Originally posted by King Kandy
If you think that the reason Americans respect the founding fathers is because of the risks they went through in the revolution, I would have to wonder why you wouldn't heap the same respect on Fidel Castro. Perhaps there are other reasons for why they are respected, and rather than actually articulate them, you instead made patronizing responses like "read more history".
What is it any of your business anyway?
Originally posted by Peach
Nor are you.If you make a post in a public forum, expect people to comment or reply to it. If you don't like that idea, then converse in PMs.
Sorry, but I was just defending myself. I will simply put King Kandy on my ignore list. That may not stop his constant harassment, but then I will not have to see it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They also had a price on their head for what they did. It took balls.
Having balls doesn't doesn't eliminate their flaws nor does it lend weight to their political views. You seem to be applying the same logic that leads to people valuing the advice of celebrities over doctors.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Having balls doesn't doesn't eliminate their flaws nor does it lend weight to their political views. You seem to be applying the same logic that leads to people valuing the advice of celebrities over doctors.
You seem to be saying that celebrities have more balls then doctors.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you knew more about the founding fathers then you would understand why people care so much about what they thought.
I do know some about them and more importantly, I know a good deal about the ideological frame of the american revolution and its politcal implementation.
Like KK pointed out, almost every country on earth was forged by some some sort of revolution, civil war or independence war. And in most such countries, including the USA, indoctrination within the school system maintains some level of cult of the personality of these past leaders. What puzzles me is how strong it is today for a western nation's standards and the particular kind of worship that goes on in the USA is. The "what would they say about this or that?" questions seems to be frequently employed within political discourse as transparent appeal to tradition fallacy.
Why should anybody give a **** what they would think when their values and their views of "freedom and democracy" were so different from contemporary ones. I just find it ridiculous that people who stablished censitary vote and maintained slave labour should be seriously taken as models for contemporary political views on any subject.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You seem to be saying that celebrities have more balls then doctors.
You seem to be ignoring the words I wrote. But if you're actually having trouble understanding I'll try to explain in small words.
Alice has an idea. Alice has balls. Bob agrees with Alice on the basis that she has balls. Bob is an idiot.
Carol has an idea. Carol does not have balls. Carol has good supporting arguments. Bob rejects Carol on the basis that Alice has more balls than her. Bob is even more of an idiot.
Now here's the clever bit. We can change "has balls" to pretty much anything:
Alice has an idea. Alice [is famous]. Bob agrees with Alice on the basis that she [is famous]. Bob is an idiot.
Carol has an idea. Carol [isn't famous]. Carol has good supporting arguments. Bob rejects Carol on the basis that Alice [is more famous] than her. Bob is even more of an idiot.
Alice has an idea. Alice [owns a turkey]. Bob agrees with Alice on the basis that she [owns a turkey]. Bob is an idiot.
Carol has an idea. Carol [doesn't own a turkey]. Carol has good supporting arguments. Bob rejects Carol on the basis that Alice [owns more turkeys] than her. Bob is even more of an idiot.
See how that works. It doesn't matter that the founding fathers had balls. In fact it's a complete non sequitur. Respect for the founding fathers should be based on the quality of their arguments, not on the fact that "they're the founding fathers" or "they had balls".
Originally posted by 753
I do know some about them and more importantly, I know a good deal about the ideological frame of the american revolution and its politcal implementation.Like KK pointed out, almost every country on earth was forged by some some sort of revolution, civil war or independence war. And in most such countries, including the USA, indoctrination within the school system maintains some level of cult of the personality of these past leaders. What puzzles me is how strong it is today for a western nation's standards and the particular kind of worship that goes on in the USA is. The "what would they say about this or that?" questions seems to be frequently employed within political discourse as transparent appeal to tradition fallacy.
Why should anybody give a **** what they would think when their values and their views of "freedom and democracy" were so different from contemporary ones. I just find it ridiculous that people who stablished censitary vote and maintained slave labour should be seriously taken as models for contemporary political views on any subject.
I disagree. If you assume their ideas are irrelevant in today's world, then you fall into the trap of repeating history. Now that does not answer your question, but I think you already know the answer (political fodder).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seem to be ignoring the words I wrote. But if you're actually having trouble understanding I'll try to explain in small words.Alice has an idea. Alice has balls. Bob agrees with Alice on the basis that she has balls. Bob is an idiot.
Carol has an idea. Carol does not have balls. Carol has good supporting arguments. Bob rejects Carol on the basis that Alice has more balls than her. Bob is even more of an idiot.Now here's the clever bit. We can change "has balls" to pretty much anything:
Alice has an idea. Alice [is famous]. Bob agrees with Alice on the basis that she [is famous]. Bob is an idiot.
Carol has an idea. Carol [isn't famous]. Carol has good supporting arguments. Bob rejects Carol on the basis that Alice [is more famous] than her. Bob is even more of an idiot.Alice has an idea. Alice [owns a turkey]. Bob agrees with Alice on the basis that she [owns a turkey]. Bob is an idiot.
Carol has an idea. Carol [doesn't own a turkey]. Carol has good supporting arguments. Bob rejects Carol on the basis that Alice [owns more turkeys] than her. Bob is even more of an idiot.See how that works. It doesn't matter that the founding fathers had balls. In fact it's a complete non sequitur. Respect for the founding fathers should be based on the quality of their arguments, not on the fact that "they're the founding fathers" or "they had balls".
You are the one who is assuming. I was just doing it back to you.