birdog1960 Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 neat, you know neil young, but please, explain to me what exactly that song is about and put it in context to what i said... because, that song is not at all applicable to anything i said at all. i could quote lynard skynard here, because the Southern man don't need Young around, anyhow. amazaballs. i'm amazed i missed that. you didn't miss a thing. his family owned slaves. he chose to lead on the side fighting for slavery. he made his choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 you didn't miss a thing. his family owned slaves. he chose to lead on the side fighting for slavery. he made his choice. ... his family owned slaves but he didn't. ok, soooooooooo, the fact that how many other Yankees had slaves and their family owned slaves now becomes relevant, too? Grant and Sherman owned slaves. http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/presidents-who-owned-slaves/there is just one link for ya. Lincoln's wife's family had slaves. http://mtlhouse.org/history.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 (edited) neat, you know neil young, but please, explain to me what exactly that song is about and put it in context to what i said... because, that song is not at all applicable to anything i said at all. i could quote lynard skynard here, because the Southern man don't need Young around, anyhow. amazaballs. i'm amazed i missed that. you're a moron. you can't make the argument yourself so you copy and paste a link to an article where someone articulates what you are unable to due to lack of intelligence on the matter? i'm an idiot but you're a moron. also, ironic you really bring up the Smithsonian on this, as I was watching the Smithsonian channel the other night do a feature on Lee. They made it a point many times to mention that Lee was against slavery but could not fight against his own neighbors and turn against his state. That it was a major reason he joined the Confederacy. 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. ... his family owned slaves but he didn't. ok, soooooooooo, the fact that how many other Yankees had slaves and their family owned slaves now becomes relevant, too? Grant and Sherman owned slaves. http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/presidents-who-owned-slaves/there is just one link for ya. Lincoln's wife's family had slaves. http://mtlhouse.org/history.html 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. Edited December 20, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 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. So, you just claim to hate slavery but you support slave labor with your purchase of Apple products. Well done on the hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 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. i've mentioned this idea of warring over slavery at least a couple of times. ...lee didn't go to war to keep them either. it's a little known fact that he was against slavery and joined the southern cause to support his name being used to describe a dodge a century later as well as the fact that he did not fancy that union boss who he worked with out in mississippi or wherever it was. that is why arlington cemetery is on the property owned by lee. it was his punishment to bury union troops on his property at his wifes rose garden the author is still not on point, and many, many authors have differing views. and being in the smithsonian doesn't satisfy me at all. i love neil young and csny and all forms of that mega group... so i won't say much but your song doesn't work on this. So, you just claim to hate slavery but you support slave labor with your purchase of Apple products. Well done on the hypocrisy. watch out, or he'll put his size 6 nike up your ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 So, you just claim to hate slavery but you support slave labor with your purchase of Apple products. Well done on the hypocrisy. i think this is most apt: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque. but "no true scotsan" fits as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 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 $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter Yeah, of course..."name me a confederate figure that has a memorial on public grounds that did not support slavery and fight for it." And when we do, it doesn't count, since that figure fought for the Confederacy, therefore supported slavery. You were obviously going to make a circular argument out of it, and confirm it with a source that confirms your own ignorant bias and ignores Lee's own words on the subject. Didn't think you'd hit the nursery-school level so quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 i think this is most apt: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque. but "no true scotsan" fits as well. Wrong. You're so anti slavery you want to erase history because it's "bad". But you buy products made w slave labor because they have a good PR department and you can't be bothered to look into the matter yourself. That's the definition of hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 i'm not a civil war historian Then shut the !@#$ up, you idiot. Greg and I have had informed and civil disagreement on the subject, precisely because we have studied it. You admit to willfully arguing from a position of ignorance. What's more, you're completely dishonest in pretending to even want a civil discussion on the subject, since you dismiss everything that doesn't agree with what other people have told you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Wrong. You're so anti slavery you want to erase history because it's "bad". But you buy products made w slave labor because they have a good PR department and you can't be bothered to look into the matter yourself. That's the definition of hypocrisy. it has nothing to do with the question of approprieness of removing confederate monuments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 it has nothing to do with the question of approprieness of removing confederate monuments "Slavery is bad." You're the child with the simplistic, absolutist criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 it has nothing to do with the question of approprieness of removing confederate monuments No. But it has everything to do w your position on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Then shut the !@#$ up, you idiot. Greg and I have had informed and civil disagreement on the subject, precisely because we have studied it. You admit to willfully arguing from a position of ignorance. What's more, you're completely dishonest in pretending to even want a civil discussion on the subject, since you dismiss everything that doesn't agree with what other people have told you. but he had a really neat link to click on about being torqueque!!!!!! he won the internet, bra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 (edited) Then shut the !@#$ up, you idiot. Greg and I have had informed and civil disagreement on the subject, precisely because we have studied it. You admit to willfully arguing from a position of ignorance. What's more, you're completely dishonest in pretending to even want a civil discussion on the subject, since you dismiss everything that doesn't agree with what other people have told you. 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 outNo. But it has everything to do w your position on the issue.yes. Thus the logical fallacy Edited December 20, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 yes. Thus the logical fallacy There is no fallacy. You've taken quite the stand on the evils of slavery and all those who "supported" it -- yet you have no compunction at all about supporting modern day slavery with your wallet. Don't you see how hypocritical that is? I ask you seriously, I'm not trying to pick fights or any of that. It's just staggering to me that you can't see how disingenuous your position on this matter is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 (edited) There is no fallacy. You've taken quite the stand on the evils of slavery and all those who "supported" it -- yet you have no compunction at all about supporting modern day slavery with your wallet. Don't you see how hypocritical that is? I ask you seriously, I'm not trying to pick fights or any of that. It's just staggering to me that you can't see how disingenuous your position on this matter is. 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 Edited December 20, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 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 So the only way to continue his argument is to pretend the last 6 pages of you getting schooled didn't happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 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 I've stated earlier that I have no problem with moving confederate statutes and memorials off of public land, I don't think it's necessary but I don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with Gators desire to destroy (or trash) monuments simply because "slavery was bad". It's not only an inaccurate assessment of the men who fought (on both sides) of that conflict, it's also a dangerous precedent to set. Isis is currently obliterating monuments. Gator wants to do the same. I called that out. That's it. My discussion w you is about your personal hypocrisy on this issue. Based on this thread your support of Apple is akin to siding w the confederacy (who saw slavery as an economic necessity, just like apple). Care to comment on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I've stated earlier that I have no problem with moving confederate statutes and memorials off of public land, I don't think it's necessary but I don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with Gators desire to destroy (or trash) monuments simply because "slavery was bad". It's not only an inaccurate assessment of the men who fought (on both sides) of that conflict, it's also a dangerous precedent to set. Isis is currently obliterating monuments. Gator wants to do the same. I called that out. That's it. My discussion w you is about your personal hypocrisy on this issue. Based on this thread your support of Apple is akin to siding w the confederacy (who saw slavery as an economic necessity, just like apple). Care to comment on that? what is your take on the penn state statue of joe paterno? i don't remember from the thread and all about that and don't feel like looking. plus you like to type and get attention so it gives you a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) !@#$ me... birddog, you claim to be in your 50's. Congratulations. Welcome to "logic". Rather than watch you flail around for another 70 years, given your leaning curve, I'll give you a quick lesson: Logic is not a weapon: It's a way of creating a consistent understanding. A singular argument, isolated in a vacuum using the logic of the vacuum, cannot be subject to the world outside of your vacuum. All arguments, if you seek to make them logically consistent, are interconnected by the underpinning logic you use to make them. You cannot use logic to make a single argument, and then claim that the same logic does not apply to the next. Now, I'll ask my question again, for the third time: Why do you believe slavery to be morally wrong? Edited December 21, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts