6 ms·

Am I the only one who finds the use of "molon labe" farcical? I mean, the Persians did come and take them and killed the entire Spartan force in the process.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
It makes more sense in context, take Patrick Henry's words in 1775 to understand what liberty and the preservation of constitutional rights means to Americans. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" or Thomas Jefferson in 1787: "We have had 13. states independent 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."
- coldtea 7y ago
  That was at a time when wars were fought with such arms, and the police had the same. Heck, that was true for 100+ years afterwards still. Now the police even has tanks and army level guns, and the army of course has 1000x the resources, airplanes, drones, etc. And of course, at the time the states were indeed independent and fighting fiercely for that. Now (and ever after the Civil War) it's all a charade, from what I understand, and it's all as the Federal government says, not really a union of independent states (as independent countries), but a state divided in N prefectures that just happen to be called states...
  - invalidOrTaken 7y ago
    All the more reason to preserve what is left, then.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      It is said that "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.". I'd say this idea, that after you are guaranteed worse results, you should double down, is even more insane. If anything, what I wrote is all the more reason to find new strategies that don't involve "we'll fight them with guns". Besides who'll do the fighting? The kind of people that have guns are in more in favor of fascism and army rule than those who don't. So all it takes to get them on the side of the opressors it's to sell it to them as army control, as opposed to "big government" control.
      - tomschlick 7y ago
        > The kind of people that have guns are in more in favor of fascism and army rule than those who don't. So all it takes to get them on the side of the opressors it's to sell it to them as army control, as opposed to "big government" control. I feel like you have never talked to a gun owner before. Though they may lean towards the pro police/pro military side, they absolutely would not bow to the government implementing some kind of mass martial law. Lastly, our military swears an oath to the people and the constitution, not the government. Every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and Guardsman is bound by oath to refuse unlawful orders. Any hint of stuff like you're talking about would lead to mass revolt within military ranks themselves. Militias would form, and armaments would be taken from the military's caches to launch a resistance.
        coldtea 7y ago
        >I feel like you have never talked to a gun owner before. Though they may lean towards the pro police/pro military side, they absolutely would not bow to the government implementing some kind of mass martial law. That's what they pay lip service too. In practice the huge majority are chickens, when they're not pro-army (and the first to cheer for an actual martial law, as long it was done by favorable politicians to them). >Lastly, our military swears an oath to the people and the constitution, not the government. Every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and Guardsman is bound by oath to refuse unlawful orders. Yeah, good luck with that if push comes to shove.
- madhadron 7y ago
  > It makes more sense in context I disagree, especially with these quotations, which are disingenuous. Patrick Henry was a firebrand. His words were meant to incite violence and insurrection for the financial advantage of the order of people to which he belonged. The Jefferson letter you are quoting[1] doesn't mean what you imply with how you quote it. The real meaning, if you use the sentences right before that, says that some part of the population is always going to be ignorant and misinformed and discontent in proportion to that, and that it's better they rebel openly so they can be corrected, patted on the head, and sent home instead of stewing silently. From that point of view, the people should be minimally armed so this could be accomplished with as little bloodshed as possible. It's also fraught to impute anything about constitutional matters to Jefferson, since he regarded a constitution perpetuated more than a generation or two as a form of tyranny. The scholarship on Sparta has been pretty thoroughly revised over the past few decades. Any reference to Sparta rooted before that is of at best suspect legitimacy. [1]: https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-jefferson-letter-to-william-stephens-smith-11-13-1787 https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-je...
CydeWeys 7y ago
It was a successful delaying action. They were outnumbered hundreds to one and never expected to defeat the entire enemy army themselves. They knew they were going to lose that battle, but the intent was to help win the overall war, which the Greeks did. And if you kill many more of the enemy than they do of you despite being vastly outnumbered, you can justifiably say you gave a lot more than you got, which is a victory of sorts in its own right.
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  > And if you kill many more of the enemy than they do of you despite being vastly outnumbered, you can justifiably say you gave a lot more than you got Getting (benefitting) a lot more than you gave (spent) makes more sense to me.
  - nickynickell 7y ago
    In this context we're talking about death: giving more death to the enemy than they could give to you. Ultimately the meaning is the same as your rewording. Just a bit more grim.
- madhadron 7y ago
  A different reading of the history is that it was a political move by the other Spartan king to force Leonidas to die in a lost cause with a small force in order to remove a rival.
eitland 7y ago
Meanwhile it allowed the rest of Greece to organize a defense and it also inspired them to fight, defeating their enemies later.
coldtea 7y ago
Or rather: killed a small percentage of Spartans (the "300" + some allies), hardly "the entire Spartan force", while having huge losses themselves, and giving time to the rest of the Greeks to prepare and ultimately kick them off. So there's that...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago

It makes more sense in context, take Patrick Henry's words in 1775 to understand what liberty and the preservation of constitutional rights means to Americans. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" or Thomas Jefferson in 1787: "We have had 13. states independent 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."

coldtea 7y ago
That was at a time when wars were fought with such arms, and the police had the same. Heck, that was true for 100+ years afterwards still. Now the police even has tanks and army level guns, and the army of course has 1000x the resources, airplanes, drones, etc. And of course, at the time the states were indeed independent and fighting fiercely for that. Now (and ever after the Civil War) it's all a charade, from what I understand, and it's all as the Federal government says, not really a union of independent states (as independent countries), but a state divided in N prefectures that just happen to be called states...
- invalidOrTaken 7y ago
  All the more reason to preserve what is left, then.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    It is said that "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.". I'd say this idea, that after you are guaranteed worse results, you should double down, is even more insane. If anything, what I wrote is all the more reason to find new strategies that don't involve "we'll fight them with guns". Besides who'll do the fighting? The kind of people that have guns are in more in favor of fascism and army rule than those who don't. So all it takes to get them on the side of the opressors it's to sell it to them as army control, as opposed to "big government" control.
    - tomschlick 7y ago
      > The kind of people that have guns are in more in favor of fascism and army rule than those who don't. So all it takes to get them on the side of the opressors it's to sell it to them as army control, as opposed to "big government" control. I feel like you have never talked to a gun owner before. Though they may lean towards the pro police/pro military side, they absolutely would not bow to the government implementing some kind of mass martial law. Lastly, our military swears an oath to the people and the constitution, not the government. Every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and Guardsman is bound by oath to refuse unlawful orders. Any hint of stuff like you're talking about would lead to mass revolt within military ranks themselves. Militias would form, and armaments would be taken from the military's caches to launch a resistance.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >I feel like you have never talked to a gun owner before. Though they may lean towards the pro police/pro military side, they absolutely would not bow to the government implementing some kind of mass martial law. That's what they pay lip service too. In practice the huge majority are chickens, when they're not pro-army (and the first to cheer for an actual martial law, as long it was done by favorable politicians to them). >Lastly, our military swears an oath to the people and the constitution, not the government. Every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and Guardsman is bound by oath to refuse unlawful orders. Yeah, good luck with that if push comes to shove.
madhadron 7y ago
> It makes more sense in context I disagree, especially with these quotations, which are disingenuous. Patrick Henry was a firebrand. His words were meant to incite violence and insurrection for the financial advantage of the order of people to which he belonged. The Jefferson letter you are quoting[1] doesn't mean what you imply with how you quote it. The real meaning, if you use the sentences right before that, says that some part of the population is always going to be ignorant and misinformed and discontent in proportion to that, and that it's better they rebel openly so they can be corrected, patted on the head, and sent home instead of stewing silently. From that point of view, the people should be minimally armed so this could be accomplished with as little bloodshed as possible. It's also fraught to impute anything about constitutional matters to Jefferson, since he regarded a constitution perpetuated more than a generation or two as a form of tyranny. The scholarship on Sparta has been pretty thoroughly revised over the past few decades. Any reference to Sparta rooted before that is of at best suspect legitimacy. [1]: https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-jefferson-letter-to-william-stephens-smith-11-13-1787 https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-je...

CydeWeys 7y ago

It was a successful delaying action. They were outnumbered hundreds to one and never expected to defeat the entire enemy army themselves. They knew they were going to lose that battle, but the intent was to help win the overall war, which the Greeks did. And if you kill many more of the enemy than they do of you despite being vastly outnumbered, you can justifiably say you gave a lot more than you got, which is a victory of sorts in its own right.

EForEndeavour 7y ago
> And if you kill many more of the enemy than they do of you despite being vastly outnumbered, you can justifiably say you gave a lot more than you got Getting (benefitting) a lot more than you gave (spent) makes more sense to me.
- nickynickell 7y ago
  In this context we're talking about death: giving more death to the enemy than they could give to you. Ultimately the meaning is the same as your rewording. Just a bit more grim.
madhadron 7y ago
A different reading of the history is that it was a political move by the other Spartan king to force Leonidas to die in a lost cause with a small force in order to remove a rival.

eitland 7y ago

Meanwhile it allowed the rest of Greece to organize a defense and it also inspired them to fight, defeating their enemies later.

coldtea 7y ago

Or rather: killed a small percentage of Spartans (the "300" + some allies), hardly "the entire Spartan force", while having huge losses themselves, and giving time to the rest of the Greeks to prepare and ultimately kick them off. So there's that...