"RESTORING TRUTH AND SANITY TO AMERICAN HISTORY"

[Fearandloathing]

I just think that guys would have an advantage, and that merely believing that you are female but possessing some of the physical advantages of being male makes it unfair.

Oh....

At ALL sports or just manly ones.

Ever watched a man vs woman volley ball game? I always bet on the women, more agile and lasting power. Men are far more powerful but fade faster. A woman can carry her child around on her hip all day....a man lasts 20 minutes

 

[Master Debator]

Yep, in your time and under your society, their actions are unacceptable. In their time and in their society, their actions were quite normal.

No. I'm not claiming to speak on behalf of society or time. Just myself. And I'm not talking about numerical averages. I don't care if it was the norm. Morality is subjective. You can base it on whatever you feel like but you're choosing to defer to the morality of a Slave society, you're not being forced to.

You are indulging in the practice of "Presentism" and judging all history in the light of how the actions of people thousands of years ago would be viewed if they happened today..

You don't think the slaves in that time saw the actions of slavers as deplorable or do they just not count for anything in your view?

It was the advent of machine technology and easily portable sources of power that greatly reduced (and almost eliminated) the economic need for slaves/serfs/peons. That didn't happen in the 1850 and 1860s. In fact, even though peonage was "legislatively abolished" in the US in 1867, it actually persisted until well into the 1940s. It was the forced industrialization of the US economy during WWII (and the rise or unions) that - effectively ended "debt slavery" NOT legislation.

I'm not arguing exploitation or the desire for it has ended and is some a product of a bygone era. That's your argument.

However, neither the Second American Rebellion nor industrialization ended the need for "the voting class" to hold onto a feeling of superiority and thus, "Jim Crowism" (officially abolished by the Civil Rights Acts) persisted well after the end of "peonage". Some segments of "the voting class" still have an absolutely overpowering need to disguise the low rank that they have on the social pecking order by having other segments that they can feel superior to beneath them. If those "lower orders" are easily identifiable by sight, so much the easier and better. However, if those "lower orders" are NOT easily identifiable by sight, they will still be necessary for the higher levels of the social underclass and will be created. An example of that would be to regard anyone of any significant education (or even anyone with less money than the regarder has) as a member of "the out group". Failing that, the simple solution is to invent labels and then vilify those to whom the labels are applied - even if the labelled people are otherwise indistinguishable from the labelling people.

You might detect some slight resemblence between that last sentence and the state of American political discourse today.

What the **** does any of this have to do with what I said? Are you writing a book of strawmen?

 

[Greg 1]

You are indulging in the practice of "Presentism" and judging all history in the light of how the actions of people thousands of years ago would be viewed if they happened today..

That's not required. All that's required is the belief that morality is objective rather than dependent on culture. Most people think that.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Depends if they were buying family to free them from the clutches of white supremacy or where they collaborators with white supremacists exploiting their own people.

"Buying and then freeing" does not equate to "owning" does it.

"Is a "Black" person who owns slaves when/where slavery is legal a "racist" or not?

Why is the question so difficult for you that you have to totally ignore it?

The South seceded to preserve slavery.

Nope, the South seceded to preserve its economy. The fact that the movers and shakers of its economy believed that slavery was essential to the maintenance of that economy is irrelevant. The southern states still grow cotton and tobacco - the two crops which the movers and shakers of its economy believed required slavery to grow.

It fought a war to maintain its sovereignty as a Slave State.

It fought a war to maintain the sovereignty of the individual states and the ability of those states to form a voluntary union (which they were free to leave) should they wish to do so. The people of the southern states were never consulted on the matter.

America was already a slave state and it fought a war to maintain control over what it still considered it's property. I'm not here to rehabilitate the reputation of American whites of any stripe.

With limited exceptions, "America" (that includes the several colonies that later formed the United States of America) had been a "slave state" from its very beginning. Although it rapidly progressed to the point where "White" people could not be held in chattel slavery, by the 1860s it still hadn't progressed past the point where they couldn't be held in official peonage and didn't actually progress past the point where they could be held in effective peonage until the 1940s. The US government had no qualms about using state power (including the use of the US army) to repress those who objected to the continuation of a system of "effective peonage".

And those freedoms included owning black people as property, correct?

As they did in some of the Union states - right?

I don't know and I don't give a shit. What the **** does this strawman have to do with me?

What "strawman". You ascribe the Second American Rebellion to a single cause and do so inaccurately.

It's inaccurate to call nazis anti semites?

It's inaccurate to label all members of the German military as Nazis - isn't it?

Yea, I generally consider nazis to be pieces of human trash just as I do slavers.

So, as far as you are concerned, some 16 year old who was drafted into the German Army in 1945 is "anti-homosexual", "anti-slav", "anti-Jehovahs Witness", "anti-handicapped", "anti-diabetic", "anti-socialist", "anti-Christian Democrat", "anti-communist", "anti-Romany" and "anti-anti-Nazi" - suuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeee they were.

Yes. I have no problem calling trash people trash.

So, your position is that any 18 year old American who was drafted into the US Army and then sent off to Vietnam is trash - right?

And, of course, since the same "reasons" for the US/Afghan War prevail, you consider any member of the US military who fought in Afghanistan to be trash - right?

And, of course, since the same "reasons" for the US/Iraq War prevail, you consider any member of the US military who fought in Iraq to be trash - right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No. I'm not claiming to speak on behalf of society or time. Just myself.

I quite understand that you, yourself, in today's society, would never consider owning a slave.

And I'm not talking about numerical averages. I don't care if it was the norm. Morality is subjective.

Indeed, and in the 1850s and 1860s it was considered to be quite "moral" to own slaves.

You can base it on whatever you feel like but you're choosing to defer to the morality of a Slave society, you're not being forced to.

Nope, I'm just choosing to NOT apply inaccurate standards to other people's behaviours in other cultures.

You don't think the slaves in that time saw the actions of slavers as deplorable or do they just not count for anything in your view?

At the time, those slaves had absolutely no say in what was "right" or "wrong" with society. What the slaves felt about society and/or their condition was likely to be of more import than what horses and cows felt, but of less import than what women felt - and what women felt really didn't matter.

I'm not arguing exploitation or the desire for it has ended and is some a product of a bygone era. That's your argument.

Nope, I'm saying that a particular form of exploitation is no longer cost-effective. Should slavery once again become cost-effective, you can expect to see it reintroduced.

What the **** does any of this have to do with what I said? Are you writing a book of strawmen?

We are discussion WHY there was slavery.

Sorry about the formatting, but I did something that I can't undo.

 

[Master Debator]

"Buying and then freeing" does not equate to "owning" does it. Why is the question so difficult for you?

The question wasn't difficult for me. I answered it. Why did my answer trigger you?

Nope, the South seceded to preserve its economy. The fact that the movers and shakers of its economy believed that slavery was essential to the maintenance of that economy is irrelevant. The southern states still grow cotton and tobacco - the two crops which the movers and shakers of its economy believed required slavery to grow.

They seceded to preserve their slave economy. Their secession speeches, the cornerstone speech by Stephens all made pretty clear how important the maintaince of slavery and white supremacy was to them. Trying to pretend otherwise is just white fragility.

It fought a war to maintain the sovereignty of the individual states and the ability of those states to form a voluntary union (which they were free to leave) should they wish to do so. The people of the southern states were never consulted on the matter.

I don't care about the supposed freedoms of slavers.

With limited exceptions, "America" (that includes the several colonies that later formed the United States of America) had been a "slave state" from its very beginning. Although it rapidly progressed to the point where "White" people could not be held in chattel slavery, by the 1860s it still hadn't progressed past the point where they couldn't be held in official peonage and didn't actually progress past the point where they could be held in effective peonage until the 1940s. The US government had no qualms about using state power (including the use of the US army) to repress those who objected to the continuation of a system of "effective peonage".

As they did in some of the Union states - right?

Yep. I'm not a union lover. The whatabout the north shit doesn't bother me because there is plenty of white trash to go around.

What "strawman". You ascribe the Second American Rebellion to a single cause and do so inaccurately.

I didn't say it was their singular cause. That is a strawman. You do know what a strawman is right? Saying they fought to preserve the autonomy of slave state doesn't mean they can't be fighting for other things as well, I just don't care about them.

It's inaccurate to label all members of the German military as Nazis - isn't it?

I didnt. I said nazis where anti semites. Are strawmen the only thing you're capable of attacking?

So, as far as you are concerned, some 16 year old who was drafted into the German Army in 1945 is "anti-homosexual", "anti-slav", "anti-Jehovahs Witness", "anti-handicapped", "anti-diabetic", "anti-socialist", "anti-Christian Democrat", "anti-communist", "anti-Romany" and "anti-anti-Nazi" - suuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeee they were.

Or willing to work with them for their own sake so **** em. If you're drafted into the nazis and are not trying to sabotage the nazis at every turn then you are a nazi. That's what you are.

So, your position is that any 18 year old American who was drafted into the US Army and then sent off to Vietnam is trash - right?

Yep. And if you were opposed but went anyway you were a coward. Muhammad Ali gave up his career and freedom to resist murdering others.

And, of course, since the same "reasons" for the US/Afghan War prevail, you consider any member of the US military who fought in Afghanistan to be trash - right?

And, of course, since the same "reasons" for the US/Iraq War prevail, you consider any member of the US military who fought in Iraq to be trash - right?

I generally find Americans and it's military trash, yes.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's not required. All that's required is the belief that morality is objective rather than dependent on culture. Most people think that.

And most people would be wrong.

Did the Romans believe that slavery was immoral?

Did the French, Germans, Danes, English, American (both colonial and independent), Chinese, and Russians ALWAYS believe that slavery was immoral?

Did the Christian religion ALWAYS believe that slavery was immoral? Did the Jewish religion ALWAYS believe that slavery was immoral? Did the Muslim, religion ALWAYS believe that slavery was immoral?

If slavery has ALWAYS been immoral, why did it take over 15,000 years for someone to figure that out?

 

[Greg 1]

And most people would be wrong.

That's your unproveable opinion.

Did the Romans believe that slavery was immoral?

Did the French, Germans, Danes, English, American (both colonial and independent), Chinese, and Russians ALWAYS believe that slavery was immoral?

Did the Christian religion ALWAYS believe that slavery was immoral? Did the Jewish religion ALWAYS believe that slavery was immoral? Did the Muslim, religion ALWAYS believe that slavery was immoral?

That they disagreed on the issue doesn't indicate that there is not objective fact, any more than their disagreements over religion indicate that there are no objective truths about the supernatural.

If slavery has ALWAYS been immoral, why did it take over 15,000 years for someone to figure that out?

Good question, just as there are about every major position in moral philosophy. What has it got to do with the fact that presentism isn't required, only the view that morality is objective, which most people by far accept?

 

[noonereal]

There is a specific section of the executive order that mentions statutes.
(ii) take action to reinstate the pre-existing monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties, as appropriate and consistent with 43 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., 54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq.,and other applicable law; and

This is clearly about statues of individuals like Robert E. Lee. Should those statues stay erected because "American history should include both the good and the bad equally, warts and all."

I totally agree with Trump on this. Put back the statues that the crazies took down.

 

[Master Debator]

I quite understand that you, yourself, in today's society, would never consider owning a slave.

Indeed, and in the 1850s and 1860s it was considered to be quite "moral" to own slaves.

Why should I give a shit if slavers are good with owning slaves or rapists good with rape? What do their sentiments have to do with me?

Nope, I'm just choosing to NOT apply inaccurate standards to other people's behaviours in other cultures.

Morality and standards are subjective, accuracy is about objectivity, those are different things. My standards aren't innaccurate they're just different than yours.

At the time, those slaves had absolutely no say in what was "right" or "wrong" with society. What the slaves felt about society and/or their condition was likely to be of more import than what horses and cows felt, but of less import than what women felt - and what women felt really didn't matter.

It didn't matter to slavers. No one is forcing you to dismiss their sentiments as being irrelevant to the time. It is accurate to say they and their sentiments existed in that time? Correct?

Nope, I'm saying that a particular form of exploitation is no longer cost-effective. Should slavery once again become cost-effective, you can expect to see it reintroduced.

So then your argument about slavery and time is just bullshit? It's not that slavery is morally unacceptable in this day and age its just economically infeasible?

Sorry about the formatting, but I did something that I can't undo.

I don't care about the format. Amuse me in whatever format you like.

 

[noonereal]

That they disagreed on the issue doesn't indicate that there is not objective fact, any more than their disagreements over religion indicate that there are no objective truths about the supernatural.

You have no objective fact but you don't seem to realize it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The question wasn't difficult for me. I answered it. Why did my answer trigger you?

I'm sure that you think that you have answered it.

They seceded to preserve their slave economy. Their secession speeches, the cornerstone speech by Stephens all made pretty clear how important the maintaince of slavery and white supremacy was to them. Trying to pretend otherwise is just white fragility.

Well, you are finally starting to come close to seeing the light. They seceded in order to preserve their economy. They believed that slavery was essential for that economy. Had they been allowed to have "White" slaves then they would have been content to have "White" slaves. If they didn't think that they had to have slavery then they would have been quite content not to have slavery.

I don't care about the supposed freedoms of slavers.

In fact, you don't care about historical reality at all.

Yep. I'm not a union lover. The whatabout the north shit doesn't bother me because there is plenty of white trash to go around.

However, you are more than content to ignore the historical reality that ALL of the United States of America was (by current standards) "racist" at the time.

I didn't say it was their singular cause. That is a strawman. You do know what a strawman is right? Saying they fought to preserve the autonomy of slave state doesn't mean they can't be fighting for other things as well, I just don't care about them.

Indeed, thinking about more than one thing at a time is difficult and makes your brain hurt.

I didnt. I said nazis where anti semites. Are strawmen the only thing you're capable of attacking?

So, it's OK to honor the soldiers of the German Army that were NOT Nazis, right. And doesn't that mean that its OK to honor the soldiers in the Confederate army that were NOT "slavers"?

Or willing to work with them for their own sake so **** em. If you're drafted into the nazis and are not trying to sabotage the nazis at every turn then you are a nazi. That's what you are.

And that applies to the soldiers who were drafted and sent to Vietnam in order to crush the Vietnamese people's desire for independence, freedom and their own government that they had selected themselves?

Yep. And if you were opposed but went anyway you were a coward.

Such a simplistic view of the world must be a wonderful thing to have.

Muhammad Ali gave up his career and freedom to resist murdering others.

Agreed.

I generally find Americans and it's military trash, yes.

Surprisingly enough I don't. Now the American government(s) - well that's something else again.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's your unproveable opinion.

Not mine alone.

That they disagreed on the issue doesn't indicate that there is not objective fact, any more than their disagreements over religion indicate that there are no objective truths about the supernatural.

Name on and provide verifiable objective evidence that irrefutably confirms the existence of "God".

Good question, just as there are about every major position in moral philosophy. What has it got to do with the fact that presentism isn't required, only the view that morality is objective, which most people by far accept?

OK, "morality as absolute" - let's take a single topic - abortion.

• In some parts of the United States of America, access to abortion is considered immoral enough to be made illegal, in others it isn't.
  • Around 60% of the American people believe that (at least some) access to abortion should be allowed.
    • That means that "most people" believe that some access to abortion should be allowed. Therefore some level of access to abortion is "moral" - right?
• 
  
• And in Canada an even higher percentage of the people believe that an even greater level of access to abortion should be allowed.
  • That means that access to abortion is even more "moral" in Canada than it is in the United States of America - right?
• 
  
• And the Jewish religion believes that some level of access to abortion should be allowed while the Roman Catholic religion says no.
  • That means that access to abortion is more "moral" for Jews than it is for Catholics - right

So, what is the "objective" criteria regarding the "morality" regarding access to abortion?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Why should I give a shit if slavers are good with owning slaves or rapists good with rape? What do their sentiments have to do with me?

When considering history it is important to understand how the people actually involved thought at the time. You seem to believe that everyone in the US in the 1850s and 1860s thought the same way as you think in the 2020s.

Morality and standards are subjective, accuracy is about objectivity, those are different things. My standards aren't innaccurate they're just different than yours.

Whoa NELLIE. Just a minute ago you were saying that morality was objective. Now you are saying that it is subjective.

It didn't matter to slavers. No one is forcing you to dismiss their sentiments as being irrelevant to the time. It is accurate to say they and their sentiments existed in that time? Correct?

Indeed, and they acted as they did because they subscribed to the moral code of the era that they lived in.

So then your argument about slavery and time is just bullshit?

Nope, my argument about slavery NOT being the SOLE cause of the Second American Rebellion stands (and you have just confirmed it).

It's not that slavery is morally unacceptable in this day and age its just economically infeasible?

Actually what I said was that if slavery again became more economically beneficial it would become less "immoral". That is because "morality" is fungible.

I don't care about the format. Amuse me in whatever format you like.

 

[Master Debator]

I'm sure that you think that you have answered it.

What is it that you want to know about that I haven't been clear about?

Well, you are finally starting to come close to seeing the light. They seceded in order to preserve their economy.

Their slave economy.

They believed that slavery was essential for that economy. Had they been allowed to have "White" slaves then they would have been content to have "White" slaves. If they didn't think that they had to have slavery then they would have been quite content not to have slavery.

Slavers gonna slave....and?

In fact, you don't care about historical reality at all.

What have I gotten wrong?

However, you are more than content to ignore the historical reality that ALL of the United States of America was (by current standards) "racist" at the time.

Am I? Where? Stop constructing arguments out of straw.

Indeed, thinking about more than one thing at a time is difficult and makes your brain hurt.

So, it's OK to honor the soldiers of the German Army that were NOT Nazis, right. And doesn't that mean that its OK to honor the soldiers in the Confederate army that were NOT "slavers"?

What are you talking about? All soldiers for Nazi Germany were nazis unless they were secret saboteurs, traitors or deserters.

And that applies to the soldiers who were drafted and sent to Vietnam in order to crush the Vietnamese people's desire for independence, freedom and their own government that they had selected themselves?

Yep. I'm not the honoring of killers type. To me that's just indicative of a trash culture which is why it's amusing to me that the idea of not honoring soldiers seems so strange to you.

You mean to tell me you don't celebrate people who traveled thousands of miles to murder people they never met? Strange! How strange...

What the **** is wrong with you and your people? You need therapy. I celebrate people of empathy and compassion and good will. I celebrate the people who travel thousands of miles to give aide and comfort in places facing hardship and catastrophe. I don't celebrate soldiers just because they travel under some particular banner that you have emotional attachment to.

Such a simplistic view of the world must be a wonderful thing to have.

Agreed.

Surprisingly enough I don't. Now the American government(s) - well that's something else again.

Its easier to go through life not pretending. Try it some time.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You have no objective fact but you don't seem to realize it.

Not quite.

It is an objective fact that the poster believes that their version of "morality" is the one and only true version of "morality"

This is the same position that almost all tyrants, and cult leaders have held throughout history.

 

[Ganondagan]

What have I gotten wrong so far? I don't think you can articulate a single thing.

American history is about what Lincoln said:

"With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

 

[Master Debator]

American history is about what Lincoln said:

"With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

So history is only allowed to be viewed through Lincolns eyes?

Do you understand the difference between facts and opinion? I asked you to describe what I got wrong. Why is your response Lincoln's opinion?

 

[Ganondagan]

So history is only allowed to be viewed through Lincolns eyes?

Do you understand the difference between facts and opinion? I asked you to describe what I got wrong. Why is your response Lincoln's opinion?

Because he expresses the essence of America, you don't.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I suppose, being that 'the Allies' included the USSR. But 80% of the German casualties in WW2 were on the Eastern Front. That's as close to 'all' as 'dammit' is to swearing.

#1) I didn't realize that the nation that takes the most casualties "wins" LOL. I don't agree with that. And I resent your complete dismissal of the brave kids (Americans, English and many others) blown apart at Normandy and all over Europe and North Africa.

And helping out by supplying the Soviets with material does allow the West to say "Me too! Me too!"

Sure it does. Victory would not have been possible without that.

Well there's the front-runner for the dumbest thing posted today.

You'll trump it bwahahah.

 

[Master Debator]

Because he expresses the essence of America, you don't.

In his opinion. I'll ask again. Do you know the difference between facts and opinion because I asked you to detail me what I got wrong about history. Opinions aren't right or wrong, facts are.

 

[noonereal]

Not quite.

It is an objective fact that the poster believes that their version of "morality" is the one and only true version of "morality"

This is the same position that almost all tyrants, and cult leaders have held throughout history.

You are correct. I must have confused posts.

 

[Ganondagan]

In his opinion. I'll ask again. Do you know the difference between facts and opinion because I asked you to detail me what I got wrong about history. Opinions aren't right or wrong, facts are.

No, I'm not going to tell you what you got wrong with history. I've made my opinions very clear and if you can't figure it out from there, I can't help you.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What is it that you want to know about that I haven't been clear about?

Simply answer the question. It can be answered "Yes." or "No.".

Their slave economy.

Slavers gonna slave....and?

What have I gotten wrong?

You mean, aside from totally ignoring everything?

Am I? Where? Stop constructing arguments out of straw.

What are you talking about? All soldiers for Nazi Germany were nazis unless they were secret saboteurs, traitors or deserters.

Suuurrrreeeee they were.

Yep. I'm not the honoring of killers type. To me that's just indicative of a trash culture which is why it's amusing to me that the idea of not honoring soldiers seems so strange to you.

I quite understand that you believe that the only people who should be honored are the people who do the things that you, a member of the winning side, approve of.

You mean to tell me you don't celebrate people who traveled thousands of miles to murder people they never met? Strange! How strange...

Indeed. I am quite content to honor the people who traveled thousands of miles to fight other people who were killing millions. You, on the other hand, aren't.

What the **** is wrong with you and your people? You need therapy. I celebrate people of empathy and compassion and good will. I celebrate the people who travel thousands of miles to give aide and comfort in places facing hardship and catastrophe.

And, for some reason, you think that I don't - why?

I don't celebrate soldiers just because they travel under some particular banner that you have emotional attachment to.

Quite right. You only celebrate soldiers because they travel under some particular banner that you have emotional attachment to.

BTW, I have absolutely no respect or admiration for the movers and shakers of the Confederate States of America who manipulated the United States of America into the bloodiest war that it has ever fought. Those who were sucked into the war either through being drafted (by either side) or because they were dumb enough to fall for the propaganda issued (by both sides) - that's different.

Its easier to go through life not pretending. Try it some time.

Indeed, it is so much easier if you take the extreme simplification as a total explanation of a complex matter.

You are very good at doing just that.

You would benefit from reading some of the journals of the participants (at the "grunt" level) in the Second American Rebellion - on BOTH sides. You will find that there is a great commonality of "why we fight" between the average soldier on both sides.

BTW - Did you know that the demographics of the NVA/VC and the US forces in Vietnam were almost identical? Did you know that the major difference was that the NVA/VC knew what they were fighting for and why while the US forces didn't (at least not to the same extent and degree of understanding)?

 

[Master Debator]

When considering history it is important to understand how the people actually involved thought at the time. You seem to believe that everyone in the US in the 1850s and 1860s thought the same way as you think in the 2020s.

I don't. You're just constructing more strawmen. You should open a business you're so efficient and consistent with it.

Can you quote me saying anything even remotely close to this?

Whoa NELLIE. Just a minute ago you were saying that morality was objective.

I said it was subjective from the start unless i miss typed somewhere.

Now you are saying that it is subjective.

Indeed, and they acted as they did because they subscribed to the moral code of the era that they lived in.

The era didn't dictate they be pro slavery any more than this era dictates anyone be pro or anti gay or pro or anti abortion. You get to choose the type of person you're going to be in whatever moment in time you're living in.

Nope, my argument about slavery NOT being the SOLE cause of the Second American Rebellion stands (and you have just confirmed it).

That's not what I was talking about.

Actually what I said was that if slavery again became more economically beneficial it would become less "immoral". That is because "morality" is fungible.

No shit.