International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   One less confederate monument to vandalize... (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=321074)

Upchurch 9th July 2017 07:54 AM

The nearby history museum has plaques in the sidewalk outside. There is a new one with an image of the Confederate memorial that reads:

Quote:

History underfoot 1914
Can the past tear us apart?
Forest Park's most controversial Monument was the Confederate Memorial unveiled in 1914. St Louis had been torn apart by the Civil War and many residents objected to a commemoration of the secessionist cost.
Missouri History Museum

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11913560)
I'm saying this is yet another pointless semantic hair split for Confederate apologist that I have zero intention of entertaining.

I'm done being herded to some strawman of "The Civil War was not 'about racism' unless every single Southerner was cartoonishly super-villain level racist and had zero other motivation and every Northerner was a perfectly flawless demi-God with an exactly modern concept of racial relations."

How is it apologist? I think it makes you significantly more evil to abuse others for personal gain rather than a terrible interpretation of morality.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913566)
The other two are the ones that you are championing. That doesn't make them legitimate.

You championed the third one.you posted something saying broad support among poor whites was that it elevated their relative social status.

JoeMorgue 9th July 2017 07:57 AM

What?

Dude what are you even arguing at this point?

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11913576)
What?

Dude what are you even arguing at this point?

That the primary motive for the civil war wasn't an ideological basis for slavery but maintaining a greedy and exploitive system for the motives of wealth, power, and status.

Upchurch 9th July 2017 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913573)
You championed the third one.you posted something saying broad support among poor whites was that it elevated their relative social status.

I pointed out that the article you cited did not fully support your argument.

And, how in the world do you get that enforcing slavery as a social caste isn't actually slavery? I'm not an expert in history but even I know that much about slavery.

Upchurch 9th July 2017 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913580)
That the primary motive for the civil war wasn't an ideological basis for slavery but maintaining a greedy and exploitive system for the motives of wealth, power, and status.

You don't think wealth, power, and status can be ideological? Have you not read the primary sources linked to in this thread?

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913583)
I pointed out that the article you cited did not fully support your argument.

And, how in the world do you get that enforcing slavery as a social caste isn't actually slavery? I'm not an expert in history but even I know that much about slavery.

I'm not sure I cited something that was being referenced at that point. That might explain some of the miscommunication. I will have to go back and look.

I didn't say, "not slavery." I said, "not about slavery." It is about the benefits of enjoying higher relative social status.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913585)
You don't think wealth, power, and status can be ideological? Have you not read the primary sources linked to in this thread?

It can. I can think of places where it is one way or the other. But that is why I said I see the south more like countries suffering under the despots and the resource curse.

Also, an ideological belief in gaining wealth and power that uses slavery to gain those things is not an ideological belief in slavery.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 08:19 AM

By primary sources did you mean like the states's documents on reasons to secede? I have read them before. I have regularly brought them up when talking to people that think it was about states rights or that slavery would have ended peacefully.

Upchurch 9th July 2017 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913589)
Also, an ideological belief in gaining wealth and power that uses slavery to gain those things is not an ideological belief in slavery.

Utter nonsense. You apparently not familiar with most religions.

ETA: or politics, for that matter.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913598)
Utter nonsense. You apparently not familiar with most religions.

Please explain how ideological belief x that uses mechanism A is ideological belief in A. What is this transitive property of ideology?

JoeMorgue 9th July 2017 08:33 AM

Oh for Pete's sake.

Nothing ever caused anything via your "logic."

JoeMorgue 9th July 2017 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913580)
That the primary motive for the civil war wasn't an ideological basis for slavery but maintaining a greedy and exploitive system for the motives of wealth, power, and status.

HOW IS THAT BETTER?!

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11913616)
Oh for Pete's sake.

Nothing ever caused anything via your "logic."

I don't know if that is true but is a philosophical idea I would like to hear more about.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11913621)
HOW IS THAT BETTER?!

I didn't say it was.

JoeMorgue 9th July 2017 08:42 AM

Oh we are not playing another game of philosophical turtles all the way down just so some inane statement can't be argued against.

If you want to argue against the very idea of causality start a new thread.

JoeMorgue 9th July 2017 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913623)
I didn't say it was.

*Very slowly* Then... what... are... you... saying?

Make a statement, not a fauxosophy contrarian nonsense excuse for once in this thread.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11913627)
Oh we are not playing another game of philosophical turtles all the way down just so some inane statement can't be argued against.

If you want to argue against the very idea of causality start a new thread.

You can't have a discussion about causes or what something is about without litigating what it means for something to be a cause.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11913629)
*Very slowly* Then... what... are... you... saying?

Make a statement, not a fauxosophy contrarian nonsense excuse for once in this thread.

Post 365 is my statement. That is it. You quoted it. Why is that statement not adequate?

Upchurch 9th July 2017 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913604)
Please explain how ideological belief x that uses mechanism A is ideological belief in A. What is this transitive property of ideology?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Let's look to the lessons of history.

The Nazis had an ideological belief that they were better than the Jews, who they saw as devils and thieves, and used as a rationale for stealing the possessions of the Jews.

Likewise, the Confederats had an ideological belief that blacks were inferior and that their slavery was not only practical for the South, but moral, just and beneficial for black people.

Heck, the Catholic Church used ideological belief as a mechanism to gain power and wealth for centuries.

Honestly, it's rare for a successful ideology to not result in power and wealth.

Or are you suggesting that the South didn't have an ideological belief in slavery, despite all the primary sources saying exactly that?

JoeMorgue 9th July 2017 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913631)
You can't have a discussion about causes or what something is about without litigating what it means for something to be a cause.

Bull. I'm not going to let you bring this discussion to a screeching halt until I somehow empirically prove that "Cause and effect" is a thing to your satisfaction.

This nonsense is really making discussions impossible on this board. This "Prove you're not a brain in a jar before you dare try and tell me Bigfoot doesn't exist" argumentative downgrading nonsense at least used to be confined to the Woo topics but more and more it's everywhere.

JoeMorgue 9th July 2017 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913634)
Post 365 is my statement. That is it. You quoted it. Why is that statement not adequate?

Because it's nonsensical word games that don't mean anything.

But please continue with your "It depends on what the definition if 'is' is." argument.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913645)
I have no idea what you are talking about. Let's look to the lessons of history.

The Nazis had an ideological belief that they were better than the Jews, who they saw as devils and thieves, and used as a rationale for stealing the possessions of the Jews.

Likewise, the Confederats had an ideological belief that blacks were inferior and that their slavery was not only practical for the South, but moral, just and beneficial for black people.

Heck, the Catholic Church used ideological belief as a mechanism to gain power and wealth for centuries.

Honestly, it's rare for a successful ideology to not result in power and wealth.

Or are you suggesting that the South didn't have an ideological belief in slavery, despite all the primary sources saying exactly that?

You listed a bunch of things that are ideological beliefs (claimed, at least) that are not actually about ideological wealth and power. An example of ideological wealth would be "pray for wealth" churches.

Upchurch 9th July 2017 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913634)
Post 365 is my statement. That is it. You quoted it. Why is that statement not adequate?

It's trivially debunked.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913656)
It's trivially debunked.

So you say. Obviously, I disagree.

JoeMorgue 9th July 2017 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913657)
So you say. Obviously, I disagree.

Please prove that the concept of "Disagree" actually exists and that it is Upchurch sole and only reason for posting that post or admit defeat.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11913651)
Bull. I'm not going to let you bring this discussion to a screeching halt until I somehow empirically prove that "Cause and effect" is a thing to your satisfaction.

This nonsense is really making discussions impossible on this board. This "Prove you're not a brain in a jar before you dare try and tell me Bigfoot doesn't exist" argumentative downgrading nonsense at least used to be confined to the Woo topics but more and more it's everywhere.

There are a wide range of skeptics on this forum. Since a lot of discussion is about things being true, there is constant litigation of the philosophy of truth. The "meaning of is" has real implications.

mumblethrax 9th July 2017 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913528)
There are three scenarios presented in this thread

-slavery as an ideological cause where slavery is a valuable ends to itself

-slavery as a mechanism to generate wealth

-slavery as a mechanism to create a lower social tier to boost your own relative status.

Only the first one is actually about slavery. The other two are about wealth and relative social status.

Frankly, this line of reasoning is idiotic.

If I say "The Iraq war was about oil", that claim does not imply that the US values oil in and of itself.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11913659)
Please prove that the concept of "Disagree" actually exists and that it is Upchurch sole and only reason for posting that post or admit defeat.

I will not prove that, but I'm not actually required to agree to terms that we haven't arrived at before. You are free to do with that as you wish.

Upchurch 9th July 2017 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913657)
So you say. Obviously, I disagree.

Post 323

Want more? This thread is full 'em.

JoeMorgue 9th July 2017 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913662)
There are a wide range of skeptics on this forum. Since a lot of discussion is about things being true, there is constant litigation of the philosophy of truth. The "meaning of is" has real implications.

But that doesn't mean every conversation should be brought to a screeching halt because some navel gazer wants to play "Wise Old Man on the Mountain."

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mumblethrax (Post 11913663)
Frankly, this line of reasoning is idiotic.

If I say "The Iraq war was about oil", that claim does not imply that the US values oil in and of itself.

Yes, it does. Which is why we do ourselves I disservice thinking about causes that way.

Craig B 9th July 2017 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913528)
There are three scenarios presented in this thread

-slavery as an ideological cause where slavery is a valuable ends to itself

-slavery as a mechanism to generate wealth

-slavery as a mechanism to create a lower social tier to boost your own relative status.

Only the first one is actually about slavery. The other two are about wealth and relative social status.

Slavery is a social status, and the existence of slavery is about wealth )as well as relattive social status). Slaves were possessions, and were included in the inventory of wealth enumerated by their owners.

They also contributed to wealth by working without remuneration beyond their keep, and being unable to change their employers in search of better conditions of life. They could be sold, in the United States, because they were legally chattels.

The attempt to distinguish between wealth on one hand and slavery on the other is a distress signal, indicating intellectual desperation on the part of anyone ill-advised enough to embark on such a preposterous argument.

JoeMorgue 9th July 2017 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913664)
I will not prove that, but I'm not actually required to agree to terms that we haven't arrived at before. You are free to do with that as you wish.

Huh funny. As if you are keeping one set of argumentative standards for yourself and one for everyone else.

JoeMorgue 9th July 2017 09:09 AM

So erecting a monument to the how awesome it was that the South fought a war to protect it's human property is just peachy because of philosophy word salad.

Got it. Glad we cleared that up.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11913669)
Huh funny. As if you are keeping one set of argumentative standards for yourself and one for everyone else.

No, I am not. As I said, you are free to do with my response as you wish. If I specified you had to react a certain way to my response, that would be applying a standard. Recognizing my comment doesn't meet that standard, I acknowledged it doesn't dictate any action.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11913670)
So erecting a monument to the how awesome it was that the South fought a war to protect it's human property is just peachy because of philosophy word salad.

Got it. Glad we cleared that up.

I never said I supported these statues. I actually detest them.

Upchurch 9th July 2017 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913672)
No, I am not. As I said, you are free to do with my response as you wish. If I specified you had to react a certain way to my response, that would be applying a standard. Recognizing my comment doesn't meet that standard, I acknowledged it doesn't dictate any action.

Much in the same way that my evaluation of your position as intellectually dishonest, doesn't require you to dig yourself in any deeper?

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913675)
Much in the same way that my evaluation of your position as intellectually dishonest, doesn't require you to dig yourself in any deeper?

Yes.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.