What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Mobile Alabama Removes Statue of Confederate Without Notice

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,784
Reaction score
14,123
Points
2,190
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.
The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?



Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.
What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.
I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.
Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

sorry, but back then it was an acceptable practice, and was no different than serfdom or any other form of forced labor done by pretty much everyone.
Acceptable by slave owners. Not by the slaves, whose life was STOLEN by men with no morals. Or their children, who were frequently STOLEN away from their parents.

It's good they are finally being shown for exactly what they were. Vile, evil people who thought Black people were property.

whipping-yards.jpg


8805-trtworld-gallery-400624-439833.jpg

ead45e558dddae308eef45b03263929c--my-heart-hurts-lynching.jpg


It's curious, your attempts to diminish the evil of slavery. I'm guessing you have some personal connection. In any case, I'm done with this. I know without a trace of doubt that I am on the right side of this issue.

abusing slaves was evil, slavery itself has been part of the human condition for far longer than it has not. Wrong, not evil.
abusing slaves was evil, slavery itself has been part of the human condition for far longer than it has not. Wrong, not evil.
Terrorizing black folks for centuries is not evil? You cannot separate their treatment from their subjugation. Subjugation itself is evil.
I see now that black lives never have and never will matter to you.
I'm curious as to why you hold this opinion.

Just because I call slavery wrong and not evil?

Guess what? If their own people were willing to sell the weaker of themselves, if the Chinese would have spread throughout the world instead of Europeans they would have exploited the Africans and the Native Americans.

and that conclusion you draw is basically just trying to gain political and moral leverage over me during CURRENT debates, and is the typical tactic used by mewling loser SJW types to try to gain advantage in an argument.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,109
Reaction score
18,202
Points
2,220
The left removes another statue of an American war hero, and they wonder why people don't like them.
By defintion, the confederacy was not American.


So, you support the secession?
So, you support the secession?
Not in any way.
The confederate states believed they were no longer Americans. Their articles of seccession explained why. They claimed their white supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate blacks and that their economic survival depended on the continued and future expansion of that subjugation.

Straight up racist and deplorable.


But the American view is that the secession was not legal, and thus did not actually happen, and thus the Confederacy was NOT an independent nation and thus the Southerns were not citizens of a foreign power fighting to defend their nation, but rebels and outlaws.


If you agree that their actions were legal and binding, then the Civil War, really was the War of Northern Aggression as defined by the Lost Causers.


Your position is siding with the slavery and against Lincoln and the Union in this historical context.
Great. So we should commemorate rebels and outlaws with memorials and statues?

A distinction without a difference.


A big difference. THey thought their actions were legal and justified.


You seem to believe their actions were legal also, with your claim that they were not Americans.


If they were, as you seem to believe, citizens of a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, fighting to defend that nation from invasion, is a pretty normal reason for people to be, " commemorated ... with memorials and statues".


And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.
And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.
The type of people who have a moral objection to commemorating self avowed white supremacists.

Why in the fuck would you support doing so?


Dude. I'm not the one arguing that the secession was legal, that is you making that claim.


Do you think Lincoln's stated rational, ie "the more perfect union" was a sincere but mistaken belief, or do you think he "lied us into a war"?
I think you're defending the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists. Why would you do such a thing?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

No doubt you do.


i'm defending the right of Southerns to celebrate men that fought to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.


Which is the way that they, and you see it. As you have stated.


Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

Wait. I do know this. It is because you know that you are in the wrong, but you are too much of an asshole to admit it.
Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.
I've made up nothing. You're unwillingness to accept my premise is your issue. Not mine.
You haven't addressed what I've posted either. I understand why.

The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. There really is nothing left to say after acknowledging that. There is no reason you can cite that nullifies that fact.

You either support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists or you don't.
Again...
Why do you?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?


Your attempt to make this a black and white issue, no pun intended, is denied.


THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion.


I sympathize with the desire of their descendants to celebrate and remember the service of their ancestors, who fought hard and lost badly.


That is my position. It would be one thing if you disagreed with me, and then explained why.


Instead, you have to lie about my position, because you know you can't defend your position and you are too much of an asshole to admit it.
THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion

LOL...
You'd like it to be that simple but of course it's not. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. Your efforts to reframe them as something else in no way changes that fact.
Why would you even try?
Beause you sympathize with their lost cause?
They told you in their own words exactly what their thoughts and beliefs were in their articles of seccession. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.


It is not MY attempt to "reframe it" but the people that put up the statues that choose to focus on the self defense aspect of that War rather than the more questionable cause(s) of the war.


Indeed for over 5 generations, it has been the AMERICAN way of dealing with this past conflict, to focus and celebrate the military service and valor of both sides veterans while glossing over the more questionable aspects of it.


Like the way you agreed with the Confederates on the legal question of the Secession. That was a just glossed over when I was a kid. and for generations before.


I never really questioned Lincoln's justifications. But your point is valid. His claims were very weak ass shit.


Please shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit.
shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit
I'm not "race baiting" at all, dope.
I'm stating facts. Facts that you seemed to have never learned or cared about. You favor instead the narratives put in place by later supremacists to soften the public face of their cause.

I ask you again, sir.

How can you support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists?

You seem to defend their cause with passion. Do you sympathize with their cause?



Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.


I support the commemoration of people, who fought to protect their homelands from foreign invasion.

My passion is for America. Dividing US up by region and race, and inflaming old wounds and division.


I've explained that several times. Yet you keep asking the question as though you have not heard the answer several times.


Are you stupid, or just pretending to be stupid to justify being a race baiting asshole?
Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.
I'm assigning nothing. I'm stating fact. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. That has always been the case.
Like I said at least twice already. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.


THe Confederate Government stated policies were by today's standards WP.


You are assigning motive when you assume that the people commemorated by the various statues all were of a like mind.


You are assigning motive, when you assume that the motive of the children of the Veterans who put up the statues.


You are assigning motives, when you assume the motive of those who support celebrating those me and their service.


You are assigning motive when you assume my motive.


You are a race baiting asshole. I am passionate about you deserving to be treated like the race baiting asshole you are.


Men fighting against overwhelming odds to protect their homelands from invasion, deserve respect and commemoration.


YOu are a piece of shit.
They were fighting for the right to own other people. Period. They deserve nothing but disdain and recognition of how vile and evil they were.

They were fighting to protect their homeland from invasion.


That you can't recognize that, despite disagreeing with them, is just you being ignorant.

That you can't respect that, is you being unsophisticated. And weak.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,109
Reaction score
18,202
Points
2,220
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.
And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed
Of course that means absolutely nothing when talking about memorializing the self avowed white supremacist confederates.

Simple whadaboutism.


Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.
Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.
Sure, buddy.
I think most readers would agree that your motives are far more suspect than mine.


Dude. YOu pretended to be so upset over "wasism" and "Wp shit" one moment, and then when confronted on it minutes later, you didn't care at all.

You lost the debate right there.


It is obvious that your stated reasons for your position are completely bullshit.

As Marty said, this is about you people gaining and exercising power against your enemies TODAY, and all your moral grandstanding is just grade a bullshit.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,109
Reaction score
18,202
Points
2,220
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.
The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?



Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....
Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Not really...

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.



Yep. Nothing I have said in any way indicates that I don't think slavery was the primary cause of the war.

You've stated that you believe the Act of Secession was legal. Does this mean that you believe that Lincoln lied the US into war?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,109
Reaction score
18,202
Points
2,220
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.
The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?



Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.
What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.
I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.
Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?


You don't mention murder as being Evil. Why is that? Serial killings yes, murder no....



Is Murder not evil?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,109
Reaction score
18,202
Points
2,220
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.
The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?



Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....
Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Not really...

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

Might as well link the whole thing.

Secession Documents: Mississippi — Civil Discourse
Might as well link the whole thing
Sure. It just goes on to list their grievances that are all based on slavery like they said.


You are failing to make a point. I get the feeling you think the emotional impact of crying SLAVERY, will somehow distract from the fact that you were caught only pretending to be outraged about your primary compliants.


Hint: NO one is being fooled.
 

Hutch Starskey

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
24,564
Reaction score
3,779
Points
290
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.
The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?



Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.
What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.
I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.
Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

sorry, but back then it was an acceptable practice, and was no different than serfdom or any other form of forced labor done by pretty much everyone.
Acceptable by slave owners. Not by the slaves, whose life was STOLEN by men with no morals. Or their children, who were frequently STOLEN away from their parents.

It's good they are finally being shown for exactly what they were. Vile, evil people who thought Black people were property.

whipping-yards.jpg


8805-trtworld-gallery-400624-439833.jpg

ead45e558dddae308eef45b03263929c--my-heart-hurts-lynching.jpg


It's curious, your attempts to diminish the evil of slavery. I'm guessing you have some personal connection. In any case, I'm done with this. I know without a trace of doubt that I am on the right side of this issue.

abusing slaves was evil, slavery itself has been part of the human condition for far longer than it has not. Wrong, not evil.
abusing slaves was evil, slavery itself has been part of the human condition for far longer than it has not. Wrong, not evil.
Terrorizing black folks for centuries is not evil? You cannot separate their treatment from their subjugation. Subjugation itself is evil.
I see now that black lives never have and never will matter to you.
I'm curious as to why you hold this opinion.

Just because I call slavery wrong and not evil?

Guess what? If their own people were willing to sell the weaker of themselves, if the Chinese would have spread throughout the world instead of Europeans they would have exploited the Africans and the Native Americans.
.
and that conclusion you draw is basically just trying to gain political and moral leverage over me during CURRENT debates, and is the typical tactic used by mewling loser SJW types to try to gain advantage in an argument.
"But he did it too" is the excuse of a child.
The fact that others engaged in the practice in no way makes the practice less evil.
You can't separate wrong from evil.
It's wrong because it's evil.

The confederates tried to parse it just as you are. They claimed their racial supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate the lesser negro race.

Is that your view as well? Is that why you feel it's not evil?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,784
Reaction score
14,123
Points
2,190
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.
The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?



Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.
What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.
I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.
Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

sorry, but back then it was an acceptable practice, and was no different than serfdom or any other form of forced labor done by pretty much everyone.
Acceptable by slave owners. Not by the slaves, whose life was STOLEN by men with no morals. Or their children, who were frequently STOLEN away from their parents.

It's good they are finally being shown for exactly what they were. Vile, evil people who thought Black people were property.

whipping-yards.jpg


8805-trtworld-gallery-400624-439833.jpg

ead45e558dddae308eef45b03263929c--my-heart-hurts-lynching.jpg


It's curious, your attempts to diminish the evil of slavery. I'm guessing you have some personal connection. In any case, I'm done with this. I know without a trace of doubt that I am on the right side of this issue.

abusing slaves was evil, slavery itself has been part of the human condition for far longer than it has not. Wrong, not evil.
abusing slaves was evil, slavery itself has been part of the human condition for far longer than it has not. Wrong, not evil.
Terrorizing black folks for centuries is not evil? You cannot separate their treatment from their subjugation. Subjugation itself is evil.
I see now that black lives never have and never will matter to you.
I'm curious as to why you hold this opinion.

Just because I call slavery wrong and not evil?

Guess what? If their own people were willing to sell the weaker of themselves, if the Chinese would have spread throughout the world instead of Europeans they would have exploited the Africans and the Native Americans.
.
and that conclusion you draw is basically just trying to gain political and moral leverage over me during CURRENT debates, and is the typical tactic used by mewling loser SJW types to try to gain advantage in an argument.
"But he did it too" is the excuse of a child.
The fact that others engaged in the practice in no way makes the practice less evil.
You can't separate wrong from evil.
It's wrong because it's evil.

The confederates tried to parse it just as you are. They claimed their racial supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate the lesser negro race.

Is that your view as well? Is that why you feel it's not evil?

Yes you can separate wrong from evil, at least if you are honest about things and not trying to score cheap political points.

Their views on racial supremacy were wrong, not evil. Plenty of more technologically sophisticated civilizations held the view about others, and added race into it as a further justification of their exploitation of the weaker culture/civ.

Hell the Chinese kept their racial superiority views even as they were surpassed and even exploited by European powers.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,109
Reaction score
18,202
Points
2,220
[QU
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.
The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.


Yet, LIncoln's stated justification for the War, was not slavery, but to preserve the Union.


Was he lying?
So? Where did I ever say Lincoln gave a shit about blacks?



You made a claim as to the motives of those who were supporting Lincoln's push to eventually end slavery, in the context of it leading the South to secede and fight to break away from the nation.

I pointed out that Lincoln's stated justification for the War, did not match your description of the events.


And asked if you thought that meant LIncoln was lying.


Instead of answering me, you dodged.
 

Hutch Starskey

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
24,564
Reaction score
3,779
Points
290
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.
And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed
Of course that means absolutely nothing when talking about memorializing the self avowed white supremacist confederates.

Simple whadaboutism.


Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.
Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.
Sure, buddy.
I think most readers would agree that your motives are far more suspect than mine.


Dude. YOu pretended to be so upset over "wasism" and "Wp shit" one moment, and then when confronted on it minutes later, you didn't care at all.

You lost the debate right there.


It is obvious that your stated reasons for your position are completely bullshit.

As Marty said, this is about you people gaining and exercising power against your enemies TODAY, and all your moral grandstanding is just grade a bullshit.
As Marty said, this is about you people gaining and exercising power against your enemies TODAY, and all your moral grandstanding is just grade a bullshit.
LOL...
I have no enemies, dope.
You're projecting your own feelings onto me and my posts. It's you who sees me as an enemy and it is you who feels under attack because you sympathize with the supremacist confederacy.

I've only presented facts.
The confederacy were self avowed white supremacists.
Their primary reason for seccession and the war was the preservation of slavery.

Why do you support the veneration of such men?
Do you sympathize with their cause?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,784
Reaction score
14,123
Points
2,190
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.
And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed
Of course that means absolutely nothing when talking about memorializing the self avowed white supremacist confederates.

Simple whadaboutism.


Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.
Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.
Sure, buddy.
I think most readers would agree that your motives are far more suspect than mine.


Dude. YOu pretended to be so upset over "wasism" and "Wp shit" one moment, and then when confronted on it minutes later, you didn't care at all.

You lost the debate right there.


It is obvious that your stated reasons for your position are completely bullshit.

As Marty said, this is about you people gaining and exercising power against your enemies TODAY, and all your moral grandstanding is just grade a bullshit.
As Marty said, this is about you people gaining and exercising power against your enemies TODAY, and all your moral grandstanding is just grade a bullshit.
LOL...
I have no enemies, dope.
You're projecting your own feelings onto me and my posts. It's you who sees me as an enemy and it is you who feels under attack because you sympathize with the supremacist confederacy.

I've only presented facts.
The confederacy were self avowed white supremacists.
Their primary reason for seccession and the war was the preservation of slavery.

Why do you support the veneration of such men?
Do you sympathize with their cause?

I don't sympathize with them. They lost. What I don't like is people today deciding the peace terms made by the actual participants long ago are now null and void. They were made US Citizens again, most were completely rehabilitated. They were allowed to mourn their loss as they saw fit. We have no right to change those parameters.

Plus part of me refuses to let the mob dictate how things are done. Fuck anyone who decides to take the law into their own hands in this situation and make our choices for us by violence.

And fuck you for supporting them, you cowardly little shit.
 

Hutch Starskey

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
24,564
Reaction score
3,779
Points
290
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.
The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?



Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....
Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Not really...

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.



Yep. Nothing I have said in any way indicates that I don't think slavery was the primary cause of the war.

You've stated that you believe the Act of Secession was legal. Does this mean that you believe that Lincoln lied the US into war?
Yep. Nothing I have said in any way indicates that I don't think slavery was the primary cause of the war.

You've stated that you believe the Act of Secession was legal. Does this mean that you believe that Lincoln lied the US into war?
I've stated no such thing.
I said the confederacy believed they were a sovereign nation.

Now that you have admitted that the preservation of slavery was the primary cause for the war, why do you support the veneration of such men?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,109
Reaction score
18,202
Points
2,220
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.
And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed
Of course that means absolutely nothing when talking about memorializing the self avowed white supremacist confederates.

Simple whadaboutism.


Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.
Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.
Sure, buddy.
I think most readers would agree that your motives are far more suspect than mine.


Dude. YOu pretended to be so upset over "wasism" and "Wp shit" one moment, and then when confronted on it minutes later, you didn't care at all.

You lost the debate right there.


It is obvious that your stated reasons for your position are completely bullshit.

As Marty said, this is about you people gaining and exercising power against your enemies TODAY, and all your moral grandstanding is just grade a bullshit.
As Marty said, this is about you people gaining and exercising power against your enemies TODAY, and all your moral grandstanding is just grade a bullshit.
LOL...
I have no enemies, dope.
You're projecting your own feelings onto me and my posts. It's you who sees me as an enemy and it is you who feels under attack because you sympathize with the supremacist confederacy.


No, I see the way people like you, vicious smear and attack people who disagree with you.

It is obvious that you consider them your enemies, to be destroyed at all costs.

Your denial, is just more of the dishonesty you showed, with your pretense of outrage over wasicm from 5 generations ago.


I've only presented facts.
The confederacy were self avowed white supremacists.
Their primary reason for seccession and the war was the preservation of slavery.

And that issue became moot immediately with the end of the Civil War. THe men being honored are being honored for their military service, not the political cause they were fighting for.

An important distinction, one that you keep pretending to not know about, even though we keep rubbing your nose in it, like a badly trained puppy having it's nose rubbed in it's own piss.

Are you assuming that we will be convinced that you are actually stupid enough to not understand this simple concept, or are you assuming that all the people you care about, ie your fellow liberals, are all dishonest enough to pretend to be too stupid to understand this very simple concept?



Why do you support the veneration of such men?
Do you sympathize with their cause?

Because for over 5 generations, this is the way we have done it in America, and you people are being assholes in trying to reopen old wounds and in your race baiting.
 

NotYourBody

Gold Member
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
2,084
Reaction score
430
Points
140
Location
On the Border
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.
And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed
Of course that means absolutely nothing when talking about memorializing the self avowed white supremacist confederates.

Simple whadaboutism.


Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.
Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.
Sure, buddy.
I think most readers would agree that your motives are far more suspect than mine.


Dude. YOu pretended to be so upset over "wasism" and "Wp shit" one moment, and then when confronted on it minutes later, you didn't care at all.

You lost the debate right there.


It is obvious that your stated reasons for your position are completely bullshit.

As Marty said, this is about you people gaining and exercising power against your enemies TODAY, and all your moral grandstanding is just grade a bullshit.
The only thing giving your enemies power in this situation TODAY is your determination to cling to relics and beliefs of a racist past.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,109
Reaction score
18,202
Points
2,220
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.
The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?



Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....
Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Not really...

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.



Yep. Nothing I have said in any way indicates that I don't think slavery was the primary cause of the war.

You've stated that you believe the Act of Secession was legal. Does this mean that you believe that Lincoln lied the US into war?
Yep. Nothing I have said in any way indicates that I don't think slavery was the primary cause of the war.

You've stated that you believe the Act of Secession was legal. Does this mean that you believe that Lincoln lied the US into war?
I've stated no such thing.
I said the confederacy believed they were a sovereign nation.

Now that you have admitted that the preservation of slavery was the primary cause for the war, why do you support the veneration of such men?


No, you stated that the Confederate forces were NOT AMERICAN.


That you is stating support for the Confederate position on the legality of Secession.


Especially is the secession was legal, then the men being honored, are being honored for their service to their homelands, against a vastly superior force invading their nation.


Who cannot respect that? ONly a shallow and weak person.
 

Hutch Starskey

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
24,564
Reaction score
3,779
Points
290
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.
The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?



Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.
What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.
I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.
Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

sorry, but back then it was an acceptable practice, and was no different than serfdom or any other form of forced labor done by pretty much everyone.
Acceptable by slave owners. Not by the slaves, whose life was STOLEN by men with no morals. Or their children, who were frequently STOLEN away from their parents.

It's good they are finally being shown for exactly what they were. Vile, evil people who thought Black people were property.

whipping-yards.jpg


8805-trtworld-gallery-400624-439833.jpg

ead45e558dddae308eef45b03263929c--my-heart-hurts-lynching.jpg


It's curious, your attempts to diminish the evil of slavery. I'm guessing you have some personal connection. In any case, I'm done with this. I know without a trace of doubt that I am on the right side of this issue.

abusing slaves was evil, slavery itself has been part of the human condition for far longer than it has not. Wrong, not evil.
abusing slaves was evil, slavery itself has been part of the human condition for far longer than it has not. Wrong, not evil.
Terrorizing black folks for centuries is not evil? You cannot separate their treatment from their subjugation. Subjugation itself is evil.
I see now that black lives never have and never will matter to you.
I'm curious as to why you hold this opinion.

Just because I call slavery wrong and not evil?

Guess what? If their own people were willing to sell the weaker of themselves, if the Chinese would have spread throughout the world instead of Europeans they would have exploited the Africans and the Native Americans.
.
and that conclusion you draw is basically just trying to gain political and moral leverage over me during CURRENT debates, and is the typical tactic used by mewling loser SJW types to try to gain advantage in an argument.
"But he did it too" is the excuse of a child.
The fact that others engaged in the practice in no way makes the practice less evil.
You can't separate wrong from evil.
It's wrong because it's evil.

The confederates tried to parse it just as you are. They claimed their racial supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate the lesser negro race.

Is that your view as well? Is that why you feel it's not evil?

Yes you can separate wrong from evil, at least if you are honest about things and not trying to score cheap political points.

Their views on racial supremacy were wrong, not evil. Plenty of more technologically sophisticated civilizations held the view about others, and added race into it as a further justification of their exploitation of the weaker culture/civ.

Hell the Chinese kept their racial superiority views even as they were surpassed and even exploited by European powers.
Again. Pointing to others doing it also in no way changes the fact that it's evil.

Do you believe that all men are created equal?
Do you believe that they are endowed by their creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

If you do believe that. Then in no way can you relegate another human to a life of involuntary servitude without it being evil.
 

NotYourBody

Gold Member
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
2,084
Reaction score
430
Points
140
Location
On the Border
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.
The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?



Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.
What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.
I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.
Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?


You don't mention murder as being Evil. Why is that? Serial killings yes, murder no....



Is Murder not evil?
Yes murder is evil. Lynching is murder. Serial killings are murder. If I kill my husband because he talked too much when I wanted quiet time, that would be murder.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, dotard.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,109
Reaction score
18,202
Points
2,220
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.
And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed
Of course that means absolutely nothing when talking about memorializing the self avowed white supremacist confederates.

Simple whadaboutism.


Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.
Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.
Sure, buddy.
I think most readers would agree that your motives are far more suspect than mine.


Dude. YOu pretended to be so upset over "wasism" and "Wp shit" one moment, and then when confronted on it minutes later, you didn't care at all.

You lost the debate right there.


It is obvious that your stated reasons for your position are completely bullshit.

As Marty said, this is about you people gaining and exercising power against your enemies TODAY, and all your moral grandstanding is just grade a bullshit.
The only thing giving your enemies power in this situation TODAY is your determination to cling to relics and beliefs of a racist past.


Bullshit. If I give in to you fucktards on this issue, you will just come back and make newer even more stupid and asshole demands tomorrow.


You people are the problem, not me.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,784
Reaction score
14,123
Points
2,190
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.
The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?



Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.
What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.
I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.
Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

sorry, but back then it was an acceptable practice, and was no different than serfdom or any other form of forced labor done by pretty much everyone.
Acceptable by slave owners. Not by the slaves, whose life was STOLEN by men with no morals. Or their children, who were frequently STOLEN away from their parents.

It's good they are finally being shown for exactly what they were. Vile, evil people who thought Black people were property.

whipping-yards.jpg


8805-trtworld-gallery-400624-439833.jpg

ead45e558dddae308eef45b03263929c--my-heart-hurts-lynching.jpg


It's curious, your attempts to diminish the evil of slavery. I'm guessing you have some personal connection. In any case, I'm done with this. I know without a trace of doubt that I am on the right side of this issue.

abusing slaves was evil, slavery itself has been part of the human condition for far longer than it has not. Wrong, not evil.
abusing slaves was evil, slavery itself has been part of the human condition for far longer than it has not. Wrong, not evil.
Terrorizing black folks for centuries is not evil? You cannot separate their treatment from their subjugation. Subjugation itself is evil.
I see now that black lives never have and never will matter to you.
I'm curious as to why you hold this opinion.

Just because I call slavery wrong and not evil?

Guess what? If their own people were willing to sell the weaker of themselves, if the Chinese would have spread throughout the world instead of Europeans they would have exploited the Africans and the Native Americans.
.
and that conclusion you draw is basically just trying to gain political and moral leverage over me during CURRENT debates, and is the typical tactic used by mewling loser SJW types to try to gain advantage in an argument.
"But he did it too" is the excuse of a child.
The fact that others engaged in the practice in no way makes the practice less evil.
You can't separate wrong from evil.
It's wrong because it's evil.

The confederates tried to parse it just as you are. They claimed their racial supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate the lesser negro race.

Is that your view as well? Is that why you feel it's not evil?

Yes you can separate wrong from evil, at least if you are honest about things and not trying to score cheap political points.

Their views on racial supremacy were wrong, not evil. Plenty of more technologically sophisticated civilizations held the view about others, and added race into it as a further justification of their exploitation of the weaker culture/civ.

Hell the Chinese kept their racial superiority views even as they were surpassed and even exploited by European powers.
Again. Pointing to others doing it also in no way changes the fact that it's evil.

Do you believe that all men are created equal?
Do you believe that they are endowed by their creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

If you do believe that. Then in no way can you relegate another human to a life of involuntary servitude without it being evil.

Why do you keep trying to assume that what I believe now impacts what I view their beliefs to be back then, or what we should do regarding monuments or dedications to them?

I believe all of that, but back then they believed "all men" was limited to basically those of European descent. It's what people thought back then. They also meant the term "men" literally, not mankind as we see it today.

And as for your closing statement, imprisoning a criminal is evil?

Watch about dealing in absolutes.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,109
Reaction score
18,202
Points
2,220
I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.


Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...


A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.
i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.
I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.
Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems :lol:

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.
There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.


There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.
And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?
I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.
100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?


Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.
Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.


340px-Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver%2C_1863%2C_retouched.jpg

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.
Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil
That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.
So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.
The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?



Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.
What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.
I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.
Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?


You don't mention murder as being Evil. Why is that? Serial killings yes, murder no....



Is Murder not evil?
Yes murder is evil. Lynching is murder. Serial killings are murder. If I kill my husband because he talked too much when I wanted quiet time, that would be murder.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, dotard.


I'm not. I just don't trust your pretense of outrage. Hutch was talking a good game about Wacism, and then suddenly admitted that he didn't really care about that, when it was someone else doing the wacism.



I think that you are crafting your position, like Hutch, not based on your real feelings, but on how to give your self excuses to be an ashole to your enemies.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days