Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 15, 2021 13:49:49 GMT
*Screeching Intensifies* If you don’t want to be called on untrue statements, and will incessantly screech about it for days, then don’t make untrue statements. I don’t see how this is my problem, or how screeching gives you some sort of victory, despite your objectively and admittedly untrue statements. And then you keep making the untrue statement within your screeching? Get a grip. You can tell you have nothing whatsoever to argue your ridiculous position by the lengths you go to exit the argument using any means possible. Do run along. Don't let the door hit you on the ass. Next time try harder and think about your nonsense before you spew it.
Here is who is the screechiest on LNF:
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Jun 15, 2021 14:06:53 GMT
*Screeching Intensifies* If you don’t want to be called on untrue statements, and will incessantly screech about it for days, then don’t make untrue statements. I don’t see how this is my problem, or how screeching gives you some sort of victory, despite your objectively and admittedly untrue statements. And then you keep making the untrue statement within your screeching? Get a grip. You can tell you have nothing whatsoever to argue your ridiculous position by the lengths you go to exit the argument using any means possible. Do run along. Don't let the door hit you on the ass. Next time try harder and think about your nonsense before you spew it. . VYPR: *Says something true* VYPR, later: *Says something which contradicts previous statement and is obviously untrue* Rabbit: "That last bit is untrue." VYPR: "IS THAT ALL YOU HAVE??? I WIN!!!" Rabbit: "Oh." |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Jun 15, 2021 14:07:07 GMT
Also, the milling industries in the North depended on the harvesting on raw materials in the south. It is all connected.
Plus, the North's milling industries were in competition with British milling industry. If I'm not mistaken, this led Britain to lean towards supporting the Confederacy, with the South attempting to redirect its raw materials to Europe. Fortunately the North's naval capability tended to thwart this move, although some may have gotten through. But there's no doubt that prior to the outbreak of hostilities between North and South, both benefited economically from slavery.
Exactly. I read that somewhere too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2021 14:16:02 GMT
It's the 1619 project, not 1618. And both its premise and its contents are fecal laced garbage that even Joseph Goebbels, master of propaganda would have been ashamed to have peddled.
Wealth was made IN SPITE OF SLAVERY, not because of it, unless you can explain why so many countries succeeded financially without a single slave's contribution. Slave labor actually depressed wealth creation among non slave holders in the areas where slavery was prevalent, offsetting this NYT fiction.
Wealth was made because of slavery. Any fool can see that. Africans selling their own already enslaved people to Europeans did profit from the trade. Some individuals did gain wealth from slavery, but it's moronic to believe that it added to the country's wealth while ignoring both the cost and the lost wealth due to slavery. Not a zero sum proposition, but math hasn't been your strength, has it? |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,417
|
Post by thor on Jun 15, 2021 14:21:44 GMT
Wealth was made because of slavery. Any fool can see that. Africans selling their own already enslaved people to Europeans did profit from the trade. Some individuals did gain wealth from slavery, but it's moronic to believe that it added to the country's wealth while ignoring both the cost and the lost wealth due to slavery. Not a zero sum proposition, but math hasn't been your strength, has it? Oh really? "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." My foot. Your ass. Again.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2021 14:28:00 GMT
I thought Admin had discouraged FIFY. Are you familar with the Admin, boy? Oh sorry, I keep forgetting that liberals love double standards.
You've got it backwards, as usual, boy (backwards describes you well) Southerners were the liberals, Northerners were the conservatives of that era.
The vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists, therefore their motivation was just maintaining the union and the revenues from the South, a conservative position. The handful of abolitionists could be labelled as progressive, but many in this group also supported secession.
The vast majority of Southerners were not slave owners but did support and defend secession, a liberal position. The small number of slave owners could be labelled as conservatives, but keep in mind that slavery would have remained untouched (where it existed) if their had been no war or secession.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2021 14:30:45 GMT
Africans selling their own already enslaved people to Europeans did profit from the trade. Some individuals did gain wealth from slavery, but it's moronic to believe that it added to the country's wealth while ignoring both the cost and the lost wealth due to slavery. Not a zero sum proposition, but math hasn't been your strength, has it? Oh really? "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." My foot. Your ass. Again. Are you this stupid in real life or is this just an act on this forum. One unsupported quote from one person and you think that has any merit at all in a discussion about all of American history?
Your head is so far up your ass that we've lost sight of your shoulders.
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,971
|
Post by petep on Jun 15, 2021 14:34:59 GMT
No one seems to be counting the immense cost of the civil war, a war that took place to end the long standing legal institution of slavery.
The combined union and confederate cost, relative to the size of the economy in total, made it one of the most expensive campaigns in US history.
If one were to count the financial benefit of slavery to the blacks and whites who owned slaves, and the economy in general - the net benefit being the delta between the cost of business with slaves vs the next best alternative to arrive at a net benefit, one must offset that cost against the cost to end slavery, which arguably was a worthwhile investment from a morality perspective, but still a massive cost.
In sum, slavery most probably cost the country given the massive war cost. We would have been better off morally and financially without the then legal practice. But I suppose that's the beauty of looking back hundreds of years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2021 16:20:17 GMT
I thought Admin had discouraged FIFY. Are you familar with the Admin, boy? Oh sorry, I keep forgetting that liberals love double standards.
You've got it backwards, as usual, boy (backwards describes you well) Southerners were the liberals, Northerners were the conservatives of that era.
The vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists, therefore their motivation was just maintaining the union and the revenues from the South, a conservative position. The handful of abolitionists could be labelled as progressive, but many in this group also supported secession.
The vast majority of Southerners were not slave owners but did support and defend secession, a liberal position. The small number of slave owners could be labelled as conservatives, but keep in mind that slavery would have remained untouched (where it existed) if their had been no war or secession.
The southerners who fought for slavery but didn't own slaves were fighting for a vision of society as a racial hierarchy. They were fighting against the idea that a black man would ever be their equal. That's a conservative project: (desiring a society based on status and hierarchy rather than equality before the law) You can't be a liberal and believe in inequality before the law, slavery, or some 2-tier system of justice. You don't know what liberalism is. This is an absurd argument you are making. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2021 16:35:57 GMT
I thought Admin had discouraged FIFY. Are you familar with the Admin, boy? Oh sorry, I keep forgetting that liberals love double standards.
You've got it backwards, as usual, boy (backwards describes you well) Southerners were the liberals, Northerners were the conservatives of that era.
The vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists, therefore their motivation was just maintaining the union and the revenues from the South, a conservative position. The handful of abolitionists could be labelled as progressive, but many in this group also supported secession.
The vast majority of Southerners were not slave owners but did support and defend secession, a liberal position. The small number of slave owners could be labelled as conservatives, but keep in mind that slavery would have remained untouched (where it existed) if their had been no war or secession.
The southerners who fought for slavery but didn't own slaves were fighting for a vision of society as a racial hierarchy. They were fighting against the idea that a black man would ever be their equal. That's a conservative project: (desiring a society based on status and hierarchy rather than equality before the law) You can't be a liberal and believe in inequality before the law, slavery, or some 2-tier system of justice. You don't know what liberalism is. This is an absurd argument you are making. Utter illogical nonsense. Despite the laughable fiction concocted in your narrow, logic-challenged mind, non-slaveholding Southerners were not fighting "for a vision of society as a racial hierarchy" or that "they were fighting against the idea that a black man would ever be their equal. " That's as stupidly wrong as pretending that Confederate monuments somehow stood for white supremacy.
Once again the majority of Southerners were no different than the Patriots who fought the British in the American Revolution; all but a fraction of the Southerners fighting the Yankee filth in 1861-1865 had the same motivations and the same goals as those American patriots. Unless you want to try to argue that 18th century Patriots were "conservative", you lose.
You're welcome to try to prove that the majority of Southerners were fighting "vision of society as a racial hierarchy", but since there's no evidence to support such garbage thinking, your success is in doubt.
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,971
|
Post by petep on Jun 15, 2021 16:42:52 GMT
how do you explain the black slave trade that existed long before the first whites showed up to participate in the slave trade...was that status/hierarchy
I suspect its more probable that it was a about greed and power...whether black on black in africa or the states at the time, or the black on white trade during the barbary coast.
Arguably no different from northerners using child labor at the time, and even after slavery...
It often feel like people here, take a case they wish to make today, and warp history to fit that case...like the left comparing trump to hitler..
I think this is a Occam's razor situation...the obvious is its about greed and power...in a world in which the practice was allowed and legal...and I suspect people of all sorts participated...whether slavery or child labor
In parts of africa kids are sold regularly..have you spent much time in mexico...kids are regularly rented out to help the renters beg in the streets...its not seen as evil or bad...its their culture...here we'd say its horrific...they think nothing of it...
perhaps in the future, something will be outlawed that is perfectly legal today - maybe even something you participate in or do today...and they will look back and think you were evil or foolish...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2021 16:58:02 GMT
The southerners who fought for slavery but didn't own slaves were fighting for a vision of society as a racial hierarchy. They were fighting against the idea that a black man would ever be their equal. That's a conservative project: (desiring a society based on status and hierarchy rather than equality before the law) You can't be a liberal and believe in inequality before the law, slavery, or some 2-tier system of justice. You don't know what liberalism is. This is an absurd argument you are making. Once again the majority of Southerners were no different than the Patriots who fought the British in the American Revolution; all but a fraction of the Southerners fighting the Yankee filth in 1861-1865 had the same motivations and the same goals as those American patriots. Unless you want to try to argue that 18th century Patriots were "conservative", you lose.
One major difference between them: their goals. The revolutionaries of the American Revolution fought to free themselves from the British so they could self govern in a more liberal way (less taxes, fewer tariffs, rights of property against forced quartering, sound money, etc) where as the southern "revolutionaries" were fighting to maintain a foot in the feudal world, with slavery, hierarchy and status as the animating principle of their society, rather than the liberal notion of equality before the law. To the extent the revolutionaries of the American Revolution shared the southerner's preference for a status/hierarchy/feudal style society, with apartheid and slavery, they too were not liberals. www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/why-non-slaveholding-southerners-foughtThis ^ isn't for you because I know you have no interest in historical facts or context, but for those following along, the above link should be enough to make the point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2021 16:59:54 GMT
how do you explain the black slave trade that existed long before the first whites showed up to participate in the slave trade...was that status/hierarchy Who are you talking to? |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,971
|
Post by petep on Jun 15, 2021 17:06:47 GMT
sorry - my post was directed at your prior post TL
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,417
|
Post by thor on Jun 15, 2021 18:15:39 GMT
I thought Admin had discouraged FIFY. Are you familar with the Admin, boy? Oh sorry, I keep forgetting that liberals love double standards.
You've got it backwards, as usual, boy (backwards describes you well) Southerners were the liberals, Northerners were the conservatives of that era.
The vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists, therefore their motivation was just maintaining the union and the revenues from the South, a conservative position. The handful of abolitionists could be labelled as progressive, but many in this group also supported secession.
The vast majority of Southerners were not slave owners but did support and defend secession, a liberal position. The small number of slave owners could be labelled as conservatives, but keep in mind that slavery would have remained untouched (where it existed) if their had been no war or secession.
The southerners who fought for slavery but didn't own slaves were fighting for a vision of society as a racial hierarchy. They were fighting against the idea that a black man would ever be their equal. That's a conservative project: (desiring a society based on status and hierarchy rather than equality before the law) You can't be a liberal and believe in inequality before the law, slavery, or some 2-tier system of justice. You don't know what liberalism is. This is an absurd argument you are making. Jump on in, TL. The water's fine to dunk on Paleo.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2021 19:28:15 GMT
how do you explain the black slave trade that existed long before the first whites showed up to participate in the slave trade...was that status/hierarchy Yes, of course. Slavery does not change its character because of the color of the slave-master's skin. Slavery is slavery. Hierarchy is hierarchy. Inequality is inequality. This & that. Its both. Certainly greed and power are a factor. Perhaps. But I fail to see the point. It seems cultural/social evolution is a perennial feature of human civilization. Change is inevitable. And I think that is a feature, not a bug. Look at how much better civilization is today, in 2020, than it was 100, 200 or 300 years ago. We have come a long way, sister! Forgetting about all the material comforts we enjoy today (allowing us all, even the working class, to live better than the kings and 1% of yesteryear) we have really made strides in our ethics and values. Gay marriage, interracial marriage, the end of slavery, the end of legal apartheid, the evolution of the status of women and their new equality, and the extension of dignity and legal equality to everyone, no matter their race, religion or ethnicity.. This is huge when viewed through a historical lens. We have so much to be proud of. |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Jun 15, 2021 23:20:13 GMT
Wealth was made because of slavery. Any fool can see that. Africans selling their own already enslaved people to Europeans did profit from the trade. Some individuals did gain wealth from slavery, but it's moronic to believe that it added to the country's wealth while ignoring both the cost and the lost wealth due to slavery. Not a zero sum proposition, but math hasn't been your strength, has it? What does that have to do with chattel slavery in this country. There was no lost of wealth due to free labor in this country. Stop saying shit that makes you appear idiotic |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 16, 2021 13:28:23 GMT
I thought Admin had discouraged FIFY. Are you familar <sic> with the Admin, boy? And Admin is also familiar with how to spell familiar correctly.. When quoting someone directly where the user name and time stamp appear before the text the text should remain untouched. It's been that way on LNF for as long as I remember. Would you prefer using " " rather than the Quote function? Oh.. And Fiddler isn't Black. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 13:43:29 GMT
Africans selling their own already enslaved people to Europeans did profit from the trade. Some individuals did gain wealth from slavery, but it's moronic to believe that it added to the country's wealth while ignoring both the cost and the lost wealth due to slavery. Not a zero sum proposition, but math hasn't been your strength, has it? What does that have to do with chattel slavery in this country. There was no lost of wealth due to free labor in this country. Stop saying shit that makes you appear idiotic "Appear idiotic"? I never look like you.
I never said that wealth was lost due to free labor. The cost to maintain the system and the cost in depressed ambitions among those who had to compete with the big slave owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Jun 16, 2021 13:46:49 GMT
What does that have to do with chattel slavery in this country. There was no lost of wealth due to free labor in this country. Stop saying shit that makes you appear idiotic "Appear idiotic"? I never look like you.
I never said that wealth was lost due to free labor. The cost to maintain the system and the cost in depressed ambitions among those who had to compete with the big slave owners.
That makes no sense at all. That's like saying the cost of mom and pop stores to compete with Amazon and Walmart. |
|
