Aside from the fact that the Constitution actually isn't silent on secession and gets many other constitutional facts wrong and more or less completely strawman's lincolns position and 'word-putting-in-mouth' disease as well.
More reasons why you should never vote for a Randian.
Also I must point out that the ACW didn't actually really have a cost to it for the US, the ACW pretty much cemented the America as a enevitable superpower and was a period of phenominal economic growth and stimulus as well ass a huge beacon for immigration at the time, in just about everyway the US benefited from it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Guess what, if you dilute the word "slavery" until it has absolutely no meaning, we're all slaves!!!! That's right we are all slaves!!! At the whim of our masters, out children and love ones can be sold away from us forever. At the whim of our masters, we can be beaten, raped, mutilated, starved and even killed. It's illegal for us to walk even a few miles from our places of residence, to own any property or even to profit in any way from our own labor. Every modicum of work I do, belongs 100% to the master who tortures me. We are forbidden to gather, to even speak about how we are oppressed. If we do, that takes us back to beating, raping, starving . . . . If I try to escape, the law will hunt me down and bring me back to this retched nation to which I am enslaved!!
Why have I never noticed this???? How could I have been so blind??? Thank you Ron Paul for awakening me to my awful state.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
What's a "Randian"? And where exactly does it say anything about secession in the Constitution? Other than the 10th amendment, I mean.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
Randians are Ayn Rand fanboys.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
But that site is an Objectivist site. Not a Randian one.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I see you've started another thread, Blayne. How long until you delete this one?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Aside from the fact that the Constitution actually isn't silent on secession
Yo, Blayne, I really would like you to back this up. I mean, maybe they don't have proper copies of the US Constitution up in the northern provinces, but if you say something, you really should either substantiate it or retract it. That's simple honesty.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Specifically the Northwest Ordinance and I quote
"Art. 4. The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto."
Also according to the Supreme Court
"Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits ... to maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states ... to Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them."
Meaning that the original states, being on equal footing, are also not allowed to secede according to the NW Ordinance.
So maybe not specifically the Constitution but to saw that the NW Ordinance is not just about on the same level of importance or not ratified by the constitution would be ignorance.
Or this:
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Specifically the Northwest Ordinance and I quote
"Art. 4. The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto."
Also according to the Supreme Court
"Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits ... to maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states ... to Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them."
Meaning that the original states, being on equal footing, are also not allowed to secede according to the NW Ordinance.
So maybe not specifically the Constitution but to saw that the NW Ordinance is not just about on the same level of importance or not ratified by the constitution would be ignorance.
Or this:
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
Dude, you said the Constitution speaks about secession. Not the Northwest Ordinance, not the Declaration of Independance, and not the Magna Carta. Either show where it does, or have the grace to acknowledge that you were mistaken.
And no, the Northwest Ordinance is absolutely not on a level with the Constitution. Not even slightly.
And your quote beginning with "The Union of the States" lacks any indication of who said it. It's simply a bald claim, with nothing to substantiate it. "Perpetual union" doesn't appear in the Constitution. The idea of the Union was a Union of sovereign states. Just because we've all become accustomed to thinking of "states" as the equivalent of administrative districts doesn't change the fact that what they really are, are nations. The US was supposed to be a union of sovereign nations, where the purpose of the federal government was to present a united foreign policy, and to prevent conflict between the several states which comprised it.
"The United States" was plural; not singular. "The United States were at war with Great Britain"; not "the United States was at war with Great Britain".
And "more perfect union" means that the union was to be made better; not made into a prison.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: So maybe not specifically the Constitution...
Dude, you said the Constitution speaks about secession... Either show where it does, or have the grace to acknowledge that you were mistaken.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And "more perfect union" means that the union was to be made better; not made into a prison.
Since when is the US a prison? People can leave anytime they want. In fact, I'm living outside the US right now, as I type. There is nothing preventing you or any US citizen from leaving. I've been in and out of the US dozens of times. So have you, unless you're lying about having lived in Israel.
It's rather silly to anthropomorphize states. States aren't people, they are political units. States have been granted certain rights by the constitution, but they don't and couldn't have natural or unalienable rights because they aren't "real" in the same way that people are real. States are total artificial man made creations. They only exist because people recognize their existence. They are what we collectively define them to be, no more, no less.
If the US is a prison because states can't secede, then states are prisons because counties can't secede, counties are prisons because cities and towns can't secede, and all cities and towns are prisons because the individuals in them can't secede.
[ December 02, 2010, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: not ratified by the constitution
The constitution does not ratify. In any way.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: But that site is an Objectivist site. Not a Randian one.
quote:Welcome to the Ayn Rand Institute, the online source for information on the life and works of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote: not ratified by the constitution
The constitution does not ratify. In any way.
I seem to remember that there were certain treaties made under the Articles of Confederation which were grandfathered in (i.e ratified) by the Constitution. But this is at any rate irrelevant to the discussion at hand since the Northwest Ordinance was not "ratified" by the constitution. It was however passed again by the US congress 5 months after the ratification of the constitution, so it is reasonable to presume that the statements in it reflect of attitudes that were wide spread at the time the constitution was ratified.
I am certainly no constitutional scholar, but what I do know contradicts any claims that the founding fathers had a unified vision of the federal government or that they had produced a perfect document which should be followed to the letter for centuries. Many issues, among them the question of secession, are never mentioned (or left deliberately vague) in the constitution because they were too controversial. Making any explicit statement, one way or the other, about secession would almost certainly have made it unratifiable. As such, it's pointless to claim that the constitution either "allowed" or "disallowed" secession. It intentional left the subject open for debate.
Those people who claim otherwise are either haven't adequately studied the issue and are thus parroting claims made by others which suit their predisposition or they are deliberately distorting the truth to advance an agenda. I'm confident that nearly all T-partiers, states rates advocates, pro-confederacy whack jobs, and people involved in this thread fall into the first category but I'm pretty sure that a few, Rand Paul included, fall into the second.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote: not ratified by the constitution
The constitution does not ratify. In any way.
Of course it did. Here's the relevant section of Article 6:
quote:All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: But that site is an Objectivist site. Not a Randian one.
That's kind of like saying "OSC's an LDS writer, not a Mormon one.
You know what Randian means. You've seen it used here before and made the same comment. You don't like the term because it has derogatory connotations. It certainly does to a certain group of people but that group of people would find your Philosophy (and that of Ayn Rand) to stink by any name.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote: not ratified by the constitution
The constitution does not ratify. In any way.
Of course it did. Here's the relevant section of Article 6:
quote:All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
That statement accepts obligations that were incurred by the previous government. It isn't relevant in this case.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not talking about Blayne's obviously incorrect statement. I'm talking about kat's obviously incorrect one.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: But that site is an Objectivist site. Not a Randian one.
quote:Welcome to the Ayn Rand Institute, the online source for information on the life and works of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand
What's your point? Hatrack isn't a Cardian site.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I was hoping for a Randi-an debate. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Rand was intolerable for the longest time. Cleansing the taint did him good.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Beat me to it, mph.
Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You know what Randian means. You've seen it used here before and made the same comment. You don't like the term because it has derogatory connotations.
Yup.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: What's your point? Hatrack isn't a Cardian site.
Why not? It seems like it would reasonably accurate descriptor. It's not a term I've heard used, but I can't see why it shouldn't be.
Side Note: My husband refers to is it as a "Card-assian" site". He thinks it's funny. I humor him because he makes my toes curl.
[ December 02, 2010, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I humor him because he makes my toes curl.
Aw. That's sweet.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You don't like the term because it has derogatory connotations.
And... you find that problematic? I bet that if I was calling Muslims "Mohammedans" and a Muslim were to complain, you wouldn't dismiss it the same way. Yet it's exactly the same thing. A deliberate slur, intended to irk. And I'm the one with the problem for actually being irked?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And... you find that problematic? I bet that if I was calling Muslims "Mohammedans" and a Muslim were to complain, you wouldn't dismiss it the same way. Yet it's exactly the same thing. A deliberate slur, intended to irk. And I'm the one with the problem for actually being irked?
Meh, I find the comparison to be absurd.
Political philosophies don't merit the kind of respect/tolerance as major religions.
You have no problem calling people you disagree with "statists" and other clearly derogatory terms. Why exactly do you think you deserve more respect from those you disagree with than you are willing to give?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Political philosophies don't merit the kind of respect/tolerance as major religions.
Heh, "major" religions.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, I find Objectivism a juvenile philosophy and I've never met someone that believed in it who I could respect, but calling it Randian is pretty clearly a deliberate and inaccurate slur. To me, this is not a worthy thing to do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Political philosophies don't merit the kind of respect/tolerance as major religions.
Heh, "major" religions.
In my opinion, "major" religions deserve a different level of tolerance because they are, for the most part, inseparable from ethnic and cultural heritage. Attacks on major religious groups are forms of ethnic / racial hatred. When was the last time you heard a Muslim slur that was founded on a reasoned argument against the Koran? I haven't, ever.
Political philosophies (whether they are motivated by Ayn Rand, Oral Roberts or the Ayatollah Homenii), aren't culture. For the most part, they are things we consciously choose as adults independent of our cultural heritage and then try to force on other people. Tea-Baggers, Randians, and Islamofacists all fall into that category and I don't see any reason to give them even a modicum of respect. They are all trying to use governments to force their philosophy on me, and I will fight back.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Tea-Baggers
Come, now. There's no need to stoop to that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Tea-Baggers
Come, now. There's no need to stoop to that.
Why? Explain why I should show respect to a political movement I consider to be morally bankrupt?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
For the same reason calling left leaning people "Libtards" and "Dumbasscrats" is not needed. Agree or not, you can still use a little restraint.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How about you show us respect by refraining from using sexual slurs to describe others?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm sorry, but where did I use a sexual slur?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... In my opinion, "major" religions deserve a different level of tolerance because they are, for the most part, inseparable from ethnic and cultural heritage. Attacks on major religious groups are forms of ethnic / racial hatred.
If the line is ethnic/racial, then perhaps that is a better place to draw the line than major vs. minor. I don't see the goal in drawing the line to exclude any number of small folk religions that exist among minority groups in China for example when they too have significant cultural/racial aspects.
Not that I personally draw a line, period. (Although I kinda see the appeal in a line that allows me to tolerate Mormons less than other religions )
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
When you called them "tea-baggers".
Google it.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm sorry, but where did I use a sexual slur?
Rabbit...The word "Tea Bagger" is a very sexual slur.
I'm sure Urban Dictionary has a page about it if you would like to google it.
Edit: MPH beat me to it. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You know, I find Objectivism a juvenile philosophy and I've never met someone that believed in it who I could respect, but calling it Randian is pretty clearly a deliberate and inaccurate slur. To me, this is not a worthy thing to do.
No. Randian objectivism is a very real term and you can find plenty of people who self-identify by that exact terminology. It is also used frequently as a neutral term to describe most objectivism, in effect the type which is heavily focused on the personality cult/teachings of Ayn Rand.
If you want a deliberate slur, try 'randroid.'
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The idea of the Union was a Union of sovereign states. Just because we've all become accustomed to thinking of "states" as the equivalent of administrative districts doesn't change the fact that what they really are, are nations. The US was supposed to be a union of sovereign nations
Point of order: You are using 'nation' as an explanatory synonym for 'state', and thus screwing up an already confused situation even more. A nation is a set of people who recognise themselves as having a common ethnic identity; thus Norwegians are a nation, Poles are a nation, Russians are a nation but citizens of the USSR were not a nation, and Americans are not a nation. A state is a sovereign governing organisation; Norway, Poland, the USSR and now the Russian federation, and the US are all states. A nation-state is a state whose citizens are all (or most) of the same nationality, and comprise a large majority of the world's supply of that nationality. Norway and Poland are nation-states, the Russian Federation is arguably one but the USSR wasn't, and the US is not a nation-state.
A union of sovereign states is a contradiction in terms; either they are sovereign or not. If they have a unified foreign policy they are no longer sovereign, having handed over that part of their autonomy to the federal organisation. I note in passing that even the original constitution, unamended, reserves to Congress and not the states the powers of declaring war, making treaties, and issuing letters of mark and reprisal; these are all functions of sovereigns, and entities that don't have them are not properly considered states.
Now, if you want to argue that the original constitution was intended to give the states a much higher degree of internal autonomy than they actually have, that's perfectly reasonable. But that does not make them sovereign states, any more than the Grand Duchy of Finland was a sovereign state under the Czars.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: For the same reason calling left leaning people "Libtards" and "Dumbasscrats" is not needed. Agree or not, you can still use a little restraint.
I guess I see a difference because, unlike "Libtads" and "Dumbasscrats", "Tea-bagger" isn't intrinsically insulting. In fact, I can imagine scenarios where the Tea Party might have chosen that name themselves. It's only offensive because members of the Tea party have come to associate it's use with people who disagree are making fun of their movement.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Please refrain from using sexual slurs as labels for people you disagree with.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: "Tea-bagger" isn't intrinsically insulting.
Yes, it actually is.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I'm not sure if I'm missing something: but why is 'Randian' a pejorative, but not 'Kantian' or 'Humean'?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Um... Yes, tea-baggers is indeed intrinsically insulting. The entire point, which you have missed, is that the term is a kind of sexual position, and was used to refer to tea-partiers specifically because of that. The reason the term exists is the sexual innuendo, and the mental image it us intended to give. It's actually incredibly crass.
Also, a suggestion: how about we all make the distinction between disagreeing an ideology and religion, and actively insulting them? Name-calling doesn't help anyone, and if one really has legitimate concerns or criticism of a religious or philosophical position, couching them in derogatory or insulting language only has the effect of giving an excuse to dismiss valid criticism. At the same time, this is a two way street. A person shouldn't take offense just because someone DOES disagree with their position of choice. We should be civil about all this. Isn't that the whole idea of what discourse should be like?
As an example: if someone said to me that Christianity was right, and I am a fool and a servant of Satan and an enemy of America for disagreeing, then that's a problem. Calling me some slur would be a problem. Saying, on the other hand, that they feel the Bible is true, that the world is so perfect for life and so beautiful that some being must have created it, and the salvation Christ gives is something worth having, and something real, because they feel the evidence shows he rose from the dead, that's fine. There'sxno insult implicit, even if i disagree. And, right or wrong, discussing the differences of opinion can be worthwhile.
In real life, of course, disagreements easily turn into fights. That's just how we are. But we don't have to exacerbate the situation by being inflammatory or rude. Saying someone is wrong isn't rude. Saying they're a tea-bagger, a God-hater, or a blind religious sheep, however, is.
Let's all work harder to not do that. That's my only request, here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The entire point, which you have missed, is that the term is a kind of sexual position, and was used to refer to tea-partiers specifically because of that.
Well, to be fair, the first "Tea Partiers" I ever met -- my mother included -- actually referred to themselves as "tea baggers" until someone explained the innuendo (or at least that there was innuendo to be perceived.) If I formed a pro-Atkins Diet group called (in all innocence) the Salad Tossers, with a motto that said "Toss Your Salad" and a gimmick that asked members to bring small side salads (for throwing) to meetings, people might be forgiven if, even two or three years later, even after I have done my best to ensure that everyone involved now calls themselves "Salad Throwers," vegetarians still call us "Salad Tossers" with a smirk.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: ... the term is a kind of sexual position, and was used to refer to tea-partiers specifically because of that. The reason the term exists is the sexual innuendo, and the mental image it us intended to give.
No, its not.
The term is a sexual practice. Objectively, it was used specifically by tea-partiers to refer to themselves but was largely dropped after others noticed the double meaning and started using it too.
In fact, there are conservatives right now who use the term right now regardless of the sexual meaning and with full knowledge of it.
Whether you refer to it as a sexual practice or position, it still carries a sexual meaning.
I think most people would find it offensive regardless if someone was calling themselves by the name. It doesn't make it ok.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I agree, and in addition I'd like people to stop making fun of Mormons by calling them missionaries, it's childish, and I'm sure they don't just restrict themselves to that position.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Alright, I'm stupid. I just ran this passed by husband and realized that Randian sounds like a sexual slur. Sorry, it never occurred to me. It seems that a good half the words in the English language have a sexual connotation. Gzeezz. Please don't tell me there is a sexual connotation to Teabag or I will have to revert to communicating only in German.
How about "Randite" or Aynian? Do those seem sexual?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
OK, I just read the posts above mine, and I shall now stop using the English language.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Mucus, that link is intended as commentary on the sexual slur. Essentially saying that they are going to embrace the slur because they don't care what childish insults their detractors throw at them, ultimately it's about what they believe and what they're fighting for.
Not exactly a confirmation of your claim that the term originated with the tea party.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Mucus,
Whether you refer to it as a sexual practice or position, it still carries a sexual meaning.
I think most people would find it offensive regardless if someone was calling themselves by the name. It doesn't make it ok.
Geraine, Wurden Sie mir bitte sage, welche English worter kein sexuale Bedeutung haben? Wenn fast jedes Wort ein sexuales Zweideutigkeit biete, Wer soll sich richtig beleidigt sein? Er der unbewusst etwas sexual sagt, oder Er der bewusst dreht alles zu ein sexuale Beleidigung?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rabbit, not only does teabag have a sexual connotation, but back when the Tea Party first hit the scene there were a number of very mature journalists who mixed in related sexual innuendo all throughout their coverage of the Tea Party.
It was pretty repugnant. Or hilarious, I suppose, if you're a stoner in your 20s.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Okay, practice, not position, whatever. I know what it is, I'm just not saying it for the obvious reasons. Still, people saying it tend to be using it with that in mind, regardless of who used it first.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I think most people would find it offensive regardless if someone was calling themselves by the name. It doesn't make it ok.
I'm not responding about what "most people" think. I'm responding on the idea of why "the reason the term exists" which is a question of history.
AFAIK, if I recall Dan Savage correctly, the term originated about homosexuals who tea bagged each other and wasn't supposed to be insulting.
Later on, the term was seized upon by heterosexuals who used it as an insulting term for each other (because minority practices are perceived as insulting).
And later on, the term was coincidentally used by Tea Partiers to refer to themselves.
So the term wasn't only used because of the sexual innuendo, but because of the sexual innuendo AND because it was used by tea partiers themselves.
Incidentally, this means that the term isn't inherently insulting and can be used by a number of groups without insult including:
a) People who perform the sexual practice and don't want to give up the term simply because someone else co-opted it b) People who want to stand in solidarity with conservatives who want to use the term without shame (and note that implying that they inherently cannot is kinda offensive for those in group a))
So it seems to me, whether you're conservative or progressive (and wish to remove the negative stigma associated with the practice), you can use the term without being offensive.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Not exactly a confirmation of your claim that the term originated with the tea party.
I didn't say it was, it should fairly obvious that that it is confirming my claim that the term is still in use.
i.e. the sentence thats right in front of the very link
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Actually the term "tea-bagging" became a slur when 16 year old boys found that certain moves in some popular video games visually resembled the practice, usually with the victor dancing on the fragged victims corpse.
It became worse that a slur. It became a juvenile internet meme--l33t Play3rz would T-bag the newbies.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit: It's no big deal you just accidentally walked into a mine field. I promise you though from the moment they started using the moniker "Tea Party" journalists and comedians started dropping the phrase "tea bagger" and giggling, especially when early on tea partiers thought they were getting media recognition when they read the phrase and started using it to describe themselves, much to the glee of their opposition.
If they ever co-opt the phrase like Americans did with Yankee Doodle, good for them, but right now that phrase is like Yankee Doodle in that only the mocking British use it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The entire point, which you have missed, is that the term is a kind of sexual position, and was used to refer to tea-partiers specifically because of that.
Well, to be fair, the first "Tea Partiers" I ever met -- my mother included -- actually referred to themselves as "tea baggers" until someone explained the innuendo (or at least that there was innuendo to be perceived.) If I formed a pro-Atkins Diet group called (in all innocence) the Salad Tossers, with a motto that said "Toss Your Salad" and a gimmick that asked members to bring small side salads (for throwing) to meetings, people might be forgiven if, even two or three years later, even after I have done my best to ensure that everyone involved now calls themselves "Salad Throwers," vegetarians still call us "Salad Tossers" with a smirk.
QFT
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Randian objectivism is a very real term and you can find plenty of people who self-identify by that exact terminology.
Name one.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Alright, I'm stupid. I just ran this passed by husband and realized that Randian sounds like a sexual slur. Sorry, it never occurred to me. It seems that a good half the words in the English language have a sexual connotation. Gzeezz. Please don't tell me there is a sexual connotation to Teabag or I will have to revert to communicating only in German.
How about "Randite" or Aynian? Do those seem sexual?
Jesus. How about Objectivist, you nitwit.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Alright, I'm stupid. I just ran this passed by husband and realized that Randian sounds like a sexual slur. Sorry, it never occurred to me. It seems that a good half the words in the English language have a sexual connotation. Gzeezz. Please don't tell me there is a sexual connotation to Teabag or I will have to revert to communicating only in German.
How about "Randite" or Aynian? Do those seem sexual?
Jesus. How about Objectivist, you nitwit.
Reported! Reported! You are so reported!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Why should I look it up? I'm not the one making the odd claim.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm completely puzzled why anyone would be upset to be characterized as 'Randian.' When someone holds a view derived from the ideas of a particular philosopher, the normal thing is to name the view after that philosopher.
Marxist, Humean, Cartesian, Thomist, Aristotelian, Platonist -- I have colleagues who call themselves by these names and think nothing of it. Why should it be insulting to call someone an adherent of Ayn Rand's views in the same way?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
What Destineer said.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
As for the teabag thing, I admit to finding it funny back when Tea Partiers referred to themselves by that term, either on their own initiative or by being tricked into it. Mainly because it underscored how out of touch the movement was with mainstream youth culture (by "youth" I mean "under 40"). I'd never call someone a teabagger these days, mostly because the joke has long since gone stale.
Also, if I may quibble, calling "teabagging" a sexual term isn't quite right. It's only sexual in the sense that mooning or flashing someone is also "sexual" (which I'd say is a misnomer). Sex organs are involved, but in a degrading rather than lewd way.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Destineer: Tea bagging while a degrading act, is also done in a sexual context between consenting partners.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Why should I look it up? I'm not the one making the odd claim.
It's not odd, it's true. But I'm starting to have serious doubts that you're even able to acknowledge that fact.
I take it you're really salty over having being called a Randian in the past. Or, for that matter, that title being fairly forthright and accurate.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Destineer: Tea bagging while a degrading act, is also done in a sexual context between consenting partners.
Huh. I guess people do all sorts of things for fun. I'd only heard about it in the context of hazing rituals, or as something to do to your bro when he's passed out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: As for the teabag thing, I admit to finding it funny back when Tea Partiers referred to themselves by that term, either on their own initiative or by being tricked into it.
I was actually pretty astounded by that. And it lasted quite a while. I kept saying 'uh hey do you know what that means'
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Dont you people know what tea bagging even is? Its when after killing someone in Halo or another FPS you go over their corpse before they respawn and rapidly hit the crouch key so you are constantly crouching over their face.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
That description has already been covered in a previous post, which is now retroactively insulting you.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
jebus, you should post more often.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Spinozist was a slur for a long time... but Spinoza is awesome, so who cares?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Alright, I'm stupid. I just ran this passed by husband and realized that Randian sounds like a sexual slur. Sorry, it never occurred to me. It seems that a good half the words in the English language have a sexual connotation. Gzeezz. Please don't tell me there is a sexual connotation to Teabag or I will have to revert to communicating only in German.
How about "Randite" or Aynian? Do those seem sexual?
Jesus. How about Objectivist, you nitwit.
Lets lay off the disparaging comments about the wits of nits.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Jesus. How about Objectivist, you nitwit.
Because I think its a misnomer since there is nothing "objective" about Ayn Rand's philosophy.
As Destineer noted, it's the rule not the exception to name philosophies after philosophers and adding "ian"to the philosophers name is the most common way to do it. If Humean, Cartesian, Aristotelian, Kantian, and Hegelian are not perjoratives, why would you get het up about Randian philosophy.
Oh, and your utter guile of calling me a nitwit, in the same sentence where your are insisting I use a respectful term to describe a philosophy you adhere to, disgusts me.
Oh, and the using the name of the leader of my religion as a perjority while asking for respect of "Objectivists",
[ December 03, 2010, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I'm completely puzzled why anyone would be upset to be characterized as 'Randian.' When someone holds a view derived from the ideas of a particular philosopher, the normal thing is to name the view after that philosopher.
Marxist, Humean, Cartesian, Thomist, Aristotelian, Platonist -- I have colleagues who call themselves by these names and think nothing of it. Why should it be insulting to call someone an adherent of Ayn Rand's views in the same way?
It hasn't become a fun pasttime to dig up personal idiosyncrancies of Marx or Descartes and use them fallaciously to try and defame their philosophies. That's not the case with Ayn Rand. "Randian" implies someone who agrees with her about her personal opinions as well as her formulated philosophy, the latter being called Objectivism.
In addition, "Randian" implies a kind of cult of personality. Do I need to post links to all of the various screeds online where people make that claim?
And again, why do you suppose Muslims have a problem with being called Mohammedans?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Alright, I'm stupid. I just ran this passed by husband and realized that Randian sounds like a sexual slur. Sorry, it never occurred to me. It seems that a good half the words in the English language have a sexual connotation. Gzeezz. Please don't tell me there is a sexual connotation to Teabag or I will have to revert to communicating only in German.
How about "Randite" or Aynian? Do those seem sexual?
Jesus. How about Objectivist, you nitwit.
Lets lay off the disparaging comments about the wits of nits.
Really? If she objects to "nitwit", I'll be happy to stop calling her that. As soon as she's willing to quit the "Randian" nonsense. I assume that's okay with you.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Oh, and your utter guile of calling me a nitwit, in the same sentence where your are insisting I use a respectful term to describe a philosophy you adhere to, disgusts me.
Guile. I don't think that word means what you think it means. Perhaps you were looking for "hypocrisy", but that'd be wrong as well, since I did it intentionally to see if you were as blithe about perogatives when they were directed at you as you are when they spew out of your mouth.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Oh, and the using the name of the leader of my religion as a perjority while asking for respect of "Objectivists",
Oops. I forgot you were a Jesusist.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Really? If she objects to "nitwit", I'll be happy to stop calling her that. As soon as she's willing to quit the "Randian" nonsense. I assume that's okay with you.
I suppose it's too much to ask that you just exhibit the self control to not call people names when told not to, nor compare those names irrelevantly to things which are not inherently insults!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Oops. I forgot you were a Jesusist.
Are you imagining that I find that insulting?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Really? If she objects to "nitwit", I'll be happy to stop calling her that. As soon as she's willing to quit the "Randian" nonsense. I assume that's okay with you.
I suppose it's too much to ask that you just exhibit the self control to not call people names when told not to, nor compare those names irrelevantly to things which are not inherently insults!
Anything that a person knows will offend that they say anyway is an insult.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
This is ridiculous. Rabbit as far as I can tell was completely unaware that using the terms Tea Bagger or Randian could be construed to mean something pejorative.
Lisa asking that the term "Objectivist" be used doesn't seem all that different from LDS folks occasionally asking that they not be called Mormons. I know the reasoning is slightly different, but it's not a terrible practice to refer to people by the term they find acceptable as opposed to the one they do not.
Not calling people names is a pretty basic tenet of simple conversation to say nothing of posting here, so adhere to it please. I don't care if there was a reason for it, but in this case of trying to slap somebody back because they offended you it's hardly one I'd consider useful in any context.
Please stop this back and forth.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Anything that a person knows will offend that they say anyway is an insult.
Ummmm ... given the wide variety of things people can take offence to, this seems like a dubious principle.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I can state from personal experience that even the neutral terms cannot shake off the accusation of the cult of personality moniker if the starter of said philosophy actually had one either intentionally or no.
Such as Maoist.
Look Randian is definately a neutral uninsulting terms, the difference here is we say it in the same inflection and one the same way McCarthy would hiss "Communist" despite it also not being an insulting term on its own, it's all about context.
Randian is the proper terms and if it seems to have connoctations of a CoP then maybe you should think twice as to why that is.
When I think Randian I think "Taxes is Theft" brand of Objectivism.
When I think Objectivist I think Bioshock.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Saying someone is wrong isn't rude. Saying they're ...religious sheep, however, is.
Let's all work harder to not do that. That's my only request, here.
Christians refer to themselves as sheep.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Lisa asking that the term "Objectivist" be used doesn't seem all that different from LDS folks occasionally asking that they not be called Mormons. I know the reasoning is slightly different, but it's not a terrible practice to refer to people by the term they find acceptable as opposed to the one they do not.
I'd say that they're similar in that it's respectful and polite to use the term that people have chosen for themselves, but I'd hardly call it rude or insulting to use the more common (non-pejorative) term.
This is pretty different from calling people, for example, "anti-choice" or "pro-death".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Anything that a person knows will offend that they say anyway is an insult.
Nope! A descriptive term remains a descriptive term. A hypersensitive person who takes offense to nominally non-offensive descriptive terms does not change this. It's just a 'I get to decide that you are insulting me' cop-out card by someone who is intent on creating an inherent insulting context in their own head.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote: not ratified by the constitution
The constitution does not ratify. In any way.
Of course it did. Here's the relevant section of Article 6:
quote:All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
You don't know what "ratify" means. Look it up.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I agree with JanitorBlade's maxim that you don't call somebody names they don't want to be called. But I do think it deserves pointing out that Lisa is under a misconception regarding the connotations of 'Randian.'
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It hasn't become a fun pasttime to dig up personal idiosyncrancies of Marx or Descartes and use them fallaciously to try and defame their philosophies. That's not the case with Ayn Rand.
You don't think Marx has been the target of similar character assassinations? He probably deserves it, as does Rand to my mind, but my point is that you can't say she's unique in this regard. And yet there are many proud, self-described Marxists.
quote:"Randian" implies someone who agrees with her about her personal opinions as well as her formulated philosophy, the latter being called Objectivism.
You're simply mistaken about this. I've heard the word used, in classrooms and seminars, only to describe Rand's philosophical beliefs. For instance, a philosopher will refer to "the Randian rejection of collectivism" or "the Randian view that X, Y and Z."
In describing Peikoff as a Randian, one definitely does not mean to imply that he thinks rape is a great way to start a relationship, or some such. One means only that his political philosophy is derived quite directly from Rand's.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* I've actually never seen someone use the term "Randian" to imply anything but that someone subscribes to Rand's version of Objectivism.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: Lisa asking that the term "Objectivist" be used doesn't seem all that different from LDS folks occasionally asking that they not be called Mormons. I know the reasoning is slightly different, but it's not a terrible practice to refer to people by the term they find acceptable as opposed to the one they do not.
I'd say that they're similar in that it's respectful and polite to use the term that people have chosen for themselves, but I'd hardly call it rude or insulting to use the more common (non-pejorative) term.
This is pretty different from calling people, for example, "anti-choice" or "pro-death".
I think part of the problem is that people generally choose terms for themselves that are unrealistically positive and terms for their opponents which are negative caricatures. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are excellent examples of this phenomenon on the one side. So are "Objectivist" and "Latter-Day-Saint". "Anti-life" and "Anti-choice" show the opposite side.
If someone doesn't want to call me "LDS" because they think its inappropriate to call me a saint and arrogant of me to ask, I'm certainly not going to make a stink about it. I'd rather having them calling me a Mormon than smirking every time they think "saint".
No one should expect their opposition to use the unrealistically positive names they've chosen for themselves.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I agree with JanitorBlade's maxim that you don't call somebody names they don't want to be called. But I do think it deserves pointing out that Lisa is under a misconception regarding the connotations of 'Randian.'
It should also be pointed out that no one here has called Lisa, or anyone else here, a Randian. That term was apply to the "Ayn Rand Institute" and the video Blayne linked in the OP.
To the best of my recollection, the only person here who has called anyone else here a derogatory name, is Lisa herself.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote: not ratified by the constitution
The constitution does not ratify. In any way.
Of course it did. Here's the relevant section of Article 6:
quote:All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
You don't know what "ratify" means. Look it up.
1. to confirm by expressing consent, approval, or formal sanction: to ratify a constitutional amendment. 2. to confirm (something done or arranged by an agent or by representatives) by such action.
IE in context, the Constitution approved the NW Ordinance.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:IE in context, the Constitution approved the NW Ordinance.
Blayne, while you are correct about the meaning of ratify, you are incorrect about this. The NW Ordinance was not one of the Debts and Engagements which was considered validated by the Constitution as evidenced by the fact that it was felt necessary for Congress to re-institute it (with some minimal changes) shortly after ratification of the Constitution.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
People and agents ratify. Documents do not. Except maybe the Maurader's Map, which is really just acting as an agent in such a case.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: People and agents ratify. Documents do not. Except maybe the Maurader's Map, which is really just acting as an agent in such a case.
Katharina, in case you read this post, I need you to email me through the forums. You do not have an email I can contact through the forums. I needed to get a hold of you.
Thanks.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yassir, thissun steam-powered forum arci-tecture is state o the art in some ways, now, we may not have anny o them new fangled things like 'private messages' or 'de-velloper support' but
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'm willing to never call anyone here a Randian, provided that I am never called a statist.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would consider being called a statist a complement really, it just about sums up my positions.
Posted by PMH (Member # 12495) on :
FWIW, I'm with Lisa in that "Randian" - as a noun(*) - tends to connote a possibly sheepish follower of the person, as well as someone who's only gotten to the libertarian level of philosophical understanding. (*: I don't get similar connotations from its use as an adjective - eg: the Randian argument... -- especially given that "objectivist/m" is an older philosophical term) (which could be confused with Objectivist/m as a referent)
For those who take philosophy - especially Objectivism - seriously, "Objectivist/m" is by far the better term; it is (trademark(?)ed as) the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* It is almost impossible to take philosophy seriously and take Objectivism seriously at the same time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah. If you take philosophy seriously, you have to take into account the times Objectivism was brought up for philosophical review.
Objectivists refuse to do so, largely, because they want to consider objectivism to be philosophically/metaphysically valid.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)