Jump to content


Israel Retaliation


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
102 replies to this topic

#91 a1s

a1s

    Freeware Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1167 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 02:58 PM

View PostSinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

a1s said that  majority of people don't understand the "broaded" name for War on Terrorism. Look at his post where he gave that definition.

View Posta1s, on Aug 11 2006, 11:41 PM, said:

a) everyone but a select few "intelectuals", understands 100% correctly what this is all about
as you can see, I said the exact oposite. The other thing I said is that people like short catchy slogans. not because they don't get the longer versions, but because it's easier to remeber and bring up in conversation.
If you still don't see the difeerence consider the following scenario: I ask you to multiply 36 by 782, now I'm sure we all attended school and can do this with a piece of paper and pencil. but we would rather use a calculator. both things we can do. but one is simpler.

View PostSinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

As you probably know, some of the leading minds of Antics claimed that democracy is the worst thing which could happen to the nation.
um... no, I don't remeber any of the antic men claiming this. I do remeber Churchill saying that "Democracy is the worst system of government, except for the others".  :)

View PostSinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

As for democracy, are you suggesting that Americans are using it's spreading as an excuse to invade other countries (similar what Soviets were doing with communism? )  I must admit that I sense a little "ant-american" irony in your post, like you want to say that "they are doing what conquerors were doing for centuries, alas, nothing can be done even with exploiting their practices".
you might. I'm pro-Israeli, but not necesarily pro-american. :)

View PostSinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

Quote

SinkeIf the Western Democracy is using terrorism to be the best system in the world, I find it quite contraversal.

A1s,
the use or the being?


Both.
please elaborate.

View PostSinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

What I wanted to say is that America said it is in war with all organisations which have killed more than one person in public. To me that is funny, since literally every human being, not just countries, is fighting against killing more than one person in public. ( What I mean by "fighting" is that 90% of people in this world would report if he/she had information about terrorist movement. ) Thus, "War on terrorism" is corrupt in theory, since it makes a false distinction of American policies ( which all of the sudden are in war with something called "terrorism" ). From that point of view, US can also proclaim "War on murder", claiming it will destroy anybody who preforms murder. Murder is  usually in all cultures considered sinful or unlawful.
well how about if I proclaim a campaign to eliminate crime in my neighbourhood, is that corrupt too, just because we didn't like crime anyway?

View PostSinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

With all respect, I disagree here. This is a thousand-year-old critic of democracy-  that a vote of uneducated peasant is the same as the vote of Socrates.  Democratic elections in all the world became a circus where political parties are organizing fireworks, festivals, parties and concerts in order to rise sympathy of voters. Nations lack "democratic mind", they aren't aware of their position and role in democratic society. They, not so much because of lack of education- but much more because they don't have will to "live political", are just putting their votes to parties which usually all say the same- that they will bring prosperity,peace, justice and income.
I will repeat- that is the whole point. Surely you see that throughout time the most competent people (or their children) allways governed the nations. if they were bad enough at this, theuy would simply be removed (be it by palace intrigues, revolutions, or impeachment). Democracy serves two purposes- to pacify the masses (since it gives them a sence that in some way this is their own fault) and to simplify the above mentioned removal procedure (thus making the government more responsive to the needs of the nation, or more precisely it's it's buisiness elite)

To deal with the abovementioned problem that an uneducated peasant has as much vote as Sacortaes, you can put this "Socrates" on TV and let him give his political analisys to the nation, if he's worth his salt he'll make the "peasants" vote for whoever he needs them to vote for, if he's not he doesn't deserve the additional votes.
Those of you being liberal-art majors � don�t worry, advanced mathematics were largely omitted from this text in concern for your mental health.

QUOTE (Mighty Midget)
if BP has potied on Twilight Zone episode, I will strangle him

secret adept of the PICKALLONWEASEL order

#92 Sinke

Sinke

    AR-coholic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 553 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 08:03 PM

a1s,

Quote

as you can see, I said the exact oposite. The other thing I said is that people like short catchy slogans. not because they don't get the longer versions, but because it's easier to remeber and bring up in conversation.
If you still don't see the difeerence consider the following scenario: I ask you to multiply 36 by 782, now I'm sure we all attended school and can do this with a piece of paper and pencil. but we would rather use a calculator. both things we can do. but one is simpler.

It seems we misunderstood each other. You were just saying that "war on terrorism" is a short way of explaining the doctrine of engaging in military combat organisations which killed more than one person in the public.

I was replying saying completely other thing- I myself don't understand "War on terrorism", I am one of those "intelectuals" who don't understand why the practice of fighting terrorism resulted in conquering Iraq, building concentration camps with cruelty on the level of nazism, bombing of civillian targets and exposing American soldiers to death. In other words, what is "War on terrorism" since it isn't just fighting organisations which preformed level X act of terrorism ?

Quote

um... no, I don't remeber any of the antic men claiming this. I do remeber Churchill saying that "Democracy is the worst system of government, except for the others".


Actually, Churchill accurately said "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"

Churchill also said " The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. "

As for you "not remembering "which antic philosophers were ferociously against democracy----  I find it difficult to understand that you claim you have knowledge in the field but you "can't remember" teachings of  Socrates, writtings of Plato, plays by Aristophanes or to some extent even Aristotle and his writtings.  

Quote

you might ( sense anti-americanism ). I'm pro-Israeli, but not necesarily pro-american.


It would be interesting to hear more about that position. It is unique in this discussion.

Quote

Sinke
If the Western Democracy is using terrorism to be the best system in the world, I find it quite contraversal.

A1s,
the use or the being?

Sinke
Both.


If West uses terrorism for being the best system in the world, I guess people in thousand years will find it's democracy contraversal.  

Quote

well how about if I proclaim a campaign to eliminate crime in my neighbourhood, is that corrupt too, just because we didn't like crime anyway?


The problem here, a1s, is that US proclaimed a campaign to eliminate terrorism- which led to  invading other countries. In your case, it would be like drafting population in your neighbourhood to conquer other neighbourhoods claiming you are just lowering the crime on their territory ( which , for some reason you claim, they are not lowering themselves ).  

Quote

I will repeat- that is the whole point. Surely you see that throughout time the most competent people (or their children) allways governed the nations. if they were bad enough at this, theuy would simply be removed (be it by palace intrigues, revolutions, or impeachment).

This is quite incorrect, I must say. Through history many tyrant leaders died under natural causes before they were replaced. As for palace intrigues, revolutions and impeachement, great leaders were also their victims- for example Julius Cesar.

Quote

Democracy serves two purposes- to pacify the masses (since it gives them a sence that in some way this is their own fault) and to simplify the above mentioned removal procedure (thus making the government more responsive to the needs of the nation, or more precisely it's it's buisiness elite)

The "some way" in italics is why democracy doesn't work. If masses sense that there is a fault somewhere, but don't know where that fault is ( and somehow they believe it's theirs) one should "map" this "way". At the end, it leads to the system of democracy itself, where masses could literally believe that they were naive to give vote to a certain party and it's not system's fault- not even the fault of the party- but their own.

Nobody controls the promises of parties during elections, and four years are a long time for removal procedure in country's managment.  


Quote

To deal with the abovementioned problem that an uneducated peasant has as much vote as Sacortaes, you can put this "Socrates" on TV and let him give his political analisys to the nation, if he's worth his salt he'll make the "peasants" vote for whoever he needs them to vote for, if he's not he doesn't deserve the additional votes.

I must admit I don't understand this, maybe because of my bad English. Who is Sacortaes and what do you mean by "this Socrates" ?  The last time Socrates talked to "mass media" about democracy and elections, he was killed. I certainly hope you understand what I mean. I am refering to one of the greatest minds of Western civilization.
One can always get mocked for being polite.

#93 A. J. Raffles

A. J. Raffles

    The Grand Inquisitor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6304 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 08:21 PM

View PostSinke, on Aug 12 2006, 08:03 PM, said:

Quote

To deal with the abovementioned problem that an uneducated peasant has as much vote as Sacortaes, you can put this "Socrates" on TV and let him give his political analisys to the nation, if he's worth his salt he'll make the "peasants" vote for whoever he needs them to vote for, if he's not he doesn't deserve the additional votes.

I must admit I don't understand this, maybe because of my bad English. Who is Sacortaes and what do you mean by "this Socrates" ?  The last time Socrates talked to "mass media" about democracy and elections, he was killed. I certainly hope you understand what I mean. I am refering to one of the greatest minds of Western civilization.
It was your own example, wasn't it?:)
Anyway, as far as I understand a1s, he's not talking about the Socrates but making a point about political leadership always resting in the hands of the "most competent" (most competent at holding on to power, I suppose). So to use your example, the Socrates' are the ones who actually rule the peasants and get them to do what they want them to do.

"Flippin' immigrants, stealin' our bandwidth etc. etc." - PrejudiceSucks

#94 Sinke

Sinke

    AR-coholic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 553 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 08:42 PM

A.J. Raffles

Quote

It was your own example, wasn't it?
Anyway, as far as I understand a1s, he's not talking about the Socrates but making a point about political leadership always resting in the hands of the "most competent" (most competent at holding on to power, I suppose). So to use your example, the Socrates' are the ones who actually rule the peasants and get them to do what they want them to do.

First, a little correction. This is the real "example", the error I made ( name of philosopher) doesn't change the context.

The sentence goes " I don't believe in society which values the vote of village idiot same as the vote of Aristotle"

Meaning that democracy is the system which doesn't neccessary have the most competent leadership, but the leadership which recieved most votes on elections.

The other funny philosophical criticism of democracy I know of is "Ancient democracy was when four wolves and a sheep were voting what to have for dinner."  Somebody made an updated version of it where "In liberal democracy, sheep decide which wolves are voting what to have for dinner. "

To make something clear, in order to become a political figure in modern democracy you first need to have sufficient number of signed voters prior to elections. Socrates would be the first one who would say every person could become a politician throught that system. He would also ask why parites are making campaigns,  why parties during elections hire psychologists, why is somebody else writting presidental speeches (and not president) and what happens to political party which didn't follow their promises they gave before they were elected.
One can always get mocked for being polite.

#95 A. J. Raffles

A. J. Raffles

    The Grand Inquisitor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6304 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 09:06 PM

View PostSinke, on Aug 12 2006, 08:42 PM, said:

Socrates would be the first one who would say every person could become a politician throught that system. He would also ask why parites are making campaigns,  why parties during elections hire psychologists, why is somebody else writting presidental speeches (and not president) and what happens to political party which didn't follow their promises they gave before they were elected.
Well, the answer to that one would obviously be "Because modern democracies normally aren't direct democracies."

And of course Aristotle was dead against democracy, but I don't really see why that would be important here.

"Flippin' immigrants, stealin' our bandwidth etc. etc." - PrejudiceSucks

#96 Sinke

Sinke

    AR-coholic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 553 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 09:47 PM

The remarks of both philosophers could have their "upgraded" versions for today's modern democracies. Some of them were touched in previous post.

I just wanted to correct myself in quoting that sentence about democracy and philosophy. Aristotle was against democracy, but not as much as Plato or Socrates. Maybe in some lost work he preformed more direct attacks on it.
One can always get mocked for being polite.

#97 A. J. Raffles

A. J. Raffles

    The Grand Inquisitor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6304 posts

Posted 13 August 2006 - 08:20 AM

What do you mean, "not as much"? I don't know what Socrates said about democracy (if he said anything at all, we'd only have Plato's version of it anyway), but I do rememeber that Aristotle specifically said aristocracy (not in the modern sense, but in the sense of "government of an able elite") was the best form of government you could find, because it was the most balanced. In the hierarchy of other forms of government he gave, "democracy" came last, because he considered it government of the rabble.

Anyway, this is no longer related to the original topic. Sorry about that, it's probably my fault we went off-topic this time.

"Flippin' immigrants, stealin' our bandwidth etc. etc." - PrejudiceSucks

#98 Sinke

Sinke

    AR-coholic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 553 posts

Posted 13 August 2006 - 07:41 PM

Socrates was killed because opposing, umong many things, democracy. Plato, being a very close student to Socrates, took many of his teachings and developed the theory. Aristotle- amazingly or not- being student of Plato, "rioted" against his mentor and went developing his theories, mostly on questions of "sums and wholes". Democracy also had it's part, but since Plato was angry with Athens for death of his mentor, he behave more aggressive. But you are right, we can say Aristotle is also a full-member of "Ancient club of democracy bashing philosophers."

I also now declare that I will, this time, go away from this topic. From Israel to Antic philosophy is a long way, but since these topics are all connected somehow we came where we are now. I believe we, at the moment, are in status quo where we can all leave the subject. I know I have. And that I will.
One can always get mocked for being polite.

#99 A. J. Raffles

A. J. Raffles

    The Grand Inquisitor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6304 posts

Posted 13 August 2006 - 08:20 PM

Eh?
I honestly wonder where you got your view of "antic philosophy" from. Have you actually read any of those texts? Socrates was sentenced to death for blasphemy and having a harmful influence on the youth of Athens, not for opposing democracy (Athens wasn't a "democracy" by modern standards anyway). No written works by him survive, so ALL we know about what he said or did is derived from secondary sources - mainly from Plato - so we can't really tell whether Plato developed Socrates' theories further or whether what we think of as "Socrates' theories" wasn't heavily platonised to begin with. But theories of government wasn't one his main concerns.
Plato was only in his twenties when Socrates was sentenced to death, so maybe it wasn't just that he suddenly "behaved more aggressively"; maybe he had reached the point when he had become a significant philosopher in his own right. But most of his major works weren't written until well after the death of Socrates, and the academy was founded at least a decade afterwards.
Aristotle didn't "riot against" Plato, he was just interested in different aspects of government and politics (for one thing he was more practical and more interested in constitutions and the like), so he founded his own philosophical school. Nothing unusual about that. But to sum up his political work as a tradition of democracy-bashing inherited from Socrates and Plato would be missing the point completely, in my opinion.
If you have to argue with ancient philosophy, why don't you try to get your facts straight instead of making broad generalisations and lumping different philosophers together?

And thank you very much for graciously allowing me to leave this topic.

"Flippin' immigrants, stealin' our bandwidth etc. etc." - PrejudiceSucks

#100 Blood-Pigggy

Blood-Pigggy

    No mo' jibba jabba

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1901 posts

Posted 13 August 2006 - 10:00 PM

Calm down dewds.

Knight of the PICKLEWAESEL order!!1!21
Best Topics Ever: Aywanez Splenda Women PICKLEWESSEL Signs OMG


#101 Sinke

Sinke

    AR-coholic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 553 posts

Posted 13 August 2006 - 10:19 PM

Just to give a small remark, I was studying philosophy and I am finishing drama at Academy of Art.

I think that is much better reply than engaging in philosophical discussion, especially with somebody who claims Aristotle didn't riot against Plato.  I mean, Aristotle wrote Poetica, which was infact dealing with something  Plato considered utter falsehood and danger for the state.  That is just one small example, but to quote Aristotle "The educated differ from uneducated as living from the dead."

:bleh:
One can always get mocked for being polite.

#102 A. J. Raffles

A. J. Raffles

    The Grand Inquisitor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6304 posts

Posted 14 August 2006 - 06:40 AM

So what? Anyone can study philosophy, but actually understanding it is another matter.

"Flippin' immigrants, stealin' our bandwidth etc. etc." - PrejudiceSucks

#103 BeefontheBone

BeefontheBone

    Self-titling Egotist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2953 posts

Posted 14 August 2006 - 08:29 AM

This is getting stupid now. I was expecting it to start an argument about the middle east or America's foreign policy or something, not about Greek philosophers.
[center]
QUOTE (gregor)
also consider this - the turkey *male genital*ula is called little asia on some geographical maps maps.

I'm your solar-powered princess/Your technological soulmate.