Quote from: CubaLibre on June 14, 2012, 05:51:02 AM
Though you have to admit red bowties are more stylish than white robes. 

Yeah, but those suits sucked!

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 06:48:15 AM
When you consistently ignore actually defending your own argument and addressing counterarguments, nobody can be blamed for "misrepresenting" what you say.  You've refused to actually elaborate on your point, so how do you expect anyone to understand it?

You argue that homosexual behavior is a perversion.  Your argument for this is based on the dictionary definition; deviating markedly from the social norm.  The implication here is that perversions, based on this definition, are bad.

However, precisely the same logic can be applied to a ridiculous amount of harmless but socially deviant habits, such as liking jazz music.  Once again, feel free to explain, in detail, where I am wrong with this.

Because we already have a fag thread, that's why I stopped.
Your need to force an agenda over your deviate agenda into every thread is disruptive, and taking my statements out of context as a way of baiting me back is is not only irritating and offensive, but pushing your limits here.
I won't ask you again!
So simply STFU over it and move along, don't even respond to this post.

Quote from: mdgiles on June 14, 2012, 05:44:15 AM
Your point being? Ali was a follower of the racist Elijah Mohammed, and his Black Muslims. They were against every thing white. Except for skin color and the object of their dislike, the were no different the sheet wearing Klansman.

An extreme example to be sure, however, I was just pointing out that it is a myth that only whites favored anti-miscegenation laws. The support for them, with exceptions like the former Cassius Clay, was far less vocal in the black community of the 40s and 50s and into the 60s, but it was, never the less, still there.

Also, the support for those laws was far less prevalent in the white community that is traditionally portrayed. Like so many things, opposition to interracial marriage was more a product of political campaigns than anything else - more b.s. to spun by hucksters to get people to contribute to and vote for a given candidate.

-Dr Watt

Quote from: mdgiles on June 14, 2012, 06:05:12 AM
Solar,
That's pretty much all he is doing. He never answers any point anyone raises, he simply reinterprets it as if we are working from the same assumptions he is. Somehow he has convinced himself that homosexuality has nothing to do with homosexual behavior. In his mind, it makes sense to compare a PURELY physical characteristic - skin color - with a behavior pattern - homosexuality. He attempts to use the words gender and gay to disguise this. As if people in a gay marriage will not be engaging in homosexual behavior. As if we're objecting to the fact of their being homosexual, without that having any possible connections to our expectation of their actions.

Exactly correct!!!
And this behavior is wearing very thin. He knows what he's doing is basic obfuscation to avoid the real issue, money and power.
Though I'm not certain even he knows the truth, he too may have been duped like so many others on the left into believing this to be an actual issue, when it is just a leftist move to destroy our culture.

Quote from: Solar on June 14, 2012, 06:59:31 AM
Because we already have a fag thread, that's why I stopped.

Why you couldn't have simply said "let's move this discussion over to another thread" and leave it at that, I haven't the faintest clue.

And don't try rewriting history.  I was still debating over what hadn't the slightest relationship to gay marriage on page 9, when you suddenly came up with this:

Quote
I'm willing to bet money that both fag marriage and Hussein care both go down.

Which prompted a response from mdgiles and several others.  I ignored the sidetrack, and continued to debate the OT.  It wasn't until everybody, including yourself, clearly lost interest in it that I finally responded to your own side-discussion.


----------------------


But, if you wish to reply to this on page 9:

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 10, 2012, 09:50:20 AM
Not by the Declaration.  They were dissolving their ties to Britain, remember?  They no longer wished to be "Englishmen" at all.

To my best knowledge, the Magna Carta never claimed equality.  It never claimed that government exists by the consent of the governed, as divine mandate was still a popular (and convenient) notion.

The part about overthrowing a corrupt state certainly wasn't a part of English tradition.

So?  The point is that, originally, one could call colonial unrest conservative because they wished to preserve their "rights as Englishmen" (although even then, I would contest).  But once they refused to call themselves Englishmen...well, it's hard to say claim that now, right?

That's bullshit.  By this definition, "conservatives" are really moderate liberals.

Do you oppose health care change:

a) period.  That it is wrong, that health care should always remain privatized?

b) Because you support universal health care, but think that Obama is moving too quickly.

You chose A?  I thought so.  Now ask yourself the same question for gay marriage and social welfare. 

The notion that conservatives favor gradual change is a myth.

So by your definition of liberal, conservative and reactionary...abolitionists were still extreme left wingers, which is my point.

The legal thing would be to, as you proposed, suggest a constitutional amendment to forbid the abolishment of slavery?

...

That would be the legal method to preserve slavery, not abolish it.  I don't follow your logic here.

First, I love how you imply that leftists are the ones to talk in absolutes, even though we typically decry such a method of thinking.  Was Bush a Marxist now, because he decreed that "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists"?

Second, while nothing is black and white, history certainly is filled with contrasting shades of grey.  We both (hopefully) agree that slavery was wrong.  History shows that the left opposed slavery.  History shows that the left opposed segregation.  If we accept the premise that slavery and segregation were wrong, we must accept that the left was right on these issues.

1.   This includes in military and legislating morality.  Modern conservatives love to preach "small government", but then turn around and spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year busting into the homes of suspected drug dealers and cracking prostitution.
2.   Abolitionists were not small-government classical liberals.  The Republican party wanted a large federal government.

Funny thing is that modern liberalism wants to protect all of these as well.  We can debate whether or not it is successful in any of the above, but that's different.

Either way, classical liberalism's specifics changed over time due to evolving socio-economic situations.  Several centuries back, the government was largely considered to be a tool of the rich; a large government favored the establishment, and thus liberals tended to dislike it.

But recently, big government has become a [often incompetent and corrupt]  protector of the common good.  A large government favors the disadvantaged; business benefits from less government intervention.  Ergo, liberals tend to favor big government.

But what does not change is the ideology; change and progress.

----


But this is all irrelevant, because abolitionists certainly weren't classical liberals.


Yes, it is.  It's the government jobs to "promote the general welfare" and legislate against crime.

And this is way strict constitutionalism is stupid.  You people forget that the Constitution is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.  If they really wanted to, conservatives could have supported a constitutional amendment banning industrial child labor, but they never did.  So, once again, they were on the "wrong" side of history.

No, they were not.  Not by any stretch of the word.  Abolitionists were among the first big-government liberals. 

You're conjuring your own definition of the word.   Plenty of classical liberals were deists or even atheists.  There is no perquisite that all religious liberals were classical liberals.

Sure it did, in hindsight.  Liberals favored reform and (by this time) big government, conservatives tended to favor war, states' rights and tradition.  Demographics were similar, ideology was similar, it's difficult to not draw comparisons.

Those would be faarrrrrr left, of course.

Why not in the pro-states' rights, pro tradition, historically conservative south?

Gee, I wonder why.

And I never suggested that Marxism was the source of the anti-slavery movement.

Yes, those anti-war, northern Quakers that the English monarch feared as "dangerous radicals".

...next to slavery, that was the hottest debate topic in the Antebellum period.

No, that was the mindset of the conservative south.  Northerners such as Webster constantly preached a love of the union over one's state.  The rallying cry of the north was to preserve the union.

Then show me the conservatives who championed the 13/14/15th amendments.  Last time I checked, they hated these with a passion.

You keep criticizing the left's "unconstitutional" (patriot act...nah, let's ignore that) methods of passing ethically right legislation (by our consensus), yet you keep on ignoring the fact that the right opposed these not on method, but on principle.  Otherwise, conservatives would have supported the three civil rights amendments; they did not.


Untrue.  Plenty of monopolies exist today, few as a result of government regulation.  Usually, the government breaks these.  Hence how T. Roosevelt got one of his nicknames.

And these competitors will often be absorbed or forced to close down by the trust that controls 90% of business.  You see, those obsessed with a literal free market don't accept that the invisible hand isn't omnipotent, and that these unregulated "free" markets quickly end up as the precise opposite.

Which certainly explains why old guard republicans and dixiecrats rallied against Trumans' attempts to continue Roosevelt's wartime prices fixes at lower costs with almost as much vigor as they rallied against his civil rights measures.

Even if this were true, conservatives didn't even care at all.  Or please, feel free to show me the conservative feminist movement.

You're right.  But if it is not, it's either coincidence or implying a common causation (read: liberalism).  In this case, the latter.

Yes, there was.  It was a (relative) fringe movement, but it still existed, and received no love from the right.

Feel free to do so.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 07:10:00 AM
Why you couldn't have simply said "let's move this discussion over to another thread" and leave it at that, I haven't the faintest clue.

And don't try rewriting history.  I was still debating over what hadn't the slightest relationship to gay marriage on page 9, when you suddenly came up with this:

Which prompted a response from mdgiles and several others.  I ignored the sidetrack, and continued to debate the OT.  It wasn't until everybody, including yourself, clearly lost interest in it that I finally responded to your own side-discussion.


----------------------


But, if you wish to reply to this on page 9:

Feel free to do so.

What part of STFU and do not reply, did you not understand?
Does someone need a time out?

Quote from: Dr_Watt on June 14, 2012, 07:06:17 AM
An extreme example to be sure, however, I was just pointing out that it is a myth that only whites favored anti-miscegenation laws. The support for them, with exceptions like the former Cassius Clay, was far less vocal in the black community of the 40s and 50s and into the 60s, but it was, never the less, still there.

Also, the support for those laws was far less prevalent in the white community that is traditionally portrayed. Like so many things, opposition to interracial marriage was more a product of political campaigns than anything else - more b.s. to spun by hucksters to get people to contribute to and vote for a given candidate.

-Dr Watt

Interestingly enough, if you know anything about the black community; you'd be aware of the enormous resentment Black women used to feel over black men marrying white women. They felt it was a commentary on the beauty and desirability of black women. Now that interracial marriage has become more prevalent, especially white males marrying black women, much of that resentment has died down. Maybe the human race is growing up.

Dude, can you not understand that I was doing precisely what you said ("and move along"), and shifting back to the original topic, by quoting my completely unrelated-to-gay-marriage argument on the relative historical track records of the two ideologies (before you brought up gay marriage, at the bottom of page 8)?

Once again, to attempt to shift topics:

QuoteNot by the Declaration.  They were dissolving their ties to Britain, remember?  They no longer wished to be "Englishmen" at all.

To my best knowledge, the Magna Carta never claimed equality.  It never claimed that government exists by the consent of the governed, as divine mandate was still a popular (and convenient) notion.

The part about overthrowing a corrupt state certainly wasn't a part of English tradition.

So?  The point is that, originally, one could call colonial unrest conservative because they wished to preserve their "rights as Englishmen" (although even then, I would contest).  But once they refused to call themselves Englishmen...well, it's hard to say claim that now, right?

That's bullshit.  By this definition, "conservatives" are really moderate liberals.

Do you oppose health care change:

a) period.  That it is wrong, that health care should always remain privatized?

b) Because you support universal health care, but think that Obama is moving too quickly.

You chose A?  I thought so.  Now ask yourself the same question for gay marriage and social welfare.

The notion that conservatives favor gradual change is a myth.

So by your definition of liberal, conservative and reactionary...abolitionists were still extreme left wingers, which is my point.

The legal thing would be to, as you proposed, suggest a constitutional amendment to forbid the abolishment of slavery?

...

That would be the legal method to preserve slavery, not abolish it.  I don't follow your logic here.

First, I love how you imply that leftists are the ones to talk in absolutes, even though we typically decry such a method of thinking.  Was Bush a Marxist now, because he decreed that "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists"?

Second, while nothing is black and white, history certainly is filled with contrasting shades of grey.  We both (hopefully) agree that slavery was wrong.  History shows that the left opposed slavery.  History shows that the left opposed segregation.  If we accept the premise that slavery and segregation were wrong, we must accept that the left was right on these issues.

1.   This includes in military and legislating morality.  Modern conservatives love to preach "small government", but then turn around and spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year busting into the homes of suspected drug dealers and cracking prostitution.
2.   Abolitionists were not small-government classical liberals.  The Republican party wanted a large federal government.

Funny thing is that modern liberalism wants to protect all of these as well.  We can debate whether or not it is successful in any of the above, but that's different.

Either way, classical liberalism's specifics changed over time due to evolving socio-economic situations.  Several centuries back, the government was largely considered to be a tool of the rich; a large government favored the establishment, and thus liberals tended to dislike it.

But recently, big government has become a [often incompetent and corrupt]  protector of the common good.  A large government favors the disadvantaged; business benefits from less government intervention.  Ergo, liberals tend to favor big government.

But what does not change is the ideology; change and progress.

----


But this is all irrelevant, because abolitionists certainly weren't classical liberals.


Yes, it is.  It's the government jobs to "promote the general welfare" and legislate against crime.

And this is way strict constitutionalism is stupid.  You people forget that the Constitution is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.  If they really wanted to, conservatives could have supported a constitutional amendment banning industrial child labor, but they never did.  So, once again, they were on the "wrong" side of history.

No, they were not.  Not by any stretch of the word.  Abolitionists were among the first big-government liberals.

You're conjuring your own definition of the word.   Plenty of classical liberals were deists or even atheists.  There is no perquisite that all religious liberals were classical liberals.

Sure it did, in hindsight.  Liberals favored reform and (by this time) big government, conservatives tended to favor war, states' rights and tradition.  Demographics were similar, ideology was similar, it's difficult to not draw comparisons.

Those would be faarrrrrr left, of course.

Why not in the pro-states' rights, pro tradition, historically conservative south?

Gee, I wonder why.

And I never suggested that Marxism was the source of the anti-slavery movement.

Yes, those anti-war, northern Quakers that the English monarch feared as "dangerous radicals".

...next to slavery, that was the hottest debate topic in the Antebellum period.

No, that was the mindset of the conservative south.  Northerners such as Webster constantly preached a love of the union over one's state.  The rallying cry of the north was to preserve the union.

Then show me the conservatives who championed the 13/14/15th amendments.  Last time I checked, they hated these with a passion.

You keep criticizing the left's "unconstitutional" (patriot act...nah, let's ignore that) methods of passing ethically right legislation (by our consensus), yet you keep on ignoring the fact that the right opposed these not on method, but on principle.  Otherwise, conservatives would have supported the three civil rights amendments; they did not.


Untrue.  Plenty of monopolies exist today, few as a result of government regulation.  Usually, the government breaks these.  Hence how T. Roosevelt got one of his nicknames.

And these competitors will often be absorbed or forced to close down by the trust that controls 90% of business.  You see, those obsessed with a literal free market don't accept that the invisible hand isn't omnipotent, and that these unregulated "free" markets quickly end up as the precise opposite.

Which certainly explains why old guard republicans and dixiecrats rallied against Trumans' attempts to continue Roosevelt's wartime prices fixes at lower costs with almost as much vigor as they rallied against his civil rights measures.

Even if this were true, conservatives didn't even care at all.  Or please, feel free to show me the conservative feminist movement.

You're right.  But if it is not, it's either coincidence or implying a common causation (read: liberalism).  In this case, the latter.

Yes, there was.  It was a (relative) fringe movement, but it still existed, and received no love from the right.