Deranged Rhino Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 what is your take on the penn state statue of joe paterno? i don't remember from the thread and all about that and don't feel like looking. plus you like to type and get attention so it gives you a chance. I like to type and get attention? That's what you're taking from that post? I didn't participate in that thread, but a statue of a football coach is not in the same ballpark as monuments made about historically significant events/people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 And it's a facile argument suitable for a third-grader. "Slavery is bad, therefore everything associated with it is bad." So black literacy programs are bad, because Stonewall Jackson personally taught one for express purpose of emancipation and fought for Virginia? Slave states fought for the Union (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware), therefore the Union is bad? It's not an ad hominem attack. It is attacking the argument: it's facile, and suitable for a third grader. An ad hominem attack is more along the lines of where you called me amoral and pro-slavery, you !@#$ing shitbag. Obfuscation! Holy moly! I think a third grader can see right and wrong better than you! Who is this "we" that defines what is "good" or not? The people. What were those rebels fight for? Let's let the vice president of the Confederacy explain: The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. Why would anyone want to honor this? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Nice quote. I wonder if Tom was aware of it. Yes or no the inference is not good The argument really is in essence " is slavery good or bad" Everything else distracts from that crucial point. But those arguing for honoring the confederate leaders must take this tack as there is no other. Taster wants to talk nut job libertarian ideals. Tom to attack anything but this simple but truthful question. And rhino wants to turn the argument to preserving history or apples undesirable work conditions. It's all compensation for a small.... Um, intellect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) I knew you'd be unable to articulate why you are opposed to slavery, and I knew you'd shy away from embracing logic. Further, I didn't ask you to discuss my libertarian philosophy, I asked you to discuss your own views. Are you really this incapable of intellectual honesty? Edited December 21, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 I knew you'd be unable to articulate why you are opposed to slavery, and I knew you'd shy away from embracing logic. Further, I didn't ask you to discuss my libertarian philosophy, I asked you to discuss your own views. Are you really this incapable of intellectual honesty? I think slavery is wrong because if it isn't wrong, nothing is wrong 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I think slavery is wrong because if it isn't wrong, nothing is wrong Saying that it's wrong because it's the most wrong thing isn't stating why it's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Nice quote. I wonder if Tom was aware of it. Yes or no the inference is not good The argument really is in essence " is slavery good or bad" Everything else distracts from that crucial point. But those arguing for honoring the confederate leaders must take this tack as there is no other. Taster wants to talk nut job libertarian ideals. Tom to attack anything but this simple but truthful question. And rhino wants to turn the argument to preserving history or apples undesirable work conditions. It's all compensation for a small.... Um, intellect Again, untrue. I'm talking only to you and yet you refuse to answer. I've made my position on this matter very clear. As have you. You feel slavery is bad ... Unless it results in an iPhone. That's not even hypocritical. It's retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Again, untrue. I'm talking only to you and yet you refuse to answer. I've made my position on this matter very clear. As have you. You feel slavery is bad ... Unless it results in an iPhone. That's not even hypocritical. It's retarded. Be fair - there's iPads too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Obfuscation! Holy moly! You think anything more nuanced than a 2x4 to the head is obfuscation. You've misused the term so much it ceases to have any meaning. I think a third grader can see right and wrong better than you! Except we're not discussing "right and wrong." We're discussing this immature and childish belief in mass guilt of, since slavery is bad, everyone associated with the Confederacy is bad because they fought for slavery. Which is demonstrably untrue. The people. Which people? Andrew Johnson? (A slave-holder, and Lincoln's Democratic vice-president.) John Brown? (Who rebelled against the Union - his raid on Harper's Ferry was an act of armed insurrection.) Stephen A. Douglas? (Who opposed both Lincoln AND slavery.) What were those rebels fight for? Let's let the vice president of the Confederacy explain: Oh, you wacky liberals. Always insisting that there is no individual motivation or thought, only groupthink. It couldn't possibly be that Stephens didn't speak for Lee, or that, as a Georgian, he didn't speak for Virginians when they voted to secede on the expressed belief that maintaining the Union by force was wrong. By the way...Stephens was a supporter of Lincoln. So is he one of those "right-thinking" people? It's not obfuscation to point out that reality is far more complex than you'd like to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Nice quote. I wonder if Tom was aware of it. Yes or no the inference is not good The argument really is in essence " is slavery good or bad" Everything else distracts from that crucial point. But those arguing for honoring the confederate leaders must take this tack as there is no other. Taster wants to talk nut job libertarian ideals. Tom to attack anything but this simple but truthful question. And rhino wants to turn the argument to preserving history or apples undesirable work conditions. It's all compensation for a small.... Um, intellect Freudian slip or overtness gone wild? There are sites on this internet where this talk is ok. This is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Again, why aren't the libtards on this board up in arm equally about having virtually everything in WV named after Robert "Sheets" Byrd. He was a member of the KKK, had a record filibuster on the 1963 civil rights bill (that passed thanks to the Republicans). He supposedly iwas the "conscience" of the Senat.He was an out and out racist and kept getting re-elected by racists Democrats, the party of Jim Crow and separate but equal. Edited December 21, 2015 by Wacka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Again, why aren't the libtards on this board up in arm equally about having virtually everything in WV named after Robert "Sheets" Byrd. He was a member of the KKK, had a record filibuster on the 1963 civil rights bill (that passed thanks to the Republicans). He supposedly iwas the "conscience" of the Senat.He was an out and out racist and kept getting re-elected by racists Democrats, the party of Jim Crow and separate but equal. was anyone on this board up in arms and protesting the monuments in NO? I mean Gatorman brought it up but that's just because he likes to stick his finger in Y'all's eye and wait for a reaction it's doubtful he really gives !@#$, Maybe you and any friends you have should protest Byrd that would put us libtards in our place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 Saying that it's wrong because it's the most wrong thing isn't stating why it's wrong. A human should not own another human, its against my moral code. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 A human should not own another human, its against my moral code. That's not a reason slavery is wrong. That's defining what slavery is, and then stating that it's wrong. Again: why is slavery wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 1) You think anything more nuanced than a 2x4 to the head is obfuscation. You've misused the term so much it ceases to have any meaning. 2) Except we're not discussing "right and wrong." We're discussing this immature and childish belief in mass guilt of, since slavery is bad, everyone associated with the Confederacy is bad because they fought for slavery. Which is demonstrably untrue. 3) Which people? Andrew Johnson? (A slave-holder, and Lincoln's Democratic vice-president.) John Brown? (Who rebelled against the Union - his raid on Harper's Ferry was an act of armed insurrection.) Stephen A. Douglas? (Who opposed both Lincoln AND slavery.) 4) Oh, you wacky liberals. Always insisting that there is no individual motivation or thought, only groupthink. It couldn't possibly be that Stephens didn't speak for Lee, or that, as a Georgian, he didn't speak for Virginians when they voted to secede on the expressed belief that maintaining the Union by force was wrong. 5) By the way...Stephens was a supporter of Lincoln. So is he one of those "right-thinking" people? 6) It's not obfuscation to point out that reality is far more complex than you'd like to believe. 1) No, you are dragging this discussion down a rabbit hole 2) Not true. We are discussing which part of our history deserves our admiration. The Confederacy should in no way be honored. That's my opinion and a lot of others too. Democracy sucks, huh? 3) We people. The people that voted to remove the monuments. 4) Ha ha ha, no, he was only the VP of the Confederacy, I'm sure he just said something that only he believed 5) Was he? Yes, so much so that he became a Confederate leader. Yes, he was against secession, so what? 6) No, its actually a simple issue you want to make complicated to try and make it somehow seem right to have Confederate traitors as something worthy of honoring That's not a reason slavery is wrong. That's defining what slavery is, and then stating that it's wrong. Again: why is slavery wrong? It fundamentally denies a person of their basic natural rights 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) You think anything more nuanced than a 2x4 to the head is obfuscation. You've misused the term so much it ceases to have any meaning. Except we're not discussing "right and wrong." We're discussing this immature and childish belief in mass guilt of, since slavery is bad, everyone associated with the Confederacy is bad because they fought for slavery. Which is demonstrably untrue. Except were not discussing everyone associated with the confederacy. We're talking about honoring a dishonorable movement and its leaders who unashamedly supported and killed to maintain the immoral practice of slavery. Edited December 21, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past. Have you noticed how much the Liberals are really taking control of the culture? Monuments like ten commandments, prayer in schools, diversity stuff, everything! Who's winning culture war? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Have you noticed how much the Liberals are really taking control of the culture? Monuments like ten commandments, prayer in schools, diversity stuff, everything! Who's winning culture war? There's no doubt progressives are. And we're all losing for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 1) No, you are dragging this discussion down a rabbit hole 2) Not true. We are discussing which part of our history deserves our admiration. The Confederacy should in no way be honored. That's my opinion and a lot of others too. Democracy sucks, huh? 3) We people. The people that voted to remove the monuments. 4) Ha ha ha, no, he was only the VP of the Confederacy, I'm sure he just said something that only he believed 5) Was he? Yes, so much so that he became a Confederate leader. Yes, he was against secession, so what? 6) No, its actually a simple issue you want to make complicated to try and make it somehow seem right to have Confederate traitors as something worthy of honoring It fundamentally denies a person of their basic natural rights Just because it's too complicated for your handicapped little brain to understand, doesn't make it a rabbit hole. And what we were discussing was who determines Lincoln's relative "goodness." I'm still trying to get you to tell me which people those are. And you keep dodging with a "slavery bad" fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 There's no doubt progressives are. And we're all losing for it. When have we been better as a nation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 When have we been better as a nation? 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 Just because it's too complicated for your handicapped little brain to understand, doesn't make it a rabbit hole. And what we were discussing was who determines Lincoln's relative "goodness." I'm still trying to get you to tell me which people those are. And you keep dodging with a "slavery bad" fallacy. Wow, you really are letting my argument fly right over your little head! We as a democratic society can decide our historic heroes, ok? And NOLA has decided, democratically You really are dodging and weaving. I'm beginning to think you are just fooling yourself with all these twisted arguments. Why am I actually surprised by that?? 2006 How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 When have we been better as a nation? 1965 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 1965 During the Cold War??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 During the Cold War??? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 Yes. No internet, either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 No internet, either Well actually I was thinking more along the lines of you weren't born yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 It fundamentally denies a person of their basic natural rights So your argument is an appeal to the natural rights of man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 You really are dodging and weaving. I'm beginning to think you are just fooling yourself with all these twisted arguments. Why am I actually surprised by that?? No. I'm still trying to get you to answer this... But we admire Lincoln and think he was a good man and a great President. Those Confederates tried to do something the majority of us think is not worth celebrating, so take them away. In a democracy we can celebrate the history we think is good. Who is this "we" that defines what is "good" or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Except were not discussing everyone associated with the confederacy. We're talking about honoring a dishonorable movement and its leaders who unashamedly supported and killed to maintain the immoral practice of slavery. To my knowledge, none of those monuments honor a dishonorable movement, but instead honor people who died heroically in battle. The fact that we all agree that the issue of slavery is reprehensible is another matter. Have you noticed how much the Liberals are really taking control of the culture? Monuments like ten commandments, prayer in schools, diversity stuff, everything! Who's winning culture war? Getting rid of monuments enumerating the Ten Commandments and eliminating prayers in schools, and then claiming that the left are championing diversity? Edited December 21, 2015 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 To my knowledge, none of those monuments honor a dishonorable movement, but instead honor people who died heroically in battle. The fact that we all agree that the issue of slavery is reprehensible is another matter. Getting rid of monuments enumerating the Ten Commandments and eliminating prayers in schools, and then claiming that the left are championing diversity? either you have no religious imagery in a public space or you have the Ten Commandments and open it up to have Buddha, Baal, The flying spaghetti monster, Vishnu, Christopher Hitchens and Joe Pesci etc etc Students praying is fine but there can't be any led prayers in a public school Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 To my knowledge, none of those monuments honor a dishonorable movement, but instead honor people who died heroically in battle. The fact that we all agree that the issue of slavery is reprehensible is another matter. But y'know...I'm starting to warm up to this whole "slavery" idea. If it pisses off blindly stupid, reactionary, brainless retards to the degree we see here, it can't be all bad... Getting rid of monuments enumerating the Ten Commandments and eliminating prayers in schools, and then claiming that the left are championing diversity? You're talking about a body of thought that believes that equal rights now requires "separate but equal" and thinks poorly prepared cafeteria meals are racist, and it's a microaggression for whitey to eat Thai food. either you have no religious imagery in a public space or you have the Ten Commandments and open it up to have Buddha, Baal, The flying spaghetti monster, Vishnu, Christopher Hitchens and Joe Pesci etc etc Students praying is fine but there can't be any led prayers in a public school The Ten Commandments are a code of laws (the preamble to a code, basically.) Vishnu, the FSM, Ba'al, not so much. But if you want to display the Edicts of Ashoka or the Code of Hammurabi, I'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 either you have no religious imagery in a public space or you have the Ten Commandments and open it up to have Buddha, Baal, The flying spaghetti monster, Vishnu, Christopher Hitchens and Joe Pesci etc etc Students praying is fine but there can't be any led prayers in a public school I personally have no problem with any practice or displays of any religion on public grounds. We are a diverse nation, and our public institutions should reflect that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 You think anything more nuanced than a 2x4 to the head is obfuscation. You've misused the term so much it ceases to have any meaning. Except we're not discussing "right and wrong." We're discussing this immature and childish belief in mass guilt of, since slavery is bad, everyone associated with the Confederacy is bad because they fought for slavery. Which is demonstrably untrue. Except were not discussing everyone associated with the confederacy. We're talking about honoring a dishonorable movement and its leaders who unashamedly supported and killed to maintain the immoral practice of slavery. Still got nothing to say about your own personal support of modern slavery? Huh. Who would have predicted that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 ame="birdog1960" post="3815729" timestamp="1450723272"] Still got nothing to say about your own personal support of modern slavery? Huh. Who would have predicted that. the points and arguments are making are quite simplistic yet fantastic. it's amazing how it is falling on deaf ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 the points and arguments are making are quite simplistic yet fantastic. it's amazing how it is falling on deaf ears. it's simplistic by necessity. it's not even possible to get consensus on the morality of slavery here. people want to game that simple question. how would broadening the scope be useful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Get back to us when Robert Byrd's name is taken off the 50 + buildings he erected in his honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share Posted December 22, 2015 So your argument is an appeal to the natural rights of man? In part. What is your argument? Seems you don't have one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 In part. What is your argument? Seems you don't have one I've already stated my case in this very thread, so no. The natural rights of man are only part of your argument then? What's the other part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts