Confederate Emblems to be Removed Nationwide.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The blue is the relevant definition.

Ok, to clear my name from what?

Not yours, the CSA's.

[Omega America II]

Ok, to clear my name from what?

Not yours, the CSA's.

It's the truth I believe in. Hmm. Ok. I see that now.

[Laerod]

You're spreading lies about what the Civil War started over and why the South seceded because having to admit that it was racist slavery makes the CSA and the slaver banner look bad.

It's truth. Slaver banner! I don't know what that means, but trust me, I don't like slavery. It is a cruel thing that should've been abolished.

You've been shown that what you claim is "truth" is a bunch of neo-confederate lies multiple times by multiple people. It's time to stop lying, Omega America II.

[Divitaen]

You don't like slavery but have an awful lot of love for the group that seceded to maintain slavery.

So what are you stating?

Same thing everyone else has been stating. That you seem to have this crusade to defend and make the CSA look a lot better than the racist, slavery-defending institution that it was.

[Omega America II]

Ok, to clear my name from what?

Not yours, the CSA's.

I am still convinced it didn't start because of slavery. But, that is me, I have to go really bad now, so another time.

[Dyakovo]

Not yours, the CSA's.

It's the truth I believe in. Hmm. Ok. I see that now.

It's not the "truth you believe in", it is the "lie you believe in".

[Omega America II]

It's truth. Slaver banner! I don't know what that means, but trust me, I don't like slavery. It is a cruel thing that should've been abolished.

You've been shown that what you claim is "truth" is a bunch of neo-confederate lies multiple times by multiple people. It's time to stop lying, Omega America II.

I am still convinced it's truth.

[Divitaen]

You've been shown that what you claim is "truth" is a bunch of neo-confederate lies multiple times by multiple people. It's time to stop lying, Omega America II.

I am still convinced it's truth.

Good for you. At least the overwhelming majority of historians disagree with your "truth" then.

[Laerod]

Not yours, the CSA's.

It's the truthiness I believe in. Hmm. Ok. I see that now.

Fixed for accuracy.

truthiness
[troo-thee-nis]
noun
1. the quality of seeming to be true according to one's intuition, opinion, or perception without regard to logic, factual evidence, or the like: the growing trend of truthiness as opposed to truth.

[Laerod]

You've been shown that what you claim is "truth" is a bunch of neo-confederate lies multiple times by multiple people. It's time to stop lying, Omega America II.

I am still convinced it's truth.

Truthiness.

[Themiclesia]

Personally, I believe the Confederate emblem to be protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Exactly as one is permitted to support the defunct and extinct CSA, one should be able to fly their colours.

On the other hand, I do not support the flag to be used as an article to offend. When it is used as an object to offend, it ought to be removed, as with any other object whose primary object is offence.

For example, if there's a museum that has an exhibit of all flag used in what is now USA in the past, then I fully support the museum's right to fly the Confederate flag, since it is demonstrated in historical context.

No objection? Good. I'm enjoying NSG now.

[Novus America]

It's truth. Slaver banner! I don't know what that means, but trust me, I don't like slavery. It is a cruel thing that should've been abolished.

You've been shown that what you claim is "truth" is a bunch of neo-confederate lies multiple times by multiple people. It's time to stop lying, Omega America II.

He is not lying per se, as he has no intent to state something that is not true.

Rather he has bought into the vast myth perpetrated by the Lost Cause advocates, a myth created and perpetrated by countless writings, that when not outright falsehoods, perpetuate a view of "history" based purely on selection bias, and as such a gross misrepresentation of history.

But he, like the believers in anti-vaccine stuff, or any of the woo like homeopathy has been sucked into a lie. It is pure selection bias that cherry picks "evidence" that advances a narrative and overlooks everything that does not advance the narrative.

But lie enough, and it begins to look like the truth, as it becomes self perpetrating, building on itself. Especially when you get enough writings stating the lie you can then cite to create more writings.

And then people reading those writings actually believe the lie, and advance the lie unintentionally, and thus you get true believers advancing the lie out of genuine belief.

Hence the people saying the Confedracy was not based on slavery are not necessarily liars, or even uneducated. They are often unwittingly advancing a very elaborately constructed lie.

[Dyakovo]

You've been shown that what you claim is "truth" is a bunch of neo-confederate lies multiple times by multiple people. It's time to stop lying, Omega America II.

He is not lying per se, as he has no intent to state something that is not true.

Yes, he is, and yes he does.

[Laerod]

You've been shown that what you claim is "truth" is a bunch of neo-confederate lies multiple times by multiple people. It's time to stop lying, Omega America II.

He is not lying per se, as he has no intent to state something that is not true.

Rather he has bought into the vast myth perpetrated by the Lost Cause advocates, a myth created and perpetrated by countless writings, that when not outright falsehoods, perpetuate a view of "history" based purely on selection bias, and as such a gross misrepresentation of history.

But he, like the believers in anti-vaccine stuff, or any of the woo like homeopathy has been sucked into a lie. It is pure selection bias that cherry picks "evidence" that advances a narrative and overlooks everything that does not advance the narrative.

But lie enough, and it begins to look like the truth, as it becomes self perpetrating, building on itself. Especially when you get enough writings stating the lie you can then cite to create more writings.

And then people reading those writings actually believe the lie, and advance the lie unintentionally, and thus you get true believers advancing the lie out of genuine belief.

Hence the people saying the Confedracy was not based on slavery are not necessarily liars, or even uneducated. They are often unwittingly advancing a very elaborately constructed lie.

And when you've been told over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again why you're wrong and you've failed to present evidence over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again to defend your claims as OA II has, then it's not unwitting anymore.

[Novus America]

He is not lying per se, as he has no intent to state something that is not true.

Rather he has bought into the vast myth perpetrated by the Lost Cause advocates, a myth created and perpetrated by countless writings, that when not outright falsehoods, perpetuate a view of "history" based purely on selection bias, and as such a gross misrepresentation of history.

But he, like the believers in anti-vaccine stuff, or any of the woo like homeopathy has been sucked into a lie. It is pure selection bias that cherry picks "evidence" that advances a narrative and overlooks everything that does not advance the narrative.

But lie enough, and it begins to look like the truth, as it becomes self perpetrating, building on itself. Especially when you get enough writings stating the lie you can then cite to create more writings.

And then people reading those writings actually believe the lie, and advance the lie unintentionally, and thus you get true believers advancing the lie out of genuine belief.

Hence the people saying the Confedracy was not based on slavery are not necessarily liars, or even uneducated. They are often unwittingly advancing a very elaborately constructed lie.

And when you've been told over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again why you're wrong and you've failed to present evidence over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again to defend your claims as OA II has, then it's not unwitting anymore.

Fair enough. But when a lie is so ingrained it is going to take more than a few forum posts to override growing up in a lie based culture and reading countless books based on a lie.

No offense but the Lost Cause myth is much better presented than, and better "sourced" (cherry picked) than your counterarguments. Literally millions of dollars and pages of writing have gone into the myth. Just because your arguments might be true, does NOT make them more convincing. Lies can, and need be far more convincing than the truth. You are out gunned here.
Your truth BB gun will not counter the lie nuke he has been hit with.

(Books are assumed to be more reliable than the internet just because books) In fact I have yet to see anybody change their mind on this forum, even when proven wrong they will simply restate the BS that was just disproven. People are not rational so reasoned debate is most likely an exercise in futility, and will not overide being bombed with propaganda like Tokyo was bombed with napalm.

So he is a Lost Cause. (pun intended)

And before you ask why I bother spitting into the wind posting, I am not purely rational. Otherwise I would be doing something more productive. I find it sometimes amusing in a masochistic sort of way.

And I am actually willing to learn, so I look up and read ocassionally interesting stuff here, interesting stuff can be found amongst the mud like panning for gold, if you try. But he is clearly not trying.

[Novus America]

He is not lying per se, as he has no intent to state something that is not true.

Yes, he is, and yes he does.

Well if that is true he is just [redacted]. And [redacted] naming is banned so I am not going there...

Plus innocent until proven guilty, many people really do believe in the Lost Cause myth, which as stated is much more elaborate and better funded than you are. You are not going to beat that.

[Alien Space Bats]

I couldn't tell you the exact changes because the CSA never won independence. I didn't say things would've changed in a short period of time. Over time, technology would've made it easier to do work without slaves, so slavery would disappear and technology would take their place.

Ah, yes: The "tractors are better than slaves" argument. I was wondering when we'd see that one.

Such an argument misses the point. Technology might have reduced the AMOUNT of slave labor needed to produce a bale of cotton; but SOME labor would still have been needed to produce that cotton nonetheless.

So why would the South have abandoned its preference for using slavery as a means of ORGANIZING its agricultural workforce, in favor of adopting some alternate method of labor organization that involves FREE workers? Or, to speak directly to the "tractors" argument, why would the South have come to prefer to have a poor FREE black men riding on top of those tractors, rather than having them operated by African slaves?

And to take things one step further: Even if the free black men COULD be shown to be more productive and/or cost less than African slaves (which is the usual argument attempted by neo-Confederates when pressed on this point), wouldn't keeping them as slaves provide a tangible social benefit all its own, in so far as slaves don't have the means to push for political empowerment, better civil rights, better living conditions, representation in government, or any of the other things Southerners didn't want blacks to have? The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s could have never taken place without Emancipation; why not just keep Southern blacks in slavery as a means of preventing them from every pushing for social, political, or economic equality with whites?

IOW, no Emancipation in the 1860s, no integration and voting rights in the 1960s.

So if you're a thoroughly racist Southerner (and Confederate society was ABSOLUTELY racist), what's not to love about this scenario?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Not yours, the CSA's.

I am still convinced it didn't start because of slavery. But, that is me, I have to go really bad now, so another time.

I know your parents and society have beat it into your brain differently, but trust me, open-mindedness is a good thing.

You've been shown that what you claim is "truth" is a bunch of neo-confederate lies multiple times by multiple people. It's time to stop lying, Omega America II.

I am still convinced it's truth.

So you admit you're being willfully ignorant.

[Nichmerica]

I couldn't tell you the exact changes because the CSA never won independence. I didn't say things would've changed in a short period of time. Over time, technology would've made it easier to do work without slaves, so slavery would disappear and technology would take their place.

Ah, yes: The "tractors are better than slaves" argument. I was wondering when we'd see that one.

Such an argument misses the point. Technology might have reduced the AMOUNT of slave labor needed to produce a bale of cotton; but SOME labor would still have been needed to produce that cotton nonetheless.

So why would the South have abandoned its preference for using slavery as a means of ORGANIZING its agricultural workforce, in favor of adopting some alternate method of labor organization that involves FREE workers? Or, to speak directly to the "tractors" argument, why would the South have come to prefer to have a poor FREE black men riding on top of those tractors, rather than having them operated by African slaves?

And to take things one step further: Even if the free black men COULD be shown to be more productive and/or cost less than African slaves (which is the usual argument attempted by neo-Confederates when pressed on this point), wouldn't keeping them as slaves provide a tangible social benefit all its own, in so far as slaves don't have the means to push for political empowerment, better civil rights, better living conditions, representation in government, or any of the other things Southerners didn't want blacks to have? The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s could have never taken place without Emancipation; why not just keep Southern blacks in slavery as a means of preventing them from every pushing for social, political, or economic equality with whites?

IOW, no Emancipation in the 1860s, no integration and voting rights in the 1960s.

So if you're a thoroughly racist Southerner (and Confederate society was ABSOLUTELY racist), what's not to love about this scenario?

I wasn't intending to be racist.

[Alien Space Bats]

I mean better technologies, way more advanced technology would've made slavery useless.

Be specific: How is the use of more advanced technology inconsistent with slavery?

Or, if you prefer, I'll put it another way: Can you name a machine that can only be used by free men, as opposed to slaves? 'Cause when I last checked, machines don't really care about the civil rights of those who operate them.

[Nichmerica]

I mean better technologies, way more advanced technology would've made slavery useless.

Be specific: How is the use of more advanced technology inconsistent with slavery?

Or, if you prefer, I'll put it another way: Can you name a machine that can only be used by free men, as opposed to slaves? 'Cause when I last checked, machines don't really care about the civil rights of those who operate them.

I never meant it like that. I don't mean to sound cruel, I didn't intend it to sound racist.

[Alien Space Bats]

And this technology didn't need any one to man it.

REALLY?!?!? There are tractors and harvesters that run themselves now?

Technology hasn't eliminated the need for labor. It has at most reduced demand for labor, but labor is still necessary nonetheless.

You're going to have to make a much, MUCH better argument than you've been making to date.

[Nichmerica]

And this technology didn't need any one to man it.

REALLY?!?!? There are tractors and harvesters that run themselves now?

Technology hasn't eliminated the need for labor. It has at most reduced demand for labor, but labor is still necessary nonetheless.

You're going to have to make a much, MUCH better argument than you've been making to date.

Alright my argument sucks.

[The NAR]

How come this is allowed but this isn't???

[Alien Space Bats]

You just don't get it. Jeez. I'm talking around two hundred years or so. I mean come on by then they could have drone to do it, which would be easier. Just because they didn't use it then doesn't mean they wouldn't use it two hundred years later.

We still haven't gotten rid of labor yet, you know. Most serious economists don't think we ever will.

Or, to put it differently, you're essentially telling me that the Confederacy c. 2015 AD would have slaves making iPhones instead of picking cotton. That might not be very good for China, but I'm hard-pressed to see how that would be better for American blacks.