birdog1960

Hmmm, why would you cede the role of judge to Tom?... Unless...

it was 9:45 in London

[quote name="Deranged Rhino" post="3820154" timestamp="1451070192 And if you truly knew your history in this area you'd know those examples were not the norms, not even close to the norms, in the antebellum south. Slaves were too valuable to purposefully harm. Didn't mean it didn't happen but they were outliers. I'm wondering where your thesis was published. Sons of the confederacy quarterly ? Physical abuse of southern slaves was rampant. S Carolina even wrote laws restricting discipline to whipping and chaining while seeing the need to expressly forbid burning, castrating and scalding. Torture implements were even devised specifically for use with American slaves. The references are plentiful and easy to find. I can't find one that doesn't make the statement that the cruelty was widespread. Perhaps you can link your novel thesis that these slaveholders were generally good to their property. While you're at it cite similar examples of such abuse on Apple employees

What exactly is quasi slavery? Sort of like confederate slavery x no bull whips , buying , selling and separating families, raping the females and giving saltpeter to the males? Other than those and a few other barbaric, shameful things they're exactly the same, right?

future in comedy?…i wouldn't invest too much if i were you.

it is never a civil discussion when anyone questions the iilegitimacy of slavery and questions its evil substance. look back. one would concede it for all only to be followed by another reneging. these are cheap , dishonorable bar room tactics. they aren't effectively refuted by logic. humiliation is the only way. unfortunately even humiliation doesn't work against those without conscience, self respect or minimal intelligence.

no blame. you don't go into a knife fight armed with a pen.

when in rome (or some other much less desirable place), do as the romans (or the inhabitants).

not sure. i'm still waiting for citations on published works re civil war figures. that would give some insight.

then perhaps you'd understand it if you chose to read it. but maybe not... oh yeah, and it's pabulum. if you're going to try a $20 word don't use a penny spelling.

it was an excellent article. interestingly, it was mostly about slavery. should be required reading for every willfully ignorant racist here. unfortunately, wouldn't change a thing. they'll all likely waste their votes on candidates supported by a dwindling demographic.

pretty passionate about deliberate sabotage of discussions. also passionate about revealing this intent on doing this.

the modern issue of slave labor has absolutely nothing to do with removing monuments on public land devoted to a regime that fought for slavery. if statues of steve jobs (and he supported a war to continue his ability to use such labor) we're being placed on state capitol grounds it would be salient to the discussion. what about this distinction do you find so difficult to comprehend?

there needn't be. in fact, there shouldn't be. the two should be completely divorced. i can argue for something that i'm viscerally opposed to or argue against something that i passionately support. those are actually quite common debate circumstances. in this case, i'm doing neither but it matters not in regards to the actual argument. bringing up irrelevant and tangential side issue matters a great deal.

yup, because you and others want to argue multiple issues simultaneously. that is a recipe for futility which is what has clearly resulted. but it well hides weak arguments. by now tanker has shown his true intentions which have nothing to do with statues to the confederacy (and have everything to do with "pure", wacko, extremist libertarian ideals) and you have equated buying a computer brand (when the alternative is likely trying to function without a computer at all) to chaining, whipping and raping people and then going to war to continue doing the same. that's what is ridiculous. unfortunately, to eliminate the silliness we need an unbiased judge to officiate and judge a winner in each separate debate (on each separate issue). i'd contribute to that cause. you? oh, well. i found a debate forum that i'm going to try. perhaps we can move this over there? nahhh, didn't think so.

it's simplistic by necessity. it's not even possible to get consensus on the morality of slavery here. people want to game that simple question. how would broadening the scope be useful?

Nice quote. I wonder if Tom was aware of it. Yes or no the inference is not good The argument really is in essence " is slavery good or bad" Everything else distracts from that crucial point. But those arguing for honoring the confederate leaders must take this tack as there is no other. Taster wants to talk nut job libertarian ideals. Tom to attack anything but this simple but truthful question. And rhino wants to turn the argument to preserving history or apples undesirable work conditions. It's all compensation for a small.... Um, intellect

not salient to the argument. after you concede on the confederate monuments we can move to the morality of buying apple. Or you could start a new thread

therefore I should accept your opinion and unknown credentials over those easily confirmed and published in a mainline publication? Perhaps you will link to one of your publications on lee. PPP doesn't count. There's a nice Newsweek summary of lee on slavery in his own words. He was rather unpleasant to the slaves he inherited refusing to free them as his father in laws will demanded. You might want to check it out yes. Thus the logical fallacy

it has nothing to do with the question of approprieness of removing confederate monuments

i think this is most apt: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque. but "no true scotsan" fits as well.

i'm not a civil war historian. this author is. since he's writing for the smithsonian, we can reasonably assume he's respected by some in this area. as far as the neil young quote, you mentioned i was acting superior. i contend that those still supporting the idea of the confederacy and by extension its link to slavery, are in fact very likely to be ethically inferior to those that don't. young makes the point with artistry i don't possess. they didn't choose to go to war to keep them. they chose to go to war on the side set on freeing them. i've mentioned this idea of warring over slavery at least a couple of times.

you didn't miss a thing. his family owned slaves. he chose to lead on the side fighting for slavery. he made his choice.

t the heart of Lee’s story is one of the monumental choices in American history: revered for his honor, Lee resigned his U.S. Army commission to defend Virginia and fight for the Confederacy, on the side of slavery. “The decision was honorable by his standards of honor—which, whatever we may think of them, were neither self-serving nor complicated,” Blount says. Lee “thought it was a bad idea for Virginia to secede, and God knows he was right, but secession had been more or less democratically decided upon.” Lee’s family held slaves, and he himself was at best ambiguous on the subject, leading some of his defenders over the years to discount slavery’s significance in assessments of his character. Blount argues that the issue does matter: “To me it’s slavery, much more than secession as such, that casts a shadow over Lee’s honorableness.” Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/#433HIQ4cKgFHdP28.99 Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter