The Confederate Flag

Remember the poster who frequently argued that taxation was a form of violence? How is it that people who admire "American individualism" always seem capable only of expressing this admiration by way of illuminating the glaring shortcomings of said individualism?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But you didn't get at the question of how many of the people in the southern states wanted to secede from the union.
Their masters decided to secede, taking all those prisoners into perpetual servitude, with no legal restriction on their own power to inflict harm on the people.
This is like the wife leaving her husband -- if that wife had been beating and starving their children, and she intends to retain sole custody of those children. The man might be excused for preventing that by force, if necessary.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did employers have the right to kill their employees?
Did employees children become the property of employers?

Did northerners have the right to kill white southerners before the outbreak of the civil war?
Did the children of white southeners become the property of northeners at any time before or after the civil war?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you're a slave if your right to make slaves of others is oppressed? Where have I heard that one before? If the Confederate states just wanted their independence, all they had to do was recognize the rights of their slaves to have the same rights as what they themselves asked of the Union, and then there would have been virtually no northern support for a civil war.

 

Unfortunately, your (seeming?) inability to distinguish differences of kind from differences of degree kinda preempts any sort of potentially meaningful discussion about the differences between indentured servitude and wage slavery. And yet you repeatedly bring up matters of "perspective," without bothering to have much of one--at least, not much of an informed perspective. In your case, I really don't think the issue is for lack or want of knowledge--

though perhaps you might consider broadening the horizons of your reading, at least--you know, as a means by which to acquire some of this "perspective"

--and so, yet again, I find myself at a complete loss here. Forest, trees, whatever, this really shouldn't be all that complicated to understand, so what exactly is going on here?

 

If you say so. Ignored.

Couldn't answer any of those simple questions, huh? Pity.
Maybe answer this one: Where did I say deaths were the "only meaningful statistic"?
Cases only have meaning relative to deaths and actual infection rate. Pretty simple science. If the infection rate is higher, the death rate is lower, and symptomatic cases alone won't tell us that. Learn a little science.

You really don't think federal resources are strained too? You're obviously getting upset and irrational. You win, mate. I can't top that.

 

Kinda thought the answer to that question was pretty obvious.

OK, I guess you didn't say "only," but close:

So the number of cases is meaningless of it's own, but in tandem with the number of deaths (and hospitilizations and so forth), quite meaningful, yeah? So what would be the rationale for making concerted effort to remain ignorant of the number of cases?

OK, so the guy who can't make a single post without insulting someone accuses me of "getting upset and irrational?" Interesting.

You know, typically we deal with people who feign ignorance (see sculptor, for instance), whereas you're one of those who feign knowledge--has this proven a successful tactic for you in everyday life? Just curious.

 

Until the case number can account for asymptomatic cases, who have little reason to get tested, it is a meaningless cudgel those ignorant to statistics will and have used for wholly partisan reasons, devoid of science. Until asymptomatic cases are accounted for, the number of cases doesn't even accurately predict the expected number of deaths.

I have been consistent throughout, and you've proven your "only meaningful statistic" was a straw man, that you still seem to be trying to dishonestly twist.

If you feel that me pointing out demonstrable ignorance is insulting, either refute it or quit showing off ignorance. I'm not the one going off on profanity-laded strings of partisan ad hominems.

 

Kinda sounds like an argument to ramp up the testing.

This is so laughable that you make it difficult to even carry on... But, anyways. Remember when you said this?

But then you went to such lengths to show that a black man could wave a Confederate flag for reasons of pride that you deemed it necessary to quote this twice:

Between thirty and forty percent of Southerners are black. The overwhelming majority perceive the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism. But, according to you, they're all wrong, apparently--but I guess that's because blacks are especially susceptible to "leftist myths of dog whistles," which kinda suggests that it is you who considers blacks, apparently, incapable of independent thought. It gets worse, but frankly, I'm not willing to invest the time on you.

Although this bit is worth noting:

You know there's a difference between, say, painting your house an unusual color that the neighbors object to and, say, flying a flag with a swastika to express your Hindu/Buddhist/Jain heritage in a Jewish neighborhood, right? It's not a matter of "must," but of "can" rather--it's kinda dependent upon the context. Can you appreciate nuance and subtlety?

No, you're just the one who repeatedly lobs incomprehensible insults about "slobbering pitbulls" and suchlike. At least my insults (and they're mostly insults, btw, there's very few ad hom amongst them) make a lick of sense.

 

I am more than happy to learn about anything really so if you have the time I would be very happy to be taught history and philosophy.

The main difference between a slave and an employee? I would think perhaps the law that applies..I get the impression that a slave owner could apply whatever law he wished whereas an employer would be subject to the law of the land..I expect slaves owners may have relied on the biblical guidelines...say that you could beat your slave so long as he did not die from the beating in a couple of days.

A few other things come to mind for slaves in the South..they or their ancestors were captured and brought to the South by force whereas employees or their ancestors left their country of origin seeking a better life under their own free will.

Slaves were chattels and employees are not.

Anyways you must have something in mind so I am all ears.

Alex

 

The difference...A slave was captured and had no say in the deal whereas the South (each state) I presume entered into the deal willingly and even signed something that sealed the deal. I expect they were not rounded up and forced to join the Union..you know they had that freedom of determination that slaves just never got.
The wife example is just so wrong it hurts.
Do you think the South would be happy now to form their own country and make laws to turn citizens into chattels?
You seem to have a very strange view but please go on and explain the history and justify the philosophy.
Alex

 

Oooo... swing and a miss, the batter is now 2 and 0.

 

Then you didn't read what I actually wrote. The only way to test enough asymptomatic cases is to mandate testing, which is a nonstarter in a free country. Not to mention the strain on resources. Weren't you the guy just complaining about resources?

What we can do is perform representative studies. That's how science deals with that sort of thing. Not by ramping up the testing of those who have no reason to get tested and at immense cost.

Yeah, people often laugh to quell cognitive dissonance. Especially when they can't refute what they're told. Changing the subject from Covid to Confederate flags is another way to quell that dissonance.

I never said they were wrong, and I challenge you to show where you imagine I have. People's opinions are often neither right nor wrong. They're just opinions. And the majority of all Southerners believe the Confederate flag is a symbol of regional pride. Since I understand how a black person can wave a Confederate flag, it's demonstrable that I do believe they are capable of independent thought. It's those who can't comprehend a black Confederate flag waver that can't imagine a black person thinking that differently than the majority of blacks. But yes, Democrats specifically designed myths such as dog whistles to keep black people thinking as those white leftists believe they should. You know, "keep them in their place", just like they've done since fighting for slavery, founding the KKK, instituting Jim Crow, etc..

And a lot of white people think BLM is racist. Does that mean they shouldn't display BLM signs? Or do you make an exception because BLM is a black cause? You think black people need special exemptions from white folk?
In the South, 75% of whites and 25% of blacks do not think the Confederate flag is racist. That's the overwhelming majority of all people who live there. Claiming that the 75% of blacks who don't like it should be appeased presumes that they can't deal with seeing something they don't like. But maybe you don't think white people can deal with seeing things they don't like either. In that case, it might not be racism, but just you projecting your own over-sensitivities on others.

LOL! One comment to a guy who seems to use his brain to attack rather than think. Repeatedly, huh? Seems the "over-sensitive" might have been spot on.

 

As an aside, it is worth noting that at the time slavery was common globally and not just in the US. In Africa it was probably the most common. I recall an article years ago discussing the plight of women in modern Africa (Sudan), where the women would be captured and enslaved at least 3 times in their life time. ISIL in Syria openly practiced slavery and so on...and hidden slavery continues in many parts of the world.
So in that context the USA was ahead of the times in liberating it self from a slave based economy and social structure. ( only to replace it with hyper capitalism instead)

just... blahing!
Indemnity:
Will I defend anything I just posted? Nope, as I am probably wrong anyhow.

 

They should build a statue of him.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And here we have Australia where folk were sent here as convicts and yet no slavery.
Alex

 

Now wonders why folk have a problem with the Confederate flag...



Given the various negative associations with this flag one must say there is little pride to be attached to it.
Alex

 

And this



Alex

 

I could go on,...and on and on..but if you have a day or two just go thru the stuff on youtube and see for yourself...I know just terrible irrational propaganda seeking to destroy the greatness of those nice Southern folk who only have the confederate flag to show pride in their region...what a joke ...but still some fools think it's all good and support this crap...some even troll internet sites like this one to demonstrate their disgusting personal beliefs.

Tells you just so much about them really. And there is no point arguing with them they are best ignored in the hope they may just go away.
Alex

 

Not quite right... Australia had slavery but it was not legalized.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Chattel slavery was never implemented in Australia and slavery was never legally sanctioned. Groups used as effective slave labour include convicts, Indigenous Australians, coolies from China and India, and Pacific Islanders. Legal protections varied and were sometimes not enforced.
src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Australia
and the convicts were effectively held as slaves wrapped up to look like prison sentences.