|
Post by HolyMoly on Aug 25, 2023 21:16:19 GMT
Congratulations. You've decisively proven your case to yourself. Yep, intelligent critical thinkers are people who agree with you. People who disagree are not intelligent critical thinkers. Very persuasive theory. Why do wingnuts always came up with the emotional thing, when there is not much emotion. Revenge porn amendments and monstrous filth are very logical approaches, not at all emotional. Sure. Experts sometimes lie, but it's hard to believe hundreds of historians from different times and places would get together and lie about the same thing. It would be downright absurd. I never claimed they succumbed to groupthink. Coming to the same conclusion as other people is not groupthink. Of course you were trying to pull a fast one--attributing to Marx an opinion that was not his. No need to thank me. That Marx was talking about the attitude of the British press was mentioned in your link. So if you read the link you would have known that, but you still quoted it as if it was his own opinion. I'm not bothered by the British press having a wrong opinion. It likely wasn't the first time or the last. No doubt part of the British press worried about the effect of tariffs on British exports and wrote accordingly. I really don't care much about Marx's personal life. It has little to do with his writings. No need to bow down, a simple well-executed salute will do. Yes, what a coincidence, bringing woke into a conversation about the Civil War. Too bad the first has nothing to do with the second. But why bring phrases from 2023 into a discussion about 1865, however irrelevant they are? It's the loony wingnut way. No, critical thinking intelligent people are those that objectively look at the evidence rather than stupidly dismissing it and making up excuses as you have done. Revenge porn amendments and monstrous filth are brutally blunt but wholly factual, and only seem "emotional" if you have failed to review the evidence that supports those facts.
Of course it's groupthink and you've succumbed to it just like the fools that claim to be historians. Historically, masses of experts have been uniformly wrong despite being told what the truth really is. Sometimes it's just ignorance, like in the case of Galileo and heliocentrism. But in the case of these historians, they had and have access to the same proof that I just used to debunk their "slavery was the cause" lie, yet they continue to peddle that falsehood. These "historians" are intentionally deceiving fools that consume their tripe because it feeds their confirmation biases.
And you still can't seem to quote a single one of these experts, can you?
Oh, I'll thank you, all right. You took what looked like a quote from just one man and made it clear that it was instead a widespread opinion in the British press. And thank you for clarifying that a putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of evil filth like Marx agreed with YOUR false narrative. If it was the pulling of a fast one as you claim, I'll accept the end result since, by arrogantly and stupidly thinking you were correcting me, you actually added even more weight to the evidence that I've presented.
And now you're trying to pull a fast one, although you probably lack the self awareness to see it. Earlier you found it absurd that hundreds of historians might collectively be wrong, yet you seem just fine with the assumption that hundreds in the British press that were contemporaries of the Confederates all got it wrong.
Woke obviously drives your biases and biases drive your cultish devotion to the Northern lie that slavery was the South's cause. Pretending that modern biases haven't shaped false and vindictive narratives about the South is a denial of reality and a failure to grasp what drove your cadre of historians to lie about the South's motivations.
I think your idea is actually more like people who look at the evidence and agree with me are brilliant critical thinkers. People who look at the evidence and disagree with me are stumblebum pretend historians. They're not factual, they're just you having a minor hissy fit and sounding crazy. Sometimes experts have been wrong, sometimes they have been right. In the case of the Civil War I think they are right. I'm guessing that the historians find your evidence as unconvincing as I do. So groupthink is when individuals come to the same conclusion though they have little or no contact with one another? How silly your definition is. You took a quote from Marx that made it appear that it was his opinion, when it was the opposite of his opinion. Peddling an actual falsehood. Since the British press got it wrong, it doesn't change my opinion at all. Putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of filth. Aren't you overdoing the objective and logical standards? Or is this just another example of how "critical thinkers" operate? No, woke was just introduced in a rather foolish attempt to link current political jargon to the mid 19th century. Isn't working any better than triggering. How can modern biases shape history that was written over a hundred years ago? You fail to grasp that your position is the minority position agreed to by few historians. Because they disagree with your Lost Cause junk says more about you than it does about them.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 26, 2023 14:35:27 GMT
No, critical thinking intelligent people are those that objectively look at the evidence rather than stupidly dismissing it and making up excuses as you have done. Revenge porn amendments and monstrous filth are brutally blunt but wholly factual, and only seem "emotional" if you have failed to review the evidence that supports those facts.
Of course it's groupthink and you've succumbed to it just like the fools that claim to be historians. Historically, masses of experts have been uniformly wrong despite being told what the truth really is. Sometimes it's just ignorance, like in the case of Galileo and heliocentrism. But in the case of these historians, they had and have access to the same proof that I just used to debunk their "slavery was the cause" lie, yet they continue to peddle that falsehood. These "historians" are intentionally deceiving fools that consume their tripe because it feeds their confirmation biases.
And you still can't seem to quote a single one of these experts, can you?
Oh, I'll thank you, all right. You took what looked like a quote from just one man and made it clear that it was instead a widespread opinion in the British press. And thank you for clarifying that a putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of evil filth like Marx agreed with YOUR false narrative. If it was the pulling of a fast one as you claim, I'll accept the end result since, by arrogantly and stupidly thinking you were correcting me, you actually added even more weight to the evidence that I've presented.
And now you're trying to pull a fast one, although you probably lack the self awareness to see it. Earlier you found it absurd that hundreds of historians might collectively be wrong, yet you seem just fine with the assumption that hundreds in the British press that were contemporaries of the Confederates all got it wrong.
Woke obviously drives your biases and biases drive your cultish devotion to the Northern lie that slavery was the South's cause. Pretending that modern biases haven't shaped false and vindictive narratives about the South is a denial of reality and a failure to grasp what drove your cadre of historians to lie about the South's motivations.
I think your idea is actually more like people who look at the evidence and agree with me are brilliant critical thinkers. People who look at the evidence and disagree with me are stumblebum pretend historians. They're not factual, they're just you having a minor hissy fit and sounding crazy. Sometimes experts have been wrong, sometimes they have been right. In the case of the Civil War I think they are right. I'm guessing that the historians find your evidence as unconvincing as I do. So groupthink is when individuals come to the same conclusion though they have little or no contact with one another? How silly your definition is. You took a quote from Marx that made it appear that it was his opinion, when it was the opposite of his opinion. Peddling an actual falsehood. Since the British press got it wrong, it doesn't change my opinion at all. Putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of filth. Aren't you overdoing the objective and logical standards? Or is this just another example of how "critical thinkers" operate? No, woke was just introduced in a rather foolish attempt to link current political jargon to the mid 19th century. Isn't working any better than triggering. How can modern biases shape history that was written over a hundred years ago? You fail to grasp that your position is the minority position agreed to by few historians. Because they disagree with your Lost Cause junk says more about you than it does about them. No, my idea is that people that believe the lie that slavery was the South's cause have not looked at the evidence, or worse, they have willfully ignored it as you have. An objective critical thinker is and should be uncomfortable with the kind of narrative that you have embraced. The Righteous Cause Myth that you have dedicated yourself to is a cartoonish, shallow soundbite style narrative that is characterized by being triggered by the word slavery which halts further curiosity about any other contradictory details.
Glass houses, cultist. It's pretty hypocritical for a guy who has been peddling the falshood that slavery was the South's cause to stupidly pretend that anyone else is peddling something untrue. That quote from Marx is readily available without even providing the source; if I'd wanted to mislead I sure as hell wouldn't have provided the link to the article, would I?
What's fun to watch is the involuntary hypocrisy that destroys your credibility. By pointing out that the British press thought that the conflict was was over tariffs and economic issues, you've given us another set of "experts" to compete with your modern historians. British "experts", in a country that had long ago done away with slavery, would not have the tariff opinion if it was unfounded and unsupported, but you dismiss their opinion out of hand because its yet more evidence that contradicts your fairy tale.
If you were objective at all, if you were a critical thinker at all, you would ask yourself "what if the British press writers, who were 19th century contemporaries, were right and these modern historians, more than a century after the conflict, are wrong?"
And I provided a link proving that Marx was a putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of filth. Evidence, remember?
And "woke" and "triggered" are about you, but they are completely valid to describe historians that think like you. It's called presentism, and it's a way of looking at the past through the lens of the present, often judging historical figures and events by modern standards and values.
So, let's summarize our dance during this four month old thread.
I've proven that slavery was not the South's cause and provided plenty evidence to create a reasonable doubt about the slavery cause lie.
All you've done is repeat a blanket denial without any evidence to back that up.
I've called you out for making stuff up and concocting goofy garbage like the idea that the Southerners must have been too dumb to realize what they were doing.
All you've done is double down on that same unfounded fiction.
I've challenged you to support your narrative with quotes from the historians that you use like a shield.
All you've done is run away while repeating that same empty claim without ever backing up that claim.
You're not a credible foe, cultist..... just a persistent one.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,492
|
Post by thor on Aug 26, 2023 19:22:03 GMT
I think your idea is actually more like people who look at the evidence and agree with me are brilliant critical thinkers. People who look at the evidence and disagree with me are stumblebum pretend historians. They're not factual, they're just you having a minor hissy fit and sounding crazy. Sometimes experts have been wrong, sometimes they have been right. In the case of the Civil War I think they are right. I'm guessing that the historians find your evidence as unconvincing as I do. So groupthink is when individuals come to the same conclusion though they have little or no contact with one another? How silly your definition is. You took a quote from Marx that made it appear that it was his opinion, when it was the opposite of his opinion. Peddling an actual falsehood. Since the British press got it wrong, it doesn't change my opinion at all. Putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of filth. Aren't you overdoing the objective and logical standards? Or is this just another example of how "critical thinkers" operate? No, woke was just introduced in a rather foolish attempt to link current political jargon to the mid 19th century. Isn't working any better than triggering. How can modern biases shape history that was written over a hundred years ago? You fail to grasp that your position is the minority position agreed to by few historians. Because they disagree with your Lost Cause junk says more about you than it does about them. No, my idea is that people that believe the lie that slavery was the South's cause have not looked at the evidence, or worse, they have willfully ignored it as you have. An objective critical thinker is and should be uncomfortable with the kind of narrative that you have embraced. The Righteous Cause Myth that you have dedicated yourself to is a cartoonish, shallow soundbite style narrative that is characterized by being triggered by the word slavery which halts further curiosity about any other contradictory details.
Glass houses, cultist. It's pretty hypocritical for a guy who has been peddling the falshood that slavery was the South's cause to stupidly pretend that anyone else is peddling something untrue. That quote from Marx is readily available without even providing the source; if I'd wanted to mislead I sure as hell wouldn't have provided the link to the article, would I?
What's fun to watch is the involuntary hypocrisy that destroys your credibility. By pointing out that the British press thought that the conflict was was over tariffs and economic issues, you've given us another set of "experts" to compete with your modern historians. British "experts", in a country that had long ago done away with slavery, would not have the tariff opinion if it was unfounded and unsupported, but you dismiss their opinion out of hand because its yet more evidence that contradicts your fairy tale.
If you were objective at all, if you were a critical thinker at all, you would ask yourself "what if the British press writers, who were 19th century contemporaries, were right and these modern historians, more than a century after the conflict, are wrong?"
And I provided a link proving that Marx was a putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of filth. Evidence, remember?
And "woke" and "triggered" are about you, but they are completely valid to describe historians that think like you. It's called presentism, and it's a way of looking at the past through the lens of the present, often judging historical figures and events by modern standards and values.
So, let's summarize our dance during this four month old thread.
I've proven that slavery was not the South's cause and provided plenty evidence to create a reasonable doubt about the slavery cause lie.
All you've done is repeat a blanket denial without any evidence to back that up.
I've called you out for making stuff up and concocting goofy garbage like the idea that the Southerners must have been too dumb to realize what they were doing.
All you've done is double down on that same unfounded fiction.
I've challenged you to support your narrative with quotes from the historians that you use like a shield.
All you've done is run away while repeating that same empty claim without ever backing up that claim.
You're not a credible foe, cultist..... just a persistent one.
But wait....there's more... The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina: "The moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood." It must suck having a Black Hand whip your ass. Tell us again, filthy moral degenerate, how it was totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s', scumbag. Think the enslaved would have been OK with that? Why does your cowardly ass keep running from a simple question, Stupid Boy? Also, Self- government for WHOM, filthy degenerate scumbag? Further, degenerate, why are you excusing Andersonville?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 26, 2023 19:51:31 GMT
No, my idea is that people that believe the lie that slavery was the South's cause have not looked at the evidence, or worse, they have willfully ignored it as you have. An objective critical thinker is and should be uncomfortable with the kind of narrative that you have embraced. The Righteous Cause Myth that you have dedicated yourself to is a cartoonish, shallow soundbite style narrative that is characterized by being triggered by the word slavery which halts further curiosity about any other contradictory details.
Glass houses, cultist. It's pretty hypocritical for a guy who has been peddling the falshood that slavery was the South's cause to stupidly pretend that anyone else is peddling something untrue. That quote from Marx is readily available without even providing the source; if I'd wanted to mislead I sure as hell wouldn't have provided the link to the article, would I?
What's fun to watch is the involuntary hypocrisy that destroys your credibility. By pointing out that the British press thought that the conflict was was over tariffs and economic issues, you've given us another set of "experts" to compete with your modern historians. British "experts", in a country that had long ago done away with slavery, would not have the tariff opinion if it was unfounded and unsupported, but you dismiss their opinion out of hand because its yet more evidence that contradicts your fairy tale.
If you were objective at all, if you were a critical thinker at all, you would ask yourself "what if the British press writers, who were 19th century contemporaries, were right and these modern historians, more than a century after the conflict, are wrong?"
And I provided a link proving that Marx was a putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of filth. Evidence, remember?
And "woke" and "triggered" are about you, but they are completely valid to describe historians that think like you. It's called presentism, and it's a way of looking at the past through the lens of the present, often judging historical figures and events by modern standards and values.
So, let's summarize our dance during this four month old thread.
I've proven that slavery was not the South's cause and provided plenty evidence to create a reasonable doubt about the slavery cause lie.
All you've done is repeat a blanket denial without any evidence to back that up.
I've called you out for making stuff up and concocting goofy garbage like the idea that the Southerners must have been too dumb to realize what they were doing.
All you've done is double down on that same unfounded fiction.
I've challenged you to support your narrative with quotes from the historians that you use like a shield.
All you've done is run away while repeating that same empty claim without ever backing up that claim.
You're not a credible foe, cultist..... just a persistent one.
But wait....there's more...The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina: "The moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood." It must suck having a Black Hand whip your ass.Tell us again, filthy moral degenerate, how it was totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s', scumbag. Think the enslaved would have been OK with that? Why does your cowardly ass keep running from a simple question, Stupid Boy? Also, Self- government for WHOM, filthy degenerate scumbag? Further, degenerate, why are you excusing Andersonville? You're the only one getting his ass kicked here. You were, are and always will be a joke on this forum. Another meaningless, anecdotal quote from another obscure elitist representing the South's one percenters doesn't even move the needle. You can't help being a dumbass, can you, boy? Only a liar claims that I ever claimed that it was "totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s'". And I'm hardly "excusing Andersonville" by pointing out that the impoverished South was starving at the same time that Andersonville prisoners were doing the same. Only a f*cking idiot would pretend that the South was supposed to let their own people starve just to coddle the perverted Union killers in that stockade. Those Yankee bastards were the ones trying to force the South into starvation and destruction before they were captured, yet the Confederates tried to care for them and tried to exchange them.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Aug 26, 2023 21:37:50 GMT
I think your idea is actually more like people who look at the evidence and agree with me are brilliant critical thinkers. People who look at the evidence and disagree with me are stumblebum pretend historians. They're not factual, they're just you having a minor hissy fit and sounding crazy. Sometimes experts have been wrong, sometimes they have been right. In the case of the Civil War I think they are right. I'm guessing that the historians find your evidence as unconvincing as I do. So groupthink is when individuals come to the same conclusion though they have little or no contact with one another? How silly your definition is. You took a quote from Marx that made it appear that it was his opinion, when it was the opposite of his opinion. Peddling an actual falsehood. Since the British press got it wrong, it doesn't change my opinion at all. Putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of filth. Aren't you overdoing the objective and logical standards? Or is this just another example of how "critical thinkers" operate? No, woke was just introduced in a rather foolish attempt to link current political jargon to the mid 19th century. Isn't working any better than triggering. How can modern biases shape history that was written over a hundred years ago? You fail to grasp that your position is the minority position agreed to by few historians. Because they disagree with your Lost Cause junk says more about you than it does about them. No, my idea is that people that believe the lie that slavery was the South's cause have not looked at the evidence, or worse, they have willfully ignored it as you have. An objective critical thinker is and should be uncomfortable with the kind of narrative that you have embraced. The Righteous Cause Myth that you have dedicated yourself to is a cartoonish, shallow soundbite style narrative that is characterized by being triggered by the word slavery which halts further curiosity about any other contradictory details.
Glass houses, cultist. It's pretty hypocritical for a guy who has been peddling the falshood that slavery was the South's cause to stupidly pretend that anyone else is peddling something untrue. That quote from Marx is readily available without even providing the source; if I'd wanted to mislead I sure as hell wouldn't have provided the link to the article, would I?
What's fun to watch is the involuntary hypocrisy that destroys your credibility. By pointing out that the British press thought that the conflict was was over tariffs and economic issues, you've given us another set of "experts" to compete with your modern historians. British "experts", in a country that had long ago done away with slavery, would not have the tariff opinion if it was unfounded and unsupported, but you dismiss their opinion out of hand because its yet more evidence that contradicts your fairy tale.
If you were objective at all, if you were a critical thinker at all, you would ask yourself "what if the British press writers, who were 19th century contemporaries, were right and these modern historians, more than a century after the conflict, are wrong?"
And I provided a link proving that Marx was a putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of filth. Evidence, remember?
And "woke" and "triggered" are about you, but they are completely valid to describe historians that think like you. It's called presentism, and it's a way of looking at the past through the lens of the present, often judging historical figures and events by modern standards and values.
So, let's summarize our dance during this four month old thread.
I've proven that slavery was not the South's cause and provided plenty evidence to create a reasonable doubt about the slavery cause lie.
All you've done is repeat a blanket denial without any evidence to back that up.
I've called you out for making stuff up and concocting goofy garbage like the idea that the Southerners must have been too dumb to realize what they were doing.
All you've done is double down on that same unfounded fiction.
I've challenged you to support your narrative with quotes from the historians that you use like a shield.
All you've done is run away while repeating that same empty claim without ever backing up that claim.
You're not a credible foe, cultist..... just a persistent one.
No, they have looked at the evidence and found it wanting. Why would a critical thinker be uncomfortable with the idea that slavery was the cause? No reason they should be. But for you they can't be critical thinkers because they disagree with you. That's basically what it's all about, nothing else matters. Talk about shallow and cartoonish. But I don't consider slavery was the cause a falsehood, so there is no hypocrisy in saying that the tariff boys got it wrong. You were trying to mislead, you just didn't do a very good job of it. You put the quote out there by itself as if it was Marx's own opinion and not that of some of the British press. Why you also linked an article that made it clear it was not Marx's opinion I don't know. They weren't experts, they were journalists. And maybe journalists who were more interested in the economic impact of tariffs than in slavery. The British had not done away with slavery long ago. It had been outlawed in 1833 and was a gradual measure, freeing the last slaves in 1840. I suppose if these journalists knew what they were talking about because they were alive during that period, I suppose that also applies to those who supported the Corwin Amendment. All your link to Marx proved was that he was not a good provider or family man. That's quite different from being a sick, putrid, perverted, lying piece of filth. I hope I got the whole thing. Complex, detailed, and objective portrait for sure. It's called bs, a futile attempt to drag concepts from 2023 into the Civil War era. More dumb than funny or more funny than dumb. Hard to decide. Don't you get it? Presentism is mostly used as a critique, trying to apply modern day terms to the past where they don't belong, and you're the one who is doing that, not me. Summary: Slavery was the cause is a northern lie. No valid evidence to back that up, just keep repeating as if it proves anything except you are a Lost Causer. You've proven slavery was not the cause--to yourself and nobody else here. Southerners were perfect and never wrong, thus they never made mistakes or miscalculations. Sure. I can't recall making anything up, unless by mistake. How can one double down on something one believes? I've just been repeating the things I've believed for many years. A heap of Lost Cause nonsense is not going to change my mind. Do you seriously think there are not hundreds of Civil War historians out there who support the slavery was the cause narrative? You must have come across at least some of them over the years. Why bother to list them or give lengthy quotes from their work. Anyone can do that themselves. What are critical thinkers? They are people who believe in the Lost Cause. Anyone who doesn't believe in it is not a critical thinkers. QED. Wacky definitions~Cultist. Cultists are a small group of people who all believe in a certain thing. By that definition Lost Causers are the true cultists, except in PC's upside down world.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,492
|
Post by thor on Aug 26, 2023 21:58:24 GMT
No, my idea is that people that believe the lie that slavery was the South's cause have not looked at the evidence, or worse, they have willfully ignored it as you have. An objective critical thinker is and should be uncomfortable with the kind of narrative that you have embraced. The Righteous Cause Myth that you have dedicated yourself to is a cartoonish, shallow soundbite style narrative that is characterized by being triggered by the word slavery which halts further curiosity about any other contradictory details.
Glass houses, cultist. It's pretty hypocritical for a guy who has been peddling the falshood that slavery was the South's cause to stupidly pretend that anyone else is peddling something untrue. That quote from Marx is readily available without even providing the source; if I'd wanted to mislead I sure as hell wouldn't have provided the link to the article, would I?
What's fun to watch is the involuntary hypocrisy that destroys your credibility. By pointing out that the British press thought that the conflict was was over tariffs and economic issues, you've given us another set of "experts" to compete with your modern historians. British "experts", in a country that had long ago done away with slavery, would not have the tariff opinion if it was unfounded and unsupported, but you dismiss their opinion out of hand because its yet more evidence that contradicts your fairy tale.
If you were objective at all, if you were a critical thinker at all, you would ask yourself "what if the British press writers, who were 19th century contemporaries, were right and these modern historians, more than a century after the conflict, are wrong?"
And I provided a link proving that Marx was a putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of filth. Evidence, remember?
And "woke" and "triggered" are about you, but they are completely valid to describe historians that think like you. It's called presentism, and it's a way of looking at the past through the lens of the present, often judging historical figures and events by modern standards and values.
So, let's summarize our dance during this four month old thread.
I've proven that slavery was not the South's cause and provided plenty evidence to create a reasonable doubt about the slavery cause lie.
All you've done is repeat a blanket denial without any evidence to back that up.
I've called you out for making stuff up and concocting goofy garbage like the idea that the Southerners must have been too dumb to realize what they were doing.
All you've done is double down on that same unfounded fiction.
I've challenged you to support your narrative with quotes from the historians that you use like a shield.
All you've done is run away while repeating that same empty claim without ever backing up that claim.
You're not a credible foe, cultist..... just a persistent one.
No, they have looked at the evidence and found it wanting. Why would a critical thinker be uncomfortable with the idea that slavery was the cause? No reason they should be. But for you they can't be critical thinkers because they disagree with you. That's basically what it's all about, nothing else matters. Talk about shallow and cartoonish. But I don't consider slavery was the cause a falsehood, so there is no hypocrisy in saying that the tariff boys got it wrong. You were trying to mislead, you just didn't do a very good job of it. You put the quote out there by itself as if it was Marx's own opinion and not that of some of the British press. Why you also linked an article that made it clear it was not Marx's opinion I don't know. They weren't experts, they were journalists. And maybe journalists who were more interested in the economic impact of tariffs than in slavery. The British had not done away with slavery long ago. It had been outlawed in 1833 and was a gradual measure, freeing the last slaves in 1840. I suppose if these journalists knew what they were talking about because they were alive during that period, I suppose that also applies to those who supported the Corwin Amendment. All your link to Marx proved was that he was not a good provider or family man. That's quite different from being a sick, putrid, perverted, lying piece of filth. I hope I got the whole thing. Complex, detailed, and objective portrait for sure. It's called bs, a futile attempt to drag concepts from 2023 into the Civil War era. More dumb than funny or more funny than dumb. Hard to decide. Don't you get it? Presentism is mostly used as a critique, trying to apply modern day terms to the past where they don't belong, and you're the one who is doing that, not me. Summary: Slavery was the cause is a northern lie. No valid evidence to back that up, just keep repeating as if it proves anything except you are a Lost Causer. You've proven slavery was not the cause--to yourself and nobody else here. Southerners were perfect and never wrong, thus they never made mistakes or miscalculations. Sure. I can't recall making anything up, unless by mistake. How can one double down on something one believes? I've just been repeating the things I've believed for many years. A heap of Lost Cause nonsense is not going to change my mind. Do you seriously think there are not hundreds of Civil War historians out there who support the slavery was the cause narrative? You must have come across at least some of them over the years. Why bother to list them or give lengthy quotes from their work. Anyone can do that themselves. What are critical thinkers? They are people who believe in the Lost Cause. Anyone who doesn't believe in it is not a critical thinkers. QED. Wacky definitions~Cultist. Cultists are a small group of people who all believe in a certain thing. By that definition Lost Causers are the true cultists, except in PC's upside down world. Day-um. Poor Paleo.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 27, 2023 3:58:41 GMT
No, my idea is that people that believe the lie that slavery was the South's cause have not looked at the evidence, or worse, they have willfully ignored it as you have. An objective critical thinker is and should be uncomfortable with the kind of narrative that you have embraced. The Righteous Cause Myth that you have dedicated yourself to is a cartoonish, shallow soundbite style narrative that is characterized by being triggered by the word slavery which halts further curiosity about any other contradictory details.
Glass houses, cultist. It's pretty hypocritical for a guy who has been peddling the falshood that slavery was the South's cause to stupidly pretend that anyone else is peddling something untrue. That quote from Marx is readily available without even providing the source; if I'd wanted to mislead I sure as hell wouldn't have provided the link to the article, would I?
What's fun to watch is the involuntary hypocrisy that destroys your credibility. By pointing out that the British press thought that the conflict was was over tariffs and economic issues, you've given us another set of "experts" to compete with your modern historians. British "experts", in a country that had long ago done away with slavery, would not have the tariff opinion if it was unfounded and unsupported, but you dismiss their opinion out of hand because its yet more evidence that contradicts your fairy tale.
If you were objective at all, if you were a critical thinker at all, you would ask yourself "what if the British press writers, who were 19th century contemporaries, were right and these modern historians, more than a century after the conflict, are wrong?"
And I provided a link proving that Marx was a putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of filth. Evidence, remember?
And "woke" and "triggered" are about you, but they are completely valid to describe historians that think like you. It's called presentism, and it's a way of looking at the past through the lens of the present, often judging historical figures and events by modern standards and values.
So, let's summarize our dance during this four month old thread.
I've proven that slavery was not the South's cause and provided plenty evidence to create a reasonable doubt about the slavery cause lie.
All you've done is repeat a blanket denial without any evidence to back that up.
I've called you out for making stuff up and concocting goofy garbage like the idea that the Southerners must have been too dumb to realize what they were doing.
All you've done is double down on that same unfounded fiction.
I've challenged you to support your narrative with quotes from the historians that you use like a shield.
All you've done is run away while repeating that same empty claim without ever backing up that claim.
You're not a credible foe, cultist..... just a persistent one.
No, they have looked at the evidence and found it wanting. Why would a critical thinker be uncomfortable with the idea that slavery was the cause? No reason they should be. But for you they can't be critical thinkers because they disagree with you. That's basically what it's all about, nothing else matters. Talk about shallow and cartoonish. But I don't consider slavery was the cause a falsehood, so there is no hypocrisy in saying that the tariff boys got it wrong. You were trying to mislead, you just didn't do a very good job of it. You put the quote out there by itself as if it was Marx's own opinion and not that of some of the British press. Why you also linked an article that made it clear it was not Marx's opinion I don't know. They weren't experts, they were journalists. And maybe journalists who were more interested in the economic impact of tariffs than in slavery. The British had not done away with slavery long ago. It had been outlawed in 1833 and was a gradual measure, freeing the last slaves in 1840. I suppose if these journalists knew what they were talking about because they were alive during that period, I suppose that also applies to those who supported the Corwin Amendment. All your link to Marx proved was that he was not a good provider or family man. That's quite different from being a sick, putrid, perverted, lying piece of filth. I hope I got the whole thing. Complex, detailed, and objective portrait for sure. It's called bs, a futile attempt to drag concepts from 2023 into the Civil War era. More dumb than funny or more funny than dumb. Hard to decide. Don't you get it? Presentism is mostly used as a critique, trying to apply modern day terms to the past where they don't belong, and you're the one who is doing that, not me. Summary: Slavery was the cause is a northern lie. No valid evidence to back that up, just keep repeating as if it proves anything except you are a Lost Causer. You've proven slavery was not the cause--to yourself and nobody else here. Southerners were perfect and never wrong, thus they never made mistakes or miscalculations. Sure. I can't recall making anything up, unless by mistake. How can one double down on something one believes? I've just been repeating the things I've believed for many years. A heap of Lost Cause nonsense is not going to change my mind. Do you seriously think there are not hundreds of Civil War historians out there who support the slavery was the cause narrative? You must have come across at least some of them over the years. Why bother to list them or give lengthy quotes from their work. Anyone can do that themselves. What are critical thinkers? They are people who believe in the Lost Cause. Anyone who doesn't believe in it is not a critical thinkers. QED. Wacky definitions~Cultist. Cultists are a small group of people who all believe in a certain thing. By that definition Lost Causers are the true cultists, except in PC's upside down world. No, those people have cherry picked the screeds of a handful of elitists after being triggered by the word slavery, just like you. And a critical thinker would realize how stupid he is for ever thinking that something as cartoonish as slavery is the only or even the primary cause of the South when there is so much evidence contradicting that lie.
"But for you they can't be critical thinkers because they disagree with you". Claiming that's what I mean has always been a lie, but that's really all you have left, isn't it, cultist?
I've proven that slavery as the cause is a lie, so you can't claim ignorance as an excuse for repeating the lie. You haven't given any evidence that the tariff cause was not the primary motivation of the South, while I've put forth plenty of information that would cause anyone with an ounce of objectivity to question the notion that slavery was the cause.
You are unbelievable...I point out the stupidity of pretending that I was trying to mislead someone even though I linked to the article with the context and what's your response to the clear evidence damning your false accusation? ...."I don't know" say HolyMoly. SMH. It's like I'm debating with Butt-head from the cartoon.
And this has to go down as one of the most laughably false excuses that you've attempted to date: "they weren't experts, they were journalists." You just can't make this stuff up, but you sure are giving it a shot. That line from you tells me that you don't have bloody clue what journalists and historians do and how similar their professions are. Historians tend to dig into events long after they are over while journalists do the same in real time as the events are happening. Journalists, unlike many historians, can speak directly to those making history and even witness history as it's happening and get far more complex and contemporary perspectives.
Dismissing journalists as non-experts despite the fact that they REPORT/RECORD HISTORY in real time exposes a desperate denialism on your part that is endemic to your cult and chronic in most of your posts here.
Almost 30 years had passed from the British end to slavery to the beginning of the American conflict; that's not a short time, therefore it is a ______ time. Got it? On Corwin, remember that the Northerners failed completely with Corwin which means that failed to know what they were talking about. You raise hell because I allegedly left out context on Marx, but you always try to leave out the fact that Corwin failed spectacularly, proving that slavery was not the South's cause when protection was offered and rejected.
And you didn't even read the article on Marx, did you? It ain't just about his family and lack of responsibility; I've posted this before but you don't do details, do you?
Marx, despite being of Jewish descent, was virulently antisemitic. One biographer notes that his correspondence is “filled with contemptuous remarks about Jews.”
Marx said the “worldly cult of the Jew” was haggling, and that the Jew’s “worldly god” was money. Marx also spoke in a racist, condescending manner of blacks, referring to one as a “gorilla.”
thefederalist.com/2020/11/30/karl-marxs-shameful-life-repudiates-his-evil-ideology/
Putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of evil filth is not hyperbole in Marx's case. In addition to his personal evil, his philosophy resulted in the slaughter of a hundred million people in the two largest Communist regimes in the 20th century.
And once again, you don't get it. Woke and triggered aren't being applied to the history. They are accurate descriptions of your attitude towards history. Unless you're a piece of history, those modern terms are certainly appropriate. And you don't know squat about the term "presentism"; it's not a "critique" it's the use of modern biases to judge historical cause and events.
Reality:
Claiming that slavery was the South's cause is not true.
Claiming that there's no evidence proving that slavery was not the South's cause is not true.
Claiming that the South was too dumb to realize that secession damaged slavery is not only not true but pretty stupid to boot (and there's the proof that you make stuff up).
Claiming that the South completely rejected Corwin because it was just too late for seceded states is not true and not supported by any evidence (and ignores the eight slave states still in the Union).
Claiming that the South wasn't offering to end slavery in exchange for intervention in 1862 is not true, and your denial of the evidence corroborating that fact makes you look pretty foolish.
Claiming that your narrative is settled history because there are unnamed, unquoted historians out there by the hundreds is not true.
Thinking that you have any credibility here despite your utter failure to show any evidence to back up your fairy tail is just too funny, but still untrue.
That's a lot of untruths. I think that we've identified your problem.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Aug 27, 2023 21:40:19 GMT
No, they have looked at the evidence and found it wanting. Why would a critical thinker be uncomfortable with the idea that slavery was the cause? No reason they should be. But for you they can't be critical thinkers because they disagree with you. That's basically what it's all about, nothing else matters. Talk about shallow and cartoonish. But I don't consider slavery was the cause a falsehood, so there is no hypocrisy in saying that the tariff boys got it wrong. You were trying to mislead, you just didn't do a very good job of it. You put the quote out there by itself as if it was Marx's own opinion and not that of some of the British press. Why you also linked an article that made it clear it was not Marx's opinion I don't know. They weren't experts, they were journalists. And maybe journalists who were more interested in the economic impact of tariffs than in slavery. The British had not done away with slavery long ago. It had been outlawed in 1833 and was a gradual measure, freeing the last slaves in 1840. I suppose if these journalists knew what they were talking about because they were alive during that period, I suppose that also applies to those who supported the Corwin Amendment. All your link to Marx proved was that he was not a good provider or family man. That's quite different from being a sick, putrid, perverted, lying piece of filth. I hope I got the whole thing. Complex, detailed, and objective portrait for sure. It's called bs, a futile attempt to drag concepts from 2023 into the Civil War era. More dumb than funny or more funny than dumb. Hard to decide. Don't you get it? Presentism is mostly used as a critique, trying to apply modern day terms to the past where they don't belong, and you're the one who is doing that, not me. Summary: Slavery was the cause is a northern lie. No valid evidence to back that up, just keep repeating as if it proves anything except you are a Lost Causer. You've proven slavery was not the cause--to yourself and nobody else here. Southerners were perfect and never wrong, thus they never made mistakes or miscalculations. Sure. I can't recall making anything up, unless by mistake. How can one double down on something one believes? I've just been repeating the things I've believed for many years. A heap of Lost Cause nonsense is not going to change my mind. Do you seriously think there are not hundreds of Civil War historians out there who support the slavery was the cause narrative? You must have come across at least some of them over the years. Why bother to list them or give lengthy quotes from their work. Anyone can do that themselves. What are critical thinkers? They are people who believe in the Lost Cause. Anyone who doesn't believe in it is not a critical thinkers. QED. Wacky definitions~Cultist. Cultists are a small group of people who all believe in a certain thing. By that definition Lost Causers are the true cultists, except in PC's upside down world. No, those people have cherry picked the screeds of a handful of elitists after being triggered by the word slavery, just like you. And a critical thinker would realize how stupid he is for ever thinking that something as cartoonish as slavery is the only or even the primary cause of the South when there is so much evidence contradicting that lie.
"But for you they can't be critical thinkers because they disagree with you". Claiming that's what I mean has always been a lie, but that's really all you have left, isn't it, cultist?
I've proven that slavery as the cause is a lie, so you can't claim ignorance as an excuse for repeating the lie. You haven't given any evidence that the tariff cause was not the primary motivation of the South, while I've put forth plenty of information that would cause anyone with an ounce of objectivity to question the notion that slavery was the cause.
You are unbelievable...I point out the stupidity of pretending that I was trying to mislead someone even though I linked to the article with the context and what's your response to the clear evidence damning your false accusation? ...."I don't know" say HolyMoly. SMH. It's like I'm debating with Butt-head from the cartoon.
And this has to go down as one of the most laughably false excuses that you've attempted to date: "they weren't experts, they were journalists." You just can't make this stuff up, but you sure are giving it a shot. That line from you tells me that you don't have bloody clue what journalists and historians do and how similar their professions are. Historians tend to dig into events long after they are over while journalists do the same in real time as the events are happening. Journalists, unlike many historians, can speak directly to those making history and even witness history as it's happening and get far more complex and contemporary perspectives.
Dismissing journalists as non-experts despite the fact that they REPORT/RECORD HISTORY in real time exposes a desperate denialism on your part that is endemic to your cult and chronic in most of your posts here.
Almost 30 years had passed from the British end to slavery to the beginning of the American conflict; that's not a short time, therefore it is a ______ time. Got it? On Corwin, remember that the Northerners failed completely with Corwin which means that failed to know what they were talking about. You raise hell because I allegedly left out context on Marx, but you always try to leave out the fact that Corwin failed spectacularly, proving that slavery was not the South's cause when protection was offered and rejected.
And you didn't even read the article on Marx, did you? It ain't just about his family and lack of responsibility; I've posted this before but you don't do details, do you?
Marx, despite being of Jewish descent, was virulently antisemitic. One biographer notes that his correspondence is “filled with contemptuous remarks about Jews.”
Marx said the “worldly cult of the Jew” was haggling, and that the Jew’s “worldly god” was money. Marx also spoke in a racist, condescending manner of blacks, referring to one as a “gorilla.”
thefederalist.com/2020/11/30/karl-marxs-shameful-life-repudiates-his-evil-ideology/
Putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of evil filth is not hyperbole in Marx's case. In addition to his personal evil, his philosophy resulted in the slaughter of a hundred million people in the two largest Communist regimes in the 20th century.
And once again, you don't get it. Woke and triggered aren't being applied to the history. They are accurate descriptions of your attitude towards history. Unless you're a piece of history, those modern terms are certainly appropriate. And you don't know squat about the term "presentism"; it's not a "critique" it's the use of modern biases to judge historical cause and events.
Reality:
Claiming that slavery was the South's cause is not true.
Claiming that there's no evidence proving that slavery was not the South's cause is not true.
Claiming that the South was too dumb to realize that secession damaged slavery is not only not true but pretty stupid to boot (and there's the proof that you make stuff up).
Claiming that the South completely rejected Corwin because it was just too late for seceded states is not true and not supported by any evidence (and ignores the eight slave states still in the Union).
Claiming that the South wasn't offering to end slavery in exchange for intervention in 1862 is not true, and your denial of the evidence corroborating that fact makes you look pretty foolish.
Claiming that your narrative is settled history because there are unnamed, unquoted historians out there by the hundreds is not true.
Thinking that you have any credibility here despite your utter failure to show any evidence to back up your fairy tail is just too funny, but still untrue.
That's a lot of untruths. I think that we've identified your problem.
Nobody is triggered by the word slavery, just as no one is trigged by the word anti-Semitism when talking about Nazis. It's only natural to use both words. You just stated in the sentence above that no critical thinker can believe that slavery was the cause of secession. So again, your definition of critical thinker is anyone who believes in the Lost Cause. Totally clueless again. I get a laugh out of your method of proving things. You say you've proven x. How have you proven x? You say you have proven x. It's not an argument, it's like a magic word. Trouble is you've proven nothing except to yourself. Hilarious. You use a misquote to try to defend your first misquote. You can't admit that you were trying to say that Marx thought tariffs were the cause, when he was quoting the opinion of parts of the British press. Then you say I don't know without any context. What I said was why you linked an article that showed this was not Marx's opinion I don't know. I still don't. The link made it clear about Marx's quote, but you just quoted it as if it was Marx's own opinion. But why would you want to quote a putrid lying pervert to bolster your tariff case? The whole thing is a circus sideshow and you're the misquoting clown. You have a higher opinion of mid 19th century journalists than I have. In the U.S. most of the major papers represented a political party or ideology and their content reflected that. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar situation in Britain. So I would be skeptical about journalists being anything like historians. 30 years is not a long time, it's a short time. Get it? Corwin wasn't rejected. Most of the future Confederate states had already seceded. I did read the article about Marx. Some of the things mentioned I already knew, some others I didn't. But I wouldn't depend on one article about Marx. To do so would be shallow and simplistic and lack complexity and detail. So he didn't attend his wife' funeral, he didn't attend his dog's funeral. Big deal. That has nothing to do with his political writings and opinions. Marx never killed anyone, so far as I know. Neither is he responsible for what others did over 30 years after his death. Remember, according to you 30 years is a long time. Presentism is a critique of using modern concepts to talk about events in the past. Presentism is what you're doing. You're using modern terms that do not apply to the Civil War era. Terms you throw in for some reason. Maybe in a vain attempt to show that only leftists believe that slavery was the cause. Which is another one of your foolish notions. Reality: Wrong x 6. You still haven't provided any worthwhile evidence that the Confederacy was promising in 1862 to give up slavery for intervention. Zip. Yes, you do have a lot of untruths. My problem is I don't fall for your Lost Cause idiocy, which to me is no problem at all.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 29, 2023 20:59:55 GMT
No, those people have cherry picked the screeds of a handful of elitists after being triggered by the word slavery, just like you. And a critical thinker would realize how stupid he is for ever thinking that something as cartoonish as slavery is the only or even the primary cause of the South when there is so much evidence contradicting that lie.
"But for you they can't be critical thinkers because they disagree with you". Claiming that's what I mean has always been a lie, but that's really all you have left, isn't it, cultist?
I've proven that slavery as the cause is a lie, so you can't claim ignorance as an excuse for repeating the lie. You haven't given any evidence that the tariff cause was not the primary motivation of the South, while I've put forth plenty of information that would cause anyone with an ounce of objectivity to question the notion that slavery was the cause.
You are unbelievable...I point out the stupidity of pretending that I was trying to mislead someone even though I linked to the article with the context and what's your response to the clear evidence damning your false accusation? ...."I don't know" say HolyMoly. SMH. It's like I'm debating with Butt-head from the cartoon.
And this has to go down as one of the most laughably false excuses that you've attempted to date: "they weren't experts, they were journalists." You just can't make this stuff up, but you sure are giving it a shot. That line from you tells me that you don't have bloody clue what journalists and historians do and how similar their professions are. Historians tend to dig into events long after they are over while journalists do the same in real time as the events are happening. Journalists, unlike many historians, can speak directly to those making history and even witness history as it's happening and get far more complex and contemporary perspectives.
Dismissing journalists as non-experts despite the fact that they REPORT/RECORD HISTORY in real time exposes a desperate denialism on your part that is endemic to your cult and chronic in most of your posts here.
Almost 30 years had passed from the British end to slavery to the beginning of the American conflict; that's not a short time, therefore it is a ______ time. Got it? On Corwin, remember that the Northerners failed completely with Corwin which means that failed to know what they were talking about. You raise hell because I allegedly left out context on Marx, but you always try to leave out the fact that Corwin failed spectacularly, proving that slavery was not the South's cause when protection was offered and rejected.
And you didn't even read the article on Marx, did you? It ain't just about his family and lack of responsibility; I've posted this before but you don't do details, do you?
Marx, despite being of Jewish descent, was virulently antisemitic. One biographer notes that his correspondence is “filled with contemptuous remarks about Jews.”
Marx said the “worldly cult of the Jew” was haggling, and that the Jew’s “worldly god” was money. Marx also spoke in a racist, condescending manner of blacks, referring to one as a “gorilla.”
thefederalist.com/2020/11/30/karl-marxs-shameful-life-repudiates-his-evil-ideology/
Putrid, sick, perverted, lying piece of evil filth is not hyperbole in Marx's case. In addition to his personal evil, his philosophy resulted in the slaughter of a hundred million people in the two largest Communist regimes in the 20th century.
And once again, you don't get it. Woke and triggered aren't being applied to the history. They are accurate descriptions of your attitude towards history. Unless you're a piece of history, those modern terms are certainly appropriate. And you don't know squat about the term "presentism"; it's not a "critique" it's the use of modern biases to judge historical cause and events.
Reality:
Claiming that slavery was the South's cause is not true.
Claiming that there's no evidence proving that slavery was not the South's cause is not true.
Claiming that the South was too dumb to realize that secession damaged slavery is not only not true but pretty stupid to boot (and there's the proof that you make stuff up).
Claiming that the South completely rejected Corwin because it was just too late for seceded states is not true and not supported by any evidence (and ignores the eight slave states still in the Union).
Claiming that the South wasn't offering to end slavery in exchange for intervention in 1862 is not true, and your denial of the evidence corroborating that fact makes you look pretty foolish.
Claiming that your narrative is settled history because there are unnamed, unquoted historians out there by the hundreds is not true.
Thinking that you have any credibility here despite your utter failure to show any evidence to back up your fairy tail is just too funny, but still untrue.
That's a lot of untruths. I think that we've identified your problem.
Nobody is triggered by the word slavery, just as no one is trigged by the word anti-Semitism when talking about Nazis. It's only natural to use both words. You just stated in the sentence above that no critical thinker can believe that slavery was the cause of secession. So again, your definition of critical thinker is anyone who believes in the Lost Cause. Totally clueless again. I get a laugh out of your method of proving things. You say you've proven x. How have you proven x? You say you have proven x. It's not an argument, it's like a magic word. Trouble is you've proven nothing except to yourself. Hilarious. You use a misquote to try to defend your first misquote. You can't admit that you were trying to say that Marx thought tariffs were the cause, when he was quoting the opinion of parts of the British press. Then you say I don't know without any context. What I said was why you linked an article that showed this was not Marx's opinion I don't know. I still don't. The link made it clear about Marx's quote, but you just quoted it as if it was Marx's own opinion. But why would you want to quote a putrid lying pervert to bolster your tariff case? The whole thing is a circus sideshow and you're the misquoting clown. You have a higher opinion of mid 19th century journalists than I have. In the U.S. most of the major papers represented a political party or ideology and their content reflected that. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar situation in Britain. So I would be skeptical about journalists being anything like historians. 30 years is not a long time, it's a short time. Get it? Corwin wasn't rejected. Most of the future Confederate states had already seceded. I did read the article about Marx. Some of the things mentioned I already knew, some others I didn't. But I wouldn't depend on one article about Marx. To do so would be shallow and simplistic and lack complexity and detail. So he didn't attend his wife' funeral, he didn't attend his dog's funeral. Big deal. That has nothing to do with his political writings and opinions. Marx never killed anyone, so far as I know. Neither is he responsible for what others did over 30 years after his death. Remember, according to you 30 years is a long time. Presentism is a critique of using modern concepts to talk about events in the past. Presentism is what you're doing. You're using modern terms that do not apply to the Civil War era. Terms you throw in for some reason. Maybe in a vain attempt to show that only leftists believe that slavery was the cause. Which is another one of your foolish notions. Reality: Wrong x 6. You still haven't provided any worthwhile evidence that the Confederacy was promising in 1862 to give up slavery for intervention. Zip. Yes, you do have a lot of untruths. My problem is I don't fall for your Lost Cause idiocy, which to me is no problem at all. How'd you get this ignorant on word definitions? At least you're consistent...lazy at history and lazy at word meanings.
Triggered: caused to feel an intense and usually negative emotional reaction : affected by an emotional trigger www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/triggeredInstead of your typical emotional response to your sacred and holy trigger word "slavery", you still need to open your eyes to the more complex and contradictory details that point to the actual causes that cumulatively, reflect the deeper, honorable and just Southern motivation that mirrored the Patriots of the Revolution. Deny it all you like, but your entire narrative is based on a refusal to consider the finer details of history because they might conflict with the "slavery was the cause" myth that you desperately want and need to remain intact. "No critical thinker can believe that slavery was the cause of secession" BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE that I have already provided, not because I say so. You left off that vital context, which is pretty hypocritical after your childish whining about the Marx quote. I've never seen anyone on a discussion forum as forgetful as you are. You've already admitted to forgetting quotes and evidence that I added earlier in this thread. Unlike a simplistic reactionary like you, I've added the quotes, evidence, historical accounts necessary to back my ideas and a common sense evaluation that's clear throughout the many pages of this thread. You've done none of that; instead, you give us your standard "nuh-uh!" as an excuse to avoid providing evidence of your own. Misquote? Didn't you say "I don't know" as to why I linked the article? That link to the article proves that I was not trying to mislead or misquote, which makes it dishonest to claim that I did intended to do so. Got it now? You don't do well with complex reasoning, do you? Unlike you, I look for the truth wherever it leads me, even if it's truth from a "putrid lying pervert". Real history is looking into those corners where your preconceptions might be challenged. You wouldn't understand as it appears that you've never ventured past your comfortable brainwashing to see what else there is. And right on cue, HolyMoly's response will be "Nuh-uh!" Of course Corwin was completely rejected; it was never even considered by the Southern states, even those who hadn't seceded. And you can't even support your garbage idea that it was somehow "too late" for the seceded states, whose primary reason for seceding was the freedom to make their own decisions, not slavery.
Wrong...Marx's philosophy killed tens of millions. As I have proven, Marx ridiculed blacks and Jews. Your defense of that filth tells us quite a bit about you.
Wrong....your alleged definition of presentism is not correct. The words "woke" and "triggered" describe you and your false 21st century take on history. But once again, your defense mechanism is to makes stuff up rather than have your limitations exposed.
Wrong......there is clear evidence that the Confederacy was soliciting intervention in exchange for abolition in 1862. You've provided nothing that shows that the sources were false or incorrect, but you like to play a little game called moving the goalposts. Nothing I provide would be good enough as evidence to sway a cultist like you.
Reality: Absolutely right x 6. Let's recap:
Claiming that slavery was the South's cause? Not true. Never was.
Claiming that there's no evidence proving that slavery was not the South's cause? Stupidly false, but give HolyMoly a break....he forgets stuff.
Claiming that the South was too dumb to realize that secession damaged slavery? Fiction, nothing but made up nonsense.
Claiming that the South completely rejected Corwin because it was just too late for seceded states to change their minds? Another made up, empty excuse, nothing more.
Claiming that the South wasn't offering to end slavery in exchange for intervention in 1862? I've proven that they did, but there will never be enough "worthwhile" proof to satisfy a zealot brainwashed with the Northern lies.
Claiming that your narrative is settled history because there are unnamed, unquoted historians out there by the hundreds? HM runs away instead of providing evidence from any of these historians.
I'm afraid that, on this thread, the untruths are all yours.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Aug 29, 2023 22:06:00 GMT
Nobody is triggered by the word slavery, just as no one is trigged by the word anti-Semitism when talking about Nazis. It's only natural to use both words. You just stated in the sentence above that no critical thinker can believe that slavery was the cause of secession. So again, your definition of critical thinker is anyone who believes in the Lost Cause. Totally clueless again. I get a laugh out of your method of proving things. You say you've proven x. How have you proven x? You say you have proven x. It's not an argument, it's like a magic word. Trouble is you've proven nothing except to yourself. Hilarious. You use a misquote to try to defend your first misquote. You can't admit that you were trying to say that Marx thought tariffs were the cause, when he was quoting the opinion of parts of the British press. Then you say I don't know without any context. What I said was why you linked an article that showed this was not Marx's opinion I don't know. I still don't. The link made it clear about Marx's quote, but you just quoted it as if it was Marx's own opinion. But why would you want to quote a putrid lying pervert to bolster your tariff case? The whole thing is a circus sideshow and you're the misquoting clown. You have a higher opinion of mid 19th century journalists than I have. In the U.S. most of the major papers represented a political party or ideology and their content reflected that. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar situation in Britain. So I would be skeptical about journalists being anything like historians. 30 years is not a long time, it's a short time. Get it? Corwin wasn't rejected. Most of the future Confederate states had already seceded. I did read the article about Marx. Some of the things mentioned I already knew, some others I didn't. But I wouldn't depend on one article about Marx. To do so would be shallow and simplistic and lack complexity and detail. So he didn't attend his wife' funeral, he didn't attend his dog's funeral. Big deal. That has nothing to do with his political writings and opinions. Marx never killed anyone, so far as I know. Neither is he responsible for what others did over 30 years after his death. Remember, according to you 30 years is a long time. Presentism is a critique of using modern concepts to talk about events in the past. Presentism is what you're doing. You're using modern terms that do not apply to the Civil War era. Terms you throw in for some reason. Maybe in a vain attempt to show that only leftists believe that slavery was the cause. Which is another one of your foolish notions. Reality: Wrong x 6. You still haven't provided any worthwhile evidence that the Confederacy was promising in 1862 to give up slavery for intervention. Zip. Yes, you do have a lot of untruths. My problem is I don't fall for your Lost Cause idiocy, which to me is no problem at all. How'd you get this ignorant on word definitions? At least you're consistent...lazy at history and lazy at word meanings.
Triggered: caused to feel an intense and usually negative emotional reaction : affected by an emotional trigger www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/triggeredInstead of your typical emotional response to your sacred and holy trigger word "slavery", you still need to open your eyes to the more complex and contradictory details that point to the actual causes that cumulatively, reflect the deeper, honorable and just Southern motivation that mirrored the Patriots of the Revolution. Deny it all you like, but your entire narrative is based on a refusal to consider the finer details of history because they might conflict with the "slavery was the cause" myth that you desperately want and need to remain intact. "No critical thinker can believe that slavery was the cause of secession" BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE that I have already provided, not because I say so. You left off that vital context, which is pretty hypocritical after your childish whining about the Marx quote. I've never seen anyone on a discussion forum as forgetful as you are. You've already admitted to forgetting quotes and evidence that I added earlier in this thread. Unlike a simplistic reactionary like you, I've added the quotes, evidence, historical accounts necessary to back my ideas and a common sense evaluation that's clear throughout the many pages of this thread. You've done none of that; instead, you give us your standard "nuh-uh!" as an excuse to avoid providing evidence of your own. Misquote? Didn't you say "I don't know" as to why I linked the article? That link to the article proves that I was not trying to mislead or misquote, which makes it dishonest to claim that I did intended to do so. Got it now? You don't do well with complex reasoning, do you? Unlike you, I look for the truth wherever it leads me, even if it's truth from a "putrid lying pervert". Real history is looking into those corners where your preconceptions might be challenged. You wouldn't understand as it appears that you've never ventured past your comfortable brainwashing to see what else there is. And right on cue, HolyMoly's response will be "Nuh-uh!" Of course Corwin was completely rejected; it was never even considered by the Southern states, even those who hadn't seceded. And you can't even support your garbage idea that it was somehow "too late" for the seceded states, whose primary reason for seceding was the freedom to make their own decisions, not slavery.
Wrong...Marx's philosophy killed tens of millions. As I have proven, Marx ridiculed blacks and Jews. Your defense of that filth tells us quite a bit about you.
Wrong....your alleged definition of presentism is not correct. The words "woke" and "triggered" describe you and your false 21st century take on history. But once again, your defense mechanism is to makes stuff up rather than have your limitations exposed.
Wrong......there is clear evidence that the Confederacy was soliciting intervention in exchange for abolition in 1862. You've provided nothing that shows that the sources were false or incorrect, but you like to play a little game called moving the goalposts. Nothing I provide would be good enough as evidence to sway a cultist like you.
Reality: Absolutely right x 6. Let's recap:
Claiming that slavery was the South's cause? Not true. Never was.
Claiming that there's no evidence proving that slavery was not the South's cause? Stupidly false, but give HolyMoly a break....he forgets stuff.
Claiming that the South was too dumb to realize that secession damaged slavery? Fiction, nothing but made up nonsense.
Claiming that the South completely rejected Corwin because it was just too late for seceded states to change their minds? Another made up, empty excuse, nothing more.
Claiming that the South wasn't offering to end slavery in exchange for intervention in 1862? I've proven that they did, but there will never be enough "worthwhile" proof to satisfy a zealot brainwashed with the Northern lies.
Claiming that your narrative is settled history because there are unnamed, unquoted historians out there by the hundreds? HM runs away instead of providing evidence from any of these historians.
I'm afraid that, on this thread, the untruths are all yours.
Nobody is triggered by the word slavery. You can't leave out the word slavery when discussing the Civil War just as you can't leave out the word communism when discussing the Cold War. That doesn't mean one has a intense emotional reaction to either word. My narrative (and it's not really my narrative, it's mostly the narrative of previous historians) is based on the rejection of the ol' Lost Cause garbage. Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, slavery was still the cause. As before, your evidence is weak and unpersuasive, always has been. But apparently anyone who disagrees with this junk is not a critical thinker. Another laughable idea. Yes, I've forgotten a few words from months ago. Since it's mostly a lot of nonsense, I don't really regret forgetting it. I thought I was supposed to be a leftist. Now I'm a reactionary. Talk about trouble with definitions. Yes, I don't know why you linked the article since the article mentioned that the Marx quote was not his opinion of the matter but the opinion of the British press which he was disagreeing with. If you already knew that, why did you have the Marx quote by itself with no explanation of its context? Because you were trying to pull a fast one and make people think it was Marx's opinion and not that of the British press. You really don't think the stuff you put out needs complex reasoning do you? A five year old child could figure it out (now go out and find me a five year old child). Another challenge. Gee willikers. Marx's philosophy killed no one. The Soviets and the Chinese distorted version of Marx killed millions, not Marx or his philosophy. Yes, Marx did ridicule Jews and blacks, which has little to do with his writings. There is also controversy about whether he had a child out of wedlock, not that it matters one way or another. You are a splendid example of presentism. Introducing modern words and concepts into events from 150 years ago where they make no sense. That's presentism in a nutshell, emphasis on the nut. I like to play a game called show me the evidence, a game you lose every time. The only evidence you have for this supposed Confederate promise to exchange the abolition of slavery for recognition is letters from Border State Congressmen and a few newspaper accounts about rumors. Like I said, weak and unpersuasive. Recap II: Wrong x 6 again. Par for the course.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 29, 2023 22:50:45 GMT
How'd you get this ignorant on word definitions? At least you're consistent...lazy at history and lazy at word meanings.
Triggered: caused to feel an intense and usually negative emotional reaction : affected by an emotional trigger www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/triggeredInstead of your typical emotional response to your sacred and holy trigger word "slavery", you still need to open your eyes to the more complex and contradictory details that point to the actual causes that cumulatively, reflect the deeper, honorable and just Southern motivation that mirrored the Patriots of the Revolution. Deny it all you like, but your entire narrative is based on a refusal to consider the finer details of history because they might conflict with the "slavery was the cause" myth that you desperately want and need to remain intact. "No critical thinker can believe that slavery was the cause of secession" BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE that I have already provided, not because I say so. You left off that vital context, which is pretty hypocritical after your childish whining about the Marx quote. I've never seen anyone on a discussion forum as forgetful as you are. You've already admitted to forgetting quotes and evidence that I added earlier in this thread. Unlike a simplistic reactionary like you, I've added the quotes, evidence, historical accounts necessary to back my ideas and a common sense evaluation that's clear throughout the many pages of this thread. You've done none of that; instead, you give us your standard "nuh-uh!" as an excuse to avoid providing evidence of your own. Misquote? Didn't you say "I don't know" as to why I linked the article? That link to the article proves that I was not trying to mislead or misquote, which makes it dishonest to claim that I did intended to do so. Got it now? You don't do well with complex reasoning, do you? Unlike you, I look for the truth wherever it leads me, even if it's truth from a "putrid lying pervert". Real history is looking into those corners where your preconceptions might be challenged. You wouldn't understand as it appears that you've never ventured past your comfortable brainwashing to see what else there is. And right on cue, HolyMoly's response will be "Nuh-uh!" Of course Corwin was completely rejected; it was never even considered by the Southern states, even those who hadn't seceded. And you can't even support your garbage idea that it was somehow "too late" for the seceded states, whose primary reason for seceding was the freedom to make their own decisions, not slavery.
Wrong...Marx's philosophy killed tens of millions. As I have proven, Marx ridiculed blacks and Jews. Your defense of that filth tells us quite a bit about you.
Wrong....your alleged definition of presentism is not correct. The words "woke" and "triggered" describe you and your false 21st century take on history. But once again, your defense mechanism is to makes stuff up rather than have your limitations exposed.
Wrong......there is clear evidence that the Confederacy was soliciting intervention in exchange for abolition in 1862. You've provided nothing that shows that the sources were false or incorrect, but you like to play a little game called moving the goalposts. Nothing I provide would be good enough as evidence to sway a cultist like you.
Reality: Absolutely right x 6. Let's recap:
Claiming that slavery was the South's cause? Not true. Never was.
Claiming that there's no evidence proving that slavery was not the South's cause? Stupidly false, but give HolyMoly a break....he forgets stuff.
Claiming that the South was too dumb to realize that secession damaged slavery? Fiction, nothing but made up nonsense.
Claiming that the South completely rejected Corwin because it was just too late for seceded states to change their minds? Another made up, empty excuse, nothing more.
Claiming that the South wasn't offering to end slavery in exchange for intervention in 1862? I've proven that they did, but there will never be enough "worthwhile" proof to satisfy a zealot brainwashed with the Northern lies.
Claiming that your narrative is settled history because there are unnamed, unquoted historians out there by the hundreds? HM runs away instead of providing evidence from any of these historians.
I'm afraid that, on this thread, the untruths are all yours.
Nobody is triggered by the word slavery. You can't leave out the word slavery when discussing the Civil War just as you can't leave out the word communism when discussing the Cold War. That doesn't mean one has a intense emotional reaction to either word. My narrative (and it's not really my narrative, it's mostly the narrative of previous historians) is based on the rejection of the ol' Lost Cause garbage. Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, slavery was still the cause. As before, your evidence is weak and unpersuasive, always has been. But apparently anyone who disagrees with this junk is not a critical thinker. Another laughable idea. Yes, I've forgotten a few words from months ago. Since it's mostly a lot of nonsense, I don't really regret forgetting it. I thought I was supposed to be a leftist. Now I'm a reactionary. Talk about trouble with definitions. Yes, I don't know why you linked the article since the article mentioned that the Marx quote was not his opinion of the matter but the opinion of the British press which he was disagreeing with. If you already knew that, why did you have the Marx quote by itself with no explanation of its context? Because you were trying to pull a fast one and make people think it was Marx's opinion and not that of the British press. You really don't think the stuff you put out needs complex reasoning do you? A five year old child could figure it out (now go out and find me a five year old child). Another challenge. Gee willikers. Marx's philosophy killed no one. The Soviets and the Chinese distorted version of Marx killed millions, not Marx or his philosophy. Yes, Marx did ridicule Jews and blacks, which has little to do with his writings. There is also controversy about whether he had a child out of wedlock, not that it matters one way or another. You are a splendid example of presentism. Introducing modern words and concepts into events from 150 years ago where they make no sense. That's presentism in a nutshell, emphasis on the nut. I like to play a game called show me the evidence, a game you lose every time. The only evidence you have for this supposed Confederate promise to exchange the abolition of slavery for recognition is letters from Border State Congressmen and a few newspaper accounts about rumors. Like I said, weak and unpersuasive. Recap II: Wrong x 6 again. Par for the course. You've abandoned all historical curiosity by jumping to the false conclusion that slavery must have been the cause because experts say so. Yes, that IS as stupid as it sounds.
And my narrative is based on the truth, while yours is based on a lie that's been thoroughly and easily debunked by a novice like me. What's missing is any evidence from you that comes from these unnamed, unquoted historians of yours.
Here's what a close minded, brainwashed cultist looks like: "Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, slavery was still the cause." Does anyone really think that a person who would be that dismissive of additional information and context really cares about evidence?
He'd rather support a lie than listen to the uncomfortable truth. As I said "slavery as the South's cause" was, is and will continue to be, a lie. Consider what kind of fool embraces such an obviously unsupported lie.
So, a leftist can't be a reactionary? Are you kidding? You sound ridiculous, but that just matches the ridiculousness of your posts on this thread. You forgot stuff because you don't care about history and you don't care about the truth....it's just your sacred (false) narrative that matters. Stupid is getting on a history thread and being lazy enough to forget (or willfully dismiss) the historical details as you have.
Look at him squirm after I embarrassed him on his Marx quote falsehood. His little intellect can't fathom that I included the link so that anyone could see the context as long as they weren't stupid enough to make assumptions about my post before reading the article.
You've failed to make a dent in my reasoning or my evidence, which means that you just admitted that you're dumber than a five year old. I wouldn't even give you that much credit.
Oh, I see....the Russians and the Chinese just didn't do it right since they "distorted" the ideas of Marx. Funny how that keeps happening over and over and over again with Marx's ideas. I rarely see anyone foolish enough to still defend filth like Marx like this. Once again, your admiration of Marx shows your lack of intellectual curiosity into Marx's genocidal legacy, just as you have failed to get beyond your trigger word slavery in this discussion.
The only loser on this thread is you, cultist. And you're still clueless and wrong on presentism. I'm not applying modern terms to the history (I'm the guy showing you how to dig into uncomfortable details, remember?), I'm applying modern labels to YOU.
And my evidence...."letters from Border State Congressmen and a few newspaper accounts"....is hell and gone above the zero evidence that you've provided, despite being challenged to put up or shut up about your imaginary history experts.
Redux: Proven right x 6, despite your false denials and dismissal the have ruined your credibility. Beginning to think you never had any.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Aug 30, 2023 21:29:05 GMT
Nobody is triggered by the word slavery. You can't leave out the word slavery when discussing the Civil War just as you can't leave out the word communism when discussing the Cold War. That doesn't mean one has a intense emotional reaction to either word. My narrative (and it's not really my narrative, it's mostly the narrative of previous historians) is based on the rejection of the ol' Lost Cause garbage. Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, slavery was still the cause. As before, your evidence is weak and unpersuasive, always has been. But apparently anyone who disagrees with this junk is not a critical thinker. Another laughable idea. Yes, I've forgotten a few words from months ago. Since it's mostly a lot of nonsense, I don't really regret forgetting it. I thought I was supposed to be a leftist. Now I'm a reactionary. Talk about trouble with definitions. Yes, I don't know why you linked the article since the article mentioned that the Marx quote was not his opinion of the matter but the opinion of the British press which he was disagreeing with. If you already knew that, why did you have the Marx quote by itself with no explanation of its context? Because you were trying to pull a fast one and make people think it was Marx's opinion and not that of the British press. You really don't think the stuff you put out needs complex reasoning do you? A five year old child could figure it out (now go out and find me a five year old child). Another challenge. Gee willikers. Marx's philosophy killed no one. The Soviets and the Chinese distorted version of Marx killed millions, not Marx or his philosophy. Yes, Marx did ridicule Jews and blacks, which has little to do with his writings. There is also controversy about whether he had a child out of wedlock, not that it matters one way or another. You are a splendid example of presentism. Introducing modern words and concepts into events from 150 years ago where they make no sense. That's presentism in a nutshell, emphasis on the nut. I like to play a game called show me the evidence, a game you lose every time. The only evidence you have for this supposed Confederate promise to exchange the abolition of slavery for recognition is letters from Border State Congressmen and a few newspaper accounts about rumors. Like I said, weak and unpersuasive. Recap II: Wrong x 6 again. Par for the course. You've abandoned all historical curiosity by jumping to the false conclusion that slavery must have been the cause because experts say so. Yes, that IS as stupid as it sounds.
And my narrative is based on the truth, while yours is based on a lie that's been thoroughly and easily debunked by a novice like me. What's missing is any evidence from you that comes from these unnamed, unquoted historians of yours.
Here's what a close minded, brainwashed cultist looks like: "Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, slavery was still the cause." Does anyone really think that a person who would be that dismissive of additional information and context really cares about evidence?
He'd rather support a lie than listen to the uncomfortable truth. As I said "slavery as the South's cause" was, is and will continue to be, a lie. Consider what kind of fool embraces such an obviously unsupported lie.
So, a leftist can't be a reactionary? Are you kidding? You sound ridiculous, but that just matches the ridiculousness of your posts on this thread. You forgot stuff because you don't care about history and you don't care about the truth....it's just your sacred (false) narrative that matters. Stupid is getting on a history thread and being lazy enough to forget (or willfully dismiss) the historical details as you have.
Look at him squirm after I embarrassed him on his Marx quote falsehood. His little intellect can't fathom that I included the link so that anyone could see the context as long as they weren't stupid enough to make assumptions about my post before reading the article.
You've failed to make a dent in my reasoning or my evidence, which means that you just admitted that you're dumber than a five year old. I wouldn't even give you that much credit.
Oh, I see....the Russians and the Chinese just didn't do it right since they "distorted" the ideas of Marx. Funny how that keeps happening over and over and over again with Marx's ideas. I rarely see anyone foolish enough to still defend filth like Marx like this. Once again, your admiration of Marx shows your lack of intellectual curiosity into Marx's genocidal legacy, just as you have failed to get beyond your trigger word slavery in this discussion.
The only loser on this thread is you, cultist. And you're still clueless and wrong on presentism. I'm not applying modern terms to the history (I'm the guy showing you how to dig into uncomfortable details, remember?), I'm applying modern labels to YOU.
And my evidence...."letters from Border State Congressmen and a few newspaper accounts"....is hell and gone above the zero evidence that you've provided, despite being challenged to put up or shut up about your imaginary history experts.
Redux: Proven right x 6, despite your false denials and dismissal the have ruined your credibility. Beginning to think you never had any.
Yes, your first sentence is just as stupid as it sounds, to be followed by others. Historical curiosity is fine, but I came, not jumped, to the conclusion because the evidence for slavery as the cause is stronger, a lot stronger, than that for anything else. Sometimes the experts are right, as in this case. Yes, it's been thoroughly debunked in your own imagination and nowhere else. You keep on repeating it's a lie as if the more you repeat that the more true it becomes. Nope. Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, Hitler still started WWII. I am dismissive of your information because it is so weak. And many more "fools" embrace this "lie" than embrace the Lost Cause lie. Reactionary is a synonym for a conservative/right-winger. I suppose the next thing you'll say in your upside down world is that a conservative is a liberal and vice versa. I don't recall word for word a magazine article I read a few months ago, why would I remember something I read on the net months ago. I admit it, I don't have a photographic memory. Very few people do. Look at him squirm....so we're back to the imaginary audience shtick. You're the one who was embarrassed. You contradicted your own link by posting Marx's quote by itself as if he was saying tariffs were the reason for secession when he was disagreeing with that position, the one of the British press. Either you didn't read the link or read it and still lied about Marx's quote. Nobody can make a dent the beliefs of folks who live in an alternate reality. They're too deep into their rabbit hole. The political beliefs of the Soviet Union were Marxism-Leninism, an attempt, mostly by Stalin, to somehow meld Marx and Lenin, at least in theory. In practice it was just a dictatorship, later picked up by Mao. Marx had been dead for forty years and had no responsibility for what came after. So there is no genocidal legacy to be curious about. You're the guy who keeps on repeating ad nauseum the Lost Cause absurdities and expecting a different result. Insanity. The narrative I'm talking about goes back over a century, so you're still applying 2023 terms to speak about a century old history, presentism defined. You're bringing these terms into a discussion about the Civil War in a vain and silly attempt to link modern leftism to Civil War historiography. Another thing that ain't working. Why don't you dig into some details and find first-hand evidence of the 1862 Confederate offer to abolish slavery in return for intervention. Something better than second-hand info and newspaper rumors. Right, they are imaginary history experts. Because I don't cite them on this thread they don't actually exist. How idiotic your criticism is.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 31, 2023 17:21:30 GMT
You've abandoned all historical curiosity by jumping to the false conclusion that slavery must have been the cause because experts say so. Yes, that IS as stupid as it sounds.
And my narrative is based on the truth, while yours is based on a lie that's been thoroughly and easily debunked by a novice like me. What's missing is any evidence from you that comes from these unnamed, unquoted historians of yours.
Here's what a close minded, brainwashed cultist looks like: "Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, slavery was still the cause." Does anyone really think that a person who would be that dismissive of additional information and context really cares about evidence?
He'd rather support a lie than listen to the uncomfortable truth. As I said "slavery as the South's cause" was, is and will continue to be, a lie. Consider what kind of fool embraces such an obviously unsupported lie.
So, a leftist can't be a reactionary? Are you kidding? You sound ridiculous, but that just matches the ridiculousness of your posts on this thread. You forgot stuff because you don't care about history and you don't care about the truth....it's just your sacred (false) narrative that matters. Stupid is getting on a history thread and being lazy enough to forget (or willfully dismiss) the historical details as you have.
Look at him squirm after I embarrassed him on his Marx quote falsehood. His little intellect can't fathom that I included the link so that anyone could see the context as long as they weren't stupid enough to make assumptions about my post before reading the article.
You've failed to make a dent in my reasoning or my evidence, which means that you just admitted that you're dumber than a five year old. I wouldn't even give you that much credit.
Oh, I see....the Russians and the Chinese just didn't do it right since they "distorted" the ideas of Marx. Funny how that keeps happening over and over and over again with Marx's ideas. I rarely see anyone foolish enough to still defend filth like Marx like this. Once again, your admiration of Marx shows your lack of intellectual curiosity into Marx's genocidal legacy, just as you have failed to get beyond your trigger word slavery in this discussion.
The only loser on this thread is you, cultist. And you're still clueless and wrong on presentism. I'm not applying modern terms to the history (I'm the guy showing you how to dig into uncomfortable details, remember?), I'm applying modern labels to YOU.
And my evidence...."letters from Border State Congressmen and a few newspaper accounts"....is hell and gone above the zero evidence that you've provided, despite being challenged to put up or shut up about your imaginary history experts.
Redux: Proven right x 6, despite your false denials and dismissal the have ruined your credibility. Beginning to think you never had any.
Yes, your first sentence is just as stupid as it sounds, to be followed by others. Historical curiosity is fine, but I came, not jumped, to the conclusion because the evidence for slavery as the cause is stronger, a lot stronger, than that for anything else. Sometimes the experts are right, as in this case. Yes, it's been thoroughly debunked in your own imagination and nowhere else. You keep on repeating it's a lie as if the more you repeat that the more true it becomes. Nope. Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, Hitler still started WWII. I am dismissive of your information because it is so weak. And many more "fools" embrace this "lie" than embrace the Lost Cause lie. Reactionary is a synonym for a conservative/right-winger. I suppose the next thing you'll say in your upside down world is that a conservative is a liberal and vice versa. I don't recall word for word a magazine article I read a few months ago, why would I remember something I read on the net months ago. I admit it, I don't have a photographic memory. Very few people do. Look at him squirm....so we're back to the imaginary audience shtick. You're the one who was embarrassed. You contradicted your own link by posting Marx's quote by itself as if he was saying tariffs were the reason for secession when he was disagreeing with that position, the one of the British press. Either you didn't read the link or read it and still lied about Marx's quote. Nobody can make a dent the beliefs of folks who live in an alternate reality. They're too deep into their rabbit hole. The political beliefs of the Soviet Union were Marxism-Leninism, an attempt, mostly by Stalin, to somehow meld Marx and Lenin, at least in theory. In practice it was just a dictatorship, later picked up by Mao. Marx had been dead for forty years and had no responsibility for what came after. So there is no genocidal legacy to be curious about. You're the guy who keeps on repeating ad nauseum the Lost Cause absurdities and expecting a different result. Insanity. The narrative I'm talking about goes back over a century, so you're still applying 2023 terms to speak about a century old history, presentism defined. You're bringing these terms into a discussion about the Civil War in a vain and silly attempt to link modern leftism to Civil War historiography. Another thing that ain't working. Why don't you dig into some details and find first-hand evidence of the 1862 Confederate offer to abolish slavery in return for intervention. Something better than second-hand info and newspaper rumors. Right, they are imaginary history experts. Because I don't cite them on this thread they don't actually exist. How idiotic your criticism is. What a joke. No one believes your denials, because it's clear for all to see that you have abandoned any historical curiosity, just as you have abandoned common sense and objectivity. Your narrative is based on your biases and your emotional responses, not historical facts and a reasonable analysis of said facts. The alleged "evidence" for slavery as the cause has always been weak, as proven by my repeated refutation of that garbage. If the experts were "right" (they have lied to us all), why do you always run away when I challenge you to show us that evidence from that set of so-called experts? Despite your empty braggadocio, you simply look farcical when you can't back up your fairy tale at all. You've never been anything but all hat and no cattle on this thread. And a servile minion to the majority opinion.
The majority is always in the wrong. Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it's time to reform —(or pause and reflect). - Twain
“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” - Twain. Believing the lie that slavery was the South's cause is easy...it's safe...it's comfortable...it's popular...and it's the path of least resistance in a world that demands conformity. It requires no effort, no diligence, no research and no details, just blind adherence. If a person is, by nature, lazy and gullible, they are drawn to this dishonest fairy tale because it checks off all of their boxes showing how "enlightened" they can be. But that lie is not history and never was.
"Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, Hitler still started WWII." says the cultist. You don't even have the brains to differentiate between the rote repetition of historical names, events and dates with the analysis and interpretation of causes and motivations, do you?
As far as the "reactionary" label, you are the one defending the traditional, majority, status quo, allegedly "settled" narrative, not me. But your motivation for holding onto the Northern lie is modern wokeness and political correctness applied to 19th history, hence "presentism" (you're still clueless on the meaning of that term).
And your forgetfulness on this thread speaks to your lack of attention to complexities and details, which is consistent with your disdain for complexities and details related to the South's true motivation during that era. You prefer to stick with your slavish dedication to the Northern propaganda than a deep look at the uncomfortable, contradictory truth.
Claiming that there was any intent on my part to deceive with the Marx quote is the lie. You've embarrassed yourself after getting corrected by the link that I included with the quote. Are you so desperate to regain credibility that you've become obsessed with this made up fantasy about the Marx quote? Let it go, cultist, you lost....again.
I would never expect a "different result" from the likes of you. That would require you to suddenly become intelligent and objective at the same time, and there's just no hope for that ever happening. You need to face the fact that you will always be a conformist, a follower, a lemming on this subject, nothing more....a member of the herd, ready to be lead in whatever direction the crowd goes.
But here's reality: I've given you the truth and proven it to you. If no one else believes what I say and everyone joins you in your false beliefs, that doesn't change the reality that cause of the South was not slavery.
The truth, even if nobody believes it, is the truth. A lie will always stay a lie no matter how you say it. Even if all believe in a lie, it will not become the truth. - Unknown
Slavery as the Southern cause and motivation is THE lie.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,492
|
Post by thor on Aug 31, 2023 18:11:51 GMT
Yes, your first sentence is just as stupid as it sounds, to be followed by others. Historical curiosity is fine, but I came, not jumped, to the conclusion because the evidence for slavery as the cause is stronger, a lot stronger, than that for anything else. Sometimes the experts are right, as in this case. Yes, it's been thoroughly debunked in your own imagination and nowhere else. You keep on repeating it's a lie as if the more you repeat that the more true it becomes. Nope. Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, Hitler still started WWII. I am dismissive of your information because it is so weak. And many more "fools" embrace this "lie" than embrace the Lost Cause lie. Reactionary is a synonym for a conservative/right-winger. I suppose the next thing you'll say in your upside down world is that a conservative is a liberal and vice versa. I don't recall word for word a magazine article I read a few months ago, why would I remember something I read on the net months ago. I admit it, I don't have a photographic memory. Very few people do. Look at him squirm....so we're back to the imaginary audience shtick. You're the one who was embarrassed. You contradicted your own link by posting Marx's quote by itself as if he was saying tariffs were the reason for secession when he was disagreeing with that position, the one of the British press. Either you didn't read the link or read it and still lied about Marx's quote. Nobody can make a dent the beliefs of folks who live in an alternate reality. They're too deep into their rabbit hole. The political beliefs of the Soviet Union were Marxism-Leninism, an attempt, mostly by Stalin, to somehow meld Marx and Lenin, at least in theory. In practice it was just a dictatorship, later picked up by Mao. Marx had been dead for forty years and had no responsibility for what came after. So there is no genocidal legacy to be curious about. You're the guy who keeps on repeating ad nauseum the Lost Cause absurdities and expecting a different result. Insanity. The narrative I'm talking about goes back over a century, so you're still applying 2023 terms to speak about a century old history, presentism defined. You're bringing these terms into a discussion about the Civil War in a vain and silly attempt to link modern leftism to Civil War historiography. Another thing that ain't working. Why don't you dig into some details and find first-hand evidence of the 1862 Confederate offer to abolish slavery in return for intervention. Something better than second-hand info and newspaper rumors. Right, they are imaginary history experts. Because I don't cite them on this thread they don't actually exist. How idiotic your criticism is. What a joke. No one believes your denials, because it's clear for all to see that you have abandoned any historical curiosity, just as you have abandoned common sense and objectivity. Your narrative is based on your biases and your emotional responses, not historical facts and a reasonable analysis of said facts. The alleged "evidence" for slavery as the cause has always been weak, as proven by my repeated refutation of that garbage. If the experts were "right" (they have lied to us all), why do you always run away when I challenge you to show us that evidence from that set of so-called experts? Despite your empty braggadocio, you simply look farcical when you can't back up your fairy tale at all. You've never been anything but all hat and no cattle on this thread. And a servile minion to the majority opinion.
The majority is always in the wrong. Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it's time to reform —(or pause and reflect). - Twain
“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” - Twain. Believing the lie that slavery was the South's cause is easy...it's safe...it's comfortable...it's popular...and it's the path of least resistance in a world that demands conformity. It requires no effort, no diligence, no research and no details, just blind adherence. If a person is, by nature, lazy and gullible, they are drawn to this dishonest fairy tale because it checks off all of their boxes showing how "enlightened" they can be. But that lie is not history and never was.
"Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, Hitler still started WWII." says the cultist. You don't even have the brains to differentiate between the rote repetition of historical names, events and dates with the analysis and interpretation of causes and motivations, do you?
As far as the "reactionary" label, you are the one defending the traditional, majority, status quo, allegedly "settled" narrative, not me. But your motivation for holding onto the Northern lie is modern wokeness and political correctness applied to 19th history, hence "presentism" (you're still clueless on the meaning of that term).
And your forgetfulness on this thread speaks to your lack of attention to complexities and details, which is consistent with your disdain for complexities and details related to the South's true motivation during that era. You prefer to stick with your slavish dedication to the Northern propaganda than a deep look at the uncomfortable, contradictory truth.
Claiming that there was any intent on my part to deceive with the Marx quote is the lie. You've embarrassed yourself after getting corrected by the link that I included with the quote. Are you so desperate to regain credibility that you've become obsessed with this made up fantasy about the Marx quote? Let it go, cultist, you lost....again.
I would never expect a "different result" from the likes of you. That would require you to suddenly become intelligent and objective at the same time, and there's just no hope for that ever happening. You need to face the fact that you will always be a conformist, a follower, a lemming on this subject, nothing more....a member of the herd, ready to be lead in whatever direction the crowd goes.
But here's reality: I've given you the truth and proven it to you. If no one else believes what I say and everyone joins you in your false beliefs, that doesn't change the reality that cause of the South was not slavery.
The truth, even if nobody believes it, is the truth. A lie will always stay a lie no matter how you say it. Even if all believe in a lie, it will not become the truth. - Unknown
Slavery as the Southern cause and motivation is THE lie.
But wait....there's more... The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… Henry Wise, Congressman (and future governor) from Virginia: "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men." It must suck having a Black Hand whip your ass. Tell us again, filthy moral degenerate, how it was totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s', scumbag. Think the enslaved would have been OK with that? Why does your cowardly ass keep running from a simple question, Stupid Boy? Also, Self- government for WHOM, filthy degenerate scumbag? Further, degenerate, why are you excusing Andersonville?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 31, 2023 19:51:12 GMT
What a joke. No one believes your denials, because it's clear for all to see that you have abandoned any historical curiosity, just as you have abandoned common sense and objectivity. Your narrative is based on your biases and your emotional responses, not historical facts and a reasonable analysis of said facts. The alleged "evidence" for slavery as the cause has always been weak, as proven by my repeated refutation of that garbage. If the experts were "right" (they have lied to us all), why do you always run away when I challenge you to show us that evidence from that set of so-called experts? Despite your empty braggadocio, you simply look farcical when you can't back up your fairy tale at all. You've never been anything but all hat and no cattle on this thread. And a servile minion to the majority opinion.
The majority is always in the wrong. Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it's time to reform —(or pause and reflect). - Twain
“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” - Twain. Believing the lie that slavery was the South's cause is easy...it's safe...it's comfortable...it's popular...and it's the path of least resistance in a world that demands conformity. It requires no effort, no diligence, no research and no details, just blind adherence. If a person is, by nature, lazy and gullible, they are drawn to this dishonest fairy tale because it checks off all of their boxes showing how "enlightened" they can be. But that lie is not history and never was.
"Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, Hitler still started WWII." says the cultist. You don't even have the brains to differentiate between the rote repetition of historical names, events and dates with the analysis and interpretation of causes and motivations, do you?
As far as the "reactionary" label, you are the one defending the traditional, majority, status quo, allegedly "settled" narrative, not me. But your motivation for holding onto the Northern lie is modern wokeness and political correctness applied to 19th history, hence "presentism" (you're still clueless on the meaning of that term).
And your forgetfulness on this thread speaks to your lack of attention to complexities and details, which is consistent with your disdain for complexities and details related to the South's true motivation during that era. You prefer to stick with your slavish dedication to the Northern propaganda than a deep look at the uncomfortable, contradictory truth.
Claiming that there was any intent on my part to deceive with the Marx quote is the lie. You've embarrassed yourself after getting corrected by the link that I included with the quote. Are you so desperate to regain credibility that you've become obsessed with this made up fantasy about the Marx quote? Let it go, cultist, you lost....again.
I would never expect a "different result" from the likes of you. That would require you to suddenly become intelligent and objective at the same time, and there's just no hope for that ever happening. You need to face the fact that you will always be a conformist, a follower, a lemming on this subject, nothing more....a member of the herd, ready to be lead in whatever direction the crowd goes.
But here's reality: I've given you the truth and proven it to you. If no one else believes what I say and everyone joins you in your false beliefs, that doesn't change the reality that cause of the South was not slavery.
The truth, even if nobody believes it, is the truth. A lie will always stay a lie no matter how you say it. Even if all believe in a lie, it will not become the truth. - Unknown
Slavery as the Southern cause and motivation is THE lie.
But wait....there's more...The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… Henry Wise, Congressman (and future governor) from Virginia: "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men."It must suck having a Black Hand whip your ass.Tell us again, filthy moral degenerate, how it was totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s', scumbag.Think the enslaved would have been OK with that?Why does your cowardly ass keep running from a simple question, Stupid Boy?Also, Self- government for WHOM, filthy degenerate scumbag?Further, degenerate, why are you excusing Andersonville? You're the only one getting his ass kicked here. You were, are and always will be a joke on this forum. Another meaningless, anecdotal quote from another obscure elitist representing the South's one percenters doesn't even move the needle. You can't help being a dumbass, can you, boy?
You don't have the balls to contribute anything here but the same old anecdotal hit and run.
Only a liar claims that I ever claimed that it was "totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s'". And I'm hardly "excusing Andersonville" by pointing out that the impoverished South was starving at the same time that Andersonville prisoners were doing the same. Only a f*cking idiot would pretend that the South was supposed to let their own people starve just to coddle the perverted Union killers in that stockade. Those Yankee bastards were the ones trying to force the South into starvation and destruction before they were captured, yet the Confederates tried to care for them and tried to exchange them.
Anything else, eunuch?
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,492
|
Post by thor on Aug 31, 2023 20:23:31 GMT
But wait....there's more...The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… Henry Wise, Congressman (and future governor) from Virginia: "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men."It must suck having a Black Hand whip your ass.Tell us again, filthy moral degenerate, how it was totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s', scumbag.Think the enslaved would have been OK with that?Why does your cowardly ass keep running from a simple question, Stupid Boy?Also, Self- government for WHOM, filthy degenerate scumbag?Further, degenerate, why are you excusing Andersonville? You're the only one getting his ass kicked here. You were, are and always will be a joke on this forum. Another meaningless, anecdotal quote from another obscure elitist representing the South's one percenters doesn't even move the needle. You can't help being a dumbass, can you, boy?
You don't have the balls to contribute anything here but the same old anecdotal hit and run.
Only a liar claims that I ever claimed that it was "totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s'". And I'm hardly "excusing Andersonville" by pointing out that the impoverished South was starving at the same time that Andersonville prisoners were doing the same. Only a f*cking idiot would pretend that the South was supposed to let their own people starve just to coddle the perverted Union killers in that stockade. Those Yankee bastards were the ones trying to force the South into starvation and destruction before they were captured, yet the Confederates tried to care for them and tried to exchange them.
Anything else, eunuch?
STFU, Paleo. Reality has sodomized you on this thread for four months, now. It sucks to see a 'man' be as pathetic as you are, worshiping the enslavement of other humans.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Aug 31, 2023 20:49:58 GMT
Yes, your first sentence is just as stupid as it sounds, to be followed by others. Historical curiosity is fine, but I came, not jumped, to the conclusion because the evidence for slavery as the cause is stronger, a lot stronger, than that for anything else. Sometimes the experts are right, as in this case. Yes, it's been thoroughly debunked in your own imagination and nowhere else. You keep on repeating it's a lie as if the more you repeat that the more true it becomes. Nope. Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, Hitler still started WWII. I am dismissive of your information because it is so weak. And many more "fools" embrace this "lie" than embrace the Lost Cause lie. Reactionary is a synonym for a conservative/right-winger. I suppose the next thing you'll say in your upside down world is that a conservative is a liberal and vice versa. I don't recall word for word a magazine article I read a few months ago, why would I remember something I read on the net months ago. I admit it, I don't have a photographic memory. Very few people do. Look at him squirm....so we're back to the imaginary audience shtick. You're the one who was embarrassed. You contradicted your own link by posting Marx's quote by itself as if he was saying tariffs were the reason for secession when he was disagreeing with that position, the one of the British press. Either you didn't read the link or read it and still lied about Marx's quote. Nobody can make a dent the beliefs of folks who live in an alternate reality. They're too deep into their rabbit hole. The political beliefs of the Soviet Union were Marxism-Leninism, an attempt, mostly by Stalin, to somehow meld Marx and Lenin, at least in theory. In practice it was just a dictatorship, later picked up by Mao. Marx had been dead for forty years and had no responsibility for what came after. So there is no genocidal legacy to be curious about. You're the guy who keeps on repeating ad nauseum the Lost Cause absurdities and expecting a different result. Insanity. The narrative I'm talking about goes back over a century, so you're still applying 2023 terms to speak about a century old history, presentism defined. You're bringing these terms into a discussion about the Civil War in a vain and silly attempt to link modern leftism to Civil War historiography. Another thing that ain't working. Why don't you dig into some details and find first-hand evidence of the 1862 Confederate offer to abolish slavery in return for intervention. Something better than second-hand info and newspaper rumors. Right, they are imaginary history experts. Because I don't cite them on this thread they don't actually exist. How idiotic your criticism is. What a joke. No one believes your denials, because it's clear for all to see that you have abandoned any historical curiosity, just as you have abandoned common sense and objectivity. Your narrative is based on your biases and your emotional responses, not historical facts and a reasonable analysis of said facts. The alleged "evidence" for slavery as the cause has always been weak, as proven by my repeated refutation of that garbage. If the experts were "right" (they have lied to us all), why do you always run away when I challenge you to show us that evidence from that set of so-called experts? Despite your empty braggadocio, you simply look farcical when you can't back up your fairy tale at all. You've never been anything but all hat and no cattle on this thread. And a servile minion to the majority opinion.
The majority is always in the wrong. Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it's time to reform —(or pause and reflect). - Twain
“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” - Twain. Believing the lie that slavery was the South's cause is easy...it's safe...it's comfortable...it's popular...and it's the path of least resistance in a world that demands conformity. It requires no effort, no diligence, no research and no details, just blind adherence. If a person is, by nature, lazy and gullible, they are drawn to this dishonest fairy tale because it checks off all of their boxes showing how "enlightened" they can be. But that lie is not history and never was.
"Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, Hitler still started WWII." says the cultist. You don't even have the brains to differentiate between the rote repetition of historical names, events and dates with the analysis and interpretation of causes and motivations, do you?
As far as the "reactionary" label, you are the one defending the traditional, majority, status quo, allegedly "settled" narrative, not me. But your motivation for holding onto the Northern lie is modern wokeness and political correctness applied to 19th history, hence "presentism" (you're still clueless on the meaning of that term).
And your forgetfulness on this thread speaks to your lack of attention to complexities and details, which is consistent with your disdain for complexities and details related to the South's true motivation during that era. You prefer to stick with your slavish dedication to the Northern propaganda than a deep look at the uncomfortable, contradictory truth.
Claiming that there was any intent on my part to deceive with the Marx quote is the lie. You've embarrassed yourself after getting corrected by the link that I included with the quote. Are you so desperate to regain credibility that you've become obsessed with this made up fantasy about the Marx quote? Let it go, cultist, you lost....again.
I would never expect a "different result" from the likes of you. That would require you to suddenly become intelligent and objective at the same time, and there's just no hope for that ever happening. You need to face the fact that you will always be a conformist, a follower, a lemming on this subject, nothing more....a member of the herd, ready to be lead in whatever direction the crowd goes.
But here's reality: I've given you the truth and proven it to you. If no one else believes what I say and everyone joins you in your false beliefs, that doesn't change the reality that cause of the South was not slavery.
The truth, even if nobody believes it, is the truth. A lie will always stay a lie no matter how you say it. Even if all believe in a lie, it will not become the truth. - Unknown
Slavery as the Southern cause and motivation is THE lie.
Funny, it's an admittedly small sample, but no one believes your Lost Cause fantasy. One of the wingnut cop outs is you're emotional. This from the guy of monstrous filth and putrid liar fame. Very unemotional indeed. The evidence for slavery as the cause is very strong, which is why most historians believe it. I have historical curiosity. I still wonder what happened to Judge Crater. Strange as it is, Mark Twain has something in common with Joe Stalin--quotes attributed to them are often mistaken, so one has to be careful. The fast speed of a lie is attributed to the Irish writer Jonathan Swift not Twain. The one about the majority may also be a misattribution. Either way, it's more comical than anything else. So the Earth revolving around the Sun is wrong. Okayyy. Yes, history is full of details and complexities, but underlying them is a basic fact, like Hitler stared WWII and the south seceded because of the threat to slavery. Believing that slavery was the cause is correct, true, and has the evidence to support it. And then there's more of your absurd amateur irrelevant psychology about laziness and gullibility. You'd have to be gullible to fall for that garbage. What does wokeness and triggering have to do with written history from a century ago? I have believed in the slavery as the cause idea before than those words became popular. The Lost Cause fantasy is a reactionary one with nostalgia about the good old days of the antebellum South. You're a walking example of presentism, trying to use contemporary terms where they don't belong. There is no uncomfortable, contradictory truth, there is only the usual repetitive Lost Cause drivel that never gets any more persuasive no matter how many times it is repeated. Of course you were lying about the Marx quote and go caught at it. If you had been honest you would have given the context of the Marx quote but you didn't do that. You just had the quote that appeared to be Marx supporting the tariff cause, when it was just the opposite. I'd say that damages your credibility but you never had that much to begin with. And where is the first-hand evidence for the Confederacy promising to abolish slavery for intervention in 1862? MIA. You can't expect different results when you keep repeating t he same old nonsense and think that saying two or three times in every post that it was a lie, as if that proves anything. No matter how many times you say it, you'll still be wrong, and no matter how ever many dumb quotes you come up with, as if they prove anything either.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 31, 2023 22:36:50 GMT
What a joke. No one believes your denials, because it's clear for all to see that you have abandoned any historical curiosity, just as you have abandoned common sense and objectivity. Your narrative is based on your biases and your emotional responses, not historical facts and a reasonable analysis of said facts. The alleged "evidence" for slavery as the cause has always been weak, as proven by my repeated refutation of that garbage. If the experts were "right" (they have lied to us all), why do you always run away when I challenge you to show us that evidence from that set of so-called experts? Despite your empty braggadocio, you simply look farcical when you can't back up your fairy tale at all. You've never been anything but all hat and no cattle on this thread. And a servile minion to the majority opinion.
The majority is always in the wrong. Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it's time to reform —(or pause and reflect). - Twain
“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” - Twain. Believing the lie that slavery was the South's cause is easy...it's safe...it's comfortable...it's popular...and it's the path of least resistance in a world that demands conformity. It requires no effort, no diligence, no research and no details, just blind adherence. If a person is, by nature, lazy and gullible, they are drawn to this dishonest fairy tale because it checks off all of their boxes showing how "enlightened" they can be. But that lie is not history and never was.
"Throw in as many complexities and details as you want, Hitler still started WWII." says the cultist. You don't even have the brains to differentiate between the rote repetition of historical names, events and dates with the analysis and interpretation of causes and motivations, do you?
As far as the "reactionary" label, you are the one defending the traditional, majority, status quo, allegedly "settled" narrative, not me. But your motivation for holding onto the Northern lie is modern wokeness and political correctness applied to 19th history, hence "presentism" (you're still clueless on the meaning of that term).
And your forgetfulness on this thread speaks to your lack of attention to complexities and details, which is consistent with your disdain for complexities and details related to the South's true motivation during that era. You prefer to stick with your slavish dedication to the Northern propaganda than a deep look at the uncomfortable, contradictory truth.
Claiming that there was any intent on my part to deceive with the Marx quote is the lie. You've embarrassed yourself after getting corrected by the link that I included with the quote. Are you so desperate to regain credibility that you've become obsessed with this made up fantasy about the Marx quote? Let it go, cultist, you lost....again.
I would never expect a "different result" from the likes of you. That would require you to suddenly become intelligent and objective at the same time, and there's just no hope for that ever happening. You need to face the fact that you will always be a conformist, a follower, a lemming on this subject, nothing more....a member of the herd, ready to be lead in whatever direction the crowd goes.
But here's reality: I've given you the truth and proven it to you. If no one else believes what I say and everyone joins you in your false beliefs, that doesn't change the reality that cause of the South was not slavery.
The truth, even if nobody believes it, is the truth. A lie will always stay a lie no matter how you say it. Even if all believe in a lie, it will not become the truth. - Unknown
Slavery as the Southern cause and motivation is THE lie.
Funny, it's an admittedly small sample, but no one believes your Lost Cause fantasy. One of the wingnut cop outs is you're emotional. This from the guy of monstrous filth and putrid liar fame. Very unemotional indeed. The evidence for slavery as the cause is very strong, which is why most historians believe it. I have historical curiosity. I still wonder what happened to Judge Crater. Strange as it is, Mark Twain has something in common with Joe Stalin--quotes attributed to them are often mistaken, so one has to be careful. The fast speed of a lie is attributed to the Irish writer Jonathan Swift not Twain. The one about the majority may also be a misattribution. Either way, it's more comical than anything else. So the Earth revolving around the Sun is wrong. Okayyy. Yes, history is full of details and complexities, but underlying them is a basic fact, like Hitler stared WWII and the south seceded because of the threat to slavery. Believing that slavery was the cause is correct, true, and has the evidence to support it. And then there's more of your absurd amateur irrelevant psychology about laziness and gullibility. You'd have to be gullible to fall for that garbage. What does wokeness and triggering have to do with written history from a century ago? I have believed in the slavery as the cause idea before than those words became popular. The Lost Cause fantasy is a reactionary one with nostalgia about the good old days of the antebellum South. You're a walking example of presentism, trying to use contemporary terms where they don't belong. There is no uncomfortable, contradictory truth, there is only the usual repetitive Lost Cause drivel that never gets any more persuasive no matter how many times it is repeated. Of course you were lying about the Marx quote and go caught at it. If you had been honest you would have given the context of the Marx quote but you didn't do that. You just had the quote that appeared to be Marx supporting the tariff cause, when it was just the opposite. I'd say that damages your credibility but you never had that much to begin with. And where is the first-hand evidence for the Confederacy promising to abolish slavery for intervention in 1862? MIA. You can't expect different results when you keep repeating t he same old nonsense and think that saying two or three times in every post that it was a lie, as if that proves anything. No matter how many times you say it, you'll still be wrong, and no matter how ever many dumb quotes you come up with, as if they prove anything either. So far, you've provided nothing that approaches "strong" evidence."Strong evidence" must just be another lie to be added to the oft-repeated faleshood that slavery was the South's cause. Yes, your narrative is based on emotion, not reality. "Most historians believe it" is your cop out and is your same old appeal to authority fallacy that you've repeatedly been called on. Do you have the courage and the integrity to back up that tired little tactic of yours with actual quotes from actual historians? You've demonstrated a revulsion toward historical and intellectual curiosity here, so stop pretending that you have any desire to get beyond your trigger word, slavery.
And what do cornered fools do when they get desperate? They digress into analyzing misattributions of quotes rather than discuss the meanings and implications of the quotes themselves. This cultist likes to rearrange the deck chairs on his sinking ship. Twain (or whomever said it) knew the reality that, much of the time, the majority usually include the most stupid, easily manipulated people in society. People in the majority are like you....followers who have never looked deeply into the subject on which they think they are right.
That "majority" once believed that the Earth revolving around the Sun, remember? They had to be corrected by Galileo and others before the got on track. Great example for my point of view.
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” - Bertrand Russell
“Fools are in the majority, and they never lack confidence because a fool believes that being in the majority is proof that one is right.” - James Rozoff
And Suzy Kassem must have had you in mind when she wrote this:
“Most of the time, we see only what we want to see, or what others tell us to see, instead of really investigate to see what is really there. We embrace illusions only because we are presented with the illusion that they are embraced by the majority. When in truth, they only become popular because they are pounded at us by the media with such an intensity and high level of repetition that its mere force disguises lies and truths. And like obedient schoolchildren, we do not question their validity and swallow everything up like medicine. Why? Because since the earliest days of our youth, we have been conditioned to accept that the direction of the herd, and authority anywhere — is always right.”
No doubt there are basic facts in history, but the trick is finding the ones that are true, and you have failed to do that because "slavery was the cause" is an overused lie rather than an underlying fact. And you're still comparing an event (Hitler started...) with an explanation (a false explanation) of why an event happened. Are you too stupid to know the difference?
Believing that slavery was the cause is wrong, is untrue, and has very weak "evidence" in support. So weak, in fact, that HolyMoly refuses to produce any of it despite multiple challenges and invitations for him to do so.
Once again, wokeness and triggering should have nothing to do with the history of that era, but they have everything to do with the fools over the last century and a half who stupidly embraced the lie that slavery was the South's cause. Woke and triggered are just the latest pejoratives applied to people who pervert history based on their own brainwashing and lack of objectivity. Modern words to describe ancient stupidity, not the history itself.
The only lie here is your claim that I intended to mislead on the Marx quote at all. You've lost credibility by obsessing over this. Are your victories so few that you must desperately cling to these lies about slavery as the cause and the Marx quote to try to score a few points? Your obsession with both lies is so pathetic but that's hardly news to anyone that's followed this thread. Even more pathetic is you trying to move the goalposts because you don't like the clear proof provided that the CSA was soliciting intervention in exchange for ending slavery in 1862. That's evidently all it takes to shatter your cock and bull tale.
But more important than your fetish over the Marx quote is the irony of your defense of Marx. You want us to look at all of the details, contradictions and complexities of Marx's life and philosophy at the same time that you demand adherence to your simplistic, cartoonish and childish narrative that ignores the details, contradictions and complexities of the South's motivations. And we know why. Those details, contradictions and complexities utterly refute the lie that the South was motivated by slavery. So it's historical details for thee but not for me; you demand a closer look for your perverted "hero" at the same time that you dismiss the closer look for real heroes in the South. You take hypocrisy to a whole new level.
Unlike you, I've provided supporting evidence for what I've said here. The lack of proof from you has been devastating to your weak narrative, which is little more than a fairy tale left dangling by your refusal to post any real evidence.
As far as repetition, look to your own. You are forever saying that the majority backs you up and that there are tons of historians out there, but when asked for those sources, you flee.
I get it. You've been told what to think and what to say and that's all it takes with malleable folks like you, isn't it? The realization that you have been so docile is really what must be upsetting to you. Just too funny. You got punk'd by your "historians" and it's been hilarious to watch you catch on in real time.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Sept 1, 2023 21:57:01 GMT
Funny, it's an admittedly small sample, but no one believes your Lost Cause fantasy. One of the wingnut cop outs is you're emotional. This from the guy of monstrous filth and putrid liar fame. Very unemotional indeed. The evidence for slavery as the cause is very strong, which is why most historians believe it. I have historical curiosity. I still wonder what happened to Judge Crater. Strange as it is, Mark Twain has something in common with Joe Stalin--quotes attributed to them are often mistaken, so one has to be careful. The fast speed of a lie is attributed to the Irish writer Jonathan Swift not Twain. The one about the majority may also be a misattribution. Either way, it's more comical than anything else. So the Earth revolving around the Sun is wrong. Okayyy. Yes, history is full of details and complexities, but underlying them is a basic fact, like Hitler stared WWII and the south seceded because of the threat to slavery. Believing that slavery was the cause is correct, true, and has the evidence to support it. And then there's more of your absurd amateur irrelevant psychology about laziness and gullibility. You'd have to be gullible to fall for that garbage. What does wokeness and triggering have to do with written history from a century ago? I have believed in the slavery as the cause idea before than those words became popular. The Lost Cause fantasy is a reactionary one with nostalgia about the good old days of the antebellum South. You're a walking example of presentism, trying to use contemporary terms where they don't belong. There is no uncomfortable, contradictory truth, there is only the usual repetitive Lost Cause drivel that never gets any more persuasive no matter how many times it is repeated. Of course you were lying about the Marx quote and go caught at it. If you had been honest you would have given the context of the Marx quote but you didn't do that. You just had the quote that appeared to be Marx supporting the tariff cause, when it was just the opposite. I'd say that damages your credibility but you never had that much to begin with. And where is the first-hand evidence for the Confederacy promising to abolish slavery for intervention in 1862? MIA. You can't expect different results when you keep repeating t he same old nonsense and think that saying two or three times in every post that it was a lie, as if that proves anything. No matter how many times you say it, you'll still be wrong, and no matter how ever many dumb quotes you come up with, as if they prove anything either. So far, you've provided nothing that approaches "strong" evidence."Strong evidence" must just be another lie to be added to the oft-repeated faleshood that slavery was the South's cause. Yes, your narrative is based on emotion, not reality. "Most historians believe it" is your cop out and is your same old appeal to authority fallacy that you've repeatedly been called on. Do you have the courage and the integrity to back up that tired little tactic of yours with actual quotes from actual historians? You've demonstrated a revulsion toward historical and intellectual curiosity here, so stop pretending that you have any desire to get beyond your trigger word, slavery.
And what do cornered fools do when they get desperate? They digress into analyzing misattributions of quotes rather than discuss the meanings and implications of the quotes themselves. This cultist likes to rearrange the deck chairs on his sinking ship. Twain (or whomever said it) knew the reality that, much of the time, the majority usually include the most stupid, easily manipulated people in society. People in the majority are like you....followers who have never looked deeply into the subject on which they think they are right.
That "majority" once believed that the Earth revolving around the Sun, remember? They had to be corrected by Galileo and others before the got on track. Great example for my point of view.
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” - Bertrand Russell
“Fools are in the majority, and they never lack confidence because a fool believes that being in the majority is proof that one is right.” - James Rozoff
And Suzy Kassem must have had you in mind when she wrote this:
“Most of the time, we see only what we want to see, or what others tell us to see, instead of really investigate to see what is really there. We embrace illusions only because we are presented with the illusion that they are embraced by the majority. When in truth, they only become popular because they are pounded at us by the media with such an intensity and high level of repetition that its mere force disguises lies and truths. And like obedient schoolchildren, we do not question their validity and swallow everything up like medicine. Why? Because since the earliest days of our youth, we have been conditioned to accept that the direction of the herd, and authority anywhere — is always right.”
No doubt there are basic facts in history, but the trick is finding the ones that are true, and you have failed to do that because "slavery was the cause" is an overused lie rather than an underlying fact. And you're still comparing an event (Hitler started...) with an explanation (a false explanation) of why an event happened. Are you too stupid to know the difference?
Believing that slavery was the cause is wrong, is untrue, and has very weak "evidence" in support. So weak, in fact, that HolyMoly refuses to produce any of it despite multiple challenges and invitations for him to do so.
Once again, wokeness and triggering should have nothing to do with the history of that era, but they have everything to do with the fools over the last century and a half who stupidly embraced the lie that slavery was the South's cause. Woke and triggered are just the latest pejoratives applied to people who pervert history based on their own brainwashing and lack of objectivity. Modern words to describe ancient stupidity, not the history itself.
The only lie here is your claim that I intended to mislead on the Marx quote at all. You've lost credibility by obsessing over this. Are your victories so few that you must desperately cling to these lies about slavery as the cause and the Marx quote to try to score a few points? Your obsession with both lies is so pathetic but that's hardly news to anyone that's followed this thread. Even more pathetic is you trying to move the goalposts because you don't like the clear proof provided that the CSA was soliciting intervention in exchange for ending slavery in 1862. That's evidently all it takes to shatter your cock and bull tale.
But more important than your fetish over the Marx quote is the irony of your defense of Marx. You want us to look at all of the details, contradictions and complexities of Marx's life and philosophy at the same time that you demand adherence to your simplistic, cartoonish and childish narrative that ignores the details, contradictions and complexities of the South's motivations. And we know why. Those details, contradictions and complexities utterly refute the lie that the South was motivated by slavery. So it's historical details for thee but not for me; you demand a closer look for your perverted "hero" at the same time that you dismiss the closer look for real heroes in the South. You take hypocrisy to a whole new level.
Unlike you, I've provided supporting evidence for what I've said here. The lack of proof from you has been devastating to your weak narrative, which is little more than a fairy tale left dangling by your refusal to post any real evidence.
As far as repetition, look to your own. You are forever saying that the majority backs you up and that there are tons of historians out there, but when asked for those sources, you flee.
I get it. You've been told what to think and what to say and that's all it takes with malleable folks like you, isn't it? The realization that you have been so docile is really what must be upsetting to you. Just too funny. You got punk'd by your "historians" and it's been hilarious to watch you catch on in real time.
Well it's a waste of time to present evidence to people who are so deep down in the Lost Cause rabbit hole. It's like trying to talk sense to a mentally disturbed person, doesn't work. If you don't already know there are hundreds of Civil War historians out there who have written books, then it's not a case of courage or integrity but of simple common sense. You still don't get the meaning of trigger word. People try to avoid using a certain word because it triggers them, the opposite of the situation. The brief discussion of quotes and misattribution was just a side topic, especially as Twain is one of the most misquoted writers around. Don't you want to know whether your quote is accurate or not? Where's your intellectual curiosity? You seem to have some kind of absurd idea that if a majority of people believe something that makes it wrong. That's as dumb as thinking because a majority of people believe something that makes it right. I guess when you're in a small minority, using that kind of "logic" is all you have. There been heliocentrists since ancient Greece. Copernicus came before Galileo and you're no Galileo. As much as I admire Russell in general, even he made mistakes. Notice he uses the phrase 'more likely' not 'always.' Where'd you dig up Suzy? Looks like her expertise is in banalities and collagen injections. How many times are you going to call it a lie in this post. That seems to be your most frequent "argument" and the most clueless. No one is perverting history or is being brainwashed. When you don't have an argument you use name calling as a substitute. It also seems like a case of projection. You keep trying to introduce modern terms that have nothing to do with the Civil War or Civil War historians. Clueless as usual. I talk about the Marx quote because it is a prime example of your dishonesty. If you read the link you already knew the context of the quote, but you still went ahead and tried to pass it off as Marx's own belief. Now you keep whining as if that changes your original lie. And then there's the paradox of quoting Marx and then calling him a putrid perverted lair. Why quote a supposed putrid, perverted liar? One can look at all the so-called complexities and details of the Civil War era and slavery is still the cause because that overshadows all the complexities and details. I didn't change the goalposts. I simply asked for first-hand evidence that the Confederacy would abolish slavery in exchange for intervention in 1862. You didn't supply anything except Border State letters and newspaper rumors. That's why I pay so little attention to your so-called evidence and why your evidence is not worth thinking about. It's mostly a lot of Lost Cause bs. Actually, you never get it. You just make things up in your own infertile imagination. There's nothing to catch up too, not even your old Lost Cause nonsense. That was caught in the first week. In re nothing particular, I'll just post a few fun TGIF Bertie quotes. They're actual quotes, not like Paleoclown's misattributed ones. And yes, Russell made mistakes as everyone does. Organic life, we are told, has developed gradually from the protozoon to the philosopher, and this development, we are assured, is indubitably an advance. Unfortunately it is the philosopher, not the protozoon, who gives us this assurance. {1918} I believe that Communism is necessary to the world, and I believe that the heroism of Russia has fired men's hopes in a way which was essential to the realization of Communism in the future. Regarded as a splendid attempt, without which ultimate success would have been very improbable, Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind. {1920}. I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. {1927}. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. {1927} Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day. {1928} The place of the father in the modern suburban family is a very small one – particularly if he plays golf, which he usually does. {1930} There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge. {1931-1935}
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,492
|
Post by thor on Sept 1, 2023 23:29:06 GMT
So far, you've provided nothing that approaches "strong" evidence."Strong evidence" must just be another lie to be added to the oft-repeated faleshood that slavery was the South's cause. Yes, your narrative is based on emotion, not reality. "Most historians believe it" is your cop out and is your same old appeal to authority fallacy that you've repeatedly been called on. Do you have the courage and the integrity to back up that tired little tactic of yours with actual quotes from actual historians? You've demonstrated a revulsion toward historical and intellectual curiosity here, so stop pretending that you have any desire to get beyond your trigger word, slavery.
And what do cornered fools do when they get desperate? They digress into analyzing misattributions of quotes rather than discuss the meanings and implications of the quotes themselves. This cultist likes to rearrange the deck chairs on his sinking ship. Twain (or whomever said it) knew the reality that, much of the time, the majority usually include the most stupid, easily manipulated people in society. People in the majority are like you....followers who have never looked deeply into the subject on which they think they are right.
That "majority" once believed that the Earth revolving around the Sun, remember? They had to be corrected by Galileo and others before the got on track. Great example for my point of view.
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” - Bertrand Russell
“Fools are in the majority, and they never lack confidence because a fool believes that being in the majority is proof that one is right.” - James Rozoff
And Suzy Kassem must have had you in mind when she wrote this:
“Most of the time, we see only what we want to see, or what others tell us to see, instead of really investigate to see what is really there. We embrace illusions only because we are presented with the illusion that they are embraced by the majority. When in truth, they only become popular because they are pounded at us by the media with such an intensity and high level of repetition that its mere force disguises lies and truths. And like obedient schoolchildren, we do not question their validity and swallow everything up like medicine. Why? Because since the earliest days of our youth, we have been conditioned to accept that the direction of the herd, and authority anywhere — is always right.”
No doubt there are basic facts in history, but the trick is finding the ones that are true, and you have failed to do that because "slavery was the cause" is an overused lie rather than an underlying fact. And you're still comparing an event (Hitler started...) with an explanation (a false explanation) of why an event happened. Are you too stupid to know the difference?
Believing that slavery was the cause is wrong, is untrue, and has very weak "evidence" in support. So weak, in fact, that HolyMoly refuses to produce any of it despite multiple challenges and invitations for him to do so.
Once again, wokeness and triggering should have nothing to do with the history of that era, but they have everything to do with the fools over the last century and a half who stupidly embraced the lie that slavery was the South's cause. Woke and triggered are just the latest pejoratives applied to people who pervert history based on their own brainwashing and lack of objectivity. Modern words to describe ancient stupidity, not the history itself.
The only lie here is your claim that I intended to mislead on the Marx quote at all. You've lost credibility by obsessing over this. Are your victories so few that you must desperately cling to these lies about slavery as the cause and the Marx quote to try to score a few points? Your obsession with both lies is so pathetic but that's hardly news to anyone that's followed this thread. Even more pathetic is you trying to move the goalposts because you don't like the clear proof provided that the CSA was soliciting intervention in exchange for ending slavery in 1862. That's evidently all it takes to shatter your cock and bull tale.
But more important than your fetish over the Marx quote is the irony of your defense of Marx. You want us to look at all of the details, contradictions and complexities of Marx's life and philosophy at the same time that you demand adherence to your simplistic, cartoonish and childish narrative that ignores the details, contradictions and complexities of the South's motivations. And we know why. Those details, contradictions and complexities utterly refute the lie that the South was motivated by slavery. So it's historical details for thee but not for me; you demand a closer look for your perverted "hero" at the same time that you dismiss the closer look for real heroes in the South. You take hypocrisy to a whole new level.
Unlike you, I've provided supporting evidence for what I've said here. The lack of proof from you has been devastating to your weak narrative, which is little more than a fairy tale left dangling by your refusal to post any real evidence.
As far as repetition, look to your own. You are forever saying that the majority backs you up and that there are tons of historians out there, but when asked for those sources, you flee.
I get it. You've been told what to think and what to say and that's all it takes with malleable folks like you, isn't it? The realization that you have been so docile is really what must be upsetting to you. Just too funny. You got punk'd by your "historians" and it's been hilarious to watch you catch on in real time.
Well it's a waste of time to present evidence to people who are so deep down in the Lost Cause rabbit hole. It's like trying to talk sense to a mentally disturbed person, doesn't work. If you don't already know there are hundreds of Civil War historians out there who have written books, then it's not a case of courage or integrity but of simple common sense. You still don't get the meaning of trigger word. People try to avoid using a certain word because it triggers them, the opposite of the situation. The brief discussion of quotes and misattribution was just a side topic, especially as Twain is one of the most misquoted writers around. Don't you want to know whether your quote is accurate or not? Where's your intellectual curiosity? You seem to have some kind of absurd idea that if a majority of people believe something that makes it wrong. That's as dumb as thinking because a majority of people believe something that makes it right. I guess when you're in a small minority, using that kind of "logic" is all you have. There been heliocentrists since ancient Greece. Copernicus came before Galileo and you're no Galileo. As much as I admire Russell in general, even he made mistakes. Notice he uses the phrase 'more likely' not 'always.' Where'd you dig up Suzy? Looks like her expertise is in banalities and collagen injections. How many times are you going to call it a lie in this post. That seems to be your most frequent "argument" and the most clueless. No one is perverting history or is being brainwashed. When you don't have an argument you use name calling as a substitute. It also seems like a case of projection. You keep trying to introduce modern terms that have nothing to do with the Civil War or Civil War historians. Clueless as usual. I talk about the Marx quote because it is a prime example of your dishonesty. If you read the link you already knew the context of the quote, but you still went ahead and tried to pass it off as Marx's own belief. Now you keep whining as if that changes your original lie. And then there's the paradox of quoting Marx and then calling him a putrid perverted lair. Why quote a supposed putrid, perverted liar? One can look at all the so-called complexities and details of the Civil War era and slavery is still the cause because that overshadows all the complexities and details. I didn't change the goalposts. I simply asked for first-hand evidence that the Confederacy would abolish slavery in exchange for intervention in 1862. You didn't supply anything except Border State letters and newspaper rumors. That's why I pay so little attention to your so-called evidence and why your evidence is not worth thinking about. It's mostly a lot of Lost Cause bs. Actually, you never get it. You just make things up in your own infertile imagination. There's nothing to catch up too, not even your old Lost Cause nonsense. That was caught in the first week. In re nothing particular, I'll just post a few fun TGIF Bertie quotes. They're actual quotes, not like Paleoclown's misattributed ones. And yes, Russell made mistakes as everyone does. Organic life, we are told, has developed gradually from the protozoon to the philosopher, and this development, we are assured, is indubitably an advance. Unfortunately it is the philosopher, not the protozoon, who gives us this assurance. {1918} I believe that Communism is necessary to the world, and I believe that the heroism of Russia has fired men's hopes in a way which was essential to the realization of Communism in the future. Regarded as a splendid attempt, without which ultimate success would have been very improbable, Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind. {1920}. I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. {1927}. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. {1927} Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day. {1928} The place of the father in the modern suburban family is a very small one – particularly if he plays golf, which he usually does. {1930} There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge. {1931-1935} Day-um. Poor Paleo... As far as Russell goes, I like this one: "The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. {1927}"
|
|