Read 49240 times

  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3023

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #700 on: February 27, 2021, 10:54:54 pm »
All of that is true. None of that contradicts the point we were making.

For like the 10th time: Slavery was the cause of the war. That doesn't mean that there weren't other reasons, motives and goals for other parties. It also doesn't address why INDIVIDUALS fought. Their reasons are often less political.

Their reasons are NOT often less political, and you have done NOTHING to show otherwise.  You just keep saying it without an iota of evidence. You don't even list any of these theoretical reasons, you just say that there are.  You just say things like "Any war will have a mish-mash of causes and motives". 

Of course and obviously that's true--someone might join because his big brother did, for example.  And maybe 10% were conscripted.  But to make your point that the VAST MAJORITY didn't join for the reasons everyone else and the consensus of all Civil War historians agrees (slavery)  you need literally 50,000 diary entries from CSA stating specific non-slavery-related/non-political reasons for fighting.  You really really need that, otherwise you're pissing in the wind. 

And I realize this is a bar you can't hurdle, because your statement is BS.

Indeed, practically everything you've written in this thread is BS, and some of it so shameful, anti-historical and blatantly immoral that I have had to remove your quote about how good I am from my .sig line, that's how disgusting your arguments have become.  I don't want to be associated with you.  Seriously.  You need to stop and have a look in the mirror.


  • Adel
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1608

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #701 on: February 28, 2021, 02:07:57 am »
Speaking of Marti and bullsh*t. I doubt anyone has forgotten his description of the Jan 6th insurrection as a hapless bunch of cosplay folk just letting off steam.  :laugh:
It's quite a contrast form the former Capitol Police chief Steven Sund who said in testimony at a recent senate investigation.

Quote
"We properly planned for a mass demonstration with possible violence. What we got was a military-style coordinated assault."

But what would that police chief know compared to our local world renowned expert on everything; Marti.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-riot-senate-police-intelligence/2021/02/23/bd4cba38-75d7-11eb-8115-9ad5e9c02117_story.html


  • stoat
  • The Legend

    • 2085

    • March 05, 2019, 06:36:13 pm
    • seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #702 on: February 28, 2021, 12:47:41 pm »
Good to see all these people on the left suddenly deciding to accept everything the US police say as gospel


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #703 on: February 28, 2021, 01:39:48 pm »
Speaking of Marti and bullsh*t. I doubt anyone has forgotten his description of the Jan 6th insurrection as a hapless bunch of cosplay folk just letting off steam.  :laugh:
It's quite a contrast form the former Capitol Police chief Steven Sund who said in testimony at a recent senate investigation.

But what would that police chief know compared to our local world renowned expert on everything; Marti.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-riot-senate-police-intelligence/2021/02/23/bd4cba38-75d7-11eb-8115-9ad5e9c02117_story.html
How can it be a military-style coordinated assault if there was

A) No coordination
B) No discipline
C) No organized units or ranks
D) No heavy weapons
E) From what I can tell they didn't fire any shots

If you look at the Capital Riot and Horn Guy and think "military-style assault" you are an idiot.

Notice how you use the fallacious argument from authority? Notice how you say nothing about actual military equipment or techniques?


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #704 on: February 28, 2021, 02:06:54 pm »
Of course and obviously that's true--someone might join because his big brother did, for example.  And maybe 10% were conscripted.  But to make your point that the VAST MAJORITY didn't join for the reasons everyone else and the consensus of all Civil War historians agrees (slavery)  you need literally 50,000 diary entries from CSA stating specific non-slavery-related/non-political reasons for fighting.  You really really need that, otherwise you're pissing in the wind. 
Mr. C, I don't think you quite understand the world of 1861. You seem to treat people there like its 2021 and they have 50 different outlets for information and a public education system that has offered a consistent message of tolerance. When you examine history, I don't think you do a good job of putting yourself in the mindset of people back then and how profoundly different the world was.

Second, your assertion that "most of them fought for slavery" is surprising considering the overwhelming majority of Southerners did not own slaves. For the 11billionth time, that doesn't mean slavery wasn't the cause. But I doubt that many would be willing to march barefoot in the blazing sun, eat rancid meat, be covered in lice, and get repeatedly shot at, simply so some dandy could keep his slaves.

Did some fight for slavery? Undoubtedly and no one here has disagreed. But for some reason you guys took "The cause of the war was slavery. Also there were lots of complex factors and individual motivations." Which btw, IS a mainstream historical view, and turned it into "You guys are apologizing for the Confederacy and supporting white supremacy."

Quote
Indeed, practically everything you've written in this thread is BS, and some of it so shameful, anti-historical and blatantly immoral that I have had to remove your quote about how good I am from my .sig line, that's how disgusting your arguments have become.  I don't want to be associated with you.  Seriously.  You need to stop and have a look in the mirror.
Dude, calm down. I'm sorry Mr. C, but you seem to really have a problem with looking at politics dispassionately. I think you apply way to much of a moral filter, which coincidentally happens to coincide with your views, and it really causes you to get angry and unfocused.

Nothing I wrote was shameful, anti-historical, or immoral. You took minor disagreements over the degree to which something was or was not something and blew it way out of proportion.

At present in this thread me and Kyndo have been accused of perpetuating white supremacy. That's right, the Korea Apologist and kyndo the mod. White Supremacists. Having been accused of such by regular Korea bashers MayorHaggar and Adel, who have written some atrocious things about Koreans in the past.

Shouldn't this be a sign that maybe YOU are the one off-base? Maybe YOU are the one that needs to pause and take a look around and look at the arguments being made and who your compatriots are.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #705 on: February 28, 2021, 02:08:06 pm »
Individuals don't use terms like casus belli or secession statement. Nobody was talking about individuals. In any case if you look at individual quotes by Southern generals, politicians and soldiers, you'd overwhelmingly see them stating over and over again that they fought to preserve slavery. But you're not going to do that because you're a contrarian defending the indefensible.
This is based on what? Your extensive reading of Civil War literature?


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3023

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #706 on: February 28, 2021, 03:13:02 pm »
Mr. C, I don't think you quite understand the world of 1861. You seem to treat people there like its 2021 and they have 50 different outlets for information and a public education system that has offered a consistent message of tolerance. When you examine history, I don't think you do a good job of putting yourself in the mindset of people back then and how profoundly different the world was.

Second, your assertion that "most of them fought for slavery" is surprising considering the overwhelming majority of Southerners did not own slaves. For the 11billionth time, that doesn't mean slavery wasn't the cause. But I doubt that many would be willing to march barefoot in the blazing sun, eat rancid meat, be covered in lice, and get repeatedly shot at, simply so some dandy could keep his slaves.

Did some fight for slavery? Undoubtedly and no one here has disagreed. But for some reason you guys took "The cause of the war was slavery. Also there were lots of complex factors and individual motivations." Which btw, IS a mainstream historical view, and turned it into "You guys are apologizing for the Confederacy and supporting white supremacy."
Dude, calm down. I'm sorry Mr. C, but you seem to really have a problem with looking at politics dispassionately. I think you apply way to much of a moral filter, which coincidentally happens to coincide with your views, and it really causes you to get angry and unfocused.

Nothing I wrote was shameful, anti-historical, or immoral. You took minor disagreements over the degree to which something was or was not something and blew it way out of proportion.

At present in this thread me and Kyndo have been accused of perpetuating white supremacy. That's right, the Korea Apologist and kyndo the mod. White Supremacists. Having been accused of such by regular Korea bashers MayorHaggar and Adel, who have written some atrocious things about Koreans in the past.

Shouldn't this be a sign that maybe YOU are the one off-base? Maybe YOU are the one that needs to pause and take a look around and look at the arguments being made and who your compatriots are.

50,000 diary entries from CSA stating specific non-slavery-related/non-political reasons for fighting.  Unless and until, buh-bye.


  • Savant
  • The Legend

    • 2814

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #707 on: February 28, 2021, 05:22:14 pm »
Poor Marty, all over the shop with his jumbled up narrative. Letting all the voices in his head speak at the same time.

"It was slavery! Oh yes, sir!"
"It was slavery but..."
"Not every Southerner had slaves so.."
"You guys need to take off your filters!"
"I stick to the facts and truth!"

Something in your head is broken.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #708 on: February 28, 2021, 07:13:21 pm »
50,000 diary entries from CSA stating specific non-slavery-related/non-political reasons for fighting.  Unless and until, buh-bye.
Would 100,000 deserters count?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Army#Desertion

Anyways, what exactly is grinding your gears? My claim that a good chunk of people who fought on both sides did so for reasons beyond the primary cause of the war? Is that really controversial?

I think you're pulling a Cathy Newman- "So what you're really saying is..." I think your issue is more personal than actual contents. I think if one of the more established posters on here that you don't have an issue said what I said, you wouldn't be nearly as upset. You might disagree, but you wouldn't be declaring them to be immoral. I think you're letting this personal grudge you have against me affect what you read of mine.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #709 on: February 28, 2021, 07:26:54 pm »
Good to see all these people on the left suddenly deciding to accept everything the US police say as gospel

I thought the right loved cops? Oh that's right, now they murder them when they try to prevent the assassination of politicians.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3023

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #710 on: February 28, 2021, 07:28:29 pm »
Would 100,000 deserters count?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Army#Desertion
Obviously not, duh!  Those are reasons they LEFT, not reasons they joined.  How can one person be so wrong about so much so often?!

And here's a quote from that same page that you didn't bother to mention:
"Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern 'rights' and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it.  Although only 20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, none at all dissented from that view."  — James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War

The fact you had plentiful evidence that your argument is flawed right there on the page you referred, and failed to mention it is just further proof of your status as this forum's foremost bad faith participant. 
« Last Edit: February 28, 2021, 07:33:18 pm by Mr C »


  • gogators!
  • Waygook Lord

    • 5245

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #711 on: February 28, 2021, 09:14:18 pm »
How can it be a military-style coordinated assault if there was

A) No coordination
B) No discipline
C) No organized units or ranks
D) No heavy weapons
E) From what I can tell they didn't fire any shots

If you look at the Capital Riot and Horn Guy and think "military-style assault" you are an idiot.

Notice how you use the fallacious argument from authority? Notice how you say nothing about actual military equipment or techniques?
Is that you Ron Johnson?

A B and C are patently false.


  • gogators!
  • Waygook Lord

    • 5245

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #712 on: February 28, 2021, 09:18:45 pm »
"CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan ventured out to California recently and spoke to QAnon believers who are convinced Trump will be back in the White House very soon as a result of a deadly military coup that they fully support.

“This whole thing with Biden… he’s like a puppet president. The military is in charge. It’s going to be like Myanmar… The military is doing their own investigation. And at the right time, they’re going to be restoring the republic with Trump as president,” one woman said.

O’Sullivan asked other attendees if they’d like to see Biden forcefully removed from office by the military, one man replied, “Absolutely.”

In Myanmar, one woman said, “The government took over and now they redoing the election.”

O’Sullivan then asked, “Would you like to see [a coup] happen?”

“I would like to see it,” one man replied.

The potential remains, especially with many in the GOP seeing those who support violence as their only road to continued relevance. So they continue with the lie that the election was stolen.

"We didn't lose the game. The refs stole it from us."


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #713 on: March 01, 2021, 01:53:33 am »
Obviously not, duh!  Those are reasons they LEFT, not reasons they joined.  How can one person be so wrong about so much so often?!

And here's a quote from that same page that you didn't bother to mention:
"Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern 'rights' and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it.  Although only 20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, none at all dissented from that view."  — James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War

The fact you had plentiful evidence that your argument is flawed right there on the page you referred, and failed to mention it is just further proof of your status as this forum's foremost bad faith participant. 
McPherson is entitled to his view. However he makes what I would consider a questionable decision- That not being opposed to something equates to fighting for it. If someone is willing to risk volunteering to march, fight and die, and these were men who had no problem voicing their opinions, then why wouldn't they explicitly say so? Why not let the reason they say stand as their reason? 20% made it clear they were fighting for slavery. 80% did not. Lets be generous and say double those who talked about it were motivated. That would still leave 60% not. I think double is about the limit where you can attempt to mind-read. After that, you are really wading into dangerous territory and ignoring what is in front of you and then projecting.

And finally- What are you so wound up about? You're acting like not having a completely unnuanced black-white position on this is supporting white supremacy.

This all goes back to the assertion that in the year 2021, in the Age of Tiktok and Instagram, that a statue is influencing people and should be the object of our wrath.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #714 on: March 01, 2021, 01:56:25 am »
"CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan ventured out to California recently and spoke to QAnon believers who are convinced Trump will be back in the White House very soon as a result of a deadly military coup that they fully support.

“This whole thing with Biden… he’s like a puppet president. The military is in charge. It’s going to be like Myanmar… The military is doing their own investigation. And at the right time, they’re going to be restoring the republic with Trump as president,” one woman said.

O’Sullivan asked other attendees if they’d like to see Biden forcefully removed from office by the military, one man replied, “Absolutely.”

In Myanmar, one woman said, “The government took over and now they redoing the election.”

O’Sullivan then asked, “Would you like to see [a coup] happen?”

“I would like to see it,” one man replied.

The potential remains, especially with many in the GOP seeing those who support violence as their only road to continued relevance. So they continue with the lie that the election was stolen.

"We didn't lose the game. The refs stole it from us."
Question-
1) Do the U.S. intelligence/law enforcement agencies have the ability to find out who QAnon is and their identity?
2) Why don't we know this?
3) Shouldn't this be priority #1 if QAnon truly is responsible for a serious threat to our nation and encouraging an insurrection? Why the lack of urgency by the FBI? Why no Bin Laden or unabomber-style manhunt? Why isn't the media trying to find out who Q is?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2021, 02:02:59 am by Mr.DeMartino »


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #715 on: March 01, 2021, 01:59:48 am »
I thought the right loved cops? Oh that's right, now they murder them when they try to prevent the assassination of politicians.
Still no CoD made by the coroner. Going to be a tough case.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/26/politics/fbi-identify-suspect-sicknick/index.html


  • Adel
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1608

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #716 on: March 01, 2021, 03:33:52 am »
Still no CoD made by the coroner. Going to be a tough case.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/26/politics/fbi-identify-suspect-sicknick/index.html

Is it your expert medical opinion that Officer Sicknick still has a pulse Marti?  :laugh:


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #717 on: March 01, 2021, 05:13:11 am »
Is it your expert medical opinion that Officer Sicknick still has a pulse Marti?  :laugh:
Care to explain how you'd manage to get murder charges to stick if you have no CoD?


  • Adel
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1608

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #718 on: March 01, 2021, 06:02:47 am »
Care to explain how you'd manage to get murder charges to stick if you have no CoD?

Here's a tip Marti.  Rather than relying a CNN report, perhaps you could wait for the conclusion of the medical examiner's report. After that I'm sure you'll find a different focus for your gaslighting!  :laugh:
« Last Edit: March 01, 2021, 09:01:45 am by Adel »


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #719 on: March 01, 2021, 06:11:52 am »
They'll get a COD when they figure out which of Martin's Qanon buddies struck the blow that killed Sicknick. Martin probably believes that he accidentally slipped and fell to his death, Russian journalist style.