yeah, that's always bothered me about the whole system in these here united states. in order to be the president, the only skill you need is a friendly face and "people skills." sometimes i wonder if electing people into office based on how intelligent they are rather than how many babies they can kiss in a year might be an idea worth trying.
re: plato, that's a good point, although i can't help but wonder that if he had ended up being a wine seller or something whether he would have declared the perfect ruler to be a Wine-Merchant-King instead. (i'm a philosophy major, so i'm allowed to tease him a little;) ).
i think the standard is that the person who wants to rule the least is the one best suited for the philosopher-king position.
the more you want to rule, the more we (the proles) should be afraid of you doing so.
on another note, i always thought it was kind of vain for plato to say the perfect ruler is a philosopher. my greek philosophy professor attributed it to the fact that philosophers can never get jobs, so they make up for it by declaring temselves the rulers of the universe.
and also, who's gonna vote "no" to something called "usa patriot act."
it's almost nauseating how obviously the name of the act is meant to manipulate people's opinions of it. if you say it's bad, then you hate america. blarg.
bricks might be meant to build houses, but if you hit someone over the head with it, it still flippin' hurts. i dont think the person that has a brick in his skull is gonna care what the Aristotelean Purpose of the brick was.
my point is: i think his analogy holds, from a practial point of view. they are both potentially dangerous, and it matters little what they were meant to do when they were made.
and there certainly is some precedent for people going a little crazy and outlawing anything that can be even viewed as marginally dangerous. i think that's what he's referring to.
better to "feed" their desire with made up pictures than to feed their desire with real children.
if the pedophile has a desire that wants to be fed, he's gonna try his darndest to feed it with something. seems to me that starving him of it altogether isn't going to do anything but make him more hungry.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, that's always bothered me about the whole system in these here united states. in order to be the president, the only skill you need is a friendly face and "people skills." sometimes i wonder if electing people into office based on how intelligent they are rather than how many babies they can kiss in a year might be an idea worth trying.
re: plato, that's a good point, although i can't help but wonder that if he had ended up being a wine seller or something whether he would have declared the perfect ruler to be a Wine-Merchant-King instead. (i'm a philosophy major, so i'm allowed to tease him a little ;) ).
cheers,
-midas (www.haduken.com)
i think the standard is that the person who wants to rule the least is the one best suited for the philosopher-king position.
the more you want to rule, the more we (the proles) should be afraid of you doing so.
on another note, i always thought it was kind of vain for plato to say the perfect ruler is a philosopher. my greek philosophy professor attributed it to the fact that philosophers can never get jobs, so they make up for it by declaring temselves the rulers of the universe.
cheers,
-midas (www.haduken.com)
and also, who's gonna vote "no" to something called "usa patriot act."
it's almost nauseating how obviously the name of the act is meant to manipulate people's opinions of it. if you say it's bad, then you hate america. blarg.
cheers,
-midas (www.haduken.com)
bricks might be meant to build houses, but if you hit someone over the head with it, it still flippin' hurts. i dont think the person that has a brick in his skull is gonna care what the Aristotelean Purpose of the brick was.
my point is: i think his analogy holds, from a practial point of view. they are both potentially dangerous, and it matters little what they were meant to do when they were made.
and there certainly is some precedent for people going a little crazy and outlawing anything that can be even viewed as marginally dangerous. i think that's what he's referring to.
after all, think of the children.
cheers,
-midas (www.haduken.com)
better to "feed" their desire with made up pictures than to feed their desire with real children.
if the pedophile has a desire that wants to be fed, he's gonna try his darndest to feed it with something. seems to me that starving him of it altogether isn't going to do anything but make him more hungry.
to follow your metaphor.
cheers,
-midas (www.haduken.com)