I never claimed that you lobbied for a pure democracy (nice try at sneaking in a fallacious straw-man argument, though). While not contesting the truth of your dubious claim of having read Plato despite all of the ill-informed comments you have made here on this thread, you did claim in post #12 that anyone who advocated for a monarchical form of government was "extremely idiotic and stupid" in obvious comparison to our democratic form of government.
Your post is the biggest non-sequitur that I've ever read.
If that is true then you clearly have no understanding of Plato or even basic logic. On which comparative form of government were you boldly basing your low assessment of the intelligence of those who advocated monarchical governance?
That's why they gave us a Constitutional Republic.
Which, of course, they themselves wrote of as a type of democracy.
I will not live under a Catholic monarchy, no matter how much you try to lobby for it.
That's the second fallacious straw-man argument you have attempted in your short and poorly formed post. I've lobbied for no such thing. I have merely pointed out how utterly foolish you were to have attempted to make a blind assessment of the intelligence of those who do. Unfortunately, your rebuttal post has done nothing other than to further demonstrate that your insults of "extremely idiotic and stupid" apply to no one better than to yourself.
"Extremely idiotic and stupid" describes people who reject the Enlightenment and the political and economic freedom that followed as "anti-Christian", and lobby for a return to a religious monarchy. If you want to defend an idea, then go ahead and do so. I'm not interested in getting involved in another one of your insult sessions.