Skip to main content

View Diary: The Peasants Revolution and the Miami Seven (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't see where (0+ / 0-)

    sympathy was implied in the diarist's writing about either case.  To my reading, it was more like making a case for cause and effect and sadly stating that it will likely be sometime in the future before what is going on now will be examined in that light.  One of the problems with being able to do that now is that when one asks the question "Why are they doing this?" one is immediately met with the label they are immediately met with "terrorist sympathizer."  I would hope we could have a more objective discourse than that here.

    •  You Don't See Where? Look Again (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      he peasants were being ground down by these foreign expeditions, and taxes that kept falling disproportionately on them.

      No shock to learn that the rebellion failed when Tyler was killed while in a parley with the boy king. All the charters the citizenry had won from the king were revoked...

      Unless the diarist is championing monarchy and keeping the poor oppressed, that's a sympathetic portrayal.  

      If you want more objective discourse, then urge people to write, think and read more clearly.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:42:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Read again, and I think if there (0+ / 0-)

        is "sympathy" then it has to do with what the reader brings to the interpretation.  

         

        •  Then Why Write Anything Here? (0+ / 0-)

          Do you honestly believe that what is written has no effect on how it's recived by the reader?  

          I think you're engaging in a bit of sophistry.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:09:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cambridgemac

            I'm talking about what was written in this diary.  As I read it I was not inspired to feel sympathy for any of the parties involved, except for the people who have a longer view of history who are probably tortured by the stupidity on display in the times we are living in.  

            You apparently were.  That doesn't make my interpretation any more or less valid than your own.  That is what happens when writing and reading go on.  And since you added your opinion, I'll add my opinion that perhaps your reading involved an over-concern with possible interpretations from the very people who are already fooled by this administration, thus the leap to "terrorist sympathizer."

            The points the diarist was trying to make were clear to me.  You apparently didn't get his/her intentions.  I did.  Oh well.  

            •  Let Me Repeat (0+ / 0-)

              Intents and implications are not the same thing.  That's logic 101.

              I'm  responding to what is written, not armchair psychologizing on what the author may have tried to write but didn't.

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:23:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No you're not (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                geordie

                You've misinterpreted the words in this diary and are insisting that you are correct.  Well, you're not.  Nowhere did the diarist write or imply any kind of defense for terrorism, but you charged in with the accusation.  Now, I've given you latitude by trying to understand that your preoccupation with the opinions of others might have colored your interpretation and even said everyone is entitled to their own interpretation.  Live with it, you didn't get it.  So what?  

              •  And by the way, (0+ / 0-)

                if this isn't "armchair pschologizing on what the author may have tried to write but didn't"
                I don't know what is.  You were out of line, and what's more, you completely contradicted yourself with the last question in which you implied that the Miami 7 was actually plotting to kill innocent civillians (how else would anyone be condoning it) while two lines before it you called it "alleged."  Now, how's that?  Shall we go on and pick apart everything you've written?  In short, get over yourself, this diary was not deserving of your inflammatory remarks.:  

                But you think this diary is worthy of recommendation?  You see no difference in intent between peasants in the 14th century trying to overthrow their monarchy and guys allegedly plotting to kill thousands of innocent civillians for no coherent reason?  Do you offer tacit approval for their plans, which by implication this diarist appears to do?

                Do you really condone plotting to kill innocent civillians?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site