[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
that is not to say that I think people should carry guns, far from it, [/quote]
What country do you live in?[/quote]
Scotland
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
however, all that means is that every single society since the dawn of man himself has a people problem. There always has been, and always will be evil people in this world. No inanimate object will change that.
[/quote]
Also, fixed that sentence for you. [/quote]
agreed
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And most people who lived in the CSA and died in the war never owned a slave. Slaves were for the rich and most people were not rich.[/quote]
And most Nazis never killed a Jew. Move to Germany, throw a Swastika up in your lawn and see how that argument holds up in court (note that this is an evaluation of a feeble and illogical maxim, not a moral equivalence – as I said previously, the CSA doesn’t need any analogy; their own words are denigration enough).
Which is to say – what you’ve tried here does not change the fact that the CSA and its many colors were born in explicit defense of slavery. This thread has become a catalog of logical fallacy, a collection of every stupid thing ever said about the Civil War.
Edited.[/quote]
Devil’s advocate: You are mixing secession and the war as if they are the same thing. They are not. They are intertwined, for sure, but they are not the same thing. Secession was 100%, undeniably about slavery. Every State in the CSA left the Union because of slavery. I do not argue that. Obviously, the Southern slaves were freed as a result of the Civil War, but was it really started over slavery? Freeing Southern slaves didn’t even become an objective for the Union army until late 1863. If the Civil War was began because of slavery, why did Lincoln let nearly 3 years of war pass before he issued the emancipation proclamation? Why did he only emancipate Southern slaves in 1863? Why did slavery persist in the North for nearly 5 years after the war?
[/quote]
Southern states initiated an unlawful insurrection on the basis of slavery. Lincoln initiated war against the insurrection to put down the rebellion and to therefore preserve the Union.
Lincoln couldn’t emancipate slaves in the North - he had no constitutional authority to do so. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order derived from Lincoln’ war powers as commander in chief, which would only extend into places where martial law or its equivalent was imposed - i.e., Southern states that had rebelled.
In states that didn’t secede, Lincoln had no authority to anything with slaves or slavery (unilaterally).
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
that is not to say that I think people should carry guns, far from it, [/quote]
What country do you live in?[/quote]
Scotland
[/quote]
So… You very well, and better than most due to it happening to your people since the Romans, understand the evils of government and oppression, and still think “no one should carry a gun”?
Wow.
I just watched it again last week, but I might cue up Braveheart again tonight just for you.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Lincoln initiated war against the insurrection to put down the rebellion and to therefore preserve the Union.
[/quote]
I thought Lincoln waited for the Confederate to “fire the first shot”, thereby initiating the war?
I’ll just leave this here:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
that is not to say that I think people should carry guns, far from it, [/quote]
What country do you live in?[/quote]
Scotland
[/quote]
So… You very well, and better than most due to it happening to your people since the Romans, understand the evils of government and oppression, and still think “no one should carry a gun”?
Wow.
I just watched it again last week, but I might cue up Braveheart again tonight just for you. [/quote]
Scotland isn’t oppressed by Government or anyone else. Scotland was never ruled by the Romans and has not been ruled by any other nation - ever. So I’m not sure where you get that idea from.
Brave heart is a FICTIONAL film based loosely on the life of William Wallace.
I’ve seen Forrest Gump. Can I assume that is is an accurate depiction of American history in the 20th century? I doubt it.
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
Scotland was never ruled by the Romans
[/quote]
Well, kinda. I guess it depends on how one defines “Scotland,” as that changed much over 2,000 years.
Hadrian (of “Hadrian’s Wall”) certainly did a number on Hen Ogledd (feel free to correct my Welsh).
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
that is not to say that I think people should carry guns, far from it, [/quote]
What country do you live in?[/quote]
Scotland
[/quote]
So… You very well, and better than most due to it happening to your people since the Romans, understand the evils of government and oppression, and still think “no one should carry a gun”?
Wow.
I just watched it again last week, but I might cue up Braveheart again tonight just for you. [/quote]
Scotland isn’t oppressed by Government or anyone else. Scotland was never ruled by the Romans and has not been ruled by any other nation - ever. So I’m not sure where you get that idea from.
Brave heart is a FICTIONAL film based loosely on the life of William Wallace.
I’ve seen Forrest Gump. Can I assume that is is an accurate depiction of American history in the 20th century? I doubt it.
[/quote]
Lol. Well played retort
[quote]pushharder wrote:
…and now the formerly exquisitely crafted oracles of denunciation are including direct comparisons between the Nazis and the CSA in a counterattack that is way too thinly supported to succeed.
Good grief.[/quote]
Only problem with that line of reasoning is that the CSA was not the sole proprietor of slavery during nor before that time. Where as the Nazi’s were the sole possessors of the Final Solution and their particular brand of atrocity. Slavery was practiced early under the American flag, Spanish, Portuguese flags, etc. Slavery was not only practiced by the CSA. Jim Crow and segregation occurred under Old Glory.
So really the Stars and Bars were elusively really just a battle flag. It represents soldiers on the field. It wasn’t even the flag of the CSA. So the comparison is not a comparison.
The Nazi’s did Nazi exclusive things. The Confederates were involved in a terrible practice, but one that was not practiced solely by the Confederation. And the flag in question was a battle flag, not the flag of a nation.
If it makes people feel better to pour their vitriol on a symbol and avoid real solutions, more power to them. More empty actions to accomplish nothing at all. Or we can let people fly what ever flag they like an get along. We can love our neighbor as much in a confederate battle flag as much as we can with any other flag. The flag won’t jump up and bite you in the balls if you do something it doesn’t like. It’s a thing. It’s got as much power as you give it. It’s got none if you give it none.
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
Scotland isn’t oppressed by Government or anyone else.[/quote]
hmmm. I wonder if Native American’s against gun ownership feel similar…
I’m not sure wtf you’re talking about seeing as I didn’t say anything remotely close to what you claim I did. Read my post again, and then reply.
And yes, there were plenty of Kings that ruled the living fuck out of Scotland… And I’m sure life was just grand for the common folk…
as for the roman’s.
[i]The surviving pre-Roman accounts of Scotland originated with the Greek Pytheas of Massalia, who may have circumnavigated the British Isles of Albion (Britain) and Ierne (Ireland)[25][26] sometime around 325 bc. The most northerly point of the island of Great Britain was called Orcas (Orkney).[27] By the time of Pliny the Elder, who died in ad 79, Roman knowledge of the geography of Scotland had extended to the Hebudes (The Hebrides), Dumna (probably the Outer Hebrides), the Caledonian Forest and the people of the Caledonii, from whom the Romans named the region north of their control Caledonia.[28] Ptolemy, possibly drawing on earlier sources of information as well as more contemporary accounts from the Agricolan invasion, identified 18 tribes in Scotland[29] in his Geography, but many of the names are obscure and the geography becomes less reliable in the north and west, suggesting early Roman knowledge of these area was confined to observations from the sea.[30]
The Roman invasion of Britain began in earnest in ad 43, leading to the establishment of the Roman province of Britannia in the south. By the year 71, the Roman governor Quintus Petillius Cerialis had launched an invasion of what is now Scotland.[31] In the year 78, Gnaeus Julius Agricola arrived in Britain to take up his appointment as the new governor and began a series of major incursions. He is said to have pushed his armies to the estuary of the “River Taus” (usually assumed to be the River Tay) and established forts there, including a legionary fortress at Inchtuthil. After his victory over the northern tribes at Mons Graupius in 84, a series of forts and towers were established along the Gask Ridge, which marked the boundary between the Lowland and Highland zones, probably forming the first Roman limes or frontier in Scotland. Agricola’s successors were unable or unwilling to further subdue the far north.[32] By the year 87, the occupation was limited to the Southern Uplands and by the end of the first century the northern limit of Roman expansion was a line drawn between the Tyne and Solway Firth.[33] The Romans eventually withdrew to a line in what is now northern England, building the fortification known as Hadrian’s Wall from coast to coast.[34]
Around 141, the Romans undertook a reoccupation of southern Scotland, moving up to construct a new limes between the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde, which became the Antonine Wall. The largest Roman construction inside Scotland, it is a sward-covered wall made of turf around 20 feet (6 m) high, with nineteen forts. It extended for 37 miles (60 km). Having taken twelve years to build, the wall was overrun and abandoned soon after 160.[34][35] The Romans retreated to the line of Hadrian’s Wall.[36] Roman troops penetrated far into the north of modern Scotland several more times, with at least four major campaigns.[37] The most notable invasion was in 209 when the emperor Septimius Severus led a major force north.[38] After the death of Severus in 210 they withdrew south to Hadrian’s Wall, which would be Roman frontier until it collapsed in the 5th century.[39] By the close of the Roman occupation of southern and central Britain in the 5th century, the Picts had emerged as the dominant force in northern Scotland, with the various Brythonic tribes the Romans had first encountered there occupying the southern half of the country. Roman influence on Scottish culture and history was not enduring.[40][/i]
Jokes aren’t very popular over there I take it?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
that is not to say that I think people should carry guns, far from it, [/quote]
What country do you live in?[/quote]
Scotland
[/quote]
So… You very well, and better than most due to it happening to your people since the Romans, understand the evils of government and oppression, and still think “no one should carry a gun”?
Wow.
I just watched it again last week, but I might cue up Braveheart again tonight just for you. [/quote]
Scotland isn’t oppressed by Government or anyone else. Scotland was never ruled by the Romans and has not been ruled by any other nation - ever. So I’m not sure where you get that idea from.
Brave heart is a FICTIONAL film based loosely on the life of William Wallace.
I’ve seen Forrest Gump. Can I assume that is is an accurate depiction of American history in the 20th century? I doubt it.
[/quote]
Lol. Well played retort
[/quote]
Not really, at all.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
Scotland was never ruled by the Romans
[/quote]
Well, kinda. I guess it depends on how one defines “Scotland,” as that changed much over 2,000 years.
Hadrian (of “Hadrian’s Wall”) certainly did a number on Hen Ogledd (feel free to correct my Welsh).[/quote]
If you really want to piss people off, fly an Israeli flag.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Mcincinatti wrote:
I am a huge supporter of “let the States decide”- where I don’t think I and other posters agree is here:
now that this is being debated, and the flags and other “symbols” might be removed, I am in full support. If the SC flag comes down, the State decided to do that. Simply because free citizens organized and put pressure on elected officials to do so doesn’t seem like ‘progressive revisionism’, it seems like smart organizing and affected change- i.e. a pretty damn democratic process. Don’t like officials deciding to take down these mementos? Don’t elect 'em next time[/quote]
I’m with you here insofar as it is a body of people who live in said state. One of the difficulties of being a smaller gov’t type is that–IF you are desirous of maintaining philosophical consistency–you must accept really crappy things happening if they don’t go the way you would like. This includes things like “if I were king I’d ban alll****” but having to accept that people in your state don’t like that. Or especially that people in another state don’t think that way.
That’s why we have elections. The democratic process takes effort and conscientious involvement. If people in S.C., Mississippi, or Georgia (they did in 2001) decide to take flags down great. If they don’t then I don’t think people who live anywhere else have the right to bitch. Or, perhaps bitch yes because we all have a right to speak our own minds about things that are important to us… but not the right to complain that “something should be done”.
It was, you just didn’t like the outcome. So I am in agreement with you as long as it’s people in those states deciding to bring them down. If it’s pressure from “outside” the people who live and vote in that area, then I don’t like it. Doesn’t matter whether the outcome is something I desire or not…the PROCESS must be respected and that includes–for me–letting an individual state’s voters decide what they want about issues in their own damn state.[/quote]
Here is where this falls apart: When someone says “that flag has no business flying on state property and here’s why” (the “here’s why” doesn’t ever get addressed, by the way – which says much), that person is simply making an argument about something stupid/smart that should be done/not done for various logical and evidence-based reasons. Nowhere in that argument does there exist an implicit “President Obama should personally remove all of the Confederate battle flags, declare martial law, build himself a throne with the skulls of Tea Party congressmen, and suspend elections indefinitely.”
Instead, what I and a few other posters have argued is that flight of that flag on public property is wrong and stupid. Similarly, I think it’s wrong and stupid for a parent to tell his son that the origin of his species lies in Xenu’s having brought his underlings to Teegeeack in a space-airplane, or that John F. Kennedy was killed by lizard overlords who now control the government, or that black people are criminal savages with violence in their DNA, or that white people are a monolithic oppressor class of racists. When I say that it would be wrong and stupid to raise a child this way (and that, therefore, it ought not to be done), I am not saying that I want the government to pass laws against it and then install listening devices in children’s bedroom for efficient enforcement of the new laws. I am simply saying that it is wrong and stupid, it shouldn’t be done, and anybody who does it is a tragic dunce. This is – all of it – very much worth communicating.
The simple fact is that a logical or evidential argument in favor of – or against – something does not hinge on its maker’s direct participation in that thing, or the zip code in which the argument was made. Both you and I have opinions about things that happen in other towns, other counties, other states, other countries. If the French pass a stupid law, and I can convincingly explain why it’s stupid, it is not a good objection to my argument to pretend that what I’m actually saying is that the U.S. should overthrow the French government and fix things itself. Perhaps what I’m saying instead is that, as a human who lives on a rock with a bunch of other humans, I want other humans to not be idiots, and I am perfectly in the right when I try to help them.
Or perhaps I’m all wrong. How about if the state of California voted to fly a flag bearing the Black Panther emblem before its state house, on public property? Would the attendant PWI thread be filled with things like, “All you outsiders don’t get to choose, it’s the state’s business.” No. It would be filled with “wow these people are fucking stupid,” and correctly so.
PS: This is about what’s been going on in the thread; for all I know, people elsewhere are making the arguments you talked about, and your post is a perfectly appropriate response to them.
When I point out monarchy and how it has ruined the lives of peasants for thousands of years, when I point out foreign invasions, when I point out centuries of hardship of the common people in a country, and the response is “but dah hurr durr Forest Gump”…
I get sad inside.
I feel bad for Europe, I really do. After being held helpless to Kings and Swindlers (and getting fucked up by Germany twice in recent history) for centuries they’ve welcomed it to happen again, at any time.
What happens when the State takes away the ballot box and crowns a new King?
http://www.gamebreaker.tv/mobile-2/apple-pulls-every-game-confederate-flag/
HOly Shit!
I don’t think I’ve seen more irrational hysteria based on Political Correctness in my life.
This would be like the equivalent of people eliminating all historical representation of the Nazi flag because some Jews were killed by fanatical Islamic murderers…
It seems to me that the politically correct left wing nuts are not far from wanting to ban the American flag.
After all, under this flag blacks had to sit in the back of the bus use separate rest rooms and suffered great discrimination.
No question it was a horrible time in America for black people. But (GASP)it all happened under our current flag! Good heavens how can we possibly fly that thing?
Any bets on how long it will take assholes like Sharpton, or another left wing trouble maker black or white (God knows there many of them) to scream that the US flag should be replaced?
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
http://www.gamebreaker.tv/mobile-2/apple-pulls-every-game-confederate-flag/
HOly Shit!
I don’t think I’ve seen more irrational hysteria based on Political Correctness in my life.
[/quote]
I saw this earlier. It’s so utterly laughable I’m at a loss for words.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It seems to me that the politically correct left wing nuts are not far from wanting to ban the American flag.
After all, under this flag blacks had to sit in the back of the bus use separate rest rooms and suffered great discrimination.
No question it was a horrible time in America for black people. But (GASP)it all happened under our current flag! Good heavens how can we possibly fly that thing?
Any bets on how long it will take assholes like Sharpton, or another left wing trouble maker black or white (God knows there many of them) to scream that the US flag should be replaced?[/quote]
Already started.
