ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd July 2017, 03:33 PM   #81
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,515
America lost the Vietnam war. Are you suggesting monuments to those who died in it should be pulled down?
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 03:42 PM   #82
Pope130
Master Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
America lost the Vietnam war. Are you suggesting monuments to those who died in it should be pulled down?
Monuments, in Vietnam, to the South Vietnamese soldiers, and their allies, who died would be a matter for the Vietnamese government to decide.

Memorials in the United States, to US soldiers who died would be a matter for the United States to decide.

Memorials to Confederate soldiers, in the Confederate States, would be a matter for the CSA to decide, if such existed. There are no longer any Confederate States, or a CSA government.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 03:44 PM   #83
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
America lost the Vietnam war. Are you suggesting monuments to those who died in it should be pulled down?
- America didn't go to Vietnam to protect the institution of slavery. Yet again I need to ask people do get that the South losing the Civil War was a good ting right?

- If Vietnam wants to pull down any monuments to America's involvement in the Vietnam war that currently stand in their county they can. Again everyone does get that the Confederacy doesn't exist anymore right?
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

Last edited by JoeBentley; 2nd July 2017 at 03:46 PM.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 05:17 PM   #84
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,501
Ah, but you're forgetting the South will rise again! Thanks to a little blue pill, the South can still experience life to its fullness. Ask your doctor if rising the South is right for you. Consult a physician immediately if the South rises and does not subside within four hours, as permanent damage can result. The South should not rise again if you are subject to cardiac irregularity, or have had a stroke, although that last bit sounds counterintuitive.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 07:05 PM   #85
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,161
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Ah, but you're forgetting the South will rise again! Thanks to a little blue pill, the South can still experience life to its fullness. Ask your doctor if rising the South is right for you. Consult a physician immediately if the South rises and does not subside within four hours, as permanent damage can result. The South should not rise again if you are subject to cardiac irregularity, or have had a stroke, although that last bit sounds counterintuitive.
"heyhey hey there....you wanna....confederate, if you get my drift?"
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 07:24 PM   #86
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,743
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
America lost the Vietnam war. Are you suggesting monuments to those who died in it should be pulled down?
Maybe only those monuments that grossly misrepresent that thing it is memorializing.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 12:32 AM   #87
CaptainHowdy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Alright we really need to figure out exactly where the disconnect here is.

Here are some statement of facts. Let me know where exactly I lose you.

1. The Civil War was about slavery.
Since this fact is wrong, everything that follows is also wrong.

Quote:
2. The Confederate States were treasonous.
Okay? And?

Quote:
3. The Confederate States lost the war.
I'll give you that one.

Quote:
4. The Confederate States losing the war was a good thing.
That's probably true. Slavery would no longer exist in a modern day Confederate States of America but former slaves would make up the vast majority of CSA citizens. That would mean, at best, the USA would have a Brazil-like third world hellhole stretching all along our Southern border. Illegal immigration would be out of control and no doubt there would be morons telling us how wonderful diversity is and that we need to accept "refugees" from the CSA because they do the jobs Americans won't.

Quote:
5. Having monuments in place to celebrate the losing side of a war makes no sense.
Japan has monuments celebrating World War 2 heroes, all of whom lost the war. The Mormons wanted to have their own state at one time but there are still monuments to Brigham Young in Utah. There are memorials to the 7th Calvary at Little Bighorn and the Alamo still stands.

Quote:
Now let me pre-counter the standard "Confederate Cause" apologetics.

1. "Well technically the Civil War wasn't about sla..." let me me just stop you right there. Yes. Yes it was. Completely and totally. All the one stepped removed nonsense doublespeak is just historical revisionism.
You don't need to tip toe around with pansy words like "technically." The South didn't secede because they wanted to keep slaves. They had slavery and it wasn't in any great danger of being immediately abolished. The North didn't go to war because they wanted to free the slaves. They had slavery too and it existed in the Union longer than it did in the Confederacy. This romantic image of the woke Northerners fighting against the inbred hillbilly racist Southerners to free the African from bondage and restore him to his rightful place of equality with the European man is not revisionist. It's denial. Straight up Civil War denial.

Quote:
2. "Well the North was racist too!" Okay? And?
And? And even if the South was fighting for the right to keep slaves (which they weren't but lets give deniers the benefit of the doubt here), the North wasn't fighting to free the slaves. They were fighting to the preserve the Union--a union which included slave states and free states.

Even after the Emancipation Proclamation was declared to dissuade foreign powers from recognizing the CSA, Northerners weren't stirred by patriotic calls to free the Colored man from his shackles.

And? And of the first twelve Presidents of the United States, only John Adams and John Quincy Adams, did not own slaves. Half the Presidents prior to the Civil War--George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James Polk, and Zachary Taylor--were born in states that became the Confederate States. Martin Van Buren and Millard Fillmore were born in New York when slavery was still legal.

Slavery was a part of the United States prior to the Civil War. Statues of prominent Southerners in the South represent "slavery and oppression" as much as that giant George Washington erection on the national mall overlooking the Jefferson Memorial represent "slavery and oppression" Maybe you feel that distorting history to convince yourself that slavery was practiced by "other Americans" and then calling for the destruction of monuments that are important to these "other" (more primitive) Americans is a good way to assuage your White liberal guilt without actually doing anything to correct past injustices. I don't buy it.

Quote:
3. "But it's history!" No. A monument is not history. A museum is history. A historical placard is history. A monument is a celebration of something.
A museum is a building. A historical placard are words written on metal. A monument isn't a celebration anymore than a museum or a historical placard. And so what anyway? It's a celebration of something. Yes, a celebration of some historical event.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 01:21 AM   #88
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,026
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Since this fact is wrong, everything that follows is also wrong.


Okay? And?


I'll give you that one.


That's probably true. Slavery would no longer exist in a modern day Confederate States of America but former slaves would make up the vast majority of CSA citizens. That would mean, at best, the USA would have a Brazil-like third world hellhole stretching all along our Southern border. Illegal immigration would be out of control and no doubt there would be morons telling us how wonderful diversity is and that we need to accept "refugees" from the CSA because they do the jobs Americans won't.


Japan has monuments celebrating World War 2 heroes, all of whom lost the war. The Mormons wanted to have their own state at one time but there are still monuments to Brigham Young in Utah. There are memorials to the 7th Calvary at Little Bighorn and the Alamo still stands.


You don't need to tip toe around with pansy words like "technically." The South didn't secede because they wanted to keep slaves. They had slavery and it wasn't in any great danger of being immediately abolished. The North didn't go to war because they wanted to free the slaves. They had slavery too and it existed in the Union longer than it did in the Confederacy. This romantic image of the woke Northerners fighting against the inbred hillbilly racist Southerners to free the African from bondage and restore him to his rightful place of equality with the European man is not revisionist. It's denial. Straight up Civil War denial.


And? And even if the South was fighting for the right to keep slaves (which they weren't but lets give deniers the benefit of the doubt here), the North wasn't fighting to free the slaves. They were fighting to the preserve the Union--a union which included slave states and free states.

Even after the Emancipation Proclamation was declared to dissuade foreign powers from recognizing the CSA, Northerners weren't stirred by patriotic calls to free the Colored man from his shackles.

And? And of the first twelve Presidents of the United States, only John Adams and John Quincy Adams, did not own slaves. Half the Presidents prior to the Civil War--George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James Polk, and Zachary Taylor--were born in states that became the Confederate States. Martin Van Buren and Millard Fillmore were born in New York when slavery was still legal.

Slavery was a part of the United States prior to the Civil War. Statues of prominent Southerners in the South represent "slavery and oppression" as much as that giant George Washington erection on the national mall overlooking the Jefferson Memorial represent "slavery and oppression" Maybe you feel that distorting history to convince yourself that slavery was practiced by "other Americans" and then calling for the destruction of monuments that are important to these "other" (more primitive) Americans is a good way to assuage your White liberal guilt without actually doing anything to correct past injustices. I don't buy it.


A museum is a building. A historical placard are words written on metal. A monument isn't a celebration anymore than a museum or a historical placard. And so what anyway? It's a celebration of something. Yes, a celebration of some historical event.
There's so much wrong in there, I'm thinking of nominating it for the Nebula Award for Short Story Fiction. Start with the opening premise:

Wrong! The Civil War was about slavery. One group wished to maintain the practice so much and were so worried about losing that source of income that they rebelled from the Union and seceded TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES. Period. All the other Mies Institute lies are based on the later catechism according to the Stevens Revisionist School. It's all lies.

And this wasn't a monument to an actual event. It's a fantasy of the angel of the hairy thunderer blessing mommies who sent their kids off to fight for the Confederacy. If you could show us in a contemporary account where an actual spirit of the angel of the lord actually assisted in Confederate recruiting, you could make me look real foolish, eh?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 01:23 AM   #89
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,515
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Maybe only those monuments that grossly misrepresent that thing it is memorializing.
Unless your memorials say it was a shocking waste of lives and the fallen died for nothing, that's all of them.
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 02:36 AM   #90
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,021
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Should we destroy any monuments to Napoleon? Or Alexander the Great? Or to any other historical event that is no longer considered acceptable?

There's nothing inherently racist about that statue. The civil war happened. It was a big divide in the country. If the memorials were actually depicting something offensive, or were expressing a racist sentiment, I would understand. But right now, you're pretty much saying that anything and everything that could in any way be associated with the losing side in the civil war should be destroyed because it's somehow innately offensive. And I find that absurd.
I tend to agree. In my country, we have a number of monuments, you know kings on horses, etc. We also have some things in our past we're not really proud of (unless they're really far back, like vikings, of course), and some of the monuments commemorate, directly or indirectly, such things, but those things happened, and whatever we think of them now, they are a part of our past.

The worst thing we can do about less than glorious parts of our past is to forget them.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 03:10 AM   #91
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,819
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Should we destroy any monuments to Napoleon? Or Alexander the Great? Or to any other historical event that is no longer considered acceptable?

There's nothing inherently racist about that statue. The civil war happened. It was a big divide in the country. If the memorials were actually depicting something offensive, or were expressing a racist sentiment, I would understand. But right now, you're pretty much saying that anything and everything that could in any way be associated with the losing side in the civil war should be destroyed because it's somehow innately offensive. And I find that absurd.

These monuments were for the proud southern tradition of segregation, and need to be viewed as such. Just like flying the confederate flags was about fighting the federal government again to once again keep the blacks in their place.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 03:12 AM   #92
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,819
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You know, I see right wing media continuously saying how this is rewriting history, or erasing the Confederate side, but as someone living in Atlanta, they aren't rewriting anything, or removing references to the Confederates. They are correcting the attempted rewriting of history, known as whitewashing. They removing monuments glorifying the Confederacy or prominent Confederates, and that's a very different thing than Fox news is telling folks.

Go to Kennesaw Battlefield. Go to Gettysburg. No one is removing any monuments there, or erasing any mention of the south.
There is a reason why Forrest is a more popular general than Longstreet. The Klan is a great southern institution and running an integrated police force is right out of acceptable behavior for confederate generals.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 03:18 AM   #93
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,819
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Since this fact is wrong, everything that follows is also wrong.
It was about the expansion of slavery, and the institution of slavery. Read the letters of Secession. The people kicking off the civil war were quite clear that it was about slavery. Why shouldn't we believe them?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 03:20 AM   #94
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,712
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
These monuments were for the proud southern tradition of segregation, and need to be viewed as such. Just like flying the confederate flags was about fighting the federal government again to once again keep the blacks in their place.
Has anyone thought about this discussion in light of the removal of communist era monuments following the liberation of Eastern Europe in 1989 and the collapse of the USSR in 1991? Do the same principles apply?
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 03:22 AM   #95
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,819
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Has anyone thought about this discussion in light of the removal of communist era monuments following the liberation of Eastern Europe in 1989 and the collapse of the USSR in 1991? Do the same principles apply?
Hell how about americans destroying monuments to Saddam in Iraq.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 04:13 AM   #96
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,515
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Read the letters of Secession. The people kicking off the civil war were quite clear that it was about slavery.
Slavery was certainly an important factor in why the southern states seceded, but it wasn't why the north invaded. 'The people kicking off the civil war' did so to preserve the union against the wishes of the people who wanted to leave peacefully.
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 04:26 AM   #97
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,743
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
You don't need to tip toe around with pansy words like "technically." The South didn't secede because they wanted to keep slaves.
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
It was about the expansion of slavery, and the institution of slavery. Read the letters of Secession. The people kicking off the civil war were quite clear that it was about slavery. Why shouldn't we believe them?
True that.

CaptainHowdy, you are the victim of a century plus long misinformation campaign to champion the myth of The Lost Cause of The Confederacy wherein Confederates and their descendants and subsequent supporters all sought to rewrite history to instill the belief that the South was not fighting to preserve slavery, but to preserve the ideals of state's rights and to protect themselves from the aggressive North.

And it has largely worked in popular culture for a century or so. Fortunately, we have reached a time when nearly everyone has nearly every document in existence available to them in their pockets all the time. For example, The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States shows quite clearly why the South seceded from the Union.

Hint: If you think it is states' rights, you are partially correct. More accurately, states' rights to allow white people to own black people as slaves.

CaptainHowdy, this no doubt goes against everything you learned in history class at school. That was the point.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 04:29 AM   #98
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,819
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
Slavery was certainly an important factor in why the southern states seceded, but it wasn't why the north invaded. 'The people kicking off the civil war' did so to preserve the union against the wishes of the people who wanted to leave peacefully.
And a few peaceful shellings are not a big deal. You have to ignore all of that and shift the focus later who who really started the war not those who fired the first shots, or broke away because slavery wouldn't be expanded into new territories, or really anything that causes southern people to take any responsibility for their own actions.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 04:58 AM   #99
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Since this fact is wrong, everything that follows is also wrong.
And this is just straight up reality denial, almost full blow conspiracy theory/revisionist history level.

Quote:
Japan has monuments celebrating World War 2 heroes, all of whom lost the war.
IN JAPAN. People are too hung up on the "losing the war" phrase and missing the point that the Confederate States of America no longer exists.

You don't get the ask the country that defeated you to put up monuments to your side because there is no "you" anymore to ask. This ain't hard that hard of a concept.

This is why I keep sarcastically asking if people get that the South lost. People keep trying to frame this like we came to a stalemate or an the the Confederacy still exists as some sort of Hegemony or Enclave that the North is keeping in check like the Districts from the Hunger Games.

The South lost and no longer exists as a concept of statehood. There is no logical or political way what "The South" wants is factor in anything.

[quote[You don't need to tip toe around with pansy words like "technically."[/quote]

You are right. It was technically about slavery. It was practically about slavery. It was economically about slavery. It was culturally about slavery. It was politically about slavery. It was about slavery from every possible angle.

Quote:
The South didn't secede because they wanted to keep slaves. They had slavery and it wasn't in any great danger of being immediately abolished.
Why do Southern Romanticist think the South seceded then?

You're trying to phrase it so that it's not about slavery because slavery still existed in the US at the time war broke out, so therefore it couldn't be about slavery. You're setting up some strawman idea that the only way the war could have been about slavery was if if some group of states broke away from a totally emancipated United States and started slavery where there had been none.

That's not how it works. The South new the writing was on the wall about slavery, could see the tides turning against them. We don't need a scenario in which slavery was gone in the United States and the South started the war to get it back before understanding that it was about slavery.

You keep trying to keep everything one step removed from the root cause by using doublespeak. It's not about the thing, it's about the the thing that's about the thing, that way we don't have to talk about the thing. It's still about the thing if everything you think it is about leads directly right back to the thing.

"It's not about slavery its about state's rights." The only right the CSA was concerned with was slavery. It's Constitution was practically a carbon copy of the US Constitution with the exception of doing everything short of making slavery mandatory.

"It's not about slavery its about Southern economy." Yes the almost entirely slave based Southern economy.

"It was about preserving the Union." The Union was in danger because the South left it. And they left it because of slavery.

Here's the end all of it. Everyone with any political awareness in the pre-Civil War era knew that if left as a whole, singular nation the United States that political climate, change in public opinion, international pressures, and other similar factors meant slavery as an institution had a shelf life. They didn't know if it was gonna happen today, tomorrow, next year, next decade, or next century but everyone knew it was gonna happen.

If you want to twist that to somehow mean "It wasn't about slavery" knock yourself out, but you're wrong.

Quote:
This romantic image of the woke Northerners fighting against the inbred hillbilly racist Southerners to free the African from bondage and restore him to his rightful place of equality with the European man is not revisionist.
Okay I need to stop you there. I can already see the clumsy trap gotcha you're trying to maneuver me into so let me make something clear.

I'm from the South. Grew up in a 500 person Podunk town in the middle of the state of North Carolina. Red dirt roads, outside the city limits, trailer park, the whole nine yards. Took a lot of long road trips in the bed of a pickup truck. Ate a lot of pulled pork BBQ, drank a lot of Cheerwine. That last one is still true of me in fact.

If you want to have a good piss take at the fact that the "South" is still such an open and free source of mockery and derision, I'm right there with ya. The blatant hypocrisy of the liberal elite who ostensibly treat "stereotyping" as the worst thing you can do and then turn about and make stupid, ignorant Southerner jokes in the same breath sours me on their whole ideology.

But you know what. Southern revisions... not exactly helping our cause.

Quote:
And? And even if the South was fighting for the right to keep slaves (which they weren't but lets give deniers the benefit of the doubt here), the North wasn't fighting to free the slaves. They were fighting to the preserve the Union--a union which included slave states and free states.
And why did the Union need preserved? Because the South had seceded from it.

Why did the South secede from it?

Again you are acting like it is impossible for a political decision to be made based upon something that's going to happen.

Quote:
Even after the Emancipation Proclamation was declared to dissuade foreign powers from recognizing the CSA, Northerners weren't stirred by patriotic calls to free the Colored man from his shackles.
"Not in a rush to" doesn't mean that everyone can't see which way the wind is blowing.

Ironically you aren't giving the Southern political leadership enough credit to see things long term.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 05:11 AM   #100
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,819
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Okay I need to stop you there. I can already see the clumsy trap gotcha you're trying to maneuver me into so let me make something clear.

I'm from the South. Grew up in a 500 person Podunk town in the middle of the state of North Carolina. Red dirt roads, outside the city limits, trailer park, the whole nine yards. Took a lot of long road trips in the bed of a pickup truck. Ate a lot of pulled pork BBQ, drank a lot of Cheerwine. That last one is still true of me in fact.

If you want to have a good piss take at the fact that the "South" is still such an open and free source of mockery and derision, I'm right there with ya. The blatant hypocrisy of the liberal elite who ostensibly treat "stereotyping" as the worst thing you can do and then turn about and make stupid, ignorant Southerner jokes in the same breath sours me on their whole ideology.

But you know what. Southern revisions... not exactly helping our cause.
The thing is the civil war defined the south. There would be no southern identity with out it. There isn't a north east identity, there isn't a midwestern identity, there isn't a west coast identity. But there is a southern identity.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 06:40 AM   #101
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,515
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
The thing is the civil war defined the south. There would be no southern identity with out it. There isn't a north east identity, there isn't a midwestern identity, there isn't a west coast identity. But there is a southern identity.
You don't think there was a significant difference in the culture and lifestyle of the industrial north and the largely agrarian south?
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 06:44 AM   #102
Pterodactyl
Muse
 
Pterodactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
The thing is the civil war defined the south. There would be no southern identity with out it. There isn't a north east identity, there isn't a midwestern identity, there isn't a west coast identity. But there is a southern identity.
That's as good an argument for confederate monuments as Ive seen.
Pterodactyl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 06:44 AM   #103
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,819
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
You don't think there was a significant difference in the culture and lifestyle of the industrial north and the largely agrarian south?
Sure, but Northerner isn't a cultural identity like Southerner is. There are regional cultures, but it seems only the south has it as an identity as well as a culture.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 06:49 AM   #104
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,743
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
The thing is the civil war defined the south. There would be no southern identity with out it. There isn't a north east identity, there isn't a midwestern identity, there isn't a west coast identity. But there is a southern identity.
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
You don't think there was a significant difference in the culture and lifestyle of the industrial north and the largely agrarian south?
...I'd say there are cultural differences, but there isn't an identity, per se. No one flies the Midwestern Flag, names their kids after Midwestern icons, or has sayings like "The Midwest will continue to grow corn!"

Even having grown up in rural midwest, if anyone were to identify with a regional culture, it would Southern. Possibly "Country", but that's a little more generalized than Southern.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 06:52 AM   #105
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,287
I agree, and have argued such in the past, that the idea of "Southern Identity" is silly and doesn't make sense since it doesn't apply to other broad geographical regions and would not exist without the cultural baggage of the Civil War.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 07:01 AM   #106
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,743
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
I agree, and have argued such in the past, that the idea of "Southern Identity" is silly and doesn't make sense since it doesn't apply to other broad geographical regions and would not exist without the cultural baggage of the Civil War.
But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I take it you are arguing that it is essentially self-inflicted cultural baggage?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 07:17 AM   #107
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I take it you are arguing that it is essentially self-inflicted cultural baggage?
To people who continue to claim some sort of "Southern Pride" yes, at least partially so. They are largely creating their own stereotype.

To people who just happened to be born in the South and get treated like inbreed hicks because of it, no. Just because my parents mixed sperm and egg South of the Mason-Dixon line doesn't mean I'm incapable of achieving more in life beyond making meth and sleeping with my sister as many people seem to believe.

There's some nuance in there, I mean all "cultures" are self created fictions to a degree so the fact that the whole idea of a "Southern culture" doesn't really pan out doesn't necessarily invalidate it, but that's probably outside the scope of what's being discussed. "Self inflicted cultural baggage" is not quite the way I'd word it and I could quibble a little with it being thought of in that way, but that might just be semantics and yeah that's functionally the gist of it.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

Last edited by JoeBentley; 3rd July 2017 at 07:28 AM.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 07:29 AM   #108
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,819
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
To people who continue to claim some sort of "Southern Pride" yes, at least partially so. They are largely creating their own stereotype.

To people who just happened to be born in the South and get treated like inbreed hicks because of it, no. Just because my parents mixed sperm and egg South of the Mason-Dixon line doesn't mean I'm incapable of achieving more in life beyond making meth and sleeping with my sister as many people seem to believe.
That is why I said identity and not culture. And rewriting the history of the south to make it more romantic is a fundamental part of this identity
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 07:58 AM   #109
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,729
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
And it has largely worked in popular culture for a century or so. Fortunately, we have reached a time when nearly everyone has nearly every document in existence available to them in their pockets all the time. For example, The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States shows quite clearly why the South seceded from the Union.

Hint: If you think it is states' rights, you are partially correct. More accurately, states' rights to allow white people to own black people as slaves.

There is also the fact that prior to the Civil War, the Southern states were firmly opposed to State's Rights. Specifically, they were opposed to the rights of Northern states to declare any escaped slaves to be free within their borders, and demanded that the Federal government force the North to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act. Many Northern states not only refused to comply, but one of the first uses of the principle of "jury nullification" was to nullify potential convictions of people on trial for assisting escaped slaves and opposing the Southern laws demanding the return of said escaped slaves.

"State's Rights" is nothing more than Reconstruction-era revisionism that directly contradicts historical facts.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:03 AM   #110
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,161
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
Slavery was certainly an important factor in why the southern states seceded, but it wasn't why the north invaded. 'The people kicking off the civil war' did so to preserve the union against the wishes of the people who wanted to leave peacefully.
Quite apart from the technicalities of who did what, or who fired the first shot, etc., if slavery was the reason for secession, and the war was about the secession, then how is slavery not the root cause of the war? That argument sounds very familiar to the one that it was about states' rights, omitting the little detail that the right in question was the right to keep the institution of slavery. I takes a very big stretch of credibility to imagine, after the long and contentious disputes over territorial expansion, that any issue other than that of slavery would have led to secession. I have yet to see a noble abstraction that is not post hoc to the core issue of slavery.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:22 AM   #111
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,287
There's a good line by line breakdown of the CSA Constitution here*. As noted for the most part it's a literal word for word copy of the then current US Constitution outside of changing the name of the country and updating the language a bit and a few minor changes to government procedure the only functional difference is a couple of interesting in retrospect differences (an early version of a line item veto and a term limit for the President which wasn't in the US Constitution at the time) and slavery.

Nothing but slavery. There is no difference in the US Constitution and CSA Constituion in any way that really matters except for slavery.

It simply boggles my mind how people can claim that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery when...

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

...is the only actual policy difference from the US Constitution.

As the website put it:

Quote:
Overall, the CSA constitution does not radically alter the federal system that was established by the United States constitution. It is therefore very debatable as to whether the CSA was a significantly more pro-"states' rights" country (as supporters claim) in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicitly taken away the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to trade freely with each other, and of course the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders.

States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit."

As previously noted, the CSA constitution does not modify many of the most controversial (from a states' rights perspective) clauses of the American constitution, including the "Supremacy" clause (Art. VI, Sec. 1[3]), the "Commerce" clause (Art. I, Sec. 8[3]) and the "Necessary and Proper" clause (Art. I, Sec. 8[18]). Nor does the CSA take away the federal government's right to suspend habeus corpus or "suppress insurrections."

As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is much more effective. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of anti-slave law or policy would be unconstitutional. People can claim the Civil War was "not about slavery" as much as they want, but the fact remains that anyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for a country in which a universal right to own slaves was one of the most entrenched laws of the land.
*http://jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:27 AM   #112
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Quite apart from the technicalities of who did what, or who fired the first shot, etc., if slavery was the reason for secession, and the war was about the secession, then how is slavery not the root cause of the war? That argument sounds very familiar to the one that it was about states' rights, omitting the little detail that the right in question was the right to keep the institution of slavery. I takes a very big stretch of credibility to imagine, after the long and contentious disputes over territorial expansion, that any issue other than that of slavery would have led to secession. I have yet to see a noble abstraction that is not post hoc to the core issue of slavery.
And this is the "one step removed from the thing" style of arguing that Southern Apologetic have depended on my entire life.

Arguing that "It wasn't about slavery, it was about all these things that were themselves about slavery" is like arguing that you didn't have a car accident because you were drunk, you had a car accident because you had decreased reflexes and motor skills... because you were drunk.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:29 AM   #113
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
Slavery was certainly an important factor in why the southern states seceded, but it wasn't why the north invaded. 'The people kicking off the civil war' did so to preserve the union against the wishes of the people who wanted to leave peacefully.
"People who wanted to leave peacefully... so they could continue their practice of owning other human beings as property."

Love how Southern apologists always leave that last little part out.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:54 AM   #114
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,819
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
"People who wanted to leave peacefully... so they could continue their practice of owning other human beings as property."

Love how Southern apologists always leave that last little part out.
And finally have the supremacy of the white race in the constitution.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 12:09 PM   #115
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
You don't think there was a significant difference in the culture and lifestyle of the industrial north and the largely agrarian south?
Virginia is far more similar to Pennsylvania (much less Maryland) than it is to Mississippi or Louisiana. It's like the only thing they had in common was...?
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 12:39 PM   #116
CaptainHowdy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
There's so much wrong in there, I'm thinking of nominating it for the Nebula Award for Short Story Fiction. Start with the opening premise:

Wrong! The Civil War was about slavery. One group wished to maintain the practice so much and were so worried about losing that source of income that they rebelled from the Union and seceded TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES. Period. All the other Mies Institute lies are based on the later catechism according to the Stevens Revisionist School. It's all lies.

And this wasn't a monument to an actual event. It's a fantasy of the angel of the hairy thunderer blessing mommies who sent their kids off to fight for the Confederacy. If you could show us in a contemporary account where an actual spirit of the angel of the lord actually assisted in Confederate recruiting, you could make me look real foolish, eh?
So you really believe that North was fighting the war because they wanted slavery abolished?
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 12:45 PM   #117
CaptainHowdy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
It was about the expansion of slavery, and the institution of slavery. Read the letters of Secession. The people kicking off the civil war were quite clear that it was about slavery. Why shouldn't we believe them?
The North chose to resist the secession. What was their motive? Were White people in the North fighting to free the slaves?
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 12:46 PM   #118
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,743
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
So you really believe that North was fighting the war because they wanted slavery abolished?
The North was fighting to preserve the union. The South was fighting to keep slavery.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 12:53 PM   #119
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,743
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
The North chose to resist the secession. What was their motive? Were White people in the North fighting to free the slaves?
Many were, yes. The Republican party of the time was explicitly anti-slavery.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 01:00 PM   #120
autumn1971
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,012
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
Slavery was certainly an important factor in why the southern states seceded, but it wasn't why the north invaded. 'The people kicking off the civil war' did so to preserve the union against the wishes of the people who wanted to leave peacefully.
The people kicking off the Civil War were treasonous Southerners who stole Union property and fired the first shots.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.