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)

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913665)
Post 323

Want more? This thread is full 'em.

But do we know why they said it? Do we think they believe it or that they are merely lying to protect their I'll gotten gains? Thieves lie.

mumblethrax 9th July 2017 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913667)
Yes, it does. Which is why we do ourselves I disservice thinking about causes that way.

No, it doesn't. "About" does not mean "ultimately caused by". It means "concerned with."

If I say "What is this movie about?" I'm not asking what the directors influences were. I'm not asking for shop talk about the movie industry. I don't care about ultimate causes.

You have concocted an absurdly idiosyncratic definition for a well understood preposition for no other reason than to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Which is why you're coming across as an apologist.

Far from lending additional insight or doing yourself a service, this can only rob us of insight. The desire for wealth and status manifested itself in myriad ways in the antebellum South--what's notable about the manifestation that led to war is that it was called "slavery."

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig B (Post 11913668)
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.

I don't know what you mean by distinguishing between wealth and slavery. However, I am parsing their motives.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mumblethrax (Post 11913684)
No, it doesn't. "About" does not mean "ultimately caused by". It means "concerned with."

If I say "What is this movie about?" I'm not asking what the directors influences were. I'm not asking for shop talk about the movie industry. I don't care about ultimate causes.

You have concocted an absurdly idiosyncratic definition for a well understood preposition for no other reason than to claim that the Civil War isn't about slavery. Which is why you're coming across as an apologist.

I fully do expect a conversation of what a movie is about to be themes and not plot. "Slavery" is plot. "Greed" is theme.

bruto 9th July 2017 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913553)
So either you disagree with what it means to be about something, or you think people Rob banks because they like money for looks and not purchasing power. What do you disagree with and why?

Note: there are bank robbers who limake the the thrill and not the money. But lets stick to the one who want money.

Wait a second here. I think you have just made the argument that A is not B except in the instances where it is. That's not the strongest argument I've ever seen.

Slavery is many things, and one of the things it can be called easily enough is a social status. Your position in society is radically changed if you are a slave. Slavery is many things, and one of them is what I would have thought is the abundantly obvious one of social status, since to be enslaved or enslaveable divides people socially so pervasively and radically. The poorest white trash could buy a black man and enslave him if he came into the money. The richest and most privileged black free man could not buy a white man and enslave him at any price. The poorest, worst miscreant of white blood, while he might get himself in any sort of trouble up to including execution for heinous crimes, would never need to fear that his behavior would result in enslavement. Any black person in a slave state had reason to fear that a mis-step, a mis-identification, or a lost document, would result in his enslavement. The poorest, barely literate, white man could vote. The richest, best educated, smartest black man could not. One of the aspects of this blatant and in-your-face difference is the social status that such a distinction imparts.

mumblethrax 9th July 2017 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913686)
I fully do expect a conversation of what a movie is about to be themes and not plot. "Slavery" is plot. "Greed" is theme.

Really? If you ask me "what is this movie about" you expect nothing about plot? No synopsis, just an immediate discussion of themes?

I get the very strong sense that you're just making this up as you go along.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mumblethrax (Post 11913691)
Really? If you ask me "what is this movie about" you expect nothing about plot? No synopsis, just an immediate discussion of themes?

I get the very strong sense that you're just making this up as you go along.

Really.

Upchurch 9th July 2017 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913682)
But do we know why they said it? Do we think they believe it or that they are merely lying to protect their I'll gotten gains? Thieves lie.

Occam's Razor.

mumblethrax 9th July 2017 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913695)
Really.

Then you're just not pragmatically competent.

If you ask what Brokeback Mountain is about, "Gay cowboys" is a perfectly serviceable answer.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913697)
Occam's Razor.

Im glad we can agree to apply that. They are lying.

Craig B 9th July 2017 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913685)
I don't know what you mean by distinguishing between wealth and slavery. However, I am parsing their motives.

If a society is a chattel slave society in which slaves are commodities it is impossible to say that such and such is about wealth, not slavery. Slaves couldn't be separated from the value attributed to them in the market. They could be bought, sold and used as security against loans. Just as for example motor cars or the like may be today.

Upchurch 9th July 2017 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913700)
Im glad we can agree to apply that. They are lying.

You are being intellectually dishonest again.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913703)
You are being intellectually dishonest again.

Another point we disagree on.

JoeMorgue 9th July 2017 09:44 AM

Bob do you have a point or are you just playing the contrarian because you want to argue?

Upchurch 9th July 2017 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913704)
Another point we disagree on.

You mean you didn't know you were misrepresenting my statement and position? You're going with stupidity over dishonesty?

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913709)
You mean you didn't know you were misrepresenting my statement and position? You're going with stupidity over dishonesty?

I'm saying we disagree with what Occam's razor leads us to conclude and we disagree won your assertion that I cannot reach my conclusion with intellectual honesty.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11913706)
Bob do you have a point or are you just playing the contrarian because you want to argue?

I told you repeatedly what my point is. I understand if you think it is or wrong or simply don't think it is a position worth distinguishing.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig B (Post 11913701)
If a society is a chattel slave society in which slaves are commodities it is impossible to say that such and such is about wealth, not slavery. Slaves couldn't be separated from the value attributed to them in the market. They could be bought, sold and used as security against loans. Just as for example motor cars or the like may be today.

It is possible to separate. It can be done by looking at the counter factual where the value of slave labor is zero. If the appetite for promoting slavery evaporates, then it wasn't because they thought slavery was the natural order, they just liked cheap labor.

Upchurch 9th July 2017 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913711)
I'm saying we disagree with what Occam's razor leads us to conclude and we disagree won your assertion that I cannot reach my conclusion with intellectual honesty.

It takes more assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that entire Confederacy was lying.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913736)
It takes more assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that entire Confederacy was lying.

Most Southerners would never have to make arguments to justify their system.

Upchurch 9th July 2017 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913759)
Most Southerners would never have to make arguments to justify their system.

I have no idea how that, in any way, relates to the post you are responding to.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913764)
I have no idea how that, in any way, relates to the post you are responding to.

Most would have no need to lie, so it doesn't require the whole south to lie.

Craig B 9th July 2017 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913717)
It is possible to separate. It can be done by looking at the counter factual where the value of slave labor is zero. If the appetite for promoting slavery evaporates, then it wasn't because they thought slavery was the natural order, they just liked cheap labor.

They liked to think cheap labour was the natural order too.

Yes, by assuming counter factuals, as Southern apologists have already done in this discussion, it is possible to arrive at counter factual conclusions. That is no surprise.

JoeMorgue 9th July 2017 10:48 AM

"If we make up the assumptions, the argument, and the conclusion we're obviously right."

Upchurch 9th July 2017 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913769)
Most would have no need to lie, so it doesn't require the whole south to lie.

I didn't say the whole South. I said the Confederacy.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913778)
I didn't say the whole South. I said the Confederacy.

I thought we were using them interchangeably. Feel free to make the switch in your head on what I wrote.

Upchurch 9th July 2017 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913781)
I thought we were using them interchangeably. Feel free to make the switch in your head on what I wrote.

Okay, still demonstrably false

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913787)
Okay, still demonstrably false

That they were lying?

Upchurch 9th July 2017 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913793)
That they were lying?

No, that you have fewer assumptions.

BobTheCoward 9th July 2017 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913830)
No, that you have fewer assumptions.

Okay.bi see what you are getting at. Occam's razor would be that the statements made by the criminals is what they believe.

Upchurch 9th July 2017 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11913831)
Okay.bi see what you are getting at. Occam's razor would be that the statements made by the criminals is what they believe.

They did not see themselves as criminals. To assume that they would lie because of something they didn't believe in themselves is silly.

Checkmite 9th July 2017 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11912836)
I have a better idea: let's just say that the Civil War was fought because of slavery. Then, let's forget the South's motivation. They lost so who cares about them anyway?

Obviously a lot of people still care about them, which is why this thread exists - because there are monuments to the slavers that exist today that try to (literally) white-wash the slavery aspect, that many people wish to get rid of, that still others want to keep.

bruto 9th July 2017 08:21 PM

One of the problems of the whitewashing, though, is that it falls back on "heritage." But you know, some of the rest of us have heritage too. What's so retroactively special about the heritage of treason and loss? If my heritage whipped your heritage's ass and burned your heritage's plantations to the ground, why shouldn't my heritage now tell your heritage to stuff it again.

Roboramma 10th July 2017 01:02 AM

Bob's point seems to be that the south fought the civil war to protect it's wealth, which was in the form of slaves.

This seems somewhat reasonable to me, but it doesn't change the fact that they were fighting a war to protect the institution of slavery. Why they wanted to protect that institution might be an interesting question, and "because it increased their wealth and status" may certainly be part of the answer to that question. But it doesn't change the fact that they were fighting the war to maintain that institution.

The back robber analogy that he presented actually makes this very clear: if someone robs a bank to get money, that's true regardless of why they want that money. Maybe they want to spend it, maybe they want to give it to someone, maybe they want to throw it in a room and swim in it. All of those are consistent with the statement that they robbed the bank in order to get the money.

Roboramma 10th July 2017 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11913856)
They did not see themselves as criminals. To assume that they would lie because of something they didn't believe in themselves is silly.

Exactly.

Mumbles 10th July 2017 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 11914276)
One of the problems of the whitewashing, though, is that it falls back on "heritage." But you know, some of the rest of us have heritage too. What's so retroactively special about the heritage of treason and loss? If my heritage whipped your heritage's ass and burned your heritage's plantations to the ground, why shouldn't my heritage now tell your heritage to stuff it again.

The most interesting part is that it presents itself, specifically and insultingly, as "Southern" heritage. This simply wipes out both the great majority of US history, but also regional variation - and blatantly erases non-white southerners as members of "the South." IOW, the defense itself is racist on it's face, as well as a clear demonstration of the "Lost Cause" mythology.

These have likely all been raised before - these weak-arsed apologetics get boring and repetitive very quickly, and it's simply not worth reading through the entire thread, so iuf I'm being repetitive, so be it :D .

The Norseman 10th July 2017 02:07 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.

You most certainly can and at ISF, it's generally confined to the R&P subforum. You may not understand this, but there are quite a few people who enjoy discussion of all kinds of topics which do not necessarily touch upon philosophy and who are most willing to agree to the definitions of words and concepts (foregoing your "causal litigation").

In fact, it seems that people were coming along just fine in this thread before you decided to turn it into a philosophical side-track.



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.

In light of this, can you point to the agreement we all have given to divert into the philosophical litigation of what it means for something to be a cause?

ponderingturtle 10th July 2017 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11911002)
And here we have a prime example of smug Northerners of today pointing fingers at the uncivilized Southerners because slavery ended thirty or forty years earlier in the North than in the South.

Except for things like southerners living there and so on. It isn't like a state really had the right to outlaw slavery in its boarders.

BobTheCoward 10th July 2017 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Norseman (Post 11914397)

In light of this, can you point to the agreement we all have given to divert into the philosophical litigation of what it means for something to be a cause?

You haven't. You are free to not respond to it. Your conversations will just be much more poor for it.

Emily's Cat 10th July 2017 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11911960)
I'm no expert on the topic, but why couldn't refugee slaves that escaped to the North just simply not have been returned without secession? Assuming all other things being equal, it would have accomplished the same thing.

Setting aside ethical arguments, think about it from the perspective of the southerns at the time. They viewed slaves as property. They were owned. Failure to return missing property is tantamount to theft.

Consider if a rancher's fence broke, and all of his cattle wandered into his neighbor's field. If that neighbor refused to return the cattle to the rightful owner, the owner would very likely consider it theft.

In the case of slavery, it was compounded by this 'theft' being backed by the government. Contrary to all existing property laws, the government of many states as well as the federal government all essentially said "It's okay to receive stolen goods, as long as you don't like the beliefs of the people from whom they were stolen".

Now, you and I and everyone else in this thread understands and accepts that human beings should not be considered property. Like I said, the ethics of the situation, especially from a 21st century perspective, are fairly irrelevant. At the time, slavery was legal. According to the rule of law in existence at that time, those slaves were the property of their owners. Within that context, it's a legitimate complaint, regardless of how much I disagree with the ethics of it.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:06 PM.

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