Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Racket wrote:

Do the Crusades or any religious war!

The Crusades were a war about stealing material goods from the wealthier Middle East. Constantinople was luxurious compared with cities in Europe.

Why are the Crusaders considered infidels by people in the Middle East? The Crusaders,

-- were filthy; never bathing (Muslims believe cleanliness is next to godliness, that is what they practice ritual bathing before they pray to God)

-- ate the flesh of the dead (mostly Muslim children they killed)

-- drank their own, and each other's urine, for lack of water

-- raided non-Muslim cities, and stripped them of their wealth and food, and their way to save Jerusalem; money was all important

-- raped the women in cities they passed along the way

-- raped the children, boys and girls, in cities they passed along the way

What do you think? Does any of the above agree with"your version" of the Crusades?

Racket wrote:

... address the existence of evil in light of a just God thanks!

See the Crusades. Did God approve of raping children in his name? Do you even know that the God of Muslims is the same God of Christianity and Judaism? All three religions are linked to the same God.

I think I just did that.

But I don't understand how anyone can agree with Tom Cotton on this one. He is wrong. Slavery was never necessary and it should never be presented that way.

To argue that slavery was necessary is to engage in the exact thing you seem to abhor, "counterfactual history".

If you believe that this evil was needed then you are inferring that you know what would have happened without it.

Anyone who can't simply answer, "no", is making an excuse for the evil of our forefathers. And worse than that, he is preparing a ready-made excuse for the evils of the present day.

Trump Wall of Shame wrote:

Racket wrote:

... address the existence of evil in light of a just God thanks!

See the Crusades. Did God approve of raping children in his name? Do you even know that the God of Muslims is the same God of Christianity and Judaism? All three religions are linked to the same God.

I'm pretty sure Racket knows all that.

I read your answer/s and am thinking about it.

Racket wrote:

agip wrote:

fats you have all my respect so why don't we just cut to the chase.

Tell me what you are dying to tell me - tell me your conclusion to all this.

I'll acknowledge it and we can move on.

Fat Hurts please also address the existence of evil in light of a just God thanks!

I've already addressed that one before. I'm a proponent of Free Will Theodicy.

Racket wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I am not asking for counterfactual history. I'm asking for a simple yes or no answer.

Do you agree with Tom Cotton, that slavery was a necessary evil?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questionshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

I didn't mean it as a loaded question. After all, I had no trouble answering it myself.

heading for shootouts between left and right.

Trump's America.

https://twitter.com/Bx1bXer9/status/1287753727588339714?s=20

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I think I just did that.

But I don't understand how anyone can agree with Tom Cotton on this one. He is wrong. Slavery was never necessary and it should never be presented that way.

To argue that slavery was necessary is to engage in the exact thing you seem to abhor, "counterfactual history".

If you believe that this evil was needed then you are inferring that you know what would have happened without it.

Anyone who can't simply answer, "no", is making an excuse for the evil of our forefathers. And worse than that, he is preparing a ready-made excuse for the evils of the present day.

I read your answer/s and am thinking about it.

He's arguing against a straw-man without any nuance or context.

The correct context appears to be whether conceding the issue of slavery and leaving it out of the Constitution during the original drafting in 1787 was a "necessary evil" in order to appease the southern states and achieve full blown unity as a nation. It almost certainly was, and many Founding Fathers lamented the fact and worked towards abolitionists causes afterwards. It was a concession that was politically unavoidable.

Racket wrote:

agip wrote:

I read your answer/s and am thinking about it.

He's arguing against a straw-man without any nuance or context.

The correct context appears to be whether conceding the issue of slavery and leaving it out of the Constitution during the original drafting in 1787 was a "necessary evil" in order to appease the southern states and achieve full blown unity as a nation. It almost certainly was, and many Founding Fathers lamented the fact and worked towards abolitionists causes afterwards. It was a concession that was politically unavoidable.

So your answer is "yes", you agree with Tom Cotton. Your position is that "It almost certainly was [a necessary evil]".

See, that wasn't so hard.

Fat hurts wrote:

Racket wrote:

He's arguing against a straw-man without any nuance or context.

The correct context appears to be whether conceding the issue of slavery and leaving it out of the Constitution during the original drafting in 1787 was a "necessary evil" in order to appease the southern states and achieve full blown unity as a nation. It almost certainly was, and many Founding Fathers lamented the fact and worked towards abolitionists causes afterwards. It was a concession that was politically unavoidable.

So your answer is "yes", you agree with Tom Cotton. Your position is that "It almost certainly was [a necessary evil]".

See, that wasn't so hard.

The term "la langue de bois" comes to mind frequently when dealing with you.

Racket wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

So your answer is "yes", you agree with Tom Cotton. Your position is that "It almost certainly was [a necessary evil]".

See, that wasn't so hard.

The term "la langue de bois" comes to mind frequently when dealing with you.

Add to that : absolute waste of my fvcking time. Have fun tilting at windmills though

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Cotton was not stating the facts of US History. Cotton was agreeing with the idea that slavery was a necessary evil. That's clearly what he said and clearly what he meant.

The facts of history are different from the interpretation of history.

Do you agree with Cotton's interpretation that slavery was a necessary evil?

cotton was saying, paraphrased: "The founding fathers believed that legalizing slavery in the new nation was a necessary evil in order to get the Southern states to join the Union. Furthermore, the founders felt slavery would fade away over time.'

I don't have any problem with that statement other than I'd add 'some' founding fathers viewed slavery as fine and good and not evil at all.

Do you have any problem with that paraphrase? If so, what is your disagreement?

Wait, he started his statement with “As the Founding Fathers said...” which to me clearly implies he agreed with the substance.

Trollminator wrote:

agip wrote:

cotton was saying, paraphrased: "The founding fathers believed that legalizing slavery in the new nation was a necessary evil in order to get the Southern states to join the Union. Furthermore, the founders felt slavery would fade away over time.'

I don't have any problem with that statement other than I'd add 'some' founding fathers viewed slavery as fine and good and not evil at all.

Do you have any problem with that paraphrase? If so, what is your disagreement?

Wait, he started his statement with “As the Founding Fathers said...” which to me clearly implies he agreed with the substance.

ok

redone:

cotton was saying, paraphrased: "The founding fathers believed that legalizing slavery in the new nation was a necessary evil in order to get the Southern states to join the Union. Furthermore, the founders felt slavery would fade away over time. I, Thomas Cotton, agree with the founding fathers in this matter."

Given the mortality of covid victims who are overweight or diabetic,

I've wondered if COVID might get some Americans to shape up and reduce their risk of death by all things, including new viruses.

I don't think Americans will do any such thing, but the UK gummint is going to try with their people:

LONDON — Britain will crack down on junk food advertising and introduce calorie counts on menus in an effort to tackle obesity and ease the pressure on the country’s National Health Service amid the coronavirus pandemic, the government said on Monday.

For the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, the intersection of obesity and the coronavirus is personal. Mr. Johnson was, by his own admission, “way overweight” when he was admitted to the hospital after becoming ill with Covid-19 this year, and his health deteriorated to such an extent that at one point he needed intensive care.

Studies have linked obesity to a greater risk of serious illness or death from Covid-19, and Mr. Johnson, writing in the British newspaper The Daily Express, described his time in hospital as a “wake-up call.”

“We all put things off — I know I have,” Mr. Johnson wrote. “I’ve wanted to lose weight for ages, and like many people I struggle with my weight.”

Fat hurts wrote:

But I don't understand how anyone can agree with Tom Cotton on this one. He is wrong. Slavery was never necessary and it should never be presented that way.

To argue that slavery was necessary is to engage in the exact thing you seem to abhor, "counterfactual history".

If you believe that this evil was needed then you are inferring that you know what would have happened without it.

Anyone who can't simply answer, "no", is making an excuse for the evil of our forefathers. And worse than that, he is preparing a ready-made excuse for the evils of the present day.

The difference here seems to be that you seem to answering the question "Is slavery abhorrent?" and others are answering the question "Could the American Revolution and the founding of the United States reasonably be expected to have happened without punting the issue of slavery down the road?"

Whatever your take on the latter, it deserves more consideration than "yes" or "no".

I've generally found it good practice when someone takes a position that seems unreasonable from my viewpoint to make a best effort to really understand their perspective and to consider whether I've heard their words as they were intended. It is universally accepted among historians that the some of the founding fathers were strongly opposed to slavery to continue, but compromised for the sake of the union. What might have happened otherwise, we can only speculate, but in that context, Cotton's comment isn't unreasonable.

Racket wrote:

agip wrote:

I read your answer/s and am thinking about it.

He's arguing against a straw-man without any nuance or context.

The correct context appears to be whether conceding the issue of slavery and leaving it out of the Constitution during the original drafting in 1787 was a "necessary evil" in order to appease the southern states and achieve full blown unity as a nation. It almost certainly was, and many Founding Fathers lamented the fact and worked towards abolitionists causes afterwards. It was a concession that was politically unavoidable.

Racket - Cotton gave us the context directly in his own terms - why try to twist it to accommodate his opinion? Here’s what he said and no mention of constitution. You may be right in the context you provided but that’s just putting words in Cotton’s mouth. He is agreeing slavery was a necessary evil, as if it couldn’t have been avoided.

“He added: “We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as [Abraham] Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction.””

good stuff, monkey's.

I'm reading a mainstream history of the revolution...one of the saddest parts is how many runaway slaves and freed slaves were desperate to have the English win the war. Many joined the fight alongside the redcoats or assisted from the sidelines. They knew the Americans were monsters when it came to slavery and didn't want them in charge of the nation.

And the Brits tried (half-heartedly) to inspire slave rebellions in the South.

Totally depressing.

Well said.

This entire back and forth between Fat Hurts and some other folks was ridiculous.

Thanks for having the patience to lay it all out. Disappointing that it was even necessary for someone to clarify the whole thing like that.