This thread is to discuss the following article:

The Purest Definition of a Dictator.
To avoid the semantic issues, we must explain why George W Bush, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, and Noah are not dictators.

My expert definition of a Dictator is one who dictates--by FORCE! Force of will is that employed by Jesus, Mohammed, and Budda. Hitler tried this in the propaganada movie "The Triumph of the Will." Force was Adolf's middle-name. The best however, only willed "things." Any dictation was via charisma and powers of suggestion--and the Apostles. By the way, Jesus is the uncontestible Dictator. He strongly suggested (via Moses, etc.) that we follow The 10 Commandments. His suggestion becomes the spiritual Law-of-the-Land. "In God we Trust." Jesus still dictates today through his believers. He is unrivaled as a dictator. His "brand" of force was/is sublime and incommensurabe. His divinity has always given countries/leaders an advantage--especially motivating for the troops. This enthusiasm helped considerably in the Crusades. Therefore Noah was not a dictator, as he was only living out the dictates of God/Jesus Christ. What else could he do? Although countless individuals have claimed personal divinity--Jesus was the best. By the way, His IQ was/is between 300-350. One of his minions forced Pharoh to free all the Jewish slaves--that's dictatorship by way of proxy. Unrivaled power! Question: Should the 10 Commandments be "posted" in the Public School System? Two thousand + years--since His death. Crucified as a considered mortal and yet still believed living. Only a few claim to have seen him after the Resurection. FORCE? He's got Force! Obey=Heaven! Disobey=Hell. Again I, the expert, am the only one qualified to make this claim. Second, as rival to this Dictator is the Devil, which today some revere. But, the devil is infinitely a far back--second place. "I am that I am!" And: "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me!" Thus sayest the Lord.

Who says Dictatorship is limited to Homo Sapiens or Divine Ones? Nature is 3rd. on my list, following the Devil. Then again, God and the Devil have force over Nature. Who can resist
Katrina, the Great Flood, and this gastly heat? Only God and the Devil--& Time!

You may, subject to your approval, consider Time to be the 4th. Greatest Dictator. It a shame however, that Time is of our own making. What time is it? Consider the American Indian exhortation: Mother Nature and Father Time." Anyone disagreeing is of "forked tongue!" Knowledge is Power! I rest my expertise. It's as easy as one, two, three, four: Jesus, Devil, Nature, & Time. Any other considerations differing are futile.

Let's stick to human beings. And let's stick to the dictionary definition of a dictator being someone who rules a country.

Otherwise, we'll never find a way to measure the "force" of Jesus, Muhammad, nature, and time.

As much as I'm tempted to get sent (yet again) to keep company to a certain imaginary fiction book hero by Scott, I'll have to discard the former three since they never (thankfully) governed any territories.

Bush obviously doesn't apply since he's been democratically elected and has done nothing to directly circumvent the democratic mechanisms of his country to the extent required to label him a dictator.

An interesting point by dextoRious. At what point do you define a democratically leader as a dictator? By the way they run the government, or control the parliment/senate/congress? Or do they only qualify after killing X amount of the opposition? Some democracies have been ru along similar lines as dictatorships.
Regards Bob.

They don't need to kill anyone to qualify. Abolishing or taking control of the absolute majority of the checks in place to the executive's power is perfectly enough.

Which is exactly what some people will say is happening in the US, Great Britain and Australia right now. If you believe in conspiracy theories, then the erosion of rights under the new terror laws would be a good place to start. Of course any restriction on freedom of speech would be the clincher. So does the use of the words such as 'terrorist', 'bomb', 'hijack', I hate Bush, I hate Blair, I hate Howard, via phone, email, the written word constitute a threat or give the authorities the right to move against you?
Regards Bob.

It doesn't. That's not happening either.

You know that and I know that, but a lot of people only want to believe the worst, they always believe there is some form of hidden agenda. Introduce any measure for the common good and there will always be opposition, and no matter how small that opposition is initially it has a way of snowballing because the major failing in human nature is to always believe the worst and that's when the herd mentality takes over.
Regards Bob.

It's still only a vocal minority, one that mostly consists of people with dubious capacity for intellectual thought, to put it mildly. Their yelling serves as a certain preventive purpose too -- it serves as indication to those in power not to extend such power more than truly necessary.

Let them cry.

A dictionary definition would of course suffice here. Yet, even Webster isn't totalitarian. The dictionary would, of course define dictator by its literal meanig--one who dictates. And, often includes the contemporary consensus. This would have a negative conotation. A dictator, being the opposite of a democratically elected leader, would have a clear bias in US dictionaries.

Mine= The dictator is one who is absolutely superordinate to "all" those subordinate to him within the confines of a country, province, etc., who often applies force to maintain power.

This could also apply to "petty" (little) dictators found in schools, the jucicial system, certain religions (eg. the Pope), and the like.

To place the Dictator in a more positive light would/could have it defined as more akin to a benign Dictator in the context/position of say Plato's Philosopher King--the ideal "Dictator."

This, of course, would be a "pure" (altruistic/benign) definition. You may discover this definition in countries outside the US and other nondemocratic countries.

Did I mention a dictator has a conotative & denotative negative definition in "our" dictionaries?