What do conservatives conserve? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14979140
One Degree wrote:Your own source tells you the Northern soldiers did not care about slavery. It tells you the Southern soldiers were fighting for their society (State’s rights), then adds the totally extraneous information that slavery was part of that society. The only reason to include this in the sentence is to give the impression the Southerners were fighting for slavery when they didn’t actually say that. It is deliberately misleading.
Your own source says these men were not fighting for slavery and you use it as proof they were.
To save yourself some time, you are not going to find anything in Wikipedia to add to the tremendous amount of information that has been written on the causes of the Civil War.

The only "states' rights" which were being violated by the North was the Southern states' 'right' to own slaves. And Lincoln didn't even want to abolish slavery in the South - he simply wanted to prevent the Southern states from spreading slavery to other states which were previously free of it. That was the proximate cause of the Civil War, as any number of spokesmen for the Southern states asserted at the time.
#14979142
Godstud wrote:It's not misleading. It's facts. You don't even know your own country's history. You downplay slavery as a major source of dissent. Slavery was a MAJOR factor. I take it you didn't read the other source I posted, or was that simply too much facts in one place?

Slavery was a major reason for the Civil War. if you can't accept that, it's simply because you can't accept reality.


I don’t even know where your goalposts are now. What is it you are actually arguing or did you ever know? I did not deny slavery was an issue. I said it was not possible for slavery to be an issue without the state’s rights issue. Presenting well known information does not challenge my reasoning. If you want to make an argument, then you need to tell me how slavery could be an issue without state’s rights as an issue. Slavery would have already been decided without a state’s rights issue.
#14979143
Potemkin wrote:The only "states' rights" which were being violated by the North was the Southern states' 'right' to own slaves. And Lincoln didn't even want to abolish slavery in the South - he simply wanted to prevent the Southern states from spreading slavery to other states which were previously free of it. That was the proximate cause of the Civil War, as any number of spokesmen for the Southern states asserted at the time.


I have no problem with this. See my above post.
#14979159
We were not discussing state rights. You're the one who deflected into that argument.

You were arguing that slavery wasn't the main issue for the Civil War. It was. You're fucking wrong and you are the one trying to move the goal posts. That it was a "state" issue doesn't change a fucking thing.
#14979164
Godstud wrote:We were not discussing state rights. You're the one who deflected into that argument.

You were arguing that slavery wasn't the main issue for the Civil War. It was. You're fucking wrong and you are the one trying to move the goal posts. That it was a "state" issue doesn't change a fucking thing.


The two issues can not be separated. I can think of no reason for anyone to try to separate them other than for modern political reasons. It is a distortion of the historical reality that demonizes the South to promote the civil rights argument. The South had a legitimate state’s rights argument. There is no reason to deny this, other than modern feelings on slavery. It is a distortion of history.
As was pointed out, their right to own slaves was not in dispute. Their state’s right was recognized.
The expansion into the territories was also a legitimate state’s rights argument. There was no basis for non slave states to have more rights in the territories than slave states.
There is no doubt slavery was the issue, but it was a state’s rights issue and there is no legitimate reason to deny this. Something other than slavery could conceivably have created the same dispute, because the dispute was over a state’s rights and not just slavery.
Repeating, you can not separate them if you are being honest.
#14979168
Fuck your view on state rights and your stupid local autonomy ideology.

It's not about feelings, unless you're a racist Nazi-supporter, who pines for the days before civil rights. Slavery was already being discarded in most modern societies. Feelings had nothing to do with it. Modern industrialism was the reason for it, and changing morality(for the better). You'd know that, of course, if you bothered to read the posts I quoted, since it mentioned that several times.

Their "state rights" were infringing on the rights of other states by wanting them to adopt such policies as returning slaves, etc. So yes, it was a state right that they were trying to inflict on other states. At that point it leaves the realm of state rights.
#14979171
Fuck your view on state rights and your stupid local autonomy ideology.

Moronic babbling.
It's not about feelings, unless you're a racist Nazi-supporter, who pines for the days before civil rights. Slavery was already being discarded in most modern societies. Feelings had nothing to do with it. Modern industrialism was the reason for it, and changing morality(for the better). You'd know that, of course, if you bothered to read the posts I quoted, since it mentioned that several times.

Your feelings appear hurt. More moronic babbling. Irrelevant shit.

Their "state rights" were infringing on the rights of other states by wanting them to adopt such policies as returning slaves, etc. So yes, it was a state right that they were trying to inflict on other states. At that point it leaves the realm of state rights.

This was a legitimate point of dispute that sovereign nations even have today. Extradition.

Your inability to understand they did not view slavery the way we do, is the cause of your inability to comprehend what I am saying. You need to be capable of understanding the viewpoint of others if you are to ever view anything objectively. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to learn this.
#14979173
Facts are only irrelevant when you don't like them. You simply ignore them because they dismiss your beliefs.

In most countries of the world, they will not extradite people for things that are not a crime in their country/state. Your state argument is shite, as usual. Yet more of your ideological childishness.

I am being objective. I have not said slavery was immoral or making any argument of the kind. You're deflecting simply because your argument is pathetic.
Last edited by Godstud on 12 Jan 2019 04:20, edited 1 time in total.
#14979174
Godstud wrote:Fuck your view on state rights and your stupid local autonomy ideology.

It's not about feelings, unless you're a racist Nazi-supporter, who pines for the days before civil rights.

It is easy to know when someone does not have a good argument for their view when that person starts using curse words and calling the other person a racist Nazi-supporter and sometimes other names, like moron.
#14979175
@Hindsite When someone consistently ignores facts and relevant information, then they are being morons. Feel free to agree with the morons. It would be appropriate given your posting history.
#14979186
Godstud wrote:Their "state rights" were infringing on the rights of other states by wanting them to adopt such policies as returning slaves, etc. So yes, it was a state right that they were trying to inflict on other states. At that point it leaves the realm of state rights.

Ableman v. Booth was never overturned. Wisconsin was slapped down by SCOTUS for trying to annul federal courts. SCOTUS has always stood by that principle. They stand by it to this day. That was a big argument in recognizing gay marriage--forcing one state to recognize the gay marriages of another state. :roll: It seems you are being quite inconsistent here, but that's not a big surprise.

One Degree wrote:This was a legitimate point of dispute that sovereign nations even have today. Extradition.

Yes. Long arm jurisdiction still applies to this day. Apparently, Godstud doesn't realize that.

Godstud wrote:In most countries of the world, they will not extradite people for things that are not a crime in their country/state.

While the several states are foreign nations to each other, they are bound by a federation which requires them to respect the laws of the other states within the federation. You do realize that you argued in favor of this when it was about gay marriage, right?

Godstud wrote:I have not said slavery was immoral or making any argument of the kind.

Well that's interesting...
#14979229
blackjack21 wrote: It seems you are being quite inconsistent here, but that's not a big surprise.
Yes, it's no surprise you can't figure shit out. if I had the time, and crayons, I could do it.

blackjack21 wrote:Long arm jurisdiction still applies to this day. Apparently, Godstud doesn't realize that.
Irrelevant. That's not what the discussion was about.

blackjack21 wrote:While the several states are foreign nations to each other, they are bound by a federation which requires them to respect the laws of the other states within the federation. You do realize that you argued in favor of this when it was about gay marriage, right?
What has that got to do with Slavery being a prime factor in the American Civil War? What has that got to do with progress and civilization changing, for the better?

blackjack21 wrote:Well that's interesting...
We are not discussing the morality or amorality of things. Try paying attention if you're going to chime in once a week, cherry-picking. :knife:
#14979236
The polarization in the US today can be seen as a result of this seemingly minor distortion of history. By denying the legitimate state’s rights issue, it becomes a strictly moral issue that did not even exist as we see it.
This distortion allowed the South to be demonized as modern racists justifying racial hatred of whites on ‘moral’ grounds that again did not actually exist.
Today we now see it expressed as anyone who does not support the ‘politically correct’ platform is a racist Nazi. This thinking is the result, in part, of this deliberate historical distortion. It created a moral divide based on a morality that did not exist at the time. It created a justification for racial tensions based upon a distortion.
My argument is not ‘slavery was ok’ or ‘civil rights was wrong’, but this distortion is preventing us from moving on. It has created an artificial hurdle to understanding the current reality.
Similar to Civil War Times, the issues today must also recognize the real concern over centralization and not dismiss it on ‘moral’ grounds or we might end up with the same result. If you refuse to understand the other side’s view, then conflict must be the result.
Our disagreements today are not about race. This is simply an evolution of a historical distortion that is destroying our ability to communicate. Insisting everything be reduced to racism is counterproductive.
#14979242
:lol: Calling people racist for thinking slavery was a terrible thing? :moron:


One Degree wrote:This distortion allowed the South to be demonized as modern racists justifying racial hatred of whites on ‘moral’ grounds that again did not actually exist.
There is no distortion. You are making a false argument.

If you're not defending Nazis, you're saying people who dislike racists, because you have proven time and time again, that you are incapable of understanding even the definition of racism. You also then make racist statements. :knife:

One Degree wrote:My argument is not ‘slavery was ok’ or ‘civil rights was wrong’, but this distortion is preventing us from moving on.
Seeking to dismiss it as a major factor WAS what you were doing, however. You started by trivializing it, so I find this new tack to be without merit and a bit dishonest.

One Degree wrote:Our disagreements today are not about race. This is simply an evolution of a historical distortion that is destroying our ability to communicate. Insisting everything be reduced to racism is counterproductive.
There is no historical distortion. Slavery was already disappearing across the known world due to industrialization.

The historical records for the reasons for the Civil War have not recently been changed or altered. They've always been the same, and you're wrong... AGAIN, but are simply too stubborn to admit it.
#14979243
Godstud wrote::lol: Calling people racist for thinking slavery was a terrible thing? :moron:


There is no distortion. You are making a false argument.

If you're not defending Nazis, you're saying people who dislike racists, because you have proven time and time again, that you are incapable of understanding even the definition of racism. You also then make racist statements. :knife:

Seeking to dismiss it as a major factor WAS what you were doing, however. You started by trivializing it, so I find this new tack to be without merit and a bit dishonest.

There is no historical distortion. Slavery was already disappearing across the known world due to industrialization. Conserving stupidity is typical of right wingers, but conservatives can be reasoned, and communicated with(unlike yourself).

The historical records for the reasons for the Civil War have not recently been changed or altered. They've always been the same, and you're simply wrong... AGAIN, but are either too stubborn, or stupid, to admit it


Thank you for proving my point by reducing it to racism.
If slavery was disappearing, then why fight a war over it?
#14979244
The Southern states were trying to perpetuate it, and force the other states to accept this. Among other things, this was unacceptable. The reasons for the war are simple and have been given to you, but you fail to accept them because of some stupid ideological hard-on for state rights.
#14979245
Godstud wrote:The Southern states were trying to perpetuate it, and force the other states to accept this. Among other things, this was unacceptable. The reasons for the war are simple and have been given to you, but you fail to accept them because of some stupid ideological hard-on for state rights.


Lmao
#14979246
I'm sorry. I don't have the time, or the crayons, to explain it to you.

The facts are clear and only your willful ignorance prevents you from comprehending the obvious.
#14979249
Godstud wrote:I'm sorry. I don't have the time, or the crayons, to explain it to you.

The facts are clear and only your willful ignorance prevents you from comprehending the obvious.


I am attempting to show how our thinking is determined by things we accept that are based upon minor distortions of the reality. How these minor distortions evolve into ‘thinking’ over time that is accepted, but actually has little basis in reality. We created our reality out of our thoughts, not on actual reality.
Your argument is simply, “I don’t want to hear it because it contradicts what I have been told.”
Well, I don’t want you to believe it. I only want you to consider it.
We can change our reality simply by changing our thoughts.
We choose to believe people are ‘good’ and devise entire ideologies around that thought. If you change your mind and decide people are not good, then all that brilliant ideology becomes nonsense.
We can decide today everyone is a racist or we can decide they are just honest people with different views. This one decision changes your entire world. This is my point. Limiting the Civil War to just being about racism determined the world we see today.
#14979282
In the US context, it certainly seems that conservatives are trying to conserve racism.

Which is why a lot of conservatives are considered progressive, since many of them do not actually support racism.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10

Developing countries are moving in the right direc[…]

Lamar Smith also referenced a common denier argum[…]

Thinking about your retirement, when you are young[…]

Trump's Visit to London

It's cute how Londoners think anyone gives a shit[…]