New Orleans To Remove Excremental Rebel Monuments

[Tiberius]

And at the 11th hour gator chimes in with his hypocrite of the year post entry. And it's a good one folks. The guy who typically just posts to call people d-bags and tells others to eff off is accusing someone of not contributing to a topic. Bravo! Well done gator old boy. Well done!

Wow, what a complete idiot you are. You are seriously saying I only throw insults out? You must be pretty angry to say something so stupid.

 

This from the guy who just asks really bad gotcha questions and then cannot explain their relevance to anything.

So tell us what Frederick Douglas' biography says about where most slaves were?

 

And like the Bells of Saint Ann, there it is, right on time.

 

You are worthless boy.

[Chef Jim]

Wow, what a complete idiot you are. You are seriously saying I only throw insults out? You must be pretty angry to say something so stupid.

 

This from the guy who just asks really bad gotcha questions and then cannot explain their relevance to anything.

 

 

And like the Bells of Saint Ann, there it is, right on time.

 

You are worthless boy.

This is great. Your immediate rebuttal to my post is to display the exact behavior I was accusing you of. Have you ever sat and wondered why 90% of the people here give you grief? Did you ever maybe think it was you? Well if not I have news for you. It ain't us.

[OCinBuffalo]

I've been thinking about writing a book called "Tears for the Etruscans".

 

The educated and intelligent here will instantly get that.

 

For the rest? Every single argument that is currently being made about social justice/getting paid back for losing wars/Native Americans...all of it...can easily be refuted by looking at the Etruscans.

 

"But...but...but...(insert whoever) had a wonderful culture/art/history before (insert whoever) came along and conquered them". Yeah? So did the Etruscans before Rome conquered them.

"But...but...but...(insert whoever) did terrible things to (insert whoever)". Yeah? So did Rome to the Etruscans.

"But...but...but...(insert whoever) enslaved the people and sought to destroy everything about (insert whoever), and what they didn't destroy they incorporated into their culture and claimed as their own." Yeah? So did Rome to the Etruscans.

 

See? No matter what arugment is made, literally no matter what you say? The Etruscans fit. So where are your "Tears for the Etruscans", you unmitigated morons?

 

If we are to do things properly, and punish all of Civilization properly, why aren't we starting at the beginning? We must punish all current Romans for their deeds against the Etruscans. Then, we can move on to punishing them for the Carthaginians. Of course we'd have to punish half of Asia for the Mongols. And the English and French? That's decades of punishment. The Greeks can make their claims on the Romans...right after they are punished for Alexander the Great's terrible act of bringing reason, math and science to half the known world, and founding 20 great cities to propogate it.

 

But, it all has to start with the Etruscans, which unlike the piss-drinkers Alexander civilized, was already a thriving culture, complete with it's own art, language, law, everything. Rome committed the first grand act of "cultural appropriation" ever. So, again I ask every leftist clown:

 

Where are your tears for the Etruscans? If you can't cry for them, you don't get to cry for anyone else.

Edited January 4, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[3rdnlng]

I've been thinking about writing a book called "Tears for the Etruscans".

 

The educated and intelligent here will instantly get that.

 

For the rest? Every single argument that is currently being made about social justice/getting paid back for losing wars/Native Americans...all of it...can easily be refuted by looking at the Etruscans.

 

"But...but...but...(insert whoever) had a wonderful culture/art/history before (insert whoever) came along and conquered them". Yeah? So did the Etruscans before Rome conquered them.

"But...but...but...(insert whoever) did terrible things to (insert whoever)". Yeah? So did Rome to the Etruscans.

"But...but...but...(insert whoever) enslaved the people and sought to destroy everything about (insert whoever), and what they didn't destroy they incorporated into their culture and claimed as their own." Yeah? So did Rome to the Etruscans.

 

See? No matter what arugment is made, literally no matter what you say? The Etruscans fit. So where are your "Tears for the Etruscans", you unmitigated morons?

 

If we are to do things properly, and punish all of Civilization properly, why aren't we starting at the beginning? We must punish all current Romans for their deeds against the Etruscans. Then, we can move on to punishing them for the Carthaginians. Of course we'd have to punish half of Asia for the Mongols. And the English and French? That's decades of punishment. The Greeks can make their claims on the Romans...right after they are punished for Alexander the Great's terrible act of bringing reason, math and science to half the known world, and founding 20 great cities to propogate it.

 

But, it all has to start with the Etruscans, which unlike the piss-drinkers Alexander civilized, was already a thriving culture, complete with it's own art, language, law, everything. Rome committed the first grand act of "cultural appropriation" ever. So, again I ask every leftist clown:

 

Where are your tears for the Etruscans? If you can't cry for them, you don't get to cry for anyone else.

This is more appropriate:

 

http://www.bing.com/search?q=don%27t+cry+for+me+argentina+lyrics&form=PRUSEN&pc=U348&mkt=en-us&refig=2d0bd193d63049f6af1696c4359c3ab7&ghc=1&qs=LS&pq=don%27t+cry+for+me+&sk=AS1&sc=8-17&sp=2&cvid=2d0bd193d63049f6af1696c4359c3ab7

[birdog1960]

I've been thinking about writing a book called "Tears for the Etruscans".

 

The educated and intelligent here will instantly get that.

 

For the rest? Every single argument that is currently being made about social justice/getting paid back for losing wars/Native Americans...all of it...can easily be refuted by looking at the Etruscans.

 

"But...but...but...(insert whoever) had a wonderful culture/art/history before (insert whoever) came along and conquered them". Yeah? So did the Etruscans before Rome conquered them.

"But...but...but...(insert whoever) did terrible things to (insert whoever)". Yeah? So did Rome to the Etruscans.

"But...but...but...(insert whoever) enslaved the people and sought to destroy everything about (insert whoever), and what they didn't destroy they incorporated into their culture and claimed as their own." Yeah? So did Rome to the Etruscans.

 

See? No matter what arugment is made, literally no matter what you say? The Etruscans fit. So where are your "Tears for the Etruscans", you unmitigated morons?

 

If we are to do things properly, and punish all of Civilization properly, why aren't we starting at the beginning? We must punish all current Romans for their deeds against the Etruscans. Then, we can move on to punishing them for the Carthaginians. Of course we'd have to punish half of Asia for the Mongols. And the English and French? That's decades of punishment. The Greeks can make their claims on the Romans...right after they are punished for Alexander the Great's terrible act of bringing reason, math and science to half the known world, and founding 20 great cities to propogate it.

 

But, it all has to start with the Etruscans, which unlike the piss-drinkers Alexander civilized, was already a thriving culture, complete with it's own art, language, law, everything. Rome committed the first grand act of "cultural appropriation" ever. So, again I ask every leftist clown:

 

Where are your tears for the Etruscans? If you can't cry for them, you don't get to cry for anyone else.

hmmm...so I can't be against American slavery unless I publicly renounce rome? well no. they are separate issues. once again one of the cons is trying to unnecessarily complicate a relatively straightforward issue: southern American slavery. wanna talk about ancient roman ethics and morals (which were sorely lacking btw- they invented crucifixion)? that's a separate discussion. start a new thread. I suspect we might finally agree on something there.

Edited January 4, 2016 by birdog1960

[OCinBuffalo]

hmmm...so I can't be against American slavery unless I publicly renounce rome? well no. they are separate issues. once again one of the cons is trying to unnecessarily complicate a relatively straightforward issue: southern American slavery. wanna talk about ancient roman ethics and morals (which were sorely lacking btw- they invented crucifixion)? that's a separate discussion. start a new thread. I suspect we might finally agree on something there.

You act as if Southern American Slavery happend in a vacuum, and that 80-90% of the rest of the world wasn't either actively, directly, participating in it, or at the very least complicit.

 

Once again far left ingoramouses trying to oversimplify, caricature the "bad guy", and ultimately distort the history of a both well known(to everybody but the far-left) and straightforward issue.

 

Do you have any idea how many nations/people had to be involved...first...before the South could obtain slaves...last?

I bet you don't. Instead, I bet you think the American South:

owned the massive colonial plantations in the Carribean, where slavery had been established long before a single slave ever set foot on US soil.

had the massive naval/merchant presence to establish those plantations, or to import new slaves from Africa.

occupied and ran the fortresses in Northern/Western Africa where slaves were traded and loaded onto ships.

created the slave caravans/trade routes/holding points...4000 years before any white man set foot on US soil.

had agents and men all throughout Africa whose job it was to capture slaves, because it's not like capturing African slaves began during/before the ascent of the ancient F'ing Egyptians or anything.

 

If you want to blame guns for violence/murder/deaths? Then, by that same logic, you must blame the ocean-going ship for slavery. Gotcha, B word! "But...but...but...only a small % of those ships were used for slavery". Right, jagoff, and only a small % of guns are used for murder.

 

Why did England "outlaw"(via the judiciary in 1772...ahem, you won't find any grand Emancipation Proclomations/amendments to their constitution) slavery? Because they had slaves. You don't outlaw something you don't do. Not to mention massive # of slaves brought here on British ships. How then can African(not American) Slavery be defined in any way as "Southern American Slavery" Why are we looking at a relatively tiny cross section of the entire African Slavery Issue...and pretending it represents the whole thing?

 

Once again my "Tears for the Etruscans" point holds: if we want to blame America for slavery, then we get ~10% of the blame, with the balance reserved for almost the rest of the entire world. Or, do you think the Russian Czar emancipating his serfs in 1861 wasn't 100% political opportunism?(Hmm, this may be too deep of a point for birdog, but, I'll leave it in) Of course that depends on whether we are choosing to be historically accurate, and, intellectually responsible.

 

Once again my "Etruscans" point holds in another way: you cannot pretend to cry big tears for "Southern American Slavery" while also pretending that slavery hadn't been going on for the prior 10k years of recorded history, and probably for a lot longer than that. No. IF you honestly find slavery repulsive, then you cannot be selectively repulsed. Why is an African slave more of a tragedy than an Etruscan slave?

 

EDIT: #EstruscanSlavesMatter

Edited January 11, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

You act as if Southern American Slavery happend in a vacuum, and that 80-90% of the rest of the world wasn't either actively, directly, participating in it, or at the very least complicit.

 

Once again far left ingoramouses trying to oversimplify, caricature the "bad guy", and ultimately distort the history of a both well known(to everybody but the far-left) and straightforward issue.

 

Do you have any idea how many nations/people had to be involved...first...before the South could obtain slaves...last?

I bet you don't. Instead, I bet you think the American South:

owned the massive colonial plantations in the Carribean, where slavery had been established long before a single slave ever set foot on US soil.

had the massive naval/merchant presence to establish those plantations, or to import new slaves from Africa.

occupied and ran the fortresses in Northern/Western Africa where slaves were traded and loaded onto ships.

created the slave caravans/trade routes/holding points...4000 years before any white man set foot on US soil.

had agents and men all throughout Africa whose job it was to capture slaves, because it's not like capturing African slaves began during/before the ascent of the ancient F'ing Egyptians or anything.

 

If you want to blame guns for violence/murder/deaths? Then, by that same logic, you must blame the ocean-going ship for slavery. Gotcha, B word! "But...but...but...only a small % of those ships were used for slavery". Right, jagoff, and only a small % of guns are used for murder.

 

Why did England "outlaw"(via the judiciary in 1772...ahem, you won't find any grand Emancipation Proclomations/amendments to their constitution) slavery? Because they had slaves. You don't outlaw something you don't do. Not to mention massive # of slaves brought here on British ships. How then can African(not American) Slavery be defined in any way as "Southern American Slavery" Why are we looking at a relatively tiny cross section of the entire African Slavery Issue...and pretending it represents the whole thing?

 

Once again my "Tears for the Etruscans" point holds: if we want to blame America for slavery, then we get ~10% of the blame, with the balance reserved for almost the rest of the entire world. Or, do you think the Russian Czar emancipating his serfs in 1861 wasn't 100% political opportunism?(Hmm, this may be too deep of a point for birdog, but, I'll leave it in) Of course that depends on whether we are choosing to be historically accurate, and, intellectually responsible.

 

Once again my "Etruscans" point holds in another way: you cannot pretend to cry big tears for "Southern American Slavery" while also pretending that slavery hadn't been going on for the prior 10k years of recorded history, and probably for a lot longer than that. No. IF you honestly find slavery repulsive, then you cannot be selectively repulsed. Why is an African slave more of a tragedy than an Etruscan slave?

 

EDIT: #EstruscanSlavesMatter

we're not discussing removing monuments honoring the men behind all these other despicable acts, now are we? if we were, then i'd agree that removal would be appropriate just as it is for the confederates that are/were honored in new Orleans. start another thread about them and we'll agree. cecil Rhodes anyone? yeah, i'd support removing any positive reference or monument to his name....

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/07/cecil-rhodes-statue-war-criminal-rhodes-must-fall

Edited January 11, 2016 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

we're not discussing removing monuments honoring the men behind all these other despicable acts, now are we? if we were, then i'd agree that removal would be appropriate just as it is for the confederates that are/were honored in new Orleans. start another thread about them and we'll agree. cecil Rhodes anyone? yeah, i'd support removing any positive reference or monument to his name....

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/07/cecil-rhodes-statue-war-criminal-rhodes-must-fall

 

The linking of a shallow, dumbass opinion piece doesn't make your position any less shallow, nor you any less of a dumbass.

[birdog1960]

 

The linking of a shallow, dumbass opinion piece doesn't make your position any less shallow, nor you any less of a dumbass.

how bout you link something more profound then. perhaps some source material or an opinion piece from someone generally respected for their knowledge, unlike you.

 

because , ya know, we actually can discover a wealth of impressive information about mr olusoga http://www.zoominfo.com/p/David-Olusoga/1101764879 but we know of none about you.

Edited January 11, 2016 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

how bout you link something more profound then. perhaps some source material or an opinion piece from someone generally respected for their knowledge, unlike you.

 

because , ya know, we actually can discover a wealth of impressive information about mr olusoga http://www.zoominfo.com/p/David-Olusoga/1101764879 but we know of none about you.

Appeal to Authority

[DC Tom]

how bout you link something more profound then. perhaps some source material or an opinion piece from someone generally respected for their knowledge, unlike you.

 

because , ya know, we actually can discover a wealth of impressive information about mr olusoga http://www.zoominfo.com/p/David-Olusoga/1101764879 but we know of none about you.

How about you form your own opinions instead of borrowing others'?

 

When do we tear down the FDR Memorial, because of his genocide against the Japanese?

[birdog1960]

Appeal to Authority

umm, no I linked an article that addressed a side issue that oc found necessary to interject. with the swipe of a hand, dc (who for all we know has the credentials of cliff clavin) dismissed it as "shallow and dumbass".

 

I chose to refute that unfounded criticism by linking some rather impressive credentials.

[DC Tom]

umm, no I linked an article that addressed a side issue that oc found necessary to interject. with the swipe of a hand, dc (who for all we know has the credentials of cliff clavin) dismissed it as "shallow and dumbass".

 

I chose to refute that unfounded criticism by linking some rather impressive credentials.

"Look, it's not shallow! Here's credentials!"

 

And you can't even see the irony.

[birdog1960]

"Look, it's not shallow! Here's credentials!"

 

And you can't even see the irony.

I can see that you rely solely on personal opinion without any reference or established basis. almost all knowledge is built on preexisting knowledge. you are not immune and certainly not intellectually special.

 

it's clearly more reasonable to seriously consider a piece by someone with impressive accomplishments in the field than to accept the complete, unexplained dismissal of said argument by someone with none.

Edited January 11, 2016 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

I can see that you rely solely on personal opinion without any reference or established basis. almost all knowledge is built on preexisting knowledge. you are not immune and certainly not intellectually special.

 

it's clearly more reasonable to seriously consider a piece by someone with impressive accomplishments in the field than to accept the complete dismissal of said argument by someone with none.

That's exactly what an Appeal to Authority is.

Edited January 11, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

I can see that you rely solely on personal opinion without any reference or established basis. almost all knowledge is built on preexisting knowledge. you are not immune and certainly not intellectually special.

 

it's clearly more reasonable to seriously consider a piece by someone with impressive accomplishments in the field than to accept the complete, unexplained dismissal of said argument by someone with none.

Except YOU don't even build on existing knowledge. You parrot existing opinion. But only if you agree with it.

[birdog1960]

That's exactly what an Appeal to Popularity is.

nope. i'm not doing this: The Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, or when the authority cited is not a true expert.^[1] The appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.^[2] additionally, i'm not claiming that what olusoga said was in fact true i'm stating that's it's less likely to be shallow because he is an expert in the field. further, i'm stating that dismissal of his piece without any basis is juvenile and ignorant.

 

 

but hell, lets go farther afield since the whole tangent was precipitated by oc's ridiculous post. if I didn't know better i'd tyhink this obfuscation is organized among the many (or few) con avatars here at ppp.

Edited January 11, 2016 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

nope. i'm not doing this: The Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, or when the authority cited is not a true expert.^[1] The appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.^[2] additionally, i'm not claiming that what olusoga said was in fact true i'm stating that's it's less likely to be shallow because he is an expert in the field. further, i'm stating that dismissal of his piece without any basis is juvenile and ignorant.

 

 

but hell, lets go farther afield since the whole tangent was precipitated by oc's ridiculous post. if I didn't know better i'd tyhink this obfuscation is organized among the many (or few) con avatars here at ppp.

Please demonstrate David Olusoga's expertise in the field of Abraham Lincoln, and American slavery.

[birdog1960]

Please demonstrate David Olusoga's expertise in the field of Abraham Lincoln, and American slavery.

read what the citation was in reference to. here's a hint. it wasn't American slavery.

[DC Tom]

Following

 

nope. i'm not doing this: The Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, or when the authority cited is not a true expert.^[1] The appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.^[2]

 

with

 

 

additionally, i'm not claiming that what olusoga said was in fact true i'm stating that's it's less likely to be shallow because he is an expert in the field.

 

Is what happens when you cut and paste from wikipedia without reading or understanding. "Less likely to be shallow because he is an expert in the field" is EXACTLY the type of statistical syllogism that makes your "argument" an appeal to authority. What's more

 

 

further, i'm stating that dismissal of his piece without any basis is juvenile and ignorant.

 

"Without any basis" only in your own mind. And that's only because you've been paying no attention to anything anyone else says. And "juvenile and ignorant" more accurately describes the blind and uncritical argument to authority you make than an observation that an opinion of such narrow scope and vision is "shallow and dumbass."