Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2017, 05:17 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(05-07-2017 05:11 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 05:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  Brother, if you disagree with historians then it's for you to provide justification. If I've misstated your position it's for you to correct that misstatement. How the fuck am I supposed to read your mind? Stop being a prat.
I am attempting to prove my justification.

When communicating there are three things.
There is what the person meant.
There is what the person said.
There is what the other person hears.
I am trying to make sure that what I meant and what you heard(read) are the same thing. That is why I am asking you to restate my position.

But I've stated what I understand it to be. You haven't provided any feedback other than "Please restate it again". That's ridiculous. Say what is incorrect about what I previously stated my understanding of your position to be.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
05-07-2017, 05:22 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(05-07-2017 05:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 05:11 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I am attempting to prove my justification.

When communicating there are three things.
There is what the person meant.
There is what the person said.
There is what the other person hears.
I am trying to make sure that what I meant and what you heard(read) are the same thing. That is why I am asking you to restate my position.

But I've stated what I understand it to be. You haven't provided any feedback other than "Please restate it again". That's ridiculous. Say what is incorrect about what I previously stated my understanding of your position to be.
Now we're getting somewhere. I will restate my position so we can see if you understand my position or if we are talking past one another.
From an earlier post
Quote:Abe and Jeff live together. Jeff decides that he is tired of Abe's controlling ways and being hit with increasing rent and unfair fees so he goes to Abe and says "I'm moving out. And oh ya I have a right to keep slaves.". Abe then walks up to Jeff and says "I don't give a shit if you have slaves. You have to keep living here and paying me rent and whatever other fees I come up with" then he punches Jeff in the face. Therefore the fight was over Jeff leaving not over if Jeff could have slaves.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 05:29 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(05-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 05:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  But I've stated what I understand it to be. You haven't provided any feedback other than "Please restate it again". That's ridiculous. Say what is incorrect about what I previously stated my understanding of your position to be.
Now we're getting somewhere. I will restate my position so we can see if you understand my position or if we are talking past one another.
From an earlier post
Quote:Abe and Jeff live together. Jeff decides that he is tired of Abe's controlling ways and being hit with increasing rent and unfair fees so he goes to Abe and says "I'm moving out. And oh ya I have a right to keep slaves.". Abe then walks up to Jeff and says "I don't give a shit if you have slaves. You have to keep living here and paying me rent and whatever other fees I come up with" then he punches Jeff in the face. Therefore the fight was over Jeff leaving not over if Jeff could have slaves.

I will contradict you and say we are getting nowhere. What the fuck am I supposed to understand from that?

Are you, or are you not, claiming that slavery was not a reason for the civil war?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 05:36 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
Could it not be a combination of both ? The way I see it is that the North couldn't tolerate either succession or slavery as both were detrimental to the Union. I just feel that attempts to sanitize the Souths behaviour and rebellion kinda smacks to me of historical revisionism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 05:42 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(05-07-2017 05:29 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Now we're getting somewhere. I will restate my position so we can see if you understand my position or if we are talking past one another.
From an earlier post

I will contradict you and say we are getting nowhere. What the fuck am I supposed to understand from that?

Are you, or are you not, claiming that slavery was not a reason for the civil war?

What I am saying at this moment is that you are avoiding restating my position because you're afraid of it. I will say that I actually say that the original post which that came from is not entirely what I meant so i said it wrong. While it recognizes that part of the reason Jeff decided to move out was because he felt he was economically being taken advantage of, it ignores that fact that he believed Abe was going to make him get rid of his slaves at some point in the future. I decided not to alter the original post because I didn't want to be accused of being slippery.
[quote]
Abe and Jeff live together. Jeff decides that he is tired of Abe's controlling ways and being hit with increasing rent and unfair fees, as well as a fear that Abe will make him get rid of his slaves so he goes to Abe and says "I'm moving out. And oh ya I have a right to keep slaves.". Abe then walks up to Jeff and says "I don't give a shit if you have slaves. You have to keep living here and paying me rent and whatever other fees I come up with" then he punches Jeff in the face. Therefore the fight was over Jeff leaving not over if Jeff could have slaves.

***
I will attempt to sate what I think your position is.
True or False
"The south decided to leave because they wanted to keep slaves, therefore that is what the fight was over."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 05:43 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(05-07-2017 05:36 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Could it not be a combination of both ? The way I see it is that the North couldn't tolerate either succession or slavery as both were detrimental to the Union. I just feel that attempts to sanitize the Souths behaviour and rebellion kinda smacks to me of historical revisionism

It could be but it's not. Read both of Abraham Lincoln's decelerations of war.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 06:26 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(05-07-2017 05:42 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I will attempt to sate what I think your position is.
True or False
"The south decided to leave because they wanted to keep slaves, therefore that is what the fight was over."

I have already once tried to state my understanding of your position, so you can hardly accuse me of being afraid of it. What the fuck is there to be afraid of? Meaningless drivel?

Although simplistic, and although I don't claim to be an expert, available literature seems to indicate to me that yes, your statement of my position is roughly correct. I don't particularly *have* a position, because I'm not tied to some ideology, and it's not something I'm an expert on, but consensus of historians is good enough for me.

Quote: While most historians agree that conflicts over slavery caused the war, they disagree sharply regarding which kinds of conflict—ideological, economic, political, or social—were most important.[1]
- From the wikipedia article I already linked. State your reasons for disagreeing with this, if you do.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
05-07-2017, 07:57 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
Before I get to the rest of your response let me restate my position in full since you wont.

to state my position from the analogy
Jeff divorced Abe because he thought he was taken advantage of economically AND because he was afraid Abe would make him give up his slaves.
Abe told Jeff he didn't care about slavery, what he did care about and what started the fight was the fact that Jeff wanted to leave.

The question here is not "Did the south leave over slavery". The answer to that question is "Yes that is one of the reasons the south left". The question is "What was the fight over?". For the answer I point you to the words of Abraham Lincoln's decelerations of war.

(05-07-2017 06:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 05:42 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I will attempt to sate what I think your position is.
True or False
"The south decided to leave because they wanted to keep slaves, therefore that is what the fight was over."

Quote:Although simplistic, and although I don't claim to be an expert, available literature seems to indicate to me that yes, your statement of my position is roughly correct.
Is my above understanding of your position true or false. This is a binary question with one of two choices. Either yes the statement represents your position, or no it does not.
Quote: I don't particularly *have* a position, because I'm not tied to some ideology, and it's not something I'm an expert on, but consensus of historians is good enough for me.
"Consensus of historians is good enough for me" is a position. It is also a statement that if someone provides evidence that the historians are wrong you will not change your mind.
Quote:I have already once tried to state my understanding of your position, so you can hardly accuse me of being afraid of it. What the fuck is there to be afraid of? Meaningless drivel?
I find it disingenuous to say "I tried restating your position once and I failed therefore I give up"

As to what you have to be afraid of... Quite a bit actually. First and foremost that your cherished notion that the north stood against slavery and racism is false.
Quote:
Quote: While most historians agree that conflicts over slavery caused the war, they disagree sharply regarding which kinds of conflict—ideological, economic, political, or social—were most important.[1]
- From the wikipedia article I already linked. State your reasons for disagreeing with this, if you do.
[/quote]
Again this position seems to be "The south decided to leave because they were afraid slavery would be abolished and that is what started the war".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 10:38 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2017 11:01 AM by adey67.)
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
I know morondog a little and I guarantee that as a straight up person if the historical narrative turned out to be incorrect he would definitely change his mind to comport with the truth, I find your comment on this to be extremely disingenuous, what in effect you seem to be saying is that morondog is wrong if he doesn't believe any yo blow yahoo with a theory that contradicts credible historians. If there was credible evidence morondog would definitely not be afraid to change his mind Imo.
BTW, you believing you have credible evidence doesn't count as credible evidence unless its peer reviewed analyzed etc until then its a personal opinion or at best an amateur hypothesis. Also declarations of war are just that declarations of war not nuanced explanations of every minutiae of the reasons for a decision to go to war, there may have been many subtle and not so subtle reasons why the question of slavery as a reason to go to war was not mentioned as a main objective, for example racist bigots were not confined to the south, if you want to get the maximum people to volunteer to have their legs arms etc spectacularly blown off or ultimately amputated best to stick to the question of economics and the damage of secession. Don't forget it took Robert Gould Shaw of the 54th Mass help from his father who was close in government to get the regiment armed combat status and as a black regiment it was paid less than white regiments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
05-07-2017, 10:46 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(05-07-2017 10:38 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I know morondog a little and I guarantee that as a straight up person if the historical narrative turned out to be incorrect he would definitely change his mind to comport with the truth, I find your comment on this to be extremely disingenuous, what in effect you seem to be saying is that morondog is wrong if he doesn't believe any yo blow yahoo with a theory that contradicts credible historians. If there was credible evidence morondog would definitely not be afraid to change his mind Imo.

When someone don't believe what consensus of people actually qualified to talk about subject has to say then there is not much hope for reasoning with such person. You're wasting your breath Adey. One historian could be wrong, tens of them too, but questioning scholarly consensus on flimsy excuse that many people believe in supernatural is just idiotic.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: