Posted on 03/20/2009 1:28:51 PM PDT by GonzoII
Yes, in fact the only post that actually staked out any ideological point said that "A democracy of self-centered "idiots" will be far worse than any benevolent monarchy". That's it.
That's the only point you've made, and it makes the assumption that said monarchy would be benevolent, a relative term at best since some monarchists on this thread see a theocratic monarch who stifles freedom of relgion as "benevolent".
So in effect, you really haven't made any point at all.
Your comment was aimed at one sentence I wrote; that people who rejected the Enlightenment and the political and economic freedom that followed and replacing it with an unelected monarchy were being idiotic.
You said that calling this position idiotic was itself, idiotic. So any thinking individual would surmise that you see some sort of merit to the position of ditching a modern republic!
But no, you don't support monarchy. Or maybe you do.
You don't support ditching the ideas of the Enlightenment. Or maybe you do. Who knows?!
You haven't really said anything; you've just used the thread as an opportunity to swim in my wake again.
Probably not, I'm really not interested in stoning the people I disagree with
Ha! Wrong kind of stones, genius. Try again.
I find it much more enjoyable to publicly expose them as the fools they are, just like what I am doing with the opportunity you are providing me here!
The opportunity to show yourself as nothing but an ideologically challenged potshot artist is your own making.
You would think that attacking someone who supports the ideas of Kant, Burke, Franklin, Paine, Jefferson, and Locke over the divine right of kings would merit some sort of passionate defense. But you've given nothing, no indication as why you think the latter is superior.
This is all we get:
A democracy of self-centered "idiots" will be far worse than any benevolent monarchy. As our founders knew all too well, democracy can only succeed when voters put their own limited self-interests behind those of future generations. Those who do not understand the need for sacrifice in self-governemnt vote in the welfare-state or socialistic fascism that inevitably destroys it.
Wow, brilliant rebuttal to the Enlightenment. I'm sure everyone's mouths are watering for your next defense/non-defense of monarchy, whichever it is.
On second thought, no one cares.
Fallacious straw-man argument #1 of this post (#5 for this thread). I never said I had "staked out any ideological point", I merely made a still unrefuted case that you were a fool for making and sticking by your baseless and mindless assertions in post #12.
That's the only point you've made,
No, my only point has been to successfully expose you as the fool you are for making the completely baseless assertions you have made on this thread.
and it makes the assumption that said monarchy would be benevolent,
I have made no such assumption. The only assumption I have made is that you are an utter fool for writing what you did in post #12 and subsequent posts.
So in effect, you really haven't made any point at all.
Your fallacious straw-man argument was not my point.
Your comment was aimed at one sentence I wrote; that people who rejected the Enlightenment and the political and economic freedom that followed and replacing it with an unelected monarchy were being idiotic.
Not at all. My comment was aimed at explaining what a fool you were for making a baseless claim about other people's intelligence.
You said that calling this position idiotic was itself, idiotic.
You are certainly getting warmer, but you still appear to be failing to see the point.
So any thinking individual would surmise that you see some sort of merit to the position of ditching a modern republic!
Since you are obviously not a "thinking individual", any conclusion you might make about what we would or would not surmise is irrelevant.
But no, you don't support monarchy. Or maybe you do.
In either case it has no bearing on the the case I have made about your utter foolishness for making a baseless claim about other posters' intelligence.
You don't support ditching the ideas of the Enlightenment. Or maybe you do. Who knows?!
At least you do know that I believe that you are a fool for what you have written here.
You haven't really said anything; you've just used the thread as an opportunity to swim in my wake again.
Hardly, I have made a compelling and sustained case that you are are a poorly reasoned and foolish poster whose writings should not be taken seriously.
"Probably not, I'm really not interested in stoning the people I disagree with" Ha! Wrong kind of stones, genius. Try again.
So now in addition to making completely baseless assessments of other people's intelligence (post #12) and divining their innermost desires (post #118), you are now making claims about their anatomy? You are a joke that never gets old!
The opportunity to show yourself as nothing but an ideologically challenged potshot artist is your own making.
The opportunity I had to publicly expose and ridicule a fool and blowhard with their own words was entirely of YOUR making!
You would think that attacking someone who supports the ideas of Kant, Burke, Franklin, Paine, Jefferson, and Locke over the divine right of kings would merit some sort of passionate defense.
Any objective reader of this thread would doubt you understand the words of any of them based on what you have written here. Several of my points (none of which you have even attempted to refute) were based directly on some of their writings.
But you've given nothing, no indication as why you think the latter is superior.
Not true. I think you are a fool for what you have written here, and I have used your own arrogant words and faulty reasoning to prove it.
Wow, brilliant rebuttal to the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment was far more than the mere political proposal your believe it to be. My statement is a concise refutation of your misinterpretation of it, however.
I'm sure everyone's mouths are watering for your next defense/non-defense of monarchy, whichever it is.
I am, in fact, sure that several of the continued readers of this thread who are corresponding privately with me are in fact enjoying my use of your continued words against you. Seeing a arrogant and ill-informed blowhard getting taken to school is great entertainment!
Good, I'm glad you admit that you have no point, and were only trying to make a passing insult, which refuted nothing.
No, my only point has been to successfully expose you as the fool you are for making the completely baseless assertions you have made on this thread.
You haven't identified any assertions I've made as baseless. I was referring to the theoretical 'conservatives' that want to take the United States back to a monarchy and see the Enlightenment as anti-Christian, a combination of positions that no one on this entire thread has adopted. You're not coming to the defense of anyone here, but spouting off like an ass on a dead thread.
I have made no such assumption [about a benevolent monarchy].
Yes you did. You said "benevolent" monarchy as an argument against my criticism of it as a political system.
Not at all. My comment was aimed at explaining what a fool you were for making a baseless claim about other people's intelligence.
I'm not convinced that these so-called anti-Enlightenment monarchist conservatives exist. But again, you've explained nothing other than you really have no point of view at all, and nothing to add to the discussion. I've asked you numerous times to explain why I should consider rejecting the Enlightenment as something reasonable, but I get nothing but endless uses of the word 'fallacious' (which describes every post I've seen from you). It's time for a thesaurus.
In either case it has no bearing on the the case I have made about your utter foolishness for making a baseless claim about other posters' intelligence.
Wow, you are getting tiresome, but once again, no other poster has adopted the positions I made a comment about.
Any objective reader of this thread would doubt you understand the words of any of them based on what you have written here. Several of my points (none of which you have even attempted to refute) were based directly on some of their writings.
You haven't made any points relevant to my original comment. By your own admission you have not staked out an ideological position. You have stood up to defend those who see the Enlightenment as anti-Christian and want to return to a monarchy, which so far describes no one on this thread that I can see. There are some monarchists, but none that go as far you're willing to go in your defense rejecting classical liberalism and the Age of Enlightenment.
So now in addition to making completely baseless assessments of other people's intelligence (post #12) and divining their innermost desires (post #118), you are now making claims about their anatomy? You are a joke that never gets old!
No, just yours. It's not always a question of anatomy though, as there are 12 year old girls with more guts, intelligence, and wit than you. I'm not sure about your innermost desires, and don't care.
The opportunity I had to publicly expose and ridicule a fool and blowhard with their own words was entirely of YOUR making!
You clamoring away on a dead thread about the benefits of monarchy must mean you have a very limited view of 'public exposure'.
I am, in fact, sure that several of the continued readers of this thread who are corresponding privately with me are in fact enjoying my use of your continued words against you. Seeing a arrogant and ill-informed blowhard getting taken to school is great entertainment!
I'm glad you have a bunch of little coward groupies 'corresponding with you privately.' Maybe you can start your own fan club. I don't know what's more pathetic, your immature little drama queen indignation about anti-Enlightenment monarchists, or the fact that at 10pm on a Friday night, when the rest of the world was out enjoying their lives, you were home trying to come up with clever zingers to me on a thread about a European monarch.
Lots to envy with you, there is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.