User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 11:53:25 AM EDT
[#1]
He is documenting, hopefully for some future Phoenix like society, the cause of our decline and fall into tyranny and ignorance.
His notions about tattoos and piercings mirror my own. "Gee, I too can look like a witch doctor worshiping stone age hunter gatherer!".....we all must aspire to something I suppose... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:09:24 PM EDT
[#2]
The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count.
The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:11:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Goddamn, but he is both prolific and profound. http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/thin-strand-of-civilization/?singlepage=true He's a very personable guy, a friend of a childhood (and still) buddy. He's also a grape grower south of Fresno. I've read most of his books. they're a bit academic, but good reads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:12:40 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count. The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:13:00 PM EDT
[#5]
Why do I always read that name in the thread titles as Hanse Davion?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:18:14 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do I always read that name in the thread titles as Hanse Davion? Don't feel bad I own and have read several of his books and quite often reverse his first and middle names......Just something about it.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:21:02 PM EDT
[#7]
What we take for granted — our electrical power, fuel, building materials, food, health care, and communications — all hinge on just 144 million getting up in the morning to produce what about 160-170 million others consume. Who is John Galt, indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:25:16 PM EDT
[#8]
" ...........the more in humane fashion we provide unemployment insurance, food stamps, subsidized housing, legal advice, health care and disability insurance, the more the recipients find it all inadequate, inherent proof of unfairness and inequality, and always not enough."
Bingo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:30:19 PM EDT
[#9]
Accurate
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:32:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count. The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. Many certainly do not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:34:18 PM EDT
[#11]
I'm going to look back at this article and chuckle the next time someone here crows about a tax evader getting caught.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:35:06 PM EDT
[#12]
That was a good read. He is spot on.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:37:48 PM EDT
[#13]
In before the Rhodesian farmer pic.
and big ol' tag for later read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:42:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do I always read that name in the thread titles as Hanse Davion? We could use The Fox right about now. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:44:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Many certainly do not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count. The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. Many certainly do not. Yes I agree, we could probably get by with about half of them. But we still need a functioning government unlike what some of the mouth breathers on this site think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:47:06 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count. The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. The legions of bureaucrats, inspectors, regulators, administrators, and enforcers....no, not really, they don't provide "useful" labor. We have too many laws, and regulations, enforced by guns, requiring too many government workers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:50:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes I agree, we could probably get by with about half of them. But we still need a functioning government unlike what some of the mouth breathers on this site think. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Many certainly do not. Yes I agree, we could probably get by with about half of them. But we still need a functioning government unlike what some of the mouth breathers on this site think. I think about 50-60% is the right number quite honestly........If I were "king for a day" I would get rid of the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy (nuclear oversight folded into some other agency), Transportation and Agriculture. DHS would be broken up and it's functions reassigned as appropriate. EPA would fall into the 80-90% reduction category.....That's a start..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:56:54 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We could use The Fox right about now. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why do I always read that name in the thread titles as Hanse Davion? We could use The Fox right about now.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:57:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count. The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. they don't generate profits. remember, no profits, no tax |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 12:59:25 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: they don't generate profits. remember, no profits, no tax Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count. The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. they don't generate profits. remember, no profits, no tax That's not the reason. They pay taxes on their personal income. A lot of them just don't create any real value. A good test is to ask yourself which government jobs would exist in a free market. Some of them would (e.g. Security employees (police), emergency workers like fire, EMT, etc.), but a whole shitload of them wouldn't exist. Government at all levels could stand some heavy streamlining. But you first have to simplify government. You have to reduce the amount of rules, regulations, and laws. You have to stop enforcing victimless crimes, you have to stop allowing one person (government) to direct another persons life. You have to be willing to put down the "gun of government". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:04:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes I agree, we could probably get by with about half of them. But we still need a functioning government unlike what some of the mouth breathers on this site think. Who? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:04:38 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
they don't generate profits. remember, no profits, no tax Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count. The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. they don't generate profits. remember, no profits, no tax Yes, but they provide an environment where other people can work and generate profits. Its awful hard to run a business when the Canadians are invading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:05:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes I agree, we could probably get by with about half of them. But we still need a functioning government unlike what some of the mouth breathers on this site think. Who? There is a sizable contingent of Anarcho-Capitalists on this site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:06:11 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Many certainly do not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count. The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. Many certainly do not. I would change "many" to "most". When we have an adult conversation about the issue, one could certainly argue that most government positions simply support government bureaucracy. And of the most, a majority simply could not survive in the real world economy. I know this. Yes....I do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:08:00 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a sizable contingent of Anarcho-Capitalists on this site. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes I agree, we could probably get by with about half of them. But we still need a functioning government unlike what some of the mouth breathers on this site think. Who? There is a sizable contingent of Anarcho-Capitalists on this site. I can't recall seeing a single instance of anyone on this site wishing for a non functioning government. Smaller constitutional government,yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:08:01 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count. The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. You've missed the point. Does a social worker administering a food program work? Of course they do, but have they added any value? Nope not one dime. Some government jobs are a necessary evil, soldiers, law enforcement, patent offices, and so on. The should be limited in scope and only used when there is no reasonable civilian version available. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:08:51 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not the reason. They pay taxes on the personal income. A lot of them just don't create any real value. A good test is to ask yourself which government jobs would exist in a free market. Some of them would (e.g. Security employees (police), emergency workers like fire, EMT, etc.), but a whole shitload of them wouldn't exist. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count. The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. they don't generate profits. remember, no profits, no tax That's not the reason. They pay taxes on the personal income. A lot of them just don't create any real value. A good test is to ask yourself which government jobs would exist in a free market. Some of them would (e.g. Security employees (police), emergency workers like fire, EMT, etc.), but a whole shitload of them wouldn't exist. If you stand in a bucket and pull on the handle, will you levitate? Can .gov run on the taxes paid by only .gov workers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:11:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DnPRK: If you stand in a bucket and pull on the handle, will you levitate? Can .gov run on the taxes paid by only .gov workers? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DnPRK: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. they don't generate profits. remember, no profits, no tax That's not the reason. They pay taxes on the personal income. A lot of them just don't create any real value. A good test is to ask yourself which government jobs would exist in a free market. Some of them would (e.g. Security employees (police), emergency workers like fire, EMT, etc.), but a whole shitload of them wouldn't exist. If you stand in a bucket and pull on the handle, will you levitate? Can .gov run on the taxes paid by only .gov workers? I get your point.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:14:54 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a sizable contingent of Anarcho-Capitalists on this site. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes I agree, we could probably get by with about half of them. But we still need a functioning government unlike what some of the mouth breathers on this site think. Who? There is a sizable contingent of Anarcho-Capitalists on this site. We can't even have discussion about less government around an article that points out the fact there are now two able-bodied idlers for every 3 workers in this country without you jumping to "but anarchists!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:22:38 PM EDT
[#30]
He's got some points in his article, but at the same time, my eyes are going to roll when he mentions "teenagers in bobby sox" etc.
There were plenty of people VERY butthurt over the new devil's music and Chubby Checkers etc. And Jazz before that, and before that it was... He should stick to the basic demographics and the tipping point, economics and the debt, and not worry himself if the tattoos and gauged ears of the people working as barristas at the mall coffee kiosk in the atrium look like a 1950's Nat Geo. photo shoot of Papua New Guinea or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:25:42 PM EDT
[#31]
Well written article.
I guess being a dirty inkie myself, I have a little ire over his statement on tattoos and piercings. Maybe I'm looking at it as a sweeping condemnation. I don't understand how that statement is even relevant to the article. Sure, nowadays it's seen as the cool or "in" thing to do but, both of those have always been a part of humanity and I don't think they are ever going to disappear. Tattoos are a sign of someone wanting to regress to a less civilized time? So, where do members of the military fit into that statement? It just reads as someone saying, "I don't like tattoos and they are proof Western civilization is in decline." The same thing was said when the outlawing of slavery started. Yeah that totally reads as an insecure statement. I'm just curious about his reasoning behind that statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:37:41 PM EDT
[#32]
Eric Beck, “At either end of the socioeconomic spectrum there lies a leisure class.”
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:41:27 PM EDT
[#33]
Good read. I, like others felt the piercing and tattoo part was out of place but whatever(no tattoo's or piercings).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 1:58:55 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well written article. I guess being a dirty inkie myself, I have a little ire over his statement on tattoos and piercings. Maybe I'm looking at it as a sweeping condemnation. I don't understand how that statement is even relevant to the article. Sure, nowadays it's seen as the cool or "in" thing to do but, both of those have always been a part of humanity and I don't think they are ever going to disappear. Tattoos are a sign of someone wanting to regress to a less civilized time? So, where do members of the military fit into that statement? It just reads as someone saying, "I don't like tattoos and they are proof Western civilization is in decline." The same thing was said when the outlawing of slavery started. Yeah that totally reads as an insecure statement. I'm just curious about his reasoning behind that statement. Because rhetoric, by its very nature, is given more leeway than dialectic. He isn't implying that tattoos or piercings cause societal decay; rather illustrating his description of general decadence with an individual analogue. VDH is a formally trained classicist, so the depth of his writing is sometimes lost on those without at least a passing understanding of his background. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 2:08:52 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count. The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. I think that's an overstatement Few if any of them provide anything useful, many of them are actually detriments, a negative if you will. A parasitic drain on society. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 2:09:47 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes I agree, we could probably get by with about half of them. But we still need a functioning government unlike what some of the mouth breathers on this site think. Spare me. 50% is a good starting point. 80% should be the goal. Don't you work for the government? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 3:15:34 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count. The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. The issue will be that their future allegiance should never be trusted when things get ugly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 3:18:55 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was a good read. He is spot on. So were 2 posters who commented on the article who really are blessed with insight and wisdom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 3:46:22 PM EDT
[#39]
The entire enterprise could still be turned around by leadership or even a leader. It's not looking so good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2014 5:24:25 PM EDT
[#40]
Tagged for later
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 6:05:09 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because rhetoric, by its very nature, is given more leeway than dialectic. He isn't implying that tattoos or piercings cause societal decay; rather illustrating his description of general decadence with an individual analogue. VDH is a formally trained classicist, so the depth of his writing is sometimes lost on those without at least a passing understanding of his background. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well written article. I guess being a dirty inkie myself, I have a little ire over his statement on tattoos and piercings. Maybe I'm looking at it as a sweeping condemnation. I don't understand how that statement is even relevant to the article. Sure, nowadays it's seen as the cool or "in" thing to do but, both of those have always been a part of humanity and I don't think they are ever going to disappear. Tattoos are a sign of someone wanting to regress to a less civilized time? So, where do members of the military fit into that statement? It just reads as someone saying, "I don't like tattoos and they are proof Western civilization is in decline." The same thing was said when the outlawing of slavery started. Yeah that totally reads as an insecure statement. I'm just curious about his reasoning behind that statement. Because rhetoric, by its very nature, is given more leeway than dialectic. He isn't implying that tattoos or piercings cause societal decay; rather illustrating his description of general decadence with an individual analogue. VDH is a formally trained classicist, so the depth of his writing is sometimes lost on those without at least a passing understanding of his background. It may very well be true that I lack enough education to fully understand the subtleties of his position. That being said, I still fail to see how your understanding of his position, that general decadence is a marker of societal decline. What proof is there that decadence is a factor in societal decline? If that really is the crux of that passage, why mention tattoos or piercings at all? Why not point to the ownership of mansions, purchasing Ferrari's, buying expensive food, drinking rare vintage wine? By using tattoos or piercings as the example, he is relying on prejudice and stereotypes to persuade his target audience into giving his other points more weight; through self-identification and group identity. It basically comes down to, "I, the reader, think people with tattoos are miscreants and VDH does to. Therefore, maybe I should pay more attention to his other arguments, VDH might be on to something." That passage is a skillful blend of bias-conformation and argument from authority. While that is a completely valid technique in debate/argument presentation, I find that style self-serving and prefer to not debate rhetoric but, truth. And that truth is, there has been decadence, there is decadence and there always will be decadence in humanity. Decadence is one of the main drivers of human progress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 6:10:02 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It may very well be true that I lack enough education to fully understand the subtleties of his position. That being said, I still fail to see how your understanding of his position, that general decadence is a marker of societal decline. What proof is there that decadence is a factor in societal decline? If that really is the crux of that passage, why mention tattoos or piercings at all? Why not point to the ownership of mansions, purchasing Ferrari's, buying expensive food, drinking rare vintage wine? By using tattoos or piercings as the example, he is relying on prejudice and stereotypes to persuade his target audience into giving his other points more weight; through self-identification and group identity. It basically comes down to, "I, the reader, think people with tattoos are miscreants and VDH does to. Therefore, maybe I should pay more attention to his other arguments, VDH might be on to something." That passage is a skillful blend of bias-conformation and argument from authority. While that is a completely valid technique in debate/argument presentation, I find that style self-serving and prefer to not debate rhetoric but, truth. And that truth is, there has been decadence, there is decadence and there always will be decadence in humanity. Decadence is one of the main drivers of human progress. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well written article. I guess being a dirty inkie myself, I have a little ire over his statement on tattoos and piercings. Maybe I'm looking at it as a sweeping condemnation. I don't understand how that statement is even relevant to the article. Sure, nowadays it's seen as the cool or "in" thing to do but, both of those have always been a part of humanity and I don't think they are ever going to disappear. Tattoos are a sign of someone wanting to regress to a less civilized time? So, where do members of the military fit into that statement? It just reads as someone saying, "I don't like tattoos and they are proof Western civilization is in decline." The same thing was said when the outlawing of slavery started. Yeah that totally reads as an insecure statement. I'm just curious about his reasoning behind that statement. Because rhetoric, by its very nature, is given more leeway than dialectic. He isn't implying that tattoos or piercings cause societal decay; rather illustrating his description of general decadence with an individual analogue. VDH is a formally trained classicist, so the depth of his writing is sometimes lost on those without at least a passing understanding of his background. It may very well be true that I lack enough education to fully understand the subtleties of his position. That being said, I still fail to see how your understanding of his position, that general decadence is a marker of societal decline. What proof is there that decadence is a factor in societal decline? If that really is the crux of that passage, why mention tattoos or piercings at all? Why not point to the ownership of mansions, purchasing Ferrari's, buying expensive food, drinking rare vintage wine? By using tattoos or piercings as the example, he is relying on prejudice and stereotypes to persuade his target audience into giving his other points more weight; through self-identification and group identity. It basically comes down to, "I, the reader, think people with tattoos are miscreants and VDH does to. Therefore, maybe I should pay more attention to his other arguments, VDH might be on to something." That passage is a skillful blend of bias-conformation and argument from authority. While that is a completely valid technique in debate/argument presentation, I find that style self-serving and prefer to not debate rhetoric but, truth. And that truth is, there has been decadence, there is decadence and there always will be decadence in humanity. Decadence is one of the main drivers of human progress. You are confusing decadence based on culture with neo-primitivism and LACK of any culture. Someone decorating a mansion with fine art by great masters and appreciating it, or knowing the subtleties of rare wines is not the same as someone punching pseduo-bushman holes in their ears. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 6:11:30 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It may very well be true that I lack enough education to fully understand the subtleties of his position. That being said, I still fail to see how your understanding of his position, that general decadence is a marker of societal decline. What proof is there that decadence is a factor in societal decline? If that really is the crux of that passage, why mention tattoos or piercings at all? Why not point to the ownership of mansions, purchasing Ferrari's, buying expensive food, drinking rare vintage wine? By using tattoos or piercings as the example, he is relying on prejudice and stereotypes to persuade his target audience into giving his other points more weight; through self-identification and group identity. It basically comes down to, "I, the reader, think people with tattoos are miscreants and VDH does to. Therefore, maybe I should pay more attention to his other arguments, VDH might be on to something." That passage is a skillful blend of bias-conformation and argument from authority. While that is a completely valid technique in debate/argument presentation, I find that style self-serving and prefer to not debate rhetoric but, truth. And that truth is, there has been decadence, there is decadence and there always will be decadence in humanity. Decadence is one of the main drivers of human progress. I would say that emulating societies that have failed to advance enough to provide even the barest necessities of human life on a regular basis (most hunter gatherers) is not a sign of advancement of the civilization who is emulating them. People running around with bones in their noses don't generally strike me as fully participating in the highest levels of our current society. I guess when I see the front row of people at any American Presidential address with bones in their noses and lip plates I'll have to reconsider. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 6:18:20 AM EDT
[#44]
What's with the tattoo and piercings butthurt?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 6:25:53 AM EDT
[#45]
lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 6:27:56 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's with the tattoo and piercings butthurt? If it has to be explained to you, you are likely a subject of the article. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 6:59:37 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are confusing decadence based on culture with neo-primitivism and LACK of any culture. Someone decorating a mansion with fine art by great masters and appreciating it, or knowing the subtleties of rare wines is not the same as someone punching pseduo-bushman holes in their ears. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well written article. I guess being a dirty inkie myself, I have a little ire over his statement on tattoos and piercings. Maybe I'm looking at it as a sweeping condemnation. I don't understand how that statement is even relevant to the article. Sure, nowadays it's seen as the cool or "in" thing to do but, both of those have always been a part of humanity and I don't think they are ever going to disappear. Tattoos are a sign of someone wanting to regress to a less civilized time? So, where do members of the military fit into that statement? It just reads as someone saying, "I don't like tattoos and they are proof Western civilization is in decline." The same thing was said when the outlawing of slavery started. Yeah that totally reads as an insecure statement. I'm just curious about his reasoning behind that statement. Because rhetoric, by its very nature, is given more leeway than dialectic. He isn't implying that tattoos or piercings cause societal decay; rather illustrating his description of general decadence with an individual analogue. VDH is a formally trained classicist, so the depth of his writing is sometimes lost on those without at least a passing understanding of his background. It may very well be true that I lack enough education to fully understand the subtleties of his position. That being said, I still fail to see how your understanding of his position, that general decadence is a marker of societal decline. What proof is there that decadence is a factor in societal decline? If that really is the crux of that passage, why mention tattoos or piercings at all? Why not point to the ownership of mansions, purchasing Ferrari's, buying expensive food, drinking rare vintage wine? By using tattoos or piercings as the example, he is relying on prejudice and stereotypes to persuade his target audience into giving his other points more weight; through self-identification and group identity. It basically comes down to, "I, the reader, think people with tattoos are miscreants and VDH does to. Therefore, maybe I should pay more attention to his other arguments, VDH might be on to something." That passage is a skillful blend of bias-conformation and argument from authority. While that is a completely valid technique in debate/argument presentation, I find that style self-serving and prefer to not debate rhetoric but, truth. And that truth is, there has been decadence, there is decadence and there always will be decadence in humanity. Decadence is one of the main drivers of human progress. You are confusing decadence based on culture with neo-primitivism and LACK of any culture. Someone decorating a mansion with fine art by great masters and appreciating it, or knowing the subtleties of rare wines is not the same as someone punching pseduo-bushman holes in their ears. Well said! How did the youth of this country come to embrace and emulate the ghetto culture,which in turn is highly influenced by the prison inmates? The lowest level of society somehow got to be a huge influence, WTF? Tattoos and piercings are an indicator or the downward spiral,not the cause. Someone I knew once said, " When I look at all these kids with the tats and piercings, I can tell which ones are mad at their parents." Truer words have never been spoken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 7:26:45 AM EDT
[#48]
VDH has a good view of the way America has changed. His farm is right outside a major CA city. He gets to tend to his field and then turn around and look at what's coming his way. That plus being an expert in Roman History gives him a unique perspective in my book. He's good stuff.
It's sad though. Few weeks ago I was in DC and though I didn't have time to stop at Arlington to visit my Uncle's grave I thought about him and wondered what we'd say to those guys buried under those crosses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 7:27:43 AM EDT
[#49]
VDH is the damn man!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 7:37:50 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The problem with VDH's working vs non-working numbers is that he includes 40 million .gov in the "working" count. The real count ... 104 million private/commercial industry workers (good guys) who support: 40 million .gov employees (federal, state and local paid by taxes confiscated from the 104 million) 90 million who can work but will not (FSA) 80 million too young, too old/retired or legitimately cannot work Because people that work for the government don't provide useful labor. Yes, actually. Most government workers do not provide useful labor. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
