss it as to not waste time. If you, sir, have finished watching every bad movie you came across, and finished reading every article you ever came across (or book) then you are a better man than I... I guess I enjoy life to much not wanting to waste my time with things that are openly, blatantly crap and simply... wrong from the get-go. Not saying you can't agree with this article, that's my subjective view. But the ingress, the very thing that's supposed to introduce and suck me in, did the exact opposite by proving the authors ignorance. That's not being close-minded. That's just being sensible!

[strayrider]

Ned, excepting the "countless generations" exaggeration, please explain the progressive left's innocence in this statement ... Remember, I described the link as leading to a "right-wing nut job" site, so why would you even expect it to be something other than that and waste your time posting a response in the first place? "First, those of us who are incapable of self-mastery will always shamefully prostrate ourselves before messianic political leaders. The progressive left in America has spent countless generations destroying the guardians of our inner citadel: religion, family, parents, and tradition - in short, conservatism and limits." Try to explain, from a conservative point of view, how what is written here is fallacy. If you cannot, you are as guilty of closed-mindedness as you accuse this writer as being. Foodfight, explain the fallacy of the article from the point of view of someone from the progressive left. -stray-

[FoodFight]

Good one, Strayrider. I purposely didn't comment on the content of the article, whether I agree or disagree with the proposition. I'm sure that many will make up their own minds without the benefit of actually knowing what my beliefs happen to be (that sort of shortsightedness is rampant in this thread). I was commenting on Ned's lack of logic in using the poisoned well analogy, i.e. 'you can't believe anything that political party 'Y' says....' which is just a convenient way of avoiding the issues presented. If I had to respond to the article from a liberal progressive standpoint I don't think that I could top Ned's eloquent 'bullshit'. It shows such depth and understanding that no one could possibly question it's credibility.

[EvilNed]

Ned, excepting the "countless generations" exaggeration, please explain the progressive left's innocence in this statement ... Remember, I described the link as leading to a "right-wing nut job" site, so why would you even expect it to be something other than that and waste your time posting a response in the first place? Last time I checked, it's within my right to do so? It didn't take long to voice that opinion, and it sparked an interesting debate. Try to explain, from a conservative point of view, how what is written here is fallacy. If you cannot, you are as guilty of closed-mindedness as you accuse this writer as being. Because the writer has already made up his mind of what's tyranny and that Obama is the man to lead us there. Most people would realize this is just plain silly and some would say even stupid.

[strayrider]

Last time I checked, it's within my right to do so? It didn't take long to voice that opinion, and it sparked an interesting debate. Your honor, I request this statement be stricken from the record as non-responsive. As for "interesting debate": thus far, the only "debate" seems to be whether or not you are a hypocrite. I, for one, do not believe this to be so. My interest here is to see if you can, from a conservative perspective, prove this man's argument (opinion) to be false. Because the writer has already made up his mind of what's tyranny and that Obama is the man to lead us there. "Us?" Don't you live in Sweden? Obama is the President of America. Most people would realize this is just plain silly and some would say even stupid. "Most people" with left-leaning mind sets, I'll agree. But, does that really mean that "most people", in general, would believe that the argument is "silly", or "stupid"? -stray- If I had to respond to the article from a liberal progressive standpoint I don't think that I could top Ned's eloquent 'bullshit'. It shows such depth and understanding that no one could possibly question it's credibility. Not responsive. Open your mind before expecting Ned to open his ...

[EvilNed]

Your honor, I request this statement be stricken from the record as non-responsive. As for "interesting debate": thus far, the only "debate" seems to be whether or not you are a hypocrite. I, for one, do not believe this to be so. My interest here is to see if you can, from a conservative perspective, prove this man's argument (opinion) to be false. How can an opinion be false? The writer simply chose to "Us?" Don't you live in Sweden? Obama is the President of America. I am a U.S. Citizen, and I spend time over there still. "Most people" with left-leaning mind sets, I'll agree. But, does that really mean that "most people", in general, would believe that the argument is "silly", or "stupid"? The thing is he writes the article assuming everyone agrees with him that Obama is a dictator, and makes absolutlely no room for maneuvering that opinion. That's a harsh opinion. That's if I were to walk into an argument, and drop the line "We all know Hitler was a saint... And based on that!". Not even bothering to eplain why! Obama is not a tyrant anymore than Bush was a tyrant. Both were democratically elected, and therefore it's silly and stupid. Even conservatives would realize that Obama was, infact, democratically elected.

[FoodFight]

Not responsive. Open your mind before expecting Ned to open his ... Fair one, but logic transcends political affilliation. My response to the article itself is that 'The Republic' is a parable, and comparing it to real-life events is just arguement by analogy, which is always suspect. (Note that I said 'suspect', not an automatic falsehood). This should be a universal understanding. I can't pretend to be a liberal progressive so I'll not even try. Nor am I a far-right idealogue so I can't try that tack either. All that I can do is ask others to provide insight into their own beliefs in an attempt to understand them better. I believe that anyone would rather hear it from the source instead of paraphrased and distilled by someone else.

[strayrider]

The thing is he writes the article assuming everyone agrees with him that Obama is a dictator, I didn't get that from reading this article. More than anything it is a commentary on how a democracy may slid into tyranny, Obama being mentioned only because of his left-leaning politics (and because he is the current King of America, boogieman Bush is gone). Obama is not a tyrant anymore than Bush was a tyrant. And both are puds. Both were democratically elected, and therefore it's silly and stupid. Even conservatives would realize that Obama was, in fact, democratically elected. Not true. Don't you realize that we conservatives (not Republicans, mind you -- conservatives) are incapable of having a thought in our shriveled-up brains that was not put there by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity? I guess now you're going to demand us to think for ourselves? I'm just "funnin'" with you, Ned, if you don't want to discuss the other aspects of the article, that is fine by me. -stray-

[J0hnnyReb]

You make a good point stray, you cannot discount a source of a claim simply because it is biased, because even a biased source is capable of telling the truth. So logically speaking saying something is wrong because of who said it is a fallacy. Saying the author or the article is wrong is fine as long as it can be quantified with logical reasoning, fallacy is not that and is not logical and is therefore wrong. Whether someone willingly subscribes to something they know is a fallacy though is another story.

[Mike70]

i'll echo what someone said earllier in the thread - i'd be very careful about trying to apply plato's Republic (a latin translation of the word politeia) because it is highly idealized and envisions people being able to make what amount to perfect choices. Res publica in latin (the actual title of plato's work is "Politeia")means the public thing. the society in plato's work is anything but public. it seems that plato is equating the needs and wants of society as a whole with those of the ruling class, led by a philosopher-king. the political system in the republic seems to me, at least, to be all for the notion that the powerful/ruling class knows what is best for the average person and takes the whole idea of personal choice out of the equation.

[Usumgal]

Sorry, I don't need to read more than that to realize that this article was written by someone with as much open-mindness as Joseph McCarthy. It's Ok to be critical. Just try to see both sides, otherwise your argument falls flat instantly. Aw... Another of the OBama-washed denizens of this new hell we call home. I am SO shocked that you support Obama, given the red cap with soviet emblems in you signature picture.

[Mike70]

Aw... Another of the OBama-washed denizens of this new hell we call home. uh, ned lives in sweden. what the fuck is it with you?? every democrat or liberal suddenly gets a cute little label affixed to them, we are all obama-washed. grow the fuck up and pull your head out of your ass.

[Usumgal]

uh, ned lives in sweden. what the fuck is it with you?? every democrat or liberal suddenly gets a cute little label affixed to them, we are all obama-washed. grow the fuck up and pull your head out of your ass. Mike, I'm guessing 70 is your age plus IQ added together? You clowns will listen to any garbage that Stalin wannabe throws out there for you carrion birds to devour. The bottom line is that NObama is not only a card carrying commie ( he fits the communist mold even more so than socialist) and he ha his sights set on each and every individual freedom that Americans are supposed to enjoy. His stimulus plan would be a joke is not so goddamned damaging to america as a whole. Have you even read any of the attachments to that bill? I'm not even going to start on how his "stimulus bill" is going to finish off our already damaged economy. Or how his statements that by winding down in Iraq is going to help our economy ( when he is really building up in not only afghanistan by 17,500 troops, but starting further operations inside Pakistan ) Do you care about your health care? How about that of the elderly. Especially the elderly are going to suffer under his plan. How about the government control of the actions of each and every practicing doctor in the country that doesn't want to be fined? Seriously, I can go on. How about his disregard for american principles and worst of all our constitution.