lol

I mean, we get it, you're going to play "hey popular opinion is on our side ergo that's what happened" card. And yes, in the popular opinion universe, anyone who says lincoln was less than a saint and the north fought for any reason other than freeing the slaves is going to be instantly labeled a kook/racist/whatever.

I notice you carefully worded your statement to avoid saying the north was fighting in order to free the slaves, which indicates you're perfectly aware of this and are arguing on emotion and propaganda rather than having an honest discussion. Which is of course 100% standard.

umm... can you really just multiply the average selling price of a slave by total number of slaves and assume that's how much they could be freed for?

i mean... supply and demand. after you free the first 90% of slaves, the remaining ones go way up in price. and then if you free 90% of those, the remaining ones go even further up. and that's even ignoring that they'd just end up kidnapping more black people from africa...

I am shunning all of you.

Yeah, and you could give a mugger your wallet to prevent getting stabbed.

The CSA illegitimately seceded from the Union and then shot first while the Union tried to be conciliatory.

That a bunch of purported libertarians see the CSA's secession as valid is... interesting. What of the rights of those people within the CSA's claimed borders who didn't wish to secede from the union?

Again, there's a lot of people saying a lot of **** about a lot of things. That you pick defending the moral virtue of Dixie every time, even though every time you get embarrassed by random people who paid attention in middle school... also interesting. Keep fighting that good fight for the moral equivalence of "fighting a war to preserve the institution of slavery" and "suppressing a rebellion that was started to preserve the institution of slavery".

Your deeply unpopular niche political views are sure to overtake America with winning arguments like this one.

lol

yeah reinforcing a military base inside the other country is clearly conciliatory

Do you think the US's secession from Britain was legitimate?

What about the crown loyalists who didn't wish to secede?

Ultimately, all governments are illegitimate. But if we accept them as a given, there's nothing that makes any particular secession illegitimate.

You know, the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, that stuff. And I would say that for those inside the CSA borders who didn't wish to be part of the CSA, well, their secession from the CSA also would have been legitimate. And anyone who used force to stop them would have been committing a crime.

I mean, wow, I've already made it clear I think the CSA was morally bankrupt. I guess if you keep repeating the Big Lie enough it magically becomes true.

So Ron Paul should support government spending when it spares lives in the face of national emergency? But we should never support government spending on businesses to keep people in jobs in the face of a national emergency?

I am glad you brought up the mugger, btw.

If a guy approaches me in an alley with a gun, demands my wallet, and I shoot at him first, would you excuse anything he does afterwards because I shot first?

Bonus question:

what if it I turn out to be a criminal of some sort, is the mugging then OK in your book?

Is this the thread where we sign up to be shunned by 2/325Falcon?

I like Ron Paul over most canidates. But here is my view.

option 1 - giant douche
option 2- turd sandwich

It doesn't matter who is elected. The same **** will keep going on. 1 side saying the other isn't doing anything. The other side saying they can't do anything because of the opposition not allowing bills and laws to go through. It f'n sad to be an American. Do I appreicate the freedom and the ability to express my views? Yes, but the whole thing is a mess. Money is spent likes it going out of style, what's the solution? make more of it. They took online poker away, WTF is that? Why should the government care, oh yeah, they want their money. Online money with no tax is still going into the economy, Uncle Sam can't spend it on a war so GOV't says FU poker players. Bad rant, no point, but this **** is never going to stop.

O/U on number of questions answered


Bonus O/U on number of times whining about others not answering his questions?

SHUNNED!

Sweet analogy. How about we make it more accurate, though. Let's say you've got some people chained in your yard and you're whipping them and forcing them to work for you. Some guy with a gun comes along, and you think he'll demand you stop whipping those people, so you shoot him.

Only Samuel L Jackson should have people in chains.

If you want to look at secessions without the anarchist's first assumption that all governments are illegitimate, then we could place the colonies' secession and the southern states' secession on some sort of very complicated scale of moral relativity. Obviously the factors considered in this scale will be highly disagreed upon, but here's a good place to start:

You do realize that analogies do not need everything in common? Otherwise they would be called identical situations.

If you feel that the analogy does not fit, explain *why* it is an important difference.

This is funny because Tom has me on ignore. And also because he still hasn't answered Case Closed's question about shooting first, though I am excited to see where he's going with his analogy where the Confederacy is the dashing roguish hero and the Union is the evil green alien henchman.


pvn- No, of course. not. Think through that analogy, though. In it, I'm pretty sure the "wallet" the mugger is stealing from you is THE ****ING SLAVES.


I mean, you're not defending the Confederacy. You're just saying they shot first in self-defense, like they were getting mugged by the Union!

Yeah that's not what happened.

How about we make it more accurate, though.

Two gang members get all irritated with each other. One leaves the gang. The other goes over and burns his house down, and in the process incidentally sets some people loose. Hero, obviously!

To clarify before the thread continues more, do the people who are against the north disagree that the north tried to buy the slaves and the south refused? We have covered it in the last confederacy thread, or maybe the one before, possibly the one before that, maybe all of them, but i just want to know if its worth digging up or if we have moved beyond the OP into the land of whether Han shot first and whether Lincoln was fighting for the slaves or just to preserve the union.

Let's make your analogy more accurate. Two gang members start arguing because thug #2 wants to keep and hold slaves and thinks thug #1 is going to try to take them away. Thug #2 leaves the gang, and when thug #1 comes looking for him, thug #2 opens fire.

yeah except it's not.

what you are missing (I know it's hard but again, reality is complicated) is that the reasons the south seceded and the reasons the north got butthurt about it are different. The south left because of slavery, sure. But lincoln didn't fight the war because of slavery, he fought it because they left.

And further, you can't have this whole "oh lincoln was stealing the slaves" argument AND use the "south started the war" argument. They are incompatible. Which is it?

we're getting closer, at least now you're admitting they're both thugs!

The South left because they thought Lincoln would steal the slaves. That's why in my analogies the guy representing the north doesn't say anything about slaves. And yes, the South fired first.

OK?

Ergo, they were morally bankrupt, and obviously they had little interest in a buyout program.