Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PC Gone Too Far
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 174 of 734 (785249)
05-31-2016 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
05-31-2016 5:59 PM


Percy writes:
quote:
It isn't because they themselves were evil. The answer is far more complex and nuanced than that.
But they were. The answer is because evil is more complex and nuanced than you are making it out to be. Seems like you've got a case of "Doesn't kick puppies." Evil doesn't mean someone is completely and total without merit, that they don't rationalize what they're doing, that they can't come up with justifications. They're still evil. The villain thinks they're the hero of their own story.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 05-31-2016 5:59 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(3)
Message 235 of 734 (785610)
06-08-2016 2:26 AM


I realize that this is a bit of a "bare link" post, but I think it may be relevant and I'm not sure if anybody mentioned it before now.
NPR's On the Media had a recent (5/20/2016) episode regarding how e deal with historical memory, including segments on Hiroshima, "Keep Calm and Carry On," Kitty Genovese, Volodymyr Viatrovych of the Ukraine, and the value of forgetting
On the Media: Ghosts
I find the sections on Hiroshima and Viatrovych relevant. With regard to Hiroshima, the Japanese take on the dropping of the bomb is different from the American take. The conservative response to the very idea of Obama merely visiting Hiroshima seems to be related to what we have regarding the Civil War: The inability to accept any negative association with "our side."
And when we see someone like Viatrovych who is literally erasing history, engaging in fraud and making it illegal to say things, the idea that "PC" has anything to do with what we're seeing with regard to the original post shows a severe lack of understanding about political correctness, let alone what "PC gone wild" means.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 278 of 734 (785883)
06-13-2016 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Percy
06-12-2016 9:52 PM


Re: Words of Lincoln
Percy writes:
quote:
If Lincoln would not judge the South, how can we?
Because we know better.
Lincoln was not infallible. He was not god. Indeed, the South didn't invent slavery and its abolition was not going to be easy. But we still blame those who carried it out (and profited from it) because it is evil. And thus, we do not glorify those who would champion it and declare that their entire reason for existence is to perpetuate it.
Because we know better.
It seems we need to learn this lesson over and over again. We come to a point where we realize that something we used to do was monstrous and needs to stop...and then we pull up short and try to allow those who wish to continue to do so to save face, to allow for "differing opinions," to allow people to feel that they're not responsible rather than standing up for what's right and insisting that know, you're not allowed to do that anymore.
Because we're supposed to know better.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Percy, posted 06-12-2016 9:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by bluegenes, posted 06-13-2016 6:43 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 283 by Percy, posted 06-13-2016 8:10 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 317 of 734 (786041)
06-15-2016 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Percy
06-13-2016 8:10 AM


Re: Words of Lincoln
Percy responds to me:
quote:
Isn't this "we" really just you and NoNukes?
No. Neither I nor NoNukes got the Confederate Flags taken down from the South Carolina state capitol, for example.
quote:
you have to *show* you know better, not just declare it so.
Indeed. Condemning the South for its glorification of slavery and it's continued inability to get past that is how we show we know better.
quote:
No one claimed he was, least of all him.
Then why did you say:
Message 277
If Lincoln would not judge the South, how can we?
Your'e not about to play dumb and pretend that because the words "god" or "infallible" didn't escape your keyboard, you weren't actually committing the logical error of Argument from Authority, are you?
quote:
But during the nation's most difficult time neither did his words resonate with hate.
And condemning slavery is "hatred"? Refusing to glorify those who directly stated that their entire reason for existence was to perpetuate it is "hatred"? The ability to understand how we managed to get to the point of being dependent on slavery, how the people who sought to perpetuate it rationalized their claims, how the devastation that ran through the South in the aftermath of the war was almost as bad as the war itself, etc. doesn't mean that we don't still conclude that slavery was evil and the condemnation of it is "hatred."
quote:
But when asked for objective analysis there are only sputterings of how horrible slavery was and so also its defenders.
Says the person trying to defend the indefensible. That you think the argument is over whether slavery was profitable is proof positive. We very much understand the value of slavery to those who kept slaves. That doesn't alter the evil of slavery and those who declared their very reason for existence was its perpetuation.
You seek not patience but rather refusal to come to a conclusion lest it upset someone for showing them to be wrong.
That you think the argument being made is, "They deserved everything they got," shows that you aren't paying attention.
At best.
Talk about spluttering.
quote:
That outlines precisely the problem we're experiencing here, the unwillingness by one side to go beyond kneejerk emotional judgments.
Have you looked in a mirror lately? Your knee is jerking pretty hard, absolutely positive that coming to a conclusion is somehow problematic.
quote:
No one in this thread has argued that we should "glorify" (or "celebrate" in NoNuke-ese) Southerners for embracing, defending and perpetuating slavery.
And what is the monument, then? What is its purpose? And why the defense of keeping it as a monument for that purpose?
As I routinely politely request: Please, let us not play dumb. It's the same claim that the South uses to try and insist that the Civil War wasn't about slavery but about "state's rights." It's the same claim that the Confederate flag isn't a symbol of racism and slavery and white supremacy but is just a paean to gentility and cold lemonade on the verandah. That somehow, a monument that directly states it is a glorification of the South and its position in the Civil War isn't to be believed but is really about something else.
quote:
What we're seeking is understanding.
We do understand. That's why we condemn them. The ability to understand why something happened doesn't mean no conclusions can be drawn.
quote:
Why did Southerners behave the way they did?
We know why. As pointed out to before, evil is more complex than you wish it were. You have a severe case of "Doesn't kick puppies."
quote:
As Lincoln said, "They are just what we would be in their situation."
And yet, as has been demonstrated, Lincoln was wrong. Plenty of people were in their situation and weren't like that. If they could do it, why can't others?
I can understand Lincoln's position in the context of trying to salvage a country that nearly tore itself apart and was looking for reasons to help people save face.
We know better. Some answers are wrong and it does everyone a disservice to pretend otherwise.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Percy, posted 06-13-2016 8:10 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Percy, posted 06-15-2016 8:53 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 327 of 734 (786122)
06-16-2016 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Percy
06-15-2016 8:53 AM


Re: Words of Lincoln
Percy responds to me:
quote:
Clipping the quote to hide the original context doesn't change reality.
Neither does your attempt to deny reality change it. My answer had everything to do with the question: How can we if Lincoln would not? Easy:
Because we know better. Lincoln was not infallible. He was not god. Indeed, the South didn't invent slavery and its abolition was not going to be easy. But we still blame those who carried it out (and profited from it) because it is evil. And thus, we do not glorify those who would champion it and declare that their entire reason for existence is to perpetuate it.
Because we know better.
It seems we need to learn this lesson over and over again. We come to a point where we realize that something we used to do was monstrous and needs to stop...and then we pull up short and try to allow those who wish to continue to do so to save face, to allow for "differing opinions," to allow people to feel that they're not responsible rather than standing up for what's right and insisting that know, you're not allowed to do that anymore.
Because we're supposed to know better.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law: WWII can be laid, in a significant part, at the feet of WWI. The way Germany was treated after the Great War was atrocious. It is hardly surprising to see someone trying to find some way to rally the people and generate pride. There's more to it, of course, but desperate people latch on to whatever they think will save them.
That doesn't mean we glorify the Nazis despite our ability to understand how they got in that position. So why would we glorify slavery and those who claimed that the reason for their existence was the perpetuation of it? Of course we understand how they got to where they were but, say it with me:
We know better.
quote:
So far in this thread it's just you and NoNukes who want to ignore Lincoln's words: "They are just what we would be in their situation.
Except I answered that. It seems I have to repeat my posts again before you read them, so here we go again. I’ve highlighted the part you seem to have missed:
And yet, as has been demonstrated, Lincoln was wrong. Plenty of people were in their situation and weren't like that. If they could do it, why can't others?
I can understand Lincoln's position in the context of trying to salvage a country that nearly tore itself apart and was looking for reasons to help people save face.
We know better. Some answers are wrong and it does everyone a disservice to pretend otherwise.
quote:
Again, you're still declaring it, not showing it. This is just an empty rationalization for what you want to do anyway.
And you’re just saying, Nuh-uh! That isn’t exactly a response. The way we show we know better is by coming to the conclusion that the South was engaged in evil in their glorification of slavery and all the rest of it. By recognizing that the people who were doing it were evil. By recognizing that evil is more complicated than you are making it out to be.
Help us out here: Exactly what is it that would satisfy you? To my mind, Knowing better is proven by taking different positions.
What is it you’re expecting?
quote:
NoNuke's efforts to condemn a people as "evil" is the "hate" referred to.
How? To quote you: You’re merely declaring it, not showing it. This is just empty rationalization for what you want to do anyway. You want to dismiss as hatred the rational conclusion from the evidence presented.
Other people who lived right alongside those who glorified slavery managed to condemn it. If they could figure out why slavery was bad, why could those who glorified it? For crying out loud, West Virginia seceded from Virginia when Virginia seceded.
quote:
The assertion that, "The South clung to slavery long after it was economically unviable," was made by Ringo in Message 228. I thought he was wrong, and you seem to think so, too.
So economic analyses of the case are irrelevant? This claim is one of the many lies told by those who seek to save face regarding slavery.
quote:
If you mean the monument in Louisville, then no, it is incorrect to state that it "directly states it is a glorification of the South and its position in the Civil War." I quoted the words on the monument in Message 102.
And you ignore about half of it. Our Confederate Dead.
And what did the Confederacy stand for? You’re making the argument that somehow the Civil War was about state’s rights. That conveniently ignores the very obvious question: The right to do what?
Nobody is suggested we piss on their graves. But why are we commemorating those that fought for slavery? The fact that we understand the issues regarding the population being manipulated by those in power, but let’s not kid ourselves as to what Tribute is supposed to mean.
But then again, you were seemingly complaining that because you didn’t say the words god or infallible, then you weren’t making an argument from authority.
I am again asking politely: Please let us stop playing dumb.
quote:
Claimed but not described, so yes, go on.
I’ve described the Doesn’t Kick Puppies phenomenon numerous times, Percy. The fact that people are evil doesn’t mean they are evil in every aspect of their existence. The fact that you can show that someone doesn’t kick puppies doesn’t mean that they aren’t evil. Evil people still engage in good behaviour, they love their families, are kind to their pets, even contribute to the community. The Mob was notorious for their donations to various charities.
As I said previous: The villain thinks they’re the hero of their story. It is rare for someone to rub their hands while chuckling in anticipation. We’re not talking about sociopaths. But there are still people who claim, for example, that black people are some lesser species. I am currently suffering through one trying to claim that biology literally works differently for black people...that sickle cell trait would somehow spontaneously correct itself in white people. That black people can’t recognize themselves in mirrors until they’re four years old (but whites and Asians can do it as infants and how blacks can’t do what animals can.)
And he thinks he’s being honest. He thinks he’s the hero of his story. That those of us who find racism abhorrent are suckers because black people really are a threat to society as a whole and need to be curtailed lest we have society literally collapse around us.
I’m sure he’s got friends who think he’s a hoot.
He physically threatened me.
Evil is more complex than you wish it were.
quote:
Lincoln's words survive today because they contain timeless truths.
You would think you would have learned this lesson by now:
Lincoln was not infallible. He was not god. He had a lot of wise things that he said and did, but not everything he said or did was right. For example, he was against slavery, but he didn’t think black people were truly the equal of whites. His suspension of habeas corpus was reprehensible.
Nobody’s perfect. But the fact that nobody’s perfect doesn’t mean we can’t actually make value judgements about people.
quote:
Lincoln's position was deep and personal and not just part of a public face.
Yep. And part of that is because he had a bit of white supremacy running through him.
Why are you surprised by this?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Percy, posted 06-15-2016 8:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Percy, posted 06-17-2016 9:05 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 328 of 734 (786123)
06-17-2016 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Percy
06-15-2016 9:09 AM


Re: The Washington Monument
Percy responds to ringo:
quote:
If the vanilla Louisville monument "connotes slavery" then can there be any Confederate monuments/memorials that don't?
No.
What was the Confederacy about? What was their reason for existence? "State's rights"? The right to do what?
quote:
And doesn't your phrase "automatically connotes slavery" actually describe just a sense of how many people think "slavery" when they see a monument?
No.
What was the Confederacy about?
quote:
And what is wrong with "connoting slavery." It's not endorsing slavery. Remembrances of history are important and good - all history.
Indeed.
But is the monument in question one of regret? It's not like this is some sort of scene out of The Lorax where it's saying, "Unless." "Unless we change our ways, unless we learn from the mistakes made by these people, unless we can become better people."
History is important and nobody is suggesting that we attempt to erase the Antebellum South. But there is a difference between remembering our mistakes and creating monuments to help us understand what happened so that we might learn...
...and acting like the reason why the people died has nothing to do with their deaths.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Percy, posted 06-15-2016 9:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Percy, posted 06-17-2016 2:29 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 351 of 734 (786203)
06-18-2016 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Percy
06-17-2016 9:05 AM


Re: Words of Lincoln
Percy responds to me:
quote:
'm not changing it, just describing it.
Inaccurately.
quote:
When it comes to claiming Lincoln was wrong, it's just you and NoNukes.
Logical error: Argumentum ad populum. Try again. NoNukes and I may be the only ones engaging you in this matter, but that doesn't mean we're the only ones. And, of course, none of that has any bearing on the veracity of the argument.
quote:
It's absurd to claim things like cessation of raising a Confederate flag represents agreement with you that Lincoln was wrong.
Non sequitur. Try again. The issues of the Confederate flag and Lincoln's words are separate things.
quote:
Of course I'm considering the possibility, but your arguments must stand on their own merits, and so far they seem like a lot of, "We should let hotter heads prevail." Hotter heads almost never know better.
In other words, you don't like being contradicted. You don't actually have an argument here other than, "Nuh-uh!" And your appeal to emotion ("hotter heads") is very telling.
You're arguing like a creationist, Percy. Despite calm, rational arguments that show you to be wrong, you insist that those who contradict you are being emotional, and thus dismiss their argument.
Try again.
quote:
Again, evil is a subjective and relative term and not very useful as a historical tool.
Ah, the theist argument about how atheists don't have morality. If there is no "objective" morality, then everything is allowed. And yet, atheists still have morality. The rules of Monopoly are completely subjective. They even change from one game to the next. One of the more common "house rules" is that any money collected from Chance and Community Chest cards as penalties is put under Free Parking. If you land there, you get any money that happens to be there. It's so popular that it's now an "official variant."
But make no mistake, the rules are completely arbitrary and enforcement is subjective. And yet, they are still enforced. Break them and you'll incur penalties, perhaps as mild as taking it back to as severe as being kicked out and never invited back to play.
Subjectivity is not the problem. And to deny the usefulness of recognizing evil is to do a disservice to history. Evil is more complex than you're comfortable with. History without any concept of how it affects people's lives is a simple recitation of facts.
quote:
No one in this thread is championing the glorification of Southern slavery.
What is the point of veneration of the Confederate dead? What was the point of the Confederacy?
You keep trying to divorce the entire reason for the existence of the Confederacy from an analysis of the Confederacy.
quote:
If we're championing anything it's the preservation of history.
And has anybody suggested the destruction of history? Don't tell me you're confusing dislike for the presentation of monuments that seek to attach a symbolism of pride and "heritage." It's the same attitude that somehow the Confederate flag is just a symbol of lemonade on a summer day on the verandah.
This is the exact same argument as the stupid "PC" complaint comedians make. That somehow, "we can't joke about that." No, you can, but you need to figure out how so that it doesn't come across as simply picking on someone or some group. That means you have to provide context. Everything can be funny given the right context.
How many times do you have to be directly told that the problem is not the examination of the Confederacy? We have understanding how people managed to get into that position and even recognize "good" aspects of the period and yet still conclude that the whole is evil and not to be granted prominence.
quote:
Yes, I understand, you believe we should stand up for what we believe and hold others accountable who don't believe the same things, because we know better than they do,
You're missing the most important point: Why? Why do we know better? What is it that we can see given the passage of time that they couldn't?
quote:
because the reasons we've invented are better than the one's they've invented
Incorrect. Try again.
quote:
And now it is time for us to sit in judgment and wreak vengeance
Logical error: Non sequitur. Judgement does not require "wreaking vengeance."
Try again.
quote:
removing the cherished remembrances of their lost past
Slavery and white supremacy is something to cherish?
You keep trying to divorce the entire reason for the existence of the Confederacy from the analysis of it. It's the same attitude that somehow the Confederate flag is just a symbol of lemonade on a summer day on the verandah.
Notice how I have to repeat the same argument to you? You need to come up with a new argument, Percy. You keep repeating the same errors over and over again.
quote:
which if they weren't evil they would know better than to cherish.
I feel compelled to ask if you understand that a monument is not "evil." It's just a piece of stone or metal or whatever. It's the symbolism behind it that is. What is the symbolism of a monument to the Confederacy? What on earth was the Confederacy about?
Slavery and white supremacy is something to cherish?
You keep trying to divorce the entire reason for the existence of the Confederacy from the analysis of it. It's the same attitude that somehow the Confederate flag is just a symbol of lemonade on a summer day on the verandah.
Notice how I have to repeat the same argument to you? You need to come up with a new argument, Percy. You keep repeating the same errors over and over again.
quote:
Answering such questions to bring us closer to understanding is one of the true purposes of history.
And you're refusing to consider the very obvious and justifiable answer: Evil. Evil is more complex than you want it to be.
quote:
He was saying that he couldn't sit in judgment of the South, or to use the term you and NoNukes prefer, he couldn't judge them evil.
And yet, we can because they were. And it still exists to this day. We still haven't managed to get past the idea that people who aren't white are "less than." For crying out loud, cops in this country think they can just shoot black people and not have any consequences for doing it. The reason we have a Second Amendment is because of the threat of slave uprisings. We have a major party presidential candidate who made his candidacy based on a torrent of racism.
How dare we make a value judgement as to why that's happening.
quote:
They are just what we would be in their situation.
And yet, that is trivially shown to be false. As mentioned, other people in the exact same situation weren't. To say that we would have been as them simply isn't true. Other countries abolished slavery. For crying out loud, we fought a war over it. West Virginia seceded from Virginia because Virginia seceded.
We can understand why Lincoln was playing politics in trying to keep the nation together after a brutal war, allowing the losers a way to save face.
And look what that refusal to confront the core issue has done. We still haven't managed to get past it. An entire region of the country quite literally lies about the Civil War and why it was fought.
Lincoln was wrong.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Percy, posted 06-17-2016 9:05 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Percy, posted 06-19-2016 8:16 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 395 by caffeine, posted 06-21-2016 1:54 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 438 of 734 (786619)
06-24-2016 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Percy
06-19-2016 8:42 AM


Re: Lessons of the Civil War
Percy writes:
quote:
Though slavery figures prominently in the story it is primarily a distraction when divining the fundamental causes of the Civil War.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Once again, I have to repeat to you (Message 53 from "After Palmyra ISIS Targets Monuments on U.S. Soil" not even three months ago):
Slavery was *the* issue of the war. Indeed, the Civil War was about a lot of things, but to pretend that slavery and white supremacy were "ancillary" [or to use your words, "a distraction"] shows a profound disconnect from reality.
Take a look at the documents created by the Confederacy as to why they were seceding. The primary justifications were slavery and white supremacy.
Here's the first two sentences of Georgia's declaration of secession:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
Mississippi (again, the first two sentences):
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
South Carolina takes its time to get to it, but there it is:
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
Texas doesn't take so long, but it's right there:
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
Virginia puts it in the first sentence:
The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.
The idea that they were fighting for "state's rights" ignores the immediate question: The "state's right" to do what?
Own slaves.
And here's Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, talking about why they are seceding:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
To pretend that slavery wasn't the primary and central issue of the Civil War is disingenuous at best.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Percy, posted 06-19-2016 8:42 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Percy, posted 06-24-2016 1:26 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 439 of 734 (786620)
06-24-2016 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Percy
06-19-2016 8:18 AM


Percy writes:
quote:
Since the question concerns PC, I have to assume that a "substantially large portion of the state" does not mean a majority of the state, because PC has no value in majority situations. PC is used in minority political situations to influence the majority to act in their favor.
Completely backwards. "PC" is used by the majority to control the minority. It can only survive at the behest of the majority for it is the use of a position that those in the majority find to be "correct" in order to show ones bona fides and maintain your position within the group.
That's why the Right is just as PC as the left...just about different things. If you fun afoul of the "correct" political positions, you will be ostracized and abandoned by the group you are trying to align yourself with.
That's why it is "politically incorrect" for a conservative to advocate for gun control, abortion rights, gay rights, environmental protections, unionization, etc., etc. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Republicans want universal background checks to buy a gun, for example, they can't actually bring themselves to do it because it would be "politically incorrect" for them to do so. If they were to actually do so, they'd be accused of being "liberal" and to the majority of conservatives, to hold a "liberal" position is "politically incorrect." That's why we see the Tea Party tearing the Republican Party apart: Solidly conservative representatives are being kicked out of office because they aren't "conservative enough."
If the politically correct position were a minority position, it wouldn't be able to get any foothold within the group. It is because the political correctness is the majority position that allows it to thrive.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Percy, posted 06-19-2016 8:18 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 440 of 734 (786623)
06-24-2016 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Percy
06-19-2016 8:16 PM


Percy responds to me:
quote:
Only you and NoNukes are claiming Lincoln was wrong in this thread.
Logical error: Argumentum ad populum.
Try again.
quote:
My claim that it's just you and NoNukes is the opposite of an "it's true because that's what most people believe is true" type of argument.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? How is, Only you think that, not precisely the definition of argumentum ad populum? After all, what is the point of pointing out the singular nature of the person arguing if not to claim that everybody else disagrees?
You’re approaching Faith-level disingenuousness, Percy.
quote:
But you can't just claim an army of agreement (which, by the way, *is* the Argumentum ad populum fallacy), you have to show it.
What is the comparative group to me and NoNukes? Precisely what is the point of noting that?
Oh, that’s right...to argue the popularity of our position. Argumentum ad populum.
Try again.
quote:
So either you're supporting your position that Lincoln was wrong, or you didn't realize that's what I was referring to.
Or, you’re flailing.
quote:
No, this is not "the theist argument about how atheists don't have morality." It's an argument that evil is a subjective and relative concept that is not very useful in historical analysis.
Someone didn’t read the post. When you cut out the entire analysis for the reason why I said what I said, that’s not surprising. But seeing as how I have to keep repeating myself to you, I’m not surprised. Here’s the part you ignored...you know...the conclusion:
Subjectivity is not the problem. And to deny the usefulness of recognizing evil is to do a disservice to history. Evil is more complex than you're comfortable with. History without any concept of how it affects people's lives is a simple recitation of facts.
Try again, Percy.
quote:
The point of monuments for either Northern or Southern war dead would be pretty much the same.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
quote:
We all agree that the Confederacy was defending slavery.
Apparently, we don’t. Did you or did you not write the following in Message 354:
Though slavery figures prominently in the story it is primarily a distraction when divining the fundamental causes of the Civil War.
A distraction, Percy. That’s what you said. Slavery is a distraction to the historical analysis of the Civil War.
quote:
Deeming the Confederacy evil is not analysis and does not have any historical value.
Ignoring the evil of the Confederacy is not historical analysis.
quote:
If this is an argument in favor of removing a 120-year old monument, then yes, you're suggesting the destruction of history.
Why? Why does refusing to glorify evil destruction of history? There’s a whole museum dedicated to the Holocaust up in LA. Is that destruction of history because they don’t find anything noble in it?
This isn’t a question of recognizing military strategy in certain battles. This is a question of venerating a cause.
What is the point of the monument?
quote:
It isn't the passage of time that allows you to see what they couldn't. Northerners clearly saw it.
So why can’t you? Why couldn’t Lincoln? Clearly, it is not certain that we would not be like them if we were in their position.
quote:
If you're trying to say that evil *is* is a historical assessment that has value, then you should be able to explain why.
I have. Repeatedly. You have repeatedly ignored the justifications with your insistence that to deem something evil does not have any historical value.
Denying the basic humanity of a person is, in and of itself, evil. The Confederacy existed specifically for that purpose. They said so directly in their statements of secession.
quote:
Right - this is as good an argument as, "They were evil because they were evil.
Only if you didn’t read the post to which you were responding...which we have already established that you didn’t.
quote:
That's actually the whole point, that you're making value judgments and not being objective.
Ah, the theist argument about how atheists don't have morality. If there is no "objective" morality, then everything is allowed. And yet, atheists still have morality. The rules of Monopoly are completely subjective. They even change from one game to the next. One of the more common "house rules" is that any money collected from Chance and Community Chest cards as penalties is put under Free Parking. If you land there, you get any money that happens to be there. It's so popular that it's now an "official variant."
But make no mistake, the rules are completely arbitrary and enforcement is subjective. And yet, they are still enforced. Break them and you'll incur penalties, perhaps as mild as taking it back to as severe as being kicked out and never invited back to play.
Subjectivity is not the problem. And to deny the usefulness of recognizing evil is to do a disservice to history. Evil is more complex than you're comfortable with. History without any concept of how it affects people's lives is a simple recitation of facts.
If you think you’ve seen that argument before, that’s because you didn’t pay attention to it the first time. Pay attention, Percy. You’ve even been told the specific part of that argument you need to pay attention to. Don’t cut it out. Don’t pretend it doesn’t exist. Don’t ignore it. It only makes sense in the light of the preliminary stuff. Read the whole post.
quote:
This indicates a misunderstanding of what Lincoln was saying.
Indeed, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Lincoln was saying. Before you can advocate it, you have to understand it.
I think when you understand what Lincoln was really saying that you’ll understand that he was playing politics.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Percy, posted 06-19-2016 8:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Percy, posted 06-25-2016 8:59 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 441 of 734 (786627)
06-24-2016 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Percy
06-20-2016 8:19 AM


Re: Lessons of the Civil War
Percy responds to NoNukes:
quote:
The Civil War was over slavery, but the fundamental causes related to the inability of the North and South to reach agreement about slavery. Why was that? Certainly not because the South was evil. That's a non-answer.
Except it is. The entire reason why you continue to fail in this misadventure is because of your refusal to accept that as an answer. The answer to all of your questions traces back to evil.
quote:
The real answers go to the heart of human nature.
And how precisely does the possibility of evil not enter into it? How on earth does one talk about human nature without talking about evil?
quote:
Why was the South so acutely and paranoidally fearful of any interference with their beloved institution? It involved perceived threats to life, livelihood, family and social order.
Yes. Why? Because it involved recognizing the fundamental humanity of black people. That refusal to do so is evil. The direct statements of the Confederacy directly state that the position of blacks is to be inferior to whites. The entire reason for the Confederacy rested upon this notion and the preservation of slavery. To deny this would mean that blacks were not inferior to whites.
quote:
Why was the North unable to set Southern minds at rest, despite a great desire to do so to preserve the union?
Because of the evil of slavery and white supremacy and the way in which the South embraced it.
quote:
Some of Southern paranoia was driven by events (John Brown the most famous example)
Which was an act of abolition to end slavery. To allow the end of slavery would require recognition of the humanity of black people. And thus, we're back to discussing evil.
quote:
some by Northern rhetoric (abolitionists the most alarming)
Again, you're talking evil. They sought to deny the humanity of blacks. Which is evil.
quote:
some by the threat to property (reluctance of the North to return runaway slaves despite Federal laws)
Which, again, is the promotion of evil. Treating human beings as property is evil.
quote:
some by fear of economic domination of the North (the South produced little manufactured goods, e.g., the vast majority of it's cotton was spun elsewhere)
Because blacks are property. To treat them as human beings would mean they'd lose their value. We're back to evil.
quote:
and some by the threat of the slaves themselves, which were in some sense a "tiger by the tail" type of problem.
Because blacks weren't even really human. If slavery were to be considered wrong, then how could anybody deny blacks some sort of restitution for the treatment they received? To accept that would mean that the South had embraced evil.
quote:
Southerners paradoxically believed slavery a blessing for both master and slave while at the same time fearing slave uprisings.
Yes, because they had embraced the evil of white supremacy.
Every single one of your questions traces back to evil, Percy. Your refusal to even consider this demonstrates a severe lack of comprehension of what the Civil War was about, how we got to that point, and why its echoes still haunt us to this day.
You want evil to be some bogeyman and just as fictional. Evil is more complicated than that.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Percy, posted 06-20-2016 8:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Percy, posted 06-26-2016 7:57 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 442 of 734 (786628)
06-24-2016 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by Percy
06-20-2016 10:08 AM


Re: Words of Lincoln
Percy responds to NoNukes:
quote:
Rrhain was repeating points already answered
Incorrect.
Instead, you repeated the same refuted argument and thus you got the same refutation. If you don't want to hear the same refutation again, you need to come up with a new argument, Percy.
I've been very generous given your repetition. You offered no change in argument, so there was little point in coming up with anything new. That you are unable to actually read the posts to which you are responding and actually examine what is being presented to you does not excuse you in your repetition of refuted claims. We can't make you pay attention, Percy.
You then repeat yourself with the same Lincoln quote. But this time, you put two together:
"They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up."
Abraham Lincoln in the first Lincoln/Douglas debate, August 21, 1858
"Human nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us therefore study the incidents in this as philosophy to learn wisdom from and none of them as wrongs to be avenged."
Abraham Lincoln, response to a serenade on November 10, 1864, after his reelection
And you truly don't see how your second quote proves the point that Lincoln was behaving politically. The surrender of the South was tenuous at best. For crying out loud, Lincoln got shot! He needed some way to help the South accept their loss and he did so by trying to ameliorate their embrace of the evil of slavery...especially since he had his own streak of white supremacy running through him.
It can easily be seen that you have not grasped what Lincoln was saying. Merely repeating his words doesn't make your misunderstanding any more correct.
Lincoln's words are trivially shown to be wrong. The mere fact that we had a Civil War shows that no, "we" were not like them. "We" were in their situation and "we" found slavery detestable. West Virginia seceded from Virginia because of it.
You'll note that I'm repeating myself. That's because you keep refusing to respond to that point. You simply repeat yourself. Thus, you get the same refutation. If you want something new, Percy, you need to come up with a new argument.
Repeating Lincoln's words is not a new argument, Percy. It simply redemonstrates your misunderstanding of his words.
quote:
I *have* presented an actual argument. I argued that people are the same everywhere and everywhen, that the people of the South were no different from the people of the North or from us today or from people anytime or anywhere.
And that argument has been refuted. The very fact that we had a Civil War trivially demonstrates your argument to be incorrect. If the people who were fighting against slavery were the same as the people who were fighting for slavery, why were they fighting at all? You need to come up with something new. If you retreat back to this claim, you're simply going to get the same refutation again.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Percy, posted 06-20-2016 10:08 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Percy, posted 06-26-2016 8:43 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 443 of 734 (786629)
06-24-2016 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by ringo
06-20-2016 11:58 AM


Re: The Washington Monument
ringo responds to Percy:
quote:
On the contrary, we don't seem to be learning even those simple lessons.
No kidding. Some people may be aware of the Australian coming to terms with their treatment of the Aboriginal people. The "Stolen Children" were literally taken from their Aboriginal parents and rehomed to white parents out of some concept that they would be "better off."
We had that same thing here in the US. Children of Native Americans were literally stolen. The white government would literally go onto reservations, find children, and forcibly remove them from their homes to be raised by the state and/or adopted by white families. There were entire tribes where there were literally no children.
And this was happening up to the 1960s. It's the reason for the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978. And that law was put in jeopardy recently with the Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl case.
Radiolab had a recent story on it:
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
We are still infected with this idea that there are "lesser" people in the world who deserve to be exploited.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by ringo, posted 06-20-2016 11:58 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 444 of 734 (786630)
06-24-2016 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by xongsmith
06-21-2016 11:53 AM


xongsmith writes:
quote:
The other direction is also pertinent. The LGBTQ movement is trying to get today's culture to remove the historical "evilness". So what used to be evil is no longer so.
This is the same attempt to "save face" that didn't work in the Civl War.
Hint: Did any of those "historical" people regarding the evil of homosexuality ever bother to ask the gay people what they thought?
This was the entire basis for why the APA removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM: The only people they ever saw who were gay were those who had mental troubles. Thus, they insisted that being gay was a mental disorder. But through the work of psychologists like Evelyn Hooker, it suddenly dawned on the mental health community that maybe, just maybe, they should actually talk to gay people and find out what they thought about being gay rather than telling them.
Do you really think that if you asked slaves if they thought they were well-served by slavery they would say yes?
But that would require treating slaves as actual human beings with opinions and dignity all their own.
We cannot divorce the way in which we dehumanize our fellows from the results of that dehumanization.
So yeah, we're all a little bit evil. That doesn't make it OK. That's why we have to work at becoming better, learning from our mistakes, recognizing that we'll fail, and not fight against the need to say, "I'm sorry. I didn't realize. I will try not to do it again." It's why we have so many fake apologies where people lay the blame on the other person for being upset at being mistreated rather than taking responsibility for mistreating their fellows.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by xongsmith, posted 06-21-2016 11:53 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by xongsmith, posted 06-24-2016 2:36 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 482 by Percy, posted 06-26-2016 8:50 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 445 of 734 (786632)
06-24-2016 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by caffeine
06-21-2016 1:54 PM


Re: Words of Lincoln
caffeine responds to me:
quote:
quote:
The reason we have a Second Amendment is because of the threat of slave uprisings.
This seems, at best, an oversimplification.
Yes and no. Yes, there were other justifications for the Second Amendment, but one of the big ones has to do with the threat of slave rebellions. One of the primary reasons for a state to have a militia was to ensure slavery was maintained. There's a reason that we have a "3/5ths clause" in the Constitution. The question of slavery goes all the way back to the Declaration of Independence. This idea that "all men are created equal" was truly debated over whether it applied to slaves. After all, how could the white people of the Colonies demand their dignity and freedom from the British Crown if they were not willing to give it to the slaves here in this country?
So yeah, the Second Amendment is about a lot of things.
And one of the big ones is slavery.
quote:
It seems to me that slavery dominates the American understanding of history too much
And I say the exact opposite. Slavery's effect on American history isn't understood nearly enough.
quote:
many things are explained as being the result of slavery, while ignoring the fact that the same or similar things happen(ed) in places without the legacy of slavery.
The fact that one society could justify their desire to have a gun without the threat of slave rebellions does not mean that another society that did have that issue didn't use it to justify their desire to have a gun. Multiple paths can lead to the same conclusion. That doesn't mean that all paths are the same. False premises can lead to a true conclusion. That doesn't mean the argument is correct.
In the US, people have been claiming that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right to own a gun. And yet, it has never been interpreted to mean that until now (and the plain text seems clear that it isn't about an individual right.) It lives in a context of a militia. And why was a militia important?
Well, there were threats from Great Britain trying to retake the colonies.
And slave rebellions.
And thus you cannot understand the Second Amendment without also examining slavery.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by caffeine, posted 06-21-2016 1:54 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024