NationStates Jolt Archive

For some reason some certain people appear to genuinely admire Pancho Villa. This is the man that killed 18 innocent railroad employees as a protest to the American government. Not to mentioned burned a town across the boarder and killed 8 U.S. civilians.

What a jerk. What's to admire in this person?

What's to admire in this person?

His mustache.

what the fuck do you mean by calling these guys moon calves? i looked the term up last time and it didnt seem in the least appropriate to genghis kahn or pancho villa.

is there some tv/movie/game reference that im missing?

For some reason some certain people appear to genuinely admire Pancho Villa. This is the man that killed 18 innocent railroad employees as a protest to the American government. Not to mentioned burned a town across the boarder and killed 8 U.S. civilians.

What a jerk. What's to admire in this person?

What is your obsession with moon-calves?

What is your obsession with moon-calves?

It's supposed to be kind of a thread series. Understand?

Um... I've never heard of him.

But I've never understood why people admire che guevara... what the hell?

He's a revolutionary hero admired by many Mexicans for his role in the Mexican revolution . I consider US interventions in Mexico a greater crime than anything Pancho Villa ever committed. Asides from that I much more admire Zapata so I won't defend anything Villa did.

what the fuck do you mean by calling these guys moon calves? i looked the term up last time and it didnt seem in the least appropriate to genghis kahn or pancho villa.

is there some tv/movie/game reference that im missing?

what the fuck do you mean by calling these guys moon calves? i looked the term up last time and it didnt seem in the least appropriate to genghis kahn or pancho villa.

is there some tv/movie/game reference that im missing?

Moon calf is an archaic term. It is generally applied to stupid people.

I do inf act reference Jack Vance's, oh, you know.

"I am not called Cugel the Clever for nothing," he hissed in her ear. "Trust me to outwit this moon-calf!"

Of course Cugel gets screwed.

Um... I've never heard of him.

But I've never understood why people admire che guevara... what the hell?

There was a whole thread about this last week.

For some reason some certain people appear to genuinely admire Pancho Villa. This is the man that killed 18 innocent railroad employees as a protest to the American government. Not to mentioned burned a town across the boarder and killed 8 U.S. civilians.

What a jerk. What's to admire in this person?

As you've previously demonstrated a support for moral relativism, I don't see how Pancho Villa's attacks on US civilians were any worse than the attacks by his adversaries in the Mexican government and its military on their own civilians.

Pancho was more Bug-Bear than Moon-Calf.

As you've previously demonstrated a support for moral relativism, I don't see how Pancho Villa's attacks on US civilians were any worse than the attacks by his adversaries in the Mexican government and its military on their own civilians.

I never said they were any worse. I'm just saying what he did was not admirable. I never said the U.S. government was.

The civilians he killed did nothing to him. It was unprovoked murder. If a black man kills my mother, can I go kill any old black man's mother? No, I don't even have the right to kill my killer's mother.

How exactly do you go from Genghis Khan to Pancho Villa? There must of been a better candidate for your "moon-calf" series of threads.

How exactly do you go from Genghis Khan to Pancho Villa? There must of been a better candidate for your "moon-calf" series of threads.

I can chose whatever candidate I wish, though I welcome suggestions.

I never said they were any worse. I'm just saying what he did was not admirable. I never said the U.S. government was.

I wasn't actually talking about the US government, as far as I'm aware the Punitive Expedition did not involve attacks on the civilian population. I could be wrong, in which case my point still stands - attacks on civilians were commonplace at the time. Which leads me to my main point...

The civilians he killed did nothing to him. It was unprovoked murder. If a black man kills my mother, can I go kill any old black man's mother? No, I don't even have the right to kill my killer's mother.

...you've previously discounted the severe flaws of other historical figures by arguing that because their contemporaries were no better, we should consider their other actions. Suddenly you jump on the moralistic wagon by claiming that unprovoked murder automatically makes him a bad person. This leads me to believe that you don't actually believe this rubbish you spout, but are simply arguing for arguments sake.

I wasn't actually talking about the US government, as far as I'm aware the Punitive Expedition did not involve attacks on the civilian population. I could be wrong, in which case my point still stands - attacks on civilians were commonplace at the time. Which leads me to my main point...

Th U.S. has done some terrible things. Nonetheless it is irrelevant to this argument.

...you've previously discounted the severe flaws of other historical figures by arguing that because their contemporaries were no better, we should consider their other actions.

Incorrect. For instance I praised Cesare Borgia because he banned pillaging. That made him better then his contemporaries.

Suddenly you jump on the moralistic wagon by claiming that unprovoked murder automatically makes him a bad person.

Unnecessary and purposeless killing makes you a detriment and despicable person.

This leads me to believe that you don't actually believe this rubbish you spout, but are simply arguing for arguments sake.

I often debate purely for joy. That is irrelevant. Anyway I do believe it.

Moon calf is an archaic term. It is generally applied to stupid people.

I do inf act reference Jack Vance's, oh, you know.

"I am not called Cugel the Clever for nothing," he hissed in her ear. "Trust me to outwit this moon-calf!"

Of course Cugel gets screwed.

Moon-calf doesn't mean stupid. It means something more like monstrosity or abomination.

Moon-calf doesn't mean stupid. It means something more like monstrosity or abomination.
Here:


moon-calf. (1) A monster; a false conception: supposed perhaps anciently to be produced by the influence of the moon.
(2) A dolt; a stupid fellow.

I can chose whatever candidate I wish, though I welcome suggestions.

Oliver Cromwell.

Here:

So your problem with Ghengis and Pancho is that they're stupid?

For some reason some certain people appear to genuinely admire Pancho Villa. This is the man that killed 18 innocent railroad employees as a protest to the American government. Not to mentioned burned a town across the boarder and killed 8 U.S. civilians.

What a jerk. What's to admire in this person?

Eh. The list of genuine Mexican national heroes is kinda short. Not that that's really any fault of Mexicans themselves, but Villa, Cesar Chavez, Miguel Pro and Anthony Quinn pretty much cover it. :p

So your problem with Ghengis and Pancho is that they're stupid?

Technically my problem with them is that they killed innocents without cause, and are admired anyhoo.

I use moon-calf to confuse people enough to get them to look at my post, and reply, if only to tell me they hate the word "moon-calf".

Incorrect. For instance I praised Cesare Borgia because he banned pillaging. That made him better then his contemporaries.

And Pancho Villa fought two wars - one to create a democratic government for Mexico, and another to defeat the usurper of the democratic government.
He only turned his back on them when they betrayed him at the end of the war. He was also a philanthropist who built many schools.

Unnecessary and purposeless killing makes you a detriment and despicable person.

And corruption damages the economy, encourages wastefulness and also makes you a despicable person. And yet, you are prepared to defend a certain pope's corruption because it was common at the time. I'm merely defending defending Pancho Villa on your terms - attacks on civilians were common at the time, so Villa's attacks were no worse than his opponents, but unlike his opponents he fought for democracy and the people, not a ineffective dictatorship or personal glory.

Oliver Cromwell.

I used to admire him...until I found-out about the Irish.

:(

And Pancho Villa fought two wars - one to create a democratic government for Mexico, and another to defeat the usurper of the democratic government.
He only turned his back on them when they betrayed him at the end of the war.

Just so.

He was also a philanthropist who built many schools.


Personally?

And corruption damages the economy, encourages wastefulness and also makes you a despicable person. And yet, you are prepared to defend a certain pope's corruption because it was common at the time.

I defend a pope because he was less corrupt. For instance he lowered indulgences which means he wasn't living-off the people so-much. Second he wouldn't let criminals buy their way out of punishment. I defend him because he was superior to his contemporaries, not because he was equal.

I'm merely defending defending Pancho Villa on your terms - attacks on civilians were common at the time, so Villa's attacks were no worse than his opponents, but unlike his opponents he fought for democracy and the people, not a ineffective dictatorship or personal glory.

I believe he made a go-go-Power-Rangers-butthead-morph toward the end. Or perhaps he was a anal-pate all along?

Personally?

What, do you mean did he personally construct the schools with his bare hands? No, I imagine he wouldn't have managed to build quite as many schools that way. He did order the construction of schools in the areas he controlled.

I defend a pope because he was less corrupt. For instance he lowered indulgences which means he wasn't living-off the people so-much. Second he wouldn't let criminals buy their way out of punishment. I defend him because he was superior to his contemporaries, not because he was equal.

And Pancho Villa killed a mere 26 civilians, by your reckoning. The Mexican government killed hundreds in their attempt to defeat Villa and Zapata. So I am arguing that Villa was superior to his contemporaries.

I believe he made a go-go-Power-Rangers-butthead-morph toward the end. Or perhaps he was a anal-pate all along?

Is this your way of saying you can't actually think of a reason that Villa was worse than his rivals and contemporaries?

What, do you mean did he personally construct the schools with his bare hands? No, I imagine he wouldn't have managed to build quite as many schools that way. He did order the construction of schools in the areas he controlled.

Indeed. If I had a bunch of people doing my bidding I could do the same. Now if he personally funded the building out of his own pocket, then perhaps I will concede this.

And Pancho Villa killed a mere 26 civilians, by your reckoning. The Mexican government killed hundreds in their attempt to defeat Villa and Zapata. So I am arguing that Villa was superior to his contemporaries.
Well, if you're going to go there, why not admire th average civilian in Mexico, who probably killed no-one?

Is this your way of saying you can't actually think of a reason that Villa was worse than his rivals and contemporaries?

No. This is my way of saying I can't think of why people admire him. It's like admiring Harry Truman.

I use moon-calf to confuse people enough to get them to look at my post, and reply, if only to tell me they hate the word "moon-calf".

Ah. And I thought you were shooting for a job with the Chicago Tribune. Or something. :p

Ah. And I thought you were shooting for a job with the Chicago Tribune. Or something. :p

There would be no-way I'd get it by continually using an archaic word that irks readers.

Indeed. If I had a bunch of people doing my bidding I could do the same. Now if he personally funded the building out of his own pocket, then perhaps I will concede this.

You could do it... but would you? This is what I am arguing. Few of his contemporaries would have used the resources at their disposable (most likely funded by taxation rather than personal wealth) for such philanthropic endeavours. This is what I am arguing - he was better than his contemporaries.

Well, if you're going to go there, why not admire th average civilian in Mexico, who probably killed no-one?

Depends wther the average civilian achieved anything. Certainly, the ones who fought for or contributed to the cause of democracy in the Mexican Revolution are admirable.

No. This is my way of saying I can't think of why people admire him. It's like admiring Harry Truman.

I've given you dozens of reasons to admire him. He fought for democracy and built schools for poor children, more than most of his contemporaries. The only counter argument you've managed is that he killed some civilians, while I showed that he killed fewer than his enemies. Indeed, it could be said that he was better than the other leaders of his time - certainly that is a most admirable thing to be.

There would be no-way I'd get it by continually using an archaic word that irks readers.

Well, not in recent times. But back in the glory days... :p Luckily, microfilm preserves the hilarity of it all for future generations. :)

You could do it... but would you?

Yes.

This is what I am arguing. Few of his contemporaries would have used the resources at their disposable (most likely funded by taxation rather than personal wealth) for such philanthropic endeavours. This is what I am arguing - he was better than his contemporaries.

Perhaps.

Depends wther the average civilian achieved anything.

At least they didn't kill innocents.

Certainly, the ones who fought for or contributed to the cause of democracy in the Mexican Revolution are admirable.

Not if they partook of the murder.

I've given you dozens of reasons to admire him.

Dozens?

He fought for democracy and built schools for poor children, more than most of his contemporaries.

Fought for democracy, then ripped-off freedom as you've previously mentioned. He betrayed the people. The purpose of his fighting must be compared with what it actually reaped.

The only counter argument you've managed is that he killed some civilians,

And the only good thing you mentioned (dozens?) was that he built some schools. Okay, big deal. He then is excused for murdering innocents? It doesn't work that way.

while I showed that he killed fewer than his enemies.

So?

Indeed, it could be said that he was better than the other leaders of his time

Some. Hitler was superior to Stalin.

- certainly that is a most admirable thing to be.

See above.

I can chose whatever candidate I wish, though I welcome suggestions.

You should go for someone who people have only heard of because of some wildly inaccurate film. William Wallace would be my suggestion.

What a jerk. What's to admire in this person?
Well if nothing else, when he was dying he uttered what are probably the best last words in history,

"Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something."

Genius.

Perhaps.

No, not 'perhaps'. Yes.

At least they didn't kill innocents.

Its hardly an achievement. I don't kill people all the time, but few would call me a great person.

Not if they partook of the murder.

Fought for democracy, then ripped-off freedom as you've previously mentioned. He betrayed the people. The purpose of his fighting must be compared with what it actually reaped.

When did he rip off freedom and betray the people?

And the only good thing you mentioned (dozens?) was that he built some schools. Okay, big deal. He then is excused for murdering innocents? It doesn't work that way.

And fought and won the Mexican Revolution on the side of democracy. And you've excused evil acts because it was both normal at the time and because the person did other worthy things. Suddenly you can't find room to do the same for Pancho Villa. Nice double standard.

So?

As you've laready pointed out, its not a case of wether people do bad things, its where the bad things stand in relation to the contemporaries.

Some. Hitler was superior to Stalin.

Indeed, but not better than the likes of his rivals Churchill and Roosevelt or his contemporary Gustav Streseman. Being second from bottom doesnt make Hitler a better leader, its still makes Hitler terrible.