Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism - Page 33
Register

User Tag List

Page 33 of 37 FirstFirst ... 23 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 LastLast
Results 641 to 660 of 734
  1. #641

  2. #642

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Why? Isn’t it a very strong argument in favour of the confederates being essentially fundamentally founded on racist principles?
    Oh I see now. I suppose it does, but at the same time I think the Confederacy's actions outside of Jim Crow provide enough evidence.

  3. #643

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    No, the point is for people to turn their firstborn child into the literal incarnation of Satan and conquer the World through their awesome power.
    Just make sure your firstborn gets all the inheritance or they may try to assassinate their siblings.
    Rofl claim Alexander the Great's legacy too
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    I will refer you to these posts, buried in the "cancerous" portion of the thread.

    "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.
    Isn't that unrelated to my post, though? Satanists are serving a power they believe to be evil (Satan is evil incarnate by definition), while other religions serve a power they believe to be good. In other words, they don't even try to be moral lol: that is the whole point. Hence why I have a hard time understanding their "code of conduct" @Helz quoted, which just seems to be common sense and pro-science without references to religion. I follow that code of conduct, does that make me a satanist xD?
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  4. #644

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Its weird that you’d be for polygamous marriages, even from a utilitarian perspective it’s PLAIN wrong, it leads to social unrest because some men don’t get any women.
    Objection, Your Honor. I don't think the defendant meant "polygamy" under the meaning of "a system under which a man can have multiple wives, but a women cannot have multiple husbands"; the point of Mr. Ganelon is therefore irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  5. #645

    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..
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  6. #646

  7. #647

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Isn't that unrelated to my post, though? Satanists are serving a power they believe to be evil (Satan is evil incarnate by definition), while other religions serve a power they believe to be good. In other words, they don't even try to be moral lol: that is the whole point. Hence why I have a hard time understanding their "code of conduct" @Helz quoted, which just seems to be common sense and pro-science without references to religion. I follow that code of conduct, does that make me a satanist xD?
    Yes it does make you a satanist, and therefore you should have no problem changing the motto to "In God we trust, and Satan too"
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  8. #648

  9. #649

    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.
    ... IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, apples, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.

    V. To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

    VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.

    VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms....

    — William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864.
    Like I said the actual implementation of this doctrine leaves a lot to be desired. The burning of an entire city (I'm assuming it's Atlanta) cannot fairly be attributed solely to Sherman imo. Sure he is the superior, but there is so much more to what happened to Atlanta then simply Sherman burned it. Examples: confederates took up defensive positions in the city, confederates destroyed buildings before fleeing, subordinates under Sherman taking their own initiative, conflicting stories on the destruction regardless of allegiance.

  10. #650

  11. #651

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Yes it does make you a satanist, and therefore you should have no problem changing the motto to "In God we trust, and Satan too"


    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  12. #652

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  13. #653

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  14. #654

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Lincoln used the emancipation proclamation as a tool for sure to win the war, what better way to disrupt the economy of the south than to say lol you're free. He was willing to keep slavery if it meant that the Union stayed together as did other Northerners. I think people are getting hung up on the wrong figureheads tho. Abolitionism was a key driving part of Northern policy. Why do you think the South took a moral stance on the issue? When everything else is exhausted your morals is really all you have left. They saw the writing on the wall, the North (for the most part) did not want slavery.

  15. #655

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Uhh if you want to challenge or understand someone's opinion you literally have to argue. Do you want to hold hands and dance around a fire singing kumbaya until we eventually understand each other? I get that you want to be "open minded" but that is a pretty naïve view on how people with opposing ideas talk to each other.

    In logic and philosophy an argument is a series of statements intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion.
    This thread has been for the most pretty fucking tame. If you don't believe me just log onto Facebook for a reminder lol.

  16. #656

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Lincoln used the emancipation proclamation as a tool for sure to win the war, what better way to disrupt the economy of the south than to say lol you're free. He was willing to keep slavery if it meant that the Union stayed together as did other Northerners. I think people are getting hung up on the wrong figureheads tho. Abolitionism was a key driving part of Northern policy. Why do you think the South took a moral stance on the issue? When everything else is exhausted your morals is really all you have left. They saw the writing on the wall, the North (for the most part) did not want slavery.
    Touching in this for clarity, I believe Lincoln was motivated by abolishment sentiments but also heavily valued the Union being held together even if it meant forgoing abolishment aspirations.

  17. #657

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    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.
    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?

    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 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.
    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 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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

  18. #658

    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.
    If you aren't okay with that motto, why is "In god we trust" acceptable? It's hypocritical to support one and not the other.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  19. #659

  20. #660

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •