General US Politics

[Phoenix Wright]

I think that Pheonix's post where he claims "tyranny is good and sometimes necessary" is an important one. That was a mistake to delete it, eclipse.

I want to address that point.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny

That is the definition of tyranny and where we differ.

If you believe in authoritarianism, then sure. But the USA was created as a bastion from tyranny. No taxation without representation. They fought against the tyrrany of the English and won their freedom. They drafted the Constitution in order to keep their own government from becoming tyrannical.

If you believe that tyranny is good and sometines necessary, that is exactly what the founding fathers stood against. It includes freedom of religious belief, freedom of opinion and the right to bear arms.

There's our divide.

ask the natives of this land what they think of the united states being a bastion against tyranny.

also, do i need to say it? obviously i don't mean tyranny as in oppressive rule. i meant tyranny such that freedoms are taken away. every law takes away a freedom, that's the point of having laws. taking away the freedom to murder is just and necessary. that is a "tyranny" we impose on ourselves. but i can use different words from now on.

[tuvarkz]

ask the natives of this land what they think of the united states being a bastion against tyranny.

also, do i need to say it? obviously i don't mean tyranny as in oppressive rule. i meant tyranny such that freedoms are taken away. every law takes away a freedom, that's the point of having laws. taking away the freedom to murder is just and necessary. that is a "tyranny" we impose on ourselves. but i can use different words from now on.

Except that tyranny is by definition unfair and unbending. Punishing evil acts is not tyrannical unless the punishment is disproportionate to the crime.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

Except that tyranny is by definition unfair and unbending. Punishing evil acts is not tyrannical unless the punishment is disproportionate to the crime.

that is true, i have never seen tyranny be used positively, most of the time people use a different word regarding the matter if they support those actions.

example from a post I've seen "Change isn't always a good thing" or "Improvement isn't always a good thing", both can mean the same thing in certain context, but one isn't an oxymoron.

[tuvarkz]

On a technicality though, the greek origins of the word for tyrant meant the non-pejorative meaning of Monarch, or ruler of a city. However, the pejorative meaning was added by Plato and Aristotle, and given how significant their philosophies and ways of thought have been, using the non-pejorative meaning when the pejorative one was the dominant meaning far before the inception of any of the modern languages is a very long stretch.

[Life]

The point still stands, if the founding fathers so wholeheartedly believe in freedom from tyranny, why did they allow slavery to stick around? nearly 90 years after the people of the US were "freed from tyranny", there were still natural born Americans sitting in shackles for their entire life.

Slavery and racism were not the same thing in the 1850's.

Slaves were mostly black but it wasn't because they were black. White slaves existed too. And there were quite a few black slaveholders in places like New Orleans.

As for slavery, it was mostly for econimical gain. I'm not justifying it but that was the cheapest and most efficient way for people to make money on farms and plantations.

Was it tyrannical? Sure. And the USA ended up fighting a bloody war over it in order to end it. Yeah, it took time to get there but it happened and it was done by adding the 13th Ammendment to the Constitution.

[blah the Prussian]

Slavery and racism were not the same thing in the 1850's.

Slaves were mostly black but it wasn't because they were black. White slaves existed too. And there were quite a few black slaveholders in places like New Orleans.

As for slavery, it was mostly for econimical gain. I'm not justifying it but that was the cheapest and most efficient way for people to make money on farms and plantations.

Was it tyrannical? Sure. And the USA ended up fighting a bloody war over it in order to end it. Yeah, it took time to get there but it happened and it was done by adding the 13th Ammendment to the Constitution.

And those evil, utterly tyrannical Brits banned slavery entirely in... 1833. Fully thirty years before we Yanks got around to it. Actually, the only two western nations who abolished slavery after us were Portugal and Brazil. So tell me again how the US is supposed to be a bastion of freedom compared to the rest of the world.

[Life]

And those evil, utterly tyrannical Brits banned slavery entirely in... 1833. Fully thirty years before we Yanks got around to it. Actually, the only two western nations who abolished slavery after us were Portugal and Brazil. So tell me again how the US is supposed to be a bastion of freedom compared to the rest of the world.

Freedom of speech.

Let's compare with Canada for a second. Canada has laws against hate speech.

Now so that I'm not misrepresented, while I have my views on transexuals that everyone knows (and we are not going to rehash that one), I do not back the idea of calling for violence against minorities. I also do not believe the government has a moral right to actively discriminate against a minority in any way, shape or form.

But I am allowed to have my opinion and I should not be jailed for expressing it. And that does not happen in Canada.

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/2324999

I know, HuffPo. But bear with me.

I back having freedom of speech because it allows me to say what I want without worrying about being arrested. Will I be self-regulated by the public? Yeah. And that's a good thing. But I should still have the right to be able to express my opinions in a public forum in a controlled way.

That's one right (for example) that the USA has that pretty much no other country replicates.

[UNLEASH IT]

And those evil, utterly tyrannical Brits banned slavery entirely in... 1833. Fully thirty years before we Yanks got around to it. Actually, the only two western nations who abolished slavery after us were Portugal and Brazil. So tell me again how the US is supposed to be a bastion of freedom compared to the rest of the world.

Money generally trumps over any morals/beliefs. Slavery in the british colonies was abolished in part due to sugar cane not being profitable anymore. Meanwhile, the cotton industry in the US was booming

[blah the Prussian]

Freedom of speech.

Let's compare with Canada for a second. Canada has laws against hate speech.

Now so that I'm not misrepresented, while I have my views on transexuals that everyone knows (and we are not going to rehash that one), I do not back the idea of calling for violence against minorities. I also do not believe the government has a moral right to actively discriminate against a minority in any way, shape or form.

But I am allowed to have my opinion and I should not be jailed for expressing it. And that does not happen in Canada.http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/2324999

I know, HuffPo. But bear with me.

I back having freedom of speech because it allows me to say what I want without worrying about being arrested. Will I be self-regulated by the public? Yeah. And that's a good thing. But I should still have the right to be able to express my opinions in a public forum in a controlled way.

That's one right (for example) that the USA has that pretty much no other country replicates.

Don't dodge the topic. You said that the US was founded on freedom. Others rightly pointed out that the US had slavery as a key part of her economy and laws. You then said that the US ended up banning slavery. In response, I pointed out that the US took their sweet time doing it.

On to the article. It's not a bad article because it's HuffPo. It's a bad article. It doesn't mention, for example, any of the specific cases actually being convicted, nor does it say what specifically the people who were convicted said. Finally, it doesn't say how any of them were punished, which seems to me to be a pretty damn big thing to omit. But regardless, while I think that this law should be overturned, I frankly don't care one way or the other about hate speech laws in mos too the rest of the world. So some neo Nazis got arrested in Germany, I don't give a fuck. I don't care about whether or not people have the right to use hate speech one way or the other. It should be noted, however, that hate speech had significantly more diasastrous consequences in Europe than it did in the USA. I am willing to accept this legal difference as brought about by the differing historical experiences of the US and Europe.

[Life]

Don't dodge the topic. You said that the US was founded on freedom. Others rightly pointed out that the US had slavery as a key part of her economy and laws. You then said that the US ended up banning slavery. In response, I pointed out that the US took their sweet time doing it.

On to the article. It's not a bad article because it's HuffPo. It's a bad article. It doesn't mention, for example, any of the specific cases actually being convicted, nor does it say what specifically the people who were convicted said. Finally, it doesn't say how any of them were punished, which seems to me to be a pretty damn big thing to omit. But regardless, while I think that this law should be overturned, I frankly don't care one way or the other about hate speech laws in mos too the rest of the world. So some neo Nazis got arrested in Germany, I don't give a fuck. I don't care about whether or not people have the right to use hate speech one way or the other. It should be noted, however, that hate speech had significantly more diasastrous consequences in Europe than it did in the USA. I am willing to accept this legal difference as brought about by the differing historical experiences of the US and Europe.

Yeah, they took their sweet time. But before then, they believed that slavery was vital to the economy. And slaves were people who had forfeited their freedom.

I'm not agreeing with it. But I can understand that moral hypocrisy.

But when I say that the USA was founded on freedoms, it was on ideals of freedom. So maybe the founders were slightly hypocritical in their actions, their idea transcended that.

As for the article, yeah it's terrible. But it's a liberal site agreeing with the idea that hate speeh laws limiting free speech. That's what significant and why I brought HuffPo.

Ironically, I don't even want to live in the USA. But I understand the ideals on which the country was founded on and believe in those.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Lord Raven]

Slavery and racism were not the same thing in the 1850's.

Slaves were mostly black but it wasn't because they were black. White slaves existed too. And there were quite a few black slaveholders in places like New Orleans.

As for slavery, it was mostly for econimical gain. I'm not justifying it but that was the cheapest and most efficient way for people to make money on farms and plantations.

Yes, it was because they were black. Ever heard stories about how mixed race black people could sometimes get away with having to be slaves in the south on account of the fact that they looked white? I can source this if you really want, but slavery was entirely based upon race, and in the South even ex-slaves freed by their owners could be captured and forced to work at a plantation at any time. Even up north this shit happened; whenever there was a black person there were people more than willing to take him and sell him off to slavery.

As for the rest, you're justifying slavery by economic gain. It's a complete form of tyranny. The point here is to not idol worship the founding fathers, because their ideas were not revolutionary and they weren't these romantics that tried to fight for their freedom. Just saying "the founding fathers did this and that" doesn't mean shit, because they instituted their own form of tyranny in the form of slavery. If you're going to argue slavery was not abhorrent, tyrannical, and was in fact a net benefit then you're being a complete hypocrite just like our founding fathers. It's not "slightly" hypocritical, it's an out and out contradiction.

Was it tyrannical? Sure. And the USA ended up fighting a bloody war over it in order to end it. Yeah, it took time to get there but it happened and it was done by adding the 13th Ammendment to the Constitution.

The Civil War was not fought for abolitionism vs anti-abolitionism. The fact that it's taught that way annoys the shit out of me, because it was a tiny factor in the war. There were many things that led to the Civil War, and the north also had slaves to begin with which doesn't make a whole lot of sense in conjunction with the fact that the north was fighting in favor of abolitionism.

[blah the Prussian]

Yeah, they took their sweet time. But before then, they believed that slavery was vital to the economy. And slaves were people who had forfeited their freedom.

I'm not agreeing with it. But I can understand that moral hypocrisy.

But when I say that the USA was founded on freedoms, it was on ideals of freedom. So maybe the founders were slightly hypocritical in their actions, their idea transcended that.

As for the article, yeah it's terrible. But it's a liberal site agreeing with the idea that hate speeh laws limiting free speech. That's what significant and why I brought HuffPo.

Ironically, I don't even want to live in the USA. But I understand the ideals on which the country was founded on and believe in those.

Hold the phone. They didn't "forfeit their freedom". They were either born into it, or kidnapped and then sold into it. And there have been plenty of ideas that haven't worked in practice and led to terrible things. I wouldn't say that the ideas of Communist dictators transcended their hypocritical actions, and it isn't any different here. Total freedom cannot work.

[The DanMan]

The Civil War was not fought for abolitionism vs anti-abolitionism. The fact that it's taught that way annoys the shit out of me, because it was a tiny factor in the war. There were many things that led to the Civil War, and the north also had slaves to begin with which doesn't make a whole lot of sense in conjunction with the fact that the north was fighting in favor of abolitionism.

It was a large part of it, though, and a huge behind-the-scenes factor for the cultural differences throughout the country. It's just not as (pardon the phrasing) black-and-white as some make it out to be.

[Rapier]

The point still stands, if the founding fathers so wholeheartedly believe in freedom from tyranny, why did they allow slavery to stick around? nearly 90 years after the people of the US were "freed from tyranny", there were still natural born Americans sitting in shackles for their entire life.

I don't think that was because they were only in favor of a limited kind of freedom. I think customs made people think slavery was normal and see slaves just as their property instead of as human lives just like them, so they fly over the radar. Customs do have the effect of making our brain think some practices are ok even though our reason would tell otherwise if we were to question it.

So, it's not that they did not believe in freedom from tyranny, it's that human error/bias made their vision on freedom limited/cloudy.

[Moblin Major General]

I don't think that was because they were only in favor of a limited kind of freedom. I think customs made people think slavery was normal and see slaves just as their property instead of as human lives just like them, so they fly over the radar. Customs do have the effect of making our brain think some practices are ok even though our reason would tell otherwise if we were to question it.

So, it's not that they did not believe in freedom from tyranny, it's that human error/bias made their vision on freedom limited/cloudy.

Then what freedom did the aboriginal people of the Americas have? Were they, and are they still, allowed to live as they used to? The answer is no, and that is even more hypocritical than slavery. Worse still, their population is going down as they leave reservations to find more livable conditions, which means it could only be a century or so before they become functionally extinct as a race.

[Phantom037]

I don't think that was because they were only in favor of a limited kind of freedom. I think customs made people think slavery was normal and see slaves just as their property instead of as human lives just like them, so they fly over the radar. Customs do have the effect of making our brain think some practices are ok even though our reason would tell otherwise if we were to question it.

So, it's not that they did not believe in freedom from tyranny, it's that human error/bias made their vision on freedom limited/cloudy.

Except Thomas Jefferson attacked the British over their use of slaves in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.

[Acacia Sgt]

The thing about slavery is that, even back in the 1780's, the threat of Civil War was already there. It was something that many understood at the time. The North and South were too different. It was already a bomb ready to explode one day. And regarding slavery, many of them knew.

Like a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes:

We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.

Like what once Samuel Adams told Benjamin Franklin:

Mark me, Franklin. If we give in on this issue, there will be trouble one hundred years hence. Posterity will never forgive us.

Though of course, it wasn't just the issue of slavery. Other things could've triggered the Civil War. There was stuff like the Nullification Crisis. As Andrew Jackson said:

The tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question.

So basically, regardless of what they thought about the issue, they chose to preserve the Union than to let a Civil War happen right after the American Revolution.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Acacia Sgt

[blah the Prussian]

I would accept that if they at least stayed true to their ideals themselves. But you and I both know that many of the founders, including Jefferson and Washington, had slaves. This tells me that keeping slavery was less about preserving the union and more about their own profit.

[Acacia Sgt]

I wouldn't know of the others, but Jefferson definitely kept true to his anti-slavery ideals. Just because he could not simply free the slaves (he did managed to free a few, though, little as the number may have been) that worked at his plantations didn't mean it negates all the efforts he did to the abolitionist cause.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Acacia Sgt

[Phoenix Wright]

Except that tyranny is by definition unfair and unbending. Punishing evil acts is not tyrannical unless the punishment is disproportionate to the crime.

okay, i already conceded that my word choice was poor. i'm not sure what more there is to give here.

[Crysta]

if you think indentured servitude (almost certain these were the 'white slaves' you're talking about) was the same thing as slavery and it wasn't really about race idk what to say

there is no way i can consider that an equivalence

but keeping in mind you say they were only "slightly hypocritical" when they penned a document extolling the virtues of freedom and individual rights while still literally keeping human beings in bondage i also can't be very surprised.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Crysta

[Yojinbo]

I haven't followed this in quite a while.

... how and why did slavery become a topic in a thread that's supposed to be about the 2016 election?

[Lord Raven]

because some people in this thread go on and on about the founding fathers and their ideals

and some of us are pointing out the hypocrisy in this statement by bringing up slavery - ie, nobody should give a shit what the founding fathers think, this is all propaganda

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

well everything is propaganda to an extent.

for example, and abit more related to the subject being Hillary being missing in action for three hours while people were waiting on her for a speech, but you didn't see barely anyone news wise make an articular about it, meanwhile i can guaranteed you if that was literally anyone else, they would've gotten slammed for being late and lazy and other stuff, clearly there's some bias here and a narrative about "she's totally not in bad health guys", willing to terminate people that question this, which doesn't get talked about much either.

[Lord Raven]

well everything is propaganda to an extent.

... and?

for example, and abit more related to the subject being Hillary being missing in action for three hours while people were waiting on her for a speech, but you didn't see barely anyone news wise make an articular about it, meanwhile i can guaranteed you if that was literally anyone else, they would've gotten slammed for being late and lazy and other stuff, clearly there's some bias here and a narrative about "she's totally not in bad health guys", willing to terminate people that question this, which doesn't get talked about much either.

Well, yeah, it's Huffington Post. What do you expect? They've been known to be left wing shills for a while now.

Having that said, what is your source for her health? I don't actually understand this conspiracy theory, because both presidential candidates are 70 years old, I am pretty sure their health isn't perfect.