Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: We don't give a shit about your deconversion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - BenTheBiased

1
You guys just don't understand. It's not about race. It's about economics. We need to be taking in immigrants from economically successful countries, like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE. You know. Those sorts of countries.
3
Incidentally, Dave's whole new shiny thing of "Why did we need a war to end slavery, duh I'm an idiot" (exact quote*) is pretty much a tacit admission that yes, slavery was the primary cause of the war. Not that he will ever give an explicit admission.

*Davinition of "quote"
4
I'm sure this has been said before by a lot of people, but it's really, really sick that an investigation into corruption of the American election system has been turned into partisan politics. Dave and his ilk are in full rah-rah go team mode, and it's a direct result of their opinion-makers not giving a shit about corruption and only caring about power at the possible expense of American democracy. It's incredibly frightening.
5
You don't want to learn about how Dave saved the country from Stalin?
6
I was a Bernie supporter too. He was proposing actual progressive policies. Hillary was proposing more-or-less business as usual. But any rational person would have taken that over Trump.

And yes, personality politics has become utterly ridiculous here. And yes, part of the problem is the lack of viable third parties, though unfortunately our system seems designed (whether intentionally or not) to make it almost impossible for more than two parties to be viable at a time.
7
Dave doesn't want Stalin elected as president.

So Dave votes for Trump to prevent this from happening.

Dave is smart.
No, Dave is a fucking idiot because there was no chance of Stalin ever being elected president because Stalin died in 1953. And Hillary Clinton was nothing remotely like Stalin, and Dave has no reason for believing she was except for being brainwashed by right-wing propaganda because, as previously stated, Dave is a fucking idiot.
Just because idiots like Dave want to paint her as the devil, it's probably not a good idea to paint her as an optimal candidate.
Who's doing that?

ETA: Is "nothing remotely like Stalin" all it takes a for a candidate to be "optimal" to you?
8
Dave doesn't want Stalin elected as president.

So Dave votes for Trump to prevent this from happening.

Dave is smart.
No, Dave is a fucking idiot because there was no chance of Stalin ever being elected president because Stalin died in 1953. And Hillary Clinton was nothing remotely like Stalin, and Dave has no reason for believing she was except for being brainwashed by right-wing propaganda because, as previously stated, Dave is a fucking idiot.
9
For reference...
Yup, if this follows the usual script, Dave will eventually make a minor concession about maybe slavery being slightly more important than he initially thought it was, but based on some flimsy misreading of something that doesn't actually support him at all, he will declare that he was basically right if not entirely clear. Not much later, he will crow about how he handed our asses to us in this debate. P=S+F, part 1,000,000.
Dave has been following this script exactly, right down to his flimsy misreading of tioH's posts.
10
"clarifying"

Lol
In full bluff mode now, I see. Can't wait for the bluster, bravado, and inevitable badger.
11
What has anyone said to give you that impression?

ETA: And I mean both what has anyone said to give you the impression that anyone thought the Union was initially fighting primarily for abolition ...
falling out of my chair laughing...
At the thought of having to seriously defend a claim you made? I don't blame you. It is pretty hilarious to think you would ever do that.
12
What has anyone said to give you that impression?

ETA: And I mean both what has anyone said to give you the impression that anyone thought the Union was initially fighting primarily for abolition, and also what has anyone said to give you the impression that there's anything that could in any way be called a "Darwin Club" at TR.
13
can someone who's read the thread tell me why this moron thinks he won something?

He seems to think that if he can show that the North's/Union's reason for fighting the ACW wasn't "to end slavery" then the war wasn't really about slavery, I think. It sort of ignores the bigger and prime question, "why did the south secede," though.

Well he already admitted that slavery was the primary cause of secession (though later weaseled back to "a significant reason"). His current gambit seems to be trying to separate "primary cause of secession" from "primary cause of war." Anything to avoid admitting he was wrong.

I'm not sure I understand the point of the distinction, and of course, as ffuy pointed out at length, motivations/"reasons" vary from entity to entity or person to person. It's entirely possible that the Union and the Treasonous Slavers went to war for different reasons, so pointing out the motivations of one doesn't mean the other went to war for the same ones.

The point of the distinction for Dave is that he had been confronted with evidence that he was wrong that was so overwhelming even he couldn't ignore it (which means it was pretty damn overwhelming), that being the Declarations of Causes of the seceding states, which make it abundantly clear that slavery was the issue over which they were seceding. Confronted with that, Dave had to follow the usual Dave script for whenever he's proven wrong in a way even he has to admit: make a minor concession, and invent a new reason why he was actually right all along. The minor concession was that slavery was the reason for secession. The new reason why he was actually right all along is that "reason for secession" is different from "reason for war." So now he has to flail around to find some other reason for the war that isn't slavery. Until now, he had tried to claim it was "greed." Now he's latched onto the idea that the war only happened because the North fought back, and they weren't doing it primarily to abolish slavery, so he still gets to claim that he was right about slavery not being the primary cause. It's incredibly disingenuous and idiotic. Welcome to a Dave thread.
14
can someone who's read the thread tell me why this moron thinks he won something?

He seems to think that if he can show that the North's/Union's reason for fighting the ACW wasn't "to end slavery" then the war wasn't really about slavery, I think. It sort of ignores the bigger and prime question, "why did the south secede," though.

Well he already admitted that slavery was the primary cause of secession (though later weaseled back to "a significant reason"). His current gambit seems to be trying to separate "primary cause of secession" from "primary cause of war." Anything to avoid admitting he was wrong.
15
Why do you say "man up"?  Are you a mysoginist?  Implying that men are mentally tougher than women or something?  Why not say "woman up"?
Why do you say "all men are created equal". Are you a misogynist [sic] ?
Now answer the question.
I will ... but "men" in that context means "humans" ... what - exactly - does YOUR use of the word "man" mean ... note that you are using the word as a verb ...
AFDave's Eighth Law:
Any thread where I'm getting my ass handed to me on the original topic can be prolonged indefinitely by the introduction of tangential diversions or an abnormal focus on meaningless minutiae.


Here. I'll rephrase:  "show - or at least fake for a moment - the courage of an adult human"
Hi Dave ... :wave:
okay great. I guess you are not a misogynist after all.

Anyway, to answer your question about was Lincoln the worst president of all... I guess it kind of depends on how you rate good and bad. I think it's clear that he did preside over the most costly war in US history in terms of human lives lost. And if your yard stick for good and bad is number of lives lost in a war, then yes he was the worst. But if your yard stick is how well did he preserve the Union and lay the foundation for the most powerful Nation on Earth, then of course he did very well.
I feel like maybe the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment should be mentioned here as well.
16
Lol ... no I wasn't half wrong ... note the question in the OP ... was the slavery issue the PRIMARY cause of the Civil War ... And the answer is a bit subjective it seems.
No, it's not. It was slavery, as has been abundantly demonstrated in this thread. Why can't you admit it?
Certainly a fundamental difference between north and south was that in the south, slavery was an official institution which allowed for some horrific consequences like packing slaves on ships like sardines and beating them to near death for infractions and making them do hard physical labor for 16 hours a day and so on. 
Yes, an institution they saw threatened. Hence the secession. Hence the war. Slavery was the cause.
But the north had it's own style of human oppression and in some ways was worse than the average condition of the southern black slave from what I have read.
Which was not equivalent to slavery and had little to nothing to do with the war, so why do you keep bringing it up?
So I will grant you that a significant reason for SECESSION was the Institution of Slavery in the South,
It was by far the main reason for secession, as the Declarations of Causes clearly state.
but not "enslaving of humans" generally, because both sides did that using different styles. 
Go fuck yourself with your #bothsides bullshit. No matter how bad conditions in factories were, the workers there were not slaves, and neither side of the war was fighting to preserve factory work. It's a red herring that you keep bringing up because you desperately don't want to be wrong. But you are. Man up and admit it.
WAR had a deeper cause and in my opinion was caused by greed.  Fear is a closely related emotion "What if I lose all these slaves?  How will I ever live?"
Many southern slaveholders were certainly greedy. Many of them also feared losing their slaves. What's the common element here, Dave? Slavery. Slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. Time to admit it and move on.
17
You really are a pathetic little weasel, Dave.
18
Jesus Christ this thread is still going.
19
I have to say that even though I knew he would franoogle some nugget, the fact that it's something as utterly irrelevant as the opinion of Charles Dickens is a genuine surprise.
20
How scary would you say slavery is in comparison with resource exploitation?
21
Yup, if this follows the usual script, Dave will eventually make a minor concession about maybe slavery being slightly more important than he initially thought it was, but based on some flimsy misreading of something that doesn't actually support him at all, he will declare that he was basically right if not entirely clear. Not much later, he will crow about how he handed our asses to us in this debate. P=S+F, part 1,000,000.
Now you're just spoiling the fun. It's not the destination that matters, it's the journey.
Oh, we'll still get it. It's not like pointing out Dave's behaviors ever makes him alter them. The Laws are still true after all these years.
22
Yup, if this follows the usual script, Dave will eventually make a minor concession about maybe slavery being slightly more important than he initially thought it was, but based on some flimsy misreading of something that doesn't actually support him at all, he will declare that he was basically right if not entirely clear. Not much later, he will crow about how he handed our asses to us in this debate. P=S+F, part 1,000,000.
23
One of my goals is to post reasons why I think heads are going to roll. That seems like a reasonable goal in light of the thread title, don't you think? What I posted today are items that I believe will lead to heads rolling. I could be wrong, but but I think I'm right.
The trouble is, you'll never know if you're wrong, because you will always continue to believe you're right no matter what actually happens.
Oh is that so? So if Donald Trump actually is not in office in January of 2019 you don't think I will acknowledge that?
I don't think you'll admit that it means you were wrong about anything, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong about that.
Do you think I believe that moon landings were faked?
I think you'll vehemently argue that they were if it happens to be convenient to any given argument you happen to be making at any given time.
24
Actually good point... We do need to look at both the ordinances of secession and the Declaration of causes for each state.
Any ETA on when you plan to do that? I linked and gave relevant quotes from both in my post above.
25
One of my goals is to post reasons why I think heads are going to roll. That seems like a reasonable goal in light of the thread title, don't you think? What I posted today are items that I believe will lead to heads rolling. I could be wrong, but but I think I'm right.
The trouble is, you'll never know if you're wrong, because you will always continue to believe you're right no matter what actually happens.