And? What affect do you expect this to have on me, exactly?
Oh am I? Can you prove it? Or is this just another opinion masquerading as a factual claim?
Why should I care about this? Again, what affect do you expect this to have on me, exactly?
What’s your point here?
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.
If you don’t see it, nothing I can say will help.
Interperet it anyway you want… I am under no requirement to vet my postings to your grammatical standards.
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 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?
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.
I take it fully to heart. I’m replying for kicks at this point.
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.
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.
I’m not sure whether to believe you on this.
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.
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.
Such is life.
I have no obligation to give you what you ask for. Like I said:
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.
I didn’t know the guy, personally. So what kind of question is this?
According to the wiki, the frontiersmen used violence against the tax collectors. Dunno what that means specifically tho.
That’s right.
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?
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.
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.
\
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?
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?
