The Oldiesfreak Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts III

[opebo]

That was a good post.  Everyone knows ones marketability effects ones behavior.

But not everyone knows the difference between "affect" and "effect".

I think effect is the right word from opebo's worldview.

Well observed. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That was a good post.  Everyone knows ones marketability effects ones behavior.

But not everyone knows the difference between "affect" and "effect".

I think effect is the right word from opebo's worldview.

Well observed. 

I doubt that you believe that one's marketability is the sole factor producing one's behavior, or even the primary one, in which case, "effect" is the wrong word.  If you truly do believe everything an be reduced to marketability, you are even shallower than I thought you were.

[opebo]

That was a good post.  Everyone knows ones marketability effects ones behavior.

But not everyone knows the difference between "affect" and "effect".

I think effect is the right word from opebo's worldview.

Well observed. 

I doubt that you believe that one's marketability is the sole factor producing one's behavior, or even the primary one, in which case, "effect" is the wrong word.  If you truly do believe everything an be reduced to marketability, you are even shallower than I thought you were.

Depends upon what is meant by 'behavior', doesn't it?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That was a good post.  Everyone knows ones marketability effects ones behavior.

But not everyone knows the difference between "affect" and "effect".

I think effect is the right word from opebo's worldview.

Well observed. 

I doubt that you believe that one's marketability is the sole factor producing one's behavior, or even the primary one, in which case, "effect" is the wrong word.  If you truly do believe everything an be reduced to marketability, you are even shallower than I thought you were.

Depends upon what is meant by 'behavior', doesn't it?

LOL  That is true, tho I myself don't usually restrict the term "behavior" to just "relaxation", be brief or otherwise, I will concede that opebo might well do that since that at times seems to be the only behavior he's interested in.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

...Obama would lose. Shame a few million people couldn't see the shambles his presidency has been.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

His numbers are even worse for his handling of the economy (average support 38.1%), and for his foreign policy (39.0%).

Let's be honest:

He's been a poor president - Aloof, arrogant, and no leadership skills in anything he does. He dithers and messes things up, and thinks "leading from behind" is good.

And he gets involved in local matters that aren't significant and he ends up looking like a fool (Gates, Trayvon, etc). And then there' the massive mess of Obamacare, which will only get worse. The NSA leaks. The IRS Scandal, and Benghazi (which STILL hasn't been dealt with. Unbelievable).

What does he do? He plays his 150th round of golf. Bush, at least, stopped golfing because he thought it was unprofessional and disrespectful to do so when troops are at war. Say what you like about Bush, but he was very humble - and still is. Obama? Not so much. He enjoys his lavish parties, and expensive vacations too much.

I think Obama is done as president. His 2nd term is entirely pointless. Just like what happened with Bush, around the exact same time.

Expect the comparisons to continue as the GOP should do well in the midterms, and most likely a Republican President in 2016.

You heard it here first. Let the majority of liberals on here bash me.....

It literally took me a few minutes to realize this wasn't barfbag.

[Leftbehind]

Why have you ruled it out?

[RedSLC]

Can't wait for the crash, my puts are going to have a field day, see you all on the other side.

Clicked on the most recent USGD posts and saw this (which is how I became aware of it, despite him being on my ignore list).

[Leftbehind]

I thought our resident moralist not bothering to pick him up on it (except to offer him marketing tips) speaks for itself (ie works wonders in reinforcing my left-wing prejudice).

[morgieb]

Why have you ruled it out?

He joined pre-Barfbag IIRC.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

>implying that "social issues" are a real thing

I would say that they are on much more solid ground than 'working class solidarity'.

But anyway, to sum up, two words; 'prohibition' and 'punishment'. Ban prostitution, drug use etc, and hopefully that will confine their usage to societal dregs. Death penalty for murder, rape and drug dealing. Amendment banning same-sex marriage and gay adoption. Allow tax-payers to donate some of their income tax to the Church.

[H. Ross Peron]

Is Cassius some sort of an 18th Century High Tory?

[publicunofficial]

Why have you ruled it out?

He joined pre-Barfbag IIRC.

What are you talking about?

He's saying that all of the annoying Republicans from Virginia (You, Christie's stomach, shua) are starting to blend together and you might all be the same guy.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why have you ruled it out?

He joined pre-Barfbag IIRC.

What are you talking about?

He's saying that all of the annoying Republicans from Virginia (You, Christie's stomach, shua) are starting to blend together and you might all be the same guy.

uh, okay Seatown

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Why have you ruled it out?

He joined pre-Barfbag IIRC.

What are you talking about?

He's saying that all of the annoying Republicans from Virginia (You, Christie's stomach, shua) are starting to blend together and you might all be the same guy.

You really shouldn't be judging posters when you have only been here for four-six months.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Redalgo really surprises me here...

I have no way of knowing, obviously. If the question here was supposed to be, "Who do you think should have won the American Civil War?" however my answer is the Confederate States, though I personally would want to live in the United States and in the event of a pro-civil rights revolution in the CSA would want the USA to militarily intervene so as to assist in their liberation. Confederates should've been left be to govern themselves; the Union response was imperialist and should have simply been to demand the CSA sit down for negotiations and agree to just terms of separation.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I know it's krazen, but...

The founders were of course great men. George Washington for instance was permitted to use  39 lashes to disciple the Armed forces. Later that was expanded to 100 lashes.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In answer to a question about the most important turning point in human history. Emphasis mine.

Philosophically, I was going to say the paradigm shift that was the reinvention of knowledge - i.e., Baconian thought, but of the two, certainly the Enlightenment. No one ever actually rose from the dead anyway, and if they did I would like to talk to them. I would also like to know how it affected anyone other than the person who rose from the dead.

From a more concrete standpoint I might say the moon landing. At least, that's the first thing that comes to mind, but if I were to think about it I might come up with something else.

Not so much bad (in anything remotely resembling an objective sense; subjectively I of course disagree but that's not the same thing), admittedly, as absurd terminologically.

[RogueBeaver]

There was more where this came from.

I'm seeing a big contradiction here.  You think slavery is immoral, yet you don't think it's moral to intervene when other countries are clearly guilty of that human rights violations out of respect for foreign customs?  If you object to the way the Union fought the war or rallied for the anti-slavery cause, that's another discussion entirely, but I strongly object to your sentiment that we shouldn't intervene simply because we don't want to look like we're disrespecting other cultures.  And just how do you measure the legitimacy of a government by the way the citizenry reacts?  If the abolitionists and slave-owners fought and lost the war by themselves, does that mean the CSA was legitimate in its subjugation of the black race?

A nation cannot and should not use the military to enforce moral order all the time for a number of reasons, but I think the circumstances of the American Civil War clearly permitted intervention on our part.  I don't even think it's remotely comparable to imperialism, as you think it is, if only because the Union was trying to regain territory that seceded from the country.  The intent was not to extend power and influence to foreign nations that we had no business in.

The contradiction would be if I held the position that might should make right when I'm the one holding the gun to someone's head but not when the situation is reversed. If I were to be violently in favor of abolition of slavery I would have to support wars against every country that allows it, every country that has conscription, and every one that can coerce prisoners of state to work without pay.

The following still enforce some form of slavery; feel free to advocate abolitionist wars against them if you please:- Algeria
- Angola
- Argentina
- Austria
- Bolivia
- Brazil
- Chile
- China (both)
- Cuba
- Cyprus
- Denmark
- Ecuador
- Egypt
- Estonia
- Finland
- Greece
- Iran
- Israel
- Japan
- Jordan
- Korea (both)
- Kuwait
- Libya
- Mexico
- Moldova
- The Netherlands
- Norway
- Philippines
- Russia
- Seychelles
- Singapore
- Switzerland
- Syria
- Thailand
- Turkey
- United States
- Venezuela

And mind you, that is before one gets loose with the word "slavery" and applies it to capitalist forms of wage labour or to societies where people must work to have access to basic necessities of life as opposed to having them guaranteed under the protection of human rights. Slavery was not even abolished all throughout the Union's northern states before or during the Civil War, so I'm assuming the pro-Union votes must be for a lesser of evils, no?

Mind you, my opposition is not so simple as wanting to avoid looking bad for disrespecting other cultures. It is rooted in the golden rule, in a deep conviction that nations should have a right to self-determination. To answer your questions though (1.) I consider widespread violent unrest an indicator of people ceasing to recognize a regime's legitimacy - as tearing up the social contracts usually binding them with their respective states (as a general rule of thumb I assume enough people are apathetic during revolutionary times that 1/3 or greater support for a coop or revolution implies the state is being propped up only by an oppressive minority of loyalists - many up whom have special privileges from the state they don't want to see revoked under a new order); and (2.) if abolitionists lost fighting the war alone within the CSA it would not mean the CSA's regime was legitimate - merely that its guardians possessed more and/or better applied capital in war (the reason I support aid for revolutionaries is because they often have the will and good intent but not the assets needed to achieve their goals - often fighting from a dreadfully disadvantaged position).  

If slaves and abolitionists did not rise up at all, it implies to me enough apathy or complacency on their parts to accept the Davis regime's legitimacy - regardless of whether they work within the existing order to pursue reforms. If they rise up but in too few of numbers I would still see them as freedom fighters but also as out of touch with the values of their fellow Confederates to such an extent that their triumph would require subjugation of the masses to advance the interests of just a few, which would obviously be a far from an ideal outcome. There is no truly respectable way to force abolition upon a broadly pro-slavery population without turning to authoritarianism or - in the case of the Union as a foreign entity - imperialism. I stand by the use of that word because the Confederacy was obviously not of the same cultural nation as that of northern states of the Union. The cultural subjugation of one nation and domination by the other is by definition a type of imperialism. Whether imperialism can be righteous is where we appear to disagree.

I do not mean any disrespect Scott but I have really given this matter considerable thought.

...

But perhaps an effective counter-argument for getting me onto your side would be to point out that enslaved African Americans in the CSA were a cultural, ethnic, or racial nation of their own being oppressed by the Confederates. That would appeal to me a lot better than any argument that slavery in inherently immoral. It'd tap into that remaining reservoir of rage against and aggression toward expansionists, colonialists, imperialists, genocidaires, etc. I have as where to draw the line between tolerating self-determination and subjectively feeling justified to wage war. Having thought of this just now is actually causing me to switch positions and return to the pro-Union camp, though for the remainder of this post I'll continue to debate the posts directed at me.

Of course, now the contradiction for me is tolerating slavery in some instances but not others. You've brought me down a troubling line of thought. I don't like to have loose threads in my fabric of theory on how to approach and solve political problems. If you have a rabbit in your hat for dealing with that dilemma I want to see it pulled out, for peace of mind.

. . . moral relativism falls flat on its face.

Unfortunately, I have yet to hear any compelling arguments for why any moral absolutes exist. There are arguably some benefits to be had by pretending things can be objectively good or bad but whether moral relativism falls flat on its face in practice has no bearing on whether it actually appears to be the most reasonable of conclusions available. One of the reasons I embrace liberalism and the social contract in theory is because I honestly cannot think of any other way (aside from the [subjectively!] HP-incarnate, might-makes-right argument) to respond when an anarchist challenges the widespread assumption that state has a right - or at least moral justification - to implement its laws and otherwise threaten to do violence upon individuals.

I am not quite ready to embrace and feel comfortable with the theory that I am just another manipulative brute trying to strong-arm people into compliance with my wishes without a cause any nobler than raw and vicious, ethical egoism.

Better to end slavery in one's own country than in none at all for fear of coming across as parochial.

If one considers the endeavor justified, yes, though in practice it seems like most folks have ceased to notice, much less care, about residual institutions of slavery in the U.S. and abroad regardless of position on abolition in the CSA.

1. As many others have previously stated, "foreign customs" does not justify SLAVERY

2. Is legitimacy not already lent to the argument that the CSA did not represent the people by the mere fact that it was legal to own people? I'd say widespread SLAVERY is a pretty good case for saying that the people are not being represented.

Foreign customs do not lend slavery immunity from criticism, aye, but the more pertinent question to me on this matter is whether slavery justifies political violence in opposition and other forms of harm inflicted to bring about its abolition. Where does our moral authority to do that come from, Alfred? My waffling on the issue revolves around that concern.


@Gully Foyle:

Your posts are quite long and I might not get to reading them until tomorrow morning. I am not ignoring you - rather just making sure I don't get engrossed in their content until I have sufficient time to reply. I appreciate you going through the trouble of being so thorough!


Edit: For clarification by the way, when I express a personal opinion about what is right or wrong, correct or false, I am offering a subjective appraisal that makes sense within the constructed framework of perceiving reality pieced together in my head. When I express my belief in slavery being immoral for example, what I mean to say is that I personally feel that slavery is wrong and recommend it not be practiced... but make no claim as to whether it is objectively good or bad. Explaining that every time I judge something would make my posts even more wretchedly verbose and difficult to read than they already are! D:

[Redalgo]

It seems I am quickly approaching parity of good posts to bad posts on this forum. O_o

[Maxwell]

While I agree that Idaho is hell on Earth and overpopulated with cultist scum, it isn't ruled by the cultist scum but rather "libertarian" Republicans in the mold of a Barry Goldwater who just came down off speed and is ready to take vengeance upon any Democratic constituency out of sheer spite. Years of rule by working class Democrats has bred resentment amongst Idaho Republicans that has turned them into a pack of crypto-fascists.

lol

[Oakvale]

And of course the Obamabots rush to defend their messiah's Heritage Foundation plan. Obamacare is an utter joke, an insult to advocates of actual health care reform (i.e. nationalization) and I hope it fails. The neoliberal cancer needs to be exterminated, even if cutting it off may hurt.

[ElectionsGuy]

There's no need to balance the budget.

[Lief 🗽]

^^Thank you for posting your ignorance directly into the thread.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

^^Thank you for posting your ignorance directly into the thread.