If Plato was alive today and a poster on Atlas....

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

So, wait, BRTD's latest attack on me is that maybe I would have sided with one of the greatest minds of all time rather than a bunch of autistic teen nerds with a mob mentality, defending said mind's right to free expression?

...guilty as charged?

I think I'm going to give up on trying to understand the logic of BRTD. Did you read an internet meme bashing Plato or something?

It's more that you frequently defend unpopular and awful posters who are extremely hackish and quite narrow minded and thick skulled for seemingly no reason at all but to be contrarian.

My dislike of Plato stems from reading his stuff in one of my Ancient and Medieval Political Philosophy classes, where he came across an extreme elitist douchebag, and his ideal "Republic" was a terrifying ideal and a horrible form of government. Just about everyone in the class hated him.

Nice going with the wormyguy/Kyle Mercado style ad hominem in the first paragraph by the way ("LOLZ ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS AUTISTIC HA HA!" was a pretty common tactic of those two.)

That it is seemingly for no reason might be because you're a thick-skulled hack who can't understand logical arguments or other people very well. Just as a theory.

Well, if everyone in your class hated him I guess it's time for you to revolutionize our understanding of philosophical history. You should teach classes on these insights.

Nice going with the guilt by association ad hominem.

It's not an ad hominem. You're obsessed with picking sides and who one agrees with. I'm pointing out that pretty much everyone on this board (including myself) is basically an idiot compared to Plato. So it's amusing that you think that just because there are so many idiots they must be more correct than someone who actually has brains. That mob mentality is what I was referring to and it's fallacious and scary.

You should consider reading a book every once in a while, instead of just watching Family Guy. Maybe you would start getting things.

True. BRTD gets obsessed with (and without proper reserach, no doubt) some random topic and needs to pick a sides. Certainly the most narrow-minded individual I meet on the internet, which is helluva accomplishment.

[Kitteh]

Plato would be hated on the election boards, as his longwinded posts, featuring dialogues between semi-fictional characters, would constantly dismiss the importance of electoral politics and try to steer the conversation toward justice.

GLAUCON: Isn't it good luck that we've run into you, Socrates, on our way to the Agora. We're in the middle of a seeming intractable dispute that you can help us with.
SOCRATES: What is your dispute about?
GLAUCON: It's about who will carry North Carolina in the 2012 American presidential election.
TENDERBRANSON: I say Barack Obama will probably win. The newest poll has him leading by 3 points.
UMENGUS: Everyone knows that's just junk. That poll has a sample 7 points more Democratic than the electorate of North Carolina in 2010.
TORIES: I wouldn't put it so strongly as Umengus, but another poll from Rasmussen does have Mitt Romney leading by 2 points. We just can't be sure at this point.
SOCRATES: So one poll says that Obama is leading, and another says that Romney is leading?
GLAUCON: That's right.
SOCRATES: Now, can it be that in the real election, both candidates are the winner?
GLAUCON: No, that couldn't be.
SOCRATES: So it must be that the polls do not capture the form of the election in its true nature, but only a changeable appearance of it?
GLAUCON: That must be right.
TENDERBRANSON: Your logic is clear, Socrates.
TORIES: That's how it is.
SOCRATES: So perhaps another approach would be better. Now, would we not say that if a man is to be a lover of wisdom and have harmony in his soul, the rational and philosophical part of his soul should be in command?
GLAUCON: Clearly.
SOCRATES: So should we not look to North Carolina's most rational and philosophical citizens?
TORIES: Well, North Carolina has a lot of high-income seculars, working as computer programmers in Raleigh or bankers in Charlotte, and these I think will trend hard to Romney. This is why I think Romney will carry North Carolina.
SOCRATES: Who are these "high-income seculars" of which you speak, Tories?
TORIES: They are people like me, who've made lots of money filing suit in the court of Argon and trading with the Persians, and who don't believe that there are any gods.
GLAUCON: Wait, what? Surely we all believe in the gods atop Mount Olympus.
TORIES: No, not me.
JMFCSTES: There is only one God. Currently He is only worshiped by the Jews, but four hundred years from now he will send his only son to redeem us all. For it will be written, in a few centuries: "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
BRTDES: No way I'd believe that. Maybe after a couple of thousand years their services will get more interesting, but for the first nineteen centuries or so it will be just a bunch of old men talking. Why would I go for that when I could go see the hot new Oracle of Delphi predict the future while waving her hands in the air?
NATHANES: I too believe that there is just one God, but the truly sophisticated position is to realize that the importance about religion lies not in the so-called objective truth-value of whatever metaphysical theses about the external world it might be interpreted as making, but rather in its providing structure and guidance to a personal spirituality that I recognize also is present with many adherents of Olympian polytheism.
GLAUCON: Now I'm totally lost.
SOCRATES: As am I. But luckily we don't need to settle these issues about Gods, as I see another problem with these "high-income seculars". Did you not say, Tories, that they were merchants, who had obtained a lot of money?
TORIES: I did.
SOCRATES: Now, would we say of a man who was ruled by the love of money that he was wise, or that he did not recognize what was truly valuable in life?
TORIES: The latter.
SOCRATES: So we should look instead to the philosophers. How do the philosophers of North Carolina vote?
TENDERBRANSON: I'm not really sure, but I think they live in a town called Chapel Hill, where they support Obama.
MEMPHES: Wait, what? In America philosophers live outside the big city? Crazy! They must be a lot smarter than our philosophers. All our philosophers want to live right in central Athens, even though a stone hut will cost you ten drachmas a month, just because they think it's the "cradle of Western civilization" or some crap like that.
SOCRATES: So the philosophers support one candidate, and the merchants another?
TENDERBRANSON: Yes.
SOCRATES: And didn't North Carolina vote for one party the previous time in 2008 but the other party in 2004?
TENDERBRANSON: Yes.
SOCRATES: Truly a state with a disordered soul. And is not Mitt Romney likewise the candidate with the most disordered soul, given that he claims to oppose all the more liberal things he said he supported as governor of Massachusetts.
TENDERBRANSON: Yes indeed, Socrates.
SOCRATES: And does it not follow that a state with a disordered soul will vote for a candidate with a disordered soul, so Mitt Romney will carry North Carolina?
GLAUCON: Your logic is clear, Socrates. Thank you so much for settling our dispute.

This is one of the greatest posts I've ever seen.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That was a great post.

Gustaf's rebuttal reminds me of Libertas. "You can't get it because you're also a thick skulled hack." I mean look at my predictions (they are visible on my profile), if anything they have on average been a bit more conservative than reality. I underestimated Obama's performance both times in fact. I'll admit to being rather partisan, but not hackish.

All I'll say is that I sure as hell don't want to live in some totalitarian "Republic" ruled by "Philosopher Kings" anymore than I want to live in a so-called Randian Objectivist society or Leninist regime. And one could also argue that Rand and Lenin were intelligent people as well, does that make what they wrote worthy of value? But that's not really the point here, it's a debate for another forum. I just thought that anyone with Plato's views in the modern day would disgust probably well over 90% of the population but Gustaf just loves defending such people for seemingly no reason than to be contrarian (see also Sarah Palin) yet also mercilessly rips into people that are somewhat controversial but also more polarized in opinion and not as universally hated (in addition to me see how he constantly gets on px.) But meh. What Gustaf thinks of me affects me and is just as relevant as what Libertas or Kyle Mercado did, so whatever. The thread was worth it regardless just for Linus' post, so this was definitely a net plus.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Agreed. That post was the best I've seen in a long time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm genuinely honored.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

That was a great post.

Gustaf's rebuttal reminds me of Libertas. "You can't get it because you're also a thick skulled hack." I mean look at my predictions (they are visible on my profile), if anything they have on average been a bit more conservative than reality. I underestimated Obama's performance both times in fact. I'll admit to being rather partisan, but not hackish.

All I'll say is that I sure as hell don't want to live in some totalitarian "Republic" ruled by "Philosopher Kings" anymore than I want to live in a so-called Randian Objectivist society or Leninist regime. And one could also argue that Rand and Lenin were intelligent people as well, does that make what they wrote worthy of value? But that's not really the point here, it's a debate for another forum. I just thought that anyone with Plato's views in the modern day would disgust probably well over 90% of the population but Gustaf just loves defending such people for seemingly no reason than to be contrarian (see also Sarah Palin) yet also mercilessly rips into people that are somewhat controversial but also more polarized in opinion and not as universally hated (in addition to me see how he constantly gets on px.) But meh. What Gustaf thinks of me affects me and is just as relevant as what Libertas or Kyle Mercado did, so whatever. The thread was worth it regardless just for Linus' post, so this was definitely a net plus.

Whether you agree with Plato or not, whether you consider him disguisting or not and whether Gustaf agrees or disagrees with him is not the issue here. Again, your obsession with seeing everything throught narrow, black and white, agree/disagree, good/bad, FF/HP sight.

Gustaf merely points out Plato is a giant of philosophy, which is an established fact, and discussing him in good/bad format is juvenille at best. Then again, understanding this simple niuance is beyond your reasoning skils. I'm hardly surprised.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't even like Plato very much except as filtered through Simone Weil and I think BRTD's being ridiculous.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't even like Plato very much except as filtered through Simone Weil and I think BRTD's being ridiculous.

I don't like Plato very much either, though his Socratic dialogues are enjoyable read.

[Gustaf]

That was a great post.

Gustaf's rebuttal reminds me of Libertas. "You can't get it because you're also a thick skulled hack." I mean look at my predictions (they are visible on my profile), if anything they have on average been a bit more conservative than reality. I underestimated Obama's performance both times in fact. I'll admit to being rather partisan, but not hackish.

All I'll say is that I sure as hell don't want to live in some totalitarian "Republic" ruled by "Philosopher Kings" anymore than I want to live in a so-called Randian Objectivist society or Leninist regime. And one could also argue that Rand and Lenin were intelligent people as well, does that make what they wrote worthy of value? But that's not really the point here, it's a debate for another forum. I just thought that anyone with Plato's views in the modern day would disgust probably well over 90% of the population but Gustaf just loves defending such people for seemingly no reason than to be contrarian (see also Sarah Palin) yet also mercilessly rips into people that are somewhat controversial but also more polarized in opinion and not as universally hated (in addition to me see how he constantly gets on px.) But meh. What Gustaf thinks of me affects me and is just as relevant as what Libertas or Kyle Mercado did, so whatever. The thread was worth it regardless just for Linus' post, so this was definitely a net plus.

Do you not realize how little sense you're making? What I write reminds you of Libertas? So? How is that relevant for anything? These things you say really aren't coherent.

Plato was not only a political philosopher. And since I'm not an idiot, like you, I can hold nuanced opinions of people. So while I also oppose his ideal society, I can recognize that his views on that is probably heavily influenced by his time and the experience of Athens killing Socrates. And I can appreciate Plato's writings in general and on other subjects.

Your attitude to these things is so infantile that it defies comprehension.

Anyway, you really think that it is a negative thing to not agree with the majority? That disliking someone who is popular is somehow bad? See, the value of critical thinking is something Plato could probably explain to you if you gave him a chance.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, I should perhaps add that I don't agree with much of Plato's philosophy either. Kalwejt sums it up nicely.

Oh, and I also enjoyed the Plato parody. Good job.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That was a great post.

Gustaf's rebuttal reminds me of Libertas. "You can't get it because you're also a thick skulled hack." I mean look at my predictions (they are visible on my profile), if anything they have on average been a bit more conservative than reality. I underestimated Obama's performance both times in fact. I'll admit to being rather partisan, but not hackish.

All I'll say is that I sure as hell don't want to live in some totalitarian "Republic" ruled by "Philosopher Kings" anymore than I want to live in a so-called Randian Objectivist society or Leninist regime. And one could also argue that Rand and Lenin were intelligent people as well, does that make what they wrote worthy of value? But that's not really the point here, it's a debate for another forum. I just thought that anyone with Plato's views in the modern day would disgust probably well over 90% of the population but Gustaf just loves defending such people for seemingly no reason than to be contrarian (see also Sarah Palin) yet also mercilessly rips into people that are somewhat controversial but also more polarized in opinion and not as universally hated (in addition to me see how he constantly gets on px.) But meh. What Gustaf thinks of me affects me and is just as relevant as what Libertas or Kyle Mercado did, so whatever. The thread was worth it regardless just for Linus' post, so this was definitely a net plus.

Do you not realize how little sense you're making? What I write reminds you of Libertas? So? How is that relevant for anything? These things you say really aren't coherent.

Plato was not only a political philosopher. And since I'm not an idiot, like you, I can hold nuanced opinions of people. So while I also oppose his ideal society, I can recognize that his views on that is probably heavily influenced by his time and the experience of Athens killing Socrates. And I can appreciate Plato's writings in general and on other subjects.

Your attitude to these things is so infantile that it defies comprehension.

Anyway, you really think that it is a negative thing to not agree with the majority? That disliking someone who is popular is somehow bad? See, the value of critical thinking is something Plato could probably explain to you if you gave him a chance.

Oh yeah I'm an idiot. That's why I was just running training for a very technical-intensive job this week and was selected by the Division Manager to substitute for supervisors because of technical knowledge and ability to answer questions when many were gone the past few weeks.

I don't know where you get this idea from that I never ever show any nuance and never have in my 67000 posts. Sure I often get pretty passionate and use some extreme rhetoric. But that doesn't mean there's no nuance on anything. I just made this post only a day ago:

I kind of agree on a lot of the good things LBJ doing being inevitable, it kind of reminds me of the Nader apologists who argue that Nader is the only reason cars have seat belts today (because obviously without Nader no one else would ever propose or push for legislation mandating them and they wouldn't become a standard feature every car company would include anyway even if not mandated. So dumb.) It's pretty absurd to believe that without LBJ segregation and the type of voter suppression present in the South at the time would've survived to the present day and that there would've never been any Civil Rights Act or court decisions against them in the last 50 years. However that doesn't mean the situation today would not have been worse had that action not been taken early. And as far as the Great Society goes, most of those programs were not necessarily inevitable.

It's just as annoying though to defend him by arguing that Vietnam as it turned out (or a similar war) was inevitable as well no matter who was President.

And really considering one of the people I was thinking of that was unpopular but still inexplicably defended by you was CARLHAYDEN...uh well I'll just say that if you seriously think he was a poster who normally held very nuanced opinions and never delved into extreme black and white dichotomies, then, well I don't think much more needs to be said...

Anyway my view is basically that Plato's political philosophy is so awful it eclipses anything else he wrote. It's like Hugo Chavez actually (hey I actually have a more nuanced view on him than most right wingers do!), his authoritarianism and awful associations invalidated the good things he did that were brought up so much recently. It most certainly puts him behind Aristotle who didn't get anywhere near as  much of a negative reaction from the class or me. And it's clear he was a personal asshole.

But my point (along with this thread obviously) was never too serious. This is a political forum, so if someone started posting on it advocating Platonic government, they would be labeled and troll and be unpopular. And you have a tendency to defend such posters. It was just a jocular statement and the fact you took it so seriously is just more evidence of how little of a sense of humor you have.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What was Plato position on emoviolence?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What was Plato position on emoviolence?

He likely would've opposed it and wanted to censor it, seeing as what he thought about poetry.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What was Plato position on emoviolence?

He likely would've opposed it and wanted to censor it, seeing as what he thought about poetry.

Actually, we can't know where Plato, if alive, would stand in today's world. Once again you have fell into a trap of your lack of reasoning skills

Oh yeah I'm an idiot. That's why I was just running training for a very technical-intensive job this week and was selected by the Division Manager to substitute for supervisors because of technical knowledge and ability to answer questions when many were gone the past few weeks.

Utterly irrelevant. The fact you can handle technical-intensive job doesn't automatically mean you can understand philosophical and everyday nuances. It's like claiming ability to operate a car makes you an expert in medieval poetry.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh yeah I'm an idiot. That's why I was just running training for a very technical-intensive job this week and was selected by the Division Manager to substitute for supervisors because of technical knowledge and ability to answer questions when many were gone the past few weeks.

Utterly irrelevant. The fact you can handle technical-intensive job doesn't automatically mean you can understand philosophical and everyday nuances. It's like claiming ability to operate a car makes you an expert in medieval poetry.

Speaking of which, what are BRTD's positions on Chaucer, Dante, Vogelweide, and the Comtessa de Diá?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I dislike the Chaucer stuff I had to read in high school, though nowhere near as much as Shakespeare (who I f**king HATED, though he wasn't even the worst*), I thought Dante had a talent for visuals but overall was too pretentious and overdone, and I don't know what the other two are.

*That would be Hawthorne. I'd rather read a dissertation written by krazen on unions and education than have to read The Scarlet Letter again. Ugh.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Which of Chaucer did they have you read, what was your problem with Shakespeare, and are you aware that the modern bar for being 'pretentious and overdone' is incredibly low, historically speaking?

Walther von der Vogelweide and Beatritz de Diá were lyric poets of around the same time period (late twelfth to early thirteenth centuries). Vogelweide was a minnesinger and Diá a trobairitz. Vogelweide wrote in Middle High German, Diá in Occitan. Here is the only extant work of Diá's for which the music survives.

[Brittain33]

You are just bogged down in the hazarai BRTD.

Oh my. Not a word I have heard since I was in my grandmother's kitchen in the 1980s.

[Torie]

You are just bogged down in the hazarai BRTD.

Oh my. Not a word I have heard since I was in my grandmother's kitchen in the 1980s.

Oh you heard it from me before, and we discussed it!  I heard it from a Jewish lawyer.

[Brittain33]

You are just bogged down in the hazarai BRTD.

Oh my. Not a word I have heard since I was in my grandmother's kitchen in the 1980s.

Oh you heard it from me before, and we discussed it!  I heard it from a Jewish lawyer.

Oy.

[Torie]

vey

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hey what's this, another post I made that involves nuance:

Never and honestly this is an issue I'm not particularly principled on, if I did have a unionized job and it called a strike over an issue I personally disagreed with it and did not agree with the strike I'd have no problem whatsoever scabbing (especially since scabbing might result in more pay to boot.) Especially if the reason for the strike wouldn't particularly affect me (like some pension thing that would only be a big factor to olds for example.) Of course if I agreed with the reason I would participate in the strike.

Granted, I'm not an expert on these things (we really don't have unions in Mississippi), but isn't that not allowed?  I thought union members were forbidden to return to work during the strike and scabs were replacements hired by the company.

No, they are allowed to "scab", but if the strike is successful, a good union will do everything possible to discipline them.

Of course I'd have to weigh benefits and all that, but in Harry's scenario, I'd be willing to scab if I felt a union was striking for a bad reason. Taking a position that unions are always right in all circumstances and all strikes are justified and thus scabbing is always wrong is just as absurd as the krazen position of that unions are always wrong. Also honoring a strike I disagree with kind of strikes me as equivalent to not using marijuana just because it's illegal.

[traininthedistance]

I dislike the Chaucer stuff I had to read in high school, though nowhere near as much as Shakespeare (who I f**king HATED, though he wasn't even the worst*), I thought Dante had a talent for visuals but overall was too pretentious and overdone, and I don't know what the other two are.

*That would be Hawthorne. I'd rather read a dissertation written by krazen on unions and education than have to read The Scarlet Letter again. Ugh.

You hate Shakespeare?  How can anyone use the English language and hate Shakespeare?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I dislike the Chaucer stuff I had to read in high school, though nowhere near as much as Shakespeare (who I f**king HATED, though he wasn't even the worst*), I thought Dante had a talent for visuals but overall was too pretentious and overdone, and I don't know what the other two are.

*That would be Hawthorne. I'd rather read a dissertation written by krazen on unions and education than have to read The Scarlet Letter again. Ugh.

You hate Shakespeare?  How can anyone use the English language and hate Shakespeare?

Because Shakespeare was a fascist and would oppose strip clubs. Also, he would love Hitler and Eamon De Valera.

[traininthedistance]

I dislike the Chaucer stuff I had to read in high school, though nowhere near as much as Shakespeare (who I f**king HATED, though he wasn't even the worst*), I thought Dante had a talent for visuals but overall was too pretentious and overdone, and I don't know what the other two are.

*That would be Hawthorne. I'd rather read a dissertation written by krazen on unions and education than have to read The Scarlet Letter again. Ugh.

You hate Shakespeare?  How can anyone use the English language and hate Shakespeare?

Because Shakespeare was a fascist and would oppose strip clubs. Also, he would love Hitler and Eamon De Valera.

To be fair, it's perfectly kosher to hate The Merchant of Venice or The Taming of the Shrew.  As great as the Bard was, and how influential he's been on literature and the English language in general, he was also from the sixteenth century.  And some of those inevitable sixteenth-century attitudes have aged... poorly.

But hating on, say, Hamlet or Twelfth Night?  That's just f**knuts.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I dislike the Chaucer stuff I had to read in high school, though nowhere near as much as Shakespeare (who I f**king HATED, though he wasn't even the worst*), I thought Dante had a talent for visuals but overall was too pretentious and overdone, and I don't know what the other two are.

*That would be Hawthorne. I'd rather read a dissertation written by krazen on unions and education than have to read The Scarlet Letter again. Ugh.

You hate Shakespeare?  How can anyone use the English language and hate Shakespeare?

Because Shakespeare was a fascist and would oppose strip clubs. Also, he would love Hitler and Eamon De Valera.

To be fair, it's perfectly kosher to hate The Merchant of Venice or The Taming of the Shrew.  As great as the Bard was, and how influential he's been on literature and the English language in general, he was also from the sixteenth century.  And some of those inevitable sixteenth-century attitudes have aged... poorly.

But hating on, say, Hamlet or Twelfth Night?  That's just f**knuts.

To be honest The Merchant of Venice or The Taming of the Shrew were product of it's times, so we should remember about historical context.

Of course, I hate this