Search Results - SC2 Mafia
Register

Search:

Type: Posts; User: Helz

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.11 seconds.

  1. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I think that intent, in a large portion of situations, is relatively constant. If you reduce it, most actions people take are done to benefit themselves or their lineage, at least to their own knowledge. Also in general I'm definitely a pragmatist, and I think sitting around philosophizing about intent and even morality of actions depending on one's ulterior motives is absolutely useless. I think someone's ulterior motives in taking an action, insofar as those ulterior motives don't manifest themselves as malicious actions down the line, don't matter at all.

    That's why I don't particularly care if Lincoln actually wanted to free the slaves or if he just wanted to use the slaves as a political tool against the south, because the end result was the same. The only reason I would care is if I had reason to believe that his motives one way or another resulted in a less favourable situation for black people in the US than would have otherwise happened.

    Keep in mind I'm not denying that motives are entirely irrelevant, to the extent that these motives might result in future underhanded actions. For example, someone giving a donation might want something out of it and attach strings to the donation, versus someone just donating out of the good of their heart. But again, this comes down to difference in actions, and to me it's useless to consider motives if the end result is exactly the same. This is also why murder and manslaughter deserve to be different crimes; someone who killed someone with intent has a different predisposition to commit more crimes than someone who killed someone unintentionally, and they should be treated differently based on that, whether in terms of future support or protecting society from them.



    I'm not really trying to paint the Union as moral, I just don't think that the Union's actions are in any way a reflection of what the Confederacy was. The Confederacy wanted to keep slaves and was founded on a cornerstone of racism, which is in stark contrast with the Union, which while also racist for many years also didn't have racism codified as a central belief. I don't think honouring Confederate symbols and figures is something that people should protect because of what the Confederacy represented. It's impossible to disentangle those ideas and symbols from slavery and racism.

    The Union did a lot of bad stuff during the war and they absolutely perpetrated racism, including systematic racism, for many years. But I really don't give a shit because that barely has anything to do with my original point.

    I understand the Union was majority Republican. I also understand that political parties change over many years. To my understanding, the Republican party was respectable and generally more aligned with my beliefs until Nixon's presidency.
    This makes a lot of sense to me in a lot of ways.

    -edit
    If your interested I think this piece does quite a bit to outline true systemic issues in the US law with great respect to intention and morality
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl6yXjdMlHI
  2. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Never said the North wasn't evil in fact I have made several posts indicating the opposite. If you choose to interpret that I have the stance that the North is morally superior and can't be evil after I have said numerous times they weren't then that's on you, not me. I'm not here to argue every half degree, intricate variable of the civil war. I have said my purpose time and time again, you cannot separate the abolishment sentiment that predominantly came from Northern states from why the South seceded. I think I have said this at least 5 times now. Literally go read the thread again if you think I am propping the North up on some false moral platform.

    You and Ganelon can run off on tangents all you want but I will keep bringing up the point that Ganelon tries to stray from.
    This has good points. I really think there is very few points you have made that I felt were unfair. I should probably step back and consider your position more as I post. Call it a character flaw of mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    This entire discussion is 50x longer than it needs to be because it literally ran off into dozens of whataboutisms.
    I do get what your saying here but I very honestly dislike the idea that "whataboutism" is treated like a logical fallacy. It basically allows for an argument to ignore context/circumstance when convenient and frame the other persons comments as a red herring. If what I said is erroneous its a red herring. If its not then "whataboutism" is just a crappy way to exclude conversation that detracts from your desired position. It creates the vague direction that someone is talking about 'other stuff' to deflate or support some other unspoken position which is one really ugly logic jump allowing misrepresentation on an extreme level.

    Maybe its just our mafia roots considering the counter train strategy but that line allows for an insane amount of bias while attempting to command the consideration of a logical fallacy and I just don't care for it.
  3. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    North wanted to end slavery, South didn't. South was clearly on the verge of seceding so the North compromised to allow slavery in existing Southern slave states. The South saw the writing on the wall that even if this happened, slavery wasn't destined to stay so they seceded anyway to ensure it's survival on their terms. The Union declared war because they seceded. This is as layman as I think I can make it while not subscribing to a biased narrative. I really do not know why you keep trying to push this other narrative.
    Would it be a shock for me to say that I feel like this is a biased narrative? The story of the moral and good North wanting what was right but accepting less to try to make everyone happy while the evil south was greedy and seceded forcing the north to declare war? This is as biased as it gets. The south is evil while the north is good in spite of the presented facts.

    Why is it such a terrible thing to accept the north was also evil in this situation? I don't think a single piece of information has come up to suggest anything against it other than arguing the south was evil. Why is it such a stretch to believe both sides were wrong when we have access to years of historical accounts of almost every side in every war ever acting out of self interest?
  4. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    The issue is that belief systems are more or less necessary. And that most people look to politics for a concrete belief system that they can use in their lives. Itís not STRICTLY a categorisation issue because e.g. someone who is staunchly against, say, capitalism, will probably try to refuse capitalism in all of its forms.
    Fair point. But I believe people have beliefs as they are convenient to them. My favorite recent day story comes from Oxford where the students launched a climate change protest and demanded the college stopped its use and investments in fossil fuels. The dean responded by offering to shut off the gas powered heat as a step in that direction which some people asked the dean if that was provocative. He responded "You are right that I am being provocative but I am provoking some clear thinking, I hope; It is all too easy to request others to do things that carry no personal cost to yourself. The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve the goals of environmental improvement"

    Saying "I want healthcare" once you are sick is easy but being told to pay into it while you are healthy is not taken well
    Saying "Give tax money to this cause" is easy until that money is coming out of your pocket

    People want the benefit or to benefit the cause they care about but if you ask them to pay for what they want they will usually jump to ATE or a red herring. Sure they want homeless people to have a home but ask them to take one into the room next to their teenage daughter? Then its no longer convenient to have such a belief and they will fight it harder than they ever would have supported homeless housing.
  5. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Your point about the different types of industries is valid but you prove my point a bit by saying that the north just wanted control over the raw goods. Surely, if the north solely wanted control over the raw goods for economic purposes, and slavery was the best way, or even a good way, to exploit those goods, the north wouldn't have wanted to abolish slavery, no? They would have just wanted to keep the status quo?
    Im not sure when the word "Just" got added into my argument about the Norths motivations. I have never made that point and have pushed pretty emphatically that it was a power struggle. In the same way the USA struggle with Iran is not just about oil but it is one point of contention that almost lead to war. The USA could give a shit about their contribution to oil but it is a power struggle. When you strangle a nations ability to self sustain they have to answer to you and do what you want- even if it has nothing to do with (in this example) oil.
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    You keep actually stating/proving my point exactly with your arguments, including here, whether it's inadvertent or whether we agree without realizing it. You say that it's the principle of change and resistance to so-called change that kept the South stuck to the way they kept doing things. Except, the topic at hand is solely slavery. That's my point. The south stuck to slavery because it was one of their core principles, and they didn't want the north to change it because they saw keeping slaves as one of their rights.
    I really think thats an oversimplification. You say the 'sole topic at hand is slavery' which may be why we disagree. I am not sure what new and creative way I can find to say to you that the things I am arguing in no way make the souths actions moral. If we are simply talking about 2 different things maybe we just need to disentangle them?

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Slave-free production of cotton was possible, the South did it after the war. A large part of why the South had economic issues after the war was because the Confederacy had a strategy of embargoing cotton trade with Europe to force France and England's hand to recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate government. Instead, they just started up cotton production in Egypt and India instead, thus reducing their reliance on American cotton even after the war ended.
    I honestly think this is absurd. Do you really think the fact the Union targeted civilian housing and infrastructure was not a major impact? How about the loss of a third of their population through slaves? Or maybe the loss of another 400k of whatever was left as casualties (which was of their most physically capable?) Nevermind the fact that the unions core battle plan was to cut off the souths trade via the Mississippi river to choke out the confederacy.
    You would have to present quite a bit of sources for me to even consider this as a potential. Maybe you came across something I never have but this sounds like some political nonsense to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    My whole point is that the Confederacy was a nation founded upon the immoral and racist principle that slavery is a right and the natural order of things. I don't particularly care what the Union did, nor do I claim that they weren't racist. I also take major issue with the idea that intent matters more than actions and results but that's a separate topic.
    We can agree to disagree no problem.
    On that separate topic though (if we can 100% separate this from any civil war talk) why do you identify morality with actions and results if its unintentional? I have never herd this position taken before and genuinely would like to hear more about why you feel this way.

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I don't think the Union not immediately freeing slaves is much of a point against them. Clearly, they had the intention of freeing slaves as history proves they eventually did. I suspect that they may have not freed all slaves immediately as a strategic move, realizing that that being too hasty in freeing slaves would 1) divert attention and resources from the war and 2) cause enough destabilization to harm the war effort, both of which could have resulted in a Confederate victory leading to a worse overall result for slaves. I don't think the Union was perfectly virtuous and that every single citizen or even politician was entirely anti-racist, as their own rhetoric proves, but I do think their actions more than show that they held freeing all slaves in the US as a goal to be pursued strictly out of moral virtue.
    I agree that it was a strategit move by the union to not free slaves. I just think their 2 points were:
    1) To make the black man die in place of the white man in their fight to gain power
    2) Because freeing slaves would eliminate practices such as confiscating slaves from the south and reappropriating them to the railroads.

    I really dont understand why its so important to you to paint the union as moral. Like... The union is dead and gone by over a hundred years. Why do you push against the idea that they were greedy? You are not even an American and these are people so far past dead finding even a 3rd level account of them as a human being is near impossible. I totally agree with you that the confederacy was immoral and reprehensible. Would it help if I pointed out that the Union was majority republican? From my understanding a big part of your belief structure is anti financial interest/republican...
  6. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post


    I think I'll pass xD

    There are probably too many Christians in the US to make that change. It's not a truly religion-neutral country, like you said yourself. And Utah would launch a civil war if that happened lol.
    Lol!

    I kinda think its funny how caught up people get on categories. Add 20 qualifications that are exactly the same but with two different names and you will be put in the box that the other side wants you to be in so they can tell you that you are wrong. Even if they hold the same 20 qualifications themselves.

    The oppositional defiant nature of people never ceases to amuse me. I feel like bigotry is one of the defining characteristics of our generation. All too often any effort to open someones mind is seen as an attack on their belief structure and invalidated into an argument instead of a discussion.
  7. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    If your concerns are economic, would you not bring other propositions to the table than what the south did? It's obvious that a non-slave based economy can function, in fact, the north did it as per your own admission.
    The ifrst bit is 100% a fair point but I do not feel that its fair to compare the norths economy with the souths. The north was industrialized with factory's that took raw goods and used the to fabricate. Pelts and cotton would become coats. The south produced raw goods. They farmed the cotton and gathered the pelts. This is why I constantly refer to the 'industrialized north vs the agrarian south.' They are two fundamentally different economy's. I do agree with you that a 'slave free agrarian economy' could exist but your argument here is contrived.
    The pointed difference would be change. If you live one way your whole life and I walk up and tell you that you have to change and you are morally wrong on a fundamental level how receptive to that message would you be? I could argue how a problem-solution format would have been more effective for the north to use but I simply do not believe their objective was moral. They just wanted control over the raw goods they depended on.

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    If the root problem was taxation, economic oppression, and technological advancement, and not actually slavery, wouldn't you think that they would actually negotiate in economic terms? Once again, all the south argued for in every single major negotiation and conference they had was maintaining slavery; nothing else. You'd think if an entire country is struggling financially and they're trying to negotiate with a supposed economic oppressor who is taxing the shit out of them and advancing technologically while they're left in the dirt, they'd discuss changing that rather than discussing constitutional amendments guaranteeing that they can keep their tractors, no?
    I absolutely would. I do feel that it would be silly to haggle on the price of cotton if the topic of discussion removed the production of cotton but you have a solid point here. I will have to read into the negotiations as it is something I have never really dug into.

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    You're getting at my point at last, if maybe only by accident!
    I feel like you are more dedicated to your position than I am to mine. I am totally open to changing my opinion based on the information in front of me. Would it help if I flat out said the south was a racist society that defined African Americans as less than human and undeserving of human rights? My discussion of the context and details of the situation does nothing to refute this in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    If the north's motivations were to oppress the south and not to free slaves, why did they not accept the south's demands to make slavery a constitutional right if it would have maintained the union? By your own admission, the north was already outstripping the south in every economic aspect. You already mentioned that they were advancing at a rapid rate, their population and economy outpacing the south due to industrialization and supposed economic pillaging and taxation. Surely, if all the south was demanding was to maintain slavery, and the north were just greedy fucks that wanted to keep exploiting the south and they truly didn't give a fuck about slaves, they would have taken the south's proposal to amend the constitution to guarantee holding slaves as a right, maintained the union, and continued their exploitation? Why didn't they do that?
    I can't answer that the same as you can't answer why the North did not free slaves if their fight was about human rights. I can make the assumption that it was a power struggle that ended up being fought over slavery on the basis that decisions on both sides do not make sense as a fight over human rights. But it is an assumption. I was not there.

    I could be wrong about the south and the norths motives but at the end of the day I just can not let go of the fact the north used African Americans as cannon fodder in a war they paint as being about human rights instead of just granting them freedom. From what I know I really do feel that calling the war as a fight over slavery is an extreme oversimplification that is not supported by the most basic macro actions.
  8. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    The doctrine was in effect - take from the land enough supplies to sustain the army but do not assault the citizens or enter their homes, unless partisans (like the french resistance in ww2) present themselves then basically torch the whole place. I don't think the intention was to decimate the Souths economy as hard as they did, rather to try and bring an end to the war asap. Sounds fairly standard as far as war time doctrines go but the actual implementation of it leaves a lot to be desired. The south did not recover for a very long time.
    You may be interested in reading into William Tecumseh Sherman. He held the strong position that "the negro was inferior" while also running one hell of a terror campaign burning through the south.. literally.. Like.. The homes of civilians and entire citys kinda burning through the south..
  9. Replies
    23
    Views
    433

    ►►Re: When did masks become political?◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Seat belts are not political. Nobody is protesting over having to wear seat belts and the fact that their freedom is infringed by a "click it or ticket" law in which they can receive a citation for simply not wearing one?. Why not? Why is a mandate to wear a mask during a public health crisis any different?
    So please take this as coming from someone that hates Trump but no.

    There were totally tons of Americans that took significant issue with being given tickets for not wearing a seat belt. I really don't care about masks one way or the other but I do think its 100% fucked to demand someone wears a seat belt or has to pay some stupid tax. The function of the government is justified when it protects people from other people but it is in no way justified in protecting people from themselves out of obligation.

    And please keep your politics local.
  10. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    With regards to the civil war: what I find most distressing on the part of the Union are the tactics union generals employed in subduing the south. You donít generally wage total war against regions in your country. I believe they shouldíve done something else.
    That is a valid point. I remember there was one specific union officer who went on a rampage burning as many homes and farms as he could. Some of the unions objectives seemed to be not just to win the war but decimate the souths ability to recover after the war.
  11. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Yet you argued that the Union not recognizing the Confederacy was an aggressive act and that the Union not "letting go" cost hundreds of thousands of lives, right here:
    I did and I dont think that has changed any. I did screw up the math earlier. Its actually 3,000% increase which is.. 30$ and not 3,000 so 480 million dollars instead of 48 billion. It does not change my opinion that the Union decided to make it a war and that their motivation was greed. Im still glad you brought it up though, I totally overlooked that as a factor.

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Had they issued the Emancipation Proclamation right when the war had started, how would that have changed your initial insinuation that the Union should have let the Confederacy go? Would they not be the aggressors regardless, for not letting the Confederacy leave legally and peacefully? Would it have shifted the blame of the hundreds of thousands of deaths back to the Confederacy?
    It would not have changed that they were the aggressors but it would have changed the reason those lives were lost. Saying hundreds of thousands of people died for greed is very different from saying hundreds of thousands of people died for human rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I looked more into your claim of economic reasons for the Confederacy leaving (which, as I found, most historians actually discount as being a significant factor), and I was curious about the compromises and failed negotiations that the Union and the soon-to-be Confederacy did. Specifically, the Crittenden Compromise, the Corwin Amendment, and the Peace Conference of 1861, which were the most major conferences and proposed policies for maintaining the Union. In all three of these negotiations and propositions, economic negotiations were at no point discussed. All three dealt specifically with maintaining slavery. Surely, if your idea of the Confederacy breaking off because of the economic impact of slaves is correct, and that the South only kept slaves as an economic necessity, they would have negotiated economics prior to secession, rather than slavery?
    I don't see your initial point. If slaves were necessary for their economy to function discussing slavery is itself an economic negotiation. That would be like telling a farmer today we will take his tractors but buy his corn at a higher price. If there wont be any corn without the tractor why would they discuss the selling price of the corn which won't exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Could it not be that the direction of causality led instead from the Confederacy considering slavery as a moral right, and the economic benefits being a result, rather than the other way around as you're trying to imply?
    It does make sense that the Confederacy saw owning slaves as a moral right. In their minds they thought they owned them and they were discussing property. I have a bit of trouble picturing taking that position on a human being but if the government came up and talked to me about taking my work truck I would probably tell them to eat shit on principal.

    Regardless what your saying has sound reasoning and could totally be possible. It would make more sense given the lack of economic discussion. It would make the souths motivations even less moral / more bigoted but it does not change anything for the norths. At the end of the day there is the massive glaring question of why the north did not free slaves if their war was about ending slavery.
  12. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Yeh, I get you. I was just providing additional context to the specific religion in question, which is what Galeon was bringing up.

    I have no problem with polygamy between consensual adults. I do have a problem with religious leaders using a position of power to coerce multiple women into marrying them though. So it's a tricky subject because polygamy in the past has been abused in that way quite a lot.
    I think thats a common line of pretty much all cults though. If you think about it its a pretty nice job..

    People call you God or at least gods voice on earth or something
    You get to bang everyone you want because you say thats somehow gods will
    And the people that join give you all their money

    Yeah.. Who wants to join my cult?
  13. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I was asking what you think actually should have happened, my man. No dancing around with weird morality arguments, because nothing gets done that way. What, concretely, do you think the Union should have done when the Confederacy seceded? What should they have done differently?

    EDIT: Forgot to address the first part of your post. From my understanding, only unilateral secession was found to be illegal by the Supreme Court. I'll argue with that in mind.

    Your two arguments against any other territory (like CHAZ) seceding were the legality issue, as well as the issue of debt. The debt issue applied to the Confederacy because it wasn't like debt was invented after the Civil War, the Confederacy still had debt that they, by your logic, should have repaid to the Union. That leaves legality as your only stated reason for why secession of a territory like CHAZ is different from the Confederacy in terms of the federal government being an aggressor when it comes to recognizing them.
    That is a very valid point. I was under the impression that the national debt was created after the civil war but it appears the nation owed roughly 65 million dollars. Granted that breaks down to roughly 2 dollars and some change per citizen but in today's numbers thats around 6k per person. If slaves are included the confederacy essentially skipped on a tab of 48 billion dollars in today's money.

    I get what you are asking but the entire issue is the morality. So concrete- Issue the Emancipation Proclamation while declaring war and have a war over human rights instead of greed.

    I think the civil war should have been prevented by the north but they would have had to make very different actions long before the south seceded. At that point it was just too late. They forced the south into a corner leveraging taxes favorably for the industrial sector. Combine that with some republicans pushing to end slavery and of course the south wanted to leave.
  14. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    I just think itís very harmful, and I can totally see why people say divorce is wrong. There are definitely some situations where divorce is preferable, but Iím saying, maybe people screwed up somewhere. I think that if itís possible to salvage your relationship and you are afraid of getting a divorce, you should definitely fight for it and see if itís possible and desirable for the relationship to continue.

    Its a complicated issue. Itís not wholly wrong, but it has an ugly tinge to it. You shouldnít spend the rest of your life with someone you donít like. My point is, you should try to minimize the number of divorces you have to go through. Theyíre not pretty. And they can be pretty damaging. They shouldnít be viewed as a get-out-if-jail-free card if things go south.

    With regards to your last post: of course if both parties agree that a marriage should end, then divorce ainít bad, although, again, thereís the situation where maybe divorce wasnít the right thing to do. Many people experience regret after getting a divorce (over 22%). Itís really not an easy decision to make. More power to you if you decide to leave a relationship thatís not good for you. But thereís a fine line between doing that and just going through many failed marriages.
    The only objective wrong I have seen with Divorce was in the antiquated practice of hereditary transfer of wealth. Back then it was extremely important to know exactly who's kid someone was and Divorces were a huge problem because wealth was transferred through family lines.

    I just dont think some people are cut out for long term relationships. If you consider that every 7 years pretty much every atom in your body did not exist there 7 years ago and 100% of the biological cells that were alive 7 years ago you are a totally different person. So along those lines isnt it fair to say that the person who entered the marriage no longer exists unless you believe in the soul?
  15. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by deathworlds View Post
    What's wrong with polygamy?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Itís pretty misogynistic in my view.
    Quote Originally Posted by deathworlds View Post
    It's pretty misogynistic to think that polygamy is strictly one man and multiple women
    This is a fair point. I have 3 good friends that are in a 3 way relationship. All of them are girls and they make it work just fine.
  16. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Couldnt have said it better myself, although do you think the Vatican is still evil nowadays?
    Kinda. I believe actions speak louder than words and the Vatican has an extremely long history of manipulating religion for power and wealth. They are currently the wealthiest organization in the world by a massive margin.

    I think it would be more fair to look at them as a for-profit company. Drop any religious pretense and they function like many governments- doing what they feel they can get away with for profit and spinning history to put a good face on their actions. Its not that they are dedicated to doing evil, they just do it as a product of their greed to hold onto power.

    I have often wondered if there are branches of the Catholic church who reject the control of the Vatican and do their own thing
  17. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Divorce is generally wrong, and thereís no escaping that.
    Is it worse for two people to separate who are unhappy so they can find happiness; or for them to suffer and have a less fulfilling life on principal?

    And what if its worse for the child who has to live in a hostile environment vs them separating and having 2 peaceful environments?

    How about if you get roofied in Vegas and wake up married? Should you spend the rest of your life with that person on principal although you were drugged and basically never consented to be married?

    Regardless why do you believe divorce is wrong at all? Like.. Where does your perceived 'wrongness' come from if two people both want their relationship to end? What makes it wrong at all to you?
  18. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Which laws and agreements prohibit secession? Unilateral secession is illegal, but secession through revolution or consent isn't. I suppose if you consider CHAZ a revolution, that makes it legal, no?
    My understanding is that it was part of the treaty signed after the civil war to bind the states back into America and it was also written into every state that was formed by virtue of the states being formed on land that was essentially owned by America. The difference between that and war at the time of sucession was that the sates entered into the nation bringing their land and they therefor had no obligation in any way to America.
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Also glad to hear that the criteria for something being aggressive or not is whether it's legal.
    No clue where you got that from so.. Shrug?
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I'm curious to hear what you think should have actually happened during the Civil War, because the cognitive dissonance is dizzying. You say that slavery was bad and the Union was bad because they didn't end slavery 5 milliseconds after Lincoln was elected, yet them trying to stop the Confederacy from leaving to form a racist slave nation was aggressive and bad as well? I guess it is quite typical that "centrists" would argue that everyone should compromise and we should only enslave half the black people.
    There were wrongs on all sides but I think the best thing would have been if the Union actually had the intentions they pretend to have had today. As I have said many times I believe that the morality of an action is defined by the intention behind the action. So yes declaring war on the south is unjustified but I would view it as totally acceptable if the objective actually was to enforce human rights. The problem was that it wasn't. It was just a play for greed that costed hundreds of thousands of lives.

    Think of it this way- Its wrong to kill someone because you want their wallet but its justified to kill someone to prevent them from doing an extreme evil.

    The difference is the intention and thats why I get all pissy about people acting like the Union was good and the Confederacy was evil. They were both committing some very evil actions for greed and power.
  19. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    It's even worse growing up in Utah. Mormons account for almost 90% of my state's legislature. And believe me, they consistently try to impose the will of the LDS church here in the state as much as they can. The LDS church literally pays lobbyists to push their religious agendas through my state. Voters will vote one way, but the church doesn't like it? They impose their will. They enforce their moral code.
    I can see where your coming from. The LDS Church does some pretty sick stuff. Thats probably one of the only religions I have ever seen shamelessly embrace pedophilia and its always bothered me that stuff goes on with impunity in America.
  20. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    It is still denoting A God. Your choice of wording implies you are talking from some religious viewpoint (the only ones left out are of the atheist variety and why should they care?) and honestly this just confirms my view. Non-religious people are the minority in the world, and then in the USA it's drastically even more shifted in favor of theists. It makes sense to me that "In God we trust" has been codified in US law as NOT being a religious statement when the people that it is in reference to are overwhelmingly the majority of the populace. The religious population in the USA in 2016 was 79.1%, opposed to 20.9% non religion/no answers.

    If a vote was put to the public where religious beliefs or lack of were attached to an individuals vote about whether "In God we trust" is a religious statement or not, I have a feeling I already will know what the results would look like.
    Alcoholics Anonymous has practicing atheists who use the word "God" as their 'higher power' that keeps them sober. It can be simple things like their Kids or their Life/Sanity. From what you are saying it sounds like you are just getting hung up on semantics because you want to push the Atheist faith. How is that any different than pushing a religion? In that regard spirituality goes out the window and its just about 'us vs them' on both sides.
    My point was that I never understood that drive to say "I do not believe in any God and I want to push this belief on those who do." I get that religions are all too often really disgusting things but they provide some basic functions I believe every human should practice. The simple process of challenging your belief structure and reconciling your behavior to your belief structure is just a healthy human practice. If someone does it and ties it into what you see as an imaginary sky man why do you feel the drive to push against that?
    One of the angles I push is that religion is a healthy and beautiful thing but the power structures that manipulate it are really evil. For example I believe the Vatican is easily the most evil organizations that has ever existed in documented history but I think Catholicism brings many people morality, peace, and comfort.
    I would rather you just ask me about my beliefs than take one word I say and assume my belief structure and therefor agenda in the future.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    "In god we trust" is in no way a moral statement, and should not be the motto of a country that prides itself in being a diverse melting pot of ideas.
    What do you think the nations motto should be then?
  21. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Satanists are encouraging moral behavior? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of satanism to promote admittedly pure evil (whether that exists or not) and literally praise it?
    The only two I have studied was the Church of Satan and the Satanic Temple.
    The Church of Satan basically argued Nihilism with some code of behavior. A lot of Anton Lavey's teachings were centered around enlightenment and it was more of an Anti-religion whos position was against other religions suppressing what man was meant to be. They basically do not believe in God or Satan or anything of the sort.

    The Satanic Temple is looked pretty similar to me but honestly looked more like a political movement than a church. Their mission is stated as "to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people" and they have a code of morals I think just about everyone would agree with in line with that.
    Spoiler : Their stated moral code :
    I- One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
    II- The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
    III- One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
    IV- The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
    V- Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
    VI- People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
    VII- They similarly do not believe in God or Satan and their largest pushes are to increase the separation of church and state.

    I think a real cornerstone of their belief is Autonomy in every way; that your body is yours and you should be able to do whatever you want with it to extremes (but also to include things like Abortion.) I got the feeling that this 'religion' is only a religion for tax purposes and is specifically designed to tear down christian influence on government policy.

    The stuff is kinda fascinating if you ever choose to take the time to dig into it. The closest thing to what people typically consider satanic behavior I have read into was either the "Left Hand Path" but that is not so much of a group as an entire field of practice with truckloads of groups under it..

    -edit Or maybe read into the "books of terror and longing." Theres some stuff in there thats pretty out there
  22. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Yet it concerns christians so much if they're not able to force their religious beliefs on everyone else
    Isn't that all religious though? The Catholic church did it for century's by torching people for science and the Muslims do it now by blowing people up.
  23. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    We should add "In Satan we trust"

    Do you think that's a bad idea?
    In a way they are kind of the same thing. Saying "In God we trust" in no way designates which God.. If anything loose the capital G on God and it makes room for polytheism then the only ones left out are of the atheist variety and why should they care? I never understood why a Nihilist feels the need to push that view against a Fatalist. If nothing matters to that person who gives a shit if someone else talks to an imaginary sky man?

    On a side note sometime last winter I studied the belief structure of the Satanic Temple after reading about their satanic statue thing and I found their belief structure to preform almost all of the same functions as other religions while also encouraging moral behavior in many regards. Totally worth reading into if you like learning about different beliefs.
  24. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Simultaneously.

    >see libtards? republicans aren't racists, democrats are the real racists.
    I mean.. They did found the KKK and fight hard against black rights.. It wouldn't be hard to argue they now exploit the minority population in the US for political power

    Jokes aside I do not feel that its fair to call either party racist. Entire political partys are just too broad of a category. I feel like thats just part of the polarizing political kool-aid thats generously dispersed. Reminds me of back when Trump got elected and there was a push that it only happened because of uneducated people voting for Trump or because of African American Women thinking Hillary was a snake.
  25. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Dude what.

    I'm sorry but this makes no sense. Of course the Union is not going to recognize a big part of it deciding to secede (because they want to keep slaves, no less), just like literally every other country that that would happen to. The actual start of aggression and battle was by the Confederacy lmao.
    We are totally going to have to just agree to disagree here. Im not sure there is any chance of us finding common ground when you admit in your own statement that of course the Union would not allow the confederacy to go peacefully while simultaneously blaming the confederacy as the aggressor.

    Wanting to leave and wanting war are two ideas I will never consider synonymous.
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I suppose you'll also start arguing that the US government recognize CHAZ as a foreign nation, right? (spoiler: he won't)
    I believe they want to call themselves CHOP now? And why on earth would I make such an absurd argument?

    I do love that place. Its the total face of hypocrisy.
    They say they want independence but then turn around and demand donations of food, berthing, clothing, and medical supplies.
    They say police are too violent and AR-15s are unnecessary but then they create their own cops geared out with AR-15s and physically assault people who wear anything that resembles a police support patch.
    I think my favorite moment was when someone was dying and they refused to allow police and emergency services into the area but then blamed the government for that persons death when they didnt get treatment fast enough.

    I like what they are doing because it demonstrates how bullshit their beliefs are in actual practice. Kinda reminds me of all the Anti-Gun nuts that hit me up for a gun as soon as they were afraid that the government may fall at the start of this COVID thing. Before people could only argue hypotheticals but now we get to grab the popcorn and watch their hypocrisy unfold in real time. Its very entertaining : )


    To your insinuation of the US government allowing anything to separate now its an invalid argument in my opinion for a number of reasons. The biggest is that at the time of the civil war there was nothing prohibiting states from leaving. That had simply not been addressed in any form. Now there is agreements and law prohibiting any state from leaving. Texas joined as sovereign nation and does not have the legal right to leave. These issues did not exist back then.
    The second issue is that now we have national debt and every American citizen owes 67,000 dollars twards that debt. So say..Wyoming (which has the smallest population in the US) wanted to leave they would need to fork over 38.7 billion dollars just to cover that National Debt.
    Thats not even touching on state / municipality debt, or the federal subsidization that keeps state funded public services and infrastructure working, or even the federal land holdings within the state.

    TLDR- Trying to compare areas separating from the US today is totally different than it was back then and makes no sense.
  26. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    i'm not saying it's wrong to rebel, but rebelling is still rebelling and I don't think it's right to view the union as the one who declared war. You basically just agreed with me by pointing out that no greater power is going to just let a smaller power secede. Therefore by trying to secede the smaller power knows exactly what it's getting into
    Sure. I agree with you on both points 100%. My entire point was that it spells out how immoral the war was for the Union. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed for greed and power and I dislike the idea of them being viewed as 'morally justified' after the fact because some good came out of it.

    Ie- The fact the union was acting in their own self interest as expected from any power structural invalidates the argument for their morality in the civil war and underscores human rights as a pretense for greed.
  27. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    I'd argue that declaring secession without getting approval first from your federal government is a declaration of war/rebellion
    I am very curious why you think this. I do not see any relationship dynamic (regardless of personal, business or political) where the oppressive side would agree to give freedom to the oppressed. Scale that to slavery and it sounds a lot like an argument a slaver would make if his slaves decided to leave. Isn't the entire point about free will?

    I do get the concept but in Feudalism it makes sense because the crown owned everything but granted rights to use that land for the mutual benefit the vassals taxation and military service where as in America the Federal government postdated the existence of the colonies and never owned the land to grant it to the colonies. Its the difference of equals entering a compact then separating instead of a powerful side giving a measure of power to a weak side in return for services with the weak side reneging and stealing the measure of power granted to them.
  28. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I can't say I'm well learned in the Civil War but could you please provide concrete sources that the Union actually began as the aggressors? Because literally every single source I can find directly contradicts you.
    Im not sure where you are looking. The Confederacy declared secession- not war. The Union declared their succession illegal and called it 'rebellion' which is just a clever way of declaring war but saying the other side declared war. At the point that the Confederacy declared war the Union had a choice. They could have allowed them to leave but why would they? They were more advanced and had well over twice as many people and had just established political dominance over the areas that wanted to leave.

    I mean.. I could dig up sources but literally every source I look at just speaks to this narrative citing the Union as declaring the Confederate succession as "illegal/rebellion." Its not any different than the American war for Independence where England declared America in rebellion instead of letting them separate. You can place the blame for 'who was the aggressor' where you want but I dont see it as much different than an abusive boyfriend knocking around his girlfriend after she says she wants to leave and then telling people she made him do it.

    -edit
    Im actually way off. At the time war was established only 7 states succeeded putting the numbers more like 4 million confederate vs 22 million union. I doubt an article exists that argues 4 million people declared war against 22 million.
  29. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    This is also why photos of the slave states and the states who voted Republican were compared against one another. Iím possibly wrong in assuming the Confederaxy wasnít primarily about slavery and I can accept that, but IMO itís completely disingenuous to compare Trump supporters to slavery supporters. Itís literally outlandish lol, I know plenty of people on the right and itís generally the case that people vote along ideological lines, and many of those who are on the right donít agree with slavery or with racism lol
    We make some of the same points but I really dont see any way to think the confederacy was not primarily about slavery. It really really was. I think its much more complicated than just saying "racism" and totally agree with you on the significant economic and power struggle but slavery was where the system broke.
    I kind of look at it as the south lost 2 wars. The first was the political power struggle. When it became apparent they had lost, that they would be subjected to northern industrial control, and their voice no longer mattered they chose to separate. The north chose to make a war out of it instead of letting go at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. This is largly why I am so critical of the north. They get the 'moral high ground' of fighting for human rights (which by their actions they were not) while preforming evil for a power grab. Someone earlier brought up the point of how its immoral that at one time one person would murder another because they are stronger but thats essentially how I see the civil war. There was a population difference of 18 million union to 8 million confederate with the union being an advanced industrialized civilization and the confederacy being a rural agrarian society. The "Bigger and stronger" Union murdered the "Smaller and weaker" Confederacy because they wanted power and we now give them moral credit for the war? Thats trash in my opinion.

    Its one thing for evil to be questioned as a degree of evil but another for evil to be called good. Everyone has their split hairs on this discussion but the indoctrinated historical revision irks me. The north was no more justified in fighting the south to grab power than America was in launching terror bombing campaigns targeting civilian populations in Japan in WW2. We just have that need to be seen as morally justified after we commit evil as a species.
  30. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Your favourite flags

    Thread Author:Ganelon

    Post Author:Helz

    Replies
    20
    Views
    495

    ►►Re: Your favourite flags◄◄

    I like how some flags end up like a collage of nonsense. Like they had a few groups of people who were about different things and couldn't make up their mind so they just said "Screw it, Lets put it all on the flag and be done with it"

    Kinda speaks to not only what the place is about but also its inability to work together which amuses me to no end : )
  31. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    If people truly cared to separate themselves from the racist implications of the flag there would be some evidence of southern priders proposing something else, maybe a flag or some sort of identifier from one of the anti-slavery societies in the south but I literally can't find any reference to this being true. They want to use a battle flag of an army that fought to ensure the survival of slavery. They have only themselves to blame.
    There actually is. Its the actual confederate flag (not the confederate battle flag.) The majority of people dont even recognize it as a confederate flag and it does not carry the message of hatred that the battle flag does. I can't speak for everyone but I live in Texas and last year had a chat with an old guy in Georgetown who flew it in his front yard. He basically said he used that flag specifically because he stood for southern pride but not racism. After that I noticed it in quite a few places.
  32. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    I’m totally not arguing in bad faith here, I just strongly disagree with the idea that the flag and the statues shouldn’t be used. Maybe I’ve presented a faulty argument here, but I would blame that on my general airheadedness rather than any racism on my part.
    I understand your feeling here. I do not agree with the confederate war flag being anything but a symbol of offence and the overwhelming majority of confederate statues I feel were placed as symbols of offence if you keep in mind the context of the time they were placed (Decades after the civil war and during times of genuine human rights movements.)

    At the same time there are the few that were made to commemorate the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a time after the union purposefully targeted civilian infrastructure burning down homes and towns indiscriminately. I do not know how that would feel to loose a war, have many of your friends and family dead and have not just your home but your entire state in ruins but I can imagine there was a lot of emotion in those monuments dedicated to commemorate that loss. The issue I run into is that the overwhelming majority of southern monuments were not made in this context. The south really screwed itself in my opinion by creating symbols of hatred with the pretense of commemorating the war so the backlash on all monuments is pretty much justified to me.

    I take the same issue with medals in the Military. A bronze star means absolutely nothing to me right now because its often 'blanketed' to an entire units E6+Officers. Its terrible that that takes away from the few that truly earned a bronze star but because of this choice the value of that medal has lost the prestige and respect it would otherwise command.

    I do have to say that you should feel no need to say "I am arguing in good faith" when people keep straw-manning the fuck out of you and throwing around Nazi rhetoric. I get that this is an emotional subject but that is truly arguing in bad faith in my book given that you truly believe the things you are saying. You kinda nailed it here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    I think this is indicative of a political polarization. Which nicely ties in with the original intent of the thread.
  33. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    You're making this much more abstract than is appropriate. I'm not saying that "preserving ideology is only ok when it corresponds with the current ideology". Statues of political figures in public spaces are maintained using taxes from the local citizens and those spaces are used and enjoyed by the local citizens. It's rather unfair if a large swathe of the citizens are paying taxes to put up with a statue of a political figure in a public space who is, by modern moral standards, an asshole. That's very different from believing "preserving ideology is only ok when it corresponds with the current ideology". I'm not suggesting we break into people's houses to destroy whatever statues society currently considers racist.

    I've read this several times and still may not fully understand what you're saying, but I think you're suggesting that these statues have historical and cultural value and the decision of whether they're kept up or taken down shouldn't be made solely by examining whether the message of the statue is moral by current standards. If the statue was in a museum or was on someone's private property, I'd say "fair enough". However, this is a statue of a political figure paid for by taxes in a public space. Its existence is deeply political and viewing it simply like a piece of art is naiive. Though you perhaps view my perspective as rather cold.

    p;edit both paragraphs are replying to your first paragraph, to be clear
    I honestly did not have any 'message' there. I just liked that thought and had never taken a moment to think about the purpose of a landmark in relation to the events/culture as seen through time. I do kinda like the idea of landmarks being created but then having to survive through time to earn their place as something that gives them value. A sort of 'trial by time' that weeds out those unworthy of existing kinda thing.

    On your reply though I don't really care for the mix of politics and art. But at the same time I hate politics in general. Its like the practice of manipulating populations to get power and using that power for your personal interest without getting caught. I think its really disgusting that this is how we function as a species but thats just my take on politics.
  34. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    Helz is my slave in my dungeon of naughty sexi time.
    Why do you have to tell them our secrets master?
  35. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    I'd ask you to read about free blacks in the antebellum period and ask yourself - is it really only a justification for slavery? I can agree that racism entwined with slavery was at the heart of the secession (sorry lol).

    I just do not agree with the post that Ganelon made earlier that it "wasn't just about slavery". I find it in very bad taste to frame the topic as he did.
    Fair point. If I said that I thought racism was only a justification for slavery I misspoke. I do believe racism is real and was a big issue in the south.
  36. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Mate I actually have been saying many of the same things you have, and yet youíve said a lot of the discussion isnít worth your time. Are you referring to the discussion PRIOR to that, or what? I just donít understand where youíre coming from.
    I was just responding to Oops there.

    I didnt mean to say a lot of the discussion wasn't worth my time. I was just trying to establish common ground. I think a lot of people have voiced essentially the same view but we get hung up on details and semantics.
  37. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Yes I agree slavery itself it economic, but this isn't the run of the mill slavery we are discussing. You can't read the the literature posted here and say "but it wasn't just about racism". You simply cannot lol. It's incredibly disingenuous and honestly a huge insult to do so. Leaders of the Confederates clearly made the stance of 'Blacks are inferior and should be enslaved' and anyone that supports the Confederacy, regardless of their opinion on the slavery/racism, is by proxy endorsing these racist beliefs. Racism is so embedded in the foundation of the Confederacy you cannot compartmentalize it and put it outside the scope of discussion or the identity of the Confederacy.

    This is also what actual systematic racism looks like.
    Im really not sure how else to say that I believe Racism was just the means to an end as opposed to the end itself. It was an absolute necessity for the south. If African Americans were accepted as equal then the south had to acknowledge what they were doing was evil. The fact their economy was built on slave labor made this unacceptable. I do not believe the motive for the war was a push for the intention of sadistically oppressing African Americans and I do not see how any reasonable person could take that position when considering the motivations of the people during that time.

    Would you agree with me that they would have taken the exact same position if the greater majority of their slaves were Native American and those statements would read "The Native American is sub-human and their natural position in society is as a slave?"

    If so then you understand exactly what my point is. The racism was the justification for slavery but not the objective and in context to the power struggle between the north and south while keeping in mind the north did not free slaves or declare equality until after the war its a reasonable conclusion that slavery was the economic tool leveraged for power with the moral pretense of human rights.

    I feel like this is a very reasonable conclusion that is directly based on the information available but people just keep jumping back to 'racism because racist' without reasoning to motives. Would it be acceptable to establish the common ground that as racism was the justification to validate slavery and was at the heart of succession? If so both of our positions are valid and there is no contention.
  38. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Sometimes I reread what I wrote and figure theres something wrong with me. Immediately after agreeing something was not worth discussing I just couldn't help myself and had to ramble on about it some more. That Pedantic nature to be excessively concerned with minor details causes more problems for me in these situations than it resolves..
  39. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    To point it back I'll bounce this - what transgressions did the slaves during and before the civil war era commit to justify their shackles? We can both agree that an actual transgression has to occur for mandated service to come into effect however from the mouth of southern states themselves, the slaves (majority of them) transgression against society was simply their race, for existing to put it more tragically. This is where I cannot accept separating racism from slavery on the topic of the civil war. The very core foundation of the slavery was racism.
    It varied although the obvious answer is the greater majority of slaves came from the African slave trade. The majority of those slaves were sold by Africa. From my limited understanding in the beginning Africa was selling the people in their prisons but as things went on private groups basically started capturing large amounts of people in their villages and would then sell then to the slave trade companies.
    The majority of Native American slaves were also sold by Native Americans. They practiced slavery before and while Europeans came to America against tribes they had wars with. A significant amount of Native American slaves were basically captured by Americans. Some with justification such as wars or crimes and others just captured for profit. (I will note that it was not an insignificant number of slaves. Some 50,000 were exported to the west indies and Native Americans were strongly sought after because they knew the land and were experts at cultivating crops.) There was also a significant pipeline of slaves from Mexico / the American Southwest That was consistently pumping Native American slaves into the southern colonies. If your interested in that sort of thing New Mexico in particular has quite a bit of study's on the subject projecting that a third of the states population was Native American slaves at one point in their lives.
    The third largest pool was the Hispanic slaves. Some were captured soldiers from the Texas revolutionary war and others were appropriated criminals. Judges began selling criminals into slavery instead of hanging them in some areas.
    There were also white slaves. Some were indentured servants that volunteered for a period of time in return for something while others were prisoners serving a sentence or debtors working off a debt.

    Regardless of that first generations origin the second generation slaves were born into captivity and were totally innocent. That and I do believe that the greater majority of people brought into slavery did not come as debtors or prisoners and those that were very likely received too harsh of a punishment for whatever they did.

    I really think that the core foundation of American slavery was economic. The racism was created out of necessity to justify that evil. The south didnt succeed saying "We just want to make black people suffer;" Their motivation was "The loss of slavery would destroy our way of life and its justified because blacks are less than human and undeserving of freedom." To suggest the former is true you would essentially have to argue the entire confederacy was built upon sadism and dedicated to it to the extreme of going against self interest.
    That is to say- I believe that Racism was just the means to an end as opposed to the end itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    And we could argue a hypothetical point - what if they weren't black, or what if it was an equal representation of races enslaved. But I would again refer back to what I said earlier. We would be then disconnecting ourselves from the reality of the situation thus making the discussion irrelevant, even though it might be interesting.
    I would point out that its not a hypothetical at all. There were massive amounts of other races but its just not talked about, but thats something interesting to read up on if you choose to scratch that itch. I agree its not worth diving into more than I already have because it does not really have any real bearing on the morality of succession. Even if we came to the absurd conclusion that races were equally represented in slavery it does not change anything other than the 'racist' title tagged onto the discussion.

    The only reason I drew it out a good bit is I have a distaste for how history likes to cater to some injustices while it neglects others. Dig into Christopher Columbus' journal and you will find some horrific atrocities that make Uncle Toms Cabin sound like Disney World. He is credited with the genocide of up to a million Native Americans and committed such evil acts that upon his third return to Spain the Queen of Spain threw him in prison when she herd about it. This is not to say what African Americans endured in America was in any way ok but this is a big part of why I dislike that place black racism as synonymous with slavery. Yes they suffered but they were not the only ones who did, and saying so in no way detracts from the injustices they experienced.

    But back on subject, slaves were predominantly African American and regardless of how the first generation of slaves were brought to market the second generation and all that followed did nothing to deserve their treatment making their enslavement an objective evil in my opinion.
  40. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Agreed. What about slavery? Your post already hints towards yes, but I just want to lay the foundation.
    I can't really give a yes or no to that. In the context of racism absolutely yes its a moral issue but I do take the controversial position that slavery has its moral place. One such example would be how societys would make foreign invaders into slaves for a period of time. It feels acceptable to me in that if a group of people invades another country to murder them, destroy their infrastructure, and take their wealth it makes sense to have those people rebuild the damage they caused after the fact. This is in line with the idea of a loss of freedom resulting as a consequence to the individuals actions.
    If you avoid thinking in absolutes slavery in one form or another exists everywhere. People sacrifice portions of their freedom for various benefits and freedom is removed from people as a consequence to committing crimes. You could argue that mandated 'chain gangs' or hard labor rehabilitation used in military prisons are in pretty much every respect slavery. The individual can not choose what they get to eat or if they want to work. Scale that extreme and it becomes a question of 'how much freedom' is forcefully taken or 'what kind of tasks' are mandated. With that view you could say that slavery absolutely exists today in America and that it is to some degree morally appropriate.
    Some parents even pay for their children to be subjected to such conditions through boarding schools that remove the childs freedom and require hard labor to develop discipline and work ethic against their will. You can also essentially designate a military draft as a form of slavery forcing individuals into hard labor and hazardous conditions without their consent.
    I have herd arguments that it is more moral than basic imprisonment under the reasoning if someone has their freedom taken for harming society it is immoral to require that society to then pay for that persons welfare. That obligating contributions in return works to offset the cost. (I don't think I agree with this in practice as American for-profit prisons are a sick and terrible thing but the base reasoning does make some sense to me)

    Regardless I do not think anyone in their right mind could argue that the 'Uncle Toms Cabin' portrayal of 1800s American slavery was in any way moral.

    I am curious where you are going with this : )

    Do you believe that a moral application of slavery can exist or is appropriate in context to rehabilitation or mandated social service?
  41. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    This came across as do not consider morality when thinking about the topic.

    Let me ask you this, do you think racism is a moral issue?
    Absolutely. The idea of removing someones freedom is acceptable to a degree to me when its a consequence to a persons actions but the idea of removing someones freedom because of who they are is a really evil thing. I even take that to more of an extreme with issues today such as efforts to control mass perspective which removes autonomy.

    Racism is probably one of the most ignorant positions someone can take and the overwhelming majority of racists I have met actually discriminate based on culture rather than race. They will say "This black guy is ok because he acts white" or "That while guy is not ok because he acts black." The idea that a human being as any less deserving of ethical treatment because of their race is just evil in my opinion.
  42. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    ďBack then it was okay so theyíre fine morallyĒ

    Back ďsometimeĒ you could rape anybody you pleased
    Murder if you were stronger
    Blah blah blah. Hell Hitler thought he was a good guy! What kind of stupid argument is that?
    I think I missed where someone made that argument but it is a tenable position.

    For an extreme in the philosophical model of determinism you can not assign moral blame to any actions by virtue of free will being an illusion. This is the core of the argument that there can not be an all powerful, and all knowing creator if free will exists.
    Kant had a great line of thought in this direction he dubbed 'tutelage.' If you scale back from the extreme of determinism its worth considering the impact of conditioning and lack of access to modes of thought that would enable a different thought process/action. Can you assign moral blame to an individual who was given the choice of door#1 or door#2 when the moral action would have been to pick door#3? The individual never had the free will or autonomy to do what you consider right so you are pushing consequences on them for a pre-existing circumstance they did not create.

    I believe morality (good or bad) can not exist without choice. There has to be autonomy and that can not exist without information. Theres many different ethical structures that can carry this to the extremes you described. I am in no way going to say they are 'right' but the reasoning they present fascinates me.

    A nihilist arguing through utilitarianism in a tribal society struggling to survive could argue that the murder of the individual for the betterment of a group as moral; and it would even be immoral for the individual of that group to not murder the person he was stronger than.

    These kinds of arguments are only stupid on the surface but get pretty deep if you ever want to dive down that endless rabbit hole.
  43. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by secondpassing View Post
    I mean yeah I can swallow this. The north wanted economic control and access to cheap labor/base products and the south wanted to keep slavery. The north and the south were racist but the south much more so. The north killed a lot of people for material reasons, the south lost and had to submit under the economic control of the then federal government.

    Wars kill people and through this civil war the north kept in mind its economic interests, whilst the conclusion is that now a lot of black slaves became freedmen.
    Very elegantly put.
  44. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Nope still disagree. You can't say slavery in the south is not synonymous with racism when official statements from the south in regards to the secession is heavily racially motivated. Feel free to read over the thread more thoroughly to find those statements.
    I understand your point but I am not sure why you refuse to separate the concepts. Yes Racism was a huge issue and was a morally reprehensible position taken by southern states. I have read the thread and I 100% understand that. I believe that the intention behind the action defines the morality of the action and its a very different discussion to look at the situation as economic or racially motivated. This difference has very direct bearing on the morality.
    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    It may be edgy and hip to separate morality from discussions, but when it IS the morality of the offending party we are discussing, separating morality from discussing their morality seems a bit retarded no?
    This made no sense to me. I am not advocating for separating morality from the discussion. I am pushing to separate the concepts of slavery and racism so a discussion can exist on morality. Without doing so I do not see how much reasoning can be put into the conversation on morality. Maybe we should agree to disagree? I am totally open to changing my view there if you can open my mind to a different way of looking at the issue but I am not sure we are heading in that direction.
  45. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    I can't engage with someone so condescending
    I am sorry that you feel that way.
  46. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Intentionally or unintentionally, Helz makes an excellent argument for why we should tear down the Union statues as well. This isn't about whether these people were "evil" because of their racism. This is about the fact that figures you dedicate larger than life statues to can and should reflect the ideals of the CURRENT society, rather than the ideals of some society 100s of years ago. I don't know why "should we put up statues of racist people that were contemporary heroes?" needs to be conflated with "are they bad because they were racist in a society where everyone was racist?". You can be a moral relativist and still oppose the existence of these statues.

    But I think it's important to remember that we are always encouraged to spend endless amounts of time talking about the symbolism like the flags and the statues rather than the concrete things we can do to combat modern social issues like ending the drug war or ending for profit policing.
    I have never even considered this. Is the objective of a landmark to preserve the opinion held at its time of creation or is it more important to preserve current ideology? Is preserving ideology only ok when it corresponds with current ideology? Im not sure which way is best but maybe its some combination that gives value to old monuments in that they were important enough at the time of their creation to be erected while also moral enough to survive the years of changing views.

    I think someone said it earlier but its probably worth noting neither qualifys for the preservation of most southern civil war statues as that the greater number of them were erected long after the civil war as a push against rights movements.
  47. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Why would you step back from context? Separating yourself from the context just makes your point of view disconnected from reality. I could entertain the thought of separating racism from slavery generally speaking, but when discussing slavery in the USA in regards to the civil war, the southern states explicitly said that due to the divine virtue of being white the black man is inferior and should be in permanent indentured servitude. The very core of their slavery belief is built on racism. It would be a completely different story if slaves were not predominantly black and if the southern states didn't outright say blacks are inferior, but they didn't and to separate the racist aspect from their slavery is disingenuous.
    Its pretty simple. I made a statement about slavery as a concept. You can absolutely do both. I can maintain the function of slavery as a historical function between nations in wars while also acknowledging the racially charged aspect of slavery in the pre-industrialized southern american states. It has a place in this conversation because simply put- not all slaves were black. There were debtors, Native Americans, Mexicans, and all sorts of other races who had their freedom taken from them. Racism's connection to slavery in this context was that the moral justification for the inhumane treatment of people who's freedom was not taken from them as a consequence to their action because 'the black man was less than human and therefore- less deserving of human rights.'

    But this does not in any way make slavery synonymous with racism and I believe separating the two concepts is important to having an intelligent conversation on the subject. As simply as I can say it this is why you need to step back from the context, separate the two concepts, and then step back in to the situation before talking about entangled morality of the subject.
  48. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I don't understand your point at all. I said the Confederacy was founded on racism and slavery as a founding principle, so to its core, it is irredeemably bad. Every traitor that fought for the Confederacy was fighting to maintain racism and slavery. The Union did bad things, yes, but the Confederacy was founded upon the idea of slavery as a cornerstone. I literally don't care what the Union did because I'm not defending them, I'm attacking the Confederacy.

    Your point about the Union, though it is absolutely correct, is muddying the waters because it's entirely irrelevant to any point I was making. You are trying to both-sides an argument that wasn't even pinning one side against another. You are spinning whataboutism about the Union into a pseudo-defence of the morality of the Confederacy, which is not only a fallacy but quite a disingenuous way of framing what I was saying in the first place.
    I think thats somewhat fair although I did not have the intention of misrepresenting your position. The confederacy as an agrarian society was built on slave labor and they were fighting to preserve their way of life. I very intentionally push to separate the ideas of human rights morality with this subject because I think its the disingenuous framework for any discussion on the civil war. You view this as a pseudo-defense while I feel like its a push to dispel the pretty moral justification that we place on the civil war. At the end of the day the North decided to use violence to maintain control over the south because it was necessary to preserve their power at the cost of over a half million American citizens; and people act like its ok because- 'slavery bad.' (America used the same framework of revisionism in WW2; look into the terror bombing campaigns.)

    I suppose we are making two separate points. We are somehow able to agree with etchother while simultaneously continuing a debate. I do still feel that understanding the context and motivations of both sides is necessary to correctly view the morality of the individual or the states; but it may be better for me to lay that to rest given the direction this is going.
  49. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Worth reading or nah?
    I would say Nah. I read the first 2 pages, skiped to participate, then felt guilty and read up... I want that portion of my life back >.<
  50. Replies
    802
    Views
    9,735

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I'll address your points one by one.

    1) The union probably did treat slaves (and black people in general) as inherently inferior at least implicitly. However, I don't think that's relevant because gradual social progress can't be criticized because they didn't immediately solve all the problems at once. The Confederacy seceded over the issue of slavery, and while Lincoln and the Union didn't necessarily fight to abolish slavery, but rather to maintain the Union, that doesn't say anything about the Confederacy because their motives are entirely separate.

    2) The Confederate rhetoric wasn't that slaves are inferior. Read the speech I posted, it was very specifically said that black people are inferior:

    "[I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slaveryósubordination to the superior raceóis his natural and normal condition."

    3) I don't think the Union was fighting to free slaves. I don't think I actually ever said that, though one of the end results was that the Union ended up ending slavery. But I do think the Confederacy is a slave state and was inherently found as a white supremacist nation. That's what I'm attacking.

    4) The probable reason that the Union didn't immediately free slaves was because it's a complicated endeavour due to economics and public sentiment, but honestly I don't know. Perhaps the Civil War momentarily changed priorities?

    I'm not really sure what this conversation is trying to achieve, I'll be honest. I think bringing in the context of the Union's intentions and actions is muddying the conversation of the Confederacy being a nation founded solely because they wanted to maintain slavery. The Union wasn't a perfect model of a nation, but it wasn't founded on the pretext of owning slaves, while the Confederacy was. I don't know what alternative point you're proposing here, or what it has to do with my other arguments regarding statues and honouring traitors and whatnot.
    I dont feel like its fair to suggest its erroneous to talk about the unions motives while arguing the morality of the confederacy motives. Yes it will 'muddy the water' but my point is that the pretty moral justification we put on the civil war is garbage. I do not see why its such an offensive thing to hold the union accountable for the massive loss of life in the name of profit. Both sides were wrong and neither side cared for human rights in their actions. They acted out of self interest in a fight for power from what I see.

    I strongly believe that actions speak louder than words and those actions speak to intentions. Its as true in Mafia as it is in social interactions and even international politics. With that in mind the actions of the union do not support the narrative of "Fighting for morality and human rights" thats accepted as the driving factor of the civil war. We should be critical of the confederacy racism but why can we not also be critical of the union pointing to the confederacy's racism to avoid their own as well as the loss of life resulting from their greed? Should one evil be ignored because another existed?

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    How can you separate racism from slavery after reading the statements from the southern states in regards to their secession? They are deeply connected.
    I kinda feel that this is a loaded question. Of course you can't separate them in context to what your asking. Take a step back from the context and you absolutely can. What I said earlier was to point out that there were slaves of many races. Slavery as a function is not a race issue. We just view it as such because our most pronounced recent historical incident with it predominantly was. The human rights side was totally racial post-slavery but that is a separate issue.
Results 1 to 50 of 500
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4