Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 02:00:31 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 11:07:38 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 10:55:33 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 10:46:07 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 10:42:04 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 10:36:25 AM

Quote from: WAIFU MASTER II on June 29, 2015, 07:30:23 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 28, 2015, 11:05:18 PM

Quote from: Luciana on June 28, 2015, 07:28:25 PM

Also for the record, stores refusing to sell it and all that is retarded. Take it off of government buildings, sure. But uhh, yeah. Free speech and freedom of expression is a two way street. Something more and more people are seeming to forget.

So stores can't make their own business choices now?

If the status quo is forcing bakeries to support gay weddings, then correct.

But there's a difference.

Bakeries denying wedding cakes to certain customers is not the same as pulling a product from the shelves.

How are they in anyway different?

Both are denying services to a specific customer base, and both will lose out on potential revenue, such as the free market dictates.

The only difference is that you find one of them uncomfortable to accept.

What specific customer base is being denied their confederate flag, while another is able to purchase it? they're refusing to sell it to anyone, not just certain people. That's not discrimination.

Confederate fans can't buy Confederate flags at Wal-Mart, Amazon etc, and gay couples can't buy wedding cakes from a select number of caterers. Both can purchase their desired services from another seller willing to satisfy their demands. That's the beauty of the free market.

At the end of the day, the only people getting the short end of the stick are the people refusing to satisfy a specific market.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

>"I can't rebuke his argument"
>"better crack out the troll card"

Pardon me for being skeptical of such an absurd argument.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 04:12:17 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 02:58:54 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 02:00:31 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 11:07:38 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 10:55:33 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 10:46:07 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 10:42:04 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 10:36:25 AM

Quote from: WAIFU MASTER II on June 29, 2015, 07:30:23 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 28, 2015, 11:05:18 PM

Quote from: Luciana on June 28, 2015, 07:28:25 PM

Also for the record, stores refusing to sell it and all that is retarded. Take it off of government buildings, sure. But uhh, yeah. Free speech and freedom of expression is a two way street. Something more and more people are seeming to forget.

So stores can't make their own business choices now?

If the status quo is forcing bakeries to support gay weddings, then correct.

But there's a difference.

Bakeries denying wedding cakes to certain customers is not the same as pulling a product from the shelves.

How are they in anyway different?

Both are denying services to a specific customer base, and both will lose out on potential revenue, such as the free market dictates.

The only difference is that you find one of them uncomfortable to accept.

What specific customer base is being denied their confederate flag, while another is able to purchase it? they're refusing to sell it to anyone, not just certain people. That's not discrimination.

Confederate fans can't buy Confederate flags at Wal-Mart, Amazon etc, and gay couples can't buy wedding cakes from a select number of caterers. Both can purchase their desired services from another seller willing to satisfy their demands. That's the beauty of the free market.

At the end of the day, the only people getting the short end of the stick are the people refusing to satisfy a specific market.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

>"I can't rebuke his argument"
>"better crack out the troll card"

Pardon me for being skeptical of such an absurd argument.

You going to explain how it's absurd, or are you just going to continue to be a holier than thou prick?

Because they're different things, you retard.

the gay cakes: a certain set of customers are being denied a good or service for specific reasons
the confederate flag: the store is removing the product entirely for all customers

Yes, in either situation, customers can go elsewhere for the good or service.

if you can't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 04:49:56 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 04:36:15 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 04:12:17 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 02:58:54 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 02:00:31 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 11:07:38 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 10:55:33 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 10:46:07 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 10:42:04 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 10:36:25 AM

Quote from: WAIFU MASTER II on June 29, 2015, 07:30:23 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 28, 2015, 11:05:18 PM

Quote from: Luciana on June 28, 2015, 07:28:25 PM

Also for the record, stores refusing to sell it and all that is retarded. Take it off of government buildings, sure. But uhh, yeah. Free speech and freedom of expression is a two way street. Something more and more people are seeming to forget.

So stores can't make their own business choices now?

If the status quo is forcing bakeries to support gay weddings, then correct.

But there's a difference.

Bakeries denying wedding cakes to certain customers is not the same as pulling a product from the shelves.

How are they in anyway different?

Both are denying services to a specific customer base, and both will lose out on potential revenue, such as the free market dictates.

The only difference is that you find one of them uncomfortable to accept.

What specific customer base is being denied their confederate flag, while another is able to purchase it? they're refusing to sell it to anyone, not just certain people. That's not discrimination.

Confederate fans can't buy Confederate flags at Wal-Mart, Amazon etc, and gay couples can't buy wedding cakes from a select number of caterers. Both can purchase their desired services from another seller willing to satisfy their demands. That's the beauty of the free market.

At the end of the day, the only people getting the short end of the stick are the people refusing to satisfy a specific market.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

>"I can't rebuke his argument"
>"better crack out the troll card"

Pardon me for being skeptical of such an absurd argument.

You going to explain how it's absurd, or are you just going to continue to be a holier than thou prick?

Because they're different things, you retard.

the gay cakes: a certain set of customers are being denied a good or service for specific reasons
the confederate flag: the store is removing the product entirely for all customers

Yes, in either situation, customers can go elsewhere for the good or service.

if you can't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you.

You're just arguing technicalities at this point. If your original contention was the difference in business practice, sure, there's a difference. I was kind of looking for a moral argument though, but at this point, if you're going to act infantile, then all that really tells me is that there isn't one.

So are you going to cry every time a store stops carrying a product?

You gonna whine every time a business removes a product that's hateful to a minority group?

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 01:59:42 PM

Quote from: challengerX on June 29, 2015, 11:21:32 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 07:13:29 AM

The fact that you're bothered over what is essentially a panel of cloth that represented antiquated values 200 odd years ago speaks more wonders about the personality of your character than the people who consciously decide to display it on their private property.

"It's worse to be disgusted at somebody flying the nazi flag than it is to fly the nazi flag"

LOL
O
L

Getting histrionic over an assortment of colours is far more pathetic than a law abiding citizen who enjoys displaying said flag on their own property yeah, actually.

FUCK JEWS

AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY HATEFUL OPINION AND WANT TO GIVE YOUR OPINION YOU'RE JUST BEING HOSTRIONIC

>tfw you support both

Also I'd like to point out to all of the people hating on rednecks and "muh confederacy" people ITT, that it was mentioned in the annotations of the video that they're burning gays, as a rhetorical technique to discredit ISIS, meaning that the creator of this video is most likely tolerant of homosexuals, and therefore presuably not some thick headed anti-everything neo nazi klansmen type like everyone stereotypes them to be.

Of course, he could just literally only be tolerant of the gays, but I find that unlikely.

Its a point that stands for a lot of these kinds of people who get called bigots just because they see something different in those stars and stripes than you do, might not really be bigoted at all.

Quote from: Cindo on June 29, 2015, 08:36:10 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 07:56:53 PM

>tfw you support both

Also I'd like to point out to all of the people hating on rednecks and "muh confederacy" people ITT, that it was mentioned in the annotations of the video that they're burning gays, as a rhetorical technique to discredit ISIS, meaning that the creator of this video is most likely tolerant of homosexuals, and therefore presuably not some thick headed anti-everything neo nazi klansmen type like everyone stereotypes them to be.

Of course, he could just literally only be tolerant of the gays, but I find that unlikely.

Its a point that stands for a lot of these kinds of people who get called bigots just because they see something different in those stars and stripes than you do, might not really be bigoted at all.

You're not a bigot if you support the Confederate flag

You're just an idiot if you don't understand that it doesn't matter what the flag originally stood for. The swastika is a symbol of the sun and the god Surya in Hinduism, but I'm not gonna fuckin' carry a flag with that around on it either, now am I?

The flag never stood for racism or hatred though, racism was just a popular social construct of the time. The government didn't endorse racism any more heavily than the Union government did a few years before.

Its not quite like where Hitler took a relatively neutral country and turned it into a racially oriented regime.

The south was so socioeconomically different from the north that making it its own country was probably a sound move, considering that millions of people suffered miserably in "reconstruction" or really the indoctrination of northern political and economic structures in the south, which would have had to happen anyway if there had been no war if the nation wanted to prevent collapse.

Those states wanted to have more power over their own governance without leaving the union, because the policies that were being produced by the majority North were harmful to the economy of the south.

Slavery didn't even become a major issue until after the war had already begun, sure there was an abolitionist moevment before that, but it certainly did not see the support it saw during or after the war.

In fact, dirty politics, blackmail, and bribery had to be used to pass the thirteenth amendment, without the southern states in the legislature.

So no, the Confederacy was not formed in order to cling on to racist hatred, and the flag was never a symbol of hate until the union government demonised it.

The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 08:54:01 PM

The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans.

You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.

Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.

The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.

Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.

Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?

No.

That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.

Read a god damned book.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:27:20 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:16:46 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 08:54:01 PM

The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans.

You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.

Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.

The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.

Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.

Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?

No.

That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.

Read a god damned book.

I want slavery apologists to leave.

Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.

Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.

You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.

>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"

This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.

Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?

And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.

Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.

But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:42:18 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:40:56 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:27:20 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:16:46 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 08:54:01 PM

The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans.

You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.

Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.

The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.

Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.

Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?

No.

That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.

Read a god damned book.

I want slavery apologists to leave.

Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.

Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.

You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.

>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"

This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.

Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?

And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.

Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.

But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.

What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.

Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.

Yeah, man.

Nobody knows why the civil war started. Can't imagine why, myself.

Why don't we check the Declarations of Secession for...

Mississippi

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

Texas

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States[/b].

South Carolina

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Georgia

In 1820 the North demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

Florida

By the agency of a large proportion of the members from the non slaveholding States books have been published and circulated amongst us the direct tendency and avowed purpose of which is to excite insurrection and servile war with all their attendant horrors. A President has recently been elected, an obscure and illiterate man without experience in public affairs or any general reputation mainly if not exclusively on account of a settled and often proclaimed hostility to our institutions and a fixed purpose to abolish them. It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act. This has never been charged by any one. But it has been announced by all the leading men and presses of the party that the ultimate accomplishment of this result is its settled purpose and great central principle. That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less. Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves.

And

Alabama

And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as a permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,

Now, I swear, it's right on the tip of my tongue but it's just not coming to me. What could the Southern states have possibly founded their secessions on?

Lmao

I'm done