| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2373
Local time: 7:34 PM
Location: California
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: |
Imply? I'll state it outright.
A nation has every right to insist that foreign militaries not be stationed within its borders. The military installations were on Confederate soil. If the CSA takes over military installations WITHIN the CSA it is not an act of war. If the CSA takes over military installations within, say, New York, that would be an act of war.
After the CSA instructed the USA to remove US troops from CS soil, the act of the US not withdrawing them and turning the property over was an act of war.
|
This is a ridiculous premise. Those "foreign militaries" were not foreign at all, but suddenly declared so by the CSA. Calling an apple an orange does not make it an orange. There was no such thing as "CS soil", only United States soil, it has always been so and remains so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 7:34 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: |
Imply? I'll state it outright.
A nation has every right to insist that foreign militaries not be stationed within its borders. The military installations were on Confederate soil. If the CSA takes over military installations WITHIN the CSA it is not an act of war. If the CSA takes over military installations within, say, New York, that would be an act of war.
After the CSA instructed the USA to remove US troops from CS soil, the act of the US not withdrawing them and turning the property over was an act of war.
|
This is a ridiculous premise. Those "foreign militaries" were not foreign at all, but suddenly declared so by the CSA. Calling an apple an orange does not make it an orange. There was no such thing as "CS soil", only United States soil, it has always been so and remains so. |
thats what the British thought about their American colonies in 1776, too. it seems that there was a difference of opinion on that matter, though, huh?
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FlatEarth1024
Hey, Everybody!
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 4147
Local time: 12:34 AM
Location: Dippin' my balls in it.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | gnosis wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: |
Imply? I'll state it outright.
A nation has every right to insist that foreign militaries not be stationed within its borders. The military installations were on Confederate soil. If the CSA takes over military installations WITHIN the CSA it is not an act of war. If the CSA takes over military installations within, say, New York, that would be an act of war.
After the CSA instructed the USA to remove US troops from CS soil, the act of the US not withdrawing them and turning the property over was an act of war.
|
This is a ridiculous premise. Those "foreign militaries" were not foreign at all, but suddenly declared so by the CSA. Calling an apple an orange does not make it an orange. There was no such thing as "CS soil", only United States soil, it has always been so and remains so. |
thats what the British thought about their American colonies in 1776, too. it seems that there was a difference of opinion on that matter, though, huh? |
Minutemen = Patriots CSA militia = Traitors
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2373
Local time: 7:34 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: |
I'm not the one trying to force the War Between the States into the Communist v. Capitalist conflict. |
Calling the dissolution of certain "properties" "socialism" is, when what is really in contention is whether some things are truly "properties" that can be "owned" at all... "Socialism" is almost always used as a type of derogatory swear word by conservatives to draw attention away from the realities of contentious and complex issues. If socialism had been in anything more than its infancy then (remember Karl Marx was less than 50 years old when the American Civil War began), I'm sure the south would have used it as a label for the policy of "expropriation" of these "properties" as well. Those of us who can see past the smoke screen know these issues aren't about capitalism or socialism at all, they're about Human Rights.
| Moloth wrote: |
thats what the British thought about their American colonies in 1776, too. it seems that there was a difference of opinion on that matter, though, huh? |
The American colonies never agreed to become part of the British Empire or signed any pact stating that they would pledge loyalty to it. The American Colonies were taxed by but had no representation in the British Parliament. That is the difference. The southern states shed blood side by side with northerners against the British and agreed to join a union with them, a union in which they had full representation (actually more than full considering the 2/3rds person rule), a union which they later turned their back on over what issue? Yep, there's that pesky word again. Slavery.
Last edited by gnosis on Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7245
Local time: 4:34 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You took a post at random from THIS thread? Don't work to hard now.
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | Your a communist. Case closed. |
| Quote: | | Where's the fucking logic, asshole?? Godless Red Scum-- |
Think about the above sentence for a few moments.
| Quote: | | ask you to demonstrate his views to be dogmatic, paranoid, apocalyptic, and Manichean. How do you respond? By labelling him a communist??? |
Yep. That's how I responded.
| Quote: | | If that's what you calll logic, you are a fucking true imbecile. |
Is that what YOU call logic? I call that quote mining. Here is a question for you...
WHERE is the chocolate cake in the above statement? I don't see any, so I guess you failed.
| Quote: | Here's another one:
From http://www.atheistforums.com/state-of-the-union-t5909-30.html#130437
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | munky99999 wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: | | munky99999 wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: |
Fascinating... So how was your analogy not false? Are you going to learn that having a BIG FUCKEN MOUTH does not make questions go away? |
Well thanks for your opinion. The unfortunate fact is that you opinion is uninformed and ignorant. |
Prove it. Explain how your analogy was not false. This should be easy for you. I've asked you three times and you still haven't done it.
| Quote: | | Nobody fights against facts like you do. |
You mean, I PUT UP a fight, where as you will shoot off your mouth, and if some one challenges what you said, you just bitch, insult, evade, have a tantrum-- ANYTHING to avoid actualy backing up your assertions, cuz you don't actualy know what the fuck your talking about half the time. |
You fucking discount reality.
|
No I don't. Reality is on my side. Your analogy sucked. It was false. I showed how it was false. Your just to arrogant/ignorant/fucken lazy to respond properly.
|
How does logic apply to an analogy??? |
You tell me. You chose this quote.
| Quote: | Logic applies to factive statements. Period. Only factive statements have truth-values.
Worse you claim: Reality is on my side. WTF? Now you are God or what? |
That's what happens when you go quote hunting. You don't read carefully, and you get mixed up.
When I said reality was on my side, I meant that the FACTS were on my side. IOW the facts supported my argument.
Munky's analogy was false. Do you know what a false analogy is? Are you reading the word "false" and getting it's usage confused?
| Quote: |
Here's one more, from: http://www.atheistforums.com/new-rule-proposal-t6275-150.html#139479
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | munky99999 wrote: | | Quote: | | So you support the war in Iraq then. According to the above "criteria" it was fully justified as self defence, and now it's fully justified as peacekeeping. Here is a hint, they had bullshit back in the 1860's too. |
actually no it wasnt self defence or the UN would sanction it. As for peacekeeping... again nato or the UN or similar backs that up... which isnt happening really in iraq. Afghanistan yes it is.
I support the operation in afghanistan.
|
So clearly, what constitutes a real *justification* is a mater of argument, and if you care to examine the details of any given justification, more closely-- even a popularly believed justification, IE: "911 + Iraq + ((WMD?< democracy) X Saddam Humane) / terrorism = WAR"... you may find that it's in fact bullshit.
Get my point?
|
That has to be the most moronic statement I ever encountered. Do you think you can come up with a mathematical formula in regard to what is happening in the world? |
Nope. Take note of the text that I enlarged above. Read backwards, then forwards, then read it again-- carefully.
That was my dramatic parody of the sort of mathematics the Bush administration attempted. I was CRITISISEING that kind of argument. That should be patently obvious to anyone who isn't desperately searching for a quote to misrepresent me with.
| Quote: | | Your logic is so screwed up, I guess that IF you were born intelligent, education ruined you. I suspect the premise in that IF statement is also false. |
Well IF you can find a post where the bad logic involved isn't some interpretive straw-man dance on your part, I will be impressed.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:34 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hillbillyatheist wrote: | | ah so then you must support the genocide on the indians, right? |
| gnosis wrote: | If you mean my support of my country and my flag means support of everything it has ever done and will ever do, no.
I personally feel the United States should make a formal apology to the remaining native Americans, and should work harder at helping to address the problems of a people whose culture was destroyed by its policies of genocide. I hope someday that will happen, and I can salute that flag even more proudly when that day comes. Until then I will do what I can, do my part to help make it happen. |
Why? No one alive today had anything to do with it.
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: |
The right of secession. You know--that being articulated in Chapter 19 of Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government? That which was articulated in the Declaration of Independence? You ARE aware that the DoI is a document of secession, RIGHT?
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Think the Second Treatise on Civil Government is why these guys like to wave that flag? |
Irrelevant.
Did you have something other than an attempt to poison the well, dumbshit? Did you just wish to evade a proper response to what I wrote, you cowardly little simpleton?
| gnosis wrote: | | You may as well have a swastika and argue it's a Hindu symbol. |
It is.
Now then, Mr. Red herring--did you have anything valid to offer? Or did you just want to go down a road where you'll get intellectually slaughtered, like so many other fucking morons before you have?
| gnosis wrote: | | You can obfuscate and misdirect all you want, but we all know that flag stands for so much more than rebellion or secession, or even your pride in your state. |
No, we don't. And my state is Wisconsin. Eat it, bitch. You thought I was from the south, didn't you? Didn't you? Yeah, and now that you find out I'm not, you're going to throw a fucking tantrum.
If you feel pride in the UNITED states, then you should also feel it was wrong for the 13 colonies to secede from the empire. Can't have it both ways! If you are for the former but feel it was ok for the colonies to secede: you're a fucking hypocrite.
So pick a side. I know you're going to be a hypocrite, so don't even bother telling me your response. You've outed yourself as nothing but a jingo-spewing statist.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:34 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan wrote: | | But those who fly the confederate flag support everything the CSA has ever done, especially slavery, right? |
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | I know it's popular now to state that the Civil War "wasn't all about slavery", and indeed other issues were at play, but the fact remains that slavery was the key issue of the day. |
No it wasn't.
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | The CSA seceded because Lincoln was elected, and they knew he would try to limit the expansion of slave states in the Western Territories. I'm sure I will be accused of naively simplifying the matter, but-- No dispute over slavery, then no CSA and no Civil War. |
You are grossly oversimplifying it. Try looking at the economic issues, such as the tariffs. And what was Fort Sumter? The garrison for the CUSTOMS HOUSE.
Yeah--want to try again? This time: do some fucking research.
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | So while it may be fashionable amogst neo-Confederates |
And it may be fashionable for dipshits to think that anyone who supports secession is a neo-confederate, but that's just an emotive cop-out.
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | to stress the governmental decentralization/states' rights aspects of the CSA/Civil War, I don't see how you can wave a Confederate Battle Flag and not take on the pro-slavery/pro-racism baggage with it. |
Your personal incredulity means nothing.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:34 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | But those who fly the confederate flag support everything the CSA has ever done, especially slavery, right?
I love double standards. |
| gnosis wrote: | | The difference is |
There isn't any, you fucking hypocrite. Don't try to cover for your hypocrisy; no one will buy it.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:34 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | Actually legalized discrimination (eventually codified in Jim Crow) was a reaction to the extreme abuses of Reconstruction. When one is forced by economic reality to change it goes far more smoothly then when one is forced to change by looting, burning, murder, assault, rapine, pillaging, etc.
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Or than when one is "forced" to change by war? Let's not forget that's what the south chose by seceding. |
That's like saying the jews chose to be gassed by remaining in Europe.
Lincoln waged an unconstitutional war of agression. Many MANY secessions have happened without war. Maine seceded from Massachusettes, IIRC. Sweden from Norway. No wars there.
So tell me again how the south chose war? C'mon, you pig-ignorant fucktard--tell me.
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | Slavery was not the main cause, slavery was the bellwether cause. State/federal conflict was the primary cause, of which slavery was a part. |
| gnosis wrote: | | State/federal conflict over what? Name one of the issues that were "more important" than slavery, and that were not tied to its practice in any way. |
Tariffs.
Have you ever heard of the Tariff of Abominations? Research it, you stupid fucking assclown.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:34 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | I am saying that the American Civil War came down to the dispute over the definition of personal property in a capitalist state. |
That's the sanitized-for-your-government-school-brainwashing-sake PC version of what happened. But that's not how it happened.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:34 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | This is a ridiculous premise. Those "foreign militaries" were not foreign at all, but suddenly declared so by the CSA. Calling an apple an orange does not make it an orange. There was no such thing as "CS soil", only United States soil, it has always been so and remains so. |
Then there were no such things as the soils of the individual colonies--only the soil of the British Empire.
Yeah--everyone knows you're a fucking hypocrite. Just fucking leave now before you have a munky-style meltdown.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:34 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kmisho wrote: | | Slavery was the main cause. |
No it wasn't. Tariffs and a growing federal government were.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:34 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | thats what the British thought about their American colonies in 1776, too. it seems that there was a difference of opinion on that matter, though, huh? |
| gnosis wrote: | | The American colonies never agreed to become part of the British Empire |
Except for all of those British-government charters forming the colonies, right?
Fucking moron.
And remember: by your reasoning, if you decide to join a club--you can never ever never ever leave the club. Never.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7245
Local time: 4:34 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | Slavery was not the main cause, slavery was the bellwether cause. State/federal conflict was the primary cause, of which slavery was a part. |
| KOB wrote: |
| gnosis wrote: | | State/federal conflict over what? Name one of the issues that were "more important" than slavery, and that were not tied to its practice in any way. |
Tariffs.
Have you ever heard of the Tariff of Abominations? Research it, you stupid fucking assclown. |
I bet that had the war in Iraq not been such a colossal disaster, a hundred years from now, grade school history books would site "freeing the Iraqi people" as the principle reason for the invasion-- and people would not only believe it, they would be incredulous towards any other explanation.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2420
Local time: 4:34 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: |
Imply? I'll state it outright.
A nation has every right to insist that foreign militaries not be stationed within its borders. The military installations were on Confederate soil. If the CSA takes over military installations WITHIN the CSA it is not an act of war. If the CSA takes over military installations within, say, New York, that would be an act of war.
After the CSA instructed the USA to remove US troops from CS soil, the act of the US not withdrawing them and turning the property over was an act of war.
|
This is a ridiculous premise. Those "foreign militaries" were not foreign at all, but suddenly declared so by the CSA. Calling an apple an orange does not make it an orange. There was no such thing as "CS soil", only United States soil, it has always been so and remains so. |
During the time in which the CSA was a separate country it was indeed CS soil. What do you think comprises a country? What do you think comprises a government?
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
