Here we go with the commonwealth again...
So you are prepared to give up your right to an equal share?
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"
So you are prepared to give up your right to an equal share?
I'll consider the benefits of a commonwealth as soon as you explain the realities of it.
Aristotle was running in a Cult of child Molestors. By keeping his works we taint our civilization and any future we thought we had a right to. Lets burn the Works of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, ditch Democracy, and start again with something that requires everyone's regular approval.
Is this a joke? Really?
how can this be serious? C'mon, this is a joke post.
I want to believe it is a joke, but I have seen the depths to which human stupidity can reach.
It ain't pretty.
That, and if it is a joke, it isn't very funny.
Ayn Rand.
(Don't kill me, Nyronus.)
Here's a philosophical joke:
Ayn Rand.
(Don't kill me, Nyronus.)
Did this have any relevant point?
Did this have any relevant point?
When is Ayn Rand not relevant?
Who's Ayn Rand?
A very controversial philosopher. Whose ideas I admire, and who Awesome Dude apparently has it out for. Either that, or he just likes getting a rise out of me.
A very controversial philosopher. Whose ideas I admire, and who Awesome Dude apparently has it out for. Either that, or he just likes getting a rise out of me.
I have it out for Ayn Rand. You, not so much. But having a sense of humor about her does not necessarily imply that you dislike or even disagree with her.
But true, I can see how her name wouldn't appear so funny to those who agree with her.
I have it out for Ayn Rand. You, not so much. But having a sense of humor about her does not necessarily imply that you dislike or even disagree with her.
But true, I can see how her name wouldn't appear so funny to those who agree with her.
Alright. I was wondering about that.
Socrates vs. Aristotle in a no-holds barred philosophy-off.
Who wins the coveted "Gold Question Mark?"
I am derailing this thread right now.
Socrates vs. Aristotle in a no-holds barred philosophy-off.
Who wins the coveted "Gold Question Mark?"
Aristotle all the way! Hurrah for the father of logic!
I want to believe it is a joke, but I have seen the depths to which human stupidity can reach.
I thought that once, long ago. And in the time intervening, I have been proven wrong, many, many times. There is no bottom to the depths of human stupity.
I am derailing this thread right now.
Socrates vs. Aristotle in a no-holds barred philosophy-off.
Who wins the coveted "Gold Question Mark?"
As long as this doesn't turn into a ancient Greek wrestling match. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Did this have any relevant point?
More than this thread in general.
More than this thread in general.
On the contrary it is very serious. The creaters of Democracy were child molestors. They created democracy because they didnt want to be speared to death by some angry 12 year old who didnt like being touched by dirty old geezers who thought they had a right to their way of life and created a form of government that would protect it.
If you dont think Aristotle and the others were destroyers of children, think again.
That is why I propose we ditch the Tainted method of Government called Democracy and go with something that requires everyone's regular approval.
Call for a Vote
You agree with yellowdingo in burning the works of Aristotle and ditching Democracy on the grounds it is Tainted by the people who created it.[ ]
OR
You condone the works of evil child molestors like Aristotle and the Government form that protects their way of life.[ ]
But...a government that requires the regular approval of everyone involved is a democracy, if perhaps a slightly different form of it.
Actually, in Aristotele's words, such a government would not be a Democracy, but a Republic. To keep with him, a Democracy is ruled by the people, while a Republic is merely legitimated by the people. As an extreme example, Stalinism was a republic: Stalin considered himself elected by the people (the truth of this is irrelevant); but it most certainly was not a democracy.
Oh, and as for the philosopher's duel, I think Plato would win. His theory of forms is simply the greatest thing that has come until Cartesian rationalism.
Burning the works of Aristotle? Never. Abolish democracy? Why not. Maybe instigate the Leviathan or something :D .
What was very common indeed were relationships between boys and older men. However, these were to 99% entirely platonic, and usually stopped when the boy got married. Think of it as an additional father-son relationship in your life. It's not like all Greeks were a bunch of pedophiles.
Then again, I'm sure some were :D .
Call for a Vote
You agree with yellowdingo in burning the works of Aristotle and ditching Democracy on the grounds it is Tainted by the people who created it.[ ]
OR
You condone the works of evil child molestors like Aristotle and the Government form that protects their way of life.[ ]
I go with A, but only because I'm unable to resist the taste of irony. Destroying democracy by way of the democratic process? Yes please.
Not to mention that demonizing an idea solely on the basis of some of it's supporters is, what's the word I'm looking for... a bit silly? It's not like the ancient Greeks are the only ones that ever thought democracy was an interesting idea.
Further...
As long as this doesn't turn into a ancient Greek wrestling match. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
... sorry, just remembered the bit about Greeks wrestling nude. Where were we?
Oh, right, pederastry. If you think it was all about sex, then you need to check your history. It was quite a bit more complicated then that.
Call for a Vote
You agree with yellowdingo in burning the works of Aristotle and ditching Democracy on the grounds it is Tainted by the people who created it.[ ]
OR
You condone the works of evil child molestors like Aristotle and the Government form that protects their way of life.[ ]
Unfortunately they don't have the option where I ram a Spartan javelin down your throat and you stop talking for a while. That being the case, I abstain from voting.
Wasn't there some sort of ban on talking politics in this forum anyway?
A very controversial philosopher. Whose ideas I admire, and who Awesome Dude apparently has it out for. Either that, or he just likes getting a rise out of me.
Friedrich "The Philosopher with the Hammer" Nietzsche is more controversial.
STOP! HAMMER TIME.
EDIT: On a sidenote, you are only allowed to vote if you are a free male person of Caucasian origin born in Greece and over the age of 30. ;)
Yeah. nice to see it's being enforced. Who knows? Maybe we're actually allowed to have intelligent discussion again.
Did you actually read this thread at all before making that statement?
Also, yes, I agree. It is hammer-time.
HAMMER TIME!
P.S. On a sidenote, Aristotle never made any works, so there is nothing to burn.
Something about how he didn't like texts, because he thought the best way to educate someone was for the student and teacher to exchange ideas, something that writing down and letting be didn't allow?
Or am I thinking of a different philosopher?
Aristotle was running in a Cult of child Molestors.
Wrong wrong wrong.
First of all, lets learn two things:
1. Intracrural. If you don't know what it means, check it out. And then try to discover the context with ancient Greece.
2. Molestation is not a fixed definition, it is relative to social values. So check that out too.
You're making poor ad hominem attacks on Aristotle to dismiss his believes (as well as several other persons). You probably would have been laughed out of ancient Athens, sorry to say... although I harbor no ill will and don't entirely hold to the teachings of many mentioned.
P.S. On a sidenote, Aristotle never made any works, so there is nothing to burn.
Socrates never wrote his works. Good guess, though. Notice I said wrote, because both made lots of works.
I'd prefer a dictatorship to letting Timmy the retard have a vote any day of the week, as long as its not passed down to his kid and the king isn't a retard himself...
I support making a time-machine, loading it up with a few nukes, and heading down to Greece, how about you?
ad hominem
Ad hominem! Thank you, that's the phrase I couldn't think of earlier.
Edit: 'cause nothing says "responsible use of a time machine" is screwing up the last 3000* years of history.
*give or take a few centuries, depending on just what point of history you drop the nukes. I mean really... "Ancient Greek History" covers nearly 1000 years, so you could be aiming anywhere from 1100 BCE to ~140 BCE. 3000 is just assuming you decide to nip in the bud. And it's a nice round number. Just look at those letters, each of them, so rounded...
So what, Democracy was a stupid Idea anyway:
I'd prefer a dictatorship to letting Timmy the retard have a vote any day of the week, as long as its not passed down to his kid and the king isn't a retard himself...
I support making a time-machine, loading it up with a few nukes, and heading down to Greece, how about you?
And this is why you won't ever hold a political position. Because you're silly and don't have valid arguments... Timmy the retard? Give me a break. Thank you, democracy.
Plato never wrote his works. Good guess, though. Notice I said wrote, because both made lots of works.
Is Plato the one I'm thinking of then? I've never been terribly good at keeping my Ancient Greeks straight.
Timmy the Retard represents a minority. He requires credentials to vote, and if you are too silly to realize its validity and that no one thought of this before you... then you are Timmy as well.
Is Plato the one I'm thinking of then? I've never been terribly good at keeping my Ancient Greeks straight.
It is the one you're thinking of.
So what, Democracy was a stupid Idea anyway:
I'd prefer a dictatorship to letting Timmy the retard have a vote any day of the week, as long as its not passed down to his kid and the king isn't a retard himself...
I support making a time-machine, loading it up with a few nukes, and heading down to Greece, how about you?
Good thing we live in a Republic then huh?
The next person who uses democracy when they mean the democratic process or a republic is going to be forced to eat a fasces.
Good thing we live in a Republic then huh?
The next person who uses democracy when they mean the democratic process or a republic is going to be forced to eat a fasces.
Can I use the term Republicracy?
Socrates never wrote anything, but his student Plato wrote a lot about him (Plato came up with the Ideas and the Forms and all that), and Plato's student Aristotle went totally the other way philosophically speaking, and all the "works" we have of him are actually compilations of notes made by students during his lectures.
UGH. Sounds like the Bible all over again.
Second, is the removal of all Greek influences in our society being advocated? After all, if we're uprooting the government, we might as well go the whole way, right? Remove all traces of greek roots from the English language. Abolish the Olympics. Destroy all buildings that have columns in them. Stop using medicine.
It all has to go!
I'd rather give Timmy the retard a small share than Johnny the jackass dictator all the shares. If there is one thing government work has taught me, giving a person even the tiniest amount of power over another can turn them into complete *******s.
So you suggest giving everyone a tiny bit of power?
So you suggest giving everyone a tiny bit of power?
If Timmy the retard has a tiny bit of power and I have a tiny bit of power than we both have a tiny bit of power. I'd rather that than me have no power and some other unqualified turd having it all.
If Timmy the retard has a tiny bit of power and I have a tiny bit of power than we both have a tiny bit of power. I'd rather that than me have no power and some other unqualified turd having it all.
And what about someone actually qualified having it all?
Let's face it, I know I am pretty unqualified, and it's at least possible that you are, too. But what about - we are talking purely hypothetically here - somebody qualified and with the best interest of the people at heart? Somebody who knows how politics work and who is both able and willing to use them in our best interest?
And what about someone actually qualified having it all?
Let's face it, I know I am pretty unqualified, and it's at least possible that you are, too. But what about - we are talking purely hypothetically here - somebody qualified and with the best interest of the people at heart? Somebody who knows how politics work and who is both able and willing to use them in our best interest?
No human being(living, dead or not even born yet) is/was/will be qualified to have all that power. I don't care if his name is Ghandi, George Washington, Hitler, or the Messiah himself.
And what about someone actually qualified having it all?
Let's face it, I know I am pretty unqualified, and it's at least possible that you are, too. But what about - we are talking purely hypothetically here - somebody qualified and with the best interest of the people at heart? Somebody who knows how politics work and who is both able and willing to use them in our best interest?
Even if that were theoretically possible, how would you know for sure? Would you trust yourself (or especially anyone else) to make that decision, knowing that if you are wrong you'll never be able to remove them from power? What about after they die, what if there is nobody left who is qualified to succeed them? What if they change while in office? Don't you want some recourse to challenge their decisions/remove them from power?
Setting things up so that absolute power is split between competing factions (a la house, court, and executive) at least ensures that at any given time, no one side has unlimited, unchallenged power.
And what about someone actually qualified having it all?
Let's face it, I know I am pretty unqualified, and it's at least possible that you are, too. But what about - we are talking purely hypothetically here - somebody qualified and with the best interest of the people at heart? Somebody who knows how politics work and who is both able and willing to use them in our best interest?
And this is why we have a Republican system in which we select the most qualified via (hypothetically) intelligent vote.
Octavius Caesar Augustus brought in quite a few improvements...
Dictatorships work as long as you don't have them picking their own kids.
I wonder if the mods are on paid vacation.
And what about someone actually qualified having it all?
Let's face it, I know I am pretty unqualified, and it's at least possible that you are, too. But what about - we are talking purely hypothetically here - somebody qualified and with the best interest of the people at heart? Somebody who knows how politics work and who is both able and willing to use them in our best interest?
I think christians call him the antichrist. Democrats/Liberals call him Obama.
*prepares for this post to be deleted*
As for republics... the last one became The Roman Empire:
Octavius Caesar Augustus brought in quite a few improvements...
Dictatorships work as long as you don't have them picking their own kids.
I wonder if the mods are on paid vacation.
The last one?
Did you fail civics?
I pledge alligence to the flag
and to the republic for which stands...
I honestly don't think Augustus is the best example. You might be able to argue for Augustus (I wouldn't), but most of his successors were either cruel, manipulative, or just plain insane. Google Caligula.
Google Caligula.
Try saying that five times in a row real fast.
WotC, if you are watching, this thread is why you need to make a face to palm smiley NOW...
The last one?
Did you fail civics?
I pledge alligence to the flag
and to the republic for which stands...
I honestly don't think Augustus is the best example. You might be able to argue for Augustus (I wouldn't), but most of his successors were either cruel, manipulative, or just plain insane. Google Caligula.
The last one before the modern day times, I believe he means to say. (Well, I believe San Marino or whatever it is called become one quite early on in the Middle Ages, though.) Since that time, it took a while for republics to come back. (Its one of the few reasons I give France respect.)
Try saying that five times in a row real fast.
I did. Is something special supposed to happen now? Because I didn't notice me saying anything odd or the like.
I did. Is something special supposed to happen now? Because I didn't notice me saying anything odd or the like.
I don't know. I kind of thought it would be somewhat challenging and funny. Kind of like "red lorry yellow lorry."
First off, it was Socrates who never wrote anything, ever.
Second, is the removal of all Greek influences in our society being advocated? After all, if we're uprooting the government, we might as well go the whole way, right? Remove all traces of greek roots from the English language. Abolish the Olympics. Destroy all buildings that have columns in them. Stop using medicine.
It all has to go!
The Greeks did not invent medicine or columns. The Egyptians had columns before them, not sure if they invented them though. Indians (including plastic surgery), Chinese, Egyptians and Semitic peoples all had various medical arts.
The Greeks made a lot of remarkable achievements - they made progress in medicine, philosophy and metaphysics. They also compiled a lot of ideas from around the Mediteranean, combined them and improved on them.
A lot of Christian theology comes from Greek thought - especially Plato and Aristotle rather than Biblical texts - Heaven and Hell as well as Lucifer are not mentioned in either the Old Testament or the Gospels.
If Timmy the retard has a tiny bit of power and I have a tiny bit of power than we both have a tiny bit of power. I'd rather that than me have no power and some other unqualified turd having it all.
And what about someone actually qualified having it all?
Exactly. Furthermore the best way to become a dictator is through the brutal elimination of your rivals and various other criminal behaviour - is that a good quality for a leader?
Let's face it, I know I am pretty unqualified, and it's at least possible that you are, too. But what about - we are talking purely hypothetically here - somebody qualified and with the best interest of the people at heart? Somebody who knows how politics work and who is both able and willing to use them in our best interest?
Somebody qualified and with the people's best interests at heart would probably refuse dictatorial power in favour of giving the people power for themselves. That's what Lincoln did (there were those that wanted to make him King).
And this is why we have a Republican system in which we select the most qualified via (hypothetically) intelligent vote.
But the problem is that people don't choose the most qualified, but rather the one they like best, or who is best at fulfilling their short-sighted "right now"-desires.
And anyways, that's America, which I hold to be great as far as democracies go. But I'm from Germany, and our politics are just one big screw-up because we have no less than half a dozen parties in parliament bickering about everything, and thus never get anything meaningful done - with the exception of really dumb things good for PR, like stopping nuclear power (and having to buy it from the French - yeah, it makes my brain hurt, too).
Oh, and as I said, a republic and a dictatorship are by no means mutually exclusive. So Octavian could totally swear fealty to the republic and then reign alone - his oath could pretty much only be broken if he declared himself king by God's (or rather, the gods') grace.
And anyways, that's America, which I hold to be great as far as democracies go. But I'm from Germany, and our politics are just one big screw-up because we have no less than half a dozen parties in parliament bickering about everything, and thus never get anything meaningful done - with the exception of really dumb things good for PR, like stopping nuclear power (and having to buy it from the French - yeah, it makes my brain hurt, too).
So...not to go all Godwin on the thread or anything, but didn't the last German dictator like...not turn out so well...and stuff?
Faelar
So...not to go all Godwin on the thread or anything, but didn't the last German dictator like...not turn out so well...and stuff?
Faelar
Pfft... sorry, the wording of this really cracked me up.
Though, yes, the best form of government is what I refer to as an "Enlightened Dictatorship" which would require a perfect being as a dictator... but since that doesn't exist...
I'll just settle for a system that is horribly inefficient... at least its hard to do harm when its hard to do anything.
So...not to go all Godwin on the thread or anything, but didn't the last German dictator like...not turn out so well...and stuff?
Faelar
Adolf Hitler may have been a wicked Mann, but at least he managed to get his country out of their big problems.
Though, yes, the best form of government is what I refer to as an "Enlightened Dictatorship" which would require a perfect being as a dictator... but since that doesn't exist...
That is one of the three types of "good" government that Plato described (although I believe he called it Tyranny). Democracy was filed under the "bad" governments (his definition of democracy being "rule by the masses", and inclusive of oppression by the masses).
Adolf Hitler may have been a wicked Mann, but at least he managed to get his country out of their big problems.
I call B.S.
Most of the economic problems Hitler is cited with fixing were already fixing themselves by the time he showed up. The only thing you could ever cite him with is being a motivator. He got people to do things, but how did those things turn out in the end? Unfortunately, if the driver of the car is insane, it doesn't matter who well he got it to start when he rams it into a tree declaring the tree to be a dragon.
Its of note that for all of the economic success Hitler supposedly brought about, he was more than willing to burn Germany to the ground and cast his beloved Volk into a new Dark Age just to spite the invading Russian and American forces.
Though, yes, the best form of government is what I refer to as an "Enlightened Dictatorship" which would require a perfect being as a dictator... but since that doesn't exist...
I'll just settle for a system that is horribly inefficient... at least its hard to do harm when its hard to do anything.
I could hardly agree more fully. Which is why I was speaking hypothetically... I think democracy is OK, it just could be a lot better.
@Faelar: Oh yes, and God forbid it ever happen again. But that doesn't mean that we should go to the other extreme instead. Again, I think the American system - while far from perfect - is about as good as it gets. I don't know much about the British and the French ones, except that they seem to at least produce result. But to get back to Aristotle, we in Germany have what he would have called an Ochlocracy: the rule of the mob.
All right, that was a bit more arrogant than I really am. I don't doubt that many of our politicians are fairly qualified, it's just that they aren't getting anywhere because of our system of democracy. Right now, we have this weird situation where the right allied with the left (!) in a coalition to prevent even weirder parties (like the libertarians, the Greens (that's their actual name) or the communists) from getting into the government. Yee-ha. I guess you can imagine what is happening right now.
Pretty much nothing.
Adolf Hitler may have been a wicked Mann, but at least he managed to get his country out of their big problems.
You're absolutely right. He did after all, manage to solve the problem of German cities being decimated by Allied bombing, and good on him for solving that particular conundrum of being invaded by both U.S. and Russian forces and the resulting division of Germany into two parts. Err...wait, no I guess that wasn't him.
Faelar
But the problem is that people don't choose the most qualified, but rather the one they like best, or who is best at fulfilling their short-sighted "right now"-desires.
And anyways, that's America, which I hold to be great as far as democracies go. But I'm from Germany, and our politics are just one big screw-up because we have no less than half a dozen parties in parliament bickering about everything, and thus never get anything meaningful done - with the exception of really dumb things good for PR, like stopping nuclear power (and having to buy it from the French - yeah, it makes my brain hurt, too).
That's strange, I think the Danish system (we have 8 parties in the parliament right now) works nicely, although I don't always agree with the elected parties. Sure, sometimes a vote for a single party means supporting a political fraction people might not agree with fully, but then again, I'm sure a lot of the people in the US who vote democratic or republican don't fully agree with the policy of said party. I'd personally rather have 10 parties to choose from than 2. I don't know why the German government is/was as paralysed, but I don't recall it happening here.
As for the actual topic, we don't have democracy like in ancient Greece so it's a moot point, yes, democracy sucks but it's the best we've got, and this topic is getting dangerously close to a CoC violation (if it wasn't one already).
You're absolutely right. He did after all, manage to solve the problem of German cities being decimated by Allied bombing, and good on him for solving that particular conundrum of being invaded by both U.S. and Russian forces and the resulting division of Germany into two parts. Err...wait, no I guess that wasn't him.
Faelar
Because his coming into office had nothing to do with Germany getting screwed by the Treaty of Versailles and being in economic trouble and everything to do with Allied bombing and invasion by multiple countries, amirite?
That's strange, I think the Danish system (we have 8 parties in the parliament right now) works nicely, although I don't always agree with the elected parties. Sure, sometimes a vote for a single party means supporting a political fraction people might not agree with fully, but then again, I'm sure a lot of the people in the US who vote democratic or republican don't fully agree with the policy of said party. I'd personally rather have 10 parties to choose from than 2. I don't know why the German government is/was as paralysed, but I don't recall it happening here.
As for the actual topic, we don't have democracy like in ancient Greece so it's a moot point, yes, democracy sucks but it's the best we've got, and this topic is getting dangerously close to a CoC violation (if it wasn't one already).
That's not exactly my point: I don't know the Danish system, if it works, great.
The problem is not the number of parties, but what they do.
America has sort of a mix of what we are discussing here: the people (in the form of parties) elect a person that gets a lot of power to make the decisions. Around here, the people make the decisions themselves. And you can imagine how that turns out. You see, our chancellor, while being nominally in charge, has none of the powers of Mr. Bush or Mr. Sarkozy: most decisions are made by the parliament. And such a setup definitely does not benefit from having multiple parties.
-Cherubaddon
I don't know. I kind of thought it would be somewhat challenging and funny. Kind of like "red lorry yellow lorry."
Oh gods, I can't even say that one twice IN MY HEAD!
Because his coming into office had nothing to do with Germany getting screwed by the Treaty of Versailles and being in economic trouble and everything to do with Allied bombing and invasion by multiple countries, amirite?
What does that have to do with the price of coffee in Brazil?
The point is any course of action that leaves you worse off than you started isn't really a viable problem solving method, i.e. it really doesn't matter that Germany may have experienced a short period of prosperity prior to WWII, when Hitler's policies were directly responsible for getting them bombed back into the Stone Age (and were generally evil to boot).
Faelar
What does that have to do with the price of coffee in Brazil?
The point is any course of action that leaves you worse off than you started isn't really a viable problem solving method, i.e. it really doesn't matter that Germany may have experienced a short period of prosperity prior to WWII, when Hitler's policies were directly responsible for getting them bombed back into the Stone Age (and were generally evil to boot).
Faelar
He solved Germany's original problems and than the path he chose to pursue created new problems. I'm not saying Germany was or wasn't worse off because of him. Hitler's policies weren't responsible for "getting them bombed back into the Stone Age" it was Operation Barbarossa and Germany's alliance with Japan that got "them bombed back into the Stone Age."
He solved Germany's original problems and than the path he chose to pursue created new problems. I'm not saying Germany was or wasn't worse off because of him. Hitler's policies weren't responsible for "getting them bombed back into the Stone Age" it was Operation Barbarossa and Germany's alliance with Japan that got "them bombed back into the Stone Age."
I call BS, again.
See previous post on this page.
I call BS, again.
See previous post on this page.
Maybe the economic problems would've fixed themselves or maybe not. Maybe that "motivation" was needed for the economy to get better. I'm not saying Hitler wasn't crazy. He definitely wasn't all there. However, he probably couldn't have guessed at the complete devastation that would be caused by total war. Its not like Europe ever had a war as devastating before World War 2.
Well, not to state the painfully obvious but I think any conversation about Hitler's policies in WWII is in generally poor taste, not the least because nobody is going to convince anybody of anything in this forum. Moderators? Are you out there?
I'm only trying to convince people that Hitler was a crazy power hungry dictator, not a giant mecha-demon of pure darkness incarnate set on the destruction of all humanity.
I'm only trying to convince people that Hitler was a crazy power hungry dictator, not a giant mecha-demon of pure darkness incarnate set on the destruction of all humanity.
No, but I think he tried to summon a few of those with dark rituals as the Allies approached Berlin.
No, but I think he tried to summon a few of those with dark rituals as the Allies approached Berlin.
Probably
Aristotle was running in a Cult of child Molestors. By keeping his works we taint our civilization and any future we thought we had a right to. Lets burn the Works of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, ditch Democracy, and start again with something that requires everyone's regular approval.
I'm assuming this isn't some bizarre attempt at humor.
What someone does with their life has no bearing on whether they ever had a good idea.
I'm only trying to convince people that Hitler was a crazy power hungry dictator, not a giant mecha-demon of pure darkness incarnate set on the destruction of all humanity.
I'm not saying that at all. But he was, by all accounts, evil, insane, and incompetent at everything but motivating those who were stupid, angry and afraid. I give the devil his due to note Hitler's endless passion and energy, but that is only a neutral quality, and one turned evil by the very ends to which Hitler turned them. He doesn't have to be superpowerful or Satan or whatever to do this. He is what he is, and that is damning enough.
I find it curious that with Hitler popping up in a discussion is called the Godwin's Law, when God doesn't seem to win anything by it -- rather the opposite, ammirite?
I find it curious that with Hitler popping up in a discussion is called the Godwin's Law, when God doesn't seem to win anything by it -- rather the opposite, ammirite?
If you're trying to be funny, then eh. Not my brand of humor.
If you're actually curious about the history of the phrase "Godwin's Law", wikipedia actually has a pretty good page on the history of it. Long story short, a guy named Mike Godwin put his observations about online discussions* into words: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one"
*He was actually talking about usenet discussions back in 1990 when he first coined the phrase, but it's been generalized since then.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one"
*He was actually talking about usenet discussions back in 1990 when he first coined the phrase, but it's been generalized since then.
... which is an observation worth precisely nothing; because as the length of a discussion (online or not) goes toward infinity, the probability of comparison approaches one. And that applies to comparisons with Hitler just as to comparisons with macaroni-cheese, giant frog and the number 42 (as well as any other you might care to draw).
... which is an observation worth precisely nothing; because as the length of a discussion (online or not) goes toward infinity, the probability of comparison approaches one. And that applies to comparisons with Hitler just as to comparisons with macaroni-cheese, giant frog and the number 42 (as well as any other you might care to draw).
Yeah, but the curve for Hitler is a lot steeper. And more obnoxious.
You're funny. In an unintentional way, but funny none-the-less.
But I'm totally with you on that one, which is why I usually name Stalin :D .
@the Enigma: How so?
@the Enigma: How so?
Let's try the multiple choice response:
A) Your complaint had little relevance to what I said.
B) I made no claims a bout how useful it was.
C) Godwin actually introduced the phrase as an experiment in memetics.
D) All of the above.
E) None of the above.
F) Don't deep fry the frozen turkey.
Because the criticism was in no way directed at you. You explained a concept to somebody, which is entirely fine by me. I just cannot help but comment on this "Law" whenever it is brought up, be it by you or by somebody else.
But I am glad you left with amusement rather than anger ;) !
F) Don't deep fry the frozen turkey.
But its FUN to watch the exploding oil go everywhere.
EDIT: Yes I know, its not technically EXPLODING... but its still fun
the athenians were, that's for certain. I mean, c'mon, the spartans called em boy lovers when they made fun of them.
Which is ironic, considering that the concept of an Eromenos was intrinsic to the structure of the Spartan Army.
First off, it was Socrates who never wrote anything, ever.
Second, is the removal of all Greek influences in our society being advocated? After all, if we're uprooting the government, we might as well go the whole way, right? Remove all traces of greek roots from the English language. Abolish the Olympics. Destroy all buildings that have columns in them. Stop using medicine.
It all has to go!
So does every idea we have about music. All of it must go.
People who yell at kids to get off their lawn and complain about how rock music is satanic and corrupting today's youth owe that last one to the Greeks, who believed that morality and music were related.
That it could affect emotions, which was the whole driving philosophy of music in the Baroque. Greek again.
Opera itself started as an attempt to revive the ancient Greek art of combining drama, music, and dance.
In fact, Aristotle is the originator of many of these ideas that have been passed down all the way to us. All of it's got to go because the OP has a poor understanding of history and morality.
So does every idea we have about music. All of it must go.
People who yell at kids to get off their lawn and complain about how rock music is satanic and corrupting today's youth owe that last one to the Greeks, who believed that morality and music were related.
And me who always thought it was because of the satanic lyrics!
And me who always thought it was because of the satanic lyrics!
Uh... oh my. I didn't say heavy metal or even death metal or anything like that; I said rock. Pretty generic term. Led Zepplin is (well, was) heavy metal, and I think we'd all be pretty hard pressed to label their lyrics satanic. People did (and do) argue that aspects of the music encourage violent and/or immoral behaviour though. And that's based on the ideas of Aristotle and Plato.
The idea that music can be for entertainment is specifically Aristotle, too. In many cultures music is not entertainment. So while we're scrapping Aristotle's ideas, let's get rid of the notion of music as entertainment while we're at it. Or do people really want to condone the ideas put forth by a ****?
Uh... oh my. I didn't say heavy metal or even death metal or anything like that; I said rock. Pretty generic term. Led Zepplin is (well, was) heavy metal, and I think we'd all be pretty hard pressed to label their lyrics satanic. People did (and do) argue that aspects of the music encourage violent and/or immoral behaviour though. And that's based on the ideas of Aristotle and Plato.
Yup. I've heard several people argue that Christian rock is equally satanic and rebellious as any other kind.
Which is ironic, considering that the concept of an Eromenos was intrinsic to the structure of the Spartan Army.
(DISCLAIMER: I KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT THIS PART OF GREEK CULTURE/HISTORY)
I think the Spartans made fun of the Athenians not because of their....sexual tendencies, but because they did it to little boys. I think the spartans viewed it as "better to love your comrade than a woman or child" or somethin like that.
(DISCLAIMER: I KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT THIS PART OF GREEK CULTURE/HISTORY)
I think the Spartans made fun of the Athenians not because of their....sexual tendencies, but because they did it to little boys. I think the spartans viewed it as "better to love your comrade than a woman or child" or somethin like that.
Um, to my recollection, the Spartans specifically encouraged...relations...between experienced older men and little boys. That's why it's ironic.
(DISCLAIMER: I KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT THIS PART OF GREEK CULTURE/HISTORY)
I think the Spartans made fun of the Athenians not because of their....sexual tendencies, but because they did it to little boys. I think the spartans viewed it as "better to love your comrade than a woman or child" or somethin like that.
I don't mean to be an ass, baneofelves, and I'm sure I'm wrong, but...
Maybe you've been watching to much "300" recently? :P
After all, Leonidas does say that exact insult in the movie... Maybe you were just accidentally channeling it, and forgot it's original context? It's happened to me before.
I haven't seen that movie in forever, so it must be me unintentionally quoting it. I think we all know how much I know about this. the only stuff I studied in greek history was the wars and myths/legends.
Yeah, it's when Leonidas and the other Spartans meet the Athenians in the beginning. But, it's all right, baneofelves. I forgive you. :D
"I'm the best at what I do!" *SNIKT*
You're the worst of us? Not likely. Prove it. What's the worst thing that you've done? (that can be posted without violating the CoC)
baneofelves, I disagree with you and with everything you stand for!
You're the worst of us? Not likely. Prove it. What's the worst thing that you've done? (that can be posted without violating the CoC)
Well, as you are a well-known baby-eating arsonist, I will have to regail you with one of my darkest, most diabolically debauched schemes...
I was the first Rick Roller.
:P
*Hums*Never gonna' give you up, never gonna let you down...*Walks off*
baneofelves, I disagree with you and with everything you stand for!
I disagree with both of you, and I'm not even sure why!
I disagree with both of you, and I'm not even sure why!
I do. It's because, in all probability, you rick rolled me at some point.
@Fenrir: I always thought Rick-rolling people was hella funny. Sorry, try again.
@LV: hey, we both love Swordmages. So don't say that you disagree with me and everything I stand for, because that would mean that you hate 4E, and that Swordmages suck.
What the... HOW DARE YOU MAKE SENSE!!!
I do. It's because, in all probability, you rick rolled me at some point.
Or did I?
Show
Yes, I did. Muwhahahahahah!
Or did I?ShowYes, I did. Muwhahahahahah!
What the... HOW DARE YOU MAKE SENSE!!!
OK then. You hate 4E and Swordmages. You're actually Rant Casey.
YOU BASTARD! YOU FILTH! PREPARE TO DIE!
I suppose this is a bad time to mention that I was also the guy who suggested giving out those bad loans, too, huh?
GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!! YOU MOTHER****ER!!! VENTNOR! LET US KILL THIS ABOMINATION! SLOWLY! AND THEN, WE RESSURECT HIM, AND FORCE HIM TO MAKE LOVE TO NIGHT HAGS! FOR ALL ETERNITY! LET'S PUT ASIDE OUR DIFFERENCES, SO WE CAN PUNISH THIS MONSTER!! THIS IS NOT MADNESS! THIS *IS* AMERICA!!!
[b]FOR PONY!!![/b]
[b]FOR PONY!!![/b]
Mmmm... Pony. That little flea-bag sure was yummy!
Also... Uwe Boll? Yeah, we're close friends, he and I...
Mmmm... Pony. That little flea-bag sure was yummy!
Also... Uwe Boll? Yeah, we're really close friends, he and I... mm. He's so smexy
Really? This says something about you.
COME, FELLOW SWORDMAGES! FOR TROGDOR!!
I hope you know, Bane... by defeating my evil, you have now absorbed it, and are now responsible for my attrocities by proxy.
EDIT: Also, I REALLY should've expected that to happen. I tip my incredibly evil hat to you, good sir.
I would just like to say... frosted butts.
That's it. I'm done.
Um, to my recollection, the Spartans specifically encouraged...relations...between experienced older men and little boys. That's why it's ironic.
Indeed. In fact, Frank Miller put that line in 300 to show that the Spartans had hypocritical beliefs in that respect. (Also, the Athenians were the ones to finally defeat the Persians in the end because they had a better grasp on tactics, had superior technology, and they didn't kill most of their future men through bizarre training rituals starting at the age of 5.)
Indeed. In fact, Frank Miller put that line in 300 to show that the Spartans had hypocritical beliefs in that respect. (Also, the Athenians were the ones to finally defeat the Persians in the end because they had a better grasp on tactics, had superior technology, and they didn't kill most of their future men through bizarre training rituals starting at the age of 5.)
But the Spartans stood their ground with three hundred men. Marathon and Salamis were great victories, but the Thermopylae are just an epic last stand as I can think of none other in history (maybe castle Eger in Hungary, but that's not particularly well-known, and also a lot less extreme). There is something to be said for heroism.
But the Spartans stood their ground with three hundred men. Marathon and Salamis were great victories, but the Thermopylae are just an epic last stand as I can think of none other in history (maybe castle Eger in Hungary, but that's not particularly well-known, and also a lot less extreme). There is something to be said for heroism.
Well, there were 300 Spartans, several hundred Thespians, scatterings of others...
Thermopylae was definitely epic, but it wasn't just the Spartans. They just bragged about it the most.
Well, there were 300 Spartans, several hundred Thespians, scatterings of others...
Thermopylae was definitely epic, but it wasn't just the Spartans. They just bragged about it the most.
Actually there were more Thespians than Spartans as far as that goes.
Actually there were more Thespians than Spartans as far as that goes.
Hence "several hundred". I tend to think of "several" as "more than 2-3". It was...700, at least, right?
Hence "several hundred". I tend to think of "several" as "more than 2-3". It was...700, at least, right?
700 is about the right estimate I think...
Also, noting, there was also estimated... about 2-3 thousand assorted greek and greek allied soldiers besides the Thespians and Spartans...
Granted, the Spartans were not alone. But - and here the movie got it sort of right - they were the last men standing, after everyone else had fled or fallen. And their king was among them. That does give them a certain amount of bragging rights, does it not?
Not really. First off, back in those days, the kings (yes, plural, sparta at that point had two kings at all times) lead the armies It wasn't a question. Second, Leonides died fairly early in the battle, the last spartan pushes were to retrieve Leonides' body from the persians. Third, no one fled the army, the soldiers were ordered to go warn Athens that they fell. The Spartans had no intention of dying there at all, the first wave was just the initial wave, they expected a second wave of soldiers to appear. And there were thousands of spartans, and tends of thousands of Thesbians, the 300 were just the nuymber that stayed behind to stall the Persians.
Finally, Thermopylae did stall the Persian army long enough for the remaining Spartans to warn Athens that they were coming. The Athenians had been preparing for this for over a decade, and unleashed hell on the persian army.
The spartans were brave, I'm not taking away from that. They were also bull-headed, they clung to antiquated notions of combat that just didn't work anymore, and they had a society that produced far fewer useful adult males than the other greek city-states. Every greek city-state had a training program for males, all of the Greeks were warlike, exceptionally fit, and knew how to use a spear. The individual spartans might have been tougher, but they were also fewer in number and kind of stupid.
Not really. First off, back in those days, the kings (yes, plural, sparta at that point had two kings at all times) lead the armies It wasn't a question. Second, Leonides died fairly early in the battle, the last spartan pushes were to retrieve Leonides' body from the persians. Third, no one fled the army, the soldiers were ordered to go warn Athens that they fell. The Spartans had no intention of dying there at all, the first wave was just the initial wave, they expected a second wave of soldiers to appear. And there were thousands of spartans, and tends of thousands of Thesbians, the 300 were just the nuymber that stayed behind to stall the Persians.
Finally, Thermopylae did stall the Persian army long enough for the remaining Spartans to warn Athens that they were coming. The Athenians had been preparing for this for over a decade, and unleashed hell on the persian army.
The spartans were brave, I'm not taking away from that. They were also bull-headed, they clung to antiquated notions of combat that just didn't work anymore, and they had a society that produced far fewer useful adult males than the other greek city-states. Every greek city-state had a training program for males, all of the Greeks were warlike, exceptionally fit, and knew how to use a spear. The individual spartans might have been tougher, but they were also fewer in number and kind of stupid.
This.
Now if only people would learn to read history books instead of trying to learn from the Movies... :P
In fact, Frank Miller put that line in 300 to show that the Spartans had hypocritical beliefs in that respect.
And here I just thought he put that line in because he was an entertainer, and had no illusions that he was making a historical work. And as such, he was free to put words in the mouths of his characters that made no sense historically.
But hey, I'm a cynic sometimes.
And here I just thought he put that line in because he was an entertainer, and had no illusions that he was making a historical work. And as such, he was free to put words in the mouths of his characters that made no sense historically.
But hey, I'm a cynic sometimes.
Your conclusion and my conclusion are not mutually exclusive, Escher.
Your conclusion and my conclusion are not mutually exclusive, Escher.
True, but one of the differences between the Spartans and the other Greek peoples was that the Spartan idea of Eromenos was limited strictly to the Spartan army, and not to civilian life. The Athenians, Thespians, and other city-states for the most part did not limit the practice to the military.
Side note, the Turkish Army (later in history) had a regulation/law that only officers could wear make-up such as rouge and mascara.
Call for a Vote
You agree with yellowdingo in burning the works of Aristotle and ditching Democracy on the grounds it is Tainted by the people who created it.[ ]
I love it.... Vote to remove Democracy.
Old?
Well, I haven't been to Scandinavia, so it might be something that is still in effect. I always pictured them as being more tolerant than Americans, and not really caring anymore if you like rough sex with men with hairy bums in modern times.