Plato - endorsed institutional slavery. Justified his opinion as nature
Aristotle - said people not of his "class" were not up to intellectual prowess and didn't deserve salvation.
Locke - Justified stealing the land from indians
Tocqueville - Said that the Native americans had a "pretentious language"
any of our founders - all racists, all liars, power mongering monsters, with the desire to dominate others and virtually no other reason.
Robespierre - said use violence to fight for political objectives.
Disraeli - ran the bank of england, was rich.
These people are deserving of our respect? Why? Certainly anyone with thoughts like theirs should not be sung, but bemoaned, yes?
EDIT: i am not 'ad hominem' ing them. I want people to brainstorm on why people who held these views are held up as famous figures. All of those are phrased to be damning, but that is the point. After all so many people in here hate the founders, so i want to know why we think of them as "great". People seem to be quick to rush to judgement based on the negatives, but overlook the positives.
Eating Propaganda
What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!
I'll begin the list of fallcies in your OP.
1) Ad hominems
(No comments about how a question is not an argument. We could change the OP to "Certainly anyone with thoughts like theirs should not be sung, but bemoaned;" thus, removing the question.)
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
you're missing the point man. I'm being serious and i think these people are more or less deserving of our respect. We should be thankful for all of their insights. But let's come up with the actaul reasoning behind it.
But thanks for questioning my character right off the bat...
EDIT:
What? Read my post alound, man. I want the question there, you need to brush up on your rhetoric. (Aristotle, that bastard!)
Because we could agree with the idea independently of the person who professed it.
Mises once advocated nightwatchmen, therefore, he must bemoaned?
Walter Block was a socialist.
Tom Woods a neocon.
.............
......................
..................................
dude, you're being retarded, i LIKE these people, I AM WRITING IN A SATIRICAL TONE because of the posts in here.
The people on here are very emotional. Reason is there to conquer emotion, remember?
You went from:
I want people to brainstorm on why people who held these views are held up as famous figures.
so i want to know why we think of them as "great"
From:
I'm being serious
to
I AM WRITING IN A SATIRICAL TONE
you are missing the point of my post man.
w/e you're an idiot if you can't figure out i'm kidding and want the people who say that these people are good.
they were different posts...and i'm holding that you don't know satire.
My OP (The list) was written to defame them. So with the defamation OUT of the way, my seriousness comes in when i want people to say why they are famous anbd why we like them.
But you'd rather be a little bitch and purposely not "get" what i am saying. You're pretty smart, kid.
No insults, please.
My OP (The list) was written to defame them.
No defamation, please.
Walter Block was a socialist. Tom Woods a neocon.
these aren't even true, man. My list post (OP) are true things, just worded to rile up emotion. You are just making things up, and you think that makes you clever or witty? You're an idiot if you don't get what i am saying...
sigh....trolling, pretty cool for a mod, huh?
After reading your OP, I thought you were serious. Then you stated that you were serious. Then you stated that your OP was satire.
Btw, no insults, please.
i don't buy it. you're trolling
I never said that the stuff in your OP were lies.
Walter Block has admitted that he was a socialist.
Tom Woods has admitted that he was a neocon.
WAAAASSSSS. is not IS. Plato died with those contentions..
and STOP even posting. you ruined my thread. I wanted the people on here who hate out founders to actually admit that they were great people despite their flaws.
I've actually answered your OP: "Because we could agree with the idea independently of the person who professed it."
Okay, point taken, but why do we remember them as people? Plato was taught by someone...
and yea that one post in a group of all the others that were douche posts...
and STOP even posting. you ruined my thread.
I'm trying to hit 70,000 points by this weekend.
Okay, that was a troll. I'll stop now, except to moderate any insults, etc.
I think peer pressure, especially from family, friends and loved ones, is difficult to overstate. An otherwise logical person might engage in willful cognitive dissonance on issues he considers peripheral or politicized beyond any hope that his opinion would matter. In other words, just toeing the party line on certain issues might be a way to deflect excessive peer pressure from family, friends and peers, freeing oneself up to concentrate on and express opinions that matter.
You might argue that keeping silent would be the best policy but people fill in the blanks. Silence can speak louder than words. Answering "Do you believe in God?" with silence is hardly a convincing front of polite theism. The feeling that your parents or others family and loved ones are disappointed in you is a pretty crappy feeling and you have to wonder whether it's worth it just to advocate right opinions. Maybe a better approach is to just think your own thoughts and then say what you're expected to say for the sake of world peace. Lots of great thinkers have done it and some of those who just barged ahead ended up in the loony bin (Georg Cantor) or committing suicide (Alan Turing... though he might have been murdered... but there's plenty of other examples). No matter how rational you try to force yourself to be, at root, you are still the flesh-and-blood social animal you were born to be. It's a difficult battle.
Clayton -
They were not perfect, i.e. they might`ve been original thinkers to some extent, but they were also affected by the societies they lived in.
No he didn't. It was a stupid thread to begin with and you made it worse with repeated namecalling.
I wanted the people on here who hate out founders to actually admit that they were great people despite their flaws.
Who cares what you wanted. You don't own the course a thread takes.
Why do we listen to these people?
Why are you strawmanning us? I couldn't care less about any of the people on the list, except for Disraeli whom I detest.
For serious?
Poisoning the well fallacy.
Just because Aristotle might've been wrong about class doesn't mean he was wrong about virtue. These people have other ideas that should be weighed on their own merits, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone in history that you'll agree with 100% categorically.
Robespierre, really? Wow.
All the founders were unintersting, besides Hamilton, who was unfortunately very wrong in several key areas.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
And besides all that; other than Robespierre, who was a legit A 1 psychotic nutjob of the highest order, none can be compared with Jackson. They're just intellectuals - not people who exercise power in society via political means.
One month ban for repeated insults, even after being warned, Em_ptySkin.
Where was he warned beforehand that, if he kept up the insults, he would be given a one-month ban?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I'm guessing he was PM'ed.
there was no PM. and i'm confused as to why i was banned even though other people were telling me to choke and die. seems non sensical. but pretty anarchist to ban people for saying things...
Don't ban dodge again.
This.
Autolykos: Where was he warned beforehand that, if he kept up the insults, he would be given a one-month ban?
You're misreading. He's saying that he was warned to stop insulting, and continued anyway. That is what got him a temporary ban.
Personal attacks are not acceptible forms of discourse. They bring the forum down. The poster in question was handled leniently by giving him a warning. He didn't heed this warning. That leaves only one course of action.
Nielsio:You're misreading. He's saying that he was warned to stop insulting, and continued anyway. That is what got him a temporary ban.
It's one thing to simply be told to stop insulting. It's another thing to be warned of certain consequences if one does not stop. Is it a stated policy (i.e. in the forum rules) that a temporary ban will occur if one does not do what a moderator, in his capacity thereof, tells him to do?
Nielsio:Personal attacks are not acceptible forms of discourse. They bring the forum down. The poster in question was handled leniently by giving him a warning. He didn't heed this warning. That leaves only one course of action.
Of course I agree that personal attacks aren't acceptible forms of discourse. That's not what's at issue with me. I'm not sure whether he was actually given what I would call a warning.
Marko:The length of banns is at the mods' discretion. He didn't merely refuse to do what a moderator told him to. He broke the forum rules.
I understand that. I guess what I'm asking is whether it's publicly stated policy that a user will be banned (for a length of time that's at the mods' discretion) if he continues to break one or more of the forum rules after being told to stop.
I guess what I'm asking is whether it's publicly stated policy that a user will be banned (for a length of time that's at the mods' discretion) if he continues to break one or more of the forum rules after being told to stop.
Autolykos: I understand that. I guess what I'm asking is whether it's publicly stated policy that a user will be banned (for a length of time that's at the mods' discretion) if he continues to break one or more of the forum rules after being told to stop.
To state something as a policy means there must be an alternative. Personal attacks are not acceptable, which was pointed out and he continued anyways. The next logical step is to prevent him from degrading the forum, which is to retract the posting privileges that were given to him at no cost.
The alternative to not allowing individuals to degrade the forum is to allow individuals to degrade the forum. This is a matter of private property and reputation. If you allow someone in your house and he blows his nose with the curtains, and you ask him not to do that, and he does it again anyways, then he has established that he doesn't care about your property rights, and his reputation in the eyes of the owner is ruined.
There is no need to create a public policy against curtain-nose-blowing when you have a birthday party, nor is there a need to create a public policy stating that guests will no longer be allowed entry when they ignore the wishes of the owner.
For those interested, there are forum rules though:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/19.aspx
Excerpts:
Personal Attacks Avoid all personal attacks, whether against another user, or any other person--member or non-member, living or deceased (for example, do not post material that berates Ludwig von Mises). These inflammatory remarks have no place in civil, rational discourse.
Avoid all personal attacks, whether against another user, or any other person--member or non-member, living or deceased (for example, do not post material that berates Ludwig von Mises). These inflammatory remarks have no place in civil, rational discourse.
Moderator's Rights The moderator(s) of the Austrian Economics Forum reserve the right to modify or delete any material that violates any of these rules, or for any other reason that they deem appropriate. They also reserve the right to ban any user if they are in violation of the board's rules, although warnings will generally be given first (especially concerning the more innocent mistakes). Egregious violations of rules may result in a banning without warning.
The moderator(s) of the Austrian Economics Forum reserve the right to modify or delete any material that violates any of these rules, or for any other reason that they deem appropriate. They also reserve the right to ban any user if they are in violation of the board's rules, although warnings will generally be given first (especially concerning the more innocent mistakes). Egregious violations of rules may result in a banning without warning.
there are forum rules though
This is aggression! You are no anarchists, you are crypto-statists! I'm done with this forum!!!111one