Paul Ryan thinks you are a bunch of fucking idiots. - Page 5

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

1)  I don't consider those actions tyranny.   That much is correct.

We know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

2)  Hypocrisy much?  You are accusing me of not making a real argument, and you post...that?  LOL. 

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I simply made an observation and stated an opinion of what your basic stance on US tyranny seems to be based on your posts on the subject.

You've been presented multiple examples (distant past, recent past and present) that might be considered, by reasonable people, some form or degree of tyranny by the US government and all you've done is hand wave them away, simply claim they are not tyranny at all and express incredulity that anyone might consider them such.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

We know.

 

 

 

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

I simply made an observation and stated an opinion of what your basic stance on US tyranny seems to be based on your posts on the subject.

 

You've been presented multiple examples (distant past, recent past and present) that might be considered, by reasonable people, some form or degree of tyranny by the US government and all you've done is hand wave them away, simply claim they are not tyranny at all and express incredulity that anyone might consider them such.

I understand what it means perfectly.  It certainly applies to your strawman-esque tactic of claiming I won't accept "anything" as far as tyranny is  concerned.   And in terms of the examples that have been provided, I have not "hand waived" anything.  I simply don't feel they qualify as tyranny. 

Interestingly enough, you still don't seem very concerned as to what I do think constitutes tyranny.   It seems that since you are dedicated to deriding my position and claiming I won't accept any future examples, it would be a good time to share my views.  The following are examples of tyranny: 

• Any dictatorial regime where there is no consent of the governed.
• A nation with no freedom of expression, due process, etc. 
• Governments that commit genocide, mass murder, etc. 

Specific examples of tyrannical nations: 

• North Korea
• Iran
• Cuba
• Zimbabwe
• The former Soviet Union

To a certain extent, one could also make the argument that Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations practice tyranny with their records on women's rights.    But that might be a stretch, because there obvious historical and cultural differences between us.   In any case, the actions of the above regimes (to name a few) are what I consider "tyranny."  If the U.S. committed many of the offenses these nations did and do, I would label that tyranny just as quickly.  But we don't.  We have terror suspects and detainees.  We have intelligence gathering programs and enhanced interrogation approved in highly special circumstances, and only by the highest rankings officials (e.g. President of the United States).  Our government is too big, too powerful, and spends far too much money.  It regulates our lives far too much.  Congress is doing an exceptionally poor job.   But these are not "tyranny."    You're of course free to disagree. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I understand what it means perfectly.

OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

It certainly applies to your strawman-esque tactic of claiming I won't accept "anything" as far as tyranny is  concerned.

As I said, I was merely making an observation based on your comments thus far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

And in terms of the examples that have been provided, I have not "hand waived" anything.

Yes you have. But that's fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Interestingly enough, you still don't seem very concerned as to what I do think constitutes tyranny.

Of course I am.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

It seems that since you are dedicated to deriding my position and claiming I won't accept any future examples, it would be a good time to share my views.

It's about time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

The following are examples of tyranny: 

 

• Any dictatorial regime where there is no consent of the governed.
• A nation with no freedom of expression, due process, etc. 
• Governments that commit genocide, mass murder, etc. 

OK. So is there a line which is not tyranny but then becomes tyranny? Must it only exist in an official dictatorial regime? How would you define a "dictatorial regime?" What about situations where there's the appearance of "consent of the governed" but those who govern disregard the governed? What if the nation has some freedoms but has others restricted?

In short where is the line when it becomes tyranny when it wasn't before?

So far you've provided some broad definitions and even broader examples. Were the governments you mention totally tyrannical in everything they did/do? Or is it just that the sum total of their tyrannical actions push them over the line to become defined as generally tyrannical? If that's the case, what are those actions? Furthermore, could a government generally not considered tyrannical as a whole engage in some actions that are tyrannical?

Where is the line? What are the actions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

To a certain extent, one could also make the argument that Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations practice tyranny with their records on women's rights.    But that might be a stretch, because there obvious historical and cultural differences between us.

So tyranny doesn't have a basis in any kind of absolute moral code but rather is cultural and relative?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

In any case, the actions of the above regimes (to name a few) are what I consider "tyranny."  If the U.S. committed many of the offenses these nations did and do, I would label that tyranny just as quickly.  But we don't.

So it's the quantity?

Where is the line?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

We have terror suspects and detainees.  We have intelligence gathering programs and enhanced interrogation approved in highly special circumstances, and only by the highest rankings officials (e.g. President of the United States).

You're Orwellian semantical rationalizations aside, we clearly disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

1)  I don't consider those actions tyranny.   That much is correct. 

 

2)  Hypocrisy much?  You are accusing me of not making a real argument, and you post...that?  LOL. 

Would you consider those same actions tyranny if they were done by a government of a country other than the U.S.?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

OK.

 

 

 

As I said, I was merely making an observation based on your comments thus far.

 

 

 

Yes you have. But that's fine.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.  

You haven't asked, so forgive me for assuming you were not.  

Are we really going to get into a debate about what constitutes a dictatorship?  

I believe I showed that by giving some examples of actions that are tyrannical.  

Everything?  That's unlikely.  

Yes, with a qualification.  I'd say it's more than the number of actions, but the nature of those actions.  

I listed some of them.  You need more?  

I don't think so, no.  

You've already asked that.  I've given some examples.  

Depends on who you ask, I suppose.  I merely said one might consider those examples tyranny.  

No.  

Orwellian?    Let me guess...enhanced interrogation techniques.  I bet you don't like that one.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Would you consider those same actions tyranny if they were done by a government of a country other than the U.S.?

Which actions?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Which actions?  

Let's start with caging people indefinitely without due process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.  

No problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Are we really going to get into a debate about what constitutes a dictatorship?

I find it useful to be precise in the use of words and their definitions. You seem to just wave around dictatorial as if its some magical "go away" potion to anyone suggesting that the US government might be a bit tyrannical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I believe I showed that by giving some examples of actions that are tyrannical.

Are those the only actions that qualify?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Everything?  That's unlikely.

Now we're getting somewhere. So a government might not be entirely tyrannical but may be in some of its actions. Is that right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Yes, with a qualification.  I'd say it's more than the number of actions, but the nature of those actions.  

 

I listed some of them.  You need more?

As I asked above, are those the only ones? Do they all have to be that severe? Could it come in small steps?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I don't think so, no.

Very interesting. So a government becomes tyrannical as soon as it commits a tyrannical act (presumably of the degree you've listed in your examples) but cannot be mostly non-tyrannical and do some things that might fit that definition?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

You've already asked that.  I've given some examples.

So it's basically an on or off thing then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Depends on who you ask, I suppose.

I was asking you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

No.

So it's not the quantity. It is the specific tyrannical actions. And if those actions (like the examples you listed) are not committed, then they aren't tyrannical?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Orwellian?  

There you go again with your argumentum de incredulity. That's not really an argument if you haven't guessed it yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Let me guess...enhanced interrogation techniques.  I bet you don't like that one.

Of course not. Don't you find just semantical obfuscation a tad Orwellian in nature?

Oh right. Probably not because as long as we call torture "enhanced interrogation techniques" it's ok with you and not torture. Got it.

I'm thinking we're done here.