The Tree of Liberty

[tongodeon]

Popular political quotes often turn out to be fabricated, misattributed, or at very least taken out of context. But the people quoting Thomas Jefferson's famous "tree of liberty" seem to have his words and intent entirely correct. Thomas Jefferson's famous quote, originally written to William Stevens Smith on 13 November 1787, seems to be even more

Comments

Re: "necessary"

[tongodeon]

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the study. Repeating it 200 years from now wouldn't "invalidate my existence" any more than it would invalidate my passport, but it *would* invalidate any claimed connection between those people and myself. It would demonstrate that, whether or not I exist, my true knowledge and opinion is not what they're accessing. It would prove they're making up their own opinions and attributing it to me. It would prove that when they say "Tongodeon thinks that ..." all they're really saying is "I think that..." Assuming that I was a widely respected authority 200 years from now, it would completely deflate their claimed authority from pretending to know what I thought. It would prove not that I don't exist, but that my everything that they imagine that I think is their own egocentric personal opinion.

That was my point bringing it up here about the appeal to "God's" authority, or here in response to your observation that we see whatever God we feel like seeing. Whether or not God exists (different issue) your claimed connection to him is completely illusory. This isn't God, this is feedback.

Re: "necessary"

[ianvass]

I should note that as I was not one of the people in the study, you are over-generalizing. You cannot say that my personal connection with God is illusory. That may be your (unprovable) opinion, but for all you know, I've seen Him, talked with Him, walked with Him, and He's shown me stuff that would blow your mind, but I'm just not talking.

Perhaps if I was in that study, they would have come back with different results on this one guy who recognizes that his opinion and God's opinion just might be very very different from each other.

I'm just sayin' for purposes of accuracy. :)

Re: "necessary"

[tongodeon]

I should note that as I was not one of the people in the study, you are over-generalizing.

I just wrote a long explanation for why this is utter poppycock. The entire point of studies - the reason why they exist, and why they are useful - is that you *can* apply results of a study to members of a population not included in the survey.

for all you know, I've seen Him, talked with Him, walked with Him,

No, "for all I know" these stories are sincere and well-meaning delusion. Literally for all I know - for everything that I am aware of, for anything that anyone is able to point me to - "stuff that would blow your mind but I'm just not talking" sounds like exactly what I'd say if I was making up a story that would be unverifiable.

I could just as easily say "I've got a suicide note signed by God, declaring that he eliminated himself 10,000 years ago". For all you know is this true? Of course not. For all you know - for everything that you know about the crazy ways that humans try to persuade each other - it's far more likely that I'm either sincerely deluded or that I made up a lie.

Perhaps if I was in that study, they would have come back with different results

This is special pleading. "Perhaps" a lot of things are true, but do either of us have any reason to believe that this is likely? I can just as easily say that "perhaps" if you'd been studied the top of your head would fly open and they'd discover that you're really an android being operated by mice, but we can't take speculation seriously unless there's a reason to take it seriously.

Re: "necessary"

[ianvass]

And I responded to your post with my response. :)