#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
an eye for an eye makes the world blind
TOMORROW IS MY DEBATE & I HAVE NO IDEA THAT WHAT I DO PLEASE HELP ME.AGAINST
*1
Side Score: 19
|
 |
yes
Side Score: 18
|
|
2
points
You don't forgive them. You arrest them, give them a fair trial, and then sentence them in accordance with just laws. Justice is better than mere vengeance. --- Someone said, "What do you say concerning the principle that injury should be recompensed with kindness?" The Master said, "With what then will you recompense kindness? Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness." http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHPHIL/ "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Side: yes
2
points
You don't forgive them. Apparently you do, if they have not a life sentence. You arrest them, give them a fair trial, and then sentence them in accordance with just laws. Define just for the raped wife of a murdered man. Justice is better than mere vengeance. In minor cases, yes. "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." "The way of revenge lies in simply forcing ones way into a place and being cut down. There is no shame in this. By thinking that you must complete the job you will run out of time. By considering things like how many men the enemy has, time piles up; in the end you will give up. No matter if the enemy has thousands of men, there is fulfillment in simply standing them off and being determined to cut them all down, starting from one end. You will finish the greater part of it." Yamamoto Tsunetomo, Hagakure (1710–1716) Side: *1
Well there's such a thing as a permanent record. But yes, eventual forgiveness for the vast majority of offenses seems like a good idea to me. The punishment for rape and murder varies from place to place, but I think in every case the penalty is quite severe. And of course subjective ideas of justice vary from person to person. But the law must be constant. Life in prison sounds reasonable to me. Tsunetomo sounds like kind of dumbass, imho. One can have a far greater impact on the world by doing the unglamorous, grinding work needed to create systematic change than by hacking through those perceived to be enemies until struck down. Side: yes
1
point
But yes, eventual forgiveness for the vast majority of offenses seems like a good idea to me. Not for a crime of such a scale as warrants revenge. The punishment for rape and murder varies from place to place, but I think in every case the penalty is quite severe. Nothing short of firing squad would satisfy me (rape is, in my opinion, the most heinous crime, after treason). If I had my way, rapists and traitors would be crucified (Rome fanatic). And of course subjective ideas of justice vary from person to person. But the law must be constant. Life in prison sounds reasonable to me. Would you feel the same way if your mother was raped and then murdered? Tsunetomo sounds like kind of dumbass, imho. That's the problem with people these days. No concept of a beautiful death. One can have a far greater impact on the world by doing the unglamorous, grinding work needed to create systematic change than by hacking through those perceived to be enemies until struck down. The greatest men in history took their glory with the edge of a sword. Side: *1
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... Side: yes
1
point
This sentence lacks meaning. A small-scale crime could be said to warrant small-scale revenge. I disagree. There are few crimes of such a magnitude as compel people to seek vengeance personally. Would you track a man down because he stole your phone, or would you contact the police? And by administering this excessive punishment you would no doubt be creating new enemies for yourself, thereby perpetuating a cycle of violence and hate. Not true. The greatest Roman Leader was Augustus Caesar, who oversaw a period of peace lasting 60 years. He achieved this by killing all of his political enemies. Conversely, Gaius Julius Caesar was murdered by the political opponents whom he had forgiven and shown mercy to. So Holocaust < rape? The holocaust is a series of murders of incredible magnitude, not an individual crime. I think raping 1-6 million women and children would be worse. The problem with people comes from applying cave-man thinking to the modern era. Living in a society with no concept of honour is distinctly barbarian. If you define "greatness" as number of people killed then maybe... Alexander was great because he conquered much of the old world. Caesar was great because he conquered Gaul. Churchill was great because he staved off Hitler. Side: *1
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. Side: yes
1
point
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. I doubt that you would feel the same way if your daughter was raped. Wouldn't you agree that it would be better to carry out this punishment through the legal system rather than by engaging in vigilantism? No. I am not some prole to be handled so; transgressors should die by the hand of their victims, should the victims desire it so. If necessary, a trial may be performed afterwards to justify the action. 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. I agree, but you brought it up. Caesar didn't kill all of his opponents. Several were pardoned along the way. Roman society was organised in such a way as made it perfectly reasonable to forgive military opponents. It was his political opponents that Augustus Caesar eradicated. To clarify, those opponents with little or no political power or understanding were forgiven. Are you suggesting autocracy as a desirable system of government? Yes, in accordance with the Caesarian system. Honor consists of competing fairly within an established moral framework. Disregarding the legal system for selfish revenge is dishonorable. I disagree. Honour does not consist exclusively of abiding by the law. Fighting is illegal, but running from a fight is dishonourable. Ok, so you define greatness as success at war. That's still an overly-narrow definition. Not exclusively, but martial prowess is the greatest form of glory and by extension greatness. The need to conquer, the will to dominate; this appeals to man, whether he admits it or not. Side: *1
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. Side: yes
1
point
The victim is not in a position to objectively judge the appropriate punishment. The most fitting punishment for such a heinous crime is that demanded by the victim. Well that's just ridiculous. Democracy is ridiculous. Without representation, the vast majority of people would have their interests crushed The same is true of representative democracies. George Bush jr., Richard Nixon, Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy, The Lisbon Treaty (What? They said no? Make them vote again!)... The ethical gap between Democracy and Autocracy is just staggering. "A multitude of rulers is not a good thing; let there be one ruler, one king." Homer I didn't say it did. I said "established moral framework", of which the law is an important part, deserving of its due weight. So your morals should factor into my decision to kill my daughter's rapist? I think not. Running from a fight may or may not be the honorable thing Running from a fight is never the honourable thing. Stand like a man; win or die like a man. I strongly disagree. Of course you do. Greatness comes from increasing the well-being of humanity as a whole. I'd sooner increase the well-being of my own people ten-fold than the well-being of ten peoples once. Martial prowess do not hold any advantage over other ways of achieving this. Those who abhor violence are most often those with no capacity for it. 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. Of course, championing people whilst simultaneously declaring them to be primitive is not hypocritical at all. Side: *1
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. Side: yes
1
point
Do you think it's fair to say that people in an emotionally distressed state have an inhibited ability to make rational decisions? Do you think it is fair to say that the people who visit such distress upon their victims deserve arbitration? Yes, but less so. Just ask your buddy, Churchill. This is a conflict of ideology, with no end in sight; nevertheless I shall persevere. Democracy is as much a tyranny as the worst autocracy, with the fundamental difference being that the dictator is not determined solely by strength and cunning, but chiefly by his ability to lie through a smile. After he is elected, he can do as he pleases, so long as he corrupts the necessary people, which is always possible. Yes, but much less so. Not really. When was the last time a democratic government ceased an activity, repealed a law or abstained from some new tax because of public demands. They never do so and if people try to force the point they simply deploy riot squads to beat the dissenters into submission. Rather let us have one Caesar, one champion of the people. Modern democracies generally strike a balance between executive power and the mob-rule he seems to be disparaging. Modern democracy ultimately consists of idiots choosing between two or more groups of idiots. Yes, the collective morals of society, of which mine are part, should factor into your decision. I do not bow before something so fickle as the tyranny of the masses. A quick lesson for you; people do not know what they want. They are so staggeringly stupid that you can tell them what they want and they will believe you. Society's morals change not because of some communal epiphany, but because of some dramatic scandal or speech. To convert one man can take years. A million, however, may be converted over the course of a five minutes. If everybody simply did whatever they wanted, society would fall into chaos. You misunderstand. Being allowed to kill your daughter's rapist does not equate to a license to kill indiscriminately. Gods man, this bastard violated a child of the Ruplinii (as the Roman tradition would have it)! Death is too lenient a punishment. 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? As I said, running from battle is never honourable. In this case you would simply lead the killers to your family, endangering them as well. Shaming your family by committing such a crime as warrants death is bad enough; best to redeem yourself by dwelling in your necessity. 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). 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. At present it is impossible to raise all of humanity to our level, hence my allegiance is to my countrymen. Silly ad hominem. I assume this is your way of conceding the point. Think nothing of the sort. You countered my ideology by stating your own ideology; there is no point to concede. Saying democracy is less bad than autocracy hardly makes me a champion of the people. It does, as the only possibly reason one would favour democracy is if one is a champion of the people. Side: *1
Not really. When was the last time a democratic government ceased an activity, repealed a law or abstained from some new tax because of public demands. They never do so and if people try to force the point they simply deploy riot squads to beat the dissenters into submission. Rather let us have one Caesar, one champion of the people. Well, in the US a modern example would be the marriage reform laws. Enough public pressure has caused the matter to be pushed through courts. Modern democracy ultimately consists of idiots choosing between two or more groups of idiots. Most governments have this problem. At least in a democracy there's more capacity to change than say, a monarchy. I do not bow before something so fickle as the tyranny of the masses. A quick lesson for you; people do not know what they want. They are so staggeringly stupid that you can tell them what they want and they will believe you. Society's morals change not because of some communal epiphany, but because of some dramatic scandal or speech. To convert one man can take years. A million, however, may be converted over the course of a five minutes. Again, this problem exists in most governments. Quick example, in Britain despite the overwhelming lack of interest and outright demand of citizens to NOT have a national ID system, and constant surveillance, your government pushes ahead with it anyway. Britain's basically a police state now, or on the cusp of being one in any case. The people don't want this, and they have hardly any power to stop it. My overriding point is that the complaints you have against democracy are systems-wide flaws of governments, more or less. You're looking at mature governments that have struck the balance between ignoring the peoples' wishes enough that they can live in opulence and engage in wars, while doing just enough to keep the people from revolting, and political factions from overthrowing them. Side: yes
1
point
Well, in the US a modern example would be the marriage reform laws. Enough public pressure has caused the matter to be pushed through courts. For every example of that, I have at least three contrary example to counter it: Lisbon Treaty. Declaration of War on Iraq. Recapitalisation of major banks. Most governments have this problem. At least in a democracy there's more capacity to change than say, a monarchy. All you accomplish is to change the idiot in charge. The chances of electing a good president is roughly equal to the accession of a good king. Again, this problem exists in most governments. Quick example, in Britain despite the overwhelming lack of interest and outright demand of citizens to NOT have a national ID system, and constant surveillance, your government pushes ahead with it anyway. Which is why we need a Caesar to put New Labour to death (I know not where the Tories stand as yet). Britain's basically a police state now, or on the cusp of being one in any case. The people don't want this, and they have hardly any power to stop it. Again, we need a benevolent dictator to unravel the nonsense. All this has happened before; and will happen again. My overriding point is that the complaints you have against democracy are systems-wide flaws of governments, more or less. My overriding point is that democratic governments have no clear agenda; their processes are slow, the changes they make generally insipid. The reason I cite their disdain for public opinion is that they are supposed to adhere to it. You're looking at mature governments that have struck the balance between ignoring the peoples' wishes A government which professes to be democratic should have No Right to ignore the people's wishes. None whatsoever; in any case, no matter how trivial. Side: *1
For every example of that, I have at least three contrary example to counter it: Lisbon Treaty. Declaration of War on Iraq. Recapitalisation of major banks. All that matters to the discussion is that I demonstrated at least one instance of you being wrong. All you accomplish is to change the idiot in charge. The chances of electing a good president is roughly equal to the accession of a good king. That... is more a mathematical thing. What is the probability of having a fit heir compared to a nation of men and women having all sorts of children with some percentage being fit leaders, and of those some percentage that successfully pursue politics? Which is why we need a Caesar to put New Labour to death (I know not where the Tories stand as yet). If you lived in Jesusland, you could overthrow the government. Not that it'll ever happen though. Well, over here you can at least vote them out of office majority. Again, we need a benevolent dictator to unravel the nonsense. All this has happened before; and will happen again. Benevolent dictators don't exist, at best you get a dictator whose desires coincide with the majority of citizens. It also works very poorly in big populations (too many people with different wants to be heard by the dictator). My overriding point is that democratic governments have no clear agenda; their processes are slow, the changes they make generally insipid. The reason I cite their disdain for public opinion is that they are supposed to adhere to it. Replace "democratic" with "monarchy" or "fascist" or "theocratic" and it's more or less the same. A government which professes to be democratic should have No Right to ignore the people's wishes. None whatsoever; in any case, no matter how trivial. Right, but in reality we have people in power who merely want to stay in power some way, and who want to live in comfort, so we get a failed system no matter what. Side: yes
1
point
All that matters to the discussion is that I demonstrated at least one instance of you being wrong. I recall that you once said that you do not judge a crowd by exceptions, or something to that effect. What is the probability of having a fit heir compared to a nation of men and women having all sorts of children with some percentage being fit leaders A Caesar may choose his heir, regardless of heritage. If you lived in Jesusland, you could overthrow the government. Not that it'll ever happen though. Well, over here you can at least vote them out of office majority. I shall reiterate: one idiot for another. I do not trust an opinion so fickle that it can be changed by a colourful poster. Benevolent dictators don't exist The desert being dry does not negate a stranded man's need for water. at best you get a dictator whose desires coincide with the majority of citizens. At worst, in some cases. It also works very poorly in big populations (too many people with different wants to be heard by the dictator). It is a simple thing to change what people want. Replace "democratic" with "monarchy" or "fascist" or "theocratic" and it's more or less the same. Quote: The reason I cite their disdain for public opinion is that they are supposed to adhere to it Since when have monarchies, theocracies and fascist states been obliged to adhere to public opinion? Right, but in reality we have people in power who merely want to stay in power some way, and who want to live in comfort, so we get a failed system no matter what. Remove the need to want to preserve those things (Elections etc) and let him guarantee his position through the successful governance of the nation. To clarify, many democratic governments abstain from making the hard, necessary decisions because they wish to remain in power. If a dictator will remain in power regardless, he will have no need to abstain from making them. Side: *1
I recall that you once said that you do not judge a crowd by exceptions, or something to that effect. You said that in a democratic government the citizens' wishes are never followed. A Caesar may choose his heir, regardless of heritage. So alter it to compare fitness of one man's primary interests guiding an heir for leadership, or a nation of candidates electing one. I shall reiterate: one idiot for another. I do not trust an opinion so fickle that it can be changed by a colourful poster. Look, for what it's worth, intelligent people like us will always feel cheated out of a good government because of the short-sightedness of stupid people. Nevertheless, democracy has elected a number of good leaders throughout history, call it hit-and-miss. The desert being dry does not negate a stranded man's need for water. Saltwater will not quench his thirst, however. Autocracy cannot work for a large society and keep everyone's interests at heart because a single leader simply lacks the ability to know what's best for everyone, there will always be a level of blindness and so even with the best intentions he will harm some citizens. Separation of powers exists to also keep his pettiness from ruining people, because a dictator is always but a man. It is a simple thing to change what people want. We aren't considering subterfuge however, since the assumption is that a dictatorship could solve problems better than democracy if the dictator is benevolent. Since when have monarchies, theocracies and fascist states been obliged to adhere to public opinion? For these governments there are two options. Concede to enough of the citizens' wants so that you quell any chance of uprising, or create a strong military and police force to keep the citizens under arrest. Either option is vulnerable to coups but it should be obvious that the military option is most susceptible. To clarify, many democratic governments abstain from making the hard, necessary decisions because they wish to remain in power. If a dictator will remain in power regardless, he will have no need to abstain from making them. This is true, however his impunity also means that he has little need to enact big policy changes for his people's desires. In which case he must enact them only enough to keep popularity up (so as to prevent uprisings). Side: yes
1
point
You said that in a democratic government the citizens' wishes are never followed. If not never then rarely. So alter it to compare fitness of one man's primary interests guiding an heir for leadership, or a nation of candidates electing one. I value the opinion of one great and intelligent man more than I do that of a nation of idiots. Look, for what it's worth, intelligent people like us will always feel cheated out of a good government because of the short-sightedness of stupid people. Why should I bow to a questionable ideal simply because it is widely held? To believe that the validity of an opinion is contingent upon its popularity is foolish, as it would necessitate the existence of God. Nevertheless, democracy has elected a number of good leaders throughout history, call it hit-and-miss. So democracy has at times failed to fail. I understand that you don't like to advocate an absolute side, but this seems to be particularly insipid. Saltwater will not quench his thirst, however. He doesn't need salt-water, he needs water. What is available does not change what is needed. Autocracy cannot work for a large society and keep everyone's interests at heart because a single leader simply lacks the ability to know what's best for everyone Multiplying the number of men who do not know x or y does not bring one closer to the answer. there will always be a level of blindness and so even with the best intentions he will harm some citizens. Not exclusive to autocracy. If this is a system-defeating problem then it seems that there is no desirable form of government. Separation of powers exists to also keep his pettiness from ruining people, because a dictator is always but a man. Corruption exists to prevent Separation of powers from preventing said. We aren't considering subterfuge however, since the assumption is that a dictatorship could solve problems better than democracy if the dictator is benevolent. If the dictator is benevolent then it stands to reason that he might change popular desire for the good of the people. For these governments there are two options. Concede to enough of the citizens' wants so that you quell any chance of uprising, or create a strong military and police force to keep the citizens under arrest. Either option is vulnerable to coups but it should be obvious that the military option is most susceptible. You missed the point. Not adhering to public opinion is not a valid criticism of a system of government which does not profess to do so. This is true, however his impunity also means that he has little need to enact big policy changes for his people's desires. It stands to reason that a man who desires power would not be moderate in its employment. Side: *1
I value the opinion of one great and intelligent man more than I do that of a nation of idiots. If you accept that the leader may be a great and intelligent man then it follows that a nation with millions of citizens must have many of them, each worthy of your attention. So democracy has at times failed to fail. I understand that you don't like to advocate an absolute side, but this seems to be particularly insipid. I'm not really arguing for democracy though. The system we have is miserable because it has been subverted so that we must vote between two parties that don't represent our interests amongst them. In fact it's like the old ploy, if you want to break democracy, make the choices between two things no one would want. However, I can't advocate a monarchy either. It seems like governments exist to degenerate into something that has outlived its purpose. He doesn't need salt-water, he needs water. What is available does not change what is needed. I'm suggesting, as per the metaphor, that a benevolent dictator is saltwater. Multiplying the number of men who do not know x or y does not bring one closer to the answer. Think of it like a statistical average. The more samples you have, the closer the average ought to approach the theory. The more governors you have, the smaller the amount of power that resides within each, and therefore the less ability to act on behalf of personal whims or malice, as you approach an ideal threshold between the point when you have too many governors for efficiency and too few to minimise corruption. Further, to answer your precise objection, having more governors allows for each governor to only need to know about the wants and needs of those he immediately governs. His job is made more manageable. Not exclusive to autocracy. If this is a system-defeating problem then it seems that there is no desirable form of government. There might be, but it probably requires a level of recursion that is much greater than what we now have. If the dictator is benevolent then it stands to reason that he might change popular desire for the good of the people. It's not about the good of the people, but about their wishes. That's what we were discussing. You missed the point. Not adhering to public opinion is not a valid criticism of a system of government which does not profess to do so. All governments must do what I outlined, even if they don't suggest it at face value. It's a matter of survival. Side: yes
1
point
If you accept that the leader may be a great and intelligent man then it follows that a nation with millions of citizens must have many of them, each worthy of your attention. My concept: The dictator shall be appointed by the king or queen, chosen from a senate composed of all such individuals. The king or queen shall have military power, the dictator shall have legislative power, but will usually answer to the senate. However, the autocratic element comes in when he calls a vote of absolute confidence. The vote may be regal or democratic, with a regal vote equalling a a democratic majority of 60%. If the motion succeeds, he shall be given one week of absolute power. After that period he shall have to call another vote. I'm not really arguing for democracy though. The system we have is miserable because it has been subverted so that we must vote between two parties that don't represent our interests amongst them. In fact it's like the old ploy, if you want to break democracy, make the choices between two things no one would want. However, I can't advocate a monarchy either. It seems like governments exist to degenerate into something that has outlived its purpose. All of which my concept seeks to address. I'm suggesting, as per the metaphor, that a benevolent dictator is saltwater. The metaphor has been superseded by the actual arguments. Think of it like a statistical average. The more samples you have, the closer the average ought to approach the theory. The more governors you have, the smaller the amount of power that resides within each, and therefore the less ability to act on behalf of personal whims or malice, as you approach an ideal threshold between the point when you have too many governors for efficiency and too few to minimise corruption. Further, to answer your precise objection, having more governors allows for each governor to only need to know about the wants and needs of those he immediately governs. His job is made more manageable. I believe I have addressed this with my system. It's not about the good of the people, but about their wishes. That's what we were discussing. As I am representing a dictatorship (or was), I am definitely not discussing their wishes. All governments must do what I outlined, even if they don't suggest it at face value. It's a matter of survival. So you are saying that governments all adhere to public opinion or take a rout of oppression which will ultimately lead to their downfall, whilst simultaneously criticizing them for ignoring public opinion or being concerned only with their survival? Side: *1
The dictator shall be appointed by the king or queen, chosen from a senate composed of all such individuals. The king or queen shall have military power, the dictator shall have legislative power, but will usually answer to the senate. However, the autocratic element comes in when he calls a vote of absolute confidence. The vote may be regal or democratic, with a regal vote equalling a a democratic majority of 60%. If the motion succeeds, he shall be given one week of absolute power. After that period he shall have to call another vote. The element of a king and queen introduces an element of immediate social inequality, and a sacrifice of merit, because a bloodline does not guarantee fitness for the task. The big way that your system can fail is through the royalty working together with the dictator to grant him perpetual autocratic rights. The monarchs may wish for complete power and would use the dictator as a proxy for their authority, especially if favours are provided to the dictator. Another way this could fail is by dictators slowly lengthening the period of their absolute power, until it is for years or even a lifetime. Your system creates competition between two parties for complete control, with cooperation being a way in which they can achieve it, or infighting to cancel the other out. I believe I have addressed this with my system. If you distribute power amongst many, then it becomes very difficult to amass influence. The risk only comes in cooperation amongst groups of those who share power, to form a kind of gang based on shared values. So you are saying that governments all adhere to public opinion or take a rout of oppression which will ultimately lead to their downfall, whilst simultaneously criticizing them for ignoring public opinion or being concerned only with their survival? More or less. Confusing isn't it? Side: yes
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". Side: yes
1
point
Now you answer mine. Which? Not true at all. Officials can fail to be re-elected. It happens all the time. They can be impeached. You misunderstand. The officials are misguided puppets. The idiot masses are the ones who rule. It doesn't happen very often, but I would say that's because democratic governments generally don't pass unpopular laws. That is an outright lie. What makes you think this Caesar would be a champion of the people? Otherwise he would not be Caesar. 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. The mean of the sum is swayed neither way. You do it every day. If you didn't you would be arrested. Thus far I have never had cause to break the law, but if I had a reason, I would do so without pause. 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. I was speaking politically, of course. People can be influenced to various degrees -- but if it were so easy to shape opinion, democratic processes would be a lot less contentious. This is because those elected are often as impressionable and stupid as those who elected them. 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? That is like saying that varying the magnitude of punishments undermines the authority of laws that do not carry high penalties. 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. Honour does not consist of doing the logical thing. This benefit need not be distributed uniformly. Then presumably I can use whatever means are available to do so. Side: *1
He lives. Which? The one your question was a response to, of course: "Do you think it's fair to say that people in an emotionally distressed state have an inhibited ability to make rational decisions?" The idiot masses are the ones who rule. There is a balance to be struck between majority rule and executive power. Haven't we been over this? That is an outright lie. I don't believe it is. Perhaps you're struggling with the word "generally"? Otherwise he would not be Caesar. Your answers are glib to the point of meaninglessness. Why open your mouth if you're not going to advance the dialog? Anyway, obviously what I was asking was, "What makes you think an autocrat would serve the people's best interests?" Do you think there exists a being so angelic as to forgo the self-interest endemic to all living things? Do you think you are such a being? Not a chance. Man is a self-perpetuation machine first, and a rational being only to the extent that serves the former. Rationalization and self-deception are vices even the wisest cannot escape. We need systems which account and compensate for our common weaknesses. Thus far I have never had cause to break the law, but if I had a reason, I would do so without pause. You have never refrained from an activity because if was illegal? Now I think you are simply lying to yourself. Arrogance can make honest introspection difficult. Look: why don't you rob a convenience store? Tell them you are appropriating their money in order to fund the New British Empire, of which you are the sole authority. It's for their own good of course. I think you will not do this. I think you can come up with some clever sounding bullshit excuse for not doing it, but the real reason you don't do it is that you would be arrested. I was speaking politically, of course. People don't know what they want politically? Well that's wrong too. People want, and will vote for, policies which they think will benefit them, policies which forward their idealogical views, etc. People aren't going to vote for someone who promises a fork in the eye for everyone, I don't care how dazzling their smile. I'm afraid you're going to have to elaborate if you really think this isn't true. This is because those elected are often as impressionable and stupid as those who elected them. I don't think you're really saying anything here, other than declaring people other than yourself stupid. How does stupidity in elected officials lead to contentious politics? Do you think the debate about, say, whether to invade Iraq was worthless? That it was just a mob of idiots without any reasonable arguments? That is like saying that varying the magnitude of punishments undermines the authority of laws that do not carry high penalties. What? How are the two anything alike? You breaking laws while expecting others to obey them is hypocrital. Having a punishment fit the crime is not. I really don't see any connection here. Honour does not consist of doing the logical thing. There is a logical component to it. Then presumably I can use whatever means are available to do so. Yes, in theory. But what I'm saying is, in reality you would fail to rule justly if you had unlimited power because you are human and humans are flawed. Unchecked power is inevitably abused. Side: yes
1
point
He lives. To the chagrin of many. Do you think it's fair to say that people in an emotionally distressed state have an inhibited ability to make rational decisions? I think that people in that state are the only ones who can assess the extent of the damage done. There is a balance to be struck between majority rule and executive power. Haven't we been over this? You failed to convince me that this balance is ever achieved. Your answers are glib to the point of meaninglessness. Why open your mouth if you're not going to advance the dialog[ue]? You seem to misunderstand who Caesar was and what one is. "What makes you think an autocrat would serve the people's best interests? Presumably because he is intelligent enough to realise that a contented, affluent people can only increase his own power. Do you think there exists a being so angelic as to forgo the self-interest endemic to all living things? As I have said, it is in his own interest to serve their best interests. Do you think you are such a being? Yes, in a manner of speaking. You underestimate my devotion to England. Man is a self-perpetuation machine first, and a rational being only to the extent that serves the former. This is why you struggle with the concept of honour. You cannot comprehend why a man would die for an idea. You have never refrained from an activity because if was illegal? No. I have never felt a passing interest in the rape, robbing or destruction of a person such as would warrant the defiance of a law. However, if I felt threatened by a law, I would by all means attempt to destroy it. ook: why don't you rob a convenience store? Because I am a compassionate capitalist. Tell them you are appropriating their money in order to fund the New British Empire, of which you are the sole authority. Taking money in order to fund the official government is called taxation and equates to this scenario. I think you can come up with some clever sounding bullshit excuse for not doing it, but the real reason you don't do it is that you would be arrested. No, it is for the reasons so recently expressed. People don't know what they want politically? Of course not, else majority favour would not swing so often. People want, and will vote for, policies which they think will benefit them, policies which forward their idealogical views, etc. See, they don't understand half of these policies, as political parties masquerade their agendas as legitimate plans of action. When they do something right, it is to secure their own dominance, whereafter they may for some years do as they please. The constant to and fro has left most people either confused or fanatic. The confused do not understand by default, whereas the fanatics know only what they have been told to know, figuratively speaking. More literally, they have been told by those they favour that such is the case, therefore such must be done. They rarely understand the ramifications of either their political inertia or the policies they blindly support. I don't think you're really saying anything here, other than declaring people other than yourself stupid. I have proved my own intelligence many times over. I have reached a point where I can safely observe the folly of others. Whatever activities you partake of either don't bring you into contact with the ruck, or you are one of them. Another possibility is that you are a liberal and incapable of believing the convenient truth, which serves the likes of me more than it does you. Do you think the debate about, say, whether to invade Iraq was worthless It happened and was always going to happen, so yes. That it was just a mob of idiots without any reasonable arguments? If they thought that any number of reasonable arguments would alter the outcome, then their intelligence has been misdirected. How many millions of people have to protest an action before you realise that the democracy you blindly follow is a lie? You breaking laws while expecting others to obey them is hypocri[ic]tal. Obviously I would have the laws changed. But what I'm saying is, in reality you would fail to rule justly if you had unlimited power If I had ultimate power, what would be the point in being corrupt? What is their to gain? Side: *1
I think that people in that state are the only ones who can assess the extent of the damage done. I am sure this is not the case. Nearly always one perceives pain inflicted on themselves to be greater than an equal amount of pain visited upon another. What about temporary insanity? Do you think that doesn't exist? You failed to convince me that this balance is ever achieved. Of course a perfect balance is never going to be achieved. You keep thinking in black and white terms: we either have an autocrat or mob-rule. The recent financial bailouts provide one instance of the people's will being overruled for the greater good. You seem to misunderstand who Caesar was and what one is. This is the part where you're supposed to inform me of the facts you think I'm missing. Presumably because he is intelligent enough to realise that a contented, affluent people can only increase his own power. Absolute power, maybe. Humans tend to care more about relative power. As I have said, it is in his own interest to serve their best interests. And what if it's not? What if a situation comes along where their interests diverge? This is why you struggle with the concept of honour. I know very well what honor means. The problem here is that you have arbitrarily selected an overly narrow definition of the word. You cannot comprehend why a man would die for an idea. 1) I can understand dying for an idea. I don't know where you got the idea that I didn't. But the thing is: Death is lighter than a feather; duty heavier than a mountain. 2) You seem to have an overly narrow definition of self-interest. You're genes are present in your countrymen. Perhaps this provides us with the real explanation for your loyalty? Because I am a compassionate capitalist... Hmmm, I don't buy it. You want to be dictator of the world, right? Would it not be better to appoint yourself ASAP? Why wait till tomorrow when you can do it today? You could certainly get there faster by breaking a few laws. Of course not, else majority favour would not swing so often. One would expect public opinion to evolve over time as new information becomes available. Show me evidence of wildly oscillating views. See, they don't understand half of these policies, as political parties masquerade their agendas as legitimate plans of action. Their agendas are legitimate plans of action. Serious scholars in think-tanks study the potential legislative landscape and make recommendations. Politicians reconcile these recommendations with the political realties. Comprimises are made. It may not be pretty, but stuff gets done reasonably well. When they do something right, it is to secure their own dominance, whereafter they may for some years do as they please. How can you apply this criticism to the heads of political parties while simultaneously refusing to accept it for yourself? More literally, they have been told by those they favour that such is the case, therefore such must be done. This is true, but I do not see it as a bad thing. Political parties generally operate in a roughly meritocratic hierarchy. You end up with a network of trust. One could say that I take my marching orders from Obama to an extent -- not because I am a duped fanatic, but because I know he shares my values, that he is a man of upstanding character and intelligence, that he is someone I can trust. I give disproportionate weight to his positions in evaluating my political worldview. Similarly, when I discuss politics with friends, they build their political views off of my words, because they trust me. This is how democracy works. It happened and was always going to happen, so yes. Bush beat Gore by less than 600 votes. Gore would not have invaded Iraq. Obviously I would have the laws changed. Why can you change the laws but not someone else? If I had ultimate power, what would be the point in being corrupt? What is their to gain? Ok, not literally unlimited power. In reality power is always threatened by those who would seek it for themselves. You would likely employ unethical tactics in order to retain your power, rationalizing that you were doing it for the greater good. P.S. Dialog is a valid spelling. And you fucked up your correction of hypocritical, so suck it. Side: yes
1
point
I am sure this is not the case. Have you ever had a family member murdered or raped? You keep thinking in black and white terms: we either have an autocrat or mob-rule. Anything else is an illusion. If the will of the people can ever e overruled then it is not a true democracy. If that power belongs to few, we have a dictatorship. The recent financial bailouts provide one instance of the people's will being overruled for the greater good. They were done improperly and serve to highlight what I perceive to be idiocy. We gave them money for nothing. You can't revamp a capitalist economy by breaking its most fundamental law. This is the part where you're supposed to inform me of the facts you think I'm missing. I do not value this debate highly enough to give you a detailed profile of Caesar's life, but suffice to say that a Caesar is a benevolent dictator. Absolute power, maybe. Humans tend to care more about relative power. Obviously you cannot apply what I have already defined as an inferior mean to the select few I would consider worthy candidates. And what if it's not? What if a situation comes along where their interests diverge? For such a person, the possibility of such a situation arising is negligible. I know very well what honor means. The problem here is that you have arbitrarily selected an overly narrow definition of the word. Honour consists of placing principles ahead of logical action. Death is lighter than a feather; duty heavier than a mountain. Not in a foxhole. You're genes are present in your countrymen. Perhaps this provides us with the real explanation for your loyalty. My loyalty is divided between my family, my people and my queen; to the nation and country that raised me. Hmmm, I don't buy it. No pun intended. You want to be dictator of the world, right? No. Would it not be better to appoint yourself ASAP? No. Why wait till tomorrow when you can do it today? Because I will be stronger tomorrow. You could certainly get there faster by breaking a few laws. The fast and easy way is not always the right way. One would expect public opinion to evolve over time as new information becomes available. Misinformation would be more accurate. Show me evidence of wildly oscillating views. The second phenomenon is more prevalent in the U.S. States are usually fanatically tied to one party or another, but in my country the results of elections generally hinge on the campaign and how shit the last government was. Usually Tory/Labour/Tory/Labour/Tory & Liberal Democrats... Their agendas are legitimate plans of action. Well you are a liberal, so you can be forgiven for this ridiculous belief. Serious scholars in think-tanks study the potential legislative landscape and make recommendations. Which are most often ignored or implemented half-heartedly. Politicians reconcile these recommendations with the political real[i]ties. I.E. the above. How can you apply this criticism to the heads of political parties while simultaneously refusing to accept it for yourself? Because their power is not tied to the state's well-being. Rather the length of their reign is, but it is in their interests to leave their political opponents in a mess of their artifice, for it will fall upon them to clean it up with unpopular legislation, which resurrects the former party, resulting in an endless cycle of boom/crash/boom/crash. Innovation is rarely seen. This is true, but I do not see it as a bad thing... Well that's just stupid. You end up with a network of trust. Even more so. Trusting politicians is the first step on the road to ruin. One could say that I take my marching orders from Obama... because I know he shares my values, that he is a man of upstanding character and intelligence, that he is someone I can trust. He's a liar and a fraud. This is how democracy works. The perpetuation of a lie. Gore would not have invaded Iraq. Of course not, he's an idiot of staggering proportions (though he has a nice scheme running with those carbon-credits, which is an inconvenient truth he doesn't like to share). Why can you change the laws but not someone else? Presumably because I am a dictator. Duh. You would likely employ unethical tactics in order to retain your power, rationalizing that you were doing it for the greater good. If my vision of a dictator was in place, any such action would be. Comprehend that the dictatorship is neither malevolent nor permanent. Dialog is a valid spelling. In America, color is a valid spelling, so you'll forgive me if I don't listen to one's opinion on grammar. And you fucked up your correction of hypocritical, so suck it. Your rebukes are shallow and lacking in imagination. A pun would have sufficed. The word in question being hypocritical, I can think of a delicious one already. Side: *1
Have you ever had a family member murdered or raped? Murdered, no. Raped, yes. If the will of the people can ever [b]e overruled then it is not a true democracy. If that power belongs to few, we have a dictatorship. /facepalm. No, that's clearly wrong. If we have a situation where the will of the people can be overruled in certain situations but not in others we clearly do not have a dictatorship. We have a situation where power is shared. The US government may not be a pure democracy, but it's still fair to call it a democracy. You can't revamp a capitalist economy by breaking its most fundamental law. Blind idealism. I'll go with the consensus of qualified economists, thank you very much. a Caesar is a benevolent dictator And by what means do we verify that a dictator is benevolent? How do we depose him if he is not? Obviously you cannot apply what I have already defined as an inferior mean to the select few I would consider worthy candidates. So you really think you are capable of putting aside your innate desire to increase your power relative to others. While at the same time arguing for a position that would give you a great amount of power relative to others. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not call you a liar, but it seems quite clear that you are suffering from massive cognitive dissonance. For such a person, the possibility of such a situation arising is negligible. Bullshit. This is argument by hand-waving. If your power were to be threatened by another of comparable merit, your interests would rapidly diverge from those of the people. And that's just one example. Honour consists of placing principles ahead of logical action. Enough semantic bullshit. I'm letting this one go. Not in a foxhole. Glib to the point of meaningless. My loyalty is divided between my family, my people and my queen; to the nation and country that raised me. What a lovely statement of fact. How is that relevant? No. [I don't want to be dictator of the world.] Then what? What position are you arguing for? Because I will be stronger tomorrow. Haha, there's the clever sounding bullshit excuse I was expecting. Whatever, this tangent is also not worth pursuing. Misinformation would be more accurate. I do not believe there is a conspiracy to misinform the public. Tory/Labour Tory/Labour is hardly "wildly oscillating". More like a bit to the left vs. a bit to the right. If anything you've provided evidence for the stability of political thought. Which are most often ignored or implemented half-heartedly. That's too strong of a claim to be making without evidence. I would guess the majority of the US financial regulatory and healthcare bills came from think-tanks. Because their power is not tied to the state's well-being. An autocrat's relative power is not necessarily tied to the state's well being. Rather the length of their reign is I think this is a legitimate criticism. Longer term limits might help here. Short-sighted legislation is a danger that should be mitigated as much as possible, but eliminating it completely would be difficult. However, this not a sufficient reason to jump from here to autocracy. resulting in an endless cycle of boom/crash/boom/crash boom/crash? The business cycle would exist in any capitalist system, regardless of the form of government. Even more so. Trusting politicians is the first step on the road to ruin. Polticians are not at the apex of the hierarchy. The wise are. He's a liar and a fraud. Evidence? I happen to think he's a wonderful human being. Of course not So there you go, the Iraq War was not "always going to happen". he's an idiot of staggering proportions Then how did he invent the internet? Presumably because I am a dictator. Duh. Heh, it seems you've forgotten the topic of discussion here. This branch is about whether you as a private citizen ought to be able to disregard the law and murder a rapist. You are not the dictator in this scenario. Comprehend that the dictatorship is [not] permanent. Well why the fuck didn't you say that? That changes the nature of the debate considerably. Oh, I know why. It's because you've adjusted your position on the fly after realizing your initial platform was absurd and are now attempting some slight-of-hand to cover the fact that you may not be the infallible genius you imagine yourself to be. In America, color is a valid spelling Well it is more efficient. You should adopt it. Cut down on CO2 emissions. Then you wouldn't have Al Gore flogging you toward frenzied schemes for world domination. Your rebukes are shallow and lacking in imagination. A pun would have sufficed. Puns are for douchebags. Side: yes
1
point
Well, being a little bitch about it doesn't help. If you don't have enough respect for yourself to even defend yourself should someone even attempt to stab your eye, you may as well pluck them out yourself. People will challenge you, it's just a fact of life. Don't concern yourself with all of humanity, humanity starts with you and that's all you need to worry about. Side: *1
|
1
point
|
