.500NE:I just pounded out my opinion on an internet message board. You analyzed the grammar of my post far more than I even though of doing…
And? What affect do you expect this to have on me, exactly?
.500NE:Wow. You are reading into things far more than you need to.
Oh am I? Can you prove it? Or is this just another opinion masquerading as a factual claim?
.500NE:Everyone else who read this thread probably got the jist of what I was saying in my posts without worrying overmuch [sic] about my unconscious grammar choices [sic].
Why should I care about this? Again, what affect do you expect this to have on me, exactly?
.500NE:Ok. Autolykos:By the way, the validity (i.e. worth) of an opinion is also a matter of opinion.
Autolykos:By the way, the validity (i.e. worth) of an opinion is also a matter of opinion.
What's your point here?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos: And? What affect do you expect this to have on me, exactly? x2 …
And? What affect do you expect this to have on me, exactly? x2
…
Why do you think I expect anything? I'm just random internet poster #395475
You have already made it clear that you are under no obligation to care about or agree with anything I say.
Autolykos: What's your point here?
If you don't see it, nothing I can say will help.
Autolykos: Oh am I? Can you prove it? Or is this just another opinion masquerading as a factual claim?.
Interperet it anyway you want... I am under no requirement to vet my postings to your grammatical standards.
.500NE:Why do you think I expect anything? I'm just random internet poster #395475 You have already made it clear that you are under no obligation to care about or agree with anything I say.
You don't seem to be taking that to heart. So I logically conclude that you want to have some kind of affect on me.
.500NE:If you don't see [my point], nothing I can say will help.
I will note for the record that you've refused to answer my question. I think my question is quite reasonable.
Now I'm not a mind-reader, but I'll take a guess at what your point is. You seem to be insinuating that my statement "By the way, the validity (i.e. worth) of an opinion is also a matter of opinion" is a statement of opinion. But it isn't. It's a statement of fact. Do you understand?
.500NE:Interperet it anyway you want... I am under no requirement to vet my postings to your grammatical standards.
So you're saying you can't prove that I'm reading into things far more than I need to? Or are you saying that you again stated an opinion in the form of a factual claim? Maybe I should just keep asking you this until you give me an honest answer.
Autolykos: You don't seem to be taking that to heart. So I logically conclude that you want to have some kind of affect on me.
I take it fully to heart. I’m replying for kicks at this point.
Autolykos: I will note for the record that you've refused to answer my question. I think my question is quite reasonable. Now I'm not a mind-reader, but I'll take a guess at what your point is. You seem to be insinuating that my statement "By the way, the validity (i.e. worth) of an opinion is also a matter of opinion" is a statement of opinion. But it isn't. It's a statement of fact. Do you understand?
Actually I don’t, the two phrases I quoted from you seem contradictory to me. But at this point I’d be willing to bet that there is some grammatical or logical rule you can point to, too prove you are correct. You seem to be a stickler about such things.
Give yourself a star, you got me.
Autolykos: So you're saying you can't prove that I'm reading into things far more than I need to? Or are you saying that you again stated an opinion in the form of a factual claim? Maybe I should just keep asking you this until you give me an honest answer.
Prove that it wasn’t an honest answer.
You’re the only one on this thread who seems to care about whether I state my opinions in this or that form.
But it just doesn’t matter that much to me. I have no “ulterior motive” to how I phrase my postings – I certainly don’t think them through enough to intentionally make subtle use of some rule of grammar I probably forgot about right after it was taught to me.
If it makes it problematic for you to interpret what I am saying, I can care less, it’s not my problem. I won’t change the way I post just for one guy who takes issue with the grammatical way I express my views.
.500NE:I take it fully to heart. I'm replying for kicks at this point.
I'm not sure whether to believe you on this.
.500NE:Prove that it wasn't an honest answer.
It didn't provide what I asked for. You neither proved that I was reading into things far more than I need to nor indicated that it was just another opinion masquerading as a factual claim.
.500NE:You’re the only one on this thread who seems to care about whether I state my opinions in this or that form. But it just doesn’t matter that much to me. I have no “ulterior motive” to how I phrase my postings – I certainly don’t think them through enough to intentionally make subtle use of some rule of grammar I probably forgot about right after it was taught to me. If it makes it problematic for you to interpret what I am saying, I can care less, it’s not my problem. I won’t change the way I post just for one guy who takes issue with the grammatical way I express my views.
You don't have to change the way you post, not for me or for any other reason. But by the same token, I don't have to change the way I respond to the way you post. And I will continue to respond to you in exactly the same way as long as you continue to post the same way.
Autolykos: I'm not sure whether to believe you on this. .
.
Such is life.
Autolykos: It didn't provide what I asked for. You neither proved that I was reading into things far more than I need to nor indicated that it was just another opinion masquerading as a factual claim.
I have no obligation to give you what you ask for. Like I said:
.500NE: ...If it makes it problematic for you to interpret what I am saying, I can care less, it’s not my problem. ....
...If it makes it problematic for you to interpret what I am saying, I can care less, it’s not my problem. ....
Autolykos: You don't have to change the way you post, not for me or for any other reason. But by the same token, I don't have to change the way I respond to the way you post. And I will continue to respond to you in exactly the same way as long as you continue to post the same way.
I can live with that.
"Why the focus on the whisky rebellion? It was a tax protest that got out of hand from both sides."
I'd like to hear how the protest got out of hand on the side of the frontiersmen.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I didn't know the guy, personally. So what kind of question is this?
Andrew Cain: "Why the focus on the whisky rebellion? It was a tax protest that got out of hand from both sides." I'd like to hear how the protest got out of hand on the side of the frontiersmen.
According to the wiki, the frontiersmen used violence against the tax collectors. Dunno what that means specifically tho.
.500NE:Such is life.
That's right.
.500NE:I have no obligation to give you what you ask for. Like I said: .500NE:...If it makes it problematic for you to interpret what I am saying, I can care less, it’s not my problem. ....
.500NE:...If it makes it problematic for you to interpret what I am saying, I can care less, it’s not my problem. ....
That wasn't my point and you know it. You asked me to prove that you didn't give me an honest answer. When I provide such a proof, instead of acknowledging that you didn't give me an honest answer, you move the goalposts. I think that just compounds your dishonesty. Or do you disagree that an honest answer is one that provides what the person asked for?
.500NE:I can live with that.
If you say so.
I disagree with your definition - my last two replys to your question stand.
What definition of "honest answer" are you using, then? Regardless, I don't think your last two replies to my question stand.
For running a campaign to stop the totalitarian British, yes. For his implementation of federal taxation (specifically the Whiskey Tax), no.
Autolykos: What definition of "honest answer" are you using, then? Regardless, I don't think your last two replies to my question stand.
What do you mean by, "What definition of 'honest answer' are you using, then? Regardless, I don't think your last two replies to my question stand"?
I think Patrick Henry might be quite respectable. The lion of the revolution.
What about George Mason?
Oh wait.
Aristophanes: As far as I am concerned most of the Founders deserve to be revered.
As far as I am concerned most of the Founders deserve to be revered.
I agree 100%.
I agree. After all, many of the founders would be pretty close to libertarians by today's standards, and that's pretty good compared to who has had the reins for the last 200 years. I've noticed that many AnCaps have an extreme aversion to even modest "hero-fication" of all historical figures not named Murray Rothbard (as awesome as he was). Nothing wrong with skepticism and criticism, but context is also vital.
"I agree. After all, many of the founders would be pretty close to libertarians by today's standards, and that's pretty good compared to who has had the reins for the last 200 years. I've noticed that many AnCaps have an extreme aversion to even modest "hero-fication" of all historical figures not named Murray Rothbard (as awesome as he was). Nothing wrong with skepticism and criticism, but context is also vital. "
No, they would not be. People in history should not be romanticized. Murray Rothbard had faults just like others. I think he was terrible when it came to gender perceptions.
I really am curious though, what are you guys reading that makes it seem like the founders were great guys? I am being drop-dead serious here and please do not take what I am saying as an insult but where are you guys getting your perceptions?
I think he was terrible when it came to gender perceptions.
You're so right, I'm going to burn all of his books in the street.
And while I'm at it, I'll burn every document looked at as "historical." I am the only one with a legitimate perspective of the world, right Andrew? Fuck everyone that doesn't see the world just like me, right Andrew?
You talking about subjective perceptions? What if, GOD FORBID, someone actually agreed with Rothbard's gender "perceptions?" What makes you "perception" any better than anyone else?
Why should we look at history like you?
But seriously, you took something I said and blew it up. I was responding to someone who said that AnCaps (which I consider myself to be one) only romanticize Murray Rothbard. Now I could of said "I don't know about other ancaps, but I think" but I didn't really think I needed to do that. Apparently, I did. By the way, this is the second time that you have gone out of your way to purposely take offence to something I said. Stop trying to flame man.
I stated that people in history should not be romanticized and Rothbard, like others, had his faults. I stated what I thought those faults were and you turn it into a book burning party. If you are going to continue to do this, I am just going to ignore you.
Be well!
Yea, I am a bad ass. I don't think anyone in history should be looked up to because they "had faults."
BOOK BURNING PARTY AT MY HOUSE!!!!!!! Only I have a legitimate perspective of the world, right Andrew??!?! No one else is good except me?
I am just going to ignore you.
(Respect ≡ Human Perfection)
People in history should not be romanticized
Look--I'm not going to dance around it--I think Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Madison (mostly), and Patrick Henry were all awesome. I honestly don't think there's too terribly much that you could tell me about them that would turn me off. I'm open to suggestion if you'd like to try. It's not romanticizing them, it's putting their accomplishments and ideals in context to their times. Without Thomas Jefferson there would be no Rothbard. But, honestly, I don't give a dick if you want to say I deify them. I don't base my respect of people wholly on their adherance to an-cap beliefs.
Yaaay!
Not to mention that, according to Andrew's world view, Plato and Aristotle should be disrespected. I think you'd have a hard time convincing many people that their support for aggressive slavery would somehow negate the value of their writings. Andrew's worldview is iconoclastic (said to stir controversey and gather him attention).
Well, tbh, I have no respect for Plato :\ Without him there'd be no Marx, no communism, no Godwin, no ideal of the philosopher king by which so much evil has been advanced.
no ideal of the philosopher king by which so much evil has been advanced.
I greatly doubt that. Do you think that most of the 'anointed' (as Sowell calls them) have even read Plato?
That is very petty and almost laughable. Have you even read his writings?
Republic has the cave allegory, the quadrivium (the mathematical education system that lasted quite literally until the 1800s), etc. Symposium is a great piece of literature (not about politics at all, but love). Phaedrus I was wishing to beat Obama and Romney over the head with earlier (he talks about how rhetoric isn't virtuous that it is manipulative). Apologia, Crito, Meno... gah!! Get your head out of the gutter and enlighten yourself. He is one of the greatest thinkers the world has ever seen. Indisputably.
I don't like Plato, but I certainly respect him. I admit I base my opinion of him mostly on the Republic. But I mean Socrates basically lives only through his writings so that's something on its own. I mean he was a revolutionary and prolifically different thinker. And, as humans, I think that quality alone is laudable.
Aristophanes: Well, tbh, I have no respect for Plato :\ Without him there'd be no Marx, no communism, no Godwin, no ideal of the philosopher king by which so much evil has been advanced. That is very petty and almost laughable. Have you even read his writings? Republic has the cave allegory, the quadrivium (the mathematical education system that lasted quite literally until the 1800s), etc. Symposium is a great piece of literature (not about politics at all, but love). Phaedrus I was wishing to beat Obama and Romney over the head with earlier (he talks about how rhetoric isn't virtuous that it is manipulative). Apologia, Crito, Meno... gah!! Get your head out of the gutter and enlighten yourself. He is one of the greatest thinkers the world has ever seen. Indisputably.
I haven't read all of him, to be sure. Not even close.
Perhaps his philosophical grouond breaking is more important than his political musings. The Republic made me want to kick him in the shin. It enumerates a society of pure centralized communal socialism, typifying the ideal of the smart ruling completely the idiots.
But when one traces backwards the philosophical roots of certain ideologies, especially the ones that justify using the state to accomplish all ends, all roads lead to Plato. For that I can't forgive him.
thetabularasa:What do you mean by, "What definition of 'honest answer' are you using, then? Regardless, I don't think your last two replies to my question stand"?
What I mean is: 1) I don't understand what he thinks qualifies as an "honest answer", and would like to understand that; and 2) regardless of whatever he thinks qualifies as an "honest answer", it's clearly different from what I think qualifies as an "honest answer", so I still don't think his last two replies to my question qualify as "honest answers".
"Look--I'm not going to dance around it--I think Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Madison (mostly), and Patrick Henry were all awesome. I honestly don't think there's too terribly much that you could tell me about them that would turn me off. I'm open to suggestion if you'd like to try. It's not romanticizing them, it's putting their accomplishments and ideals in context to their times. Without Thomas Jefferson there would be no Rothbard. But, honestly, I don't give a dick if you want to say I deify them. I don't base my respect of people wholly on their adherance to an-cap beliefs."
Well I do not base my respect on people on their adherance to an-cap beliefs either. I think it is a stretch to say that without Thomas Jefferson, there would be no Rothbard. Sure some concepts that influenced Jefferson also influenced Rothbard but it is not as if Jefferson made Rothbard. But seriously, I am not trying to insult you, why do you have such reverence for these individuals? A man's ideals and a man's actions are two different things. So tell me what you think.
Jefferson did try very hard, and was as close to a libertarian as we can get in that period perhaps.
In any case, he was against replacing the Articles of Confederation--the federalists conspired to make him ambassador to France to get him out of the country while they controlled the constitutional conventions.
And, later, as president, he killed the national bank, paid off the deficit, and was against standing armies.
Anyway. He retired and realized he'd basically failed.
My goal is to retire in victory for our ideals :)
why do you have such reverence for these individuals? A man's ideals and a man's actions are two different things. So tell me what you think.
Jefferson is the archetype for a renaissance man. I don't think there were any types of science or art that he didn't try his hand at, and he excelled at most of them. The amount that Jefferson accomplished and studied is simply mind boggling to me. AND he hated Hamilton.
Franklin is the same sort of deal except he also embodies the type of lust for life that I find balances out hard work and learning.
I realize that no man is perfect, and no man is a god. I imagine that the easiest critiques of Jefferson are his slaves and the Louisiana Purchase. Franklin heralded the USPS and was involved with central banking. I've never met these men, but if I could have a beer summit with a few icons from history, they would be near the top of the list (Franklin especially, cause he could probably smash em).