Reply With QuoteNo one is calling them dumb. Of course they're smart to remain in power for so long, or at the very least cunning.
Definitely evil.
I suppose to you, that means good, right?
The Dictators Are Smarter Than You Think
Dictators are supposed to be dumb, or at least crazy. Muammar al-Qaddafi was a ranting lunatic with a goofy fashion sense. Kim Jong Il had a weird hairstyle and a penchant for surreal sloganeering. Those generals in Burma were brutes given to consulting soothsayers on major decisions and shooting people at the drop of a hat.
But these caricatures -- for that is what they are -- actually tend to obscure some unpleasant facts about modern life. Qaddafi reigned for 41 years in a country where fractiousness and rivalry were the order of the day in the era that preceded him. Kim Jong Il died in his bed after ruling North Korea for 17 years -- despite policies that condemned his country to humiliating poverty even while its neighbors rose to new heights of prosperity. And those generals in Burma? They came to power in 1962, and though they've started loosening their grip a bit lately, they still clearly call the shots.
All of these dictators managed to cling to power far longer than they or their people had any right to expect. They were evil, all right. But you can't call them dumb. Measured by their own criteria, they were actually pretty successful.t
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...than_you_think
No one is calling them dumb. Of course they're smart to remain in power for so long, or at the very least cunning.
Definitely evil.
I suppose to you, that means good, right?
Evil and good are religious concepts.Originally Posted by IconOfEvi
Not everybody subscribes to that kind of thinking.
Usually because they're evil.
A dictionary is your friend. Try thinking next time.
Nah, people just can't get how great visioners they are !
If you honestly think that good and evil have context only in a religious sense, I truely hope you eventually see the errors of your ways.
Moral judgements, as have been argued by many of our atheist members, are not dependant on a religion.
Philosophical concepts>Religious doxa.
You can have a moral frame without religion (altruism/utilitarianism largo sensu), you cannot however have social interaction without a lecture grid/approval frame.
Agreed fully.Not everybody subscribes to that kind of thinking.
dictators = evil
absolutist monarchs = old fashioned
even if the monarch wwould behave like a dictator... on the evilness scale in terms of public / international perception he would be much lower I guess...
Even the ultimate goodness if attempts to control all aspects of life is eventually evil. Therefore by nature dictators are evil and need to be evil to mainain their position of dictate.
One might act for a period with dictatorial powers to enforce a law and transition period but ultimate rule is from popular representation in one way or another.
Not sure if trolling, but if ever you are in my neck of the woods PM me. I won't make you religious, but I can take you to place where evil exist or existed...
Eventually all governments will be representative but their framework might still be evil to the rest as their society requires growth to maintain it self and to tresspass on others.
That is the root cause of some current events.
I never claimed there was any exclusivity to religion.
Still the concept as used by our society today is heavily influenced by religion.
Personally I prefer calling people immoral / moral over evil / good. Especially as evil / good seem to be so absolute while in reality it differs from society to society what it comprises.
And no worries, I have a pretty firm moral code.
Virtues are absolute. Read Plato/Socrates.
What determines morality then? Your own personal intuition?
You can't deny there are innate qualities within human beings that are predetermined boundaries of good and evil.
Posting Permissions
