"RESTORING TRUTH AND SANITY TO AMERICAN HISTORY" (1 Viewer)

[Master Debator]

Except that you did when you took at statement of fact as some sort of endorsement or support of slavery, which, frankly, is really stupid mischaracterization.

But I get it.

You are left leaning, and if there's one thing that I've learn while post and reading here, those from the left are simply, and constantly, dishonestly assigning positions to their political opponents which they've not taken for simply sake of ginning up fauxrage, division, divisiveness and strife.

The good news is that there are more and more people who've caught on to this dishonest and overly used tactic and they are refusing to accept it, as am I in this case.

I didn't mischaracterize shit. Even @TU Curmudgeon repeated the ignorant phrase that slaves benefited from slavery from learning useful skills. Apparently you white people still don't understand what the **** slavery was.

 

[eohrnberger]

I didn't mischaracterize shit. Even @TU Curmudgeon repeated the ignorant phrase that slaves benefited from slavery from learning useful skills. Apparently you white people still don't understand what the **** slavery was.

You continue to do so.
Specifically slaves did benefit in learning skills they didn't have. This is an indisputable fact.
Your mischaracterization, as well as others', is this pretending that anyone believes that this justifies, or that stating this fact, is in anyway supporting of, slavery.
It isn't.

No, you, and others, grab the topic of slavery and make an issue out of fact, a non-issue, and accuse something which hasn't been said, endorsed or implied. So just the typical dishonesty from the left on this, and a long list of other topics / issues, same as any other day.

 

[Master Debator]

You continue to do so.
Specifically slaves did benefit in learning skills they didn't have. This is an indisputable fact.
Your mischaracterization, as well as others', is this pretending that anyone believes that this justifies, or that stating this fact, is in anyway supporting of, slavery.
It isn't.

No, you, and others, grab the topic of slavery and make an issue out of fact, a non-issue, and accuse something which hasn't been said, endorsed or implied. So just the typical dishonesty from the left on this, and a long list of other topics / issues, same as any other day.

It's not a fact that slaves benefited from learning skills from their slavers. You apparently don't understand the difference between facts and opinions. Whether something is a benefit to you is a matter of opinion. Its a fact that people learn various skills throughout their lives. We aren't born programmed with how to do things save the things our body does for us automatically like breathe or blink or hear. We have to learn everything else. Saying slaves benefited in some way from slavery isn't a fact, it's a narrative. A white trash one made to make white trash feel better about their white trash society

 

[Jezcoe]

If the Southern plantation owners could have found a way to do the work more cheaply WITHOUT the expense involved in slavery, they would have jumped at the chance. They couldn't see one, so they didn't.

That is dealing in counterfactuals.

That is an if this then that sort of thing that never happened… so to me is it silly to argue.

Yep, and the Northern states would have been quite content to allow the EXISTING Southern states to remain as "slave states" PROVIDED that they didn't get pushy and want to expand.

Agreed.

The Confederate States of America was never officially recognized by ANY other country. It might have been a "proto-nation", but it wasn't a "nation". All that the Confederacy ever was was a bunch of rebellious states (just like the original 12 colonies (which became 13 states] were)

This was in response to the notion that the US allowed the South to secede. In that counterfactual scenario there would be two countries. My point about that is that war between the two states would be inevitable.

If you believe that, then your knowledge of American history is woefully deficient. Why do you think that the Southern Democrats ran their own "Democrat" candidate in competition with the "Democrat" candidate selected by the national convention of the Democratic party?

The notion that they did so to get Lincoln elected is silly. But we are also talking about a level of political zealotry that had been building for a couple of decades. The South saw themselves as the true preservation of the American ideal. When we are talking about a situation where there is a very real talk of breaking the country up … then there doesn’t need to be an accelerationist conspiracy among the power elite to secretly get the opposition candidate into power.

Sorry…. It’s silly.

That's what the Southern Oligarchs thought too. Strangely enough they managed to keep their cotton and tobacco plantations up and running without slavery once they weren't allowed to actually own people. Of course, they did "rent prisoners".

It took them instituting slavery by another name and a century of state sponsored racial oppression to do so.

I'm sorry that situations involving more than one variable make your brain hurt.

Once again.

I am being polite.

If this discussion is to continue then please refrain.

 

[eohrnberger]

It's not a fact that slaves benefited from learning skills from their slavers.

Did, or did not, slaves learn valuable skills? That'd be a yes.
Are, or are not, the learning of skills a benefit? This would also be a yes.

And again, this is not an endorsement nor support nor justification for slavery.
Why can't you separate the two different points in your mind?

You apparently don't understand the difference between facts and opinions.

This clearly projection.

Whether something is a benefit to you is a matter of opinion. Its a fact that people learn various skills throughout their lives. We aren't born programmed with how to do things save the things our body does for us automatically like breathe or blink or hear. We have to learn everything else.

Saying slaves benefited in some way from slavery isn't a fact, it's a narrative.

The false conflation is pointed out your sentence above, that conflation being the valuable skills learned and the entirety of slavery.
The point being that the skills learned were a benefit. No one is claiming or asserting that the entirety of slavery was a benefit.

This is the incorrect, inaccurate and dishonest, frankly, conflation, all for what? To enable an incorrect, inaccurate and dishonest, frankly, political attack vector.

A white trash one made to make white trash feel better about their white trash society

Whatever hate and prejudices you have against people, are yours and yours alone.

 

[Jezcoe]

Did, or did not, slaves learn valuable skills? That'd be a yes.
Are, or are not, the learning of skills a benefit? This would also be a yes.

What use is a skill if one cannot profit off of one’s own labor?

 

[Master Debator]

Did, or did not, slaves learn valuable skills? That'd be a yes.
Are, or are not, the learning of skills a benefit? This would also be a yes.

I don't think anyone is disputing that slaves provided value to their slavers. That was actually the point.

And again, this is not an endorsement nor support nor justification for slavery.
Why can't you separate the two different points in your mind?


This clearly projection.

If you want to believe that slavery provides some value to slaves that's your choice because that's an opinion. I feel freedom to live as you want is valuable and slavery in all aspects detestable.

The false conflation is pointed out your sentence above, that conflation being the valuable skills learned and the entirety of slavery.
The point being that the skills learned were a benefit.

To slavers. What slaves value is freedom.

No one is claiming or asserting that the entirety of slavery was a benefit.

Just some of it. I get the white trash narrative you're trying to sell, I'm just not buying it.

This is the incorrect, inaccurate and dishonest, frankly, conflation, all for what? To enable an incorrect, inaccurate and dishonest, frankly, political attack vector.

Your feelings arent a basis for objective truth.

Whatever hate and prejudices you have against people, are yours and yours alone.

I hate slavers and slaver lovers what of it? What's wrong with hating white trash?

 

[j brown's body]

If the Southern plantation owners could have found a way to do the work more cheaply WITHOUT the expense involved in slavery, they would have jumped at the chance. They couldn't see one, so they didn't.

Yep, and the Northern states would have been quite content to allow the EXISTING Southern states to remain as "slave states" PROVIDED that they didn't get pushy and want to expand.

The Confederate States of America was never officially recognized by ANY other country. It might have been a "proto-nation", but it wasn't a "nation". All that the Confederacy ever was was a bunch of rebellious states (just like the original 12 colonies (which became 13 states] were).

The island was in the state of South Carolina and the government of South Carolina took the position that it belonged to South Carolina and was being unlawfully held by the armed forces of a foreign nation.

I take no position on the legal correctness of that position - only that that was the position taken.

If you believe that, then your knowledge of American history is woefully deficient. Why do you think that the Southern Democrats ran their own "Democrat" candidate in competition with the "Democrat" candidate selected by the national convention of the Democratic party?

But, then again, you probably don't think that the wheelers and dealers behind the leadership of the Southern Democrats hadn't been trying to set the stage for secession for over 30 years.

That's what the Southern Oligarchs thought too. Strangely enough they managed to keep their cotton and tobacco plantations up and running without slavery once they weren't allowed to actually own people. Of course, they did "rent prisoners".

I'm sorry that situations involving more than one variable make your brain hurt.

Everyone knew that slavery could not last in the south if it could not expand out west.

 

[US&THEM]

Trump orders a "Ministry of Truth" for our historical sites, museums, and the Smithsonian.

Is Mush gonna be in charge of that too?

Trump has screwed up everything he touches.

 

[j brown's body]

"One man's 'escaped slave' is another man's 'Freedom Seeker' ('Absconding Property' ['Race Defiling Terrorist and Murderous Revolutionary']) - right?

It’s nice soft pedaling.

 

[j brown's body]

Did, or did not, slaves learn valuable skills? That'd be a yes.
Are, or are not, the learning of skills a benefit? This would also be a yes.

Got a link for that, like stating what percent learned valuable skills from slavery?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's evidence you believe it, not evidence i said it. If you've tricked yourself into believing your own make believe then that's some funny ass fragile shit right there.

Where though? You can't seem to find that quote. I certainly said Confederates were fighting to preserve slavery because that's fact. I never said they were only fighting to preserve slavery and nothing else. You keep adding that part to bolster your weak as **** argument.

Nope. Provide the evidence that I said that's the only reason they fought. Your strawmen are as weak as they are obvious and pathetic.

What do these red herrings have to do with Robert E Lee being the general of a Slave State army or Jefferson Davis being the President of said Slave State?

I understand the context of you making shit up about me just fine. Your argument is weak as ****.

Oh yeah. Those slavers really believed in the sovereignty of States. Not actual Black people though. This is definitely an argument about how they weren't white trash....

Abuse isn't an expression of love. Who hurt you?

Why would I?

Yes. Slaves don't benefit from slavery. It's a testament to white trash culture and it's complete indoctrination that I have to explain that to you. Slavery benefits the Slave owners and the slaver societies who are exploiting whatever skills their slaves had, have or will learn for their own benefit.

I'm sorry, but you have reached your Brandolini Limit.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Got a link for that, like stating what percent learned valuable skills from slavery?

Since 91% were working in agriculture, you can take a wild guess that it was less than 9% (and to get that high you have to count "lifting and toting" as "valuable skills"

Slaves filled the places that are currently filled by "illegal aliens" - doing the work that the employers weren't prepared to pay a "White" person enough to do under conditions that a "White" person wouldn't tolerate.

 

[Master Debator]

I'm sorry, but you have reached your Brandolini Limit.

You don't have to be sorry to me that you can't make your case and are running off after throwing a bunch of strawmen at me, meekly.

 

[eohrnberger]

I'm sorry, but you have reached your Brandolini Limit.

I've never heard of the 'Brandolini Limit', so I took the time to look it up.

Brandolini's law​

Brandolini's law is an internet adage coined in 2013 by Italian programmer Alberto Brandolini. It compares the considerable effort of debunking misinformation to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. The law states: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. The rise of easy popularization of ideas through the internet has greatly increased the relevant examples, but the asymmetry principle itself has long been recognized. Wikipedia​

Thanks for the reference. <Hat Tip>

Considering this definition for a moment, yeah, it most certainly has been the case for a long time, and is very similar to the more well known adage ‘A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.’

 

[Master Debator]

I've never heard of the 'Brandolini Limit', so I took the time to look it up.

Brandolini's law​

Brandolini's law is an internet adage coined in 2013 by Italian programmer Alberto Brandolini. It compares the considerable effort of debunking misinformation to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. The law states: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. The rise of easy popularization of ideas through the internet has greatly increased the relevant examples, but the asymmetry principle itself has long been recognized. Wikipedia​

Thanks for the reference. <Hat Tip>

Considering this definition for a moment, yeah, it most certainly has been the case for a long time, and is very similar to the more well known adage ‘A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.’

I didn't even bother to do that.

If proving their claims isn't worth their effort then their argument can't be worth much. I'm not asking for a dissertation, just the quote where I said Confederates only fought to preserve slavery and nothing else like the soft debater keeps claiming, meekly.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You don't have to be sorry to me that you can't make your case and are running off after throwing a bunch of strawmen at me, meekly.

When a person says the equivalent of

• "A" mainly fought for "B" and fighting for "B" meant that you were actually fighting for "C" REGARDLESS of how you felt about "C"
• "D" mainly fought for "E" and fighting for "E" meant that you were actually fighting for "C"REGARDLESS of how you felt about "C"
• "F" mainly fought for "G" and fighting for "G" meant that you were actually fighting for "C"REGARDLESS of how you felt about "C"
• "H" mainly fought for "I" and fighting for "I" meant that you were actually fighting for "C"REGARDLESS of how you felt about "C"
• "J" mainly fought for "K" and fighting for "K" meant that you were actually fighting for "C"REGARDLESS of how you felt about "C"
• "L" mainly fought for "M" and fighting for "M" meant that you were actaully fighting for "C"REGARDLESS of how you felt about "C"

and then challenges everyone to prove that they used the exact words "'A' was fighting for 'C'." or "'D' was fighting for 'C.' or "'F' was fighting for 'C'.' or "'H' was fighting for 'C' or "'J' was fighting for 'C'.' or "'L' was fighting for 'C'."" were "fighting for "C" it's pretty obvious what they are saying REGARDLESS of the actual words that they use.

Have a nice millennium.

 

[Master Debator]

Have a nice millennium.

Day... week... year... millennium... So long as my opponents and their arguments are as weak as you and yours and just as quick to turn tail, I'm golden.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Day... week... year... millennium... So long as my opponents and their arguments are as weak as you and yours and just as quick to turn tail, I'm golden.

Have a nice shower.

 

[Ikari]

Could we maybe just restore Truth and Sanity to America's present?

 

[Master Debator]

Have a nice shower.

Thanks. Thank you for showering me in your fragility. Your argument you've abandoned but your thirst for me remains.

 

[Master Debator]

When a person says the equivalent of

• "A" mainly fought for "B" and fighting for "B" meant that you were actually fighting for "C" REGARDLESS of how you felt about "C"
• "D" mainly fought for "E" and fighting for "E" meant that you were actually fighting for "C"REGARDLESS of how you felt about "C"
• "F" mainly fought for "G" and fighting for "G" meant that you were actually fighting for "C"REGARDLESS of how you felt about "C"
• "H" mainly fought for "I" and fighting for "I" meant that you were actually fighting for "C"REGARDLESS of how you felt about "C"
• "J" mainly fought for "K" and fighting for "K" meant that you were actually fighting for "C"REGARDLESS of how you felt about "C"
• "L" mainly fought for "M" and fighting for "M" meant that you were actaully fighting for "C"REGARDLESS of how you felt about "C"

and then challenges everyone to prove that they used the exact words "'A' was fighting for 'C'." or "'D' was fighting for 'C.' or "'F' was fighting for 'C'.' or "'H' was fighting for 'C' or "'J' was fighting for 'C'.' or "'L' was fighting for 'C'."" were "fighting for "C" it's pretty obvious what they are saying REGARDLESS of the actual words that they use.

Have a nice millennium.

Holy shit I had missed you doing this hilarious bit all because I triggered you so much by simply asking you to provide evidence of me saying what you claimed I did. Did you go back and edit it and type that all after the fact? No... no... you're not over compensating at all.... and it's not obvious to everyone.....