A discussion is to me a competitive process of refining perception.
To you, according to your own words, a discussion is your viewpoint overpowering my viewpoint because you say so.
You say that my viewpoint "appears you're rambling".
My viewpoint is exactly what it is, and if you are confused, then you can blame your confusion on me, or, on the other hand, if you resort to deception, you can attack my character, blaming "me" for rambling, as far as the content of your words uncover.
The concept of calling a spade a spade is the concept of truth, which is based upon the clear, and accurate perception of fact, as a preference over muddled, ignorant, confused, wasteful, false, perception.
A. Accurate definitions of words
B. Ambiguous, duplicitous, confusing, and often diametrically opposite definitions of the same word.
What is exactly wrong with Democracy, according to any speaker, any person, as the person intends to convey the accurate warning to any listener?
If the exact thing that is wrong with Democracy, according to the speaker, is that Democracy is crime, crimes committed by many people, upon a few people, as a function of a head count, then why not call it crime?
Why call it Democracy?
Why call it Democracy when roughly (very roughly) half of the people who may profit from this warning are people who happen to hold an opposite meaning of the word Democracy?
A. Call crime crime, even when many people commit crimes upon a few people as a function of a head count.
B. Cover up the fact that a crime is a crime by calling a crime by the false front word Democracy, thereby confusing anyone who may have understood the warning had the warning been conveyed with accurate terminology instead of deceptive terminology.
Going by your words the above, if I have to guess, will be more rambling according to you.
To me, since your power to make me be what you claim I am is null, the above is a concept that matters.
The concept that matters is very simple.
If it is crime, then why call it Democracy; are you hiding something?
If it is crime, logically, a warning would not mince words, a warning would call a crime a crime.
An innocent person perceives a mob who are on the march to murder a innocent person targeted by the mob, a lynch mob, a mob that is one race, and the innocent victim is a different race, and by all appearances to the innocent person who perceives the mob this mob of people will commit this crime when they get to their targeted victim.
The innocent person who perceives the mob heading toward their crime of murder has time to run and warn the targeted person who is at home with his family.
Knock, knock, knock
The messenger is a the door of the potential victim.
The potential victim answers the door.
"Hi." Says the targeted victim.
"I have a message for you." Says the messenger.
"What is it?" The targeted victim is holding his baby daughter, trying to keep her quiet. She is hungry.
"Democracy is on the way. Democracy will be here any minute." The messenger reports.
"Great!" Says the intended victim.
"Great?" Says the messenger.
"Yes, of course, democracy is exactly what is needed in this world, since there are so many criminals about, targeting innocent victims, committing crimes, and hiding behind the color of law, we need democracy now." Thanks for the good news.
"Did you agree with Dr. Paul's speech, as he described democracy?"
I have to continue watching that speech in order to be in a position to comment on it further. My comments concerning the speech, so far, focus on the vital need to call a spade a spade, to avoid mincing words, and to spell out the real dangers precisely, in a language that avoids any misunderstanding.
The use of the word Democracy to mean Crime is, in my opinion, a grave error, since there are so many people who know the opposite meaning of that word, where democracy is not crime, at all, where democracy is the exact opposite of crime, so long as no one, ever, is above the law, excepting themselves, giving themselves license to commit crimes in any manner whatsoever.
If almost everyone can agree, for example, that torture is never lawful, then democracy is understood to be a situation where anyone claiming that torture is legal is a criminal, even if the criminals say otherwise.