|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted November 25, 2003 07:04 AM |
|
|
Well really I speak mainly for myself in the UK. We banned slavery throughout the empire in about 1830 something, but fought the slave trade from sometime in the 1810's I think. Prior to that slavery was important here only by extention, ie black slaves were not here as such, we merely reaped the greedily gathered reward. I live next to liverpool, pretty much the number 1 slave trading port of the UK before the 1800's. We would manufacture goods here the colonies couldn't make themselves, sail to africa, buy slaves, sail to america, sell the slaves/manufactured goods, and then buy the raw materials in america such as sugar and tobacco which would return here to make use of them. The shipping companies and slave traders made a fortune mostly out of this, Liverpoool as a city grew on a scale close to the Gold Rush cities in America. Most buildings in the city date to the late 18th to 19th century because this was when the city exploded in size and riches. On the back of the slave trade allowing the city to expand, the wealth of that enabled the city to remain rich throughout the 19th and first half of the 20th century through merchant shipping.
Basically we mostly kept our slavery as such at arms legnth, other than that we paid the common person a miniscule amount to work in factories and what not in Victoria's time, but slavery as we know it, ie black slavery plantations in the south was mostly in the colonies, never here in the UK.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 07:10 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Have to find some ways to make him pay attention to the point I was making as opposed to the point he wanted me to make”
Have had the feeling myself on many occasion
Quote
“slavery as we know it, ie black slavery plantations in the south was mostly in the colonies, never here in the UK.”
The highest slave trade was easily in South America by any stretch of the caculator.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 07:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Technically true and technically not true. UK abandoned the horrific slave trade earlier in terms of the calendar year...but USA kicked all sorts of butt in terms of years of nationhood.England abandoned slavery after what about thousand years (I have little knowledge about when england "officially" was nationalized/civilized/whateveryouwanttocallit....so when was it PH?) and the USA did it in about 100 years.
Oh entirely true, but really if you think about it, America inherited the ideals and experiences of Britain to that point, ie they also should by that token have felt the same need and want to move towards ending slavery at about the same time. It could be argued I guess the main reason would be that we in the UK were hurt less by the ban than the states directly, but then again we did loose out on a lucrative (but terrible) profit through the ban ourselves. Given the constitutional claims of freedom for all men in America though it was unfortunate that white slave owners only felt the need to extend this to themselves. I also have a tendency to think that without the catalyst of the US civil war slavery may have taken some time to eradicate fully in the south.
Anyways my main point as I have stated was just to say that claiming we were evil in that period for conscripting US sailors isn't the whole story, not a debate on the policies and reasoning behind emancipation. So yes, valid to claim we were older, but not so valid also because you shared our knowledge and systems and much of our culture to a set date.
Quote:
And for everyone's edification the slave trade still occurs with many of its current victims being children and Christains.
Oh and no doubt many many others also including the forms like those in Victorian England that exist in Far East sweatshops today also. All too often unfortunately these forms are not fought against.
Quote:
The highest slave trade was easily in South America by any stretch of the caculator.
Whilst agreeing with this, I mention black southern plantation slavery because when most people I know talk to slavery, they think of US/UK slavery, not south american/asian slavery. I wasn't trying to isolate slavery to one continent, country or time period, just mentioning the one most people will probably associate with the best out of all the forms. I'd hardly think I'd mention southern slavery for my own benefit after all, our involvement would make it better for me to concentrate on other types wouldn't it?
Oh yes, England as a nation came together sometime around the turn of 1000 ad I think (my ancient/medieval history is very rusty and I never remember dates well at the best of times as you can see). We added wales in a union by force in about 1300 and something, Ireland was on and off part of the country since the medieval times, but firmly since the renaissance period. Scotland joined the union officially in 1707 finalising the country as the United Kingdom. Southern Ireland left the union to form Eire in the 1920's leaving Modern day Britain as it stands now. I'd say England had existed as a nation about 800 years before banning slavery, 200 or 300 perhaps directly involved in the issue.
Reprehensible of my country to do such a thing like I said, but like I also said, America was a new start, taking the best of British such as our courts and so on and improving on them, then throwing in equality and freedom, unfortunately this failed many which is equally reprehensible. The states created a great ideal at the heart of their drive for indepedance, it's a shame not everyone enjoyed it when the experiences shared by the UK and USA would soon both cry out for it.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 07:41 AM |
|
|
Quote
" America was a new start, taking the best of British such as our courts and so on and improving on them, then throwing in equality and freedom, unfortunately this failed many which is equally reprehensible"
Indeed USA owes a large debt in morality, legal system, economic system, objectivity, spirituality, etc. to our former homeland.
It is interesting history indeed the moral dilema faced by our founding fathers in whether to recognize that blacks are to be included as "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..". Many believe that to have taken that stand at that time would of destroy any hope of creating a new nation. To the USA's shame blacks were not included...but I do believe the beautiful quote above was a solid foundation and motivation upon to which we could later free ourselves from such aweful oppression.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 07:53 AM |
|
|
Entirely valid, that was part of what I meant about it being politically and economically easier for the UK to sever it's ties with slavery than the US. If I recall rightly Virginia and the south was quite important in that period and had much more say in politics overall than it did during Lincoln's time also, so such a choice would have been problematical. I'm not so sure about the will of the founding fathers for emancipation though, it would be interesting to investigate their opinions on the matter and see whom did or did not support slavery directly (ie own slaves or support slave owners). I'm not that sure they would have been so anti-slavery as some like to imagine they were.
Anyway, again I'm not trying to dig at america really, just trying to produce the overall picture. Someone acting as if the USA has not involved itself in enslaving nations is wrong, hence the introduction of the southern slavery issue really, not to claim this makes the US evil.
I don't think I've come across as suggesting this will mean Iraq will be enslaved, I certainly don't intend to, but I was just correcting someone. Believe you me, had a fellow Englishman come along to claim we had never taken a country over based on our greed, but did so over civilising the people I would equally argue with them, using the Boer lands as an example. It doesn't mean I think the empire was the worst thing in history run by mass murderers, it just means I have a tendency to correct those who select the relevant bits of their history.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
fd10801
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 02:13 PM |
|
|
US and UK Slavery
I've been trying to track down some evidence on the Internet concerning slavery, but since I can't, I'll tell you what I do know.
19th Century slavery existed at least in Portugal, where it first appeared in the 1400's. It existed throughout the Islamic world, almoat since the days of the Islamic conquest. Example: The Mamelukes...were originally recruited from non-Arab slaves imported to serve various traditional Muslim rulers as soldiers and officials. Typically, the erstwhile slaves assumed power themselves in time and continued to replenish their ranks by importing more military slaves. Between the 13th and 19th centuries Mameluke regimes appeared throughout the Muslim world..."
We should all be aware of the African contribution to US and UK slavery. Slavery existed throughout the Caribbean, in the French and Dutch areas, as well as the UK areas.
My point is that 19th slavery was not an Anglo-American phenomenon, any more than Fascism in Europe was a German phenomenon (remember Peron, Franco, and Mussolini)
It has to do with the perception of Africans as less than human. Similarly, at the end of the 19th Century, anti-semitism reared its ugly head, culminating in the Holocaust, and now beginning to rise again in Europe, and, of course, in the middle east.
It boils down to this: I quote Carleton S. Coon, in "The Story of Man," Alfred A. Knopf, 3rd Ed., 1974 p.376
It is the retention by twentieth-century,
Atom Age man of the Neolithic point of view
that says: You stay in your village
and I will stay in mine. If your sheep
eat our grass we will kill you, or we
may kill you anyhow to get all the grass
for our own sheep. Anyone who tries
to make us change our ways is a witch
and we will kill him. Keep out
of our village. [emphasis mine -fd]
The above quote is one of my favorite reactions to the statement, "This ______, (fill in the year), we shouldn't be doing this anymore."
____________
*Are you a human?*
No. I'm a frozen meatcicle
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 02:58 PM |
|
|
I don't think anyone would claim it's a purely UK/US issue, I was just referring to that because most people associate slavery with that brand, not because I meant it was the sole thing.
On who was to blame though, I'm lead to believe that the portugese and others who brought the slaves to their destinations, only rarely captured slaves themselves, they mostly traded with either Arab or African people who did the capturing of slaves. The Spaniards pretty much anhialated the caribean population basically by working them to death... literally. The tribesfolk were used to more gentle labour, not mining and extensive farming, they died in droves. Slavery did continue in the Caribean under all rulers, though Britain disolved slavery in all of the colonies in the 1830's. Basically it's pretty hard to find someone who didn't enslave people at some point in the past.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 26, 2003 02:05 AM |
|
|
fd10801
Quote:
I don't know who Toby Keith is, but if he's guilty of the occasional typo, then he and I are blood kin. Otherwise, "sucker punched" is perfectly acceptable to describe what happened to this country at both Pearl Harbor, and the World Trade Center.
Oh well, I guess no then. To tell you the truth, I didn’t even notice the typo.
Quote:
First of all, there is still a debate going among American Historians as to…
I was agreeing with you, not sure if you understood that.
PH
Quote:
If you thought I ignored that part of our history can you kindly inform me why I bothered to mention it repeatedly in my post?
That’s funny, I can’t seem to find where you commented on Britain’s direct tie to the slave trade. All you seem to say is how Britain’s ships were freeing slaves and how Britain stopped slavery in their country before the US, so can you kindly inform me why you seemed to have neglected to put that in your post, maybe you just thought you typed it, I’ve done that.
Quote:
So saying that I don't like my country's history being brought up is just showing how totally ignorant you are when you read posts, picking exactly what you need to prove your point, and totally ignoring the rest of the post.
That’s funny you say that, I thought you said: Quote:
Yes I do, very well thank you, but unless you've gone blind, that was not the topic under discussion.
That would be why I was annoyed and said you can talk about my history but I can’t talk about your history. And you say I pick what I want to prove my point.
Quote:
But it was ok to enslave American sailors?
Again, pathetic, I never said it was "ok" I said we had reasons behind it, which you will note is not the same thing.
Talk about taking things out of context! If you read the whole section of my post on that subject it might make more sense to you.
Quote:
Also I never entered the information to say we were perfect, that is your assumption
Ad I don’t remember accusing you of saying Britain’s perfect, so as you would say, pathetic attempt at making me look bad.
Quote:
this is me pointing out the whole picture, learn the difference, especially when I specifically point it out to you.
The whole picture, hmmm, seems to me if you pointed out the whole picture, I wouldn’t have anything to say…
Quote:
Selective quoting that misses the specific point I was making is pathetic.
Selective quoting misses the point, seems like you have missed some of my points then, or did I just miss your point here? 
Quote:
I read what the other person says before typing my post
Only if you do the same.
dArGOn
Quote:
Quote
“Have to find some ways to make him pay attention to the point I was making as opposed to the point he wanted me to make”
Have had the feeling myself on many occasion
About me or PH?
PH
England was “created” in 1066 when William the Conqueror (of Normandy) won the battle of Hastings and became the first king of England.
He got in a “fight” with the Pope and England became the first country to suffer the interdict. The interdict is when a whole country is excommunicated, excommunicated is being cut off from the church and forced to burn for eternity in Hell.
So you were close with 1000 something.
fd10801
Quote:
at the end of the 19th Century, anti-Semitism reared its ugly head, culminating in the Holocaust
Anti-Semitism is much much older than that! It goes as far back as 3000 B.C.! During Egypt’s time as the worlds greatest power. Just a tidbit of information for you, buddy.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 26, 2003 03:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That’s funny, I can’t seem to find where you commented on Britain’s direct tie to the slave trade.
Really? Do you recall reading the following? I'm sure you probably must of, after all, you posted more than once after it....
Quote:
I'm all for recognising Britain's part in the slave trade, hell I live right next to a city that was essentially built on the slave trade, I see the fruits of that injustice with every day of my life, don't try telling me I don't know british history and specifically the slave trade thank you
Now Correct me if I'm wrong, but here I directly link the trade not only with my country, but pretty much personally to my life today. Or how about this?
Quote:
It could be argued I guess the main reason would be that we in the UK were hurt less by the ban than the states directly, but then again we did loose out on a lucrative (but terrible) profit through the ban ourselves
Where I state our country was profiting from the trade?
Not enough yet? Want more? How about an entire freaking post on the topic? Would that suit your desire for me accepting British involvement?
Quote:
Well really I speak mainly for myself in the UK. We banned slavery throughout the empire in about 1830 something, but fought the slave trade from sometime in the 1810's I think. Prior to that slavery was important here only by extention, ie black slaves were not here as such, we merely reaped the greedily gathered reward. I live next to liverpool, pretty much the number 1 slave trading port of the UK before the 1800's. We would manufacture goods here the colonies couldn't make themselves, sail to africa, buy slaves, sail to america, sell the slaves/manufactured goods, and then buy the raw materials in america such as sugar and tobacco which would return here to make use of them. The shipping companies and slave traders made a fortune mostly out of this, Liverpoool as a city grew on a scale close to the Gold Rush cities in America. Most buildings in the city date to the late 18th to 19th century because this was when the city exploded in size and riches. On the back of the slave trade allowing the city to expand, the wealth of that enabled the city to remain rich throughout the 19th and first half of the 20th century through merchant shipping.
Basically we mostly kept our slavery as such at arms legnth, other than that we paid the common person a miniscule amount to work in factories and what not in Victoria's time, but slavery as we know it, ie black slavery plantations in the south was mostly in the colonies, never here in the UK. (added note, this was not to say we weren't involved but to say slaves were not used for labour in the UK)
If that's not enough you're not worth the time I just spent finding it all, it's all over page 73, do pay attention. Now I guess you could claim I didn't mention about conditions and accept responsibility personally on behalf of the crown and British people, but sod it, I have a life, I suggest you use part of your life to get some reading glasses.
Quote:
All you seem to say is how Britain’s ships were freeing slaves and how Britain stopped slavery in their country before the US
Part of this (the mentioning US later emancipation) could be considered valid in it's own pedantic way but for the fact that whilst stating this repeatedly, I also later advanced a logical reason for why this would be the case and said that was to me, reasonable to defend as an argument, namely:
Quote:
Entirely valid, that was part of what I meant about it being politically and economically easier for the UK to sever it's ties with slavery than the US. If I recall rightly Virginia and the south was quite important in that period and had much more say in politics overall than it did during Lincoln's time also, so such a choice would have been problematical
Does that strike you as high and mighty? If I was trying to score points, I wouldn't bother to try and reason why the USA would be forced to do that. I went out of my way to not score points in that post, and you clearly don't realise this.
Quote:
so can you kindly inform me why you seemed to have neglected to put that in your post
No, I'll inform you where I put it in my post (ie above) and you might do me the favour of reading it this time.
Quote:
That’s funny you say that, I thought you said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I do, very well thank you, but unless you've gone blind, that was not the topic under discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be why I was annoyed and said you can talk about my history but I can’t talk about your history. And you say I pick what I want to prove my point.
Indeed I did, now I shall try and explain for the last time, I'll make it easy for you.
1) Someone introduced a comment about the US not enslaving or plundering nations
2) I disagreed with this and then later said why
Therefore... the topic was to counter an exterme and innacurate point of view. The topic at hand was not (despite your attempts to make it so suceeding partly) who had the nicer country, or lets see if we can debate our country's past ok? It was just me, refuting an extreme argument.
You then forced the topic onto the issue of our respective country's pasts, at this point you made attempts to suggest some bad issues about the British empire, I entered some good things and so on, BUT (and here's the bit you utterly missed) I not only suggested good things about the UK vs the USA (ie earlier emancipation) I did go to the trouble of trying to reason why that would be. Hardly the ignorant poster you are claiming me to be am I, when I discuss a point and even argue against myself by bringing in my own view on my country's involvement in slavery?
By all means make the topic about relative good and bad parts of our two nations, please do so, but my "not part of the topic" remark was to tell you that whining about me mentioning the slave trade isn't really valid, because I only mentioned the trade first to counter a "no slavery" argument.
Quote:
Talk about taking things out of context! If you read the whole section of my post on that subject it might make more sense to you.
Do me the favour of showing your point, I have after all dug up many things here for you since you missed them entirely.
Quote:
Ad I don’t remember accusing you of saying Britain’s perfect, so as you would say, pathetic attempt at making me look bad.
I don't need to help you look bad, you just missed 1 full post and at least other quotes of about 2 lines, full of information on Britain's slavery involvement over a page when you specifically said it wasn't there. You don't need my help to look bad trust me.
Quote:
The whole picture, hmmm, seems to me if you pointed out the whole picture, I wouldn’t have anything to say
Ok, ANNOUNCEMENT, I AM ABOUT TO SAY WHAT MY ENTIRE POINT WAS!!!!
Well actually I'll quote myself again since I already have.
Quote:
Anyway, again I'm not trying to dig at america really, just trying to produce the overall picture. Someone acting as if the USA has not involved itself in enslaving nations is wrong, hence the introduction of the southern slavery issue really, not to claim this makes the US evil.
I don't think I've come across as suggesting this will mean Iraq will be enslaved, I certainly don't intend to, but I was just correcting someone. Believe you me, had a fellow Englishman come along to claim we had never taken a country over based on our greed, but did so over civilising the people I would equally argue with them, using the Boer lands as an example. It doesn't mean I think the empire was the worst thing in history run by mass murderers, it just means I have a tendency to correct those who select the relevant bits of their history.
Jesus man, I even went to the trouble of putting the words "overall picture" in the post, is that not enough for you to pick up? Will this announcement do or shall I get someone to read it to you over and over till you listen?
I REALLY hope you're not going to force me to highlight the specific parts of these quotes for you to see my admittance of the involvement. Not even you can be that ignorant of what people write surely?
Quote:
seems like you have missed some of my points then
I think you take the record though, you miss entire posts that you claim don't exist, or you must believe aren't on the topic they're actually on. Perhaps the points I miss of yours usually run off at wild and only vaugely related angles to the subject matter I was talking about.
Quote:
England was “created” in 1066 when William the Conqueror (of Normandy) won the battle of Hastings and became the first king of England.
Hardly. England existed as a united realm at least under the two immediate predecessors, Harold Godwinson (at least I think that was his second name, the guy killed at Hastings) and Edward the Confessor. Prior to that, and possibly for part of Edward's reign things get a little murky with Vikings and independant realms such as Wessex, Murcia and such like. Geographically and politically though, William was NOT the first king of a united England. He's taken as a convinient starting point usually more for the fact that the current Queen is a relative of William, but not Harold/Edward and those before*, so he began the line that distantly ends up with Elizabeth II. Also many historians take 1066 as the arbitary start of the medieval period, making it an important point in history.
* She could be I suppose, William was a Norman, ie his ancestors were "men of the north" ie Vikings. I guess it's possible that William could be related to someone like Canute who was king of England much earlier, but I really don't know either way to be honest. I doubt they could prove it, and William was a "bastard" son, ie born out of wedlock to a peasant woman, so in some circumstances, the powers that be could remove him on illegitimacy grounds...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 26, 2003 04:09 AM |
|
|
For the record:
USA : not perfect
UK : not perfect
bort : perfect in every way, shape and form.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 26, 2003 04:38 AM |
|
|
Screw the whole debate; let’s just talk about how personal you have been making it! What am I not? Apparently, I’m ignorant, I can’t read, I’m blind, I am unable to process thought, I look bad, I need everything put in Layman’s terms because I’m an idiot, I’m young, and debates are beyond me, I’m not worth your time, Any point I make is irrelevant, I don’t pay attention, I can’t make a point, I miss entire posts and yes I guess I would like someone to read that over and over and over and over to me until I get it.
OH! Would you like some quotes from you of you saying this crap?
Here goes!
I’m blind.
Quote:
… but unless you've gone blind…
I’m ignorant.
Quote:
…mighty in comparison to other countries is once again ignorant…
Quote:
(sincere appologies for the highlights to the others who read whole posts, this was just to highlight the important parts for those too ignorant to notice them first time round).
I’m young, and debates are beyond me.
Quote:
… Grow up, debates are clearly beyond you…
Any point I make is irrelevant.
Quote:
…so you point is again irrelevant.
I don’t pay attention.
Quote:
PAY ATTENTION!!!!
I’m not worth your time.
Quote:
you're not worth the time
I need everything put in Layman’s terms because I’m an idiot.
Quote:
I'll make it easy for you.
I can’t make a point.
Quote:
Perhaps the points I miss of yours usually run off at wild and only vaugely related angles to the subject matter I was talking about.
I miss entire posts.
Quote:
shall I get someone to read it to you over and over till you listen?
Does this not count under the COC?
Quote:
Messages which contain: racism, sexism, insults and any other illegal abuse of an individual's rights will be removed.
I have never lost my temper here before, but I guess there is a first time for everything, isn’t there? “You’re stupid”, etc, and cursing don’t affect me, things like this do after a while.
And bort, only nature is perfect.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 26, 2003 04:52 AM |
|
|
I personally don't care if it does upset you, every single last one of those comments had reasoning behind them. I have had to repeat the exact same thing over and over again, and if that's not enough to give me reason to question your abilities as I have... well let them do whatever.
Just because you lost the debate and also were completely and utterly wrong on the issue of whether I mentioned British involvement (and were quite obvious about making a point over it also) doesn't mean you have to run off to a moderator to complain. Feel free to, but that doesn't make any of the comments unjustified. Only you actually making sure of what I said/meant can do that, and I note you still refuse to do either.
You can't cover up errors in your posting and debating skills by making complaints that you're "offended". You can try, but it's no more than whining because you lost the point totally in order to try and make your argument. Sorry but I consider that to be immature, if my conclusion upsets you, then perhaps you should consider why I would reach that conclusion in the first place, before getting all offended.
Oh and I fully expect a penalty for the comments if necessary, I admit I should perhaps have worded them better, appologies to the mods if it breaks the COC. It still won't change the fact that whatever the COC says, you failed to show even the most basic of skills in debating an issue, that of listening to the other person.
Whether done through an insult, or done through a non-insulting remark, the point remains, you clearly have not read the posts I have made in their entirity because you miss vast amounts of their content. The insults you can do something about, I would reccommend though you also do something about your inability to accept when you are wrong.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 26, 2003 04:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
listening to the other person.
You don't seem to be listening to what I say either, you put words in my mouth. I didn't run off and tell a Mod. I was mearly showing you all the crap I put up with from you.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 26, 2003 04:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
listening to the other person.
You don't seem to be listening to what I say either, you put words in my mouth. I didn't run off and tell a Mod. I was mearly showing you all the crap I put up with from you.
So...whatever, it really doesn't matter what I have to say does it? You can make up more of what you want me to say yourself.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 26, 2003 05:12 AM |
|
|
I was assuming that the logical conclusion of making such a post reffering to the COC, rather than address the person individually through IM is to highlight the problem to the Moderators and general forum. Whomever you make the remark to, however you represent it, you are still failing to address the fact that your arguments were not even close to being correct, covering it now with a discussion about the tone I used will not avoid that the actual argument destroyed your one.
I could indeed argue that having to repeatedly state my opinion on British slave involvement is akin to my insults to you. I do not particularly enjoy you utterly ignoring my direct remarks and claiming I did not make them. I don't choose to make that the entire issue though because I have shown my point here, I have been more than balanced in the posts I have made in relation to the 2 countries, you have claimed I have not, I have then showed you how I have been balanced, you I presume have decided to drop the issue now realising how wrong some of your arguments were.
I'd much rather that my arguments made sense than worry about if I offend someone who's arguments about my statements don't seem to make sense. If I happen to have upset you by the tone I used I appologise for that, I do not appologise though for pointing the errors in your posting out. We all miss small comments, or small points, rarely though do I write the better part of 3 paragraphs on a subject only to be told they don't exist. So yes, the tone I am sorry for, the actual points I raised, well if the point offends you, then it's a clear hint that it's too close to the truth.
Quote:
So...whatever, it really doesn't matter what I have to say does it? You can make up more of what you want me to say yourself.
I made a jump too far in your reasoning, assuming that you were trying to highlight the issue through the COC to the mods. Is that really the same as missing 3 paragraphs of information? Nope. Nor is it the same as dragging a (valid) comment to balance an extreme view out into a debate on the morality of countries even.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted November 26, 2003 05:24 AM |
|
|
Make Love, Not War
Relax, Dudes. Let's get back on topic before Val drops a MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs) on this thought provoking issue.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 26, 2003 05:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Relax, Dudes. Let's get back on topic before Val drops a MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs) on this thought provoking issue.
Hello Khayman,
good to see your face back here, but not for the first time I slightly disagree with you here. There´s no point in just getting back on topic with people who open up a full bag of red herrings every time they see their holy cows criticised. I really admire the patience that´s been demonstrated by one side of this argument, accurately bringing facts and quotes even when the whole matter had already entered the realm of absurdity.
For myself I´ve found it best to altogether stop arguing with people whose intellect I do not respect. It´s a waste of time and energy, as the best arguments are of no use when the other side´s mind is not able to understand them.
____________
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted November 26, 2003 06:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There´s no point in getting on topic with people who open a full bag of red herrings every time they see their holy cows criticised. I really admire the patience that´s been demonstrated by one side of this argument, accurately bringing facts and quotes even when the whole matter had already entered the realm of absurdity.
So you're saying that this thread should choose to stay off-topic or die because it only incites war? We Americans can be a bit hasty in forming our opinions and rash in defending them at times (talking about myself here, no offense to anyone else), but I think that just because a thread turns from debate into a trade of insults or a contest of wits doesn't mean that it cannot get back on topic. Instead of posting to encourage others to and to announce that you give up on this topic, you could try to add something into it that might get it back on track.
Sorry for preaching, I just had to get that out.
____________
>_>
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 26, 2003 06:56 AM |
|
|
No, you´re misunderstanding me, Shadowcaster. I just expressed my opinion that it gets you nowhere to use logic and reason with people who do not understand logic and reason.
Of course it would be desirable to bring the discussion back on topic. But this request should in my opinion be made only and specifically to the one person who dragged the whole thing entirely off topic.
____________
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted November 26, 2003 07:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
We Americans can be a bit hasty in forming our opinions and rash in defending them at times (talking about myself here, no offense to anyone else)
Well you see, I've just proven one of my points.
But seriously, point taken. I did misunderstand you, and I apologize for my hasty comments.
____________
>_>
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
