If the NSA only spied for military purposes on foreign governments, I would see your point. The NSA spied on German citizens, not just their military. Since it's all "secret" we really don't know a motive, but looking at how the police there shut down demonstrations real time similar to how OWS was shut down in the US you should be questioning their handling and use of the data. I could point to similar incidents in the UK, where again the NSA was spying on citizens not just military with similar results.
Other reports have mentioned things like industrial espionage being done by the NSA. Again, since it's all "secret" we only know what's been leaked, and what's been leaked is their capabilities more than their actions. In other words, we don't know everything they have been doing with all the data they collect.
This paints a rather eerie picture of what the NSA is really doing as an agency.
Sure, I'll defend the average agent who believes they are just going a job and defending the USA. As a Veteran I defend soldiers with the same beliefs. The agency they work for however, does not deserve the same defense when you consider a long series of known abuses.
I think it's relevant because people are trained to look at shiny objects and believe that things like Twitter and Facebook are extremely shiny. People are told not to text and drive, yet hear "Like us on Facebook" and "Follow us on Twitter" much more often. What percentage of the population understands the mixed message?
"where the computer system would detect an obstacle and react differently."
why? hmm? why cant the system make the same decision? it's only a few parameters.
I gave an example, and could come up with more. Lets say you see an accident happen and pull over to assist, you are trained in CPR or in the medical field. You reacted to data the car does not know. Sure, we could somehow put all that data out there for a car to get, but how much data are you willing to put into a database to make a car drive better than a person? Even if such data was available to the car, how do they know you should stop by law? How do they know you wish to volunteer? They could surely request, but that slows the reaction time.
I agree with the premise that cars on average drive better than the average person. "Better" is subjective in all regards.
You are not looking at the correct problem to correlate data against. The problem with immoral or out of control behavior is not "Video Games". The problem is with how the kids are raised and the environments they live in.
I'll also point out that correlation != causation, and when it comes to things like "morality" there are huge amounts of influence from all kinds of sources.
Society is trained to look at shiny objects, that's not all human nature at work. Education away from shiny objects does move things in a different direction.
I'm not the person you responded to, but have to counter a couple of your points.
And how would you go about "fixing" humans?
Education, starting young enough that people learn critical thinking skills at a young age. Culturally we would need media to stop glamorizing entertainment figures and glamorize thinkers. It's happened every now and then through history, usually with good results. It never lasts, because knowledge is power and certain people hoard knowledge just like money to gain and maintain power.
Is there a rock beneath the bag? You can't know. You can, however, guess there isn't and adjust your estimates about any future bags containing rocks should this one be harmless. That happens all the time, and is one of the numerous ways in which human rationality tends to break down.
You are giving computers and self driving cars way more power than they have in reality. A human could see the bag bouncing around in the road and make the decision, where the computer system would detect an obstacle and react differently.
The human mind, contrary to your implication outperforms computers all the time. Especially what you would find in a self driving car. There are surely some computers that can beat a human in chess, but the computers processing power is dedicated 100% to playing chess. The human can notice it's surroundings, contemplate what they are going to have for dinner, and breath and regulate their heartbeat all while playing that game of chess.
Don't get me wrong, computers are great tools but still just tools.
To give a prime example, a human may be driving down a hill and notice traffic ahead of them way beyond the detection range of the self driving car. They can instantly turn off the freeway and reroute their trip. A computer requires input to do the same thing, and takes more time to do the same thing. If it didn't receive information on the accident that just happened from their GPS, you are going to be stuck in traffic.
I'll agree that for normal traffic computers are as good as most people at getting from point A to point B. I don't agree that they are better at driving than all people.
The last point I'll make is regarding the speed limit. Humans could be made to drive the speed limit also. We have had governors for cars for a century, but we don't install or enforce them. Why? Because sometimes you need to be able to drive faster than the speed limit in order to be safe. Those types of decisions are easier for a human to make than a computer to make. The car may not see any reason to drive over 55MPH, but the human can see the tornado in the rear view mirror heading right toward them. The car may not know to stop under the overpass, the human does. All of that self preservation processing in the human mind happens instantly. A computer is going to have to jump to a huge set of exception code for non-driving events if it's even aware of them.
I'll courteously disagree. Humans can be fixed, but it would take a major cultural shift to do so. Education and critical thinking skills are not high on most adults list of things they are good at, let alone kids and teenagers. They can learn though, we know this. Now of culturally we were to switch focus from entertainment (celebrities, sports, etc...) and be a culture of critical thinking and education people would lose their desire for using everything possible to get more entertainment.
I'd agree that it probably won't happen in our lifetimes, I'm just saying it can.
The TSA is not shocked when people opt out of body scanners, it happens all the time. If you are courteous to them while requesting to opt out, they are generally courteous to you in return. Sure, just like all enforcement type professions, there are some that have a grudge against the world and/or use their position as a power trip. I have seen videos, but never ran into one myself so don't believe they are common.
Correct on all accounts. Playing a video game is not bad by nature. If the player can easily understand that "it's a game" and not confuse the game with reality, I don't see an issue. One of the major issues I see with mental health and video games is that some parents use games as baby sitters. They don't provide the moral context, then wonder why their kids get out of control.
I see this just like I see people blaming Wily Coyote cartoons for violence. Entertainment with proper guidance is just entertainment, but some people need a scape goat.
There is a difference between ignoring words and phrases and writing a wrong word, or misunderstanding a phrase. Nothing like inventing things too, since I don't use the term "breathe" and neither did anyone else.
The person I responded to equated a relationship with being an alcoholic and tobacco addict. That _IS_ making a claim, albeit indirectly, that a relationship is unhealthy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Your inability to imagine something is not proof of its non-existence; it's only proof of your limited imagination.
What? Who said anything about non-existence? If you and your girlfriend/boyfriend have a night of adventure and take adult photos together, you both know they are there!
It sort of makes sense to prohibit someone from publishing compromising photos of their ex, but requiring that certain photos be deleted is impractical, unreasonable, unenforceable, and just plain dumb.
As with above, you both "KNOW" the pictures exist. You took them together. Let's say it's you and she has the images. Lets say in the heat of passion, you were in a compromising position that does not look flattering. You don't want pictures showing up later in family and friends email boxes if she gets angry with you because you left a bill unpaid after the break up, or get blamed for the loss of their favorite shirt.
You ask her to delete the photo's and she tells you to go pound sand.
Germany just said that you have a legal right to make such a demand. She can keep the photos of you clothed, but not the ones that will get you fired or perhaps denied a secret clearance. (Yes, that can happen).
I agree that enforcement is an issue, and your piece of mind may never be completely clear. Remember that no matter how _you_ treat those naked photos of exes, other people are not so nice. Hell, search the Internet for a bit and find all the "My Ex" adult sites.
So says you. Seems you failed philosophy 101. I think all that's healthy as fuck, and part of the human experience. Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own home?
Are you trying to impress me with your lack of understanding the difference between Psychology and Philosophy? Add in all the ad hominem and it's not a surprise that you can't understand why the comment gets rated highly.
English isn't your first language? If it is, why do you not understand the definition of "dwells" and what the expression "all the time"? Since I'm guessing you are a native English speaker, if you are not trolling try reading my post again fully instead of selectively reading what you feel like.
Have you considered that maybe your view of relationships might not be universal?
If you want to claim that a relationship by nature is unhealthy, I'll tell you to prove it. Thousands of years of psychological and sociological research will prove you wrong. Don't cite some one off quack to make your point, do the actual work. Sure there are "unhealthy" relationships in the world, but that is not because relationships are bad, but because of human nature. Example, all people breath and criminals breath too. That does not make breathing bad, it means that people breath. In a relationship, people need to learn to spot unhealthy behavior and deal with it. Either attempt to correct it, or move to a healthy relationship.
There are many people who will value a relationship highly even after it ends, everything you say seems to be negative.
I used a normal generalization where a person would want to keep naked pictures of their ex. If the relationship remains friends after a breakup, it's an exception not the normal. In which case, part of the friendship would entail deleting old naked photo's of the ex out of respect don't you think?
It would be a terrible world indeed where we would stop remembering the good times we had together with some loved one.
If you are a person that has to sit and look at naked photos of the ex to "remember the good times" you either had a relationship that was not really a relationship but a string of sexual encounters, or you are mentally ill. I don't mean that as accusatory, but if the shoe fits...
If you want to call out the exception as the normal, at least try and make it a valid exception. Nothing you said makes my statements wrong, you appear to be trying to nitpick to convince yourself that keeping naked photo's of an ex is an okay thing to do.
Not just a bad analogy, but absolutely wrong in just about every possible way. Which of course means your opinion of right and wrong is horribly skewed, therefor your opinion on the subject is wrong. I'll start with the fact that relationships, contrary to what Pop music stars and TV celebrities tell you, are healthy.
The only possible reasons to keep adult photo's after a relationship ends are unethical and immoral. Either the person wants to use them for revenge/smear purposes, or they are unable to cope with the termination of the relationship and need something to cling on to, or perhaps they have a porn collection that they want to supplement with an old girlfriend for masturbatory purposes. In all cases, that is unacceptable behavior and symptomatic of numerous possible mental disorders.
To claim that a relationship is wrong, or that two consenting adults planning a long term relationship can't do things in the bedroom is social retardation at it's finest.
If a person dwells on a mental image of an ex, we would consider them sociopaths and dangerous. If they went around telling people what their ex looked like naked, we would think the same. If the person got off picturing their ex all the time, we'd consider them psychopaths. Why is a physical picture different than a mental picture? That's a rhetorical question, and the answer is that they are not very different at all when used in sociological / psychologically disruptive ways.
If google and facebook could find qualified black (or American employees in general) employees, wouldn't they do that rather than importing people from India/Pakistan/$wherever?
I'm sorry, but you point out the answer to this dilemma which you say is a different discussion. Google, Apple, Ford, GM, Amazon, etc... can all find qualified people in America. The problem is that they don't want to pay for qualified people, which is why they piss and moan about wanting more H1Bs. Which you point out results in people working for reduced wages.
Yes, I agree that race is a foolish thing to look at all things considered. Looking at wages when upper management is making billions is a very relevant issue. Especially considering the "gentleman's agreements" between Apple, Google, Facebook, et. al where they fixed wages blocked the market from working.
I think you should look at the definition of Oligarchy before claiming it does not matter. If it is a select group of people and not a majority of the people, then it's called an "Oligarchy" and not a "Democracy".
The "women and children can't vote" argument makes no sense at all, it is immaterial to the discussion.
You are nitpicking a fragement out of a statement to make your argument. Read the first sentence given In Athens the only "citizens" were men of "means". There were more than women and children given as an example of people that could not vote, primarily non-property owners which were the majority of citizens.
Socrates did not want Athens to be a democracy, that is clear, but it WAS a democracy at the time
Wrong on all accounts. Socrates realized that he could not change Athens and never tried to change the Athenian government. His debate was on how to make a perfect government, and what a perfect government was, not how to change Athens.
Athens was an Oligarchy, very similar to what Rome was. This is not what they called themselves, this is what they were by action and definition. North Korea calls itself a Republic, but is obviously a dictatorship. One can not go by what they decide to call themselves, but measure their methods and deeds. Which is why even though the US is a Republic, we are behaving (and have been) like an Oligarchy.
If you are dark haired and dark skinned with dark eyes, you are not going to be an albino no matter how long you call yourself one. If people believe that you are an albino, shame on them for believing you. Shame on you for manipulating and lying to people too.
how about we call them what they really are: Enemies of the People.
The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.
Prove it! To put it in simple terms: If you take the word of a known liar on good faith, you are an idiot.
Sure, I would agree that "some" of the people probably believe that they are doing a "good job", but that "job" has been defined by corrupt people who are proven to have spoken untrue statements under oath. They don't care about honesty, they care either about themselves and their ilk or an agenda which is being hidden from the Citizens of this Counrty.
Not everyone is your enemy just because you disagree on how to accomplish a goal.
Absolute rubbish! If you don't have the truth in what they are doing, then you don't have the truth in goal. I have no idea why people like you claim "I don't know" + "Immoral and/or illegal actions" + "Known Liars" == "Good for the USA". Making such a claim is completely absurd.
In Athens the only "citizens" were men of "means". Women had no rights, non-property owners had no rights, and slaves had no rights. This is why it is not a true "democracy". Socrates was very critical of the Athenian Government because it was so restrictive when it came to representation in the Democracy. In "The Republic" Socrates states his beliefs very clearly. Women should count just as much as men and perform any job a man can do, slavery should not exist because it weakens the Republic. "Children" were not allowed to participate, but one was only a child in Athens until puberty, 13-14 on average.
I believe when the "Thirty Tyrant's" occurred Socrates was in his early 20s, so I am more than skeptical of your quote about Critias being one of Socrates' pupils. Can you cite your source? I have not read that bit of history in quite some time, but don't recall Critias being called a "pupil of Socrates". I have various sources on hand for that piece of history, but due to illness lack the energy to go digging at the moment. In his 20s Socrates has many associates, but no "pupils".
Since translation is a huge issue with that time period, the author and version of your source is important. There are not many "histories" from that time period, but I trust linguistic translations much more than political science translations.
What the hell is with this fad of people claiming that the US is a "representative democracy"? The USA was founded as a Democratic Republic. It's bad enough that corruption has turned us into an Oligarchy, we don't need people trying to confuse what we are any further. We need to restore our country, not have people making up false claims.
Oh Noes! Not an anonymous sock puppet claiming that the book is going to dumb people down. The Oligarchy works so well because people don't study history and have no idea what we knew nearly 3,000 years ago in the way of rhetoric, justice, knowledge of government, etc...
At best a few college students learn "The Allegory of the Cave" from the work, which is a critical concept for people to consider when dealing with media and Governments. Most people don't ever hear of this even, because the Oligarchy does not want people to have knowledge.
Greece was not a true Democracy, it was very close to what we know as a Roman Republic which is more like an oligarchy. Socrates was not voted to death either, he was convicted of "heresy" by a local lordling who had a vote in Senate.
My point about Reagan is really that so called "conservatives" treat him like he was some sort of messiah, claiming he was the most conservative president we have ever had and is a beacon of conservatism. It's really a sad joke being played on people, but people do fall for this nonsense which is why they keep up the claims.
Slashdot Mirror
If the NSA only spied for military purposes on foreign governments, I would see your point. The NSA spied on German citizens, not just their military. Since it's all "secret" we really don't know a motive, but looking at how the police there shut down demonstrations real time similar to how OWS was shut down in the US you should be questioning their handling and use of the data. I could point to similar incidents in the UK, where again the NSA was spying on citizens not just military with similar results.
Other reports have mentioned things like industrial espionage being done by the NSA. Again, since it's all "secret" we only know what's been leaked, and what's been leaked is their capabilities more than their actions. In other words, we don't know everything they have been doing with all the data they collect.
This paints a rather eerie picture of what the NSA is really doing as an agency.
Sure, I'll defend the average agent who believes they are just going a job and defending the USA. As a Veteran I defend soldiers with the same beliefs. The agency they work for however, does not deserve the same defense when you consider a long series of known abuses.
I agree, still irrelevant to the topic.
I think it's relevant because people are trained to look at shiny objects and believe that things like Twitter and Facebook are extremely shiny. People are told not to text and drive, yet hear "Like us on Facebook" and "Follow us on Twitter" much more often. What percentage of the population understands the mixed message?
"where the computer system would detect an obstacle and react differently."
why? hmm? why cant the system make the same decision? it's only a few parameters.
I gave an example, and could come up with more. Lets say you see an accident happen and pull over to assist, you are trained in CPR or in the medical field. You reacted to data the car does not know. Sure, we could somehow put all that data out there for a car to get, but how much data are you willing to put into a database to make a car drive better than a person? Even if such data was available to the car, how do they know you should stop by law? How do they know you wish to volunteer? They could surely request, but that slows the reaction time.
I agree with the premise that cars on average drive better than the average person. "Better" is subjective in all regards.
You are not looking at the correct problem to correlate data against. The problem with immoral or out of control behavior is not "Video Games". The problem is with how the kids are raised and the environments they live in.
I'll also point out that correlation != causation, and when it comes to things like "morality" there are huge amounts of influence from all kinds of sources.
Society is trained to look at shiny objects, that's not all human nature at work. Education away from shiny objects does move things in a different direction.
I'm not the person you responded to, but have to counter a couple of your points.
And how would you go about "fixing" humans?
Education, starting young enough that people learn critical thinking skills at a young age. Culturally we would need media to stop glamorizing entertainment figures and glamorize thinkers. It's happened every now and then through history, usually with good results. It never lasts, because knowledge is power and certain people hoard knowledge just like money to gain and maintain power.
Is there a rock beneath the bag? You can't know. You can, however, guess there isn't and adjust your estimates about any future bags containing rocks should this one be harmless. That happens all the time, and is one of the numerous ways in which human rationality tends to break down.
You are giving computers and self driving cars way more power than they have in reality. A human could see the bag bouncing around in the road and make the decision, where the computer system would detect an obstacle and react differently.
The human mind, contrary to your implication outperforms computers all the time. Especially what you would find in a self driving car. There are surely some computers that can beat a human in chess, but the computers processing power is dedicated 100% to playing chess. The human can notice it's surroundings, contemplate what they are going to have for dinner, and breath and regulate their heartbeat all while playing that game of chess.
Don't get me wrong, computers are great tools but still just tools.
To give a prime example, a human may be driving down a hill and notice traffic ahead of them way beyond the detection range of the self driving car. They can instantly turn off the freeway and reroute their trip. A computer requires input to do the same thing, and takes more time to do the same thing. If it didn't receive information on the accident that just happened from their GPS, you are going to be stuck in traffic.
I'll agree that for normal traffic computers are as good as most people at getting from point A to point B. I don't agree that they are better at driving than all people.
The last point I'll make is regarding the speed limit. Humans could be made to drive the speed limit also. We have had governors for cars for a century, but we don't install or enforce them. Why? Because sometimes you need to be able to drive faster than the speed limit in order to be safe. Those types of decisions are easier for a human to make than a computer to make. The car may not see any reason to drive over 55MPH, but the human can see the tornado in the rear view mirror heading right toward them. The car may not know to stop under the overpass, the human does. All of that self preservation processing in the human mind happens instantly. A computer is going to have to jump to a huge set of exception code for non-driving events if it's even aware of them.
I'll courteously disagree. Humans can be fixed, but it would take a major cultural shift to do so. Education and critical thinking skills are not high on most adults list of things they are good at, let alone kids and teenagers. They can learn though, we know this. Now of culturally we were to switch focus from entertainment (celebrities, sports, etc...) and be a culture of critical thinking and education people would lose their desire for using everything possible to get more entertainment.
I'd agree that it probably won't happen in our lifetimes, I'm just saying it can.
The TSA is not shocked when people opt out of body scanners, it happens all the time. If you are courteous to them while requesting to opt out, they are generally courteous to you in return. Sure, just like all enforcement type professions, there are some that have a grudge against the world and/or use their position as a power trip. I have seen videos, but never ran into one myself so don't believe they are common.
Correct on all accounts. Playing a video game is not bad by nature. If the player can easily understand that "it's a game" and not confuse the game with reality, I don't see an issue. One of the major issues I see with mental health and video games is that some parents use games as baby sitters. They don't provide the moral context, then wonder why their kids get out of control.
I see this just like I see people blaming Wily Coyote cartoons for violence. Entertainment with proper guidance is just entertainment, but some people need a scape goat.
There is a difference between ignoring words and phrases and writing a wrong word, or misunderstanding a phrase. Nothing like inventing things too, since I don't use the term "breathe" and neither did anyone else.
The person I responded to equated a relationship with being an alcoholic and tobacco addict. That _IS_ making a claim, albeit indirectly, that a relationship is unhealthy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Your inability to imagine something is not proof of its non-existence; it's only proof of your limited imagination.
What? Who said anything about non-existence? If you and your girlfriend/boyfriend have a night of adventure and take adult photos together, you both know they are there!
It sort of makes sense to prohibit someone from publishing compromising photos of their ex, but requiring that certain photos be deleted is impractical, unreasonable, unenforceable, and just plain dumb.
As with above, you both "KNOW" the pictures exist. You took them together. Let's say it's you and she has the images. Lets say in the heat of passion, you were in a compromising position that does not look flattering. You don't want pictures showing up later in family and friends email boxes if she gets angry with you because you left a bill unpaid after the break up, or get blamed for the loss of their favorite shirt.
You ask her to delete the photo's and she tells you to go pound sand.
Germany just said that you have a legal right to make such a demand. She can keep the photos of you clothed, but not the ones that will get you fired or perhaps denied a secret clearance. (Yes, that can happen).
I agree that enforcement is an issue, and your piece of mind may never be completely clear. Remember that no matter how _you_ treat those naked photos of exes, other people are not so nice. Hell, search the Internet for a bit and find all the "My Ex" adult sites.
That is exactly the part of the post which people are not reading.
So says you. Seems you failed philosophy 101. I think all that's healthy as fuck, and part of the human experience. Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own home?
Are you trying to impress me with your lack of understanding the difference between Psychology and Philosophy? Add in all the ad hominem and it's not a surprise that you can't understand why the comment gets rated highly.
Troll somewhere else.
English isn't your first language? If it is, why do you not understand the definition of "dwells" and what the expression "all the time"? Since I'm guessing you are a native English speaker, if you are not trolling try reading my post again fully instead of selectively reading what you feel like.
Have you considered that maybe your view of relationships might not be universal?
If you want to claim that a relationship by nature is unhealthy, I'll tell you to prove it. Thousands of years of psychological and sociological research will prove you wrong. Don't cite some one off quack to make your point, do the actual work. Sure there are "unhealthy" relationships in the world, but that is not because relationships are bad, but because of human nature. Example, all people breath and criminals breath too. That does not make breathing bad, it means that people breath. In a relationship, people need to learn to spot unhealthy behavior and deal with it. Either attempt to correct it, or move to a healthy relationship.
There are many people who will value a relationship highly even after it ends, everything you say seems to be negative.
I used a normal generalization where a person would want to keep naked pictures of their ex. If the relationship remains friends after a breakup, it's an exception not the normal. In which case, part of the friendship would entail deleting old naked photo's of the ex out of respect don't you think?
It would be a terrible world indeed where we would stop remembering the good times we had together with some loved one.
If you are a person that has to sit and look at naked photos of the ex to "remember the good times" you either had a relationship that was not really a relationship but a string of sexual encounters, or you are mentally ill. I don't mean that as accusatory, but if the shoe fits...
If you want to call out the exception as the normal, at least try and make it a valid exception. Nothing you said makes my statements wrong, you appear to be trying to nitpick to convince yourself that keeping naked photo's of an ex is an okay thing to do.
I can't think of anything that's not funnier than a Carlos Mencia bit...
Not just a bad analogy, but absolutely wrong in just about every possible way. Which of course means your opinion of right and wrong is horribly skewed, therefor your opinion on the subject is wrong. I'll start with the fact that relationships, contrary to what Pop music stars and TV celebrities tell you, are healthy.
The only possible reasons to keep adult photo's after a relationship ends are unethical and immoral. Either the person wants to use them for revenge/smear purposes, or they are unable to cope with the termination of the relationship and need something to cling on to, or perhaps they have a porn collection that they want to supplement with an old girlfriend for masturbatory purposes. In all cases, that is unacceptable behavior and symptomatic of numerous possible mental disorders.
To claim that a relationship is wrong, or that two consenting adults planning a long term relationship can't do things in the bedroom is social retardation at it's finest.
If a person dwells on a mental image of an ex, we would consider them sociopaths and dangerous. If they went around telling people what their ex looked like naked, we would think the same. If the person got off picturing their ex all the time, we'd consider them psychopaths. Why is a physical picture different than a mental picture? That's a rhetorical question, and the answer is that they are not very different at all when used in sociological / psychologically disruptive ways.
Germany has this one right.
If google and facebook could find qualified black (or American employees in general) employees, wouldn't they do that rather than importing people from India/Pakistan/$wherever?
I'm sorry, but you point out the answer to this dilemma which you say is a different discussion. Google, Apple, Ford, GM, Amazon, etc... can all find qualified people in America. The problem is that they don't want to pay for qualified people, which is why they piss and moan about wanting more H1Bs. Which you point out results in people working for reduced wages.
Yes, I agree that race is a foolish thing to look at all things considered. Looking at wages when upper management is making billions is a very relevant issue. Especially considering the "gentleman's agreements" between Apple, Google, Facebook, et. al where they fixed wages blocked the market from working.
I think you should look at the definition of Oligarchy before claiming it does not matter. If it is a select group of people and not a majority of the people, then it's called an "Oligarchy" and not a "Democracy".
The "women and children can't vote" argument makes no sense at all, it is immaterial to the discussion.
You are nitpicking a fragement out of a statement to make your argument. Read the first sentence given In Athens the only "citizens" were men of "means". There were more than women and children given as an example of people that could not vote, primarily non-property owners which were the majority of citizens.
Socrates did not want Athens to be a democracy, that is clear, but it WAS a democracy at the time
Wrong on all accounts. Socrates realized that he could not change Athens and never tried to change the Athenian government. His debate was on how to make a perfect government, and what a perfect government was, not how to change Athens.
Athens was an Oligarchy, very similar to what Rome was. This is not what they called themselves, this is what they were by action and definition. North Korea calls itself a Republic, but is obviously a dictatorship. One can not go by what they decide to call themselves, but measure their methods and deeds. Which is why even though the US is a Republic, we are behaving (and have been) like an Oligarchy.
If you are dark haired and dark skinned with dark eyes, you are not going to be an albino no matter how long you call yourself one. If people believe that you are an albino, shame on them for believing you. Shame on you for manipulating and lying to people too.
how about we call them what they really are: Enemies of the People.
The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.
Prove it! To put it in simple terms: If you take the word of a known liar on good faith, you are an idiot.
Sure, I would agree that "some" of the people probably believe that they are doing a "good job", but that "job" has been defined by corrupt people who are proven to have spoken untrue statements under oath. They don't care about honesty, they care either about themselves and their ilk or an agenda which is being hidden from the Citizens of this Counrty.
Not everyone is your enemy just because you disagree on how to accomplish a goal.
Absolute rubbish! If you don't have the truth in what they are doing, then you don't have the truth in goal. I have no idea why people like you claim "I don't know" + "Immoral and/or illegal actions" + "Known Liars" == "Good for the USA". Making such a claim is completely absurd.
In Athens the only "citizens" were men of "means". Women had no rights, non-property owners had no rights, and slaves had no rights. This is why it is not a true "democracy". Socrates was very critical of the Athenian Government because it was so restrictive when it came to representation in the Democracy. In "The Republic" Socrates states his beliefs very clearly. Women should count just as much as men and perform any job a man can do, slavery should not exist because it weakens the Republic. "Children" were not allowed to participate, but one was only a child in Athens until puberty, 13-14 on average.
I believe when the "Thirty Tyrant's" occurred Socrates was in his early 20s, so I am more than skeptical of your quote about Critias being one of Socrates' pupils. Can you cite your source? I have not read that bit of history in quite some time, but don't recall Critias being called a "pupil of Socrates". I have various sources on hand for that piece of history, but due to illness lack the energy to go digging at the moment. In his 20s Socrates has many associates, but no "pupils".
Since translation is a huge issue with that time period, the author and version of your source is important. There are not many "histories" from that time period, but I trust linguistic translations much more than political science translations.
What the hell is with this fad of people claiming that the US is a "representative democracy"? The USA was founded as a Democratic Republic. It's bad enough that corruption has turned us into an Oligarchy, we don't need people trying to confuse what we are any further. We need to restore our country, not have people making up false claims.
Oh Noes! Not an anonymous sock puppet claiming that the book is going to dumb people down. The Oligarchy works so well because people don't study history and have no idea what we knew nearly 3,000 years ago in the way of rhetoric, justice, knowledge of government, etc...
At best a few college students learn "The Allegory of the Cave" from the work, which is a critical concept for people to consider when dealing with media and Governments. Most people don't ever hear of this even, because the Oligarchy does not want people to have knowledge.
Greece was not a true Democracy, it was very close to what we know as a Roman Republic which is more like an oligarchy. Socrates was not voted to death either, he was convicted of "heresy" by a local lordling who had a vote in Senate.
My point about Reagan is really that so called "conservatives" treat him like he was some sort of messiah, claiming he was the most conservative president we have ever had and is a beacon of conservatism. It's really a sad joke being played on people, but people do fall for this nonsense which is why they keep up the claims.