What does a dictator fear the most?

What does a dictator fear the most? [+ favourites]

A question I contemplated for no more than 5 seconds. What does a dictator fear the most? I came to the conclusion that a dictator fears loss of power more than anything else in the world. Why would I pitch such an easy question to answer you may ask? Well lately I've been faced with a sort of dictator/slave predicament, myself being the slave.

I want to point out that I was once a very active poster on these forums with no known enemies, no history of offensiveness and always remained topical. I was just exploring a hobby of mine, philosophy, as I do not have many friends that take such an interest as I do. It seemed the more I would post, the more I would notice flaws in many people's posts. I thought these flaws which I pointed out (as well as my friend wittgenstein) would be taken not as an attack but as a friend trying to refine a theory. Philosophy is nothing without words therefore even a slip in what is written to explain a theory murks the meaning of the entire thing.

I never thought what I considered a favor would be taken as an attack, and it did. Currently I am limited to one post per day with unwarned deletion of a few topical posts. I can only conclude that the reason there are no more than 3 new posts a day is because many people like me or wittgenstein or any other person who honestly tries to find the truth in this world has had this same halt in progress. I can only compare this experience to Socrates being put to death by the cold hand of the Roman Empire. Tell me, was Socrates wrong in finding the flaws of his opposers claims?

It seems a dictator enjoys the company of ignorance. How could a dictator enjoy the company of intelligence? Intelligence searches for the truth. This is why I think many of the 'active' posters who inhabit this constrictive forum have little or no concept of what philosophy even is. When I first came here this place was plagued with incoherant tripe, thoughtless ideas and no one to challenge their views. A dictator's bliss, wouldn't you say?

I really don't mean to offend anyone with these words I speak, it is simply an observation I have made about this community which may stand the test of time to become a fact one day. The last time I questioned the claims of a dictator, my tongue was cut out. A logical appraoch, I must say. Congratulations on getting that one right.

I have been a philosopher since as far as I can remember. The only reason I would ever challenge the rules of this forum is to improve the quality of debate that goes on. If I have ever said anything that this community deems unjust, I apologize. The only crime I believe I've committed is the attempt to find the truth in what is said, the little that may exist. So lay my head in the guillotine (in front of the village if you've got the balls) and make an example out of me. I'd sooner die spitting in the face of injustice than live kneeling to a dictator.

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll = The reason you have been limited, "Socrates".

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

To be fair, he didn't become disruptive until you came onto the scene. I agree that his recent posts have been perverse and antagonistic, but your tendency to walk away saying, "nope, you're too close-minded" is enough to infuritate the most mild-mannered of people. Of course, I am probably biased, but I would guess that his diatribes have been motivated by a desire to actually makes sense of what you're saying - and the more elusive and terse you prove, the more the suspicion grows that it's nothing very much. You will say that the reduction in posts is the "logical" way to get him back on track, but that depends in your own powers of judgement. This isn't the place to talk about it, but the fact that you came to the conclusion that I think logic is "useless" makes me question these powers. I inveigh against your frequent invocations of mother logic not because I mistrust it, but because, like a Priest who chides those who take the Lord's name in vain, I am protective of it, and want to shield it from abuse. If I am cautious about logic, that is only because logic teaches caution. And it seems to me, Decius, that you laugh at those who blindly prostrate themselves to religion whilst doing precisely the same thing with logic. To make logic overly hegemonic is sctually to miss its point.

Not that this is the place to discuss it. I just want to point out that the ethos of this site is very flawed, and seems to now be affecting the quality of the debate. Don't deny it - it has all but dried up. I admit that I myself am guilty of taking an elaborate and slightly tedious joke too far, but this misjudgeemnt is more than matched by your own.

It is narrow-mindedness that makes you think that everybody is narrow-minded. I will post a logic thread in the appropriate place very soon, but I am beginning to think that I'm talking to somebody who's not up to the task. That said, I am not yet decided on the matter (nor am I, for that matter, when it comes to myself). If you continue to delete posts with the same reckless abandon, and to patrol debates with the same self-righteous and patently ideology-racked rebuttals, I think I may just have to find stimulation elsewhere. Which, I suspect, would not bother you in the slightest...

Your concerns are well worded, and in the hope that you are actually seeking an understanding of whatever confusions you may have about the administration of this site, I will answer you.

1) Neither of you are in a position to claim any understanding of the organic direction of this site since both of you have been members for less than 3% of its overall life (thus far).

2) To claim that ChriD acts like a monkey because "i made him do so" is similar to blaming white people for hanging black people because they were "provoked". If your own internal maturity does not provide you with guidelines with which to govern your behaviour, you're bound to find lots of things that make you act like a jackass.

3) Although I do not disagree that in some alternate universe logic may be flawed, for the sake of a discussion using the limited method of communication of text, the doctrine of logic must be upheld so that discussions inevitably evolve. Without the doctrine of logic, nothing stops a person from simply arguing the same point over and over, thereby dilluting a once coherent debate with biased babble. And, unfortunately for us, in a forum you have to read every post to know what to respond to.

4) I am neutral to your coming or going.

The site is growing, and I would most definitely not compromise the quality of even one discussion just to permit ten ones filled with egocentric bullshit.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

I can't really see why you have doubts about my integrity. It's irritating, but I can't change that.
1) True, but I only speak of recent debates. Surely being able to judge the quality of debates is nothing to do with this.
2) I didn't say that Chris's behaviour was warranted, merely that he is more than capable of intelligent debate and that his recent distortion of this fact is a reaction to your own method of argument and administartion. Whether his dissent is valdid or not - and I believe that, in part, it is - is less important than his reception to change, something which was evidenced in even his most vitriolic posts. You do little to help yourself by repeatedly referring to him as an "idiot". Hell, we're all idiots sometimes, and since - as you point out in the previous post - communication on the internet is so limited, it seems ridiculous to try to form an opinion about someone on the back of this flimsy basis. Check his previous history and you might get a different picture of him.
3) You don't need the doctrine of logic. "Arguing" isn't logic. You argue a case by presenting facts in a manner which confers credibility on it. Do Lawyers use logic? Far less than we would be led to believe.

Certainly, we can tell that somebody is a bullshitting sophist by studying his argument. This tactic relies on a visceral effect, but once the initial effervesence has cleared and sobriety has been restored, intelligence and - dare I say it - common sense usually win the day. In my view (and this may be idiosyncratic) logic is something far more definite and exalted. I suppose I am a purist.

Is the site growing? Could have fooled me.

A dictator fears instability and helplessness and that is why she/he desires power.

"How can we be just in a world without mercy and merciful in a world without justice?"