The Civil War

[bripat9643]

.....

Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.

You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.

How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?

A Supreme Court justice is an authority on constitutional law, stupid.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case is an authority on that case, stupid.

You appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.

"By authority" you mean ......

Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.

It's obvious what you mean from your context. .......

In your little imagination. In order to avoid making more of a fool of yourself, ask if you want to know what I mean.

I already know what you mean, moron.
....

Clearly you don't, or I would not have to correct you so often.

You "correct" me because I tell the truth. You are a liar.

 

[bripat9643]

... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
.....

His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.

How about every geologist in 1950? Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?

What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?

You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
...

One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?

I already know what it means. .....

You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?

I already know what it means. I'm not the one who keeps weaseling.

Now answer this question: How about every geologist in 1950? Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?

 

[Unkotare]

.....

Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.

You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.

How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?

A Supreme Court justice is an authority on constitutional law, stupid.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case is an authority on that case, stupid.

You appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.

"By authority" you mean ......

Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.

It's obvious what you mean from your context. .......

In your little imagination. In order to avoid making more of a fool of yourself, ask if you want to know what I mean.

I already know what you mean, moron.
....

Clearly you don't, or I would not have to correct you so often.

You "correct" me because ......

I correct you because you need correcting.

 

[Unkotare]

... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
.....

His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.

How about every geologist in 1950? Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?

What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?

You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
...

One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?

I already know what it means. .....

You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?

I already know what it means. I'm not the one who keeps weaseling.

....

Ok, tell me what you think it means.

 

[bripat9643]

... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
.....

His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.

How about every geologist in 1950? Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?

What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?

You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
...

One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?

I already know what it means. .....

You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?

I already know what it means. I'm not the one who keeps weaseling.

....

Ok, tell me what you think it means.

I've already told you numerous times. If you claim 'A' is true because so-called expert 'B' says so, you have committed the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority."

Now answer this question: How about every geologist in 1950? Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?

 

[DudleySmith]

Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war. Confederates didn't set foot in Union territory until the war had been going on for over two years.

I always thought the South started the Civil War when they fired on and captured Fort Sumter. The first battle of Bull Run was only like 30 miles from DC, Lincoln had to send troops to fight the rebs in northern Virginia instead of the streets of Washington, to defend the capitol. Bull Run was the first major ground conflict in that war, but that wasn't where the war started.

Sumpter began the shooting war. Declaring secession and proceeding with extra-Constitutional measures was an act of sedition such as no nation that could be defined as such could tolerate. It was not a gentleman's club where one paid dues until bored and quit. The nation was joined together voluntarily sate by state. The people in each state supported that or not, but the state bound itself to a perpetual accord. A state, like a man, honors word given or does not and, like a man, is judged and dealt with accordingly.
When one is in a society where voice is given through the ballot, one accepts the majority decision. Otherwise, if the society permits, one leaves. Otherwise, one rebels and pays the consequences. Complaining about that after the fact only reveals lack of capacity for thought and/or mature decision making.

Rubbish. There is nothing in the Constitution that binds a state involuntarily to any 'Union'. That's why none of you Lincoln fans can cite anything that does.

They twist themselves into logical contortions trying to claim it does, but their fulminations always fall flat.

They never actually try; they know they're full of shit.

 

[Unkotare]

... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
.....

His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.

How about every geologist in 1950? Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?

What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?

You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
...

One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?

I already know what it means. .....

You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?

I already know what it means. I'm not the one who keeps weaseling.

....

Ok, tell me what you think it means.

I've already told you numerous times. If you claim 'A' is true because so-called expert 'B' says so, you have committed the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority."
...

Ok stupid, since you clearly aren't getting this, here:

"The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority."

Fallacies (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

.

 

[there4eyeM]

On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.

 

[Bezukhov]

 

[there4eyeM]

Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.

 

[DudleySmith]

On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.

It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.

 

[DudleySmith]

Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it come true. The war was started by Lincoln, and you will never be able to prove otherwise. It was about tariffs, extortionate tariffs, and railroad welfare bills, as already been shown. Tariffs were in the news from nearly the first day SC seceded, and constantly reported on right up to Lincoln himself sniveling about 'the boys in Montgomery and their 10% tariff' while rejecting the last peace offer.

 

[Unkotare]

On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.

It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South...

That is not true.

 

[DudleySmith]

On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.

It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South...

That is not true.

Of course it is; no other reason for the bullshit.

 

[Unkotare]

...The war was started by Lincoln, and you will never be able to prove otherwise. ...

The shots fired at Fort Sumter prove otherwise, you idiot.

 

[Unkotare]

On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.

It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South...

That is not true.

Of course it is; no other reason for the bullshit.

The reason is an honest evaluation of history, idiot. No one alive in the modern South participated in the American Civil War. The only ones deserving of demonization today are idiot apologists like you and the other mental defectives here.

 

[Unkotare]

" For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "


" A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "

" The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "

" The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "


"

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."

 

[Unkotare]

" they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. "

" She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. "


" They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides. "

 

[Bezukhov]

.....

Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.

You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.

How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?

A Supreme Court justice is an authority on constitutional law, stupid.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case is an authority on that case, stupid.

You appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.

"By authority" you mean ......

Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.

Why do you feel the need to edit what I posted? You can't bare for other forum members to see it because it's obviously right?

Is

Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it come true. The war was started by Lincoln, and you will never be able to prove otherwise. It was about tariffs, extortionate tariffs, and railroad welfare bills, as already been shown. Tariffs were in the news from nearly the first day SC seceded, and constantly reported on right up to Lincoln himself sniveling about 'the boys in Montgomery and their 10% tariff' while rejecting the last peace offer.

So why did the South lie about their reasons for seceding? Who were they trying to bullshit?

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.

www.battlefields.org

 

[bripat9643]

... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
.....

His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.

How about every geologist in 1950? Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?

What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?

You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
...

One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?

I already know what it means. .....

You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?

I already know what it means. I'm not the one who keeps weaseling.

....

Ok, tell me what you think it means.

I've already told you numerous times. If you claim 'A' is true because so-called expert 'B' says so, you have committed the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority."
...

Ok stupid, since you clearly aren't getting this, here:

"The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority."

Fallacies (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

.

That's wrong, moron. Nothing is fact simply because some authority says so.

Tell us again, do the continents move?