|
Post by HolyMoly on Sept 2, 2023 1:47:18 GMT
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}" I like that one too. Very succinct and to the point. It's from a lecture he gave in 1927 that was later published in essay form under the self-evident title of Why I Am Not a Christian.
|
|
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 Sept 6, 2023 3:40:57 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} The mindless compliance and fealty to the debunked lie that slavery was the South's cause is a sure sign of mental illness and a low I.Q. than anything else on this thread. I'm not the one who throws out how many historians are on his side nor the one stupid enough to hide behind them when challenged to put up or shut up. That bait and switch tactic from a lack of courage and integrity and will always be an appeal to authority fallacy until our challenge is met. Face it, it was desperation to pushed you to attempt the "look how many experts think like me!" shtick and looks like you instantly regretted it, didn't you, cultist? You're evidently either too lazy or too afraid to back up your claims, preferring the lame “Oh, you know…” excuse before running away. I DO know those experts and I DO know what they have said in their writings, and I CAN and WOULD singularly or collectively refute every single argument that they have made claiming that slavery was the Southern cause. A wise man knows the answer before he poses the question, which is why I no hesitation in asking you to back up your claims about the historians. Yet, all you do is cower in the shadows when challenged because you know that is exactly what I would do to your sources. Everyone sees that I have proven the meaning of the word "triggered" from Merriam-Webster, but Holy thinks he knows better than the dictionary. Why are these leftists so arrogant, especially when everyone sees that they don’t know what they are talking about? Triggered: caused to feel an intense and usually negative emotional reaction : affected by an emotional trigger www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/triggeredYour lack of intellectual curiosity stands out, whether it’s your nitpicking the attribution of a quote or pulling that whataboutism/ad hominem garbage concerning Bertrand Russell rather than addressing the truth within the quotes themselves. You seem content in every post to throw out a bunch of shallow digressions, a few empty, clueless reactions to what I post, to toss out more logical fallacies than I can count, and do it all without ever posting any evidence from your experts. Congratulations, you've cemented your reputation here as a person without depth, easily led and easily fooled. You’re such a lightweight. You missed the point of the truisms concerning the majority opinion and committed a strawman fallacy with your extreme claims for what I said. In most cases, common sense tells us that the majority opinion represents the path of least resistance intellectually. Critical thinkers should question the majority conclusion for that reason and question why so many of society's idiots have flocked to the same majority narrative. History is being perverted any time and every time that someone falsely claims that slavery was the South's cause; that kind of perversion is a sure sign of Northern brainwashing. Your whiny denials seem to indicate that I have struck a nerve...the truth usually does. And the "modern terms" are and always have been about you and your ilk, not the history. The only dishonesty here is your false claim that I was trying to mislead anyone with the Marx quote. You’ve got the attention span of a child and didn’t even notice that I had included the full context by including the link to the article. This Marx quote obsession is the kind of fetish that a pathetic fool will embrace because he’s lost in every other aspect of the conversation. Just let it go; you just look sad and weak pushing that dishonest Marx quote garbage. Just when I thought this fool couldn't get any worse at this, he surprises us with this moronic gem: "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". This is tantamount to an admission that the details and complexities don’t matter and that he really stopped looking once he found the answer that suited his biases. No serious student of history would ever make the statement that this cultist just made. The letters from the Border State Congressmen and the independent accounts in those newspapers are sufficient evidence if one is objective and open minded, and you are neither. You demand more and more, despite the irrefutablity of the evidence that I’ve already given, but you skulk away on your belly when repeatedly challenged to provide evidence from the pile of historians that you claim to rely on. That makes you more of a joke than any real competition on this thread. Claiming that slavery was the South’s cause is a lie and nothing will change that, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and how often you scamper away when challenged to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Sept 6, 2023 21:47:02 GMT
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} The mindless compliance and fealty to the debunked lie that slavery was the South's cause is a sure sign of mental illness and a low I.Q. than anything else on this thread. I'm not the one who throws out how many historians are on his side nor the one stupid enough to hide behind them when challenged to put up or shut up. That bait and switch tactic from a lack of courage and integrity and will always be an appeal to authority fallacy until our challenge is met. Face it, it was desperation to pushed you to attempt the "look how many experts think like me!" shtick and looks like you instantly regretted it, didn't you, cultist? You're evidently either too lazy or too afraid to back up your claims, preferring the lame “Oh, you know…” excuse before running away. I DO know those experts and I DO know what they have said in their writings, and I CAN and WOULD singularly or collectively refute every single argument that they have made claiming that slavery was the Southern cause. A wise man knows the answer before he poses the question, which is why I no hesitation in asking you to back up your claims about the historians. Yet, all you do is cower in the shadows when challenged because you know that is exactly what I would do to your sources. Everyone sees that I have proven the meaning of the word "triggered" from Merriam-Webster, but Holy thinks he knows better than the dictionary. Why are these leftists so arrogant, especially when everyone sees that they don’t know what they are talking about? Triggered: caused to feel an intense and usually negative emotional reaction : affected by an emotional trigger www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/triggeredYour lack of intellectual curiosity stands out, whether it’s your nitpicking the attribution of a quote or pulling that whataboutism/ad hominem garbage concerning Bertrand Russell rather than addressing the truth within the quotes themselves. You seem content in every post to throw out a bunch of shallow digressions, a few empty, clueless reactions to what I post, to toss out more logical fallacies than I can count, and do it all without ever posting any evidence from your experts. Congratulations, you've cemented your reputation here as a person without depth, easily led and easily fooled. You’re such a lightweight. You missed the point of the truisms concerning the majority opinion and committed a strawman fallacy with your extreme claims for what I said. In most cases, common sense tells us that the majority opinion represents the path of least resistance intellectually. Critical thinkers should question the majority conclusion for that reason and question why so many of society's idiots have flocked to the same majority narrative. History is being perverted any time and every time that someone falsely claims that slavery was the South's cause; that kind of perversion is a sure sign of Northern brainwashing. Your whiny denials seem to indicate that I have struck a nerve...the truth usually does. And the "modern terms" are and always have been about you and your ilk, not the history. The only dishonesty here is your false claim that I was trying to mislead anyone with the Marx quote. You’ve got the attention span of a child and didn’t even notice that I had included the full context by including the link to the article. This Marx quote obsession is the kind of fetish that a pathetic fool will embrace because he’s lost in every other aspect of the conversation. Just let it go; you just look sad and weak pushing that dishonest Marx quote garbage. Just when I thought this fool couldn't get any worse at this, he surprises us with this moronic gem: "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". This is tantamount to an admission that the details and complexities don’t matter and that he really stopped looking once he found the answer that suited his biases. No serious student of history would ever make the statement that this cultist just made. The letters from the Border State Congressmen and the independent accounts in those newspapers are sufficient evidence if one is objective and open minded, and you are neither. You demand more and more, despite the irrefutablity of the evidence that I’ve already given, but you skulk away on your belly when repeatedly challenged to provide evidence from the pile of historians that you claim to rely on. That makes you more of a joke than any real competition on this thread. Claiming that slavery was the South’s cause is a lie and nothing will change that, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and how often you scamper away when challenged to prove it. Anyone who disagreed with you used to be a non-critical thinker and a liar. Now they're mentally ill. Very objective and unemotional. You know the experts and their writings. Should have said that months ago instead of pretending they didn't exist because I didn't list them. Yes you can refute hundreds of books by yourself. Sure. You're not a wise man though. You can't refute anything except in your own mind, which doesn't get you very far. I have no trouble with that definition. But if one feels an intense, negative emotional reaction to a word, one would try to avoid using that word. So the problem is not the definition itself, but the mistaken way you employ it. Now I get it. Your supposed intellectual curiosity is good, mine is bad. How convenient. I can't recall attacking Bertie. I just said that he wasn't perfect and made mistakes. A truism is a statement that is self-evident. It is not self-evident that the opinion of the majority is wrong or that it is right. We have to look at the specific opinion. You can repeat the nonsense about northern lies as many times as you want to. They have no effect on my opinion. My denials don't indicate you've struck a nerve. Your position is too weak to strike anything except my funny bone. If you had read the article you would have known the falseness of the quote, but you posted it anyway as if it was actually Marx's own opinion. That's the dishonesty right there. No wonder you want me to let it go. It shows your dishonesty for all to see. Fill in any historical event and/or its cause and the same thing is true. The complexities and details, however interesting, are overshadowed by event/cause itself. They're sufficient evidence for the intellectually incurious. The intellectually curious would want to see first-hand evidence, not second-hand evidence from Border State Congressmen or newspaper rumors. I haven't seen that evidence, so I presume you don't have it. Ending with the it was a lie thing again, as if that's some kind of valid argument, when it's just Lost Cause fantasy. No sale.
|
|
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 Sept 10, 2023 14:30:08 GMT
The mindless compliance and fealty to the debunked lie that slavery was the South's cause is a sure sign of mental illness and a low I.Q. than anything else on this thread. I'm not the one who throws out how many historians are on his side nor the one stupid enough to hide behind them when challenged to put up or shut up. That bait and switch tactic from a lack of courage and integrity and will always be an appeal to authority fallacy until our challenge is met. Face it, it was desperation to pushed you to attempt the "look how many experts think like me!" shtick and looks like you instantly regretted it, didn't you, cultist? You're evidently either too lazy or too afraid to back up your claims, preferring the lame “Oh, you know…” excuse before running away. I DO know those experts and I DO know what they have said in their writings, and I CAN and WOULD singularly or collectively refute every single argument that they have made claiming that slavery was the Southern cause. A wise man knows the answer before he poses the question, which is why I no hesitation in asking you to back up your claims about the historians. Yet, all you do is cower in the shadows when challenged because you know that is exactly what I would do to your sources. Everyone sees that I have proven the meaning of the word "triggered" from Merriam-Webster, but Holy thinks he knows better than the dictionary. Why are these leftists so arrogant, especially when everyone sees that they don’t know what they are talking about? Triggered: caused to feel an intense and usually negative emotional reaction : affected by an emotional trigger www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/triggeredYour lack of intellectual curiosity stands out, whether it’s your nitpicking the attribution of a quote or pulling that whataboutism/ad hominem garbage concerning Bertrand Russell rather than addressing the truth within the quotes themselves. You seem content in every post to throw out a bunch of shallow digressions, a few empty, clueless reactions to what I post, to toss out more logical fallacies than I can count, and do it all without ever posting any evidence from your experts. Congratulations, you've cemented your reputation here as a person without depth, easily led and easily fooled. You’re such a lightweight. You missed the point of the truisms concerning the majority opinion and committed a strawman fallacy with your extreme claims for what I said. In most cases, common sense tells us that the majority opinion represents the path of least resistance intellectually. Critical thinkers should question the majority conclusion for that reason and question why so many of society's idiots have flocked to the same majority narrative. History is being perverted any time and every time that someone falsely claims that slavery was the South's cause; that kind of perversion is a sure sign of Northern brainwashing. Your whiny denials seem to indicate that I have struck a nerve...the truth usually does. And the "modern terms" are and always have been about you and your ilk, not the history. The only dishonesty here is your false claim that I was trying to mislead anyone with the Marx quote. You’ve got the attention span of a child and didn’t even notice that I had included the full context by including the link to the article. This Marx quote obsession is the kind of fetish that a pathetic fool will embrace because he’s lost in every other aspect of the conversation. Just let it go; you just look sad and weak pushing that dishonest Marx quote garbage. Just when I thought this fool couldn't get any worse at this, he surprises us with this moronic gem: "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". This is tantamount to an admission that the details and complexities don’t matter and that he really stopped looking once he found the answer that suited his biases. No serious student of history would ever make the statement that this cultist just made. The letters from the Border State Congressmen and the independent accounts in those newspapers are sufficient evidence if one is objective and open minded, and you are neither. You demand more and more, despite the irrefutablity of the evidence that I’ve already given, but you skulk away on your belly when repeatedly challenged to provide evidence from the pile of historians that you claim to rely on. That makes you more of a joke than any real competition on this thread. Claiming that slavery was the South’s cause is a lie and nothing will change that, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and how often you scamper away when challenged to prove it. Anyone who disagreed with you used to be a non-critical thinker and a liar. Now they're mentally ill. Very objective and unemotional. You know the experts and their writings. Should have said that months ago instead of pretending they didn't exist because I didn't list them. Yes you can refute hundreds of books by yourself. Sure. You're not a wise man though. You can't refute anything except in your own mind, which doesn't get you very far. I have no trouble with that definition. But if one feels an intense, negative emotional reaction to a word, one would try to avoid using that word. So the problem is not the definition itself, but the mistaken way you employ it. Now I get it. Your supposed intellectual curiosity is good, mine is bad. How convenient. I can't recall attacking Bertie. I just said that he wasn't perfect and made mistakes. A truism is a statement that is self-evident. It is not self-evident that the opinion of the majority is wrong or that it is right. We have to look at the specific opinion. You can repeat the nonsense about northern lies as many times as you want to. They have no effect on my opinion. My denials don't indicate you've struck a nerve. Your position is too weak to strike anything except my funny bone. If you had read the article you would have known the falseness of the quote, but you posted it anyway as if it was actually Marx's own opinion. That's the dishonesty right there. No wonder you want me to let it go. It shows your dishonesty for all to see. Fill in any historical event and/or its cause and the same thing is true. The complexities and details, however interesting, are overshadowed by event/cause itself. They're sufficient evidence for the intellectually incurious. The intellectually curious would want to see first-hand evidence, not second-hand evidence from Border State Congressmen or newspaper rumors. I haven't seen that evidence, so I presume you don't have it. Ending with the it was a lie thing again, as if that's some kind of valid argument, when it's just Lost Cause fantasy. No sale. What a joke. This is the guy who emotionally brought up mental retardation in an earlier post, yet makes an accusation of emotionalism when it's turned back on him and shown that the true mental illness is joining the herd's embrace of the Northern lie that slavery was the Southern cause. You just can't make this stuff up.
As far as the experts and their writings, I do know what they have said is dishonest garbage. And no, I would not have to refute "hundreds of books" because those hacks use the same weak, easily debunked nonsense to try to peddle the falsehood that the Southern cause was slavery. They parrot each other like the Northern lie is their religion.....just as it's yours, your denials not withstanding.
And please try to stop being this stupid about the word "triggered". There's nothing in that definition that indicates that an aversion to the word is a requirement, and your negative, emotional reaction is to the South, not the word. Cultists like you use the word "slavery" as a bludgeon, a scarlett letter against anyone who is trying to open your closed mind to the reality that the cause was not slavery and the situation was far more complicated than you pretend it was in your religion of the Sacred Northern Lie.
Once again, you're the one whose sole argument is that slavery was the South's cause because the majority of historians agree that it was, yet you provide zero evidence to back that up. And the majority opinions, whether right or wrong, do tend to be a pile on by the lowest, most emotional dregs of society.
You've demonstrated no intellectual curiosity here, so it's a fair conclusion that you have none on this subject. And I fully understand why....your narrative gets less believable each time you look deeper into the details. You've been a reactionary full of denials and appeals to authority on this thread while I've not needed such weak minded tactics. All I have done is tell the truth and it makes you apoplectic. When it does, you use "slavery" as a bludgeon to halt anyone from looking deeper at the contradictory details that actually refute the Northern lie.
On the Marx quote, everyone can see that you are the only one being dishonest here. Only a sore loser keeps up this fetish about that quote after he was embarrassed into admitting "I don't know" when confronted with the fact that I added the contextual link to the article from the beginning. If you want to keep looking this stupid, that's fine with me.....it just lets everyone else see the pettiness, childishness and vanity that I have already had to deal with from our whiny little cultist.
Only a simpleton stops at the superficial event/cause and deems it to be "overshadowing" of other details. That's just your excuse to avoid looking at the details that tend to damage your triggered preconceptions. Such absolutism is akin to painting the Lexington/Concord patriots as murderers and criminals for firing on the King's troops in April 1775 (the Redcoats were just being good progressives by confiscating arms and powder, right?). Do you think that the underlying details and causes show an entirely contradictory history of that time that reflects a just patriot cause and reverses the villains and heroes of that event?
So, you can spew, without ANY evidence, that the Southerners were too dumb to realize secession hurt slavery or that the Northern Congressmen knew better than anyone else what the South wanted (Corwin), but you demand ever greater levels of evidence before you'll believe that the CSA was offering abolition in 1862? Despite the fact that, unlike you, I HAVE provided evidence and sources, INCLUDING OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE?
Claiming that slavery was the South’s cause is a lie and nothing will change that, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and how often you scamper away when challenged to prove it.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,492
|
Post by thor on Sept 10, 2023 15:37:41 GMT
Anyone who disagreed with you used to be a non-critical thinker and a liar. Now they're mentally ill. Very objective and unemotional. You know the experts and their writings. Should have said that months ago instead of pretending they didn't exist because I didn't list them. Yes you can refute hundreds of books by yourself. Sure. You're not a wise man though. You can't refute anything except in your own mind, which doesn't get you very far. I have no trouble with that definition. But if one feels an intense, negative emotional reaction to a word, one would try to avoid using that word. So the problem is not the definition itself, but the mistaken way you employ it. Now I get it. Your supposed intellectual curiosity is good, mine is bad. How convenient. I can't recall attacking Bertie. I just said that he wasn't perfect and made mistakes. A truism is a statement that is self-evident. It is not self-evident that the opinion of the majority is wrong or that it is right. We have to look at the specific opinion. You can repeat the nonsense about northern lies as many times as you want to. They have no effect on my opinion. My denials don't indicate you've struck a nerve. Your position is too weak to strike anything except my funny bone. If you had read the article you would have known the falseness of the quote, but you posted it anyway as if it was actually Marx's own opinion. That's the dishonesty right there. No wonder you want me to let it go. It shows your dishonesty for all to see. Fill in any historical event and/or its cause and the same thing is true. The complexities and details, however interesting, are overshadowed by event/cause itself. They're sufficient evidence for the intellectually incurious. The intellectually curious would want to see first-hand evidence, not second-hand evidence from Border State Congressmen or newspaper rumors. I haven't seen that evidence, so I presume you don't have it. Ending with the it was a lie thing again, as if that's some kind of valid argument, when it's just Lost Cause fantasy. No sale. What a joke. This is the guy who emotionally brought up mental retardation in an earlier post, yet makes an accusation of emotionalism when it's turned back on him and shown that the true mental illness is joining the herd's embrace of the Northern lie that slavery was the Southern cause. You just can't make this stuff up.
As far as the experts and their writings, I do know what they have said is dishonest garbage. And no, I would not have to refute "hundreds of books" because those hacks use the same weak, easily debunked nonsense to try to peddle the falsehood that the Southern cause was slavery. They parrot each other like the Northern lie is their religion.....just as it's yours, your denials not withstanding.
And please try to stop being this stupid about the word "triggered". There's nothing in that definition that indicates that an aversion to the word is a requirement, and your negative, emotional reaction is to the South, not the word. Cultists like you use the word "slavery" as a bludgeon, a scarlett letter against anyone who is trying to open your closed mind to the reality that the cause was not slavery and the situation was far more complicated than you pretend it was in your religion of the Sacred Northern Lie.
Once again, you're the one whose sole argument is that slavery was the South's cause because the majority of historians agree that it was, yet you provide zero evidence to back that up. And the majority opinions, whether right or wrong, do tend to be a pile on by the lowest, most emotional dregs of society.
You've demonstrated no intellectual curiosity here, so it's a fair conclusion that you have none on this subject. And I fully understand why....your narrative gets less believable each time you look deeper into the details. You've been a reactionary full of denials and appeals to authority on this thread while I've not needed such weak minded tactics. All I have done is tell the truth and it makes you apoplectic. When it does, you use "slavery" as a bludgeon to halt anyone from looking deeper at the contradictory details that actually refute the Northern lie.
On the Marx quote, everyone can see that you are the only one being dishonest here. Only a sore loser keeps up this fetish about that quote after he was embarrassed into admitting "I don't know" when confronted with the fact that I added the contextual link to the article from the beginning. If you want to keep looking this stupid, that's fine with me.....it just lets everyone else see the pettiness, childishness and vanity that I have already had to deal with from our whiny little cultist.
Only a simpleton stops at the superficial event/cause and deems it to be "overshadowing" of other details. That's just your excuse to avoid looking at the details that tend to damage your triggered preconceptions. Such absolutism is akin to painting the Lexington/Concord patriots as murderers and criminals for firing on the King's troops in April 1775 (the Redcoats were just being good progressives by confiscating arms and powder, right?). Do you think that the underlying details and causes show an entirely contradictory history of that time that reflects a just patriot cause and reverses the villains and heroes of that event?
So, you can spew, without ANY evidence, that the Southerners were too dumb to realize secession hurt slavery or that the Northern Congressmen knew better than anyone else what the South wanted (Corwin), but you demand ever greater levels of evidence before you'll believe that the CSA was offering abolition in 1862? Despite the fact that, unlike you, I HAVE provided evidence and sources, INCLUDING OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE?
Claiming that slavery was the South’s cause is a lie and nothing will change that, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and how often you scamper away when challenged to prove it.
Your bleats are getting further and further apart, moral degenerate.
|
|
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 Sept 10, 2023 16:00:21 GMT
What a joke. This is the guy who emotionally brought up mental retardation in an earlier post, yet makes an accusation of emotionalism when it's turned back on him and shown that the true mental illness is joining the herd's embrace of the Northern lie that slavery was the Southern cause. You just can't make this stuff up.
As far as the experts and their writings, I do know what they have said is dishonest garbage. And no, I would not have to refute "hundreds of books" because those hacks use the same weak, easily debunked nonsense to try to peddle the falsehood that the Southern cause was slavery. They parrot each other like the Northern lie is their religion.....just as it's yours, your denials not withstanding.
And please try to stop being this stupid about the word "triggered". There's nothing in that definition that indicates that an aversion to the word is a requirement, and your negative, emotional reaction is to the South, not the word. Cultists like you use the word "slavery" as a bludgeon, a scarlett letter against anyone who is trying to open your closed mind to the reality that the cause was not slavery and the situation was far more complicated than you pretend it was in your religion of the Sacred Northern Lie.
Once again, you're the one whose sole argument is that slavery was the South's cause because the majority of historians agree that it was, yet you provide zero evidence to back that up. And the majority opinions, whether right or wrong, do tend to be a pile on by the lowest, most emotional dregs of society.
You've demonstrated no intellectual curiosity here, so it's a fair conclusion that you have none on this subject. And I fully understand why....your narrative gets less believable each time you look deeper into the details. You've been a reactionary full of denials and appeals to authority on this thread while I've not needed such weak minded tactics. All I have done is tell the truth and it makes you apoplectic. When it does, you use "slavery" as a bludgeon to halt anyone from looking deeper at the contradictory details that actually refute the Northern lie.
On the Marx quote, everyone can see that you are the only one being dishonest here. Only a sore loser keeps up this fetish about that quote after he was embarrassed into admitting "I don't know" when confronted with the fact that I added the contextual link to the article from the beginning. If you want to keep looking this stupid, that's fine with me.....it just lets everyone else see the pettiness, childishness and vanity that I have already had to deal with from our whiny little cultist.
Only a simpleton stops at the superficial event/cause and deems it to be "overshadowing" of other details. That's just your excuse to avoid looking at the details that tend to damage your triggered preconceptions. Such absolutism is akin to painting the Lexington/Concord patriots as murderers and criminals for firing on the King's troops in April 1775 (the Redcoats were just being good progressives by confiscating arms and powder, right?). Do you think that the underlying details and causes show an entirely contradictory history of that time that reflects a just patriot cause and reverses the villains and heroes of that event?
So, you can spew, without ANY evidence, that the Southerners were too dumb to realize secession hurt slavery or that the Northern Congressmen knew better than anyone else what the South wanted (Corwin), but you demand ever greater levels of evidence before you'll believe that the CSA was offering abolition in 1862? Despite the fact that, unlike you, I HAVE provided evidence and sources, INCLUDING OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE?
Claiming that slavery was the South’s cause is a lie and nothing will change that, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and how often you scamper away when challenged to prove it.
Your bleats are getting further and further apart, moral degenerate. Unlike you, I've got a life outside this forum.
Anything else, pussy hat eunuch?
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 10, 2023 16:03:28 GMT
So, you can spew, without ANY evidence, that the Southerners were too dumb to realize secession hurt slavery or that the Northern Congressmen knew better than anyone else what the South wanted (Corwin), but you demand ever greater levels of evidence before you'll believe that the CSA was offering abolition in 1862? Despite the fact that, unlike you, I HAVE provided evidence and sources, INCLUDING OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE?
Claiming that slavery was the South’s cause is a lie and nothing will change that, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and how often you scamper away when challenged to prove it.
So in your grade school education, you were taught that the Civil War was not a moral debate over slavery, which is very much what most people learned back in your childhood history classes in the south. It was never about liberating Black people or realizing it was completely inhumane to treat other human beings in that way; it was about the states' rights to have their own sense of control over the billion-dollar slave industry. The white people of the south wanted to fight the federal government against laws they believed interfered with their "right" to keep slaves and essentially do whatever they wanted with them. The south also wished to expand slavery into the western territories, while the north wished that the west only remain open to white labor. After Lincoln was elected president without a single electoral vote from the southern states, the south realized they had lost their influence, turned to secession, and inevitably started the Civil War.
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,802
|
Post by Fiddler on Sept 10, 2023 16:33:59 GMT
So, you can spew, without ANY evidence, that the Southerners were too dumb to realize secession hurt slavery or that the Northern Congressmen knew better than anyone else what the South wanted (Corwin), but you demand ever greater levels of evidence before you'll believe that the CSA was offering abolition in 1862? Despite the fact that, unlike you, I HAVE provided evidence and sources, INCLUDING OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE? Claiming that slavery was the South’s cause is a lie and nothing will change that, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and how often you scamper away when challenged to prove it.
So in your grade school education, you were taught that the Civil War was not a moral debate over slavery, Not at school. The caliber of racism and ignorance displayed by people like paleo are learned at the knee of decedents of decedents of slavers .. The belief in White Supremacy is one of the first synapses to form in their brains.
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 10, 2023 17:01:06 GMT
So in your grade school education, you were taught that the Civil War was not a moral debate over slavery, Not at school. The caliber of racism and ignorance displayed by people like paleo are learned at the knee of decedents of decedents of slavers .. The belief in White Supremacy is one of the first synapses to form in their brains. It was also taught in schools
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,802
|
Post by Fiddler on Sept 10, 2023 17:05:29 GMT
Not at school. The caliber of racism and ignorance displayed by people like paleo are learned at the knee of decedents of decedents of slavers .. The belief in White Supremacy is one of the first synapses to form in their brains. It was also taught in schools The point was, that the process of being as HORRIFICALLY ignorant of the facts as he is starts long before grade school ..
|
|
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 Sept 10, 2023 20:40:42 GMT
So, you can spew, without ANY evidence, that the Southerners were too dumb to realize secession hurt slavery or that the Northern Congressmen knew better than anyone else what the South wanted (Corwin), but you demand ever greater levels of evidence before you'll believe that the CSA was offering abolition in 1862? Despite the fact that, unlike you, I HAVE provided evidence and sources, INCLUDING OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE?
Claiming that slavery was the South’s cause is a lie and nothing will change that, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and how often you scamper away when challenged to prove it.
So in your grade school education, you were taught that the Civil War was not a moral debate over slavery, which is very much what most people learned back in your childhood history classes in the south. It was never about liberating Black people or realizing it was completely inhumane to treat other human beings in that way; it was about the states' rights to have their own sense of control over the billion-dollar slave industry. The white people of the south wanted to fight the federal government against laws they believed interfered with their "right" to keep slaves and essentially do whatever they wanted with them. The south also wished to expand slavery into the western territories, while the north wished that the west only remain open to white labor. After Lincoln was elected president without a single electoral vote from the southern states, the south realized they had lost their influence, turned to secession, and inevitably started the Civil War. Actually, my schools were integrated from the first day of the first grade and we WERE taught the great lie that slavery was the Southern cause. We had pictures of Washington AND Lincoln on the school walls, and we were indoctrinated to believe the cartoonish filth that you're peddling above. But adults outgrow such brainwashing if they are lucky enough to not be stupid (by that standard, you and Fiddler are very unlucky). But, when you grow up, you also have to be intellectually curious enough to start looking beyond the propaganda and find those details that neither the public schools or the perverted Northern historians will tell you. If you don't, you stay stupid like you were when you were a child.
Not sure how you got this stupid, but I can try to help you kick the habit.
Calling it a "civil war" was lie. There was no Southern effort to take over the United States government.
Claiming the war was about a "moral debate over slavery" is a lie. If you doubt that, look at Lincoln's words before and during the war; the North tried to protect slavery permanently with the Corwin Amendment before the war started. And how could it be about slavery for Southerners when they intentionally and immediately damaged slavery by seceding? Because of secession, there would be no more fugitive slaves returned from the North and no more expansion of slavery into Western territories.
That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."
I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power.
Yes, slavery was evil and abhorrent, and needed to end. But only 6% of Southerners owned slaves (about 30% of Southern families), with about 1% in the elite class owning plantations. Many in that small batch of elitists likely did fight for the preservation of slavery, but slavery was neither the Confederate government's cause nor the cause of the remainder of the Southern people.
It's truly moronic to believe that that majority of Southerners, whether officers or enlisted, were willing to starve, die of disease and be killed on the battlefield for the chance to own a slave some day. Their letters home prove that the fight wasn't over slavery.
As far as the Western territories, the North didn't care about blacks or slavery. They just wanted to make sure that there was no competition against their own white labor force. They were also against racial mixing. Here's your "hero", racist Abe:
Lincoln was not necessarily against the expansion of slavery. But, he only had one primary request: whites and Black could not mix in the new land. When addressing the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, Lincoln quoted the following: “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”
Lincoln believed that Black people living in close proximity to white people would ruin the image of the pure white family that he found ideal. He felt the birth of mixed race children would cause family life to “collapse.” He said, “Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”
They didn't care if blacks were free or not.....Northerners just wanted them gone.
Now, we can all see that you are brainwashed and we all know why. Your lack of objectivity and naivete is enslavement of a different kind...the bondage of the mind. Only you can emancipate yourself from such self inflicted stupidity.
|
|
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 Sept 10, 2023 20:43:25 GMT
So in your grade school education, you were taught that the Civil War was not a moral debate over slavery, Not at school. The caliber of racism and ignorance displayed by people like paleo are learned at the knee of decedents of decedents of slavers .. The belief in White Supremacy is one of the first synapses to form in their brains. "Decedents"? What a dumbass.
Fiddler is lying to you again, Wads, and you're just dumb enough to swallow it all and lick up drippings.
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 10, 2023 21:06:23 GMT
So in your grade school education, you were taught that the Civil War was not a moral debate over slavery, which is very much what most people learned back in your childhood history classes in the south. It was never about liberating Black people or realizing it was completely inhumane to treat other human beings in that way; it was about the states' rights to have their own sense of control over the billion-dollar slave industry. The white people of the south wanted to fight the federal government against laws they believed interfered with their "right" to keep slaves and essentially do whatever they wanted with them. The south also wished to expand slavery into the western territories, while the north wished that the west only remain open to white labor. After Lincoln was elected president without a single electoral vote from the southern states, the south realized they had lost their influence, turned to secession, and inevitably started the Civil War. Actually, my schools were integrated from the first day of the first grade and we WERE taught the great lie that slavery was the Southern cause. We had pictures of Washington AND Lincoln on the school walls, and we were indoctrinated to believe the cartoonish filth that you're peddling above. But adults outgrow such brainwashing if they are lucky enough to not be stupid (by that standard, you and Fiddler are very unlucky). But, when you grow up, you also have to be intellectually curious enough to start looking beyond the propaganda and find those details that neither the public schools or the perverted Northern historians will tell you. If you don't, you stay stupid like you were when you were a child.
Not sure how you got this stupid, but I can try to help you kick the habit.
Calling it a "civil war" was lie. There was no Southern effort to take over the United States government.
Claiming the war was about a "moral debate over slavery" is a lie. If you doubt that, look at Lincoln's words before and during the war; the North tried to protect slavery permanently with the Corwin Amendment before the war started. And how could it be about slavery for Southerners when they intentionally and immediately damaged slavery by seceding? Because of secession, there would be no more fugitive slaves returned from the North and no more expansion of slavery into Western territories.
That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."
I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power.
Yes, slavery was evil and abhorrent, and needed to end. But only 6% of Southerners owned slaves (about 30% of Southern families), with about 1% in the elite class owning plantations. Many in that small batch of elitists likely did fight for the preservation of slavery, but slavery was neither the Confederate government's cause nor the cause of the remainder of the Southern people.
It's truly moronic to believe that that majority of Southerners, whether officers or enlisted, were willing to starve, die of disease and be killed on the battlefield for the chance to own a slave some day. Their letters home prove that the fight wasn't over slavery.
As far as the Western territories, the North didn't care about blacks or slavery. They just wanted to make sure that there was no competition against their own white labor force. They were also against racial mixing. Here's your "hero", racist Abe:
Lincoln was not necessarily against the expansion of slavery. But, he only had one primary request: whites and Black could not mix in the new land. When addressing the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, Lincoln quoted the following: “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”
Lincoln believed that Black people living in close proximity to white people would ruin the image of the pure white family that he found ideal. He felt the birth of mixed race children would cause family life to “collapse.” He said, “Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”
They didn't care if blacks were free or not.....Northerners just wanted them gone.
Now, we can all see that you are brainwashed and we all know why. Your lack of objectivity and naivete is enslavement of a different kind...the bondage of the mind. Only you can emancipate yourself from such self inflicted stupidity.
Your integrated schools have nothing to do with what you were taught and believe. Do you believe that the south treated slaves humanely? Do you believe that the south wanted to expand slavery to the newly formed western states? Do you believe that the south was afraid of losing their state right to continue slavery? Yes, it was about state rights. The right to keep their slaves
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,492
|
Post by thor on Sept 10, 2023 21:55:40 GMT
So in your grade school education, you were taught that the Civil War was not a moral debate over slavery, which is very much what most people learned back in your childhood history classes in the south. It was never about liberating Black people or realizing it was completely inhumane to treat other human beings in that way; it was about the states' rights to have their own sense of control over the billion-dollar slave industry. The white people of the south wanted to fight the federal government against laws they believed interfered with their "right" to keep slaves and essentially do whatever they wanted with them. The south also wished to expand slavery into the western territories, while the north wished that the west only remain open to white labor. After Lincoln was elected president without a single electoral vote from the southern states, the south realized they had lost their influence, turned to secession, and inevitably started the Civil War. Actually, my schools were integrated from the first day of the first grade and we WERE taught the great lie that slavery was the Southern cause. We had pictures of Washington AND Lincoln on the school walls, and we were indoctrinated to believe the cartoonish filth that you're peddling above. But adults outgrow such brainwashing if they are lucky enough to not be stupid (by that standard, you and Fiddler are very unlucky). But, when you grow up, you also have to be intellectually curious enough to start looking beyond the propaganda and find those details that neither the public schools or the perverted Northern historians will tell you. If you don't, you stay stupid like you were when you were a child.
Not sure how you got this stupid, but I can try to help you kick the habit.
Calling it a "civil war" was lie. There was no Southern effort to take over the United States government.
Claiming the war was about a "moral debate over slavery" is a lie. If you doubt that, look at Lincoln's words before and during the war; the North tried to protect slavery permanently with the Corwin Amendment before the war started. And how could it be about slavery for Southerners when they intentionally and immediately damaged slavery by seceding? Because of secession, there would be no more fugitive slaves returned from the North and no more expansion of slavery into Western territories.
That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."
I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power.
Yes, slavery was evil and abhorrent, and needed to end. But only 6% of Southerners owned slaves (about 30% of Southern families), with about 1% in the elite class owning plantations. Many in that small batch of elitists likely did fight for the preservation of slavery, but slavery was neither the Confederate government's cause nor the cause of the remainder of the Southern people.
It's truly moronic to believe that that majority of Southerners, whether officers or enlisted, were willing to starve, die of disease and be killed on the battlefield for the chance to own a slave some day. Their letters home prove that the fight wasn't over slavery.
As far as the Western territories, the North didn't care about blacks or slavery. They just wanted to make sure that there was no competition against their own white labor force. They were also against racial mixing. Here's your "hero", racist Abe:
Lincoln was not necessarily against the expansion of slavery. But, he only had one primary request: whites and Black could not mix in the new land. When addressing the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, Lincoln quoted the following: “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”
Lincoln believed that Black people living in close proximity to white people would ruin the image of the pure white family that he found ideal. He felt the birth of mixed race children would cause family life to “collapse.” He said, “Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”
They didn't care if blacks were free or not.....Northerners just wanted them gone.
Now, we can all see that you are brainwashed and we all know why. Your lack of objectivity and naivete is enslavement of a different kind...the bondage of the mind. Only you can emancipate yourself from such self inflicted stupidity.
Sure. They had BOTH kinds. Blonde AND brown-haired white kids. h/t The Blues Brothers
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,802
|
Post by Fiddler on Sept 10, 2023 22:47:18 GMT
Not at school. The caliber of racism and ignorance displayed by people like paleo are learned at the knee of decedents of decedents of slavers .. The belief in White Supremacy is one of the first synapses to form in their brains. "Decedents"? What a dumbass.
Fiddler is lying to you again, Wads, and you're just dumb enough to swallow it all and lick up drippings. And yet you understood.. More proof that on some level you yourself realize your linage had been slinging bullshit for decades ..
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 10, 2023 22:52:22 GMT
Not at school. The caliber of racism and ignorance displayed by people like paleo are learned at the knee of decedents of decedents of slavers .. The belief in White Supremacy is one of the first synapses to form in their brains. "Decedents"? What a dumbass.
Fiddler is lying to you again, Wads, and you're just dumb enough to swallow it all and lick up drippings. Insulting people does not convince anyone. It just shows that your bs is flawed. That is why you won’t respond to my last post
|
|
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 Sept 11, 2023 14:20:09 GMT
Actually, my schools were integrated from the first day of the first grade and we WERE taught the great lie that slavery was the Southern cause. We had pictures of Washington AND Lincoln on the school walls, and we were indoctrinated to believe the cartoonish filth that you're peddling above. But adults outgrow such brainwashing if they are lucky enough to not be stupid (by that standard, you and Fiddler are very unlucky). But, when you grow up, you also have to be intellectually curious enough to start looking beyond the propaganda and find those details that neither the public schools or the perverted Northern historians will tell you. If you don't, you stay stupid like you were when you were a child.
Not sure how you got this stupid, but I can try to help you kick the habit.
Calling it a "civil war" was lie. There was no Southern effort to take over the United States government.
Claiming the war was about a "moral debate over slavery" is a lie. If you doubt that, look at Lincoln's words before and during the war; the North tried to protect slavery permanently with the Corwin Amendment before the war started. And how could it be about slavery for Southerners when they intentionally and immediately damaged slavery by seceding? Because of secession, there would be no more fugitive slaves returned from the North and no more expansion of slavery into Western territories.
That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."
I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power.
Yes, slavery was evil and abhorrent, and needed to end. But only 6% of Southerners owned slaves (about 30% of Southern families), with about 1% in the elite class owning plantations. Many in that small batch of elitists likely did fight for the preservation of slavery, but slavery was neither the Confederate government's cause nor the cause of the remainder of the Southern people.
It's truly moronic to believe that that majority of Southerners, whether officers or enlisted, were willing to starve, die of disease and be killed on the battlefield for the chance to own a slave some day. Their letters home prove that the fight wasn't over slavery.
As far as the Western territories, the North didn't care about blacks or slavery. They just wanted to make sure that there was no competition against their own white labor force. They were also against racial mixing. Here's your "hero", racist Abe:
Lincoln was not necessarily against the expansion of slavery. But, he only had one primary request: whites and Black could not mix in the new land. When addressing the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, Lincoln quoted the following: “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”
Lincoln believed that Black people living in close proximity to white people would ruin the image of the pure white family that he found ideal. He felt the birth of mixed race children would cause family life to “collapse.” He said, “Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”
They didn't care if blacks were free or not.....Northerners just wanted them gone.
Now, we can all see that you are brainwashed and we all know why. Your lack of objectivity and naivete is enslavement of a different kind...the bondage of the mind. Only you can emancipate yourself from such self inflicted stupidity.
Your integrated schools have nothing to do with what you were taught and believe. Do you believe that the south treated slaves humanely? Do you believe that the south wanted to expand slavery to the newly formed western states? Do you believe that the south was afraid of losing their state right to continue slavery? Yes, it was about state rights. The right to keep their slaves Don't be an idiot. I just told you that I was indoctrinated with the same Northern lies that you have embraced now, but I grew out that brainwashing because I've actually studied history and found it to be far less black and white than has been portrayed.
Yes, history tells us that many slaves were treated humanely and that in no way takes away from the fact that their bondage was evil and needed to end. Wealthy elitists who owned slaves did want to bring slaves into new territories. But, if the expansion of slavery to those places was a Southern cause, secession ended any chance to ever move slaves into the territories.
No, I do not believe that the South was afraid of "losing their state right to continue slavery". There was no threat to slavery during that time, as you can see by the tremendous offers and gestures made by the NORTH to protect and preserve slavery permanently. Slavery was the tipping point, the last straw, the spark, the point of no return and a symptom of the national disease, but it was NOT the South's cause.
It's not a surprise that a simplistic answer would appeal to your small, weak mind, but the reality is that slavery was never the South's cause, but the larger issue of the increasing centralization of power to the federal government and the organized imbalance of government largess to the Northern states through tariff revenues.
|
|
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 Sept 11, 2023 14:25:23 GMT
Actually, my schools were integrated from the first day of the first grade and we WERE taught the great lie that slavery was the Southern cause. We had pictures of Washington AND Lincoln on the school walls, and we were indoctrinated to believe the cartoonish filth that you're peddling above. But adults outgrow such brainwashing if they are lucky enough to not be stupid (by that standard, you and Fiddler are very unlucky). But, when you grow up, you also have to be intellectually curious enough to start looking beyond the propaganda and find those details that neither the public schools or the perverted Northern historians will tell you. If you don't, you stay stupid like you were when you were a child.
Not sure how you got this stupid, but I can try to help you kick the habit.
Calling it a "civil war" was lie. There was no Southern effort to take over the United States government.
Claiming the war was about a "moral debate over slavery" is a lie. If you doubt that, look at Lincoln's words before and during the war; the North tried to protect slavery permanently with the Corwin Amendment before the war started. And how could it be about slavery for Southerners when they intentionally and immediately damaged slavery by seceding? Because of secession, there would be no more fugitive slaves returned from the North and no more expansion of slavery into Western territories.
That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."
I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power.
Yes, slavery was evil and abhorrent, and needed to end. But only 6% of Southerners owned slaves (about 30% of Southern families), with about 1% in the elite class owning plantations. Many in that small batch of elitists likely did fight for the preservation of slavery, but slavery was neither the Confederate government's cause nor the cause of the remainder of the Southern people.
It's truly moronic to believe that that majority of Southerners, whether officers or enlisted, were willing to starve, die of disease and be killed on the battlefield for the chance to own a slave some day. Their letters home prove that the fight wasn't over slavery.
As far as the Western territories, the North didn't care about blacks or slavery. They just wanted to make sure that there was no competition against their own white labor force. They were also against racial mixing. Here's your "hero", racist Abe:
Lincoln was not necessarily against the expansion of slavery. But, he only had one primary request: whites and Black could not mix in the new land. When addressing the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, Lincoln quoted the following: “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”
Lincoln believed that Black people living in close proximity to white people would ruin the image of the pure white family that he found ideal. He felt the birth of mixed race children would cause family life to “collapse.” He said, “Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”
They didn't care if blacks were free or not.....Northerners just wanted them gone.
Now, we can all see that you are brainwashed and we all know why. Your lack of objectivity and naivete is enslavement of a different kind...the bondage of the mind. Only you can emancipate yourself from such self inflicted stupidity.
Sure. They had BOTH kinds. Blonde AND brown-haired white kids. h/t The Blues Brothers So, you're actually stupid enough to not realize that Southern schools were integrated in the 1960s? Sorry, dumbass, you didn't do your homework...again....and got your ass kicked for that mistake.
You don't have the balls to seek the truth, do you, boy?
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,492
|
Post by thor on Sept 11, 2023 14:29:59 GMT
Sure. They had BOTH kinds. Blonde AND brown-haired white kids. h/t The Blues Brothers So, you're actually stupid enough to not realize that Southern schools were integrated in the 1960s? Sorry, dumbass, you didn't do your homework...again....and got your ass kicked for that mistake.
You don't have the balls to seek the truth, do you, boy?
|
|
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 Sept 11, 2023 14:50:08 GMT
So, you're actually stupid enough to not realize that Southern schools were integrated in the 1960s? Sorry, dumbass, you didn't do your homework...again....and got your ass kicked for that mistake. You don't have the balls to seek the truth, do you, boy?
This simplistic dumbass just made my point. Folks that think like this don't have the intelligence to look at the actual history, so they make up lies based on some stereotype that they've seen in a cartoon.
|
|