Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[there4eyeM]

This poster did not say truth does not exist.
Truth is a term we use to (try) to describe an idea, an aspiration, a concept.
'Absolute truth' may exist, but it is beyond humans to know it without Divine Revelation, and that is entirely personal.
Has anyone here been contacted in that way?

 

[Skylar]

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

I know you are unable to comprehend this, but we are talking about truth here, not what some humbug Supreme Court justices have said.

What is truth to you? Are you the one who gets to decide what laws are real and which ones are not? Why so un American?

So is your position that there is no truth?

Really?

No, I asked a question.

Truth is subjective,

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's all I need to know about you. Why bother debating this issue if it's entirely subjective?

it's why we have one of the three branches of government to interpret the law. Because one body needs to or we are all living under different truths and in the end that creates chaos. So, we have the court system to decide what is fair under the law, there really isn't a better system in place and no, you're not going to be happy 100% of the time, tough shit, it's called real life.

No that's not the reason we have three branches of government. The real reason is that men can never be trusted to rule over other men, whether they are politicians, presidents or judges.

Our court system is a travesty. What it dispenses couldn't even remotely be called "justice."

Says you, citing you. And you ignore your own sources if they don't ape what you want to believe. Rendering your judgment uselessly inconsistent.

You ignored your own source Madison on secession. You ignored the USSC. And the constitution makes no mention of it. It definitely mentioned rebellions and invasions. Placing the Union's putting down of a rebellion far above whatever you imagine for the constitution.

You citing yourself may have some meaning in your own head. It means jack shit to anyone else. As legally speaking, you're nobody. Where as Madison, the Constitution and the USSC are all immediately relevant to the law. Any one of which trumps you.

 

[bripat9643]

This poster did not say truth does not exist.
Truth is a term we use to (try) to describe an idea, an aspiration, a concept.
'Absolute truth' may exist, but it is beyond humans to know it without Divine Revelation, and that is entirely personal.
Has anyone here been contacted in that way?

You obviously have a different definition of "absolute truth" than most philosophers. The terms refers to any fact which isn't subject to subjective interpretation. The law of gravity is the classic example. The earth orbiting the sun is another. It does not mean, as you apparently believe, a knowledge of every conceivable fact in the universe. No one has every claimed that such knowledge is possible. Your definition of the term is a straw man fallacy. No one ever claimed we can know everything, but we can know somethings with a fairly high degree of certainty.

Also, truth does not describe an idea, an aspiration or a concept. It refers to reality. Things either exist or they don't.

 

[bripat9643]

I know you are unable to comprehend this, but we are talking about truth here, not what some humbug Supreme Court justices have said.

What is truth to you? Are you the one who gets to decide what laws are real and which ones are not? Why so un American?

So is your position that there is no truth?

Really?

No, I asked a question.

Truth is subjective,

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's all I need to know about you. Why bother debating this issue if it's entirely subjective?

it's why we have one of the three branches of government to interpret the law. Because one body needs to or we are all living under different truths and in the end that creates chaos. So, we have the court system to decide what is fair under the law, there really isn't a better system in place and no, you're not going to be happy 100% of the time, tough shit, it's called real life.

No that's not the reason we have three branches of government. The real reason is that men can never be trusted to rule over other men, whether they are politicians, presidents or judges.

Our court system is a travesty. What it dispenses couldn't even remotely be called "justice."

Says you, citing you. And you ignore your own sources if they don't ape what you want to believe. Rendering your judgment uselessly inconsistent.

You ignored your own source Madison on secession. You ignored the USSC. And the constitution makes no mention of it. It definitely mentioned rebellions and invasions. Placing the Union's putting down of a rebellion far above whatever you imagine for the constitution.

You citing yourself may have some meaning in your own head. It means jack shit to anyone else. As legally speaking, you're nobody. Where as Madison, the Constitution and the USSC are all immediately relevant to the law. Any one of which trumps you.

Once again you admit the truth: The Constitution doesn't mention secession. So where do you get off claiming the Constitution prohibits secession? All you can do is quote one man's opinion. Of course, there were plenty of other men who had a hand in drafting the Constitution who had a different opinion.

 

[Skylar]

Who said there is no truth?

HappyJoy, for one.

A marriage, for example, is a legal union. It can be ended if both parties agree. If that is not the case, authorities are addressed to adjudicate. If one party becomes violent, he/she can be arrested. One of them declaring that the other must leave the house does not mean the other must leave the house. If one shoots at the other to try to make him/her leave, consequences can be grave.

Hmmmm, wrong. Both parties don't have to agree. If you refuse to consent to a divorce, then a judge will make that decision for you. You can't force someone to remain married to you.

No judge found that South Carolina had the authority to secede. It unilaterally 'declared' it. That's not legally authoritative.

Even your analogies demonstrate the absurdity of your claims.

Where does the Constitution say a judge gets to decide whether a state can secede? When did I ever compare divorce law with Constitution?

The courts are granted jurisdiction over all issues that arise under the constitution. The authority to secede would definite be such an issue.

Show us ANY mention of secession in the constitution. In any capacity. Authorized or even hinted at.

There's nothing. You made it up.

Your entire understanding of the Constitution, secession and the Civil War is entirely fictional. You just make stuff up and believe it to be factual

Laughing...says the guy that ignored Madison after citing him, ignored Madison's rejection of the right to secession, ignored the USSC on the sovereign status of the states changing after joining under the constitution, nor can you find the slightest mention of secession anywhere in the constitution.

You've got nothing but your imagination to back your claims. That's literally your argument: you ignoring anyone or anything that contradicts you. And then insisting you must e right because you say you are. That's not an exageration. You've got no source that backs your claims.

And worse, you lie to back your claims. You claimed that Madison backed secession. That was a naked lie. Neither the Kentucky nor the Virginia Resolutions even mention secession. Nor did Madison ever express support for secession. He explicitly contradicted your assertions, insisting that the constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'. Madison specifically addressed secession in reference to nullification....and rejected secession again. And its hardly the only time you made up evidence:

You claimed that the NY ratification document included NY retaining the right to secede. That was a bald faced lie. There's no such mention. And when pressed for you to SHOW us where in the document it is......you give us snivelling excuses why you can't.

So you ignore overwhelming evidence that contradicts you, literally make up your argument from nothing citing only yourself, and lie to support your invention. No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

What is truth to you? Are you the one who gets to decide what laws are real and which ones are not? Why so un American?

So is your position that there is no truth?

Really?

No, I asked a question.

Truth is subjective,

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's all I need to know about you. Why bother debating this issue if it's entirely subjective?

it's why we have one of the three branches of government to interpret the law. Because one body needs to or we are all living under different truths and in the end that creates chaos. So, we have the court system to decide what is fair under the law, there really isn't a better system in place and no, you're not going to be happy 100% of the time, tough shit, it's called real life.

No that's not the reason we have three branches of government. The real reason is that men can never be trusted to rule over other men, whether they are politicians, presidents or judges.

Our court system is a travesty. What it dispenses couldn't even remotely be called "justice."

Says you, citing you. And you ignore your own sources if they don't ape what you want to believe. Rendering your judgment uselessly inconsistent.

You ignored your own source Madison on secession. You ignored the USSC. And the constitution makes no mention of it. It definitely mentioned rebellions and invasions. Placing the Union's putting down of a rebellion far above whatever you imagine for the constitution.

You citing yourself may have some meaning in your own head. It means jack shit to anyone else. As legally speaking, you're nobody. Where as Madison, the Constitution and the USSC are all immediately relevant to the law. Any one of which trumps you.

Once again you admit the truth: The Constitution doesn't mention secession.

Admit it? Its my point, Brip. There's no mention of secession in the Constitution while there is definitely mention of rebellions and invasions. The authority you've imagined doesn't exist. While the basis of the Union's defense of its own forts and the suppression of rebellions within its own territory are thoroughly established in the constitution.

So you ignore the constitution.

You claim authority that the constitution never so much as mentions. You've literally pulled the right to secession sideways out of your ass. And there's nothing backing it save you imagining it must be so.

Contradicting you is the constitution which has nothing you made up, Madison who explicitly contradicts you insisting the constitution is adopted in toto and forever, and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. With the USSC recognizing that the sovereign status of the states was changed upon joining under the constitution 30 years BEFORE the civil war. And the USSC recognizing that no right to secede AFTER the civil war.

And you ignore it all, imagining that you must be right. Um.....you're nobody. And no law is based on your imagination.

Do you have anything but you citing yourself? Or is it just lies like your claims about 'Madison supporting secession' or your blithering idiocy about the NY ratification document retaining the right to secede?

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to keep lying to support it.

 

[Skylar]

This poster did not say truth does not exist.
Truth is a term we use to (try) to describe an idea, an aspiration, a concept.
'Absolute truth' may exist, but it is beyond humans to know it without Divine Revelation, and that is entirely personal.
Has anyone here been contacted in that way?

You obviously have a different definition of "absolute truth" than most philosophers. The terms refers to any fact which isn't subject to subjective interpretation.

Which would rule out the Constitution, law, history, and anything we're discussing. As they're all subject to subjective interpretation.

And in every instance, you ignore anything you don't want to believe....even your own sources.....to cling to whatever you subjective choose to believe. That's not truth. That's not 'reality'. That's just you clinging to your personal opinion beyond all utility and in spite of any evidence.

As your sole basis of credibility is that a source agree with you. Which is a classic fallacy of logic known as 'Confirmation Bias'. Which is the beating heart of your entire argument. You've even ignored James Madison, your own source, when it was shown that he contradicted you.

 

[there4eyeM]

Philosophy has nothing to do with it. Physiology does. Nothing can be known to a human being except by perceptions. Perceptions are, and can only be, relative to the perceiver. Ideas, thoughts and concepts are, if anything, even more intimate.
If one were to have a communication from 'God', etc., that would be very interesting...to that individual. It would not necessarily have application to anyone else.
There is nothing one can demonstrate that is not from his/her own perceptions or mental workings. That is the existential 'problem' we live with.

 

[bripat9643]

Philosophy has nothing to do with it. Physiology does. Nothing can be known to a human being except by perceptions. Perceptions are, and can only be, relative to the perceiver. Ideas, thoughts and concepts are, if anything, even more intimate.
If one were to have a communication from 'God', etc., that would be very interesting...to that individual. It would not necessarily have application to anyone else.
There is nothing one can demonstrate that is not from his/her own perceptions or mental workings. That is the existential 'problem' we live with.

In other words, there is no truth. I thought you were protesting that you didn't endorse that idea?

It's only a problem for boobs who don't understand the basics of epistemology or logic.

 

[Skylar]

Philosophy has nothing to do with it. Physiology does. Nothing can be known to a human being except by perceptions. Perceptions are, and can only be, relative to the perceiver. Ideas, thoughts and concepts are, if anything, even more intimate.
If one were to have a communication from 'God', etc., that would be very interesting...to that individual. It would not necessarily have application to anyone else.
There is nothing one can demonstrate that is not from his/her own perceptions or mental workings. That is the existential 'problem' we live with.

In other words, there is no truth. I thought you were protesting that you didn't endorse that idea?

It's only a problem for boobs who don't understand the basics of epistemology or logic.

In other words, your personal opinion about whatever topic you choose to babble about isn't 'truth'. Its just your opinion. And when we're discussing issues of law, the USSC, the Constitution, and James Madison trump you.

That you believe otherwise is irrelevant. As your personal opinion doesn't establish any truth or legal principle.

 

[there4eyeM]

Understanding is easy, really.....
....where did this poster state, 'there is no truth'?
If this poster stated that everything is relative to the perceiver, wouldn't that qualify in the linguistic category of 'truth', or at least 'a truth'?

 

[there4eyeM]

...furthermore, what was stated still did not say objective truth does not exist, only that we may not be in a position to know it.

 

[bripat9643]

This poster did not say truth does not exist.
Truth is a term we use to (try) to describe an idea, an aspiration, a concept.
'Absolute truth' may exist, but it is beyond humans to know it without Divine Revelation, and that is entirely personal.
Has anyone here been contacted in that way?

You obviously have a different definition of "absolute truth" than most philosophers. The terms refers to any fact which isn't subject to subjective interpretation.

Which would rule out the Constitution, law, history, and anything we're discussing. As they're all subject to subjective interpretation.

No it doesn't. Of course, there is no shortage of imbeciles who have uninformed opinions on these subjects, and there are also plenty of unscrupulous demagogues who are intent on distorting the issues, but that doesn't prove there are no facts about them. If there weren't, then what the hell are you doing wasting your time debating them in this forum? The fact that you do shows you don't really believe what you just posted.

And in every instance, you ignore anything you don't want to believe....even your own sources.....to cling to whatever you subjective choose to believe. That's not truth. That's not 'reality'. That's just you clinging to your personal opinion beyond all utility and in spite of any evidence.

I ignore arguments that I have already addressed and dispensed with. Why should I consider claims that have already been demonstrated to be false?

As your sole basis of credibility is that a source agree with you. Which is a classic fallacy of logic known as 'Confirmation Bias'. Which is the beating heart of your entire argument. You've even ignored James Madison, your own source, when it was shown that he contradicted you.

That is hardly the "sole basis of my credibility." However, it does undermine the credibility of anyone who holds up Madison as some kind of ultimate authority on the Constitution. He isn't. His opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. In fact, it's less credible than the opinion of many people knowledgeable on the subject.

 

[bripat9643]

Understanding is easy, really.....
....where did this poster state, 'there is no truth'?
If this poster stated that everything is relative to the perceiver, wouldn't that qualify in the linguistic category of 'truth', or at least 'a truth'?

"There is nothing one can demonstrate that is not from his/her own perceptions or mental workings. That is the existential 'problem' we live with."



​

 

[bripat9643]

...furthermore, what was stated still did not say objective truth does not exist, only that we may not be in a position to know it.

We are definitely in a position to know of lot of it, and we are learning more every day.

 

[there4eyeM]

Faith is powerful.

 

[bripat9643]

Faith is powerful.

Faith means to believe something without a good reason. What's "powerful" about that?

 

[Skylar]

This poster did not say truth does not exist.
Truth is a term we use to (try) to describe an idea, an aspiration, a concept.
'Absolute truth' may exist, but it is beyond humans to know it without Divine Revelation, and that is entirely personal.
Has anyone here been contacted in that way?

You obviously have a different definition of "absolute truth" than most philosophers. The terms refers to any fact which isn't subject to subjective interpretation.

Which would rule out the Constitution, law, history, and anything we're discussing. As they're all subject to subjective interpretation.

No it doesn't. Of course, there is no shortage of imbeciles who have uninformed opinions on these subjects, and there are also plenty of unscrupulous demagogues who are intent on distorting the issues, but that doesn't prove there are no facts about them. If there weren't, then what the hell are you doing wasting your time debating them in this forum? The fact that you do shows you don't really believe what you just posted.

Not all facts are equally relevant. Which you prioritize and which you don't can lead to radically different conclusions. And there's plenty which isn't known. So we have to draw logical conclusions from the evidence that does exist. Which in many causes is contradictory. The entire process is subject to subjective interpretation.

You can imagine otherwise, but your imagination changes nothing. Its still a hopelessly subjective process.

I ignore arguments that I have already addressed and dispensed with.

But you haven't actually dispensed with them. You've simply disagreed with them. And your basis of disagreement is almost universally your personal opinion. You don't actually back your perspectives with evidence.

Worse, most of your arguments are made in stark contradiction of actual evidence. The Constitution's stark lack of any mention of secession, despite your insistence that its authorized under the constitution. The explicit contradiction by James Madison during the ratification process. Contradictions by the USSC in multiple cases.

You may imagine that you and Madison are equally authoritative and knowledgable on what the constitution is supposed to mean. Or that you and the USSC are likewise equally authoritative. But you're not. And any argument you offer on that basis is invalidated by your faulty premise.

I've watched you post for quite a while. There really is nothing to you but insisting your personal opinion must be true. And that's not 'dispensing' with anything but common sense.

That is hardly the "sole basis of my credibility."

Really? Then why would you cite Madison and then ignore Madison on the exact same topic?

You cited him when you thought he was supported you. You ignored him when he contradicted you. Its clearly not Madison's knowledge or place as the 'father of the constitution (your own words) that is your basis of credibility. Else he'd be just as knowledgeable and just as 'fathery' when he destroys your claims as when you thought he supported you.

You have no standards, Brip. None save your own opinion. You'll ignore anything, dismiss anything, discard any ruling, ignore any document, speech or source to cling to your beliefs.

However, it does undermine the credibility of anyone who holds up Madison as some kind of ultimate authority on the Constitution. He isn't. His opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion.

Odd, you didn't say that when you thought Madison supported you.

Madison was on the side of secession and nullification when the struggle over the Alien and Sedition Acts erupted. When the Federalist's during the John Adams administration passed them, it created a firestorm with the Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson, Adams's Vice President.

Jefferson with his ally James Madison, the author of the United States Constitution and co-leader of the Republican Party developed their party's strategy. Jefferson drafted resolutions boldly claiming the constitutional authority of the individual states to declare the Alien and Sedition Acts not only unconstitutional but null and void.

Bripat9643
Post 389
Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional Page 39 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Nope, there's not a single mention of Madison's position being merely 'opinion' and being no more valid than anyone else's. Lets see I can find another post from you on the topic and see if you mention it.

Both Jefferson and Madison, the father of the Constitution, announced their support for secession and nullification, so any claims that it was illegal ring hollow.

Britpat9643
Post 394
Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional Page 40 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Nope, not a single mention. Madison is the 'Father of the Constitution' when you think he agrees with you. When he doesn't, his opinion isn't any more valid than yours.

EXACTLY as I said, your sole basis of credibility is that a source agree with you. If they do, you cite them. If they don't, you ignore them. Even if its the same source on the same topic.

That's just plain old confirmation bias. A classic fallacy of logic. And the beating heart of your entire process.

Worse, you lie constantly. You claimed that Madison supported secession. He never did. There's not the the slightest mention of secession anywhere in the Virginia or Kentucky Resolutions. And when pressed to show us where they were?

I've already posted dozens of quotes on the subject, moron.

Bripat9643
Post 397
Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional Page 40 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But you never did. Not once. You lied. And its hardly the only time. You claimed that the NY Ratification document reserved the right to secede. But when shown the ratification document and asked where the right to secede is mentioned.......you dust off the same lie you gave us with your 'Madison supported secession' idiocy; that you've already posted it.

You're literally inventing sources that don't exist, lying about posts you've never made, and imagining your argument from nothing. All while ignoring your own sources.

Um, no thank you. You citing you is meaningless. And its all you have.

 

[thanatos144]

They've sympathized with the confederacy for a long time. Go down south and count how many confederate flags you see.

I don't believe most that fly Confederate flags do so because they are racist. Dukes of Hazzard made the flags look cool and some actually fly them because of pride that has nothing to do with slavery. Not that I'd expect you to understand or admit the nuance involved with various flags and traditions that aren't evil.

Of course, the leftwing nuts are constantly out looking for racism everywhere and think they see it everywhere. Gotta gin up some anger at the right for next year's election, eh, and you're already on it.

You don't fly the confederate flag by "accident." Flying the confederate flag is fun for 15 year olds, and a statement against black people for EVERYONE else. And the people who fly it know that full well.

Flying the Confederate flag is mostly just a way to tell liberals to fuck off, Plus it really pisses them off.

If you want to tell liberals to fuck off stop flying the democrat flag you fucking dummy.

 

[thanatos144]

Seems like a lot of people are saying that once a state is in th Union, then it has to stay in, no matter what the people of that state want. That seems quite tyrannical to me.

What we are saying is that states need to live up to their word.....

It's certainly an interesting viewpoint that people must "keep their word" by remaining in a contract when the other party to that contract isn't keeping his. It's WRONG, but it's interesting.

He sounds just like the abusive husband who said he had to kill his wife because she said she was leaving.

No I sound like a murderer? Hey eat me trailer trash.

Yes you do sound like a murderer. You certainly have been gloating about the murder of 850,000 people.

I am not gloating special needs I am educating you on how many deaths the democrat confederates caused when they started the civil war.