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

[RogueBeaver]

I'd like it to be white middle class men who earn between $30,000-$100,000, own land, own guns, pay taxes, are married with children, and between the ages of 25-55, but those days are gone. It will probably be Hispanics.

[RogueBeaver]

I'm not sure if this is appropriate to ask about Paul Ryan, but I'll give it a try. I don't mean to offend people or be off color, but do you think he's straight?

[RogueBeaver]

Democrats want us to go to college as long as possible in order to become in debt to the government.

[RogueBeaver]

Christie

best- Huntsman

Clinton

best- McAuliffe

[RogueBeaver]

On Elizabeth Warren:

I suspected she was going to sell out.

[RogueBeaver]

Awful.

Libertarians should be exiled to Saudi Arabia.

[RogueBeaver]

Obvious FF. Critics of Saudi policies regarding women's "rights" and homosexual "rights" are just intolerant bigots who hate cultures and faiths other than their own. We should also tolerate similar attitudes by Muslims in western states, because you're a racist if you oppose treating women as property and hanging gays, political dissidents (who are all just bigots), Jews, and Christians.

[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:

[RogueBeaver]

The one who isn't a soulless harpy?

[RogueBeaver]

Comparing Merkel to Hitler is incredibly unfair. She's done considerably more damage to Greece than he ever did.

[RogueBeaver]

i know i will get a lot of 'lolz' for democrats who arent over the scott brown victory yet.

if coakley wins the governor's race in 2014, could she be a vp possibility.  she has been an outstanding attorney general with a solid record.

her campaign skills are what sucks.

[RogueBeaver]

The only thing he did wrong, was not permanent break the back of the state which had been greatest source of strife on the European continent since 1500; France.

...

Since the 1648 France had more or less started all major Europeans wars, through their agressive expansionist policy and attempt to dominate their neighbours. If Prussia had finally broken the French, we would have avoided the next war WWI, which would just have ended up a Austrian police action against a terror state if not for Russia and France backing the terrorists.

[RogueBeaver]

I already idolized him and thought he had Rushmore potential as president, so I don't think he really could have gotten any better.

[RogueBeaver]

John Kerry having Rushmore potential is absurd, unless my sarc detector was way off.

[RogueBeaver]

Republicans once again reveal their malicious and hate filled core.

[RogueBeaver]

Well, no surprise it happens when the police is obviously favoring the neo-fascists.

Huh?

The police is putting a perimeter to protect them, even from journalists!

Well, in many respects the journalists are worse than the protestors when it comes to an event like this.

But neither the protesters or the journalists are the worst. Those racist, nationalists and fascists in the middle, protected by an allied police force are the worse.

But they didn't hijack the Hofburg; they've paid their fees to use the palace as a venue for a ball. They're not the ones trying to break the law in cold blood. You're deluded and your argument is a farce.

Their presence is causing riots, therefore the ball is a threat to the public safety.

Are you trying to be the krazen of the left?

No, but the fact it's Austria and than the mainstream political party aren't willing to do against it is very worrying. Must we wait than they seize power and do another genocide before doing something about them?

[RogueBeaver]

I just find it funny that this guy was at one point in the same party as THEE Joseph McCarthy. He was by no means a modern Republican, but FF for having a similar ideology to that of Eisenhower on war, labor unions, civil rights and presumably domestic programs.

[RogueBeaver]

Strike two. He already lost a lot of my support for supporting more sanctions on Iran and he has the nerve to call Justin out on his mistake? One is responsible for just throwing some eggs at a house and damaging property while the other could have escalated us into another war. Sorry Warner, but you're a hypocrite and a bully. And besides, this petition won't go anywhere and it was only created to hate on poor Justin.

[RogueBeaver]

I hope the torch burns out once and for all. I rather have one of the Bushes, in fact, before we ever have one of these cretins.

Kudos to that!

Don't quite know where you get off calling them cretins...

Just angry conservatives pissy about how the Kennedys were essentially incorruptible and steadfast to progressive principles.

[RogueBeaver]

A country stuck between a rock and a hard place; the government is a bunch of corrupt thugs and the protesters range from naive "liberal" students to neo-Nazis. The idea that Ukrainians are a separate nation is silly, though.

[RogueBeaver]

No.  They are crypto-fascists.

[RogueBeaver]

Tim Scott is an Uncle Tom, so I don't see the problem here.

[RogueBeaver]

it's because of carter that the inflation wasn't around to hurt reagan and he basically sacrificed his second term for it

Everyone knows Carter began the long process of fixing stagflation. Everyone knows he was about 2 years late to make the necessary policy changes.

He didn't sacrifice his second term. He lost it by acting to timidly and slowly in '78 and '79

Someone forgot who appointed Volcker.

[RogueBeaver]

You're not proving anything...political parties have their own much more sophisticated models to determine where to spend money, etc They don't need to rely on ambiguously effeminate Nate effin' Silver to tell them how to do their job.