The creators of this site have basically abandoned it. I'm pretty sure they've shifted their efforts to selling the product to schools.

There are still some interesting conversations to be had though. Provided you have thick skin and lots of patience.

For the most part, children lack the ability to direct their own lives. Child labor is close to slavery because it is very difficult for a young child to say no to their parents or some other authority figure.

Do you think it is fair to say that the people who visit such distress upon their victims deserve arbitration?

Yes. Now you answer mine.

Democracy is as much a tyranny as the worst autocracy

Not true at all. Officials can fail to be re-elected. It happens all the time. They can be impeached.

After he is elected, he can do as he pleases, so long as he corrupts the necessary people, which is always possible.

Not if a government has appropriate checks on power. I suppose technically he still could, but then anyone could do anything assuming they "corrupt the necessary people", so this is not a useful statement.

When was the last time a democratic government ceased an activity, repealed a law or abstained from some new tax because of public demands.

It doesn't happen very often, but I would say that's because democratic governments generally don't pass unpopular laws.

Rather let us have one Caesar, one champion of the people.

What makes you think this Caesar would be a champion of the people?

Modern democracy ultimately consists of idiots choosing between two or more groups of idiots.

Not true. Intelligence is normally distributed. And I think the bell-curve of both the electorate and the elected must be skewed to the right.

I do not bow before something so fickle as the tyranny of the masses.

You do it every day. If you didn't you would be arrested.

people do not know what they want

They do when it comes to certain things. People generally want sustinence, safety, good relationships, etc. I think it's safe to say they know they want these things.

They are so staggeringly stupid that you can tell them what they want and they will believe you.

I don't think this is true. People can be influenced to various degrees -- but if it were so easy to shape opinion, democratic processes would be a lot less contentious.

Being allowed to kill your daughter's rapist does not equate to a license to kill indiscriminately.

Why should you be able to disregard the rule of law in one case but not another? Would such hypocrisy not undermine the law's authority?

In this case you would simply lead the killers to your family, endangering them as well.

Come on, now. I was trying to come up with a situation where there would be profound negative consequences to fighting and profound benefits to running away. I'm sure you can imagine such a circumstance.

I was saying that I should rather conquer the world and subjugate everybody in it for the betterment of my own people and their allies than I would level the entire race to mediocrity.

"Level to mediocrity"? When did I suggest that? I said greatness comes from improving humanity. This benefit need not be distributed uniformly.

It does, as the only possibly reason one would favour democracy is if one is a champion of the people.

I'm saying "champion of the people" has a significantly stronger connotation than "one who sees democracy as a necessary evil".

The most fitting punishment for such a heinous crime is that demanded by the victim.

Do you think it's fair to say that people in an emotionally distressed state have an inhibited ability to make rational decisions?

Democracy is ridiculous.

Yes, but less so. Just ask your buddy, Churchill.

The same is true of representative democracies.

Yes, but much less so.

"A multitude of rulers is not a good thing; let there be one ruler, one king."

Homer

Modern democracies generally strike a balance between executive power and the mob-rule he seems to be disparaging.

So your morals should factor into my decision to kill my daughter's rapist?

Yes, the collective morals of society, of which mine are part, should factor into your decision. If everybody simply did whatever they wanted, society would fall into chaos.

Running from a fight is never the honourable thing.

Suppose you're up against a SWAT team out to kill you. You have no weapons. You have a family to support. You can escape if you run. If you stay and fight, death is virtually certain. Would it be honorable to stay and fight in this case? What about your responsibility to your family?

I'd sooner increase the well-being of my own people ten-fold than the well-being of ten peoples once.

I don't see the point of this statement. The net gain to humanity would be the same in either case (assuming your people's gains don't come at the expense of another's).

Those who abhor violence are most often those with no capacity for it.

Silly ad hominem. I assume this is your way of conceding the point.

Of course, championing people whilst simultaneously declaring them to be primitive is not hypocritical at all.

Saying democracy is less bad than autocracy hardly makes me a champion of the people.

I doubt that you would feel the same way if your daughter was raped.

Which is precisely the problem with vigilantism. The victim is not in a position to objectively judge the appropriate punishment.

Yes, in accordance with the Caesarian system.

Well that's just ridiculous. Without representation, the vast majority of people would have their interests crushed in favor of those of the autocrat and his chronies. The ethical gap between Democracy and Autocracy is just staggering.

Honour does not consist exclusively of abiding by the law.

I didn't say it did. I said "established moral framework", of which the law is an important part, deserving of its due weight. Running from a fight may or may not be the honorable thing, depending on the circumstances.

Not exclusively, but martial prowess is the greatest form of glory and by extension greatness.

I strongly disagree. Greatness comes from increasing the well-being of humanity as a whole. Martial prowess do not hold any advantage over other ways of achieving this.

The need to conquer, the will to dominate; this appeals to man, whether he admits it or not.

I agree that appeals to some men, probably most men. But the conquests which give such exstacy to our tribal minds could only be called "great" in the most base, superficial sense of the word.

Fat + Sugar > Sugar

When it comes to taste anyway.

....................................

There are few crimes of such a magnitude as compel people to seek vengeance personally.

Ok... so let's say the punishment for rape is the death penalty. I think that would be an excessive punishment, but let's leave that aside. Wouldn't you agree that it would be better to carry out this punishment through the legal system rather than by engaging in vigilantism?

Augustus Caesar...achieved [peace] by killing all of his political enemies.

1) Eliminating rivals to achieve peace may arguably be a good idea. But that's a separate topic from the question of seeking revenge for wrongs.

2) Caesar didn't kill all of his opponents. Several were pardoned along the way.

3) Are you suggesting autocracy as a desirable system of government?

Living in a society with no concept of honour is distinctly barbarian.

Honor consists of competing fairly within an established moral framework. Disregarding the legal system for selfish revenge is dishonorable.

Alexander...Caesar...Churchill

Ok, so you define greatness as success at war. That's still an overly-narrow definition.

It would take extensive study to know for sure. But I would guess Google because search is Google's central business whereas it's more tangential for Microsoft.

I'd also go with Google because they are a non-evil company.

Not for a crime of such a scale as warrants revenge.

This sentence lacks meaning. A small-scale crime could be said to warrant small-scale revenge.

Nothing short of firing squad [or crucifixion] would satisfy me

And by administering this excessive punishment you would no doubt be creating new enemies for yourself, thereby perpetuating a cycle of violence and hate.

rape is, in my opinion, the most heinous crime, after treason

So Holocaust < rape?

That's the problem with people these days. No concept of a beautiful death.

The problem with people comes from applying cave-man thinking to the modern era.

The greatest men in history took their glory with the edge of a sword.

If you define "greatness" as number of people killed then maybe...

Even if one refuses food for religious reasons, that doesn't change the fact that they desire it.

There's some terminological difficulty that comes up when talking about morality. I like to say that morals are values traditionally held by a population whereas ethics are values which are derived logically.

The ethic that "food is good when you're very hungry" is universally true because (arguably) all humans desire food.