Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 3:05:34 GMT
Just answer the question. It's so self-explanatory it shouldn't take long. I would, but I don't think you're bright enough to understand. Anyone that can't read a weather forecast has got to be a couple of cans short of a sixpack. You know, for something that was so so easy to see, you sure cut tail and run at the first challenge. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 12:59:19 GMT
I would, but I don't think you're bright enough to understand. Anyone that can't read a weather forecast has got to be a couple of cans short of a sixpack. You know, for something that was so so easy to see, you sure cut tail and run at the first challenge. My goodness, someone has a bug up their ass. This is fun. Tell you what douchebag, you admit that you screwed the pooch and apologize on the Portsmouth rally in that the weather forecast was just fine and not a factor in trump canceling his rally and I'll answer your question. Should be easy peasy. But you'll run away again. It's one of your better things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 13:16:24 GMT
You know, for something that was so so easy to see, you sure cut tail and run at the first challenge. My goodness, someone has a bug up their ass. This is fun. Tell you what douchebag, you admit that you screwed the pooch and apologize on the Portsmouth rally in that the weather forecast was just fine and not a factor in trump canceling his rally and I'll answer your question. Should be easy peasy. But you'll run away again. It's one of your better things. I didn't screw anything up. I explained to you why there were risks to having the event and why it was better to cancel. You then used later forecasts than were available at the time of the decision to justify your partisan hackary. Now you are using that same excuse to dodge a question that is supposedly simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 13, 2020 13:37:46 GMT
The significance of the Confederate statues is our Southern heritage. That is the significance of the Confederate statues, our origins and respecting our past. So where are the memorials to Revolutionary War Loyalists and Tories ..? It's all about history , Right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 13:56:35 GMT
My goodness, someone has a bug up their ass. This is fun. Tell you what douchebag, you admit that you screwed the pooch and apologize on the Portsmouth rally in that the weather forecast was just fine and not a factor in trump canceling his rally and I'll answer your question. Should be easy peasy. But you'll run away again. It's one of your better things. I didn't screw anything up. I explained to you why there were risks to having the event and why it was better to cancel. You then used later forecasts than were available at the time of the decision to justify your partisan hackary. Now you are using that same excuse to dodge a question that is supposedly simple. Complete  You completely effed it up, obvious to everyone but you from the moment it was cancelled. Go ahead and lie and deny again. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,021
|
Post by petep on Jul 13, 2020 13:59:57 GMT
We were planning to attend on my way back from RI to maine and we saw the forecast and decided not to go before it was even canceled...I don't want to stand around in the rain...whats the big deal?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 15:21:02 GMT
If the group funding a monument arranges for a dedication ceremony and guest speakers, that ceremony and those speeches contextualize the monument. Thats the point of a dedication ceremony. And if the ideas aren't already popularly held, it will backfire and fail as a symbol. You don't go to dedication ceremonies to hear controversial ideas. These are celebratory events. They are inclusive. That's comparable to saying that if someone broke wind at the dedication ceremony that the meaning of the memorial is contextualized toward flatulence. I'm guessing that there was more farting than speaking at the dedication, especially if one assumes a Southern style food spread.
If someone yelled, "dang! it's hot out here!", I guess the context of the memorial is now summertime, right? Based on TL's "logic", that memorial is about nothing more than sweltering during the dedication.
Yeah, those are as stupid as assigning meaning to the memorial based on the bloviations of a politician for an hour. Want to know what each monument means? READ. THE. DAMN. MONUMENT. Still having that math problem, I see. So three out of eleven seceded states make slavery a primary cause (yet none made it the only cause) and that's enough for you. Statistics and empirical analysis is just not your thing, is it? It's as if you and your ilk are triggered by any mention of slavery and are subsequently blinded to the actual complexities of the situation.
".....where is the evidence to back it?" Do your own research; I'm growing tired of schooling you on these facts:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 15:43:27 GMT
The significance of the Confederate statues is our Southern heritage. That is the significance of the Confederate statues, our origins and respecting our past. So where are the memorials to Revolutionary War Loyalists and Tories ..? It's all about history , Right? Here's more of Fid's whataboutism to deal with. After the war, about 20% of the Loyalists left the United States, headed to G.B., the Caribbean or Canada. Because of their unforgivable crime of supporting a mad tyrant like George III, many of those who stayed could not remain it their original homes, especially in the South after the Revolutionary War. Too many depredations had been committed by their fellow Tories during the Southern campaign. Most Loyalist ranks were diluted after many sought a fresh start somewhere else.
It was quite different after 1865; Southerners returned to and remained in their homes after the War of Northern Aggression. Like the patriots of the Revolution, they had fought against the bloody tyrant's invasion and subjugation. While defeated in the end, they finally drove the blue belly filth and the parasitic carpetbaggers out of their home regions in 1876.
In both cases, the patriots, not the tyrant's men, put up monuments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 16:39:00 GMT
If the group funding a monument arranges for a dedication ceremony and guest speakers, that ceremony and those speeches contextualize the monument. Thats the point of a dedication ceremony. And if the ideas aren't already popularly held, it will backfire and fail as a symbol. You don't go to dedication ceremonies to hear controversial ideas. These are celebratory events. They are inclusive. That's comparable to saying that if someone broke wind at the dedication ceremony that the meaning of the memorial is contextualized toward flatulence. I'm guessing that there was more farting than speaking at the dedication, especially if one assumes a Southern style food spread.
If someone yelled, "dang! it's hot out here!", I guess the context of the memorial is now summertime, right? Based on TL's "logic", that memorial is about nothing more than sweltering during the dedication.
Yeah, those are as stupid as assigning meaning to the memorial based on the bloviations of a politician for an hour. Want to know what each monument means? READ. THE. DAMN. MONUMENT. No, that's an illogical and irrational comparison. This was not a farting exhibit. (farts are ubiquitous in the world, people fart in church, too, but that doesn't re-contextualize church around flatulence). You're trying to compare incidental and irrelevant actions with an organized ceremony and the comparison falters. The more you double down on the idea that official ceremonies are meaningless, the more you out yourself as someone who is not discussing in good faith. Regarding your "read the monument" talk.. we are big on materialist epistemologies right up to the point where we find a monument with hate and apartheid embedded in it. Then we ignore what the monument says... lol Dedication ceremonies are an important part of the context which give meaning to symbols and statues. You can laugh and dismiss that, or try to work around by making silly equivalencies, but don't be surprised when the rest of us smile and remain unconvinced. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 16:46:01 GMT
Still having that math problem, I see. So three out of eleven seceded states make slavery a primary cause (yet none made it the only cause) and that's enough for you. Statistics and empirical analysis is just not your thing, is it? It's as if you and your ilk are triggered by any mention of slavery and are subsequently blinded to the actual complexities of the situation.
".....where is the evidence to back it?" Do your own research; I'm growing tired of schooling you on these facts:
Might want to count again.. I get to 5. (4 are mentioned in the graphic YOU included lol) Regarding the linked papers, I don't see anything there that backs up your claim that the cause of the south was *merely* the cause of the southern 1%. If that's true, why didn't the people leave their 1% out to dry? Why didn't they free the slaves and join the North? Why did a tiny minority of the southern population think they could run roughshod over the wishes and values of the rest? In short, they didn't, because even if poor whites couldn't afford a slave, they still wanted a world where the black man was a slave. Now, if you have proof that 99% of the southern population was actually a bunch of closet abolitionists, I am ready to see it. But somehow I doubt that will be forthcoming. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 16:48:02 GMT
We were planning to attend on my way back from RI to maine and we saw the forecast and decided not to go before it was even canceled...I don't want to stand around in the rain...whats the big deal? He really really needs a win. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 16:53:01 GMT
The significance of the Confederate statues is our Southern heritage. That is the significance of the Confederate statues, our origins and respecting our past. So where are the memorials to Revolutionary War Loyalists and Tories ..? It's all about history , Right? A little bit about history. A little bit about heritage. You can be proud of your ancestors even if they were not perfect, can't you? |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 13, 2020 17:21:30 GMT
You can be proud of your ancestors even if they were not perfect, can't you? Of course you can .. on your personal property. Memorials to YOUR imperfect (btw - an interesting way to describe vile slavers) ancestors ... enemy combatants .. have no right to be placed on public property .. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 17:39:21 GMT
You can be proud of your ancestors even if they were not perfect, can't you? Of course you can .. on your personal property. Memorials to YOUR imperfect (btw - an interesting way to describe vile slavers) ancestors ... enemy combatants .. have no right to be placed on public property .. So, no matter what, the association of those people with slavery makes them unforgivable? What about the confederate flag? Is it possible that it moved from a symbol of slavery to a symbol of southern living/hospitality/heritage? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 17:50:11 GMT
That's comparable to saying that if someone broke wind at the dedication ceremony that the meaning of the memorial is contextualized toward flatulence. I'm guessing that there was more farting than speaking at the dedication, especially if one assumes a Southern style food spread.
If someone yelled, "dang! it's hot out here!", I guess the context of the memorial is now summertime, right? Based on TL's "logic", that memorial is about nothing more than sweltering during the dedication.
Yeah, those are as stupid as assigning meaning to the memorial based on the bloviations of a politician for an hour. Want to know what each monument means? READ. THE. DAMN. MONUMENT. No, that's an illogical and irrational comparison. This was not a farting exhibit. (farts are ubiquitous in the world, people fart in church, too, but that doesn't re-contextualize church around flatulence). You're trying to compare incidental and irrelevant actions with an organized ceremony and the comparison falters. The more you double down on the idea that official ceremonies are meaningless, the more you out yourself as someone who is not discussing in good faith. Regarding your "read the monument" talk.. we are big on materialist epistemologies right up to the point where we find a monument with hate and apartheid embedded in it. Then we ignore what the monument says... lol Dedication ceremonies are an important part of the context which gives meaning to symbols and statues. You can laugh and dismiss that, or try to work around by making silly equivalencies, but don't be surprised when the rest of us smile and remain unconvinced. It's just as illogical and irrelevant to assign a politician's self serving speech to the meaning of a memorial when the memorial says nothing of the kind. The day after that speech, a stranger wouldn't have a clue about the speech, just what the monument says. You say this was not a "farting" exhibit and you are right BECAUSE THE MONUMENT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT FLATULENCE, yet you equally try to assign meaning that is also not part of the monument.
And you still foolishly bring up a single example of the 1926 monument to ALL WARS that had separate water fountains as if the entire point of the monument were the fountains! That was a "monumental" fail on your part.
No, the message from one paragraph by a single speaker at a dedication ceremony is NOT an important part of a monument's context, when the words PERMANENTLY chiseled in the granite say nothing of the kind.
READ. THE. DAMN. MONUMENT.
As far as smiling and being unconvinced, I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 17:54:04 GMT
No, that's an illogical and irrational comparison. This was not a farting exhibit. (farts are ubiquitous in the world, people fart in church, too, but that doesn't re-contextualize church around flatulence). You're trying to compare incidental and irrelevant actions with an organized ceremony and the comparison falters. The more you double down on the idea that official ceremonies are meaningless, the more you out yourself as someone who is not discussing in good faith. Regarding your "read the monument" talk.. we are big on materialist epistemologies right up to the point where we find a monument with hate and apartheid embedded in it. Then we ignore what the monument says... lol Dedication ceremonies are an important part of the context which gives meaning to symbols and statues. You can laugh and dismiss that, or try to work around by making silly equivalencies, but don't be surprised when the rest of us smile and remain unconvinced. It's just as illogical and irrelevant to assign a politician's self serving speech to the meaning of a memorial when the memorial says nothing of the kind. The day after that speech, a stranger wouldn't have a clue about the speech, just what the monument says. You say this was not a "farting" exhibit and you are right BECAUSE THE MONUMENT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT FLATULENCE, yet you equally try to assign meaning that is also not part of the monument.
And you still foolishly bring up a single example of the 1926 monument to ALL WARS that had separate water fountains as if the entire point of the monument were the fountains! That was a "monumental" fail on your part.
No, the message from one paragraph by a single speaker at a dedication ceremony are NOT an important part of a monument's context, when the words PERMANENTLY chiseled in the granite say nothing of the kind.
READ. THE. DAMN. MONUMENT.
As far as smiling and being unconvinced, I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think.
You have no where to go in this discussion so you have resorted to comparing farts to dedication ceremonies. And you are ignore the words on monuments, in dedication speeches, in the articles and ordinances of secession, etc. You care nothing about the facts, or about being reasonable or about finding the truth. You only care about defending the south, even if there is no defense ready at hand. You will invent one, even if it is stupid and silly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 18:07:00 GMT
Still having that math problem, I see. So three out of eleven seceded states make slavery a primary cause (yet none made it the only cause) and that's enough for you. Statistics and empirical analysis is just not your thing, is it? It's as if you and your ilk are triggered by any mention of slavery and are subsequently blinded to the actual complexities of the situation.
".....where is the evidence to back it?" Do your own research; I'm growing tired of schooling you on these facts:
Might want to count again.. I get to 5. (4 are mentioned in the graphic YOU included lol) Regarding the linked papers, I don't see anything there that backs up your claim that the cause of the south was *merely* the cause of the southern 1%. If that's true, why didn't the people leave their 1% out to dry? Why didn't they free the slaves and join the North? Why did a tiny minority of the southern population think they could run roughshod over the wishes and values of the rest? In short, they didn't, because even if poor whites couldn't afford a slave, they still wanted a world where the black man was a slave. Now, if you have proof that 99% of the southern population was actually a bunch of closet abolitionists, I am ready to see it. But somehow I doubt that will be forthcoming. It concerns me that I have to keep explaining the facts to you. The alleged "fifth" was nothing more than Virginia's Ordinance of Secession that didn't go into any detail on causes. Of the four remaining, South Carolina's is only 20% about slavery. That leave three. Your struggles with math are disturbing.
Your exaggerations reveal your desperation on this topic. No one is claiming that "99% of the southern population was actually a bunch of closet abolitionists" any more than the vast majority of Northerners were abolitionists. Hell, the NORTH passed (and several states ratified) a constitutional amendment in March 1861 to permanently preserve slavery where it existed!
And, by that question, you just destroyed your own argument. If secession had just been about slavery, the remaining 94% (6% owned slaves, but 5% of that number owned 5 or less), the rest of the population would have risen up against them. There's a reason why Southerners viewed their actions as the "Second American Revolution"...they saw a central power taking away their local and state autonomy just like George III did. It wasn't about slavery, at least not to the majority of Southerners. Nor were their monuments about white supremacy. Southerners supported separation, not slavery; that's why they fought so fiercely in 1861-1865.
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,021
|
Post by petep on Jul 13, 2020 18:09:42 GMT
Might want to count again.. I get to 5. (4 are mentioned in the graphic YOU included lol) Regarding the linked papers, I don't see anything there that backs up your claim that the cause of the south was *merely* the cause of the southern 1%. If that's true, why didn't the people leave their 1% out to dry? Why didn't they free the slaves and join the North? Why did a tiny minority of the southern population think they could run roughshod over the wishes and values of the rest? In short, they didn't, because even if poor whites couldn't afford a slave, they still wanted a world where the black man was a slave. Now, if you have proof that 99% of the southern population was actually a bunch of closet abolitionists, I am ready to see it. But somehow I doubt that will be forthcoming. It concerns me that I have to keep explaining the facts to you. The alleged "fifth" was nothing more than Virginia's Ordinance of Secession that didn't go into any detail on causes. Of the four remaining, South Carolina's is only 20% about slavery. That leave three. Your struggles with math are disturbing.
Your exaggerations reveal your desperation on this topic. No one is claiming that "99% of the southern population was actually a bunch of closet abolitionists" any more than the vast majority of Northerners were abolitionists. Hell, the NORTH passed (and several states ratified) a constitutional amendment in March 1861 to permanently preserve slavery where it existed!
And, by that question, you just destroyed your own argument. If secession had just been about slavery, the remaining 94% (6% owned slaves, but 5% of that number owned 5 or less), the rest of the population would have risen up against them. There's a reason why Southerners viewed their actions as the "Second American Revolution"...they saw a central power taking away their local and state autonomy just like George III did. It wasn't about slavery, at least not to the majority of Southerners. Nor were their monuments about white supremacy. Southerners supported separation, not slavery; that's why they fought so fiercely in 1861-1865.
I don't think he gets this...he should read about why and how roger williams founded Rhode Island...but he is not big on reading links to facts and data these days...he used to be, before the constipation set in... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 18:17:37 GMT
Jul 13, 2020 13:54:04 GMT -4 TowardLiberty saidYou have no where to go in this discussion so you have resorted to comparing farts to dedication ceremonies. And you are ignore the words on monuments, in dedication speeches, in the articles and ordinances of secession, etc. You care nothing about the facts, or about being reasonable or about finding the truth. You only care about defending the south, even if there is no defense ready at hand. You will invent one, even if it is stupid and silly. I'm addressing the absurdity of your inane premise with an equal amount of absurdity. Didn't you get that? Your repeated logical fallacy invites comparisons to a noxious rectal discharge, so why not? Makes about as much sense as what you have said about Southern motivations.
And you ignore the scarcity of evidence supporting your tirade, and ignore the statistical failure of what little evidence you have provided. You've provided no words on monuments (laughably proposing that one pair of water fountains are the "message"), given us only tiny slivers of a few dedication speeches and you still continue to confuse the ordinances with the handful of declarations of causes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 18:33:35 GMT
Might want to count again.. I get to 5. (4 are mentioned in the graphic YOU included lol) Regarding the linked papers, I don't see anything there that backs up your claim that the cause of the south was *merely* the cause of the southern 1%. If that's true, why didn't the people leave their 1% out to dry? Why didn't they free the slaves and join the North? Why did a tiny minority of the southern population think they could run roughshod over the wishes and values of the rest? In short, they didn't, because even if poor whites couldn't afford a slave, they still wanted a world where the black man was a slave. Now, if you have proof that 99% of the southern population was actually a bunch of closet abolitionists, I am ready to see it. But somehow I doubt that will be forthcoming. It concerns me that I have to keep explaining the facts to you. The alleged "fifth" was nothing more than Virginia's Ordinance of Secession that didn't go into any detail on causes. Of the four remaining, South Carolina's is only 20% about slavery. That leave three. Your struggles with math are disturbing.
You should be concerned. You've got a serious issue with counting and logic. I'll count them out for you. These are the states that mentioned slavery as a reason for secession. 1. South Carolina 2. Mississippi 3. Georgia 4. Texas 5. Virginia |
|
