Necessitating Violence

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Try again.

"Slaughtered in the streets" implies the use of an organized killings squad(s) of some kind. Perhaps a spat of spontaneous pogroms. I'm not seeing that in the articles that were posted.

Even the dead aren't true victims of the massacre of Scotsmen.

[Conserative Morality]

You are also aware that the Confederation, instead of republics was made up of kingdoms correct?

Mostly principalities, actually, who (theoretically) elected a common parliament. Some free cities as well.

Same goes for the Swiss confederacy.

The level of wrong here has reached critical levels.

Explain to me your definition of liberal in this situation. Mine, to be for a state of governance that is as limited as possible and or a culture which overturns traditional societal values. I would consider that definition true then as it is now.

Yeah, under that definition the Confederacy wasn't liberal in the least.

[Wallenburg]

In case you hadn't noticed, I never said any group was being slaughtered in the streets, and I wasn't the one who posted the articles. Don't complain to me about someone else's behavior. I'm just here to sit back and watch the inferno of politics blaze on.

You called his argument a strawman and he refuted that accusation.

No, he didn't. Complaining about someone else's choice of words is in no way a demonstration that his previous post wasn't a strawman.

[The East Marches]

"Slaughtered in the streets" implies the use of an organized killings squad(s) of some kind. Perhaps a spat of spontaneous pogroms. I'm not seeing that in the articles that were posted.

Even the dead aren't true victims of the massacre of Scotsmen.

Look man, if you are going to make a claim like that, you have to have some sort of standard. I'm just not seeing an einsatzgruppen or carnivals of death going on. "Slaughtered in the street" implies some sort of organized violence. The articles you linked (about half through reading them all), don't show that. It sounds to me like https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

[Republic of the Cristo]

Then I suppose communism by 1917 was reactionary as well? I mean, it had already been tried in Paris 40 years prior. I would then suppose that Republics during the 18th centaury were also reactionary - seeing as how the Romans had them over 2,000 years ago. Never mind that both systems were, despite similarities, different from their original source. I hope you catch the sarcasm.

Burn that strawman.

The CSA was recycling ideas from their own past. They weren't borrowing ideas that were new to the US. They weren't taking some obscure ideology that had never been tried on a large scale and thrusting it into the mainstream. You're citing examples of people trying things that were new to their country, or things that would be considered "liberal" in the sense of giving people more freedom. None of that applies to the CSA.

Just because you write some laws and make a government doesn't automatically make your government "liberal" just because it's newly-founded.

There is no strawman here ( you're using it wrong ). The CSA's very form of governance was new. They did not reestablish the articles of confederation, they established something different ( albeit somewhat similar ). The CSA's government allowed for a unified constitution; the articles did not. The CSA had a president with kinda far reaching powers and whom would sit in his office for more than a single year; the articles did not. The confederate congress was able to enforce it's legislation on a national level through the president; the articles did not allow this. States could not tax ships on bordering water ways or form treaties with other states with out congressional approval first in the CSA; in the articles, the states could do pretty much what ever they wanted.

These are only a few of the differences. There loads more. Again, although they were somewhat similar, they were still noticeably different systems - thus, making the CSA a politically liberal state.

[Conserative Morality]

These are only a few of the differences. There loads more. Again, although they were somewhat similar, they were still noticeably different systems - thus, making the CSA a politically liberal state.

You see, again, you contradict your own definition given to me for 'liberal' by defining liberalism purely in contrast to conservatism here and implying because it embraced change, that was what made it liberal.

I think you're trying to make excuses to label the CSA a liberal state when anyone with an understanding of the CSA was would clearly see that as a wildly false claim.

[Republic of the Cristo]

You are also aware that the Confederation, instead of republics was made up of kingdoms correct?

Mostly principalities, actually, who (theoretically) elected a common parliament. Some free cities as well.

Same goes for the Swiss confederacy.

The level of wrong here has reached critical levels.

Explain to me your definition of liberal in this situation. Mine, to be for a state of governance that is as limited as possible and or a culture which overturns traditional societal values. I would consider that definition true then as it is now.

Yeah, under that definition the Confederacy wasn't liberal in the least.

I'm done arguing with you. You're insulting me, you're trying to find exceptions to the rule ( despite them being irrelevant, as they are not intrinsic to said system ) and you are arguing from a purely ideological stand point instead of a historical one - which demands no bias! I will not attempt to humor you further.

[Wallenburg]

Burn that strawman.

The CSA was recycling ideas from their own past. They weren't borrowing ideas that were new to the US. They weren't taking some obscure ideology that had never been tried on a large scale and thrusting it into the mainstream. You're citing examples of people trying things that were new to their country, or things that would be considered "liberal" in the sense of giving people more freedom. None of that applies to the CSA.

Just because you write some laws and make a government doesn't automatically make your government "liberal" just because it's newly-founded.

There is no strawman here ( you're using it wrong ). The CSA's very form of governance was new. They did not reestablish the articles of confederation, they established something different ( albeit somewhat similar ). The CSA's government allowed for a unified constitution; the articles did not. The CSA had a president with kinda far reaching powers and whom would sit in his office for more than a single year; the articles did not. The confederate congress was able to enforce it's legislation on a national level through the president; the articles did not allow this. States could not tax ships on bordering water ways or form treaties with other states with out congressional approval first in the CSA; in the articles, the states could do pretty much what ever they wanted.

These are only a few of the differences. There loads more. Again, although they were somewhat similar, they were still noticeably different systems - thus, making the CSA a politically liberal state.

You do realize that you are describing how the CSA resembled the United States government, right? It is hardly "politically liberal" to copy the government of the nation you have just rebelled against.

[Republic of the Cristo]

These are only a few of the differences. There loads more. Again, although they were somewhat similar, they were still noticeably different systems - thus, making the CSA a politically liberal state.

You see, again, you contradict your own definition given to me for 'liberal' by defining liberalism purely in contrast to conservatism here and implying because it embraced change, that was what made it liberal.

I think you're trying to make excuses to label the CSA a liberal state when anyone with an understanding of the CSA was would clearly see that as a wildly false claim.

The CSA was not a liberal state, it was overall conservative, but I am explaining to you that it had indeed more than a few liberal parts of it - which I have explained in detail above, and which you have neglected to even mention. I am done arguing with you.

[The East Marches]

Perhaps you can help me on my quest. Can we quantify a level of deaths per hundred thousand people that qualifies as persecution or people being slaughtered? I feel like this has to exist somewhere.

As far as I know, it is an "I'll know it when I see it" sort of thing. I highly doubt you could ever set a specific and constant number for that.

Thats not a very good standard for judging things. Then you allow for all kind of hyperbole and other things to occur. I'll give it some thought and try to come up with a standard myself. Maybe average the Holocaust, Armenian genocide and Holomdor or something.

[The Two Jerseys]

Even the dead aren't true victims of the massacre of Scotsmen.

Look man, if you are going to make a claim like that, you have to have some sort of standard. I'm just not seeing an einsatzgruppen or carnivals of death going on. "Slaughtered in the street" implies some sort of organized violence. The articles you linked (about half through reading them all), don't show that. It sounds to me like https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

Seriously, there's no way that anyone could say that this one was even the cop's fault.

[Conserative Morality]

The CSA was not a liberal state, it was overall conservative, but I am explaining to you that it had indeed more than a few liberal parts of it - which I have explained in detail above, and which you have neglected to even mention. I am done arguing with you.

Your stated differences had nothing to do with liberalism. In what fucking world is the power executive office within the government a symbol of liberalism?

[Wallenburg]

Mostly principalities, actually, who (theoretically) elected a common parliament. Some free cities as well.

The level of wrong here has reached critical levels.

Yeah, under that definition the Confederacy wasn't liberal in the least.

I'm done arguing with you. You're insulting me, you're trying to find exceptions to the rule ( despite them being irrelevant, as they are not intrinsic to said system ) and you are arguing from a purely ideological stand point instead of a historical one - which demands no bias! I will not attempt to humor you further.

You have not been insulted at all. If you really thought you were, you would report Conservative Morality for flaming. Furthermore, you criticize him for debating from an ideological standpoint, when you yourself said "I am adamant in putting an ideological spin on history"

[Vashty]

Can I just say that the British police put everyone to shame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9TFvh6Xps4

But if the suspect dies after having an asthma attack from being pepper sprayed, Not a Bang is chalking it up as state-sanctioned murder.

Better an asthma attack than a gunshot wound.

[Conserative Morality]

Thats not a very good standard for judging things. Then you allow for all kind of hyperbole and other things to occur. I'll give it some thought and try to come up with a standard myself. Maybe average the Holocaust, Armenian genocide and Holomdor or something.

Wonderful selection. I guess that means that, in the 50s and 60s, when black people and civil rights activists were literally being shot down in the streets, the numbers wouldn't be significant enough for you to say that they were being shot down in the streets.

Absolutely lovely.

[Vashty]

I think ISIS were hanging gay people from lampposts at one time, does that qualify?

I was referring to the U.S. but that works too. Better go raise some self-defense militias in Raqqa, God speed.

Technically the PKK do that

[Republic of the Cristo]

There is no strawman here ( you're using it wrong ). The CSA's very form of governance was new. They did not reestablish the articles of confederation, they established something different ( albeit somewhat similar ). The CSA's government allowed for a unified constitution; the articles did not. The CSA had a president with kinda far reaching powers and whom would sit in his office for more than a single year; the articles did not. The confederate congress was able to enforce it's legislation on a national level through the president; the articles did not allow this. States could not tax ships on bordering water ways or form treaties with other states with out congressional approval first in the CSA; in the articles, the states could do pretty much what ever they wanted.

These are only a few of the differences. There loads more. Again, although they were somewhat similar, they were still noticeably different systems - thus, making the CSA a politically liberal state.

You do realize that you are describing how the CSA resembled the United States government, right? It is hardly "politically liberal" to copy the government of the nation you have just rebelled against.

I listed out differences between the articles and the Confederacy. There were, however, noticeable differences between the US and CS.

The confederate states were able to deny draft orders, could refuse to provide resources to the federal government ( except for taxes ), and the confederate president did not have as many powers as the US president did.

[Avrellon]

You do realize that you are describing how the CSA resembled the United States government, right? It is hardly "politically liberal" to copy the government of the nation you have just rebelled against.

I listed out differences between the articles and the Confederacy. There were, however, noticeable differences between the US and CS.

The confederate states were able to deny draft orders, could refuse to provide resources to the federal government ( except for taxes ), and the confederate president did not have as many powers as the US president did.

If I remember correctly, this system was an absolute nightmare for Jefferson Davis, for obvious reasons.

[Republic of the Cristo]

I'm done arguing with you. You're insulting me, you're trying to find exceptions to the rule ( despite them being irrelevant, as they are not intrinsic to said system ) and you are arguing from a purely ideological stand point instead of a historical one - which demands no bias! I will not attempt to humor you further.

You have not been insulted at all. If you really thought you were, you would report Conservative Morality for flaming. Furthermore, you criticize him for debating from an ideological standpoint, when you yourself said "I am adamant in putting an ideological spin on history"

Adamant means refusing

[Conserative Morality]

The confederate states were able to deny draft orders, could refuse to provide resources to the federal government ( except for taxes ), and the confederate president did not have as many powers as the US president did.

None of which are particularly liberal in any reasonable sense of the word, including the definition you gave me.

[Republic of the Cristo]

I listed out differences between the articles and the Confederacy. There were, however, noticeable differences between the US and CS.

The confederate states were able to deny draft orders, could refuse to provide resources to the federal government ( except for taxes ), and the confederate president did not have as many powers as the US president did.

If I remember correctly, this system was an absolute nightmare for Jefferson Davis, for obvious reasons.

Oh it was, which is a large part of why the CSA lost; the system was too laxed on the states in order to coordinate an all-out war.

[Vashty]

You have not been insulted at all. If you really thought you were, you would report Conservative Morality for flaming. Furthermore, you criticize him for debating from an ideological standpoint, when you yourself said "I am adamant in putting an ideological spin on history"

Adamant means refusing

It also means closed to debate. If you think you've got your worldview sorted, why are you here debating it?

[Wallenburg]

You have not been insulted at all. If you really thought you were, you would report Conservative Morality for flaming. Furthermore, you criticize him for debating from an ideological standpoint, when you yourself said "I am adamant in putting an ideological spin on history"

Adamant means refusing

Definition of adamant in English:

Refusing to be persuaded or to change one’s mind:

Full Definition of adamant
: unshakable or insistent especially in maintaining a position or opinion : unyielding

No, it doesn't. Please learn the words you use. Otherwise we'll be up all night trying to figure out what the hell we are talking about.

[The East Marches]

Thats not a very good standard for judging things. Then you allow for all kind of hyperbole and other things to occur. I'll give it some thought and try to come up with a standard myself. Maybe average the Holocaust, Armenian genocide and Holomdor or something.

Wonderful selection. I guess that means that, in the 50s and 60s, when black people and civil rights activists were literally being shot down in the streets, the numbers wouldn't be significant enough for you to say that they were being shot down in the streets.

Absolutely lovely.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

I'm really liking this thing tonight. Thanks to Wallenburg for pointing it out.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Adamant means refusing

It also means closed to debate. If you think you've got your worldview sorted, why are you here debating it?

I was not using in a why to suggest it was not open to debate, I was expressing my disgust of apocryphal historical revisionism. This is a really petty thing to be arguing. Can we stop?