<Diceman: This kind of stuff:

<Big Pawn: What's the use? No one here is ready for this rhetoric of mine, that much I know. They think >

Is pure lib.
On the rogoff page, I call it, "in-between-the-ears" analysis.>

There are three points I want to make about this part of your response.

1. Instead of debating the issue, which is my arguments against democracy, you've chosen to talk about me, personally. This avoids the <central point> of the debate in favor of discussing whether or not <Big Pawn> can or is trying to "in between the ears" as you say. This is irrelevant to the debate over democracy so it has little value. This is what the libs do on the rogoff page, which is ironic, since that is what you accused me of doing.

We can strip this away from your overall response as though you didn't write it, because it has no bearing on the <central point> whatsoever, except to distract. But before we put this personal inquiry about my psychology aside, I want to make two more points.

2. You are guilty of "in between the ears expert" stuff on this very page:

<Diceman: Now I see that that you really don't trust "us" voting. (or freedom for that matter) You are speaking as if you want this "emperor" to judge our morality. To weed out the trash on election day.>

You invented this and attributed it to me, as though <I was thinking it> but hadn't said it. This <is pure lib> as you say, and you're doing it.

3. This last point has two parts:

a) The statement that you took issue with is not a case of <in between the ears expert> at all.

When I said, <Big Pawn: What's the use? No one here is ready for this rhetoric of mine, that much I know.>

it was not a matter of reading minds, but a matter of recalling how my sentiments regarding democracy were responded to when I shared them on the rogoff page recently, so your accusation of applying <in between the ears> tactics is incorrect.

b) I was correct that no one is really ready for any of this rhetoric and you proved it. The fact that you abandoned the <central point> of my argument in favor of accusing me of being like a <pure lib> and talking about my alleged lack of character for having resorted to <in between the ears> tactics is a telltale sign that you were offended by my statements regarding democracy. They bothered you, so you attacked me rather than the <central point> at hand. This is more proof that we can't <yet> have a rational, high-level debate about this, because as I said, no one is ready for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvm...

The first part of the video records instances of police harassment in the Australian state of Victoria.

This is the same state that wrongly imprisoned Cardinal Pell.

Victoria is currently under the control of a Marxist regime whose front man is a pathetic little weasel named Daniel Andrews.

It's like Victoria has reverted to the old convict days, whereby the whole state is like a colonial penal colony.

It won't be long before they bring back public floggings for the egregious crime of not wearing a mask.

The Irish guy in the second part of the video gives a good summary of the sinister intent behind these Mask Nazis.

As I recall I was the only one who was prepared to tackle this issue on Nozzle's playpen, and my final points stood unchallenged.

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #438077)

I didn't think they needed any further refutation, as your responses did not successfully refute my points in the first place, and I felt that the reader could judge for himself whose points were stronger at that point. In other words, I was satisfied with the result.

Your responses, after all....

<No it can't.>

<Yes it did. >

<Yes it does. >

...were not substantive or serious.

It is clear that the bible supports monarch and not democracy. You denied that it supported monarchy over and over again, but my points still stand and you had to start admitting it, albeit trying to minimize it once you had to admit it.

See, first you deny it, but then when forced to admit it, you minimize it.

Deny, then if that fails, minimize.

<<God planned on having a king in Israel long before the time of Samuel. God wanted it in His time though, but the Israelites wanted it now.>

Even if it can be shown that it was God's plan for a king in Israel at a certain time, that does not imply divine support for kings for all nations for all times.>

As I said, God planned on having a <king> in Israel long before the time of Samuel.

Jesus himself is to return and be King, not President. If monarchy was bad, Jesus wouldn't be a king.

Whereas before you flat out denied that the bible supports monarchy, you then had to switch footing to minimizing it.

<<Democracy guarantees a slow descent into abject immorality. Democracy delivers a Sodom and Gomorrah sooner or later.>

I don’t think the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were destroyed by having burning sulphur rain down upon them, were democracies.>

I think the reader can see why I didn't need to respond to this. Let's analyze it.

I said that democracy guarantees a slow descent into abject morality. As a biblical example of a society in abject immorality, I cited Sodom and Gomorrah.

Your response was a passive-aggressive disingenuous remark that Sodom and Gomorrah were not democracies, as if I had said they were democracies.

When I scanned your response at the time and saw this sort of unworthy language in it, I realized right away that it was not in good faith and not worth my time, so I did not respond.

When it comes to democracy, I realize that my views come across as radical, caustic and offensive to most conservatives, even conservative Christians.

<Optimal>, my thinking going into this kind of dialogue is that I realize almost no one will agree with me at first. It's too shocking. It's too much, too quickly. As soon as I speak out against democracy, people's defense mechanisms kick in and it's impossible to have an non-emotional debate with them, so it's a waste of time - right now.

That's my thinking going into this. I think, "I am not going to persuade anyone today."

However, I do plant the seeds and I trust that those seeds will grow if thought about in your own private time. My persuasive ambition here is very modest.

My immediate goal is to get people to think about the <assumptions> they make about democracy. There are assumptions being made and most conservatives and Christians aren't even aware of it. To cast a critical eye on democracy requires the utmost discipline in critical thinking, and critical thinking begins with discovering one's own assumptions.

I've already laid out a broad and loose case against democracy on moral, biblical and practical terms, stringing together a bunch of points in my defense. I won't waste my time trying to nail it all down all at once. What I will do is take it one step at a time, and slowly, deliberately, over time.

An absolute king cannot be constitutional and a constitutional king cannot be absolute.

And the Bible cannot be used to support monarchy since it shows historically the perennial failure of kings and points to Christ as supernatural king of a spiritual kingdom of God.

NOZZLE'S PLAYPEN indeed. I just visited the page for the first time in a while. It's so boring. What a yawn.

I can't understand why some posters waste their time over there as the chump on the troll's hook. There is no productive debate going on whatsoever. The libs gave up and won't engage the <central points> so it's boring over there.

I guess we self segregate. Isn't that right? The sames will eventually find themselves with the sames and the differents will eventually find themselves with the differents.

On this page, there is less frequent posting, but that's because it's substantive. If we posted all kinds of crap with little to no value, then we would be flooding this place with posts just like the Other Page.

Less is more.

Quality over quantity.

The other problem with the Other Page, aside from the fact that the libs gave up and don't fight back anymore, is the censorship. It's like a game of chess where one side is allowed to take moves back and the other isn't.

It's not just about the Other Page being boring because the libs don't fight back anymore. No, it's more than that. It's also that the real men on this website need a place to go where they can express themselves comfortably and not worry about the girls deleting posts in order to coddle the beta males.

Seriously.

This is just such a place as that. We can say what we want here and do it in a manly fashion, without worrying about political correctness or upsetting the little girls.

Almost all the trolls are on my ignore list, so they can't come here and view what we are writing, just to go running and crying to the girls (unless they log out and go through that trouble, but would they really bother?).

This is the Free Speech Zone. This is where the men can be men, and not beta males. No one here is blowing the whistle and crying to the girls, "Whaaaa! Whaaaa! Please help me! BIG PAWN is PICKING ON ME! Whaaaa! Whaaa!"

My pithy response <I don’t think the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were democracies> hit the nail right on the head!

If you're going to use a civilisation as an example of the failure of democracy, then you need to use a civilisation that *was* a democracy!

I can appreciate that it stings a little to get such a clever and succinct riposte which immediately destroys your argument, but the best thing to do in that instance is to graciously acknowledge my point.

Anyway, I thought that was a good debate.

I didn't do that.

Follow me if you can:

I know that you know that I know I didn't make that argument and that you know it, and that you knew it when you made your passive-aggressive disingenuous remark.

That's my final word on that. You can have the last word if you like.

Yes they can.

I own a ton of websites. I probably have one that I can make available immediately.

This is a good site for chess, but for political, philosophical and religious debate topics, it's not good. It's not a free speech platform anymore now that Daniel is gone.

If I put up another site, do you think the Elite Posters would visit and comment and we could funnel the political discussions that overtook the Other Page onto this new website?

Yes, I suppose we're the negroes of chessgames.

What do you think about that?>

It's an intriguing idea.

I would be on board.

Let's see what the other Elite Posters think.

Try it yourself on any one of the forums of those on your ignore list.>

Slight correction.

I just had a look at it.

Has it been used?

Is it like a forum here at chessgames?

Thank you. I will.

My riposte was clever, witty, insightful, relevant and exploded your example into a million pieces.

Yes, anyone can read the comments just like at CG. It is not a "forum" but rather just a website with a comment section. I guess you could call it a blog if you like.

I got myself a GREAT domain name though, eh? OffensiveTruth.com is excellent.

I can make it so anyone can comment, or I can make it so that you have to create an account to comment. I can make it so that comments are published automatically, or they must be approved by the moderator first.

I could add up and down votes as well. Or I could just keep it simple an allow people to post.

One thing I'll look into is if I can make it so we can tag our comments, but I don't know if I can. Suppose we talk about Catholicism. We could tag any and all a comments in our debates with catholics, catholicism, religion and so forth. If we are arguing about the pope, some tags might be: pope, catholics, catholicism. Then you could search by tags and see everything you've written on a subject.

There's already a search function on there (like search kibitzing) but I don't khow how sophisticated it is.

heh - our goal should be to spread so much truth that offensivetruth.com gets blacklisted on one of those liberal websites, on a list of FAKE NEWS sites or something.

Yes, I actually used him as an example when I was refuting Diademas' claim that your forum is an "echo chamber">

So I am becoming a local celebrity here. Unfortunately right now the forum would be close to an echo chamber, did I not post.

There is a terminology issue also at work. Where I come from we have 3 main political convictions (and most people blend somewhere in between a couple of these):

-Socialism
-Conservatism
-Liberalism

The liberals have in general been politically allied with the conservatives, as they tend to agree on the financials.

Now in the US it seems that you regard socialists as liberals? The two-party system probably has something to do with this, we see also in the UK that the liberals have a hard time getting substantial representation on their own since the Conservative Party and Labour scoop up most seats.

For me, being a liberal is about <liberating> the individual from external constraints. Of course not to allow everything; but we may say that I believe every person should be allowed to do as they please, <as long as they do not bother other people>.

Do you see my disagreements with <diceman> and <optimal play>?

<Now in the US it seems that you regard socialists as liberals?>

Liberals are on the left here. They are in rebellion against God, therefore they want to normalize all things antichristian. They seek liberty from God first and foremost. They don't like God's rules and restrictions on their passions and desires, which is why they are trying to tear down the Christian pillars of western society. The overthrow of Christianity is at the heart of their struggle.

If you love sodomy, you are a liberal, despite what you think about other issues, like the size of government, how to run the finances and so forth.

If you love killing the unborn child, you are a liberal, despite what you think about the size of government or anything else.

If you love no fault divorce so that families can be destroyed then you are a liberal. A liberal doesn't care about family as much as they care about satisfying their gluttonous desires for sex and perversion.

If you think it's bad to kill a murderer but good to kill the unborn child, then you're a liberal.

If you covet your neighbors possessions (his wealth) and want someone to take them from him and give them to you, you are a liberal. (Thou shalt not covet).

Liberals reject God's authority and want to make themselves, each of them, their own authority.

Liberals do not believe that good and evil exist in an objective sense. They believe that morality is just an idea, a personal judgment that comes from within, and that morality is relative with no objective standard.

A liberal does not worship God and seek His right way, but instead glorifies himself and seeks to satisfy his lusts.

A liberal makes himself his own God. He's a humanist, not a Christian or theist.

A liberal hates God (it's more than just a rejection) and you can see this hate become manifest in how they express their disapproval for Christian values. For instance, liberals throw hate-filled hissy fits at anyone who is advocating for Christian values. When a Christian baker refuses to bake a gay cake for a gay wedding, the libs come out with seething hatred for the man. If a Christian holds up a sign that says "REPENT", the libs gather around him and viciously mock him, spit on him, carry on like unruly teenagers and so on. The hate is palpable and it's a hate for God's word.

The financial tendencies of the liberal are secondary because they are merely the logical consequences of their moral foundation, which is based on a rejection of God and Christian values.

People who identify as liberal Christians are not Christians at all. They are liberals. If someone really thinks they are both liberal and Christian, then they are ignorant about what each worldview logically entails. They are unaware of the contradictions.

A few years ago at the Democratic convention (Democrats are liberals here), they booed God. Someone mentioned God during the convention and the crowd booed God.

This is more proof that we can't <yet> have a rational, high-level debate about this, because as I said, no one is ready for it.>

Well, to me this sounds like one of two things:

Either it is you making an assumption about everyone else (is that what <diceman> calls "in between the ears" thinking?).

So I am becoming a local celebrity here.>

Before you get delusions of grandeur, the term was "example" not "celebrity".

On a side note, I cannot stand the fixation on celebrities that most Americans have.

Celebrities are typically beautiful people who lie (read: "actors"), athletic adults who play children's games (professional sports), or musicians who have far more musical talent than wisdom or critical thinking skills but who still speak out on social issues as if their thoughts profound when in fact they are drivel (e.g., Ten Years After https://genius.com/Ten-years-after-... )

2. You are guilty of "in between the ears expert" stuff on this very page:>

Wrong.
I've essentially asked you questions.
The exact opposite of "in-between-the-ears."

Let me clarify.
My post was nothing more than asking:

1)BP when you first spoke of an Emperor
I thought it was a joke. Now it appears as if you really want one?

2)How does that work when he gets a bullet in the head? (New morality is only a bullet away?)

3)Why isn't it working in England?

<Diceman: Now I see that that you really don't trust "us" voting. (or freedom for that matter) You are speaking as if you want this "emperor" to judge our morality. To weed out the trash on election day.>

<You invented this and attributed it to me>

Wrong again.
You invented the "emperor."
You pointed out democracy allows the immoral to vote.

I simply noticed how the two go together.
(Maybe BP is not kidding about an "emperor?")

The words <You are speaking as if> don't attribute what you are, only what you sound like.

Saying, I work with someone:

1) It looks as if he is married.
2) He is married.

Are two very different statements.

<The fact that you abandoned the <central point> of my argument>

The idea there is debate going on here is a strawman. I can't debate the emperor, or his powers, as you have avoided it.

It is you who avoided debate by not answering me, either in the affirmative:

A) Yes diceman, I believe there should be an Emperor to filter us by morality. (or whatever you think his jobs should be)

...or the negative:

Let me clarify.
My post was nothing more than asking: >

I saw no question marks, but I did see a statement you made.

< <Diceman: Now I see that that you really don't trust "us" voting. (or freedom for that matter) You are speaking as if you want this "emperor" to judge our morality. To weed out the trash on election day.>

<You invented this and attributed it to me>

Wrong again.
You invented the "emperor." >

You didn't quote me saying anything about the word <emperor>.

Let's break it down:

<Diceman: Now I see that that you really don't trust "us" voting. >

Unless you're in my head, you don't know my inner thoughts about trust in any regard, but you discerned this with your <in between the ears> "pure lib" expertise.

<<The fact that you abandoned the <central point> of my argument>

The idea there is debate going on here is a strawman.>

The <central points> (my arguments against democracy) are a strawman?

Ok.

No need to wonder about my intentions as I made the explicit here:

<<Optimal>, my thinking going into this kind of dialogue is that I realize almost no one will agree with me at first. It's too shocking. It's too much, too quickly. As soon as I speak out against democracy, people's defense mechanisms kick in and it's impossible to have an non-emotional debate with them, so it's a waste of time - right now.

That's my thinking going into this. I think, "I am not going to persuade anyone today."

However, I do plant the seeds and I trust that those seeds will grow if thought about in your own private time. My persuasive ambition here is very modest.

My immediate goal is to get people to think about the <assumptions> they make about democracy. There are assumptions being made and most conservatives and Christians aren't even aware of it. To cast a critical eye on democracy requires the utmost discipline in critical thinking, and critical thinking begins with discovering one's own assumptions.

I've already laid out a broad and loose case against democracy on moral, biblical and practical terms, stringing together a bunch of points in my defense. I won't waste my time trying to nail it all down all at once. What I will do is take it one step at a time, and slowly, deliberately, over time.

Everyone on this forum will have a chance to speak their piece on it without me flooding the forum with a million posts, burying everyone else's thoughts in the mix. I'll take it slow and leave ample room for you, <diceman> and the rest of the Elite Posters to express themselves in a way that is meaningful and valuable to me and everyone else.>