I get a hard on when I'm tired

[Kuya]

The difference here being, of course, that people in the West, and liberals particularly, tend to believe in pluralism. That is, competition between powers and groups with different interests and ideologies. So something like a leader oppresing/repressing his opponents is unacceptable for me on principle, and for most people who have a heritage of european politics. Not to mention, if the powerful leader someday does something that i really don't like, suddenly i'm his opposition and he will rightfully try to eliminate me, therefore it is in my best interest to make sure no one has the ability to do this, in theory.

[Conformity]

Iranians are the best race on the planet. We are like the sayans of dbz. But yeah, I would give my left nut to go to dubai with about 200,000k

[Conformity]

I believe it is becoming the capital of the world.

[Faris]

That is, particularly, what usually defines one as a dictator, repression of one's opposition. If the opposition just happens to be a minority and the dictator leaves most people alone, then most people will not care. Unless of course, the culture has a history of opposing oppresion.

first lets agree on the definitions please. you're mixing things up homez.

1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.
2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
3. the office or position held by a dictator.

a dictator doesnt initially mean oppression of the people.

you're saying because a portion of the people arent happy, it means that dictatorship is oppressing. that can imply on democracy too, some people arent happy with that, does that mean democracy is opressing people?

there is no country, state or society in the history of mankind that was happy 100%.

but yes, sometimes authority in dictatorship is abused, perhaps in many cases it is.

as for the palestine/israel example, can you please pick another country thats less complicated and messed up? lol

[Kuya]

Incorrect, you purposely use a restricted definition, here is a more detailed one:

A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator, without hereditary ascension. It has three possible meanings:

Roman dictator are a republic political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.

A government controlled by one person or a small group of people.

In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

The most recent, highly-publicized example of a state that was undeniably a dictatorship was Germany in World War II, which was under the absolute rule of Adolf Hitler.

For some scholars, dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed, while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what is the government). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes pluralism (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life.

If you want to talk about a concentrated form of political power, then you may talk about an autocrat, but dictator already has a commonly accepted meaning, and it entails a form of autocratic (highly centralized) form of political power that surppresses pluralism and has little to no consent from its people. When i say oppressing people i mean two things: One is disallowing pluralism, which is already briefly defined by what i quoted, and the second is lacking the legitimacy of the people.

Furthermore, you confuse issues. People who are oppressed are not necessarily unhappy, and nor are unhappy people necessarily oppressed, this should be so elemental that it should require no explanation.

This is what you are actually talking about (because a dictator is also an autocrat):

An autocracy is a form of government in which the political power is held by a self-appointed ruler. The term autocrat is derived from the word autokratōr (αὐτοκράτωρ, lit. "self-ruler", or "one who rules by himself"). Compare with oligarchy ("rule by the few") and democracy ("rule by the people").

Today the term autocrat is usually understood as being synonymous with despot, tyrant and dictator, although each of these terms originally had a separate and distinct meaning.

Autocracy is not synonymous with totalitarianism, as the latter concept was forged in 1923 to distinguish modern regimes from traditional dictatorships. Nor is it synonymous with military dictatorship, as these often take the form of "collective presidencies" such as the South American juntas. However, an autocracy may be totalitarian or be a military dictatorship.

And even autocrat is often associated to a dictator, but in this case, this has more to do with a belief that all autocrats will eventually become dictators.

[Faris]

i noticed:

for some scholarsdictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed.

for some, so it is arguable huh?

[Blarg]

People try not to speak in absolutes

[Faris]

well its just a definition.

[Howard Roark]

I seem to be absent the normal amount of room in my trousers and blood in my head

[Arvin]

this is why i stfu about my culture and religion especially on forums

cause people still argue about things that are pointless and meaningless

[Howard Roark]

like hardons?

[Faris]

ok fine

[Arvin]

here we go kuya

bottom line:

my family was extremely happy and rich during shah pahlavi's rule. i myself, probably would have been just as happy during those times. especially compared to this day and age.

MAYBE NOT ANOTHER FAMILY BUT YES, MY FAMILY WAS HAPPY

[Krye]

Arvin why doesn't your character show up on armory?

[Arvin]

http://www.wowarmory.com/character-s...Ganis&n=Arvlol

[Kuya]

this is why i stfu about my culture and religion especially on forums

cause people still argue about things that are pointless and meaningless

But you have no culture. You have America.

here we go kuya

bottom line:

my family was extremely happy and rich during shah pahlavi's rule. i myself, probably would have been just as happy during those times. especially compared to this day and age.

MAYBE NOT ANOTHER FAMILY BUT YES, MY FAMILY WAS HAPPY

Well, that is a given, i imagined that your family was rich and probably not in the shah's way, otherwise, like most people, you would have hated him. But it was kind of funny to see a guy singing a dictator's praises, although not surprising since i can also see some Iraquis thinking they were better off under Saddam, especially the Sunnis. Actually, that is exactly what this is like. Some Sunnis probably prefered it when Saddam was ruler, but, obviously, if you're an Iraqui Shia or a Kurd you probably think very, very differently.

[Faris]

it was more like be Sadam's slave dog, or saddam will burn you and the rest of your village.

the kurds and shi'as wouldnt accept that, they even tried to assassinate Saddam on several occasions. So the shit hit the fan.

im not justifying what he did ofcourse, but i dont think it was very smart to provoke a mad man in power.

shoulda just left like my family did

[Blarg]

You ran away so you can't get the experience or loot from the kill

[Conformity]

Kuya, work harder and you will become conservative. I look forward to you @ the next RNC

[Arvin]

yeah my dad owned the largest construction company in iran at the time. they were rich (lol)

and now he owns a fucking restaurant, pretty shitty eh.