birdog1960

i think neil young wrote well on this subject: Southern man, better keep your head Don't forget what your good book said Southern change's gonna come at last Now your crosses are burning fast Southern man I saw cotton and I saw black Tall white mansions and little shacks Southern man, when will you pay them back? I heard screamin' and bullwhips crackin' How long? How long? Southern man, better keep your head Don't forget what your good book said Southern change's gonna come at last Now your crosses are burning fast Southern man Lily Belle, your hair is golden brown I've seen your black man comin' round Swear by God, I'm gonna cut him down I heard screamin' and bullwhips crackin' How long? How long? Read more: Neil Young - Southern Man Lyrics | MetroLyrics

name me a confederate figure that has a memorial on public grounds that did not support slavery and fight for it. i did not state that everyone fighting for the south was fighting for slavery. yes, apple is my brand of choice.

No. Not "associated with". "War over" since that's not what i said, i'd call that a strawman. as far as ad hominem, i interpret "3rd grade" as a personal insult rather than an actual critique of my argument. but perhaps it is a critique in a 3rd grade kind of way. oh, and stonewall owned slaves and fought to keep them enslaved. educating them does not absolve him of that.

Removing memorials to people that killed to continue slavery, from public places is not equivalent to erasing history. It is removing praise for these people, nothing more im arguing that the leaders of the confederacy were bad because they fought to continue enslaving people. That's ad hominem right there. Why don't u attack the argument? why are you moving the goal posts. Consider each argument separately. Don't move the goalposts

It's not clever of complicated. Do you believe slavery is bad?

he won't it's not in his nature and he won't betray his principles. i don't believe it's currently possible for a principled person to win.

+1

we finally agree. pretty scary example of moral relativism. we should all also agree that slavery is absolutely immoral. yes?

this is hilarious. but there's at least a kernel of truth. it all comes back to ownership. the bills now have a legitimate chance of being good.

yes, the kkk is evil as was robert byrd. west virginia is an enigma like much of rural poor america. they often vote against their own best interest. it's a tribute to the power of propaganda. but i call a 15 yard unsporsmanlike conduct penalty for this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

analytics. they are bad at them. i made fun of management when they announced their analytics campaign because i felt it was a joke. and it was. what algorithm trades a first round draft choice for a wide receiver in a draft deep in wr's? none. the bills fly by the seat of their pants and always have. when wilson was alive it often followed his whims. now it seems to be whaley's. doesn't matter who's whim it is, decisions should be made on probabilities and likelihoods. they aren't and haven't been. for most of the history of the team a self imposed financial constraint to winning also played a part. this was especially true of coach and management hires. that seems to be gone. fortunately the analytical problems are much easier to fix.

no.

sane people. reasonable people. people with a conscience. ethical people. moral people. people of good faith. but apparently not you... slavery is bad. it's morally wrong. it benefits a few at the very great cost to many. it's cruel. it's inhuman. it's torture. and it's is antithetical to libertarianism. yet the confederacy fully supported it and economically depended on it. regardless of whether you admit that the civil war was primarily about slavery, it was a major issue. and one side supported it and one side fought against it. no getting around it and on balance any good done by any leader on that side is fully negated by this issue. those that continue to glorify these figures ignore this and minimize the great suffering of the slaves and their ancestors. far past time to put these monuments in the official dustbin (toilet) of history as far as the government is concerned.

I read his response and see nothing that I disagree with. the criticism is unwarranted. what specifically do you find fault with?

so your contention is that the confederate memorials are being removed because they lost the civil war? you guys are embarrassing yourselves.

I see the connection. it's called a slippery slope and it's described in the fallacy link I recently posted. civil war history is alive and well. civil war memorabilia is present in abundance. there is no existential threat. pc America's claims are amply countered by racists hate groups. fear not. no one is erasing history. the Gettysburg address and the emancipation proclamation are etched into stone at the Lincoln memorial. no doubt some obscure contemporary confederate documents are as well in some lost cause museum. there are still confederate apologists writing books. amazon has plenty. no one is removing them for sale or circulation. I suspect that multiple books supporting the lost cause idea are available in both of our local public libraries.

yes, and isis...

maybe someone should have told Abraham Lincoln and the vast majority of civil war scholars. the revisionist historians have lost. the lost cause is just that.

likely never occurred to you because it's ridiculous. no one is destroying history. new Orleans and Charleston have just finally realized that only a very small minority of americans feel it defensible to celebrate a traitorous, shameful part of our history. the evbidence remains in honorable places like the Lincoln monument and the Smithsonian. no one is closing down confederate museums. no one has made confederate symbolism illegal. what they've done is remove them from sanctioned government spaces. it's long overdue.

incentives to provide good care are necessary but unbridled greed is not. a happy medium can be found.

Or maybe not. Based on my experience with perp-walked clients I think the more likely scenario is that a government agent responsible for investigating and prosecuting Mr. Shkreli tipped Reuters off about the arrest — that someone told Reuters to be there to catch the perp walk. If Reuters was there through independent investigation, then good for them. But if Reuters was there because of a tip from law enforcement, then I'd like to ask a couple of questions. There are two subjects on which Reuters could have informed its audience, two sets of questions it could have answered: Subject One: Who leaked the time and place of the arrest? Was it an FBI agent, a prosecutor, staff, a coordinating local cop? How high up in the government did the decision to leak the arrest go? Did the leak violate the law? Did it violate the defendant's rights? What was the government's purpose in leaking the time and place of the arrest? How does this instance fit into the pattern of which arrests get leaked and which don't? Which nonviolent defendants without records get arrested, and which get summonsed in (or self-surrender through arrangement with their lawyers), and why? What impact does a front-page picture of a defendant in handcuffs have on the jury pool? Is that impact a feature, or a bug, of leaking it? Was the leak intended to inflict extra-judicial humiliation and punishment on the defendant? If the government lies about whether or not it leaked, would you still keep it secret? Subject Two: What would Martin Shkreli look like being led away in handcuffs? It seems Reuters chose to address the second subject. I don't know whether or not you two personally had a hand in accepting any leak from the government, or whether you even know what happened. But I'd still like to ask you about that choice. Why did Reuters choose Subject Two over Subject One? Why should I trust Reuters' reporting on criminal justice matters when it is the type of organization inclined to answer the banal tabloid question posed by Subject Two, rather than the questions contained in Subject One? https://popehat.com/2015/12/17/an-open-letter-to-reuters-reporters-nate-raymond-and-david-ingram/ Now again, for the simple minded (not you bd) ...................this post is not really about Mr Shkreli........he can rot in hell, but questions our media and it's methods..........................we always have to be careful when reading their "balanced news reports" . yes, there are many implications beyond the actions of this sociopath. i don't feel the issue that you brought up is among the most profound. that some one in law enforcement may have sought to vilify this cretin perhaps because he was instrumental in the demise of a family member or friend is unsurprising and easily rationalized. additionally, it's an unproven allegation. scoops are what the media lives for and rightly so. inquiring minds want to know. the deepest implication to me is the underlying culture that encourages and then defends such behavior, at least initially. the scumbag argued that capitalism demanded that he profiteer to the maximum possible regardless of the effects on many real suffering people. on purely economic, free market grounds that is sound reasoning. even me, the bleeding heart liberal, can understand that logic before almost immediately rejecting it after realizing that pure, unfettered capitalism can be destructive. it's a conditioned response resulting from years of rampant materialism flooding over the entire culture. that's truly sad. the fact that most society eventually came to realize how distasteful and reprehensible these actions were is cause for measured optimism. the moral: pure capitalism and health care are not well suited.

hmmm…guess not. shocked! shocked i tell ya! at least y'all don't promise and then renege like this subhuman pos pharma exec.

perhaps you would be as well. you and the rest of the chorus might pay particular attention to ambiguity, special pleading, burden of proof, loaded question (chef is especially proficient here), black and white and ad hominem. let's aim for some clean fights in the new year. cheers!

sure, exactly equivalent. one of my liberal colleagues recently emailed a "thou shalt not" list for logical fallacies. ten commandment style - something you could relate to. doubt it would help you but i'll have a quick look. not exactly the same but close enough: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/. Merry Christmas

arrested! https://beta.finance.yahoo.com/news/turing-ceo-martin-shkreli-custody-securities-probe-133722669--finance.html. unrelated crime. once a scumbag, almost always a scumbag.