And speaking of Jesus Christ, he argued his defence in front of Pontius Pilate in muted silence. And the first Christian martyr Saint Peter, was stoned to death by the Jews for not shutting up: Which is it to be?

I’ll take Forest Gump for evidence of a balanced position on philosophy; he too dodged the bullets for a cause he had no control over, nor the slightest influence with his historical position; may his memory live on!

This article is nothing more than a wild attempt to turn a far-right activist into a martyred Greek sage, pretending to be profound while reading more like something scribbled on a conspiracy forum between rants about "globalists."

Olivier’s main trick?

Glue together two totally unrelated things - Karl Popper’s Open Society and the death of Charlie Kirk - and claim they’re part of the same cosmic battle between truth and evil. Apparently, Popper’s criticism of Plato wasn’t about defending democracy but about giving the British Empire an excuse to control America. Sure. And the Illuminati probably proof-read The Republic while they were at it.

He paints Popper as some kind of villain for saying that philosophers shouldn’t rule everyone else, then romanticises Plato’s philosopher-kings as guardians of eternal truth. In other words, Olivier sides with the guy who wanted a class system and calls it "reason." Meanwhile, Popper’s whole point - that truth survives through criticism, not obedience - goes straight over his head.

Then comes the real stretch: Charlie Kirk as the new Socrates. That’s like comparing a YouTube debater to Galileo because he likes arguing on camera. Socrates questioned everyone, including himself; Kirk never doubted anything he said. Olivier calls that "moral courage." Most of us would call it arrogance with a microphone.

And this idea that Kirk was killed by the "globalist cabal" for "speaking truth to power" is pure fantasy. Kirk wasn’t opposing power - he was cheerleading it. Comparing his death to Socrates drinking hemlock or Christ on the cross isn’t just wrong, it’s indecent.

The piece ends with the usual martyr shtick: when you can’t defend someone’s ideas, turn them into a saint. But dressing up Trump-era culture war as ancient philosophy doesn’t make it deep, it just makes it pretentious.

Next up: Horst Wessel and Socrates

And “Chatbot John” with his AI generated masterpiece for the day. Hooray for cyber sanity ay!

John,

At best, your style of argument is to mimic John Cleese's argument sketch character. The other personas are worse, and the frequent " We've been over this before." commentary is tedious.

Why not start with your own house?

My understanding of Socrates was of someone who viewed argument as a means of understanding, not of persuasion.

diver dan,

Try running my post through any AI detection software.

Meanwhile, as foreign nationalists are being deported for unfavourable comments about Kirk, JD Vance has refused to condemn comments from Young Republicans calling for political opponents to be sent to gas chambers.

Art of the division!

A great example of why such "philosophy" pieces are so dangerous.

Check out where this joker got his philosophy degree from, though.

Fester,

I’m perfectly fine with the Cleese comparison. At least he knew how to spot a circular argument when he heard one.

The difference is that Socrates didn’t pretend polite "understanding" meant never calling nonsense what it is. He challenged people precisely to expose contradictions, not to make everyone feel clever and comfortable.

If you think argument is just about "understanding," then you’ve misunderstood Socrates. His method wasn’t therapy, it was demolition - questioning until the lazy assumptions collapsed. That’s exactly what I’m doing with Olivier’s piece. It wasn’t a dialogue, it was propaganda in a toga.

And as for "starting with my own house," I’d happily do so, provided you stop mistaking tone for substance. If I point out that a conspiracy theory dressed in classical robes is still a conspiracy theory, that’s not arrogance, it’s basic hygiene for anyone who claims to value reason.

So yes, Socrates sought understanding - but he got there by exposing falsehood, not indulging it. Maybe that’s the part of his legacy we should all revisit.

For being truthful, four conditions must be met:

1) One's speech should not hurt anyone.
2) The facts must be correct.
3) The speech should be pleasant or affectionate.
4) The speech must have a benevolent purpose.

If any of these factors is missing, then it is better to remain silent.

http://damayanti.store/blogs/news/mastering-the-power-of-true-speech

Socrates' speech is believed to meet all four.
Was the other guy's speech meeting the same?

Claiming that even more people ought to be in prison, that in the country with already nearly the highest rate of incarceration, fulfils neither of the above four:
http://moneywise.com/news/top-stories/charlie-kirk-says-putting-more-americans-in-jail-will-solve-the-housing-crisis-whats-behind-his-theory

---

Dear Dan,

I believe that John Daysh is a true person, not AI.
I do believe, however, that he has a team of humans behind to support him, because it is difficult to reason that one person can have so much knowledge in so many divergent areas.

Yuyutsu,

With sound information and media literacy skills, you don't need a team. We now have faster access to more information than we've ever had.

When you can sort through the information with speed and accuracy to pick out what's reliable, the sky's the limit - no team required.

Strangely, people are still encouraged by truth.
Sorrowfully, their basic understanding of the world around them is flawed.
Their understanding of truth is not purely factual.
It includes far too much instinctive behaviour.

As an example: no person has any natural 'right' to anything.
Instead, we have needs.
When those needs are enshrined in law, and enforced, they become 'rights'.
However, without enforcement, there are no 'rights'.
If your way of thinking includes the existence of natural 'rights', your thinking is flawed.
And reason based on that must also be flawed?
I notice, oh so often, that when people express opinions, that is the case.
I just wish we could all be taught truth from an early age.
It took a long time for me to work it out.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

I agree that rights are not natural - freedom is.

The way I like to describe it is that, say our freedom is a $100 note, then states take away our freedom and return us a change of some copper coins as "rights".

Yet predators are also a natural phenomenon, where even whole stars are swallowed up by black holes, so we should consider ourselves lucky that we are still alive: others for example were taken by states to Siberia and never returned.

Dear Yuyutsu

I have well developed instincts that differentiate between fact and fiction: I also am an avid reader of the Bible, which is fine until I come to Revelation; that is a test for anybody’s faith; magic mushrooms come to mind.
I am also acquainted with a fencer who digs post holes naked in summer, so I’ve been around!

As for uncle Johnny Chatbot (Premium), I remain sceptical; very sceptical!
However, you I trust; but I won’t tell you why now.

Nuremberg Dan,

I do believe Jesus Christ was crucified by the Romans, as for a trial before Pilate, very unlikely. Pilate would have been fluent in both Latin and Greek. Christ certainly wouldn't have understood Latin, as for his Greek probably not real good. And Pilot didn't deal directly with a low class Jew.

During his tenure as Governor of Judea (about 10 years 26AD to 36AD) Pontius Pilate systematically and without trial, had thousands of Jews executed, many by crucifixion. At one point the people of Jerusalem lodged a formal complaint about Pilots excesses with the Roman emperor, but it fell on deaf ears. Seems rather than being a weak vacillating man, Pilot was a ruthless bastard, just what the Romans needed to run Judea. BTW, the rise outside the walls of Jerusalem, Golgotha, could accommodate unto 100 crucifixions at a time. That indicates the Romans were carrying out crucifixions on an industrial scale, no time for trials, and certainly Christ would not have been taken down 3 hours after being put up, his body would have hung there until it rotted and the crows ate it, otherwise what's the point of public crucifixions if you're not sending a message to the general (illiterate) public, don't mess with us, or see what will happen to you. Yes, the Romans did hang messages on the crucified, in Christs case it would tell those that could read Greek, here is a bloke who didn't accept Roman authority.

Please find a list of some noted Western moral philosophers all of whom wrote and talked about the nature of Truth, Reality, Virtue, Ethics and The Beautiful too.
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Whitehead, Popper, Pirsig, Alasdair Macintyre, Elizabeth Anscombe, Martha Nussbaum, Iris Murdoch.

In my opinion all of them would be totally appalled by the appearance of Donald Trump who is a culturally and religiously illiterate nihilistic barbarian, a pathological liar and a life-long professional grifter con-man.

Who by his lived example actively negates the entire Western moral and ethical philosophical tradition. And of course The Beautiful too. Even every time that he opens his potty-mouth in public.

Part of Charlie Kirk's mission was to encourage young men (in particular) to vote for and actively support this nihilistic barbarian

diver dan,

I'll take that as a compliment. Just for the record, I think you're a random word generator, and I think I found which one. Here's a sample of it:

“World’s upside down. Blokes in wigs teaching feelings while women can’t even woman anymore. Kids don’t know what toilet, and that’s freedom now apparently, but you say truth and boom, cancelled. Poofters and faggots."

From now on, I'll be refering to you as "Random word generator dan."

"I have well developed instincts that differentiate between fact and fiction: I also am an avid reader of the Bible."

Is God fact or fiction?

Seems like a bit of a hard question, right?
Maybe I'll give you an easier one, 'What is a woman?'

I remember how you accused me of being Alan B for about 2 years.
No matter what I said, you were convinced.

So you admit you believe in supernatural beings, but want us to believe you have very good instincts to differentiate between fact and fiction.

Okay.

So, speaking truth to power
Why is Trump blowing up boats in the gulf of Mexico?
Why is he talking about regime change?

What happened to the America the world looked up to.
What happened to the rule of law?
No Judge, no jury, no day in court?

I think America took a page from Israels book.
Rules based order what a joke.

Speaking of nihilistic barbarians, when I saw the killings by Hamas to a cheering mob, I thought how tolerant and kind Nazis were in comparison. To think that cult leader Albo thought them worthy of statehood. That lot had better lose their hatred and their guns quickly.

Hi Fester,
I'm not sure the NAZI's offered a full 5 star package like the Israeli's.
I mean did the NAZI's offer free (forced) sex to the Jewish hostages
Or is this just an added bonus that only the Palestinians are entitled too.

Here take a look, the Israeli care so much about their Palestinian friends sexual entitlements, they're willing to stand up for defend their rights

http://x.com/SuppressedNws1/status/1977846729656467775
'Never forget that Israelis were having a “right to rape protest” in Israel to allow soldiers to rape Palestinian hostages.'

How come those on the pro-Israeli side never say
'Oh God no, that's wrong, I don't support that'
- Maybe they want free sexual entitlements too?

How come Team Israel never call out the things Team Israel does, isn't that curious?
Maybe they support everything without question?

Such beautiful people, what would we all do without such kind and caring souls?

John,

That would have to be the most intelligent reply I've had from you. After your idiotic argument for normally operating nuclear power stations causing people harm from radiation, I nearly gave up hope for you.

Think of the Euthyphro dialogue. Was Euthyphro convinced that his beliefs had any shortcomings? Did Socrates gain any insight into the system of justice? I look at that dialogue as a contrast of using argument for persuasion vs the use of argument for understanding.

Peter Ridd is someone who has lived by Socrates' principles to some extent.

"Well, it actually took a few years of a few events. Then when it happened again and again, and it culminated when there was a reef up here near Bowen and the guys were saying there was no coral on this and they were saying it was all killed by farmers. And I thought that was very strange. So I sent my guys who worked for me, “Check out that reef.". We found a fabulous reef, fabulous coral on a reef that was supposed to have no coral.” And I made a point about this, and I got clobbered with a misconduct allegation from the university just for pointing out that the reef had a huge amount of coral when all the institutions were saying that there was no coral. So you start to realise, oh my goodness, we’ve got a real problem with these institutions here, because they’re not actually looking at, we’re not talking about data, we’re talking about a thing the size of a reef, whether or not it’s got coral, it either has or it hasn’t, and it had."

https://ipa.org.au/research/climate-change-and-energy/dr-peter-ridd-on-weekends-with-luke-grant-28-september-2025

I should be concerned by the tenor of the writings of some who post here?
Expressing opinions should not include denigrating, abusing, or insulting others who post?
However, I learned a lesson when still a young man.
I was in a park, and observed two old men arguing heatedly.
It went on for some time, and I was understandably alarmed.
Suddenly, one looked at his watch, and said in a pleasant voice: 'I must go for my bus now'.
The other said calmly, 'ok, see you next time then'.
They then parted on friendly terms.
They were in reality 'good-mates'.
I realised their arguing was their way of letting off steam.
A way of feeling emotions they would otherwise not be likely to enjoy.
It was something which made them feel alive.
People have a 'war-like' streak in them, and need to experience some form of aggression?
As long as we are aware of this, and direct our emotions wisely, all will be well?

"People have a 'war-like' streak in them, and need to experience some form of aggression?"

I'm not entirely sure it's aggression.

Fester,

Let’s start with your lie: I never claimed that "normally operating nuclear plants cause harm." You know it, and you’re banking on the hope that no one else remembers the context.

My point was - and still is - that no energy source is risk-free, and pretending otherwise is propaganda, not analysis. You turned that into a straw man because it’s easier to attack a cartoon than an argument.

For someone who falsely accuses others of lying, you certainly tell many yourself.

Your sudden concern for Euthyphro is ironic, since that entire dialogue is about exposing people who claim moral certainty without understanding what they’re talking about. Socrates questioned arrogance parading as virtue - a category you’d fit neatly into.

And spare us the Peter Ridd sainthood. He wasn’t punished for "finding coral," he was disciplined for trashing colleagues in the media and breaching policy. Turning a workplace dispute into a Socratic tragedy is just theatre for people who can’t tell philosophy from grievance.

If you want to discuss argument as understanding, start by understanding what was actually said - not what you wish had been said.

Dear uncle Bonger 1405.

That’s a conspiracy theory!

Golgotha hill is the ancient equivalent of the Grassy Knoll of JFK fame.
Always a conspiracy lurking around to nibble on; such one is Charlie Kirk’s wife and Donald Trump are hot. Makes me laugh, but is it true?

Nurumberg Dan,

That's true it could be a conspiracy theory, although the Bible could be the conspiracy theory, and my narrative the truth. Then again a lot of it's fake news stories. In any case the Illuminati had a hand in it. As for "hot", well Donald does like em' hot in black, it matches his black silky pyjamas, never the less, with Donald its just another Stormy in a tea cup.

John,

I'll start by quoting you, and note that unlike you, when I quote someone I put statements that they actually made in italics.

"Let’s start with your lie: I never claimed that "normally operating nuclear plants cause harm." You know it, and you’re banking on the hope that no one else remembers the context."

Hmmm. Here's another quote you made in the dim dark past:

"Yes, nuclear power plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, which can affect nearby communities over time. Cumulative radiation exposure, even at low levels, can increase health risks, particularly cancer and leukaemia, as indicated by studies like the KiKK study in Germany (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/)."

This is why I think that you suffer from a psychiatric condition, but at least I am grateful that you didn't say, "We've been through this before." or some such.

"Your sudden concern for Euthyphro is ironic, since that entire dialogue is about exposing people who claim moral certainty without understanding what they’re talking about. Socrates questioned arrogance parading as virtue - a category you’d fit neatly into."

Again, the dialogue contrasts the use of argument as a means of persuasion against its use as a means of examination. Note that at the end of the dialogue Euthyphro excuses himself so that he may prosecute his father over a matter the argument has shown to be flawed, demonstrating that he has learned nothing from it. That is why the dialogue reminded me of you, John.

"And spare us the Peter Ridd sainthood. He wasn’t punished for "finding coral," he was disciplined for trashing colleagues in the media and breaching policy."

I don't think him a saint, and the High Court determined that his "trashing of colleagues" for exposing shoddy research was within his scope of academic freedom and was nto grounds for JCU to discipline him.

Socrates set an example of using argument to increase our understanding of the world. As an example of its value, Dr Ridd used argument to examine the dangers of nuclear energy. Like Euthyphro, I doubt that you will profit from his efforts.

https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/duttons-nuclear-push-triggers-usual-anti-science-fallout

Fester,

You’ve outdone yourself - misquoting, psychologising, and misunderstanding all in one post. But I was waiting for you to quote that line of mine so that I could once again explain it to you.

The line you dragged up about nuclear plants was accurate then and remains accurate now: yes, small emissions occur during normal operation. That’s not the same as claiming "nuclear power stations cause people harm." It’s called acknowledging empirical reality - something you keep mistaking for activism.

If you think that citing peer-reviewed research like the KiKK study is a "psychiatric condition," then your problem isn’t my mental health, it’s your allergy to data. There’s a difference between "detectable risk" and "significant harm." You’ve blurred them on purpose because your argument can’t survive nuance.

We've gone through this over and over again. At this point, the fact that you keep brining it up can only suggest wilful dishonesty - not to mention desperate, given how much I've said since then that you ignore because it's inconvenient.

As for Euthyphro - amusing that you invoke a dialogue about self-delusion while congratulating yourself for missing its point. Socrates exposed false certainty dressed up as wisdom. You’ve done a flawless Euthyphro impression here.

And no, the High Court didn’t vindicate Ridd’s conduct; it upheld JCU’s right to enforce its code of conduct and found no unlawful dismissal. You might try reading the judgment rather than an IPA press release. Quoting an activist think tank about "academic freedom" doesn’t turn spin into law.

You keep invoking Socrates, but Socrates valued clarity over comfort. If you think parroting political talking points counts as philosophy, you’re not following in his footsteps - you’re chasing his shadow.

Dearest Bonger 1405.

Less ambiguity please:

#That's true it could be a conspiracy theory#

?That’s true (but) it could be a conspiracy theory?

Anyway, speaking of Stormy, I see Daniel is back in the Lions den in Jerusalem.

Tommy Roberts is on a ten day speaking tour sponsored by the Israeli Government, tut tut.

Should I wonder if he will extend the tour to Australia? I fear we are not as enlightened as Jerusalem!

Oh look Bonger 1405; truth in writing I am not a AI Chatbot ((Premium), masquerading as a human.

It is Tommy Robinson on tour in Israel in fact, but I did notice a Gorilla in a now closed Bristol Zoo, masquerading as Donald Trump in his black silky PJ’s.

Funny world!