I’ll tell you when I stopped reading. It was the part where you tried to argue that the reign of terror wasn’t indiscriminate. People of all classes were sent to the guillotines, most of them the ones I listed. Robespierre himself was eventually killed. It is described as indiscriminate anywhere you read about it.
What was the eventual result of the reign of terror? Oh, yes — capitalism overtaking feudalism regarding who gets to hoard the wealth. Oh boy, look how well that turned out!
I didn’t read anything beyond this point — but you have earned the tag ‘Bloviating Troglodyte’ so… congrats? I guess?
I’ll tell you when I stopped reading. It was the part where you tried to argue that the reign of terror wasn’t indiscriminate. People of all classes were sent to the guillotines, most of them the ones I listed. Robespierre himself was eventually killed. It is described as indiscriminate anywhere you read about it.
i said you were using the word indiscriminate incorrectly, there was discrimination. I wasn’t refuting that people of all classes were killed.
As i said before, just because it doesn’t meet the criteria they claimed ( or the criteria you think it should ) doesn’t mean that there was no selection criteria.
If you want to claim a large majority of random people were rounded up with no criteria whatsoever, feel free.
I have no interest in trying to force you to use the correct application of a word, i was just pointing it out, the rest is on you.
What was the eventual result of the reign of terror? Oh, yes — capitalism overtaking feudalism regarding who gets to hoard the wealth. Oh boy, look how well that turned out!
I’m not sure how that’s relevant but i don’t have a formal opinion on it.
I didn’t read anything beyond this point
I know, i specifically put tags in to let you know where the big sentences were, i’m glad they helped.
but you have earned the tag ‘Bloviating Troglodyte’ so… congrats? I guess?
I appreciate you spending the time to look up some unique words, at least i know you’ve learnt something today.
As i said before, just because it doesn’t meet the criteria they claimed ( or the criteria you think it should ) doesn’t mean that there was no selection criteria.
They killed people from literally every class available, branding anyone that disagreed with them ‘enemies of liberty’. I am not going to argue on this point.
I’m not sure how that’s relevant but i don’t have a formal opinion on it.
So the hoarding of wealth being transferred from noble families to merchant families doesn’t seem unsuccessful to you in modern day? Replacing one group that hoards wealth with another doesn’t seem relevant to the failings of the revolution?
This is the reason I stop reading. You are an extremist and not worth speaking to. I use troglodyte regularly by the way, unless you’re talking about bloviating at which point; stop projecting, this is a common word.
Looks like we aren’t going to agree on the definition of indiscriminate, I’m good with that, you do you.
I’ve put forth no opinion on anything other than word choice, as it relates to logical correctness.
Somehow you’ve taken that single issue and tacked on a bunch of moral, ethical and political standpoints that don’t exist in my responses and then seem to have taken these imaginary attacks personally, i can’t help you with that.
Being angry at imaginary positions other people haven’t taken must be a hard way to live or at the very least, exhausting. It’s certainly confusing from the outside.
I can’t work with that level of misunderstanding (intentional or otherwise) so let’s just call it a day.
They killed people from literally every class available, branding anyone that disagreed with them ‘enemies of liberty’. I am not going to argue on this point.
You don’t need to argue, you just stated the selection criteria was “enemies of liberty”. which i’m sure you’ll agree is not “anybody for any reason”, which is what it would need to be for it to be indiscriminate…because that’s what indiscriminate means.
As i said i’ve no interest in forcing you to use the actual current definition of a word. If, to you, indiscriminate means “some discrimination, but not like, a lot” then you do you.
So the hoarding of wealth being transferred from noble families to merchant families doesn’t seem unsuccessful to you in modern day? Replacing one group that hoards wealth with another doesn’t seem relevant to the failings of the revolution?
Again, my bad, what I meant to say is I’m not sure how it relates to any of the points already raised.
None of the points raised by me (or my responses) have been about the connections, success or failure any systems or movements, nor have there been any stances taken on ethics or morality.
The relative merits and drawbacks of political systems and ideologies is interesting, but as i said i don’t know enough about them to put forth anything other than superficial opinions, If you want i can put down my opinions for you, but i can’t guarantee they’ll hold up to scrutiny.
This is the reason I stop reading. You are an extremist and not worth speaking to.
I’m not sure how you got extremist from me commenting on logical errors in your phrasing, there have been no other positions taken by me in any of the responses I’ve posted, but feel free to point them out if you see one.
I use troglodyte regularly by the way
Congratulations ? it’s a good word, well…i like it at least.
unless you’re talking about bloviating at which point; stop projecting, this is a common word.
I suspect it’s less common than you think.
My comment was less projection than it was an inference based on your seeming inability to correctly use a (subjectively) more common word like indiscriminate. Seems like a reasonable leap to me but I’ll take your word for it.
I’ll tell you when I stopped reading. It was the part where you tried to argue that the reign of terror wasn’t indiscriminate. People of all classes were sent to the guillotines, most of them the ones I listed. Robespierre himself was eventually killed. It is described as indiscriminate anywhere you read about it.
What was the eventual result of the reign of terror? Oh, yes — capitalism overtaking feudalism regarding who gets to hoard the wealth. Oh boy, look how well that turned out!
I didn’t read anything beyond this point — but you have earned the tag ‘Bloviating Troglodyte’ so… congrats? I guess?
i said you were using the word indiscriminate incorrectly, there was discrimination. I wasn’t refuting that people of all classes were killed.
As i said before, just because it doesn’t meet the criteria they claimed ( or the criteria you think it should ) doesn’t mean that there was no selection criteria.
If you want to claim a large majority of random people were rounded up with no criteria whatsoever, feel free.
I have no interest in trying to force you to use the correct application of a word, i was just pointing it out, the rest is on you.
I’m not sure how that’s relevant but i don’t have a formal opinion on it.
I know, i specifically put tags in to let you know where the big sentences were, i’m glad they helped.
I appreciate you spending the time to look up some unique words, at least i know you’ve learnt something today.
They killed people from literally every class available, branding anyone that disagreed with them ‘enemies of liberty’. I am not going to argue on this point.
So the hoarding of wealth being transferred from noble families to merchant families doesn’t seem unsuccessful to you in modern day? Replacing one group that hoards wealth with another doesn’t seem relevant to the failings of the revolution?
This is the reason I stop reading. You are an extremist and not worth speaking to. I use troglodyte regularly by the way, unless you’re talking about bloviating at which point; stop projecting, this is a common word.
TL;DR;
Looks like we aren’t going to agree on the definition of indiscriminate, I’m good with that, you do you.
I’ve put forth no opinion on anything other than word choice, as it relates to logical correctness.
Somehow you’ve taken that single issue and tacked on a bunch of moral, ethical and political standpoints that don’t exist in my responses and then seem to have taken these imaginary attacks personally, i can’t help you with that.
Being angry at imaginary positions other people haven’t taken must be a hard way to live or at the very least, exhausting. It’s certainly confusing from the outside.
I can’t work with that level of misunderstanding (intentional or otherwise) so let’s just call it a day.
You don’t need to argue, you just stated the selection criteria was “enemies of liberty”. which i’m sure you’ll agree is not “anybody for any reason”, which is what it would need to be for it to be indiscriminate…because that’s what indiscriminate means.
As i said i’ve no interest in forcing you to use the actual current definition of a word. If, to you, indiscriminate means “some discrimination, but not like, a lot” then you do you.
Again, my bad, what I meant to say is I’m not sure how it relates to any of the points already raised.
None of the points raised by me (or my responses) have been about the connections, success or failure any systems or movements, nor have there been any stances taken on ethics or morality.
The relative merits and drawbacks of political systems and ideologies is interesting, but as i said i don’t know enough about them to put forth anything other than superficial opinions, If you want i can put down my opinions for you, but i can’t guarantee they’ll hold up to scrutiny.
I’m not sure how you got extremist from me commenting on logical errors in your phrasing, there have been no other positions taken by me in any of the responses I’ve posted, but feel free to point them out if you see one.
Congratulations ? it’s a good word, well…i like it at least.
I suspect it’s less common than you think.
My comment was less projection than it was an inference based on your seeming inability to correctly use a (subjectively) more common word like indiscriminate. Seems like a reasonable leap to me but I’ll take your word for it.