Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Was Abraham Lincoln the greatest President?

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 2:09:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Um not even remotely close.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 2:28:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 2:09:07 PM, phantom wrote:
Um not even remotely close.

What's that supposed to mean? The man who brought an end to slavery, ensured the unity of the United States and had the tactical insight to organize a reconstruction plan based on forgiveness, not punishment, is no where near the greatest president? All things you could possibly credit or discredit from a presidency fall under the premise that the union exists. The man responsible for saving that union must therefore be great by any metric.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 2:35:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 10:47:14 AM, chrumbelievable wrote:
Who has been the greatest President of all time? Was it Abraham Lincoln? Voice your opinion: http://www.debate.org...

No. Just a visionary. There were things that others did that were much better.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 2:36:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 2:28:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 2:09:07 PM, phantom wrote:
Um not even remotely close.

What's that supposed to mean? The man who brought an end to slavery, ensured the unity of the United States and had the tactical insight to organize a reconstruction plan based on forgiveness, not punishment, is no where near the greatest president? All things you could possibly credit or discredit from a presidency fall under the premise that the union exists. The man responsible for saving that union must therefore be great by any metric.

Well, unless you take into account the whole stomping all over the constitution thing.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 2:43:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hundreds of thousands of Americans died under his watch making it hard to say yes, no matter how you slice it.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 2:44:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 2:36:17 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 2:28:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 2:09:07 PM, phantom wrote:
Um not even remotely close.

What's that supposed to mean? The man who brought an end to slavery, ensured the unity of the United States and had the tactical insight to organize a reconstruction plan based on forgiveness, not punishment, is no where near the greatest president? All things you could possibly credit or discredit from a presidency fall under the premise that the union exists. The man responsible for saving that union must therefore be great by any metric.

Well, unless you take into account the whole stomping all over the constitution thing.

You know my position on that....It's absurd for a governmental establishment to provide for its own destruction without any kind of procedure in line with the supreme federal contract, and the right to simply secede from the union at will was waived in the process of ratification. Furthermore, in historical context, the Constitution exists solely to EMPOWER the federal government given the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union...which the constitution alludes to in the phrase "to form a more perfect union...".

There's no reason to believe that secession was legal...and the moral arguments are tenuous at best given the fact that a binding contract was established.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 2:47:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 2:44:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 2:36:17 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 2:28:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 2:09:07 PM, phantom wrote:
Um not even remotely close.

What's that supposed to mean? The man who brought an end to slavery, ensured the unity of the United States and had the tactical insight to organize a reconstruction plan based on forgiveness, not punishment, is no where near the greatest president? All things you could possibly credit or discredit from a presidency fall under the premise that the union exists. The man responsible for saving that union must therefore be great by any metric.

Well, unless you take into account the whole stomping all over the constitution thing.

You know my position on that....It's absurd for a governmental establishment to provide for its own destruction without any kind of procedure in line with the supreme federal contract, and the right to simply secede from the union at will was waived in the process of ratification. Furthermore, in historical context, the Constitution exists solely to EMPOWER the federal government given the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union...which the constitution alludes to in the phrase "to form a more perfect union...".

There's no reason to believe that secession was legal...and the moral arguments are tenuous at best given the fact that a binding contract was established.

I'm talking about his jailing of writers in the North solely for criticizing him, as well as the ordering of several newspaper companies destroyed because they were "unpatriotic."
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:02:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 2:47:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

I'm talking about his jailing of writers in the North solely for criticizing him, as well as the ordering of several newspaper companies destroyed because they were "unpatriotic."

You could argue that had he not, the boarder states that geographically engulf Washington D.C , and which also had secessionist sentiments would fall to the Confederacy and the war would be lost.

However you're right, I don't support it. I'm sure there could have been less draconian measures to prevent that.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:24:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No. Next question.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:36:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 3:33:16 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Lydon B. Johnson.

For greatest? Really?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:37:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ike, your position in regards to Lincoln and secession is almost as fvcked up as Hegel's "hurr durr States are the ultimate source of morality irrespective of the citizen's needs or desires" bullsh1t. He kept the Union together. So what? It seems like you're just presupposing that that was a good thing and ignoring the mountains and mountains of death and destruction brought on by the War. Furthermore, you're just assuming that allowing for secession would have amounted to a hell on Earth or something (but I suppose that's not unique to you since it's basically the end all of statist justificationism i.e., we gotz to have a State cuz then no roads and gang warfare blah blah blah!-- you know...fear mongering).

You're basically saying that the ultimate metric by which to judge a Prez is by keeping the country together. Kind of weird considering it basically kicks out any and all possible justifications for secession. Let's say the Prez starts re-enslavement. Some states don't like that so secede. The Prez stops it. Herp now he's the best Prez ever because the unity of the country is the sole presupposition necessary for judging a Prez right? Just a little hypothetical but I think it brings to light the fact that your metric sucks.

You're making the same mistake statists always seem to make which is taking the existence of welfare of the State (as distinguished from its "subjects") as the end all without taking into account the means by which it attains that i.e., (in the case of the Civil War) 600,000 dead, gross overempowerment of the Federal gov., stomping all over free speech, "enslaving" (for lack of a better word) half the country, etc. etc. But hey at least the Union ain't divided right? Because I guess that would just be the end of the freaking world.

Your metric is bullsh1t clear and simple. Keeping the Union together (even if I give the unsupported proposition that the "Union"'s existence is even justified in the first place) can be good or bad. But you're just assuming it MUST be good for some reason.

And btw don't get me started on the slaves thing. (1) Lincoln was a racist who preferred that blacks just go back to Africa and (2) the Emancipation was merely a political ploy to gather support from European countries (notably France and Britain) who had already abolished slavery by making it seem like the War was solely in order to free slaves as opposed to nationalistic BS. You don't get props for that. It would be like if Hitler extended universal suffrage in order to gain support for killing Jews and other minorities. He's not a civil rights hero, just another politician.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:41:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 2:28:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 2:09:07 PM, phantom wrote:
Um not even remotely close.

What's that supposed to mean? The man who brought an end to slavery,

Political ploy. He hated blacks and thought "whites" were clearly superior. You don't get moral credit for that.

ensured the unity of the United States

Why is this automatically a good thing? Statist logic FTL.

and had the tactical insight to organize a reconstruction plan based on forgiveness, not punishment,

After he enslaved the South and caused the deaths of over half a million people. What a nice guy.

is no where near the greatest president? All things you could possibly credit or discredit from a presidency fall under the premise that the union exists. The man responsible for saving that union must therefore be great by any metric.

Not really. You could say a President was good because he ended poverty or didn't kill anyone or because he didn't cause a Depression, etc. even if we include the premise that at the end of his term he abolished the government. You're basically saying a Communist dictator can only be good assuming the existence of a Communist government so clearly Stalin was a good Communist dictator. There are different standards of judgement besides those which exist in your statist paradigm.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:44:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 2:28:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 2:09:07 PM, phantom wrote:
Um not even remotely close.

What's that supposed to mean? The man who brought an end to slavery, ensured the unity of the United States and had the tactical insight to organize a reconstruction plan based on forgiveness, not punishment, is no where near the greatest president? All things you could possibly credit or discredit from a presidency fall under the premise that the union exists. The man responsible for saving that union must therefore be great by any metric.

Utilitarianism/consequentialism would really look good on you if you weren't a moral nihilist. He ended slavery but he didn't care for the slaves."I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races" -Lincoln

He started the war because he was a power monger. The south had every right to secede. He caused hundreds of thousands of Americans to die and ended up making a more authoritarian government just to preserve the union and stop slavery which would have ended anyway. The war wasn't fought for slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation itself only happened two years after it started. He also committed plenty of war crimes and silenced those who didn't agree with him as well as sending people to prison without a trial.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:50:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 3:36:47 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:33:16 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Lydon B. Johnson.

For greatest? Really?

Zachary Taylor.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:53:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 3:44:33 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/24/2012 2:28:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 2:09:07 PM, phantom wrote:
Um not even remotely close.

What's that supposed to mean? The man who brought an end to slavery, ensured the unity of the United States and had the tactical insight to organize a reconstruction plan based on forgiveness, not punishment, is no where near the greatest president? All things you could possibly credit or discredit from a presidency fall under the premise that the union exists. The man responsible for saving that union must therefore be great by any metric.

Utilitarianism/consequentialism would really look good on you if you weren't a moral nihilist. He ended slavery but he didn't care for the slaves."I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races" -Lincoln

conceded

He started the war because he was a power monger. The south had every right to secede.

No they did not. I'll just quote my response to DN. "It's absurd for a governmental establishment to provide for its own destruction without any kind of procedure in line with the supreme federal contract, and the right to simply secede from the union at will was waived in the process of ratification. Furthermore, in historical context, the Constitution exists solely to EMPOWER the federal government given the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union...which the constitution alludes to in the phrase "to form a more perfect union...".

There's no reason to believe that secession was legal...and the moral arguments are tenuous at best given the fact that a binding contract was established."

He caused hundreds of thousands of Americans to die and ended up making a more authoritarian government just to preserve the union and stop slavery which would have ended anyway. The war wasn't fought for slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation itself only happened two years after it started. He also committed plenty of war crimes and silenced those who didn't agree with him as well as sending people to prison without a trial.

conceded
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:58:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 3:53:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:44:33 PM, phantom wrote:

He started the war because he was a power monger. The south had every right to secede.

No they did not. I'll just quote my response to DN. "It's absurd for a governmental establishment to provide for its own destruction without any kind of procedure in line with the supreme federal contract, and the right to simply secede from the union at will was waived in the process of ratification. Furthermore, in historical context, the Constitution exists solely to EMPOWER the federal government given the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union...which the constitution alludes to in the phrase "to form a more perfect union...".

White dudes forming an agreement amongst each other hundreds of years ago can't legitimately impose and real obligation on anyone who wasn't around to consent. So to say "yo dawg those dudes agreed to be part of the Union forevs, now they can't secede no matts what" doesn't make any sense since no one currently alive (or alive at the time of the Civil War) actually agreed to anything. The contractual argument was completely torn apart by Lysander Spooner in "No Treason" if you're interested. I thought you might be interested in it since this is the only argument I've really seen you forward in favor of govenrment.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 3:59:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 3:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:
Dude, hello, he killed vampires. Only Teddy, with his Hip Hop label, barely comes close to such awesomeness.

Sorry, but Teddy surpasses every other President, and possibly human being, in awesome. Bro was shot in the chest during a speech. And then finished his speech (20-30 min remaining) before receiving treatment.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:00:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 3:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:
Dude, hello, he killed vampires. Only Teddy, with his Hip Hop label, barely comes close to such awesomeness.

Killing Vampires < Exceling at everything you attempt at
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:01:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 3:58:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:53:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:44:33 PM, phantom wrote:

He started the war because he was a power monger. The south had every right to secede.

No they did not. I'll just quote my response to DN. "It's absurd for a governmental establishment to provide for its own destruction without any kind of procedure in line with the supreme federal contract, and the right to simply secede from the union at will was waived in the process of ratification. Furthermore, in historical context, the Constitution exists solely to EMPOWER the federal government given the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union...which the constitution alludes to in the phrase "to form a more perfect union...".

White dudes forming an agreement amongst each other hundreds of years ago can't legitimately impose and real obligation on anyone who wasn't around to consent. So to say "yo dawg those dudes agreed to be part of the Union forevs, now they can't secede no matts what" doesn't make any sense since no one currently alive (or alive at the time of the Civil War) actually agreed to anything. The contractual argument was completely torn apart by Lysander Spooner in "No Treason" if you're interested. I thought you might be interested in it since this is the only argument I've really seen you forward in favor of govenrment.

There was a quote very similar to that in the miniseries JOHN ADAMS from Thomas Jefferson. It was about how the agreements of one group of men shouldn't be forced to apply to their children and their children's children, etc.

Just a connection I just made.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:02:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've always like Calvin Coolidge myself, and not just because he has an awesome quote too his name.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:05:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 3:59:25 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:
Dude, hello, he killed vampires. Only Teddy, with his Hip Hop label, barely comes close to such awesomeness.

Sorry, but Teddy surpasses every other President, and possibly human being, in awesome. Bro was shot in the chest during a speech. And then finished his speech (20-30 min remaining) before receiving treatment.

Yes, facetiousness aside, I have mentioned before that I have uber respect for the first Roosevelt to hit office.

That man was a g forreal. I mean, he is probably the only president who makes his entire time in office sound like a hyperbole.

The man begged to be abandoned in a jungle to save his men.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:09:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 3:58:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:53:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:44:33 PM, phantom wrote:

He started the war because he was a power monger. The south had every right to secede.

No they did not. I'll just quote my response to DN. "It's absurd for a governmental establishment to provide for its own destruction without any kind of procedure in line with the supreme federal contract, and the right to simply secede from the union at will was waived in the process of ratification. Furthermore, in historical context, the Constitution exists solely to EMPOWER the federal government given the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union...which the constitution alludes to in the phrase "to form a more perfect union...".

White dudes forming an agreement amongst each other hundreds of years ago can't legitimately impose and real obligation on anyone who wasn't around to consent. So to say "yo dawg those dudes agreed to be part of the Union forevs, now they can't secede no matts what" doesn't make any sense since no one currently alive (or alive at the time of the Civil War) actually agreed to anything. The contractual argument was completely torn apart by Lysander Spooner in "No Treason" if you're interested. I thought you might be interested in it since this is the only argument I've really seen you forward in favor of govenrment.

It's discouraging of productive debate if you keep contemptuously disparaging your opponent's position like that.

The contract of the Constitution was not simply an agreement between humans.....it was a contract between an organization and its geographic property. It is not a viable argument to assert that because those who signed the Constitution are dead, the United States may be disbanded at will.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:11:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:01:02 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:58:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:53:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:44:33 PM, phantom wrote:

He started the war because he was a power monger. The south had every right to secede.

No they did not. I'll just quote my response to DN. "It's absurd for a governmental establishment to provide for its own destruction without any kind of procedure in line with the supreme federal contract, and the right to simply secede from the union at will was waived in the process of ratification. Furthermore, in historical context, the Constitution exists solely to EMPOWER the federal government given the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union...which the constitution alludes to in the phrase "to form a more perfect union...".

White dudes forming an agreement amongst each other hundreds of years ago can't legitimately impose and real obligation on anyone who wasn't around to consent. So to say "yo dawg those dudes agreed to be part of the Union forevs, now they can't secede no matts what" doesn't make any sense since no one currently alive (or alive at the time of the Civil War) actually agreed to anything. The contractual argument was completely torn apart by Lysander Spooner in "No Treason" if you're interested. I thought you might be interested in it since this is the only argument I've really seen you forward in favor of govenrment.

There was a quote very similar to that in the miniseries JOHN ADAMS from Thomas Jefferson. It was about how the agreements of one group of men shouldn't be forced to apply to their children and their children's children, etc.

Just a connection I just made.

I had to watch that for AP American History junior year. It was weird since my dad looks just like Paul Giamatti.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:13:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:09:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:58:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:53:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:44:33 PM, phantom wrote:

He started the war because he was a power monger. The south had every right to secede.

No they did not. I'll just quote my response to DN. "It's absurd for a governmental establishment to provide for its own destruction without any kind of procedure in line with the supreme federal contract, and the right to simply secede from the union at will was waived in the process of ratification. Furthermore, in historical context, the Constitution exists solely to EMPOWER the federal government given the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union...which the constitution alludes to in the phrase "to form a more perfect union...".

White dudes forming an agreement amongst each other hundreds of years ago can't legitimately impose and real obligation on anyone who wasn't around to consent. So to say "yo dawg those dudes agreed to be part of the Union forevs, now they can't secede no matts what" doesn't make any sense since no one currently alive (or alive at the time of the Civil War) actually agreed to anything. The contractual argument was completely torn apart by Lysander Spooner in "No Treason" if you're interested. I thought you might be interested in it since this is the only argument I've really seen you forward in favor of govenrment.

It's discouraging of productive debate if you keep contemptuously disparaging your opponent's position like that.

The contract of the Constitution was not simply an agreement between humans.....it was a contract between an organization and its geographic property. It is not a viable argument to assert that because those who signed the Constitution are dead, the United States may be disbanded at will.

Erm...how an a geographic property sign a contract?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:13:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:09:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:58:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:53:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2012 3:44:33 PM, phantom wrote:

He started the war because he was a power monger. The south had every right to secede.

No they did not. I'll just quote my response to DN. "It's absurd for a governmental establishment to provide for its own destruction without any kind of procedure in line with the supreme federal contract, and the right to simply secede from the union at will was waived in the process of ratification. Furthermore, in historical context, the Constitution exists solely to EMPOWER the federal government given the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union...which the constitution alludes to in the phrase "to form a more perfect union...".

White dudes forming an agreement amongst each other hundreds of years ago can't legitimately impose and real obligation on anyone who wasn't around to consent. So to say "yo dawg those dudes agreed to be part of the Union forevs, now they can't secede no matts what" doesn't make any sense since no one currently alive (or alive at the time of the Civil War) actually agreed to anything. The contractual argument was completely torn apart by Lysander Spooner in "No Treason" if you're interested. I thought you might be interested in it since this is the only argument I've really seen you forward in favor of govenrment.

It's discouraging of productive debate if you keep contemptuously disparaging your opponent's position like that.

Disparaging how?

The contract of the Constitution was not simply an agreement between humans.....it was a contract between an organization and its geographic property. It is not a viable argument to assert that because those who signed the Constitution are dead, the United States may be disbanded at will.

Yeah it kind of is since an organization isn't actually a thing aside from its properties i.e., members. You seem to think that something called "the United States" has some sort of real existence aside from the people who work and kill for it. But there isn't. Find it and show it to me and I'll change my mind. All you're doing is trying to bypass the general rules of contractual agreement by conceiving of some non-existent entity that is somehow above that without any proof of its actual existential reality.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:15:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:13:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:09:54 PM, 000ike wrote:

The contract of the Constitution was not simply an agreement between humans.....it was a contract between an organization and its geographic property. It is not a viable argument to assert that because those who signed the Constitution are dead, the United States may be disbanded at will.

Erm...how an a geographic property sign a contract?

I meant "concerning"...but thanks for focusing on a tiny little mistake that you could have reasoned out with enough thought....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault