Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: End and the Means
January 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm
(This post was last modified: January 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm by leo-rcc.)
I rejected the French revolution as a success because it did not amount to what it was set out to do. The actual liberation of France was 30!! years after the French revolution where all the main players of that revolution either died or were executed in the years after the revolution took place and they ended up with another emperor in its place. All the while the citizens of France were absolutely no better off than they were with Louis the XIV.
This is basic history, look it up.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Posts: 1446
Threads: 77
Joined: October 1, 2008
Reputation:
11
RE: End and the Means
January 29, 2009 at 4:26 pm
(January 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: I rejected the French revolution as a success because it did not amount to what it was set out to do. The actual liberation of France was 30!! years after the French revolution where all the main players of that revolution either died or were executed in the years after the revolution took place and they ended up with another emperor in its place. All the while the citizens of France were absolutely no better off than they were with Louis the XIV.
This is basic history, look it up.
You're missing the point of this post Leo, which is about ends and means.
 A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: End and the Means
January 29, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I dont think I did. The means (the revolution) did not achieve the ends (freedom and prosperity for the French citizens, which was the goal).
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Posts: 1446
Threads: 77
Joined: October 1, 2008
Reputation:
11
RE: End and the Means
January 29, 2009 at 4:59 pm
(January 29, 2009 at 4:46 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: I dont think I did. The means (the revolution) did not achieve the ends (freedom and prosperity for the French citizens, which was the goal).
I was talking specifically about that part of the Revolution called " The Terror " which was a means to an end ( that being to defend the revolution from counter-revolutionaries ). Now some people, you included, would no doubt find that unacceptable. Others, like me, find it acceptable.
I don't intend debating the whole question of the success or otherwise of the Revolution itself with you on this thread, but I will, if you want to start a thread on the subject.
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: End and the Means
January 29, 2009 at 8:21 pm
(This post was last modified: January 29, 2009 at 8:24 pm by leo-rcc.)
(January 29, 2009 at 4:59 pm)bozo Wrote: (January 29, 2009 at 4:46 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: I dont think I did. The means (the revolution) did not achieve the ends (freedom and prosperity for the French citizens, which was the goal).
I was talking specifically about that part of the Revolution called " The Terror " which was a means to an end ( that being to defend the revolution from counter-revolutionaries ). Now some people, you included, would no doubt find that unacceptable. Others, like me, find it acceptable.
Please do not presume what I think is or is not acceptable. I don't do that to you either.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Posts: 1446
Threads: 77
Joined: October 1, 2008
Reputation:
11
RE: End and the Means
January 29, 2009 at 8:44 pm
(January 29, 2009 at 8:21 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: (January 29, 2009 at 4:59 pm)bozo Wrote: (January 29, 2009 at 4:46 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: I dont think I did. The means (the revolution) did not achieve the ends (freedom and prosperity for the French citizens, which was the goal).
I was talking specifically about that part of the Revolution called " The Terror " which was a means to an end ( that being to defend the revolution from counter-revolutionaries ). Now some people, you included, would no doubt find that unacceptable. Others, like me, find it acceptable.
Please do not presume what I think is or is not acceptable. I don't do that to you either. Why do you not just answer, rather than taking offence?
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: End and the Means
January 29, 2009 at 8:54 pm
(This post was last modified: January 29, 2009 at 8:58 pm by leo-rcc.)
I actually did, but decided to drop and delete it.
But since you asked, here it is.
The "Reign of Terror" or "The terror" for short was to stop the demise of the assemblee when the fractions of the assemblee went more and more head to head. In the end it took 30 years, 2 following monarchies and no less than 3 revolutions to stop the turmoil in late 18th early 19th century France which brought it to a social and economic bankruptcy. The constitutional assembly failed. There were too many monarchists to have a republic and too many republicans to have a monarch.
So no, the end did not justify the means, since the end wasn't even achieved through the means and wouldn't be for many years.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Posts: 1446
Threads: 77
Joined: October 1, 2008
Reputation:
11
RE: End and the Means
January 29, 2009 at 8:57 pm
(January 29, 2009 at 8:54 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: I actually did, but decided to drop and delete it.
But since you asked, here it is.
The "Reign of Terror" or "The terror" for short was to stop the demise of the assemblee when the fractions of the assemblee went more and more head to head. In the end it took 30 years, 2 following monarchies and no less than 3 revolutions to stop the turmoil in late 18th early 19th century France which brought it to a social and economic bankruptcy. The constitutional assembly failed. There were too many monarchists to have a republic and too many republicans to have a monarch.
So no, the end did not justify the means, since the end wasn't met through the means and wouldn' t be for many years.
There you go, I presumed you wouldn't agree and you clearly don't! What's your problem?
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: End and the Means
January 29, 2009 at 9:00 pm
(This post was last modified: January 29, 2009 at 9:03 pm by leo-rcc.)
You presumed if I wouldn't find the terror acceptable for the end result, however that is not the case, I say the end was not even achieved. There is a difference.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Posts: 1446
Threads: 77
Joined: October 1, 2008
Reputation:
11
RE: End and the Means
January 29, 2009 at 9:05 pm
(January 29, 2009 at 9:00 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: You presumed if I wouldn't find the terror acceptable for the end result, however that is not the case, I say the end was not even achieved. There is a difference. I'm struggling to understand you.Are you saying that you would find the terror justified for a different outcome?
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
|
