Authoritarians, Assemble!

[Genivaria]

What if the ruler says everyone must be trans

Then said ruler would objectively be a failure and shouldn't be listened to. You should obey your rulers, but not if they instruct societal suicide.

That sounds like Rebel talk.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Then said ruler would objectively be a failure and shouldn't be listened to. You should obey your rulers, but not if they instruct societal suicide.

That sounds like Rebel talk.

Rather, it would be the ruler rebelling, as he or she would be attacking the very survival of their society, which contravenes their purpose in life. It would not be a rebellion against a political entity, but against nature and God.

[The Emerald Legion]

Rather, it would be the ruler rebelling, as he or she would be attacking the very survival of their society, which contravenes their purpose in life. It would not be a rebellion against a political entity, but against nature and God.

You make rebellion against Nature and God sound like a bad thing. It's our purpose as a species to strike down God and rebuild nature in our own image.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Rather, it would be the ruler rebelling, as he or she would be attacking the very survival of their society, which contravenes their purpose in life. It would not be a rebellion against a political entity, but against nature and God.

You make rebellion against Nature and God sound like a bad thing. It's our purpose as a species to strike down God and rebuild nature in our own image.

Not possible.

[Shikihara]

I'm opposed to authoritarianism and totalitarianism because I view them as attacking the pluralism that is necessary for a healthy society to develop and progress. There has never been a single dictator or clique who has escaped the human error of mistaken judgement. While democracy similarly does not escape human error, there is room for discussion which balance and develop an idea so that it's more realistic and takes more into account than the personal whims of the dictator.

"Woe! If to our individual actions would be lacking the counterbalance, even the ballast, of different and contrary actions."

I'm a sort of blanket authoritarian in that I approve of authoritarianism in general,

While I understand supporting authoritarianism, this seems sort of silly. Why support authoritarian altogether when such regimes often have conflicting goals with what you would want?

[Engleberg]

Rather, it would be the ruler rebelling, as he or she would be attacking the very survival of their society, which contravenes their purpose in life. It would not be a rebellion against a political entity, but against nature and God.

You make rebellion against Nature and God sound like a bad thing. It's our purpose as a species to strike down God and rebuild nature in our own image.

Not at all.

[Genivaria]

You make rebellion against Nature and God sound like a bad thing. It's our purpose as a species to strike down God and rebuild nature in our own image.

Not possible.

Then you should have nothing to worry about.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm opposed to authoritarianism and totalitarianism because I view them as attacking the pluralism that is necessary for a healthy society to develop and progress. There has never been a single dictator or clique who has escaped the human error of mistaken judgement. While democracy similarly does not escape human error, there is room for discussion which balance and develop an idea so that it's more realistic and takes more into account than the personal whims of the dictator.

"Woe! If to our individual actions would be lacking the counterbalance, even the ballast, of different and contrary actions."

I'm a sort of blanket authoritarian in that I approve of authoritarianism in general,

While I understand supporting authoritarianism, this seems sort of silly. Why support authoritarian altogether when such regimes often have conflicting goals with what you would want?

Because they can provide a good experimental model, while democracy can only degenerate further.

[The Emerald Legion]

You make rebellion against Nature and God sound like a bad thing. It's our purpose as a species to strike down God and rebuild nature in our own image.

Not possible.

Do you deny your gods ability to create a species capable of killing them?

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Because they can provide a good experimental model, while democracy can only degenerate further.

Ironic that you as a Christian support the very model of tyranny that had our Lord and Saviour executed at Calvary.

[Shikihara]

You make rebellion against Nature and God sound like a bad thing. It's our purpose as a species to strike down God and rebuild nature in our own image.

Not possible.

The advancement of science with GMO, genetic engineering, space travel, etc. all mean that we're quite realistically going beyond anything what the prophets of the Old Testament or the apostles of the New Testament could've predicted. This means quite a lot for human creativity.

[Genivaria]

Not possible.

Do you deny your gods ability to create a species capable of killing them?

Plot twist! God is the Dark Lord of the Sith.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not possible.

Do you deny your gods ability to create a species capable of killing them?

The omnipotence "paradox" isn't real. It's been discredited by many philosophers. The question itself is not logically valid; when you break it down into mathematical terms, the question is basically "is there a value greater than infinity?" The question itself is self-contradictory, it's just worded in a way that it sounds profound when it's really just sophistry.

[Minzerland II]

Rather, it would be the ruler rebelling, as he or she would be attacking the very survival of their society, which contravenes their purpose in life. It would not be a rebellion against a political entity, but against nature and God.

You make rebellion against Nature and God sound like a bad thing. It's our purpose as a species to strike down God and rebuild nature in our own image.

Why is that our purpose as a species? Surely our purpose is whatever God ordains.

[Engleberg]

Not possible.

The advancement of science with GMO, genetic engineering, space travel, etc. all mean that we're quite realistically going beyond anything what the prophets of the Old Testament or the apostles of the New Testament could've predicted. This means quite a lot for human creativity.

I fail to see how this would "strike down" God.

As we advance, we can still keep our religions.

[Genivaria]

You make rebellion against Nature and God sound like a bad thing. It's our purpose as a species to strike down God and rebuild nature in our own image.

Why is that our purpose?

Really that's just a funny side-bonus.

[Shikihara]

I'm opposed to authoritarianism and totalitarianism because I view them as attacking the pluralism that is necessary for a healthy society to develop and progress. There has never been a single dictator or clique who has escaped the human error of mistaken judgement. While democracy similarly does not escape human error, there is room for discussion which balance and develop an idea so that it's more realistic and takes more into account than the personal whims of the dictator.



While I understand supporting authoritarianism, this seems sort of silly. Why support authoritarian altogether when such regimes often have conflicting goals with what you would want?

Because they can provide a good experimental model, while democracy can only degenerate further.

Do you have any actual examples to support this - or are you simply thinking of abstract dictatorships and democracies in your imagination?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because they can provide a good experimental model, while democracy can only degenerate further.

Do you have any actual examples to support this - or are you simply thinking of abstract dictatorships and democracies in your imagination?

Iran provides a decent model that could be expanded upon and used for various ideologies to hold and maintain power.

[Kubra]

Do you have any actual examples to support this - or are you simply thinking of abstract dictatorships and democracies in your imagination?

Iran provides a decent model that could be expanded upon and used for various ideologies to hold and maintain power.

like, present day Iran?

[Area-569 AKA Human Mistake]

Frankly, I'm not sure if I'm authoritarian or liberal.

My ideal government is a monarchy where the monarch essentially has the powers of the president and the vice president combined (America being the point of reference for powers), but there still is a Senate and a constitution to limit the monarch, plus provinces are still leaded by democratic governments and personal freedoms are pretty much the same as they are right now.

The reason for this is because obviously a leader is much more prepared and in general better fit for his position when s/he is raised to one day rule the country. Despite the existance of direct democracies, theocracies and military societies since pretty much the beginning of civilization, monarchy has ultimately been the one to endure and last the most, just beginning to show it's flaws in the medieval age (When society as a whole was showing it's flaws), plus it has provided dozens of leaders that no democratic president ever even got close to.

Not to mention, democracy isn't even all that democratic. Elections are constantly getting rigged, and in America it has been proven that candidates can become presidents despite having lost the popular vote. And at the end of the day he who becomes president is not required to fulfill the promises that he made to the people and for which he was elected, plus he who wins the election is often not the most able or skillful but the one who had the most publicity. So really, democracies as they are right now are just plutocratic oligarchies.

[Aillyria]

Rather, it would be the ruler rebelling, as he or she would be attacking the very survival of their society, which contravenes their purpose in life. It would not be a rebellion against a political entity, but against nature and God.

You make rebellion against Nature and God sound like a bad thing. It's our purpose as a species to strike down God and rebuild nature in our own image.

Definitely not, our entire existence is to glorify God.

[Genivaria]

Do you have any actual examples to support this - or are you simply thinking of abstract dictatorships and democracies in your imagination?

Iran provides a decent model that could be expanded upon and used for various ideologies to hold and maintain power.

And this is why I don't believe you when you claim that you wouldn't have gay people killed.

[Dysmastan]

America is here to LIBERATE this thread.

FREEDOM INTENSIFIES

---

Hmm, interesting questions OP (likely just random ones you made up on the spot).

I would have to say, that if I supported something authoritarian-ish, there'd be reasons for it.

What are said reasons? Probably better if it went unsaid.

[The Emerald Legion]

Do you deny your gods ability to create a species capable of killing them?

The omnipotence "paradox" isn't real. It's been discredited by many philosophers. The question itself is not logically valid; when you break it down into mathematical terms, the question is basically "is there a value greater than infinity?" The question itself is self-contradictory, it's just worded in a way that it sounds profound when it's really just sophistry.

Philosophers have also discredited the idea of motion. Forgive me if I hold them in less than high regard.

You make rebellion against Nature and God sound like a bad thing. It's our purpose as a species to strike down God and rebuild nature in our own image.

Definitely not, our entire existence is to glorify God.

Do you glorify your father by sitting in their home all day, mooching off the free stuff they give you while occasionally making him something nice? No. You glorify your parents and what they gave you by doing better than them.

[Engleberg]

Iran provides a decent model that could be expanded upon and used for various ideologies to hold and maintain power.

And this is why I don't believe you when you claim that you wouldn't have gay people killed.

I question if he means the monarchy or today's.