Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism - Page 32
Register

User Tag List

Page 32 of 40 FirstFirst ... 22 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 640 of 798
  1. #621

    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?
    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.

  2. #622

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    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.
    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 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.
    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?

    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? 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?
    Last edited by oops_ur_dead; June 29th, 2020 at 08:56 AM.

  3. #623

  4. #624

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Sorry. Iím going through some rough shit right now and I lose the ability to discriminate between attacks and arguments. I (mis)interpreted your posts as an attack on religion itself, something which greatly concerns me not because I am religious but because it is so ubiquitous nowadays and I just canít help and push against it. I am more on the religious side of things than not so thatís where I stand; I think religion is very interesting and nice so Iím quite sympathetic to it (partly because it is, in my view, a bit too vilified, especially amongst younger people)

    I think I have contributed a lot to polarization through threads like these and consequently as a gesture of goodwill this will be my last post about religion on this thread.

    About divorce: divorce isnít wrong. Itís fine. I do think itís something that should generally be carefully considered, but itís not wrong (or immoral).

    I maintain that the symbol of the US doesnít concern me at all. Some actions from the religious conservatives in the US do, however; like gay marriage/abortion for instance. But this motto has been around for so long that I donít think itís really got any significant religious meaning behind it. I think it can be and is being pushed in some cases by more religious members of the government and I can see why; Mississippi is the most religious state in America.

    Anyways good luck yíall and if youíd like to continue the discussion we can talk in PMs or on Discord.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  5. #625

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  6. #626

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Also what does everyone think about the plan to resettle blacks in Africa
    I think it was dumb and actually quite racist. Imagine deporting thousands of your citizens to a land they had literally never seen before.
    Liberia wouldíve been nice if it had worked out because then the US would today have a major American ally in Africa, but this wasnít the case.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  7. #627

    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.
    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.

  8. #628

    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.
    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.

  9. #629

  10. #630

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    One other thing that in my view constitutes a very glaring issue is the fact that the north allowed Jim Crow laws to be passed in the south. If all men are created equal, why allow people to disenfranchise a substantial minority of them based on skin colour?
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  11. #631

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    It's okay Ganelon, we are strangers on the internet after all. Literally messages going through a SeRiEs Of TuBeS. Discussing stuff like this can be mentally straining because it's a challenge of a very personal part of yourself that isn't often challenged.


    The Union was by no means morally superior. If you read the actual appeasements they tried to make you will see how cooked everyone in the USA was. Some of it can be argued as time wasting but the Corwin Amendment... lol

  12. #632

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    I actually do have another question that I think rarely gets brought up. The Northern states had abolished slavery quite a while before the South did. Why? And speaking of which, how many blacks were there in the north to begin with?
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  13. #633

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    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.
    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.

  14. #634

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Ugh more civil war talk
    I wonder if this is a reflection of the shit thatís going on in the US atm
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  15. #635

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    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?
    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. 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?

    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.
    You're getting at my point at last, if maybe only by accident!

    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.
    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?
    Last edited by oops_ur_dead; June 29th, 2020 at 09:55 AM.

  16. #636

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    I read an extremely interesting and long comment on a YT video about the South during the civil war. It was a very convincing comment; however, I think itís extremely strange that the Jim Crow laws are literally never mentioned in any debate over what the south fought for. While thereís a lot to be said about what the South fought for and a lot of things can essentially be said in favour of them not fighting (just) for slavery, the fact remains that the Jim Crow laws are extremely difficult to explain away. You canít ignore them.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  17. #637

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Even here, none of you guys brought up the Jim Crow laws as an argument. Why? Why is this crucial piece of evidence often overlooked by both sides? I can understand why pro-Confederacy people would ignore it, but certainly not those against it lol
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  18. #638

  19. #639

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Why? Isnít it a very strong argument in favour of the confederates being essentially fundamentally founded on racist principles?
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  20. #640

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Even here, none of you guys brought up the Jim Crow laws as an argument. Why? Why is this crucial piece of evidence often overlooked by both sides? I can understand why pro-Confederacy people would ignore it, but certainly not those against it lol
    I don't understand what the Jim Crow laws have to do with anything.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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