PDA

View Full Version : Philosphy, free will, and the absence of Religious authority



Pages : [1] 2

Cypress
09-25-2018, 09:34 PM
The premise: A philosophical approach arises when religious authority is not regarded as all-powerful.


The reason philosophical critical inquiry, and epistemological thought arose in ancient Greece is because there was no powerful state religion that inhibited reason and free will.


Philosophy is created when the mind turns from practical matters of avoiding danger and uncertainty to a form of critical inquiry in which its own resources are objectified and subjected to critical scrutiny. The ancient Greek world transformed inquiry from an essentially practical or ritualistic/religious enterprise into a form of abstract and theoretical thought. Was there something about the Greeks or their culture that brought about this transformation? The Greeks’ relation to their gods, who had large but limited powers and business of their own to mind, was one influence. The fact that the religious establishment had little authority to pronounce on ultimate questions of reality was another. Further, the Greeks’ commercial and military encounters with other cultures led them to questions of social organization. These things induced the Greeks to weigh themselves in relation to others, to examine the powerful influence of custom on thought, and to recognize no viable alternative to the use of their own limited intellectual resources.

Great Ideas of Philosophy,
Professor Daniel N. Robinson, Ph.D.
Philosophy Faculty, Oxford University; Distinguished Professor, Emeritus, Georgetown University

https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/great-ideas-of-philosophy-2nd-edition.html

Jack
09-26-2018, 07:51 AM
"On a day in 399 BC the philosopher Socrates stood before a jury of 500 of his fellow Athenians accused of "refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state" and of "corrupting the youth." If found guilty; his penalty could be death. The trial took place in the heart of the city, the jurors seated on wooden benches surrounded by a crowd of spectators. Socrates' accusers (three Athenian citizens) were allotted three hours to present their case, after which, the philosopher would have three hours to defend himself."
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/socrates.htm

Cypress
09-26-2018, 08:17 AM
"Not believing in the gods of the State" is not the same thing as having an all powerful state religion in which the gods dictate epistemological reality, and confer dogma about metaphysical questions.

The pantheon of Greek Olympian gods - who generally were thought to not bother much with the affairs of humans, let alone provide them answers to metaphysical questions - was at least in part what contributed to the atmosphere of Greece where philosophy and critical inquiry emerged in a way it never had in other empires of the ancient worlds.

That's not my opinion. Those are the conclusions of learned scholars of philosophy. They may or may not be right, but they have studied this crap far longer than I have.

Jack
09-26-2018, 08:31 AM
"Ancient critics thought the Epicurean gods were a thin smoke-screen to hide Epicurus' atheism, and difficulties with a literal interpretation of Epicurus' sayings on the nature of the gods (for instance, it appears inconsistent with Epicurus' atomic theory to hold that any compound body, even a god, could be immortal) have led some scholars to conjecture that Epicurus' 'gods' are thought-constructs, and exist only in human minds as idealizations, i.e., the gods exist, but only as projections of what the most blessed life would be."
https://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/

Being an 'Enemy of the State' is always a bad idea. Sometimes 'caution' is the better Path to follow.

Cypress
09-26-2018, 08:41 AM
Also, I am pretty sure Socrates was executed for political reasons.

The official reasons the authorities gave (aka, corruption of the youth, not believing in the Olympian gods) were legal cover for what probably amounted to a political execution.

Jack
09-26-2018, 08:54 AM
"Thomas More’s Utopia, a book that will be 500 years old next year, is astonishingly radical stuff. Not many lord chancellors of England have denounced private property, advocated a form of communism and described the current social order as a “conspiracy of the rich”. Such men, the book announces, are “greedy, unscrupulous and useless”. There are a great number of noblemen, More complains, who live like drones on the labour of others. Tenants are evicted so that “one insatiable glutton and accursed plague of his native land” may consolidate his fields. Monarchs, he argues, would do well to swear at their inauguration never to have more than 1,000lbs of gold in their coffers. Perhaps this is one reason why Utopia is not bedside reading in Buckingham Palace. Instead of being worshipped, gold and silver should, he suggests, be used to make chamber pots. War is fit only for beasts, and standing armies should be disbanded. Labour should be reduced to a minimum, though the TUC might balk at the suggestion that workers would use some of their leisure time to attend public lectures before daybreak."
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/16/utopias-past-present-thomas-more-terry-eagleton

Here's a guy that had to worry about being burnt at the stake by the Church, and worry about having his head cut off by the State. (Take comfort in the fact that the State is sweeping up all your electronic information and storing it in a warehouse in Utah)

Mason Michaels
09-26-2018, 09:42 AM
"Thomas More’s Utopia, a book that will be 500 years old next year, is astonishingly radical stuff. Not many lord chancellors of England have denounced private property, advocated a form of communism and described the current social order as a “conspiracy of the rich”. Such men, the book announces, are “greedy, unscrupulous and useless”. There are a great number of noblemen, More complains, who live like drones on the labour of others. Tenants are evicted so that “one insatiable glutton and accursed plague of his native land” may consolidate his fields. Monarchs, he argues, would do well to swear at their inauguration never to have more than 1,000lbs of gold in their coffers. Perhaps this is one reason why Utopia is not bedside reading in Buckingham Palace. Instead of being worshipped, gold and silver should, he suggests, be used to make chamber pots. War is fit only for beasts, and standing armies should be disbanded. Labour should be reduced to a minimum, though the TUC might balk at the suggestion that workers would use some of their leisure time to attend public lectures before daybreak."
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/16/utopias-past-present-thomas-more-terry-eagleton

Here's a guy that had to worry about being burnt at the stake by the Church, and worry about having his head cut off by the State. (Take comfort in the fact that the State is sweeping up all your electronic information and storing it in a warehouse in Utah)

Corporate Capitalism is the root of all evil!

Cypress
09-28-2018, 03:02 PM
"Thomas More’s Utopia, a book that will be 500 years old next year, is astonishingly radical stuff. Not many lord chancellors of England have denounced private property, advocated a form of communism and described the current social order as a “conspiracy of the rich”. Such men, the book announces, are “greedy, unscrupulous and useless”. There are a great number of noblemen, More complains, who live like drones on the labour of others. Tenants are evicted so that “one insatiable glutton and accursed plague of his native land” may consolidate his fields. Monarchs, he argues, would do well to swear at their inauguration never to have more than 1,000lbs of gold in their coffers. Perhaps this is one reason why Utopia is not bedside reading in Buckingham Palace. Instead of being worshipped, gold and silver should, he suggests, be used to make chamber pots. War is fit only for beasts, and standing armies should be disbanded. Labour should be reduced to a minimum, though the TUC might balk at the suggestion that workers would use some of their leisure time to attend public lectures before daybreak."
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/16/utopias-past-present-thomas-more-terry-eagleton

Here's a guy that had to worry about being burnt at the stake by the Church, and worry about having his head cut off by the State. (Take comfort in the fact that the State is sweeping up all your electronic information and storing it in a warehouse in Utah)

I should learn more about Thomas Moore.

The Christianity of medieval western Europe was certainly an enemy of skeptical inquiry and free will. Though I think the forward-thinking Charlemagne started to counter act that to some extent.

From what I am understanding, the thing that was remarkable about the Greeks is that while they had religion and ceremony, they did not confer upon the priesthood any kind of epistemological authority. And that is exactly what gave men from Protagaras to Socrates to Plato the environment to pursue knowledge on secular terms - not mystical religious terms. It's a plausible theory that to me makes eminent sense.

Tkaffen
09-28-2018, 03:06 PM
Obviously your unemployed and spend all your time on this forum

Phantasmal
09-28-2018, 03:09 PM
I should learn more about Thomas Moore.

The Christianity of medieval western Europe was certainly an enemy of skeptical inquiry and free will. Though I think the forward-thinking Charlemagne started to counter act that to some extent.

From what I am understanding, the thing that was remarkable about the Greeks is that while they had religion and ceremony, they did not confer upon the priesthood any kind of epistemological authority. And that is exactly what gave men from Protagaras to Socrates to Plato the environment to pursue knowledge on secular terms - not mystical religious terms. It's a plausible theory that to me makes eminent sense.
My observation is that trouble starts for the governed when politics and religion are bed fellows.

Cypress
09-28-2018, 03:10 PM
My observation is that trouble starts for the governed when politics and religion are bed fellows.

It never seems to end well, does it?

Phantasmal
09-28-2018, 03:11 PM
It never seems to end well, does it?

The majority of the Founders believed it.

Cypress
09-28-2018, 03:14 PM
The majority of the Founders believed it.

Yes, and on that tangent First Amendment seems to be the liberals favorite.

Second amendment is the favorite of conservatives.


Unsurprising, really.

Jack
09-28-2018, 04:05 PM
I should learn more about Thomas Moore.

The Christianity of medieval western Europe was certainly an enemy of skeptical inquiry and free will. Though I think the forward-thinking Charlemagne started to counter act that to some extent.

From what I am understanding, the thing that was remarkable about the Greeks is that while they had religion and ceremony, they did not confer upon the priesthood any kind of epistemological authority. And that is exactly what gave men from Protagaras to Socrates to Plato the environment to pursue knowledge on secular terms - not mystical religious terms. It's a plausible theory that to me makes eminent sense.

"nspiring, provocative, prophetic, and enigmatic, Utopia is the literary masterpiece of a visionary statesman and one of the most influential books of the modern world."
http://books.wwnorton.com/books/webad.aspx?id=17158

Get the Norton Critical Series version. The 'Tale' is fanciful and ridiculous on the surface. But a number of critical scholars delve into why Thomas More had to write the Tale in the fashion that he did. The Church could easily brand him as a Heretic, the State could easily brand him as a Traitor.

Phantasmal
09-28-2018, 04:07 PM
"nspiring, provocative, prophetic, and enigmatic, Utopia is the literary masterpiece of a visionary statesman and one of the most influential books of the modern world."
http://books.wwnorton.com/books/webad.aspx?id=17158

Get the Norton Critical Series version. The 'Tale' is fanciful and ridiculous on the surface. But a number of critical scholars delve into why Thomas More had to write the Tale in the fashion that he did. The Church could easily brand him as a Heretic, the State could easily brand him as a Traitor.
Perfect description of him.

evince
09-28-2018, 04:11 PM
Corporate Capitalism is the root of all evil!

unfettered Capitalism eats its self and becomes a concentration of power into fewer and fewer hands


The founders created a Hybrid for good reasons

Jack
09-28-2018, 04:12 PM
Perfect description of him.

What do you know about him? Just a casual question, nothing is meant other than how are you familiar with him.

evince
09-28-2018, 04:13 PM
Obviously your unemployed and spend all your time on this forum

obviously you are a russo bot hole

Adolf_Twitler
09-28-2018, 04:16 PM
Religion has proven to be- "My religion is better than your religion"!

If it is religion that guides you, you have already lost yourself, as you have already become just another sheep in a flock.

Religion is born out of your heart- not your brain.

The graveyards are full of people that used their hearts instead of their brains!

If you do believe in God, you better realize he gave you a heart and a brain! And if he did give you a brain, you better start using it!

archives
09-28-2018, 04:18 PM
The premise: A philosophical approach arises when religious authority is not regarded as all-powerful.


The reason philosophical critical inquiry, and epistemological thought arose in ancient Greece is because there was no powerful state religion that inhibited reason and free will.

Would it have to be a state religion, why not just the state? or, in a reality where the state is the religion?

(does beat another post about Bret)

ThatOwlWoman
09-28-2018, 04:22 PM
From what I am understanding, the thing that was remarkable about the Greeks is that while they had religion and ceremony, they did not confer upon the priesthood any kind of epistemological authority. And that is exactly what gave men from Protagaras to Socrates to Plato the environment to pursue knowledge on secular terms - not mystical religious terms. It's a plausible theory that to me makes eminent sense.

The Arabs were world-class mathematicians and astronomers.... then along came Islam. Algebra was at least in part invented by Al-Khwarizmi, and Wikipedia states that

"Another Persian mathematician Omar Khayyam is credited with identifying the foundations of algebraic geometry and found the general geometric solution of the cubic equation. His book Treatise on Demonstrations of Problems of Algebra (1070), which laid down the principles of algebra, is part of the body of Persian mathematics that was eventually transmitted to Europe.[24] Yet another Persian mathematician, Sharaf al-Dīn al-Tūsī, found algebraic and numerical solutions to various cases of cubic equations.[25] He also developed the concept of a function.[26] The Indian mathematicians Mahavira and Bhaskara II, the Persian mathematician Al-Karaji,[27] and the Chinese mathematician Zhu Shijie, solved various cases of cubic, quartic, quintic and higher-order polynomial equations using numerical methods. In the 13th century, the solution of a cubic equation by Fibonacci is representative of the beginning of a revival in European algebra. Abū al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī al-Qalaṣādī (1412–1486) took "the first steps toward the introduction of algebraic symbolism". He also computed ∑n2, ∑n3 and used the method of successive approximation to determine square roots.[28] As the Islamic world was declining, the European world was ascending. And it is here that algebra was further developed." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra)

Many of our star names are Arabic. Again from Wikipedia: "Very old star names originated among people who lived in the Arabian Peninsula more than a thousand years ago, before the rise of Islam. However, many Arabic language star names sprang up later in history, as translations of ancient Greek language descriptions." (bold is my emphasis)

While religion may have inspired beautiful music and architecture, it seems to be anathema to reasoning and science.

ThatOwlWoman
09-28-2018, 04:24 PM
Obviously your unemployed and spend all your time on this forum

"You're" = you are. "Your" = belongs to you.

Before you start flinging your monkey poo, learn some grammar. Spasibo, Tovarisch.

Phantasmal
09-28-2018, 04:25 PM
What do you know about him? Just a casual question, nothing is meant other than how are you familiar with him.
My high school CCD teacher got me interested, tied to my love of theater, “The Man for All Seasons”

ThatOwlWoman
09-28-2018, 04:25 PM
My observation is that trouble starts for the governed when politics and religion are bed fellows.

Yep. The religious of course are just fine with having the power.... until their particular faith falls out of favor and is replaced by v2.0.

Jack
09-28-2018, 04:37 PM
My high school CCD teacher got me interested, tied to my love of theater, “The Man for All Seasons”


Hmmm. OK. Thanks.

Cypress
09-28-2018, 04:46 PM
Would it have to be a state religion, why not just the state? or, in a reality where the state is the religion?

(does beat another post about Bret)

From what I understand, it all comes down to who has the authority to define ultimate reality, to proclaim doctrine and dogma on the metaphysical nature of existence. In almost all ancient civilizations, that kind of authority was held and jealously guarded by the priestly class, the state religion. Or, as you imply the State itself if the state was inseperable from the prevailing religion.

According to this professor of philosophy, the thing that made ancient Greece unique in the ancient world is that their religion and priestly class did not have that kind of authority over the nature and scope of knowledge. That is exactly why western civilization and the secular liberal tradtion looks back to ancient Greece as the inspiration ....not to Persia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, or Sumeria.

Cypress
09-28-2018, 04:58 PM
The Arabs were world-class mathematicians and astronomers.... then along came Islam. Algebra was at least in part invented by Al-Khwarizmi, and Wikipedia states that

"Another Persian mathematician Omar Khayyam is credited with identifying the foundations of algebraic geometry and found the general geometric solution of the cubic equation. His book Treatise on Demonstrations of Problems of Algebra (1070), which laid down the principles of algebra, is part of the body of Persian mathematics that was eventually transmitted to Europe.[24] Yet another Persian mathematician, Sharaf al-Dīn al-Tūsī, found algebraic and numerical solutions to various cases of cubic equations.[25] He also developed the concept of a function.[26] The Indian mathematicians Mahavira and Bhaskara II, the Persian mathematician Al-Karaji,[27] and the Chinese mathematician Zhu Shijie, solved various cases of cubic, quartic, quintic and higher-order polynomial equations using numerical methods. In the 13th century, the solution of a cubic equation by Fibonacci is representative of the beginning of a revival in European algebra. Abū al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī al-Qalaṣādī (1412–1486) took "the first steps toward the introduction of algebraic symbolism". He also computed ∑n2, ∑n3 and used the method of successive approximation to determine square roots.[28] As the Islamic world was declining, the European world was ascending. And it is here that algebra was further developed." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra)

Many of our star names are Arabic. Again from Wikipedia: "Very old star names originated among people who lived in the Arabian Peninsula more than a thousand years ago, before the rise of Islam. However, many Arabic language star names sprang up later in history, as translations of ancient Greek language descriptions." (bold is my emphasis)

While religion may have inspired beautiful music and architecture, it seems to be anathema to reasoning and science.

A great insight.

Into the Night
09-29-2018, 02:26 PM
Corporate Capitalism is the root of all evil!

Really?? It was capitalism that CREATED corporations! It was corporations that created the computer that you use now, brought the internet forward into what it is today, and makes it possible for you to sit at home and just order stuff from places like Amazon. You call this evil??

Into the Night
09-29-2018, 02:27 PM
My observation is that trouble starts for the governed when politics and religion are bed fellows.

It can certainly be the case. Consider, however, that an organized religion is also politics.

Lightbringer
09-29-2018, 03:28 PM
Also, I am pretty sure Socrates was executed for political reasons.

The official reasons the authorities gave (aka, corruption of the youth, not believing in the Olympian gods) were legal cover for what probably amounted to a political execution.

Yeah, I think it's safe to say that was a political hit. He was seen as a quisling in Athens after the Sparta backed government was overthrown and he had to have known he was dead meat sooner rather than later once Athens reverted back to Democracy.

Lightbringer
09-29-2018, 03:36 PM
unfettered Capitalism eats its self and becomes a concentration of power into fewer and fewer hands


The founders created a Hybrid for good reasons

The Founders did no such thing. As a group they favored property rights, free markets, monetary stability and fairness in court proceedings particularly regarding property rights. That is hardly a mixed economy.

Mason Michaels
09-29-2018, 04:40 PM
Really?? It was capitalism that CREATED corporations! It was corporations that created the computer that you use now, brought the internet forward into what it is today, and makes it possible for you to sit at home and just order stuff from places like Amazon. You call this evil??

Evil!

Mason Michaels
09-29-2018, 04:43 PM
The Founders did no such thing. As a group they favored property rights, free markets, monetary stability and fairness in court proceedings particularly regarding property rights. That is hardly a mixed economy.

Corporate Capitalism on the scale we have today,and "Citizens United" ,didn't exist in the time of the Founding Fathers!

Lightbringer
09-29-2018, 05:02 PM
Corporate Capitalism on the scale we have today,and "Citizens United" ,didn't exist in the time of the Founding Fathers!

I didn't say it did although you're wrong, it did in fact exist.

I was responding to Evince and her "hybrid" statement, which is also quite wrong.

Cypress
09-29-2018, 05:58 PM
Yeah, I think it's safe to say that was a political hit. He was seen as a quisling in Athens after the Sparta backed government was overthrown and he had to have known he was dead meat sooner rather than later once Athens reverted back to Democracy.

That is good intel.

I heard a professor state that whether it was ancient Greece, the Roman empire, or the Islamic caliphate, whenever there was civil or political unrest the first people to get exiled or imprisoned were the philosophers...because they asked too many bloody questions!

Lightbringer
09-29-2018, 06:02 PM
That is good intel.

I heard a professor state that whether it was ancient Greece, the Roman empire, or the Islamic caliphate, whenever there was civil or political unrest the first people to get exiled or imprisoned were the philosophers...because they asked too many bloody questions!

In the case of Socrates it was straight up political, he was a well-known critic of Democracy and justly or not he was thought to have helped the Sparta backed government imposed on Athens after the war. Once the Democrats regained power in Athens...payback was a bitch.

evince
09-29-2018, 06:50 PM
The Founders did no such thing. As a group they favored property rights, free markets, monetary stability and fairness in court proceedings particularly regarding property rights. That is hardly a mixed economy.

they changed the meaning of the word democracy fool


now we have


democracy


and


pure or direct democracy


the founders made democracy coupled with a republic


all based in capitalism


have you never taken a government history class?

evince
09-29-2018, 06:51 PM
In the case of Socrates it was straight up political, he was a well-known critic of Democracy and justly or not he was thought to have helped the Sparta backed government imposed on Athens after the war. Once the Democrats regained power in Athens...payback was a bitch.


He didn't like democracy because in his day their was only direct or pure democracy idiot

evince
09-29-2018, 06:53 PM
I didn't say it did although you're wrong, it did in fact exist.

I was responding to Evince and her "hybrid" statement, which is also quite wrong.

link
to your claims

Lightbringer
09-29-2018, 06:54 PM
they changed the meaning of the word democracy fool


now we have


democracy


and


pure or direct democracy


the founders made democracy coupled with a republic


all based in capitalism


have you never taken a government history class?

I am far more educated than you madam. Did you know that some of the Founders wanted the federal government to massively invest in large scale industry? But they didn't. The point being that crony capitalism isn't a new thing. Ever heard of the East India Company? What do you think that was? How about Germany at the onset of the industrial revolution and tech boom?

You really do need to stop gargling dicks and start reading history books.

evince
09-29-2018, 06:58 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Republic


Republic[edit]
Main article: Republicanism
The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[130]
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticised democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a constitution enshrining basic rights; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a direct democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[131] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[132]

Lightbringer
09-29-2018, 06:58 PM
He didn't like democracy because in his day their was only direct or pure democracy idiot

He was Ionian (Athenian) dipstick. He was criticizing Athenian Democracy before and after the fall of Athens. Unless you believe he had access to a time machine and was really criticizing us.

Protip: Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure was a movie, not a documentary.

evince
09-29-2018, 07:00 PM
Direct democracy - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which people decide on policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of most currently established democracies,

evince
09-29-2018, 07:02 PM
Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/democracy

Democracy definition, government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. See more.

Lightbringer
09-29-2018, 07:02 PM
Direct democracy - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which people decide on policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of most currently established democracies,

I know that, that's why I said he was critical of Athenian Democracy. You know...Athens...where he was born and lived.

My Lord it's like talking to a brick wall.

evince
09-29-2018, 07:03 PM
a republic like the founders designed is a DEMOCRACY


with a constition

a new concoction at the time

Lightbringer
09-29-2018, 07:08 PM
a republic like the founders designed is a DEMOCRACY


with a constition

a new concoction at the time

I really don't want to mess up the OP's thread ( may be too late for that) but you madam are an unmitigated fuckstick. The Founders are irrelevant as far as Socrates is concerned. I've said it for the last time. Put the crack pipe down.

Cypress
09-29-2018, 07:12 PM
In the case of Socrates it was straight up political, he was a well-known critic of Democracy and justly or not he was thought to have helped the Sparta backed government imposed on Athens after the war. Once the Democrats regained power in Athens...payback was a bitch.

Food for thought.
I am going to have to consult experts, because nobody really knows what Socrates did, we do not have a single word he ever wrote himself. We only know about him through Plato's dialogues. So we only know Socrates in the Platonic dialogue sense.

Plato's Republic is obviously very much against the idea of the rule of direct democracy. The philosopher king was Plato's gig. Though modern liberal western democracy is a form of representative democracy that has no direct parallel in ancient Greece to my knowlege.

Socrates by all accounts was loyal to Athens, having long served as a solider in the defense of Athens.

The charges brought against Socrates I realize were trumped up. But I am going to have to research what scholars know about him, any connection to Sparta, and the circumstances surrounding his trial.

evince
09-29-2018, 07:31 PM
I really don't want to mess up the OP's thread ( may be too late for that) but you madam are an unmitigated fuckstick. The Founders are irrelevant as far as Socrates is concerned. I've said it for the last time. Put the crack pipe down.


my comments are right on track here and Backed by facts


you just got caught being a dick so like trump you get all mad and call names like the idiot you are

evince
09-29-2018, 07:33 PM
The premise: A philosophical approach arises when religious authority is not regarded as all-powerful.


The reason philosophical critical inquiry, and epistemological thought arose in ancient Greece is because there was no powerful state religion that inhibited reason and free will.

and democracy and republics and capitalism


is all in line with this discussion

Lightbringer
09-29-2018, 07:40 PM
Food for thought.
I am going to have to consult experts, because nobody really knows what Socrates did, we do not have a single word he ever wrote himself. We only know about him through Plato's dialogues. So we only know Socrates in the Platonic dialogue sense.

Plato's Republic is obviously very much against the idea of the rule of direct democracy. The philosopher king was Plato's gig. Though modern liberal western democracy is a form of representative democracy that has no direct parallel in ancient Greece to my knowlege.

Socrates by all accounts was loyal to Athens, having long served as a solider in the defense of Athens.

The charges brought against Socrates I realize were trumped up. But I am going to have to research what scholars know about him, any connection to Sparta, and the circumstances surrounding his trial.

I'm not saying he had a connection to Sparta, I'm saying he was perceived to have had one with the tyrants placed in charge in Athens after the end of the war and I'm sure that's why he was put on trial.

Interesting time period to study, there's a lot to learn there that could easily be applied to today. The Athenian Democracy is very interesting and relevant but so is the period immediately preceding the democratic age. The other parts of Greece are interesting too even though they weren't like Athens.

Cypress
09-30-2018, 09:17 AM
I'm not saying he had a connection to Sparta, I'm saying he was perceived to have had one with the tyrants placed in charge in Athens after the end of the war and I'm sure that's why he was put on trial.

Interesting time period to study, there's a lot to learn there that could easily be applied to today. The Athenian Democracy is very interesting and relevant but so is the period immediately preceding the democratic age. The other parts of Greece are interesting too even though they weren't like Athens.

Thanks for the intel. Lots out there to learn.

Based on what I have learned over the years, I have never considered Plato to be a proponent of representative democracy or constitutional monarchies. We don't actually know with certainty what Socrates thought, we only know the words Plato put in Socrates mouth in the Platonic dialogues.

I think you will find few in the world these days who advocate for direct democratic rule by citizens at the scale of a nation-state. Nations obviously need learned women and men capable of administration and decision making, who work with the consent of the governed. Plato's ideal of benign philosopher-kings seems a little self-serving to me.

That aside, the contribution of Socrates and Plato to the liberal, western tradition is to pass down a method of skeptical inquiry, to create the framework by which we can consider ethics, metaphysics, virtue, and truth.


edit to add: I have a lecture series on the Peloponnesian Wars reserved at the library, so I am going to have this Socrates-Plato-Sparta thing sorted out!

Lightbringer
09-30-2018, 09:33 AM
Thanks for the intel. Lots out there to learn.

Based on what I have learned over the years, I have never considered Plato to be a proponent of representative democracy or constitutional monarchies. We don't actually know with certainty what Socrates thought, we only know the words Plato put in Socrates mouth in the Platonic dialogues.

I think you will find few in the world these days who advocate for direct democratic rule by citizens at the scale of a nation-state. Nations obviously need learned women and men capable of administration and decision making, who work with the consent of the governed. Plato's ideal of benign philosopher-kings seems a little self-serving to me.

That aside, the contribution of Socrates and Plato to the liberal, western tradition is to pass down a method of skeptical inquiry, to create the framework by which we can consider ethics, metaphysics, virtue, and truth.

It's too bad that Socrates didn't believe in writing anything down but there are sources other than Plato, the problem with them is they aren't straight historical documents and some interpretation is required.

As for direct democracy I disagree with you a little bit on that. My main problem with progressives is that I think they do actually want to get as close to direct democracy as possible. It won't happen but if we do ever even get close to that a lot of damage will be done.

NiftyNiblick
09-30-2018, 09:59 AM
For what it's worth, free will has not been scientifically proven, yet.
It remains unclear whether it even can be.

Cypress
09-30-2018, 10:56 AM
It's too bad that Socrates didn't believe in writing anything down but there are sources other than Plato, the problem with them is they aren't straight historical documents and some interpretation is required.

As for direct democracy I disagree with you a little bit on that. My main problem with progressives is that I think they do actually want to get as close to direct democracy as possible. It won't happen but if we do ever even get close to that a lot of damage will be done.

I appreciate the civilized decorum of our exchange on this thread.

I do not ever recall meeting a liberal who wanted this nation to have direct democratic rule by citizen participation.

I do think progressives ever seek to make representative democratic government more accountable to the governed (electing senators on the basis of popular vote, removing Jim Crow obstacles to voting, women's suffrage, getting rid of dark money in politics, et al).

Finally, leaving with Socrates, Professor Robinson was very explicit in stating that you cannot view the Socratic dialogues and Plato's writing in a vacuum, outside the context of history. They were living in a time when Athens had suffered a catastrophic defeat at the hands of Sparta, and in that context it was natural for many Athenians to wonder and consider if perhaps Sparta was doing some things better than Athens, and if the best of Sparta should thus be emulated.

Cypress
09-30-2018, 11:20 AM
For what it's worth, free will has not been scientifically proven, yet.
It remains unclear whether it even can be.

Makes sense, and I will take your word for it. I am not going to claim I know the answer.

“We can know only that we know nothing. And that is the highest degree of human wisdom.” -- Leo Tolstoy

What I am getting out of the great Greek philosophers is that the path to epistemological knowledge is by some combination of intuition, reason, observation - and yes even faith if you want to throw Thomas Aquinas and the Christian philosophers in there.

That panoply of paths to enlightenment seems to me to involve choice and deliberation - which requires some measure of freedom from dogmatic canonical theology of orthodox religious teachings. Whether or not this is akin to free will , I am simply not skilled enough in the lexicon of philosophy and psychology to say.

Into the Night
09-30-2018, 04:15 PM
Corporate Capitalism on the scale we have today,and "Citizens United" ,didn't exist in the time of the Founding Fathers!

That's right. It was capitalism that created every village, town, and city in the United States. It created the United States you see today. There is no difference between 'corporate' capitalism and the practice of capitalism by any individual.

You just hate corporations. You seem to be a member of the Church of Karl Marx.

Into the Night
09-30-2018, 04:17 PM
That is good intel.

I heard a professor state that whether it was ancient Greece, the Roman empire, or the Islamic caliphate, whenever there was civil or political unrest the first people to get exiled or imprisoned were the philosophers...because they asked too many bloody questions!

There's a certain amount of truth to that.

Into the Night
09-30-2018, 04:19 PM
they changed the meaning of the word democracy fool


now we have


democracy


and


pure or direct democracy


the founders made democracy coupled with a republic


all based in capitalism


have you never taken a government history class?

Nope. The United States is a federated republic, plain and simple. There is NO democracy in the United States. Democracies fail...utterly. They always result in oligarchies and dictatorships, usually pretty quickly.

Into the Night
09-30-2018, 04:21 PM
I am far more educated than you madam. Did you know that some of the Founders wanted the federal government to massively invest in large scale industry? But they didn't. The point being that crony capitalism isn't a new thing. Ever heard of the East India Company? What do you think that was? How about Germany at the onset of the industrial revolution and tech boom?

You really do need to stop gargling dicks and start reading history books.

A history book is not a Universal Truth. Don't treat it like one.

Mason Michaels
09-30-2018, 04:22 PM
That's right. It was capitalism that created every village, town, and city in the United States. It created the United States you see today. There is no difference between 'corporate' capitalism and the practice of capitalism by any individual.

You just hate corporations. You seem to be a member of the Church of Karl Marx.

I like Groucho better

Into the Night
09-30-2018, 04:23 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Republic


Republic[edit]
Main article: Republicanism
The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[130]
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticised democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a constitution enshrining basic rights; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a direct democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[131] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[132]

WRONG. The term 'republic' means one and only one thing, which has not changed. It is government by a constitution (law), not of men (democracy).

A republic is not a democracy in any way, shape, or form. Representatives elected by the means specified in the constitution is a feature of a republic. No democracy is involved at all.

Into the Night
09-30-2018, 04:24 PM
Direct democracy - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which people decide on policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of most currently established democracies,

There are no democracies surviving in the world currently.

Into the Night
09-30-2018, 04:26 PM
a republic like the founders designed is a DEMOCRACY


with a constition

a new concoction at the time

WRONG. A government by a constitution is NOT a democracy. It is a republic. The United States is organized as a federated republic (multiple layers of republics).

Lightbringer
09-30-2018, 04:26 PM
A history book is not a Universal Truth. Don't treat it like one.

OK, sounds good. Now here's some advice for you: One month on the forum may not give you the insight to catch on to me talking trash to someone I've been talking to for years. Don't treat it like it does.

Into the Night
09-30-2018, 04:27 PM
I like Groucho better

I doubt that! You are pushing the ideals of Karl Marx.

Into the Night
09-30-2018, 04:29 PM
OK, sounds good. Now here's some advice for you: One month on the forum may not give you the insight to catch on to me talking trash to someone I've been talking to for years. Don't treat it like it does.

I only go by what's written in the post, dude.

evince
09-30-2018, 04:30 PM
WRONG. A government by a constitution is NOT a democracy. It is a republic. The United States is organized as a federated republic (multiple layers of republics).

why because you (an internets poster) says so ?

I gave facts you stomped you tiny feet and said "na uh"

evince
09-30-2018, 04:32 PM
A republic promises you get a representative


A democracy promises you get to vote for who represents you.

that is a huge difference huh you brain boggle

Mason Michaels
09-30-2018, 05:10 PM
I doubt that! You are pushing the ideals of Karl Marx.

Maybe because I'm a Revolutionary Socialist?

Lightbringer
09-30-2018, 08:40 PM
I only go by what's written in the post, dude.

No you don't. You're an asshole.

I have no problem with that but just understand I'm a much larger asshole than you. Ask anyone.

The ball is in your court junior.

domer76
10-01-2018, 08:57 PM
OK, sounds good. Now here's some advice for you: One month on the forum may not give you the insight to catch on to me talking trash to someone I've been talking to for years. Don't treat it like it does.

Try taking your own advice.

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 03:36 AM
why because you (an internets poster) says so ?

I gave facts you stomped you tiny feet and said "na uh"

You gave no facts. You can't redefine 'republic' with newspapers or even facts.

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 03:38 AM
No you don't. You're an asshole.
Insult fallacy.


I have no problem with that but just understand I'm a much larger asshole than you. Ask anyone.
Big hairy deal.

evince
10-02-2018, 05:16 AM
You gave no facts. You can't redefine 'republic' with newspapers or even facts.

so now you hate dictionaries?

evince
10-02-2018, 05:21 AM
That's right. It was capitalism that created every village, town, and city in the United States. It created the United States you see today. There is no difference between 'corporate' capitalism and the practice of capitalism by any individual.

You just hate corporations. You seem to be a member of the Church of Karl Marx.

then why do they incorporate?


because it gives them legal protections huh


why do you people do nothing but lie

evince
10-02-2018, 05:22 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Republic


Republic[edit]
Main article: Republicanism
The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[130]
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticised democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a constitution enshrining basic rights; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a direct democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[131] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[132]

facts

evince
10-02-2018, 05:23 AM
Direct democracy - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which people decide on policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of most currently established democracies,

more facts

evince
10-02-2018, 05:26 AM
Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/democracy

Democracy definition, government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. See more.

even more facts

evince
10-02-2018, 05:30 AM
WRONG. The term 'republic' means one and only one thing, which has not changed. It is government by a constitution (law), not of men (democracy).

A republic is not a democracy in any way, shape, or form. Representatives elected by the means specified in the constitution is a feature of a republic. No democracy is involved at all.

a republic is listed as one from of a democracy


let me see now

Some internets poster or dictionaries and encyclopedias


wow that was an easy decision

evince
10-02-2018, 05:32 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy


yet again even more facts

evince
10-02-2018, 05:34 AM
Types of democracy include:
Anticipatory democracy – relies on some degree of disciplined and usually market-informed anticipation of the future, to guide major decisions.
Associationalism, or Associative Democracy – emphasis on freedom via voluntary and democratically self-governing associations.
Adversialism, or Adversial Democracy – with an emphasis on freedom based on adversial relationships between individuals and groups as best expressed in democratic judicial systems.
Bourgeois democracy – Some Marxists, Communists, Socialists and Left-wing anarchists refer to liberal democracy as bourgeois democracy, alleging that ultimately politicians fight only for the rights of the bourgeoisie.
Consensus democracy – rule based on consensus rather than traditional majority rule.
Constitutional democracy – governed by a constitution.
Delegative democracy – a form of democratic control whereby voting power is vested in self-selected delegates, rather than elected representatives.
Deliberative democracy – in which authentic deliberation, not only voting, is central to legitimate decision making. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule.
Democratic centralism – organizational method where members of a political party discuss and debate matters of policy and direction and after the decision is made by majority vote, all members are expected to follow that decision in public.
Democratic dictatorship (also known as democratur)
Democratic republic – republic which has democracy through elected representatives
Democratic socialism – a form of socialism ideologically opposed to the Marxist–Leninist styles that have become synonymous with socialism; democratic socialists place an emphasis on decentralized governance in political democracy with social ownership of the means of production and social and economic institutions with workers' self-management.
Economic democracy – theory of democracy involving people having access to subsistence, or equity in living standards.
Grassroots democracy – emphasizes trust in small decentralized units at the municipal government level, possibly using urban secession to establish the formal legal authority to make decisions made at this local level binding.
Guided democracy – is a form of democratic government with increased autocracy where citizens exercise their political rights without meaningfully affecting the government's policies, motives, and goals.
Interactive democracy – proposed form of democracy utilising information technology to allow citizens to propose new policies, "second" proposals and vote on the resulting laws (that are refined by Parliament) in a referendum.
Jeffersonian democracy – named after American statesman Thomas Jefferson, who believed in equality of political opportunity (for male citizens), and opposed to privilege, aristocracy and corruption.
Market democracy – another name for democratic capitalism, an economic ideology based on a tripartite arrangement of a market-based economy based predominantly on economic incentives through free markets, a democratic polity and a liberal moral-cultural system which encourages pluralism.
Multiparty democracy – two-party system requires voters to align themselves in large blocs, sometimes so large that they cannot agree on any overarching principles.
New Democracy – Maoist concept based on Mao Zedong's "Bloc of Four Classes" theory in post-revolutionary China.
Participatory democracy – involves more lay citizen participation in decision making and offers greater political representation than traditional representative democracy, e.g., wider control of proxies given to representatives by those who get directly involved and actually participate.
People's democracy – multi-class rule in which the proletariat dominates.
Radical democracy – type of democracy that focuses on the importance of nurturing and tolerating difference and dissent in decision-making processes.
Revolutionary democracy – ideology of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front
Semi-direct democracy – representative democracy with instruments, elements, and/or features of direct democracy.
Sociocracy – democratic system of governance based on consent decision making, circle organization, and double-linked representation.

evince
10-02-2018, 05:36 AM
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic


republic noun

re·pub·lic | \ ri-ˈpə-blik


\
Definition of republic
1
a
(1)
: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2)
: a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
b
(1)
: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2)
: a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
c
: a usually specified republican government of a political unit
the French Fourth Republic

evince
10-02-2018, 05:38 AM
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy


Definition of democracy
1
a
: government by the people
especially : rule of the majority
b
: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Frank Apisa
10-02-2018, 05:39 AM
I appreciate the civilized decorum of our exchange on this thread.

I do not ever recall meeting a liberal who wanted this nation to have direct democratic rule by citizen participation.

I do think progressives ever seek to make representative democratic government more accountable to the governed (electing senators on the basis of popular vote, removing Jim Crow obstacles to voting, women's suffrage, getting rid of dark money in politics, et al).

Finally, leaving with Socrates, Professor Robinson was very explicit in stating that you cannot view the Socratic dialogues and Plato's writing in a vacuum, outside the context of history. They were living in a time when Athens had suffered a catastrophic defeat at the hands of Sparta, and in that context it was natural for many Athenians to wonder and consider if perhaps Sparta was doing some things better than Athens, and if the best of Sparta should thus be emulated.

You are "right on", Cypress.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with representative democracy (as opposed to direct democratic rule)...

...PROVIDING THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO RULE...TO GOVERN.

Right now the Republican Party has shown itself unwilling (and functionally, unable) to govern.

The Republican Party has more control of government right now than any party has ever had control during my 82 years. And in a political environment as defined and separated as ever I've seen.

But they cannot get anything done. They step all over themselves...dig huge holes for themselves...paint themselves into corners. With almost total control of government in EVERY sphere...national, state, even local...all they do is cry that a pathetically small minority is thwarting their efforts.

THEY ARE THWARTING THEMSELVES BECAUSE OF MASSIVE INCOMPETENCE.

We need a governing body that works effectively to govern...with potential excesses held in check by what commonly is known as "the loyal opposition."

The Republican Party seems to function adequately as the latter...with almost no aptitude for the former.

The implications are clear...except to the sheep continuing to perpetuate what is going on right now.

evince
10-02-2018, 05:42 AM
You gave no facts. You can't redefine 'republic' with newspapers or even facts.

its you redefining things idiot


you are merely some internets poster who is full of right wing memes




you don't get to make up facts in the face of reality

evince
10-02-2018, 05:44 AM
You are "right on", Cypress.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with representative democracy (as opposed to direct democratic rule)...

...PROVIDING THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO RULE...TO GOVERN.

Right now the Republican Party has shown itself unwilling (and functionally, unable) to govern.

The Republican Party has more control of government right now than any party has ever had control during my 82 years. And in a political environment as defined and separated as ever I've seen.

But they cannot get anything done. They step all over themselves...dig huge holes for themselves...paint themselves into corners. With almost total control of government in EVERY sphere...national, state, even local...all they do is cry that a pathetically small minority is thwarting their efforts.

THEY ARE THWARTING THEMSELVES BECAUSE OF MASSIVE INCOMPETENCE.

We need a governing body that works effectively to govern...with potential excesses held in check by what commonly is known as "the loyal opposition."

The Republican Party seems to function adequately as the latter...with almost no aptitude for the former.

The implications are clear...except to the sheep continuing to perpetuate what is going on right now.

they seek to destroy our union for Putins pleasure

Frank Apisa
10-02-2018, 05:45 AM
A democratic republic...

...is, in essence, a logical, functional extension of a democracy. Democracies are unwieldy...and cannot realistically be asked to work when large numbers are involved.

Capitalism...in a sense...is merely an extension of serfdom....except that instead of a King at the head...there is a ruling class of people with most of the money.

evince
10-02-2018, 05:48 AM
the day republians started hating the word Democracy I knew there was foreign influence getting at them

evince
10-02-2018, 05:49 AM
A democratic republic...

...is, in essence, a logical, functional extension of a democracy. Democracies are unwieldy...and cannot realistically be asked to work when large numbers are involved.

Capitalism...in a sense...is merely an extension of serfdom....except that instead of a King at the head...there is a ruling class of people with most of the money.

you can not have real freedom without capitalism

Frank Apisa
10-02-2018, 06:08 AM
you can not have real freedom without capitalism

A person alone on an island CAN have "real freedom" without capitalism, socialism, or any other kind of "ism."

The problem with "real freedom" is that it just does not work when there is more than one person...which is the reason I have such negative feelings about libertarianism.

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 06:10 AM
A person alone on an island CAN have "real freedom" without capitalism, socialism, or any other kind of "ism."

The problem with "real freedom" is that it just does not work when there is more than one person...which is the reason I have such negative feelings about libertarianism.

Libertarians are a trip to talk to.

evince
10-02-2018, 06:37 AM
A person alone on an island CAN have "real freedom" without capitalism, socialism, or any other kind of "ism."

The problem with "real freedom" is that it just does not work when there is more than one person...which is the reason I have such negative feelings about libertarianism.

libertarianism was invented to get teen aged boys interested in policy


its whole economic gig is based on the short bus school of economics

evince
10-02-2018, 06:38 AM
Libertarians are a trip to talk to.

they are sociopathic leaning fools

evince
10-02-2018, 06:43 AM
capitalism has some self policing qualities


but without the proper fettering (regulations and laws) it soon eats its self evolving into a king making machine.


its NOT ABOUT HOW MUCH REGULATION

Its about the correct regulation given the surrounding circumstances of the current economy

libertarian idiots think its about the number of rules


Its about the quality and need for rules


they try to simplify it for stupid people to have something to chant to make them feel smart


silly crap lie "too many rules"

or

"too much taxes"



the whole thing crumbles once facts are discussed in detail

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 06:46 AM
capitalism has some self policing qualities


but without the proper fettering (regulations and laws) it soon eats its self evolving into a king making machine.


its NOT ABOUT HOW MUCH REGULATION

Its about the correct regulation given the surrounding circumstances of the current economy

libertarian idiots think its about the number of rules


Its about the quality and need for rules


they try to simplify it for stupid people to have something to chant to make them feel smart


silly crap lie "too many rules"

or

"too much taxes"



the whole thing crumbles once facts are discussed in detail

Holy Crap! I agree with Evince!

The End must be near.

Frank Apisa
10-02-2018, 06:46 AM
Libertarians are a trip to talk to.

They are, indeed, G.

evince
10-02-2018, 06:47 AM
capitalism well regulated and fettered produces the only path to real freedom


It keeps the money from settling in one place


properly restrained it produces an atmosphere that allows the power of a better idea to emerge and rule the day

evince
10-02-2018, 06:48 AM
Holy Crap! I agree with Evince!

The End must be near.

reality is seeping in dude


are you off the bottled formula the right provides free to trapable minds?

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 06:49 AM
reality is seeping in dude


are you off the bottled formula the right provides free to trapable minds?

Since when have I not supported capitalism?

evince
10-02-2018, 06:51 AM
Since when have I not supported capitalism?

since when have you thought libertarians were fools?


dude I have been saying these things for near a decade

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 06:52 AM
since when have you thought libertarians were fools?

Since about the mid-1990's



dude I have been saying these things for near a decade

The problem is you follow it up with your mixed-economy crap.

evince
10-02-2018, 06:52 AM
Since when have I not supported capitalism?

the right has been pushing the world to hate democracy and capitalism for quite a while now


have you just noticed?

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 06:53 AM
the right has been pushing the world to hate democracy and capitalism for quite a while now


have you just noticed?

No, I criticize "the right" a lot.

evince
10-02-2018, 06:54 AM
they LOVE the word Republic


the only problem with a republic is who gets to PICK who represents the people


If you don't HEAD it with democracy then its the same assholes who wish to imprison you who get to pick who represents you huh

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 06:55 AM
they LOVE the word Republic


the only problem with a republic is who gets to PICK who represents the people


If you don't HEAD it with democracy then its the same assholes who wish to imprison you who get to pick who represents you huh

Popular election of representatives isn't Democracy.

evince
10-02-2018, 06:58 AM
the republicans and the right have PUSHED for many years for people to hate the word democracy and claim loudly we are NOT a democracy

they want people to give up on the idea


they have also made lots of people begin to HATE capitalism do to the excesses they wish to hand over to industry.



they want the masses to hate democracy


they want the masses to be MAD at capitalism


geee who the fuck would want the American people to think like that ?


PUTIN?????


are you catching on yet?

evince
10-02-2018, 07:00 AM
Popular election of representatives isn't Democracy.

why because some internets clowns say so ????

yes it is a type of democracy


want me to go get MW dictionary definition for your YET AGAIN


OK I will

I love facts unlike you

evince
10-02-2018, 07:01 AM
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy


Definition of democracy
1
a
: government by the people
especially : rule of the majority
b
: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

you don't get to rewrite the definitions of words for your political hackery

evince
10-02-2018, 07:02 AM
Popular election of representatives isn't Democracy.

stop repeating this idiots lie fool

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 07:02 AM
the republicans and the right have PUSHED for many years for people to hate the word democracy and claim loudly we are NOT a democracy

they want people to give up on the idea


they have also made lots of people begin to HATE capitalism do to the excesses they wish to hand over to industry.



they want the masses to hate democracy


they want the masses to be MAD at capitalism


geee who the fuck would want the American people to think like that ?


PUTIN?????


are you catching on yet?

Give me a few minutes. I'm not sure I want to devote the time to telling you why you're wrong.

evince
10-02-2018, 07:03 AM
directly or indirectly through a system of representation


Merriam Websters Bitch

evince
10-02-2018, 07:04 AM
Give me a few minutes. I'm not sure I want to devote the time to telling you why you're wrong.

the facts don't agree with you



your argument is not with me


its with every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 07:05 AM
the facts don't agree with you



your argument is not with me


its with every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world

It's with you.

evince
10-02-2018, 07:05 AM
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy


Definition of democracy
1
a
: government by the people
especially : rule of the majority
b
: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

evince
10-02-2018, 07:06 AM
It's with you.

and my buddies are the facts

You buddies are what ?

right wing memes based in fucking trash designed to fuck your head up

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 07:07 AM
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy


Definition of democracy
1
a
: government by the people
especially : rule of the majority
b
: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Now my problem is with you AND Merriam-Webster. There is a huge logical flaw with that definition.

evince
10-02-2018, 07:09 AM
Now my problem is with you AND Merriam-Webster. There is a huge logical flaw with that definition.

who made you king over dictionaries idiot

evince
10-02-2018, 07:10 AM
Merriam fucking Websters



you shits would deny all known facts to embrace stupid

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 07:11 AM
who made you king over dictionaries idiot

facts maybe? You love facts don't you?

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 07:43 AM
so now you hate dictionaries?

Dictionaries do not define words... Dictionaries are a collection of words meant to standardize spelling and pronunciation. They also provide some examples of how words might be used. They, however, do not own any word. No word originated from a dictionary...

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 07:49 AM
facts

A "fact" is NOT a "universal truth".

A "fact" is shorthand predicate accepted by all involved parties.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 07:49 AM
more facts

False Authority Fallacy... Wikipedia does not define words.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 07:50 AM
even more facts

False Authority Fallacy... Dictionaries do not define words.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 07:51 AM
a republic is listed as one from of a democracy


let me see now

Some internets poster or dictionaries and encyclopedias


wow that was an easy decision

False Authority Fallacy.

Dictionaries and Encyclopedias do NOT define words.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 07:53 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy


yet again even more facts

False Authority Fallacy... Wikipedia does not define words. Wikipedia is pretty much always dismissed on sight...

Also, learn what a "fact" is... A fact is NOT a universal truth, nor is it a proof.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 07:55 AM
its you redefining things idiot


you are merely some internets poster who is full of right wing memes




you don't get to make up facts in the face of reality

Define "reality"...

evince
10-02-2018, 09:14 AM
Dictionaries do not define words... Dictionaries are a collection of words meant to standardize spelling and pronunciation. They also provide some examples of how words might be used. They, however, do not own any word. No word originated from a dictionary...

wow

what a stupid fucking russo bot hole



dictionaries don't define words?


have you assholes NO shame

evince
10-02-2018, 09:15 AM
Define "reality"...

pretty much what you are incapable of seeing

evince
10-02-2018, 09:17 AM
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dictionary


dictionary


noun

1
A book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.

evince
10-02-2018, 09:19 AM
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality



reality noun

re·al·i·ty | \ rē-ˈa-lə-tē


\
plural realities
Definition of reality
1
: the quality or state of being real
2
a
(1)
: a real event, entity, or state of affairs
his dream became a reality
(2)
: the totality of real things and events
trying to escape from reality
b
: something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
3
: television programming that features videos of actual occurrences (such as a police chase, stunt, or natural disaster) —often used attributively
reality TV
in reality
: in actual fact

Cypress
10-02-2018, 09:20 AM
I am taking the Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Webster's, Cambridge definitions of democracy over the opinions of anonymous and obscure message board posters.

Representative democracy is one type - and by far the most prevalent type - of democracy in human history.

The opinions of obscure message board posters notwithstanding.

I do not recall ever in my life a liberal, let alone a Democratic politician, say that this nation needs to be governed by direct democratic rule via direct participation by citizenry.

evince
10-02-2018, 09:21 AM
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reality



reality


noun
mass noun

1
The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
‘he refuses to face reality’

‘Laura was losing touch with reality’

evince
10-02-2018, 09:24 AM
A "fact" is NOT a "universal truth".

A "fact" is shorthand predicate accepted by all involved parties.

only to assholes like you who hate science


and history


and math



and dictionaries


and encyclopedias

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 09:27 AM
wow

what a stupid fucking russo bot hole
Insults ignored.



dictionaries don't define words?
No, they do not. They are merely a collection of words. Many words are instead defined by philosophy, such as science, religion, and logic.



have you assholes NO shame
Insult ignored.

Cypress
10-02-2018, 09:31 AM
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dictionary


dictionary


noun

1
A book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.



A representative democracy is a system where citizens of a country vote for government representatives to handle legislation and ruling the country on their behalf. It is the opposite of direct democracy, where the public gets to vote on laws to be passed and other issues; and autocracy, where a dictator has absolute power and the people have no say in how a country is governed.

The U.S., Britain and India are all examples of representative democracies (and many other countries worldwide follow this model.) Most representative democracies have multi-party elections.

https://www.historyonthenet.com/what-is-a-representative-democracy/

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 09:31 AM
only to assholes like you who hate science
Insult ignored.

'facts' are not defined by science; they are defined by logic.



and history


and math



and dictionaries


and encyclopedias
Inversion fallacy... It is you who hates these things; you are the one who denies them. I accept all of them just fine.

Cypress
10-02-2018, 09:33 AM
I have a feeling somebody created a troll to subvert and evade a thread ban.

evince
10-02-2018, 09:42 AM
in this tiny mind only he/she/it defines words


words are for communication

people get together and decide what they mean


they write things like dictionaries with those words to agree on what they mean.


then internets idiots up and say only internets idiots are allowed to decide what words mean

its called sociopathy

evince
10-02-2018, 09:43 AM
Insult ignored.

'facts' are not defined by science; they are defined by logic.


Inversion fallacy... It is you who hates these things; you are the one who denies them. I accept all of them just fine.

as he piles them on the fire to warm his hands

Frank Apisa
10-02-2018, 09:44 AM
I am taking the Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Webster's, Cambridge definitions of democracy over the opinions of anonymous and obscure message board posters.

Representative democracy is one type - and by far the most prevalent type - of democracy in human history.

The opinions of obscure message board posters notwithstanding.

I do not recall ever in my life a liberal, let alone a Democratic politician, say that this nation needs to be governed by direct democratic rule via direct participation by citizenry.

Me neither...and I am not a liberal.

Cypress
10-02-2018, 10:04 AM
Me neither...and I am not a liberal.

Cheers mate.

Getting back to Socrates and Plato....

Any attempt by the rightwing to assert Plato was against the form of representative democracy found in the U.S. , Britain, western Europe, et al. is sloppy and misinformed reasoning.

If anything can be said about Plato and Socrates, it is their eternal hostility to misinformed reasoning, obfuscation, and any attempt to subvert the truth.

The type of democracy Plato held in low esteem, was direct democratic rule where citizens participate directly in decision making. He thought this leads to the tyranny of the majority, and he has much justification to think so. Red states routinely voted down marriage equality at the ballot box, and if we left it up to southern states by popular vote, Jim Crow laws would still be on the books.

Plato did not have experience with, nor directed his comments towards the representative democracies that only came to flourish in the 19th, 20th, and 21st. If anything, Plato might have held out the constitutional monarchies of western Europe as an acceptable form of representative democratic government, because they might be nominally akin to his ideal of the benign and virtuous philosopher king.

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 12:25 PM
so now you hate dictionaries?

Dictionaries do not define words. No dictionary is an authoritative reference of any word. No dictionary owns any word. They are useful for standardizing spelling and pronunciation, and they do have examples of how a word is used, but they do not define any word.

A republic is government by constitution. In other words, government by laws not of men. This definition goes all the way back to ancient Rome.
A democracy has no constitution. It is mob rule. It quickly dissolves into an oligarchy or an outright dictatorship. This definition goes all the way back to ancient Greece. It was one of the biggest problems with certain towns in ancient Greece.

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 12:28 PM
then why do they incorporate?
To distribute shares of ownership.


because it gives them legal protections huh
It also gives them that.


why do you people do nothing but lie

This is mantra 5. If you wish to reduce yourself to chanting useless mantras, that's the fastest way to get on my ignore list.

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 12:29 PM
Cheers mate.

Getting back to Socrates and Plato....

Any attempt by the rightwing to assert Plato was against the form of representative democracy found in the U.S. , Britain, western Europe, et al. is sloppy and misinformed reasoning.

If anything can be said about Plato and Socrates, it is their eternal hostility to misinformed reasoning, obfuscation, and any attempt to subvert the truth.

The type of democracy Plato held in low esteem, was direct democratic rule where citizens participate directly in decision making. He thought this leads to the tyranny of the majority, and he has much justification to think so. Red states routinely voted down marriage equality at the ballot box, and if we left it up to southern states by popular vote, Jim Crow laws would still be on the books.

Plato did not have experience with, nor directed his comments towards the representative democracies that only came to flourish in the 19th, 20th, and 21st. If anything, Plato might have held out the constitutional monarchies of western Europe as an acceptable form of representative democratic government, because they might be nominally akin to his ideal of the benign and virtuous philosopher king.

Stop right now. No one in this thread ever asserted that any Ancient Greek was against modern day Democracy except for Evince. Logic tells us that Socrates couldn't have been against modern day Democracy...how could he have been?

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 12:30 PM
facts

Does not change the meaning of 'republic'. A republic is not a representative democracy. It is not a democracy at all.

A republic is government by constitution. It really is that simple.

evince
10-02-2018, 12:31 PM
Does not change the meaning of 'republic'. A republic is not a representative democracy. It is not a democracy at all.

A republic is government by constitution. It really is that simple.

link

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 12:31 PM
more facts

Nope. A democracy is government by mob rule. There are no 'forms' of democracy.

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 12:32 PM
link

You're kinda dumb.

evince
10-02-2018, 12:33 PM
Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/democracy

Democracy definition, government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. See more.

this

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 12:33 PM
even more facts

Who runs the voting system? When you vest all power in the people, you are describing mob rule.

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 12:34 PM
a republic is listed as one from of a democracy


let me see now

Some internets poster or dictionaries and encyclopedias


wow that was an easy decision

A republic is not a democracy. A republic is government by constitution. A democracy is not.

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 12:34 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy


yet again even more facts

Not facts. Arguments. Learn what a 'fact' is. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.

evince
10-02-2018, 12:35 PM
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic


republic noun

re·pub·lic | \ ri-ˈpə-blik


\
Definition of republic
1
a
(1)
: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2)
: a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
b
(1)
: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2)
: a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
c
: a usually specified republican government of a political unit
the French Fourth Republic

and that

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 12:36 PM
Types of democracy include:
Anticipatory democracy – relies on some degree of disciplined and usually market-informed anticipation of the future, to guide major decisions.
Associationalism, or Associative Democracy – emphasis on freedom via voluntary and democratically self-governing associations.
Adversialism, or Adversial Democracy – with an emphasis on freedom based on adversial relationships between individuals and groups as best expressed in democratic judicial systems.
Bourgeois democracy – Some Marxists, Communists, Socialists and Left-wing anarchists refer to liberal democracy as bourgeois democracy, alleging that ultimately politicians fight only for the rights of the bourgeoisie.
Consensus democracy – rule based on consensus rather than traditional majority rule.
Constitutional democracy – governed by a constitution.
Delegative democracy – a form of democratic control whereby voting power is vested in self-selected delegates, rather than elected representatives.
Deliberative democracy – in which authentic deliberation, not only voting, is central to legitimate decision making. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule.
Democratic centralism – organizational method where members of a political party discuss and debate matters of policy and direction and after the decision is made by majority vote, all members are expected to follow that decision in public.
Democratic dictatorship (also known as democratur)
Democratic republic – republic which has democracy through elected representatives
Democratic socialism – a form of socialism ideologically opposed to the Marxist–Leninist styles that have become synonymous with socialism; democratic socialists place an emphasis on decentralized governance in political democracy with social ownership of the means of production and social and economic institutions with workers' self-management.
Economic democracy – theory of democracy involving people having access to subsistence, or equity in living standards.
Grassroots democracy – emphasizes trust in small decentralized units at the municipal government level, possibly using urban secession to establish the formal legal authority to make decisions made at this local level binding.
Guided democracy – is a form of democratic government with increased autocracy where citizens exercise their political rights without meaningfully affecting the government's policies, motives, and goals.
Interactive democracy – proposed form of democracy utilising information technology to allow citizens to propose new policies, "second" proposals and vote on the resulting laws (that are refined by Parliament) in a referendum.
Jeffersonian democracy – named after American statesman Thomas Jefferson, who believed in equality of political opportunity (for male citizens), and opposed to privilege, aristocracy and corruption.
Market democracy – another name for democratic capitalism, an economic ideology based on a tripartite arrangement of a market-based economy based predominantly on economic incentives through free markets, a democratic polity and a liberal moral-cultural system which encourages pluralism.
Multiparty democracy – two-party system requires voters to align themselves in large blocs, sometimes so large that they cannot agree on any overarching principles.
New Democracy – Maoist concept based on Mao Zedong's "Bloc of Four Classes" theory in post-revolutionary China.
Participatory democracy – involves more lay citizen participation in decision making and offers greater political representation than traditional representative democracy, e.g., wider control of proxies given to representatives by those who get directly involved and actually participate.
People's democracy – multi-class rule in which the proletariat dominates.
Radical democracy – type of democracy that focuses on the importance of nurturing and tolerating difference and dissent in decision-making processes.
Revolutionary democracy – ideology of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front
Semi-direct democracy – representative democracy with instruments, elements, and/or features of direct democracy.
Sociocracy – democratic system of governance based on consent decision making, circle organization, and double-linked representation.

Doublespeak.

A republic is government by constitution. That constitution defines the election process, including how any representative or officer of that government is elected.

There is no such thing as a 'democratic republic'.

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 12:36 PM
Not facts. Arguments. Learn what a 'fact' is. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.

Actually, it is. Evince's problem is that she doesn't know what a fact is.

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 12:36 PM
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic


republic noun

re·pub·lic | \ ri-ˈpə-blik


\
Definition of republic
1
a
(1)
: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2)
: a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
b
(1)
: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2)
: a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
c
: a usually specified republican government of a political unit
the French Fourth Republic

Dictionaries do not define words.

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 12:39 PM
You are "right on", Cypress.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with representative democracy (as opposed to direct democratic rule)...

...PROVIDING THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO RULE...TO GOVERN.

Right now the Republican Party has shown itself unwilling (and functionally, unable) to govern.

The Republican Party has more control of government right now than any party has ever had control during my 82 years. And in a political environment as defined and separated as ever I've seen.

But they cannot get anything done. They step all over themselves...dig huge holes for themselves...paint themselves into corners. With almost total control of government in EVERY sphere...national, state, even local...all they do is cry that a pathetically small minority is thwarting their efforts.

THEY ARE THWARTING THEMSELVES BECAUSE OF MASSIVE INCOMPETENCE.

We need a governing body that works effectively to govern...with potential excesses held in check by what commonly is known as "the loyal opposition."

The Republican Party seems to function adequately as the latter...with almost no aptitude for the former.

The implications are clear...except to the sheep continuing to perpetuate what is going on right now.

A representative democracy has no constitution. There is nothing to stop mob rule.

The United States is organized as a federated republic. It is has a constitution. It is federated. That means it layers of constitutions.

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 12:40 PM
Dictionaries do not define words.

Actually, they do. Sometimes they're wrong though.

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 12:41 PM
its you redefining things idiot


you are merely some internets poster who is full of right wing memes




you don't get to make up facts in the face of reality

A fact is not a Universal Truth. Learn what a 'fact' is. The term 'republic' goes all the way back to ancient Rome. It is government by constitution. Nothing more.

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 12:43 PM
they seek to destroy our union for Putins pleasure

WRONG dude. Trump wants to return the country back towards its constitution. You can't stand that, can you?

Into the Night
10-02-2018, 12:44 PM
Actually, they do. Sometimes they're wrong though.

No, they don't at all. No dictionary defines any word. No dictionary owns any word.

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 12:46 PM
No, they don't at all. No dictionary defines any word. No dictionary owns any word.

I think pretty much the job of dictionaries is to define words.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 01:03 PM
You're kinda dumb.

You're being very generous towards him, Kind Sir! ;)

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 01:09 PM
I think pretty much the job of dictionaries is to define words.

The job of dictionaries is to standardize spelling and pronunciation. Dictionaries also contain some examples of how words might be used, but dictionaries do not own any word... No dictionary is the root source of any word.

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 01:10 PM
The job of dictionaries is to standardize spelling and pronunciation. Dictionaries also contain some examples of how words might be used, but dictionaries do not own any word... No dictionary is the root source of any word.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 01:16 PM
I think pretty much the job of dictionaries is to define words.

Here, if I may ask you this... This might clear up the point being made...

Which dictionary is the 'authoritative' dictionary? Which dictionary is the 'correct' one? Webster? Cambridge? dictionary.com? Urban Dictionary?

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 01:18 PM
Here, if I may ask you this... This might clear up the point being made...

Which dictionary is the 'authoritative' dictionary? Which dictionary is the 'correct' one? Webster? Cambridge? dictionary.com? Urban Dictionary?

There isn't one.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 01:18 PM
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Actually, no... I'm just being precise and accurate... This is something that many people do not give any thought to, but dictionaries are not authoritative in any way... they do not define words... Philosophy defines numerous words, such as 'religion' and 'science' for example.

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 01:19 PM
I have a feeling somebody created a troll to subvert and evade a thread ban.

Name the troll.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 01:20 PM
There isn't one.

So, you're asserting that dictionaries define words, yet no dictionary is 'authoritative' and 'correct'?

How does that work, exactly?

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 01:20 PM
Actually, no... I'm just being precise and accurate... This is something that many people do not give any thought to, but dictionaries are not authoritative in any way... they do not define words... Philosophy defines numerous words, such as 'religion' and 'science' for example.

Yeah, they do. The only job of a dictionary is to define words. If a word can't be defined our language means nothing and we can't talk to each other.

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 01:24 PM
So, you're asserting that dictionaries define words, yet no dictionary is 'authoritative' and 'correct'?

How does that work, exactly?

That's not actually what I said. You are the one who mentioned all of the various dictionaries. I'm willing to bet their definitions for words are the same or very close. You have misinterpreted my problem with dictionaries. I'd go into this further with you but in this thread you're not the one I want to talk to.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 01:24 PM
words are for communication
Yup.



people get together and decide what they mean
Who is this 'elite voting bloc'? Why do they have so much power?



they write things like dictionaries with those words to agree on what they mean.
False. They write dictionaries to standardize spelling and pronunciation.



then internets idiots up and say only internets idiots are allowed to decide what words mean

its called sociopathy
'lack of intelligence' mantra ignored...

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 01:25 PM
the republicans and the right have PUSHED for many years for people to hate the word democracy and claim loudly we are NOT a democracy

they want people to give up on the idea


they have also made lots of people begin to HATE capitalism do to the excesses they wish to hand over to industry.



they want the masses to hate democracy


they want the masses to be MAD at capitalism


geee who the fuck would want the American people to think like that ?


PUTIN?????


are you catching on yet?

I'm done and back. I've got time baby, do you?

Truth Detector
10-02-2018, 01:27 PM
The premise: A philosophical approach arises when religious authority is not regarded as all-powerful.

The reason philosophical critical inquiry, and epistemological thought arose in ancient Greece is because there was no powerful state religion that inhibited reason and free will.

What is the point you are trying to convey?

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 01:29 PM
What is the point you are trying to convey?

He's saying Democracy leads to smart people.

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 01:34 PM
Evince...you ready to rock?

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 01:38 PM
That's not actually what I said.
It was, but I'll instead take the position that I misunderstood.



You are the one who mentioned all of the various dictionaries.
I asked you which one is the correct one.



I'm willing to bet their definitions for words are the same or very close.
They aren't... Take the word 'religion' for example... Google defines it as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." It also (completely differently) defines it as "a particular system of faith and worship." ... One definition mentions god(s) and control, while the other definition doesn't mention either one... Dictionary.com offers yet another different definition of 'religion': "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." They also offer another differing definition: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:" Philosophy defines 'religion' as "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument". That's five differing definitions right there...

I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.



You have misinterpreted my problem with dictionaries.
Then explain what I have misinterpreted.



I'd go into this further with you but in this thread you're not the one I want to talk to.
I promise I won't bite ;)

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 01:39 PM
It was, but I'll instead take the position that I misunderstood.


I asked you which one is the correct one.


They aren't... Take the word 'religion' for example... Google defines it as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." It also (completely differently) defines it as "a particular system of faith and worship." ... One definition mentions god(s) and control, while the other definition doesn't mention either one... Dictionary.com offers yet another different definition of 'religion': "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." They also offer another differing definition: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:" Philosophy defines 'religion' as "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument". That's five differing definitions right there...

I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.


Then explain what I have misinterpreted.


I promise I won't bite ;)

You do realize Google isn't a dictionary...right?

Truth Detector
10-02-2018, 01:40 PM
He's saying Democracy leads to smart people.

I'm not sure that is what he is saying.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 01:41 PM
You do realize Google isn't a dictionary...right?

Yup, and neither is philosophy... But I included them both in my list of examples because Google offers definitions of words in their search bar, and philosophy is the true source of the definition of the word 'religion'.

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 01:41 PM
I'm not sure that is what he is saying.

That's what he's saying. He thinks the Athenian Democracy was a great time in human history. I think he's wrong but there's a conversation to be had there.

It was without a doubt a very interesting time.

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 01:43 PM
Yup, and neither is philosophy... But I included them both in my list of examples because Google offers definitions of words in their search bar, and philosophy is the true source of the definition of the word 'religion'.

Google is a search engine, not a dictionary.

Truth Detector
10-02-2018, 01:57 PM
That's what he's saying. He thinks the Athenian Democracy was a great time in human history. I think he's wrong but there's a conversation to be had there.

It was without a doubt a very interesting time.

I am not grasping as to the why. His post was merely lamenting his view, but it didn't actually say anything. I thought it was an assault on religion. :shrugs:

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 02:05 PM
Google is a search engine, not a dictionary.

Yup, [meaning that I agreed that Google is not a dictionary] and neither is philosophy... But I included them both in my list of examples because Google offers definitions of words in their search bar, and philosophy is the true source of the definition of the word 'religion'.


My whole point in this is that "which source's definition is the correct one"? Forget Google, since you're turning it into a red herring (LOOK! LOOK AWAY FROM THE MAIN ARGUMENT AT HAND!!!) ;)

My point is that dictionaries offer a wide variety of definitions for the same word in the same context... Which one is the correct one? Which dictionary is correct, and which definition within a specific dictionary is the correct definition? This is the issue at hand...

What you will ultimately discover is that dictionaries are not authoritative and dictionaries do not own nor define words...

Frank Apisa
10-02-2018, 02:30 PM
A representative democracy has no constitution. There is nothing to stop mob rule.

The United States is organized as a federated republic. It is has a constitution. It is federated. That means it layers of constitutions.

It "layers of constitutions?"

Who woulda thunk it!

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 02:38 PM
Yup, [meaning that I agreed that Google is not a dictionary] and neither is philosophy... But I included them both in my list of examples because Google offers definitions of words in their search bar, and philosophy is the true source of the definition of the word 'religion'.


My whole point in this is that "which source's definition is the correct one"? Forget Google, since you're turning it into a red herring (LOOK! LOOK AWAY FROM THE MAIN ARGUMENT AT HAND!!!) ;)

My point is that dictionaries offer a wide variety of definitions for the same word in the same context... Which one is the correct one? Which dictionary is correct, and which definition within a specific dictionary is the correct definition? This is the issue at hand...

What you will ultimately discover is that dictionaries are not authoritative and dictionaries do not own nor define words...

Which source is the correct one? uh, they tend to agree.

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 02:41 PM
I am not grasping as to the why. His post was merely lamenting his view, but it didn't actually say anything. I thought it was an assault on religion. :shrugs:

That's a valid viewpoint, I can see how you took it that way.

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 03:03 PM
Which source is the correct one? uh, they tend to agree.

I just showed you that they didn't...

Some definitions limit religion to "belief in god(s)" while other definitions don't even mention god(s)... So, which definition is correct? Dictionaries make use of numerous varying definitions...

This just goes to show that dictionaries do not own or define words... They are not the authoritative source of word definitions... This stuff stems from philosophy, not dictionaries...

Lightbringer
10-02-2018, 03:05 PM
I just showed you that they didn't...



Stop right there, you did no such thing.

Son, for the next few weeks the JV field might be better for you.

Spend some time talking to Domer, he's JV quality.

evince
10-02-2018, 03:09 PM
Yup, [meaning that I agreed that Google is not a dictionary] and neither is philosophy... But I included them both in my list of examples because Google offers definitions of words in their search bar, and philosophy is the true source of the definition of the word 'religion'.


My whole point in this is that "which source's definition is the correct one"? Forget Google, since you're turning it into a red herring (LOOK! LOOK AWAY FROM THE MAIN ARGUMENT AT HAND!!!) ;)

My point is that dictionaries offer a wide variety of definitions for the same word in the same context... Which one is the correct one? Which dictionary is correct, and which definition within a specific dictionary is the correct definition? This is the issue at hand...

What you will ultimately discover is that dictionaries are not authoritative and dictionaries do not own nor define words...

dear fucking idiot,


they are man invented words that society agrees on what they mean


geeeze are you a dumbfuck


fuck you very much

gfm7175
10-02-2018, 03:26 PM
Stop right there, you did no such thing.
See post #179. Also, see post #190 directly after the part which you stopped at...



Son, for the next few weeks the JV field might be better for you.
'lack of intelligence' mantra dismissed...



Spend some time talking to Domer, he's JV quality.
'lack of intelligence' mantra dismissed...

Into the Night
10-03-2018, 06:59 PM
this

No dictionary defines a word. However, this particular example of the use of the word 'democracy' is reasonable. It agrees with what I've said.

Into the Night
10-03-2018, 07:02 PM
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No, he's right on this one.

Into the Night
10-03-2018, 07:03 PM
Yeah, they do. The only job of a dictionary is to define words. If a word can't be defined our language means nothing and we can't talk to each other.

Nope. The only job of a dictionary is to standardize spelling and pronunciation of a word.

Into the Night
10-03-2018, 07:04 PM
That's not actually what I said. You are the one who mentioned all of the various dictionaries. I'm willing to bet their definitions for words are the same or very close. You have misinterpreted my problem with dictionaries. I'd go into this further with you but in this thread you're not the one I want to talk to.

You would lose. The examples of dictionary 'definitions' often conflict with each other!

Into the Night
10-03-2018, 07:05 PM
That's what he's saying. He thinks the Athenian Democracy was a great time in human history. I think he's wrong but there's a conversation to be had there.

It was without a doubt a very interesting time.

Agreed.

Into the Night
10-03-2018, 07:06 PM
It "layers of constitutions?"

Who woulda thunk it!

Indeed. It is a model that had never been tried before. It is what makes the United States so unique.

Into the Night
10-03-2018, 07:08 PM
Which source is the correct one? uh, they tend to agree.

'Tend to' is the operative phrase here. They quite often don't!

domer76
10-03-2018, 09:38 PM
WRONG dude. Trump wants to return the country back towards its constitution. You can't stand that, can you?

:rofl2:

Cut the bullshit. Trump doesn't know the Constitution from shinola.

domer76
10-03-2018, 09:45 PM
So, you're asserting that dictionaries define words, yet no dictionary is 'authoritative' and 'correct'?

How does that work, exactly?

Who or what is authoritative, Einstein?

domer76
10-03-2018, 09:47 PM
Stop right there, you did no such thing.

Son, for the next few weeks the JV field might be better for you.

Spend some time talking to Domer, he's JV quality.

lol

Sad little turdlicker. Feeling a little embarrassed when I point out your massive bullshittery?

Frank Apisa
10-04-2018, 02:38 AM
Indeed. It is a model that had never been tried before. It is what makes the United States so unique.

The quoted "sentence" is not actually a sentence. It is an incomprehensible fragment...an unnecessary injury to the English language apparently inflicted for no other reason than to massage your considerable ego.

gfm7175
10-04-2018, 07:36 AM
Who or what is authoritative, Einstein?

Apparently dictionaries are... Apparently they define words somehow.

iolo
10-04-2018, 07:41 AM
Apparently dictionaries are... Apparently they define words somehow.

On the basis of how people (rather than God) use them over a particular period, depending upon their selection of evidence. Languages change all the time, and definitions are always provisional.

Cypress
10-04-2018, 11:29 AM
On the basis of how people (rather than God) use them over a particular period, depending upon their selection of evidence. Languages change all the time, and definitions are always provisional.

Backtracking to the philosophical framework of this thread, the Socratic method for establishing definitions does not depend on what the word “democracy” means, but on what the nature of democracy is in the ontological sense; aka, its ethical qualities, its essence. That is the Socratic definition.

There is virtually unanimous and universal acceptance that a Democracy is in its essence a system of government in which power is vested in the people, either directly or indirectly through a system of representation.

The opinion, assumptions, and feelings of obscure rightwing message boarders are simply irrelevant on this topic.

Examples of modern democracies are the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Sweden, et al. Period, end of story.

Frank Apisa
10-04-2018, 11:38 AM
Backtracking to the philosophical framework of this thread, the Socratic method for establishing definitions does not depend on what the word “democracy” means, but on what the nature of democracy is in the ontological sense; aka, its ethical qualities, its essence. That is the Socratic definition.

There is virtually unanimous and universal acceptance that a Democracy is in its essence a system of government in which power is vested in the people, either directly or indirectly through a system of representation.

The opinion, assumptions, and feelings of obscure rightwing message boarders are simply irrelevant on this topic.

Examples of modern democracies are the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Sweden, et al. Period, end of story.

More than just a THANKS due this one, Cypress.

Beautifully put!

And right on the mark.

Lightbringer
10-04-2018, 11:49 AM
Backtracking to the philosophical framework of this thread, the Socratic method for establishing definitions does not depend on what the word “democracy” means, but on what the nature of democracy is in the ontological sense; aka, its ethical qualities, its essence. That is the Socratic definition.

There is virtually unanimous and universal acceptance that a Democracy is in its essence a system of government in which power is vested in the people, either directly or indirectly through a system of representation.

The opinion, assumptions, and feelings of obscure rightwing message boarders are simply irrelevant on this topic.

Examples of modern democracies are the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Sweden, et al. Period, end of story.

The highlighted portion is doublespeak I think. Socrates would have talked about the Democracy he knew, no doublespeak there, just what he knew which was direct Democracy. Our versions today have nothing to do with Socrates.

Since you want to get back to your original intent, fine, you're wrong about the absence of religion in Athens in that time period. There was a religion it just didn't have anything to do with the Pantheon. The Pantheon was for entertainment and life lessons but their true religion was based upon ancestor worship...it reminds me a lot of the Norse.

You can talk about intellectualism all you want but Democratic Athens was one of the most warlike and expansionist states Ancient Greece ever had.

Cypress
10-04-2018, 12:06 PM
The Arabs were world-class mathematicians and astronomers.... then along came Islam. Algebra was at least in part invented by Al-Khwarizmi, and Wikipedia states that

"Another Persian mathematician Omar Khayyam is credited with identifying the foundations of algebraic geometry and found the general geometric solution of the cubic equation. His book Treatise on Demonstrations of Problems of Algebra (1070), which laid down the principles of algebra, is part of the body of Persian mathematics that was eventually transmitted to Europe.[24] Yet another Persian mathematician, Sharaf al-Dīn al-Tūsī, found algebraic and numerical solutions to various cases of cubic equations.[25] He also developed the concept of a function.[26] The Indian mathematicians Mahavira and Bhaskara II, the Persian mathematician Al-Karaji,[27] and the Chinese mathematician Zhu Shijie, solved various cases of cubic, quartic, quintic and higher-order polynomial equations using numerical methods. In the 13th century, the solution of a cubic equation by Fibonacci is representative of the beginning of a revival in European algebra. Abū al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī al-Qalaṣādī (1412–1486) took "the first steps toward the introduction of algebraic symbolism". He also computed ∑n2, ∑n3 and used the method of successive approximation to determine square roots.[28] As the Islamic world was declining, the European world was ascending. And it is here that algebra was further developed." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra)

Many of our star names are Arabic. Again from Wikipedia: "Very old star names originated among people who lived in the Arabian Peninsula more than a thousand years ago, before the rise of Islam. However, many Arabic language star names sprang up later in history, as translations of ancient Greek language descriptions." (bold is my emphasis)

While religion may have inspired beautiful music and architecture, it seems to be anathema to reasoning and science.

That is a good point.
At face value, and not knowing the historical complexities, it does seem that as Islam became a powerful and more orthodox state religion, the philosophical inquiry and scientific accomplishments of the Arab world were stunted.

On a related tangent, I also recently learned something interesting about medical history.

In the middle ages in western Europe, prevailing Catholic doctrine treated mental illnesses such as epilepsy and dementia as spiritual corruption...the work of satan or demons, basically.

In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox Christians in eastern Europe were fully aware that there were medical and natural causes to these neurological afflications.

Why? Because eastern Christianity held onto and maintained the medical knowledge of the ancient Greek world. They were aware of the knowledge of Hippocrates, Galen, et. al.

Western Christianity in western Europe lost touch with the knowledge of the ancient Greeks, and it wasn't until the Rennassaince and afterward, that the west once again began acquiring the knowledge of classical antiquity. Surprisingly, pretty much thanks to the Arabs.

Frank Apisa
10-04-2018, 02:40 PM
That is a good point.
At face value, and not knowing the historical complexities, it does seem that as Islam became a powerful and more orthodox state religion, the philosophical inquiry and scientific accomplishments of the Arab world were stunted.

On a related tangent, I also recently learned something interesting about medical history.

In the middle ages in western Europe, prevailing Catholic doctrine treated mental illnesses such as epilepsy and dementia as spiritual corruption...the work of satan or demons, basically.

In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox Christians in eastern Europe were fully aware that there were medical and natural causes to these neurological afflications.

Why? Because eastern Christianity held onto and maintained the medical knowledge of the ancient Greek world. They were aware of the knowledge of Hippocrates, Galen, et. al.

Western Christianity in western Europe lost touch with the knowledge of the ancient Greeks, and it wasn't until the Rennassaince and afterward, that the west once again began acquiring the knowledge of classical antiquity. Surprisingly, pretty much thanks to the Arabs.

Apropos...

...Rome was a mighty republic and empire for almost 500 years...probably more powerful in its world than America was in our world. It made great strides in art, architecture, law, philosophy. It was one of the most debauched entities ever to thrive on this planet.

Along came Christianity...and within a decade or two of becoming the state religion...the Roman Empire was no more. (The Holy Roman Empire is noted for NOT being holy; NOT being Roman; and NOT being an empire.)

With the advent of Christianity...the western world descended into a period of stagnation so severe...it still is called the Dark Ages.

Just sayin'!

Cypress
10-04-2018, 04:10 PM
Apropos...

...Rome was a mighty republic and empire for almost 500 years...probably more powerful in its world than America was in our world. It made great strides in art, architecture, law, philosophy. It was one of the most debauched entities ever to thrive on this planet.

Along came Christianity...and within a decade or two of becoming the state religion...the Roman Empire was no more. (The Holy Roman Empire is noted for NOT being holy; NOT being Roman; and NOT being an empire.)

With the advent of Christianity...the western world descended into a period of stagnation so severe...it still is called the Dark Ages.

Just sayin'!

A good insight.

I agree with much about the premise of your post.

But, I would add that even within Christianity there were pillars of enlightenment and dedication to scholarly knowledge. The great Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas is responsible for a lasting legacy to western intellectual thought. And certainly although the Carolingian empire and Charlemagne were devoutly Christian, the western liberal tradition owes them a debt for advancing the cause of universal education, the establishment of universities, and a dedication to scholarly inquiry. Especially, when they stand in stark contrast to book-burning, anti-intellectuals like Luther.

I think the problem starts to become when orthodoxy and dogma control the reigns of power in the institutions of governance.

Into the Night
10-04-2018, 05:09 PM
Backtracking to the philosophical framework of this thread, the Socratic method for establishing definitions does not depend on what the word “democracy” means, but on what the nature of democracy is in the ontological sense; aka, its ethical qualities, its essence. That is the Socratic definition.

There is virtually unanimous and universal acceptance that a Democracy is in its essence a system of government in which power is vested in the people, either directly or indirectly through a system of representation.

The opinion, assumptions, and feelings of obscure rightwing message boarders are simply irrelevant on this topic.

Examples of modern democracies are the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Sweden, et al. Period, end of story.

None of these are democracies. Power is not invested in the people (either directly or indirectly), but in a constitution. The United States, France,Australia, and Sweden are republics. They have a constitution. Great Britain and Canada are oligarchies, they are neither a democracy nor a republic. They have no constitution.

Into the Night
10-04-2018, 05:11 PM
On the basis of how people (rather than God) use them over a particular period, depending upon their selection of evidence. Languages change all the time, and definitions are always provisional.

Which means that dictionaries are not authoritative on the definitions of any word.

Into the Night
10-04-2018, 05:12 PM
The highlighted portion is doublespeak I think. Socrates would have talked about the Democracy he knew, no doublespeak there, just what he knew which was direct Democracy. Our versions today have nothing to do with Socrates.

Since you want to get back to your original intent, fine, you're wrong about the absence of religion in Athens in that time period. There was a religion it just didn't have anything to do with the Pantheon. The Pantheon was for entertainment and life lessons but their true religion was based upon ancestor worship...it reminds me a lot of the Norse.

You can talk about intellectualism all you want but Democratic Athens was one of the most warlike and expansionist states Ancient Greece ever had.

There are no surviving democracies today.

Into the Night
10-04-2018, 05:20 PM
Apropos...

...Rome was a mighty republic and empire for almost 500 years...probably more powerful in its world than America was in our world. It made great strides in art, architecture, law, philosophy. It was one of the most debauched entities ever to thrive on this planet.

Along came Christianity...and within a decade or two of becoming the state religion...the Roman Empire was no more. (The Holy Roman Empire is noted for NOT being holy; NOT being Roman; and NOT being an empire.)

With the advent of Christianity...the western world descended into a period of stagnation so severe...it still is called the Dark Ages.

Just sayin'!

It wasn't the church that destroyed Rome. It was the dictators.It was they that weakened Rome to the point that the barbarians could just walk all over it. Rome crumbled from within.

The church actually had messengers that would keep the various isolated communities somewhat in contact because they were willing to travel the old roads out among the barbarians and weren't too worried about their own worthless lives (sound familiar?).

ThatOwlWoman
10-04-2018, 06:31 PM
Western Christianity in western Europe lost touch with the knowledge of the ancient Greeks, and it wasn't until the Rennassaince and afterward, that the west once again began acquiring the knowledge of classical antiquity. Surprisingly, pretty much thanks to the Arabs.

They also stomped out ancient medicinal knowledge of the conquered ppl where they encroached. Women who used herbs to heal became known as witches by the Church, and such practice was seen as witchcraft rather than natural medicine. The same is true of indigenous American ppl's vast knowledge of medicinal plants and treatments.

domer76
10-04-2018, 07:17 PM
Which means that dictionaries are not authoritative on the definitions of any word.

Who is, Einstein?

Frank Apisa
10-05-2018, 03:40 AM
It wasn't the church that destroyed Rome. It was the dictators.It was they that weakened Rome to the point that the barbarians could just walk all over it. Rome crumbled from within.

The church actually had messengers that would keep the various isolated communities somewhat in contact because they were willing to travel the old roads out among the barbarians and weren't too worried about their own worthless lives (sound familiar?).

Rome was at its greatest when it was at its most debauched and pagan.

Rome fell from power almost immediately upon Christianity's ascendance.

Those are the facts.

If you want to pretend you know that is coincidence...go for it.

I don't mind someone furnishing a good laugh.

Frank Apisa
10-05-2018, 03:42 AM
Oh...and when Christianity ascended in Europe...

...Europe descended into a period of retrogression referred to as The Dark Ages.

700 years of science, law, and philosophy being flushed down the toilet.

iolo
10-05-2018, 06:44 AM
Which means that dictionaries are not authoritative on the definitions of any word.

Correct, in theory, though the meaning of most words don't change much.

Cypress
10-05-2018, 08:08 AM
None of these are democracies. Power is not invested in the people (either directly or indirectly), but in a constitution. The United States, France,Australia, and Sweden are republics. They have a constitution. Great Britain and Canada are oligarchies, they are neither a democracy nor a republic. They have no constitution.

The opinion and feelings of an obscure rightwing message board poster are inconsequential, wholly without merit, and irrelevant.

You can beg me to accept your opinion that the United States and western Europe are not democracies all you want. But I put zero stock in your opinion. It's actually not even your opinion, I am sure it is something you heard on Limbaugh or in the wingnutosphere.

The long standing fact, and the virtually universally accepted fact is that the countries of western Europe, U.S. Canada are representative democracies. Word parsing and word smithing (aka, constitutional monarchies, democratic republics, etc.) do not obscure that essential fact. Period, end of story.

Not even worth debating.

Frank Apisa
10-05-2018, 12:10 PM
The opinion and feelings of an obscure rightwing message board poster are inconsequential, wholly without merit, and irrelevant.

You can beg me to accept your opinion that the United States and western Europe are not democracies all you want. But I put zero stock in your opinion. It's actually not even your opinion, I am sure it is something you heard on Limbaugh or in the wingnutosphere.

The long standing fact, and the virtually universally accepted fact is that the countries of western Europe, U.S. Canada are representative democracies. Word parsing and word smithing (aka, constitutional monarchies, democratic republics, etc.) do not obscure that essential fact. Period, end of story.

Not even worth debating.



'zacly!

Lightbringer
10-05-2018, 12:12 PM
The opinion and feelings of an obscure rightwing message board poster are inconsequential, wholly without merit, and irrelevant.

You can beg me to accept your opinion that the United States and western Europe are not democracies all you want. But I put zero stock in your opinion. It's actually not even your opinion, I am sure it is something you heard on Limbaugh or in the wingnutosphere.

The long standing fact, and the virtually universally accepted fact is that the countries of western Europe, U.S. Canada are representative democracies. Word parsing and word smithing (aka, constitutional monarchies, democratic republics, etc.) do not obscure that essential fact. Period, end of story.

Not even worth debating.

You're obscure too. And from what I've seen not well educated.

Into the Night
10-05-2018, 07:48 PM
Rome was at its greatest when it was at its most debauched and pagan.
Pagan it was, but it was not debauched. That came later with the dictators.


Rome fell from power almost immediately upon Christianity's ascendance.
No. It fell from within cause by the damage from the dictators.


Those are the facts.
Not facts. Arguments. Learn what a 'fact' is.


If you want to pretend you know that is coincidence...go for it.
Not even a coincidence. It didn't happen at the same time.

Into the Night
10-05-2018, 07:51 PM
Oh...and when Christianity ascended in Europe...

...Europe descended into a period of retrogression referred to as The Dark Ages.

700 years of science, law, and philosophy being flushed down the toilet.

Not from Christianity. Christianity turned away from Europe during that time. They shut themselves away in monasteries. Those things were built like forts...to keep the rot of the Dark Ages OUT.

Into the Night
10-05-2018, 07:52 PM
Correct, in theory, though the meaning of most words don't change much.

Quite true. They seem to change most rapidly when a liberal is using them! ;)

Into the Night
10-05-2018, 07:54 PM
The opinion and feelings of an obscure rightwing message board poster are inconsequential, wholly without merit, and irrelevant.

You can beg me to accept your opinion that the United States and western Europe are not democracies all you want. But I put zero stock in your opinion. It's actually not even your opinion, I am sure it is something you heard on Limbaugh or in the wingnutosphere.

The long standing fact, and the virtually universally accepted fact is that the countries of western Europe, U.S. Canada are representative democracies. Word parsing and word smithing (aka, constitutional monarchies, democratic republics, etc.) do not obscure that essential fact. Period, end of story.

Not even worth debating.

Argument of the stone fallacy. I've already described where the terms 'republic' and 'democracy' come from. I didn't invent their meaning. You are simply ignoring them.

Frank Apisa
10-06-2018, 05:15 AM
Pagan it was, but it was not debauched. That came later with the dictators.

During its mightiest...Rome WAS at it most debauched. A large part of the time Rome at it mightiest...IT WAS RULED BY EMPERORS...the "dictators." It was mighty as a "republic" and as an "empire."

Jesus H. Christ, you are stupid...and you are uninformed about Roman history. But no problem...because you are uninformed generally.



No. It fell from within cause by the damage from the dictators.


The "dictators" lasted for 300 years...LONGER THAN AMERICA HAS EXISTED.

Christianity was declared the official religion...and Rome fell from power with a few decades. Christianity came into power...and the entire of Europe plunged into the Dark Ages.

Wake the fuck up. You are embarrassing yourself.



Not facts. Arguments. Learn what a 'fact' is.

I know what a fact is, Asshole. And most of what I have posted is FACT.

Yeah, there are some conclusions drawn...but they are appropriate conclusions.



Not even a coincidence. It didn't happen at the same time.

Now you are just trying to be stupid.

No need.

It is a natural trait with you.

Frank Apisa
10-06-2018, 05:16 AM
Not from Christianity. Christianity turned away from Europe during that time. They shut themselves away in monasteries. Those things were built like forts...to keep the rot of the Dark Ages OUT.

You do not know what you are talking about. And you are doing a lousy job of making shit up.

iolo
10-06-2018, 05:31 AM
Quite true. They seem to change most rapidly when a liberal is using them! ;)

Comes of thinking, see.

Cypress
10-06-2018, 08:32 AM
You do not know what you are talking about. And you are doing a lousy job of making shit up.

Good point.
I cannot have this level of abject ignorance on my threads.
I am going to have to add another dunce to my ban list of racists, dummies, liars, bigots, libelers, and trolls.

Thank you for your lucid observations on the Roman empire.
You would be actually surprised at how infrequent it is to run across erudite posters on the interwebs, and especially jpp dot com!

Into the Night
10-06-2018, 01:59 PM
During its mightiest...Rome WAS at it most debauched. A large part of the time Rome at it mightiest...IT WAS RULED BY EMPERORS...the "dictators." It was mighty as a "republic" and as an "empire."
Rome was a republic. It had a constitution. That lasted until Sulla, the first dictator of Rome.


Jesus H. Christ, you are stupid...and you are uninformed about Roman history. But no problem...because you are uninformed generally.
Inversion fallacy.


The "dictators" lasted for 300 years...LONGER THAN AMERICA HAS EXISTED.
Longer than that! More like 600 years. About 500 years longer than when Christianity came to Rome. Rome didn't fall in a few decades after Christianity came to Rome! The seeds of Rome's destruction was the abandonment of their constitution in favor of dictatorship. Because of the greatness that WAS Rome, it took many centuries for the destruction to finally come about, long AFTER Christianity came to Rome.


Christianity was declared the official religion...and Rome fell from power with a few decades. Christianity came into power...and the entire of Europe plunged into the Dark Ages.
It was NOT declared the official religion. It was declared a 'tolerated' religion. Big difference.


I know what a fact is, Asshole. And most of what I have posted is FACT.
...deleted insult fallacies...

WRONG. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth. A is an assumed predicate. Once anyone disagrees with that predicate, it ceases to be a fact. It becomes an argument. Facts do not even need to be True. You can even have facts about fiction. Those who read and enjoy J.R.R Tolkien's "Lord of the Ring" series, generally agree on the fact that hobbits have hairy feet. That IS a fact. It is a fact about a fictional race.

Into the Night
10-06-2018, 02:01 PM
Good point.
I cannot have this level of abject ignorance on my threads.
I am going to have to add another dunce to my ban list of racists, dummies, liars, bigots, libelers, and trolls.

Thank you for your lucid observations on the Roman empire.
You would be actually surprised at how infrequent it is to run across erudite posters on the interwebs, and especially jpp dot com!

Ah. Another believer of free speech I see.

Frank Apisa
10-06-2018, 02:19 PM
Rome was a republic. It had a constitution. That lasted until Sulla, the first dictator of Rome.

Sorry, Dickhead...but "dictators" were appointed the entire of the Roman Republic times. So stop pretending you know stuff that is not so.


Inversion fallacy.

Horseshit fallacy...on your part.


Longer than that! More like 600 years. About 500 years longer than when Christianity came to Rome. Rome didn't fall in a few decades after Christianity came to Rome! The seeds of Rome's destruction was the abandonment of their constitution in favor of dictatorship. Because of the greatness that WAS Rome, it took many centuries for the destruction to finally come about, long AFTER Christianity came to Rome.


You really are a jerkoff.

Here is what I wrote:


Christianity was declared the official religion...and Rome fell from power with a few decades. Christianity came into power...and the entire of Europe plunged into the Dark Ages.

YOU give us the date that Christianity was declared the official religion...and when you suppose Rome fell.

It was decades...NOT CENTURIES.



It was NOT declared the official religion. It was declared a 'tolerated' religion. Big difference.


IN 323 it BECAME THE OFFICIAL RELIGION OF ROME.

Stop with the bullshit.

You are not up to it...not nearly bright enough.



WRONG. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth. A is an assumed predicate. Once anyone disagrees with that predicate, it ceases to be a fact. It becomes an argument. Facts do not even need to be True. You can even have facts about fiction. Those who read and enjoy J.R.R Tolkien's "Lord of the Ring" series, generally agree on the fact that hobbits have hairy feet. That IS a fact. It is a fact about a fictional race.

You truly are poor at this.

I never said it was a Universal Truth.

Wake up Jerkoff.

Fentoine Lum
10-06-2018, 02:23 PM
Take a good look at the christian we just put on the US Supreme Kangaroo Court.


Pass.


That's not a spiritual path to anywhere.

Into the Night
10-07-2018, 03:18 PM
...deleted insults...but "dictators" were appointed the entire of the Roman Republic times. So stop pretending you know stuff that is not so.
You must be reading Wikipedia. Not a valid source. I discard reference to it on sight. Their articles are too often badly written, incomplete, or just plain wrong.
These 'dictators' were not. They were officials of limited power and scope. Sulla was the first dictator of Rome. At that time Rome ceased to be a republic.


...deleted insults...
YOU give us the date that Christianity was declared the official religion...and when you suppose Rome fell.
Already did. Pay attention.


It was decades...NOT CENTURIES.
It was centuries.


IN 323 it BECAME THE OFFICIAL RELIGION OF ROME.
Did you know that 323 is three hundred and twenty three years AFTER religion came to Rome??


...deleted insults..
re: 'fact'
I never said it was a Universal Truth.
...deleted insults...

No, but you used it as one. Learn what a 'fact' is.

Frank Apisa
10-07-2018, 03:52 PM
You must be reading Wikipedia. Not a valid source. I discard reference to it on sight. Their articles are too often badly written, incomplete, or just plain wrong.
These 'dictators' were not. They were officials of limited power and scope. Sulla was the first dictator of Rome. At that time Rome ceased to be a republic.

Rome was a republic until Augustus became emperor.

Dictators were regularly elected in ancient Rome.

YOU do not know what you are talking about.




Already did. Pay attention.

Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 323.

The fall of Rome is considered by historians to be about 400 AD...although the steep decline is dated to the mid 300 Ad.


It was centuries.


It was decades.



Did you know that 323 is three hundred and twenty three years AFTER religion came to Rome??

Religion came to Rome at its founding, moron.

Christianity did not even exist until the reign of Tiberius AT THE VERY EARLIEST. Tiberius reigned from 14 to 37 AD. It came in the sewers to Rome...BUT was not the official religion until 323 AD.




No, but you used it as one. Learn what a 'fact' is.

I never used the term...and I never inferred it.

Back to school, child. You are doing yourself no good here with adults.

Cypress
10-08-2018, 10:48 AM
Rome was a republic until Augustus became emperor.

Dictators were regularly elected in ancient Rome.

YOU do not know what you are talking about.





Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 323.

The fall of Rome is considered by historians to be about 400 AD...although the steep decline is dated to the mid 300 Ad.




It was decades.




Religion came to Rome at its founding, moron.

Christianity did not even exist until the reign of Tiberius AT THE VERY EARLIEST. Tiberius reigned from 14 to 37 AD. It came in the sewers to Rome...BUT was not the official religion until 323 AD.



I never used the term...and I never inferred it.

Back to school, child. You are doing yourself no good here with adults.

Holy smoke.
I have to commend you for your erudition. Particularly with respect to the Roman Empire.

You would be actually surprised at how potent jpp dot com is at attracting hordes of nincompoops, dummies, and liars. Like pig shit does to flies.

You have inspired me to take an online course on the Roman Empire, something I have been meaning to do - but the scope of your knowledge concerning it puts in right on my radar screen!

Frank Apisa
10-08-2018, 11:23 AM
Holy smoke.
I have to commend you for your erudition. Particularly with respect to the Roman Empire.

You would be actually surprised at how potent jpp dot com is at attracting hordes of nincompoops, dummies, and liars. Like pig shit does to flies.

You have inspired me to take an online course on the Roman Empire, something I have been meaning to do - but the scope of your knowledge concerning it puts in right on my radar screen!

Thanks, Cypress.

I have read dozens of non-fiction books on the Roman Era..and most have delighted. The history of Rome is amazing...and considering the totality of its existence was more than double what America has existed...it give one pause before being too sure of ourselves.

I was luck enough to witness some excavations in Pompeii...and some Roman digs in southern England.

Even Roman fiction can enthrall. Good luck with it.

Cypress
10-08-2018, 12:25 PM
Thanks, Cypress.

I have read dozens of non-fiction books on the Roman Era..and most have delighted. The history of Rome is amazing...and considering the totality of its existence was more than double what America has existed...it give one pause before being too sure of ourselves.

I was luck enough to witness some excavations in Pompeii...and some Roman digs in southern England.

Even Roman fiction can enthrall. Good luck with it.

Outstanding.

I am studying Chinese history currently, but will pivot to Rome when I get a chance.

The western intellectual tradition owes a debt to ancient Greece, but evidently it would be inconceivable for modern western society to exist without the practices and traditions established by the Romans - from politics and governance, to law, to engineering. It all pretty much goes back to Rome. And I plan to get more up to speed on it!

Truth Detector
10-08-2018, 12:29 PM
The opinion and feelings of an obscure rightwing message board poster are inconsequential, wholly without merit, and irrelevant.

But those of an obscure leftwing message board poster are? STFU!!

Truth Detector
10-08-2018, 12:30 PM
Ah. Another believer of free speech I see.

He prefers an echo chamber. ;)

Truth Detector
10-08-2018, 12:31 PM
Sorry, Dickhead...

Horseshit fallacy...on your part.

You really are a jerkoff.

Stop with the bullshit.

You are not up to it...not nearly bright enough.

You truly are poor at this.

Wake up Jerkoff.

:lolup:Signs you have lost an argument; but too stupid to comprehend the obvious. :laugh:

Into the Night
10-08-2018, 01:31 PM
Rome was a republic until Augustus became emperor.
Nope. Sulla was the first dictator of Rome.


Dictators were regularly elected in ancient Rome.
They were not dictators. They were officials elected for specific narrow purposes.


YOU do not know what you are talking about.
I do know what I'm talking about.


Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 323.
Irrelevant.


The fall of Rome is considered by historians to be about 400 AD...although the steep decline is dated to the mid 300 Ad.
Rome fell in 476 A.D.


It was decades.
476-323=153 years, dude. That is not decades, even by YOUR dates.

Rome fell because the taxes were too high, the government became ineffectual, and the armies couldn't win any wars anymore. All the result of the dictatorships of Rome.



Religion came to Rome at its founding, moron.
Not Christianity. Rome was founded 753 BC. That is BEFORE Christ, dude.


Christianity did not even exist until the reign of Tiberius AT THE VERY EARLIEST. Tiberius reigned from 14 to 37 AD. It came in the sewers to Rome...BUT was not the official religion until 323 AD.
I already made that point.


I never used the term...and I never inferred it.
Yes you did. You used a 'fact' as a Universal Truth. Facts are not Universal Truths.


Back to school, child. You are doing yourself no good here with adults.

Mantra 12. Normally I delete these.

Into the Night
10-08-2018, 01:35 PM
Thanks, Cypress.

I have read dozens of non-fiction books on the Roman Era..and most have delighted. The history of Rome is amazing...and considering the totality of its existence was more than double what America has existed...it give one pause before being too sure of ourselves.

I was luck enough to witness some excavations in Pompeii...and some Roman digs in southern England.

Even Roman fiction can enthrall. Good luck with it.

Rome (as a nation) existed from 753 BC to 476 A.D. That's one thousand two hundred and twenty nine years, dude. That is SIX times longer than the United States has existed, not twice!

Into the Night
10-08-2018, 01:37 PM
Outstanding.

I am studying Chinese history currently, but will pivot to Rome when I get a chance.

The western intellectual tradition owes a debt to ancient Greece, but evidently it would be inconceivable for modern western society to exist without the practices and traditions established by the Romans - from politics and governance, to law, to engineering. It all pretty much goes back to Rome. And I plan to get more up to speed on it!

Enjoy your studies. Both Greece and Rome are two of the three pillars of Western Culture (and two of the three pillars upon which the United States was founded).

Frank Apisa
10-08-2018, 02:11 PM
Nope. Sulla was the first dictator of Rome.

They were not dictators. They were officials elected for specific narrow purposes.

I do know what I'm talking about.

Irrelevant.

Rome fell in 476 A.D.

476-323=153 years, dude. That is not decades, even by YOUR dates.

Rome fell because the taxes were too high, the government became ineffectual, and the armies couldn't win any wars anymore. All the result of the dictatorships of Rome.


Not Christianity. Rome was founded 753 BC. That is BEFORE Christ, dude.

I already made that point.

Yes you did. You used a 'fact' as a Universal Truth. Facts are not Universal Truths.

Mantra 12. Normally I delete these.

You sound like a guy somewhere between 18 and 24 years of age...a time when many think they know everything, but actually do not even know enough to realize they know almost nothing.

Rome's decline began at about the same time as Christianity become its official religion.

You will never be able to acknowledge that because you want to think you are smarter and more informed than you are.

Okay...I'll laugh at you and think of the day some years in the future when you look back at yourself as you are today and think, "Wow, I was a major league asshole back then."

Now...go polish an apple and give it to teacher. He or she will be laughing at you also...but will hide that from you in hopes that you will become more than you are right now...sooner rather than later.

Although I am hoping for "sooner"...I am betting on "later."

Frank Apisa
10-08-2018, 02:15 PM
Rome (as a nation) existed from 753 BC to 476 A.D. That's one thousand two hundred and twenty nine years, dude. That is SIX times longer than the United States has existed, not twice!

Are you saying, Asshole, that the entirety of Rome's existence was NOT MORE THAN DOUBLE what America has existed.

Jesus H. Christ...you walk into more intellectual punches than most people throw.

But you ARE fun to mock...so forgive me for doing so with such gusto.

Into the Night
10-09-2018, 04:02 PM
You sound like a guy somewhere between 18 and 24 years of age...a time when many think they know everything, but actually do not even know enough to realize they know almost nothing.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You really think so?? :laugh:


Rome's decline began at about the same time as Christianity become its official religion.
...deleted Mantra 12...

Rome's decline began BEFORE Christianity even came to Rome.