Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
IBHankering, you are one sick puppy... your stubborn belief that slavery was morally good... is something between heinous and sick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
If you think someone needs “proof” to say that slavery is wrong, was wrong, or will be wrong, then you are beyond hope. What are you looking for?
He's looking for your pal A. Reader to produce the post where IB actually said slavery is "morally good". Why don't you help your lurker buddy find it? It shouldn't be hard. Just go to your catalog of 13,000+ IB posts and use the search engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
Just admit it—you just don’t see slavery as wrong.
Wait a sec, I thought IB already said slavery was "morally good"? At least that's the rumor being pedaled by your lapdog buddy. Why don't you just produce the original quote, Old Twerp? That way you win the argument and there is no need to trick IB into "repeating" something. Can't find the quote, huh? Then why don't you just admit your lapdog made it up?
I know, I know, if you admitted your lapdog made it up you wouldn't be able to act so smug and morally superior, would you?
Let's see what is wrong with your post:
--Searching IB's volume of phlegm is not worth my time
--Searching IB's posts in concentrated form like that can be dangerous to any sane human
IB's posts stand for themselves. They are pro slavery. And I find it very telling--nowhere has he come out and stated, very simply, that he believes slavery is wrong, heinous, and evil. Why no such denial? Just curious. Don't you find that curious? When someone on here misinterprets my position, I clarify it, I tell them they were incorrect, etc. IBMassa spent voluminous space explaining why slavery was NOT morally wrong, why slavery is just peachy keen if the majority supports it, etc. How can anyone read that, see no condemnation of slavery by IB, and conclude anything else but IB thinks it is OK? Please explain.
Here we have Ol' IB's words: "Contrast that immutable fact [slavery] with your current pathetically, stupid argument wherein you highlight exceptionally horrific instances of 20th century genocide" I can only read that one way: In IB's mind, slavery is NOT on the same level as genocide. I think it is. And unless he recants his support of slavery, yes, that DOES make me morally superior, at least on this issue.
...unless he recants his support of slavery, yes, that DOES make me morally superior, at least on this issue.
Geez, you really are an Old-Thumper. You demand that IB drop to his knees and repent for his "support of slavery" - even as you can't or won't document any such support in his actual posts. Maybe the next time you feel the need to wallow in feelings of moral superiority you will remind yourself that the Bible says we're all sinners, Old-Thumper. Maybe IB is trying to tell you that Yankees are not without sin either when it comes to slavery, but you won't hear it because you are too busy huffing and puffing about your own moral superiority.
Junior, shut the fuck up when grown ups are talking!
That's all you got? Listen assup, the grown-ups are the ones posting the substantive arguments here. The children are the folks like you - over 20,000 posts and not a single deep or persuasive thought in any of them!
Now run down to the Enfield drugstore and bring me back an ice cream soda, little boy...
Poor IB. Now you are arguing that what is right = what is popular.
That is a pretty sad moral philosophy to live by. A moral compass that spins in circles. A moral compass that can be bought and sold with large advertizing budgets and a few charismatic speakers.
If you weren't such a bigoted blowhard I would probably pity you.
Merely pointed out to your stupid ass that philosophers theorize that "morality" is a reflection of what society considers "popular" whereas your stupid ass argues that "morality" is -- and always has been -- "immutable", Old-THUMPER. Only evangelistic preachers that you so hypocritically despise argue that "morality" is and always has been "immutable", Old-THUMPER!
FYI, there was a time when your fine Yankee friends in Massachusetts hanged faggots for buggery, Old-THUMPER -- now those "enlightened" voters elect them to Congress, Old-THUMPER -- especially when faggots like Frank only come out of the closet after they are elected. So much for you theory on "immutable morality", Old-THUMPER.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
Ah yes, IBMassa is calling in the reinforcements!
Let's see what is wrong with your post:
--Searching IB's volume of phlegm is not worth my time
--Searching IB's posts in concentrated form like that can be dangerous to any sane human
IB's posts stand for themselves. They are pro slavery. And I find it very telling--nowhere has he come out and stated, very simply, that he believes slavery is wrong, heinous, and evil. Why no such denial? Just curious. Don't you find that curious? When someone on here misinterprets my position, I clarify it, I tell them they were incorrect, etc. IBMassa spend voluminous space explaining why slavery was NOT morally wrong, why slavery is just peachy keen if the majority supports it, etc. How can anyone read that, see no condemnation of slavery by IB, and conclude anything else but IB thinks it is OK? Please explain.
Here we have Ol' IB's words: I can only read that one way: In IB's mind, slavery is NOT on the same level as genocide. I think it is. And unless he recants his support of slavery, yes, that DOES make me morally superior, at least on this issue.
In other words, Old-THUMPER, you can't actually back-up your lying, stupid-ass accusation with an actual quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
IBJunior is here WK'ing for his mentor and Massa.
It guess every fungus has its day.
Junior, shut the fuck up when grown ups are talking!
You really are an Old Thumper. You demand that IB drop to his knees Nope, just a simple statement like, "I think slavery in all forms is wrong". Or, "You misunderstood--I did not support slavery in the South". No getting down on knees.
and repent for his "support of slavery" - even as you can't or won't document any such support in his actual posts. He need not "repent" anything--just CLARIFY that he never supported slavery, and does not now support it. CLARIFY that he thinks the South was wrong for having slaves (those people in the south who did, of course). See how simple that is. Tell us all that he DIDN'T MEAN it was OK for Dixie to have slaves. Just clarify that I misread his posts. Isn't that simple?
Personally I don't think he will, because I think he PERSONALLY DOES BELIEVE IT WAS JUST FINE FOR THE SOUTH TO HAVE SLAVES.
Maybe the next time you feel the need to wallow in feelings of moral superiority you will remind yourself that the Bible says we're all sinners, Old Thumper. And I don't think the bible, especially as preached by most the conservative preachers I have heard, is big into situational ethics, which is the heart of IB's argument. Me? I completely acknowledge I am a sinner--supporting slavery just doesn't happen to be one of my vices. I only claimed moral superiority ON THIS ONE ISSUE.
Maybe IB is trying to tell you that Yankees are not without sin either when it comes to slavery, but you won't hear it because you are too busy huffing and puffing about your own moral superiority. Actually, I haven't argued the fact that some northerners are culpable. I conceded that point long ago. But I did (and do) take exception to IB's arguments that the northern slave ship captains were guilty but the southern slave owners were morally fine. And I pointed out that for every slave in the Union states there were thousands and thousands in the Confederate states--as the defense department used to say about the Soviets, "quantity has a quality all its own".
Actually, I haven't argued the fact that some northerners are culpable. I conceded that point long ago. But I did (and do) take exception to IB's arguments that the northern slave ship captains were guilty but the southern slave owners were morally fine. And I pointed out that for every slave in the Union states there were thousands and thousands in the Confederate states--as the defense department used to say about the Soviets, "quantity has a quality all its own".
Hence, the "quantity of nickels out of every dime that flowed into Yankee pockets has a quality all its own," Old-THUMPER. Behind every single Southern slave owner there were multiple Yankees backing and profiting off of that peculiar institution, Old-THUMPER.
Then you are as reading challenged as he is. Reading is not mimicking. It is not quoting and stopping at that. Most people pass beyond that somewhere in grade school. They read for comprehension.
When IB goes on and on (and on some more) that slave owners in the 1860 Confederacy are moral people, that is a clear support of 1860 slavery in Dixie in my mind. Please explain how you interpret it any other way.
Hence, the "quantity of nickels out of every dime that flowed into Yankee pockets has a quality all its own," Old-THUMPER. Behind every single Southern slave owner there were multiple Yankees backing and profiting off of that peculiar institution, Old-THUMPER.
Read all of that post. Here's the rest you conveniently ignore:
"Actually, I haven't argued the fact that some northerners are culpable. I conceded that point long ago. But I did (and do) take exception to IB's arguments that the northern slave ship captains were guilty but the southern slave owners were morally fine. And I pointed out that for every slave in the Union states there were thousands and thousands in the Confederate states--as the defense department used to say about the Soviets, "quantity has a quality all its own".
Once again what comes across is your anger that Dixie was fleeced by northern businessmen--not one shred of decency to decry southern plantation slave owners. Still not one. More proof that nickles going into northern pockets bothers you far more than slavery, lynchings, and the like. You are pathetic, and your lackeys like IIFFy and LL are apparently so in awe of you they follow your lead.
Then you are as reading challenged as he is. Reading is not mimicking. It is not quoting and stopping at that. Most people pass beyond that somewhere in grade school. They read for comprehension.
When IB goes on and on (and on some more) that slave owners in the 1860 Confederacy are moral people, that is a clear support of 1860 slavery in Dixie in my mind. Please explain how you interpret it any other way.
How can I be reading- or comprehension-challenged when you won't point me toward anything to read or comprehend in the first place?
I don't know which thread you are referring to (where IB "goes on and on") but I do know you said a few posts ago that slavery is just one of many moral issues. (Quote - "I only claimed moral superiority ON THIS ONE ISSUE.") So it's possible to be flawed in one area and highly moral in others. Was Thomas Jefferson a moral pygmy incapable of playing any uplifting or constructive role in our history because he owned slaves?
So you read my posts on this thread--and dissect them--but are not interested enough to read IB's posts in the same thread? Then it seems you are not really interested in the issue, but in bashing me. Which is what I suspected from the beginning--but it is good to now have confirmation.
As to Jefferson, my quick take would be: he was morally wrong about owning slaves. As you point out, we are all flawed in some way--some more than others. That flaw (slavery) does not mean--as you speciously write--that he as a whole was a "moral pigmy", nor that he was "incapable of playing any uplifting or constructive role in our history" as you write. It just means he was morally flawed on slavery. Just as I do not claim the slave owners of the south were necessarily all completely evil, or moral pigmies. But on the slavery issue, if they owned slaves that aspect of their moral compasses were wrong.
By the way--as you know but seem to pretend you do not--even a seriously flawed person can have some positive, constructive achievements. I would certainly not consider Castro to be a moral man, but under him the literacy and health of the Cuban people improved dramatically. So what point were you trying to make by introducing Jefferson into the discussion?
Read all of that post. Here's the rest you conveniently ignore:
"Actually, I haven't argued the fact that some northerners are culpable. I conceded that point long ago. But I did (and do) take exception to IB's arguments that the northern slave ship captains were guilty but the southern slave owners were morally fine. And I pointed out that for every slave in the Union states there were thousands and thousands in the Confederate states--as the defense department used to say about the Soviets, "quantity has a quality all its own".
Once again what comes across is your anger that Dixie was fleeced by northern businessmen--not one shred of decency to decry southern plantation slave owners. Still not one. More proof that nickles going into northern pockets bothers you far more than slavery, lynchings, and the like. You are pathetic, and your lackeys like IIFFy and LL are apparently so in awe of you they follow your lead.
How's your ferry business going Old-T or should we call you Captain "Missouri Boat-ride"... LOL
