Eligible men will automatically be registered into the military draft pool by December as part of an effort to streamline the previous process of self-registration and save money.
Eligible men will automatically be registered into the military draft pool by December as part of an effort to streamline the previous process of self-registration and save money.
Labeling all of history as always “having a tyrannical leader on the horizon” would literally make the word “tyrant” meaningless.
You’re projecting your doomerism for today and then painting all of history with a definition. Doing this just makes the word you’re using meaningless in describing history.
It’s like a cell phone company that sells three different versions of their “unlimited data” plan. They are making the word “unlimited” meaningless. But the emotional idea of “unlimited” is still heard by their customers in ads.
You’re doing that here with “Tyrannical leader”. Making a broad characterization that is unhelpful in doing anything but appeal to the emotion of doomerism.
You’re not characterizing history correctly. You’re not understanding history correctly. You’re appealing to the idea of class structures and oppression without using any of the tools or definitions developed to actually describe those relationships.
It is not emotional appeal, it’s recognition of reality that underpins the framework of a government. Things that might be totally acceptable under an Obama administration aren’t suddenly disappeared when a Trump inevitably enters office. And you have to account for that when creating new legislation.
The founder of the US didn’t have any intention of infringing rights when they created the Bill of Rights. It was written with the explicit knowledge that somewhere down the line a tyrant would enter office and desire to trample basic human rights.
You just restated your position and then just rambled about things you think help support your already unfalsifiable statement.
I am criticizing your phrase “there are always tyrannical leaders on the horizon” as being vague, unfalsifiable, and useless in describing historical struggles. You said this to hand wave away something the other commenter said. And I’m calling you out for it.
You are using an unfalsifiable statement to describe history. Because if I say “well X leader was good” your statement is vague enough to say “well, after X leader there was Z leader and they were a tyrant by my definition”.
Do you understand what I am criticizing now? You aren’t actually saying anything meaningful or useful when you said “there is always a tyrannical leader on the horizon”
I have no idea what your point is.
I’m not surprised.
Let’s start at the beginning. Do you know what an unfalsifiable statement is?