150year anniversary of the South's declaration of secession

[quade 4]

Quote

"So then you're admitting it was about slavery and not only that, you seem to be saying it's still a good idea."

And the rest of it;

Quote

Is that really how you wanted that post to go down?

Not an accusation; a request for clarification.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Yes, slavery is abhorrent. No argument there. So is breaking an agreement. Not expecting a response is just silly.

The same argument could be made in favor of contract killings. A contract is a contract, right, now matter how abhorrent it may be.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

You voted, right?
What if, after promising to reduce taxes, the guy you helped put into office voted to support raising your taxes to 100%.

You'd be screaming about the 100%, and rightfully so, correct? I can empathize with that. Hell I'd be right there with you screamin' my ass off.

However, by your way of thinking, it's apparent that you would still support the guy you put into office. I would point out to you that HE is the cause of the problem. HE broke the campaign promise to you that enticed you to vote for him.

Do you STILL see a problem with that?

So now you're comparing not being allowed to keep slaves with 100% taxation?

Funny in all these analogies that pop up in this argument how a practise that is incompatible with a moral society gets substituted by something perfectly reasonable. Almost like the people making the analogy don't want to face up to what they're defending...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

de·fend (d-fnd)
v. de·fend·ed, de·fend·ing, de·fends
v.tr.
1. To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.
3. To support or maintain, as by argument or action; justify.

Nice tapdance, but no prize.

So, once again, show me where I said that Andy said that slavery was right.

3. To support or maintain, as by argument or action; justify.

Quote

Put up or shut up.

There ya go. You may now make your apologies to Andy.

Quote

Quote

Oh, gee, I dunno...maybe the repeated usage of the word "cunt" and accusing people of defending slave ownership when they've said nothing of the sort, vs. arguing the economic and states-rights arguments that were made?

1) When applied to a man who'd go to war over his right to own slaves, it's accurate.

2) I haven't, that's your stupid little game.

3) The side arguments are a diversion. The entire reason they're being made is because peope don't want to face up to the fact that they're defending a war fought over slavery.

Thanks for proving my point, again - emotion based arguments over the validity of slavery, vs. an argument over the economic/states rights issues that WERE brought up.

Quote

4) What fact or logic based argument have you brought to this thread, exactly? Your inability to walk the walk never fails to not surprise me.

Still waiting on your logic-based argument.

Nice try, no kewpie.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

People making those arguments should go back to the first post of the thread and read the Declaration again.

Maybe YOU missed:

-"...declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union;"

-"...4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do"

-"...They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government."

-"...For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."


And more interesting stuff regarding this issue in there.


You may reasonably argue that the slavery issue may or may not have been the match that set off the powder keg, but you can't reasonably say that slavery, in and of itself, was the cause of the Civil War.

OR

You an choose the simpleton way...IT WAS ALL BECAUSE OF SLAVERY!

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

There ya go. You may now make your apologies to Andy.

No, you're still wrong. Andy is defending slave owners and their part in/ justifications for the civil war.

Now, show me where I said that Andy said that slavery was right.

Quote

Thanks for proving my point, again - emotion based arguments over the validity of slavery, vs. an argument over the economic/states rights issues that WERE brought up

So maybe you could explain how you figure that slavery, also an issue that WAS brought up, is an emotional argument and state's rights a logical argument?

Is it because it's the one that makes it impossible to defend the South? Is it? Yeah it is.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[popsjumper 2]

Well, you responded anyway...with the same whatever it is.

Do you not understand the purpose of analogies?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Quote

Quote

. . . since nobody has posted in support of slavery . . .

You're right. They only supported the side of slavery in a war about slavery. What was I thinking?

Probably about your strawman that anything besides complete condemnation was support of 'the side of slavery'.

Andy said it was abhorrent, even after you accused of him of thinking it was still a good idea. Clint and Shane mention the states rights aspects of the situation, and, in fact, Shane says that he's 'glad things worked out as they did'.

I say again - you may want to tuck that bias back in, it's dragging on the ground behind you.

You still haven't figured out what a "strawman" is after all this time. Slow learner?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Well, you responded anyway...with the same whatever it is.

Do you not understand the purpose of analogies?

Gotta love how the only response they can make is some verbose version of 'you racist', eh?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

That it is.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Do you not understand the purpose of analogies?

Analogies can be used in many different ways. Sometimes they're used in an attempt to illuminate a particular part of an argument, and sometimes they're used to try and obscure a part.

Pretty clear which side that one fell under.

You: "Breaking an agreement to let people own slaves is bad! How would you feel if someone promised not to take all your money and then did?"

Other people: "Um, WTF?"

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You still haven't figured out what a "strawman" is after all this time.

Sure I have - it's like arguing about SALES tax when you are the one that brought sales tax into the discussion in the first place.

In this case, it's Quade equating discussion of the economic/states rights issues surrounding the succession is being support of slavery.

Quote

Slow learner?

Why, yes...yes you are.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

Is this where we cease appealing to the intellectual and simply start tweaking noses?



Beating brain-dead horses.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Quote

Well, you responded anyway...with the same whatever it is.

Do you not understand the purpose of analogies?

Gotta love how the only response they can make is some verbose version of 'you racist', eh?

Gotta love people who can only fall back on the racist card.

Maybe, just maybe, if you paid attention to what was said instead of just belligerently charging in looking for an argument, you'd have noticed that the point I'm making is that the pro-confederates are mostly trying to ignore the slavery aspect of the war, so they can pretend their side was in the right.

Sorry if that's too complex a concept for you

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[popsjumper 2]

You lost me...what does WTF stand for?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

You lost me...what does WTF stand for?

What the fornication?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, you responded anyway...with the same whatever it is.

Do you not understand the purpose of analogies?

Gotta love how the only response they can make is some verbose version of 'you racist', eh?

Gotta love people who can only fall back on the racist card.

Maybe, just maybe, if you paid attention to what was said instead of just belligerently charging in looking for an argument, you'd have noticed that the point I'm making is that the pro-confederates are mostly trying to ignore the slavery aspect of the war, so they can pretend their side were in the right.

Sorry if that's too complex a concept for you

Evidently "it wasn't all about slavery" is too complex a concept for you - sorry about that.

Sorry about that whole junior telepath kit thing, too - you may want to get a refund on that. At least, I'm guessing that's what led to the 'so they can pretend their side were in the right' statement - wasn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Sorry about that whole junior telepath kit thing, too

Well, just try and bear that in mind next time you want to tell me what I did or didn't say to someone, yeah?

At least you've finally fessed up to talking utter shite, which is honestly a lot more than I expected.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Sorry about that whole junior telepath kit thing, too

Well, just try and bear that in mind next time you want to tell me what I did or didn't say to someone, yeah?

I don't have to be telepathic to read - unlike your claims.

Quote

At least you've finally fessed up to talking utter shite, which is honestly a lot more than I expected.

More of your 'telepathy', eh Jake?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

Telepath Kit:

http://forums.rpgdungeon.net/index.php?topic=51.0

"Telepath
These warriors focus completely and totally on using their mind for combat. Thusly they are highly intelligent and gighly [sic] unskilled with weapons. They may make vicious attacks with their mind, but once their mental powers are depleted, they are next to worthless in combat."

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Maybe you can show me the post were -I- did that?

Post 13: "So then you're admitting it was about slavery and not only that, you seem to be saying it's still a good idea."

[popsjumper 2]

I'd suggest a Tunnel Vision Kit

http://fatalvision.com/tunnel-vision-lens-tvl.html

tunnel vision
n.
1. Vision in which the visual field is severely constricted, as from within a tunnel looking out.
2. An extremely narrow point of view; narrow-mindedness.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[quade 4]

I choose my words carefully and I stand behind every word I've ever written anywhere.

If you want to attempt to twist them and misrepresent by quoting things not entirely in context of what is written, that's on you.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

I don't have to be telepathic to read

Then show me where I said what you said I said. You can't, because I didn't say it. You're saying that something else I said meant what you said I said, but unless you can actually read my mind, you have absolutely no basis for saying so.

So either A) You've got that junior telepath kit working overtime; B) You can't read; or C) you're just a mindless shit-stirring drone who's trying to create as much drama as possible to cover for a complete lack of actual content.

Quote

unlike your claims.

Claim 1) Andy is playing down slavery as a justification for the war.

Claim 2) Andy is defending the Confederacy's part in the war.

Which would you like to dispute?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,501]

Aww, bless, he's throwing a little tantrum.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?