Recent posts by mxmm on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Do you think Donald Trump could be elected as US President with his viewpoints on China?

First: Hey, dont take the debt if you cant pay.

I’m pretty sure most countries are in debt to foreign entities.

“I have long argued that paying down the national debt is beneficial for the economy: it keeps interest rates lower than they otherwise would be and frees savings to finance increases in the capital stock, thereby boosting productivity and real incomes.” -Alan Greenspan

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Would you kill one person you don't know for one billion dollars?

Originally posted by CanadianOverlord:
Originally posted by mxmm:

When you dig down past the human mind, and look at it abstractly, it’s true.

And this after you deride morality as “too abstract”?

Too abstract to debate on it’s own, yes. It’s hard to debate something that has no solid base.

By the same token, your theory on the worth of a human life has no solid base, as you said that it must be addressed abstractly. Also, you have not addressed how my ethical principles could have been objectively derived from the categorical imperative.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Would you kill one person you don't know for one billion dollars?

When you dig down past the human mind, and look at it abstractly, it’s true.

And this after you deride morality as “too abstract”?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Would you kill one person you don't know for one billion dollars?

Originally posted by CanadianOverlord:

The problem is that ethics and morals are abstract, and thus undebatable unless their source is examined.

Their source? The categorical imperative.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Would you kill one person you don't know for one billion dollars?

Originally posted by CanadianOverlord:

Unfortunately, that would only be correct if humans are not by nature selfish and greedy. It is a pre-programmed survival instinct. So to be more precise, all lives not mine are equal.

Are we not debating the ethical implications of such an action, not on the evolutionary principles behind it?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Would you kill one person you don't know for one billion dollars?

I would not do this. I propose that anyone who would do so is being inconsistent (assuming they are not already a Mother Teresa… in which case they wouldn’t do it anyway.) I assume everyone with a laptop has enough money to buy some sort of vaccine for someone who wouldn’t otherwise have it (perhaps a malaria vaccine in Africa.) I would further assume that they have enough to buy enough to “net” 2 or more lives, statistically. However, I assume nobody here is making themselves destitute in order to do so as much as possible (you’re still playing online flash games for imaginary badges…) This makes me think that people who would “save 2 lives with the money” would not do so because of the net gain of life, but rather to alleviate guilt. Which makes me further reason that they accept it based on the personal gain. Based on moral principle, this is wrong.

If someone objects that they would use all of the money in an unselfish manner, let them consider the following paradox. I assume that my opponents in this debate highly value their own lives. Assume that X lives could be saved by $1,000,000,000. Assume, then, that someone offers to donate $1,000,000,000 to this magic charity in exchange for the life of a volunteer. If my opponents will then not offer their own lives for such a cause, they do so because they do not consider all lives equal. Therefore, their claim that all lives are equal is flawed.

If my opponents then object that they would offer their lives for the net gain of life, then why are they not doing so?

Some may object that these are merely personal inconsistencies. However, if they would deem their own murder as immoral regardless of the circumstances, they should assume that the unwarranted murder of anyone is immoral.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Racial Profiling: Prejudice or Protocol

No that would make sense. I’ve already said behavioral signs should take precedence. But you probably didn’t bother to read that before you decided to go snipe at me? Also, I’d like to point out that you’re exaggerating to absuridty the notion that the average white male likely drinks to the average white male while driving is drunk.

I am not arguing about the behavioral signs. Your entire point is that racial profiling should be legal, independent of any behavioral signs. If at any moment you support searching someone just because of his skin color and not any actions that you see, that is racial profiling. If you don’t believe this, then why are you arguing? However, if you believe that skin color can be grounds for searching the person without a warrant, then what I used was in fact not a strawman argument.

Who cares about whether or not the majority of white drivers aren’t drunk? They are known to be drunk a whole lot, and it is reasonable to assume that alot of them drive drunk. Just like most don’t drive drunk, most middle-easterners (the extremely overwhelming majority) do not do terrorist attacks. My example fits perfectly.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / "Innocent until proven Guilty"

Originally posted by 2032:
Originally posted by mxmm:
Originally posted by 2032:

Its not the best system, but its all we have in the USA right now.

What do you suggest as an alternative?

Assuming a person is both guilty and innocent.

Ah… Doublethink, I presume?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / "Innocent until proven Guilty"

Originally posted by 2032:

Its not the best system, but its all we have in the USA right now.

What do you suggest as an alternative?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Racial Profiling: Prejudice or Protocol

Yeah. If I was to see the average Western male, I’d assume he drinks. Is it entirely accurate? No. Would it usually be? Yes. A good example. Would the hit rate move around across different cultures and regions? Absolutely.

So would you support a cop pulling over every white person he sees to make sure he’s not driving drunk? I’d say it would be much more efficient to look at concrete actions such as swerving, speeding, and delayed reaction time. But you know… that’s too logical.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Racial Profiling: Prejudice or Protocol

Originally posted by Spaghedeity:
Originally posted by SaintAjora:
What about them? It’s like half the SD posters can’t make a single argument without shouting “they did it too!” Guess what? Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because someone else does it doesn’t make it ok.
Conversely, if you ignore the law, then you remove any semblance of legitimacy. If you ignore the constitution in one circumstance, then others have the right to freely ignore it in other circumstances. Right to bear arms?

Saint is saying that if the Constitution loses power in one place, it loses respect in all other places. Saint is not trying to justify taking away all other rights because you guys are trying to take away the 4th Amendment; she is only trying to point out that it would be done. She is trying to point out the irony that the same people that want to bypass this extremely important Amendment still hang on to the archaic 2nd Amendment on grounds that it technically says it. She is pointing out that to demand respect for one Amendment you must also respect all the others, or you must seek to legally repeal it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Racial Profiling: Prejudice or Protocol

I would say search and seizures at appropriate venues would make the most sense.

So you’re basically saying to trample on the Constitution… Makes sense…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Racial Profiling: Prejudice or Protocol

Why should it not be allowed, when it works so well? Why are you in favor of making an officers job even harder than it already is?

Officers are there to preserve our rights. If they destroy our rights in the process, what is the purpose? If there is no reason to suspect someone great enough to issue a warrant, then I do not think it is the officers’ rights to detain them.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Racial Profiling: Prejudice or Protocol

The danger of racial profiling is that it forsakes hard evidence in favor of personal prejudice. Ideally, there should be an explicit reason that you suspect someone for a crime. You can’t just go looking for a drug dealer by detaining people of a certain race without a warrant and interrogating—-especially if there is no other reason to do so. My theory: If the person is really threatening, the cop will be able to see and take appropriate measures; otherwise, it is personal prejudice.

If it works, it works. So long as it is in line with sound statistics and not personal bigotry I cannot say I disapprove.

The problem with statistics is that they only work a certain amount of the time. Is it worth it to take such a large risk with citizens’ natural rights? What are we protecting if we take away what we are supposedly defending? It is just illogical to me.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / if the south had won the civil war

I think the main ideological discrepancy is the disagreement over whether centralization or decentralization is beneficial to the people which a government governs. Perhaps it would be prudent to place that refined discussion in a new thread and leave this to imagining the possibilities of what would happen had the South won the Civil War.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / if the south had won the civil war

Ugh, no they didnt. The Confederation didnt have a government like that, states were more individualized.

The degree is irrelevant. They were still hypocritical by even having a central government strong enough to tax and draft.

Its propaganda that the government spreads to say the southerners are “stupid rednecks”. They aren’t. THey don’t let themselves get manipulated that easily. They weren’t retards. They had their own reasons for fighting the war, that had nothing to do with the rich folk.

Why did we invade Iraq? Because most thought it was in their self-interest because of imaginary WMD’s. Similar story, only more intentional on account of the leaders.

The Union was trying to take away their rights! How is fighting against that bad? NO fatcat told them anything, it was obvious, they could figure it out for themselves.

Um, they weren’t? The South was refusing to play by the rules set down for them, and basically said they could pick and choose which federal laws to enact. That doesn’t work. It’s incredibly selfish and ultimately builds tension and causes war (hey! All of that happened!)

Um…a UNION, means a Union of smaller states or countries……

Under a central government of unspecified size and strength. I know what it means, and I don’t really see any debate here.

So the south ran out of food and munitions…Hmm..that directly contradicts your idea of a rich mans war.

The French Revolution had loyalists fighting for the rich men, and they ran out of food/munitions. Your point makes no real point at all.

Another quote by Abraham Lincoln said, “If I let the South go, who will pay for the government?”

Citation? I doubt that even if he implied that, it was that direct.

Also, Lincoln offered to let certain states in the South KEEP their slaves, if they rejoined the Union. THat kind of blows your theory, and Mxmm’s theory right out of the water.

Um… You obviously didn’t take your time to read my theory (which is a nearly universally accepted “theory”.) Slavery was a factor, and Lincoln was against its spreading from the premise (why don’t you take a peek at the entirety of those Lincoln-Douglas debates that you like to take out of context so much?) That doesn’t mean that he would instantly abolish slavery in the South. He didn’t outlaw slavery in the border states by the Emancipation Proclamation simply because he wanted to preserve the Union moreso. Just because I said slavery was a motivating factor doesn’t mean that the North was fighting purely on the account of slavery. Remember, the South was the one that started it, so the causes are rather on their account than the North’s.

Ok, next topic, the South traded with the Europeans too, thats where the slavery thing came in. Lincoln bullshitted the European,s saying his war was about slavery, and all that crap, and they believed him, so they stopped trading with the South, and they didnt help the South secede(which im sure they would have, if Honest Abe hadnt been so dishonest.)

I’m so sorry big mean Lincoln made a morally superior move that happened to be strategically beneficial to preserving the Union. I thought that was just called being smart.

Next topic: The first military submarine was a Revolutionary War makeshift barrel that moved around underwater. Its not like it was being mass produced, the Turtle wasnt the be all, end all, submarine….

I was proving your point wrong in principle. You say the South was resourceful and invented all these wonderful machines, when in reality they had been invented for nearly a century.

Also, Lincoln DID try to nationalize everything. Thats what the civil war was about. You said yourself that was communism.

Wartime economy=/=Communism. I didn’t say any such thing. I was showing an inconsistency in your accusations. Besides Lincoln was operating from a largely Hamiltonian economic mindset, which could hardly be deemed as Communistic. It didn’t try to redistribute wealth to the lower classes; it merely tried to maximize industrial productivity, which it obviously did pretty well, seeing as the North won from that asset.

Also, Lincoln pretty much started the war.

Wow. You don’t know what qualifies as starting a war. Starting a war is typically identified with formally declaring war or initiating military action. That would place all the blame on the South.

Lincoln didnt even want to lessen slavery’s influence. Lincoln’s familiy owned slaves.

Last I checked, what your parents did doesn’t really matter. Lincoln himself never owned slaves in the course of his entire lifetime. Good job.

Dilorenzo isnt any more biased than all the pro-northern crap you guys have been reading.

Proof? Oh ya, I bet it’s way more likely that there is no bias in DiLorenzo when nearly all historians disagree with him. My point being, point out a concrete flaw in our reasoning without appealing to the historians we tout. Logic, facts, and pure argument rule here, not authority.

The North was NOT morally superior, that quote explains everything.

No, but their motivations to war were.

Ok, Also, OBAMA was an IVY League Lawyer, once again, like Lincoln, he was born poor, he didnt stay that way very long.

I thought, of all people, Conservatives loved to tout class mobility under a capitalistic system. Perhaps Obama got there on his own merit instead of inheriting it all from his oil-company daddy?

A strong central government doesnt have a real social purpose.

Read The Federalist by Hamilton. I already gave about 5 very good purposes for a strong central government which you haven’t replied to, and you haven’t yet proposed one good reason for it. Please do this before doing anything else in response.

even though you are stuck on the fact that the south was run by the wealthy, its not true. If you can give me concrete proof that it is, maybe Ill change my mind.

I’ve already gone through this. The control of all of the economy was in the hands of relatively few.

When the US was a COnfederation, would one of those rebellions happen to be the one against the British? I think so.

Learn 2 History.

If the North could buy all the food it needed, and take care of itself so wonderfully, why didnt they just let the South secede?

Cf. My reasons that decentralization would hurt the nation.

You really have no idea how the south works…… “If the south had control, they’d try to crush things that threatened slavery”? What? Slavery was just work. THe southerners did not consider slaves worth dying for, slaves were just farm tools, just like tractors, and industrial size sprinklers.

I’m rather sure that if someone came and started declaring your tractors and farm tools not your property anymore, you would be very angry.

If you can replace one tool with a better tool, you’re going to.

Except for the very high initial investment. Alot like why we stay with our archaic BP instead of investing in Green Energy.

More proof that the war wasnt over slaves: slaves were considered property. NOT worth DYING for.

I know several Southerners who would be willing to defend their property with their firearms.

Also, the Censorship movement has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. Government has made SURE that the slavery thing is plastered all over everywhere. most people are still ignorant enough to call the Confederate flag racist, believe it or not. It is a hate campaign.

I’m sorry that black people associate the Confederate flag with racism, especially since the South adamantly fought for their removal of civil rights in the ensuing 100 years after the war. It is just rarely used purely to express a decentralized ideology, if you know what I mean.

there were abolitionists in the north too

Old news.

The Jim Crow laws were created in the South, but where were they enforced? You know that famous picture of the little black girl being gaurded by US Marshalls as she tried to go to an all-white school? That was in Ohio.

Plessy v. Ferguson unfortunately allowed all states to do this, all thanks to those brilliant Southerners who initially brought it to court. Yay!

Taking a historians word for it, is like taking a pastors word on the Bible. Its how cults, propaganda, and ignorance all get their power.

Ok. I’ll start to listen to people like you to get all of my history, science, mathematics, and philosophy; because obviously the experts are inferior to you and your divine insights.

But I have a set of 12 books that Ive read that are unbiased about the Civil War. And they give quite a bit of information.

Unbiased relative to what? What actually happened? Were you fighting in the Civil War to verify this?

The bad parts of my heritage arent “bad”, my ancestors owned slaves. Do I think any less of them? No.

Well, you should.

Im also proud of the fact that my family did well enough to own slaves, as they weren’t cheap.

You’re proud that your family was well-off enough to make a great amount of others’ hell? Interesting.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / if the south had won the civil war

A rich mans war fought by the poor man? The rich men in the South didnt have much influence.

You really believe that? The rich men controlled the economy and had the greatest interest vested in the war. Of course they had much influence, even in creating propaganda.

Slavery was a part of the northern lifestyle too.Especially New York, but none of the textbooks will tell you that.

Learn 2 Research

also, the south wasnt an aristocracy, thats propaganda, which better describes the north, than the south.

I don’t get what you’re saying… Who ran all the plantations and large farms which owned the majority of slaves? Since agriculture was the main industry of this region and most of it was controlled by a small number of people, I would say that it is very much like an aristocracy. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the rampant unregulated industry in the north from 1860-1900… The statement you made was patently false, though.

In the United States, RIGHT NOW, it is impossible to become president, unless you are filthy, filthy rich.

Except Abraham Lincoln came up from poverty? What’s your point?

Confederate means allied together. A Confederation could be called a group of people who are allied against a common cause. The confederation greatly limited the amount of power a fatcat could have.

A confederation means a union of smaller states or countries. It’s essentially centralization. Please provide proof that this new federal government would have regulated markets to discourage wage separation. As far as I know, they were against the “evil regulation” of the North, so they would have a rather hard time limiting their power. The Populist movement was in no way concurrent with the Civil War.

As for food, the Southern soldiers had Johnny cakes, the Union soldiers had hardtack, otherwise known as “sheet iron crackers”. That sounds real nutritious, doesnt it? Of course not, because hardtack was manufactured in factories.

Well which strategy paid off in the end? Which side was running out of food and munitions by the end of the war? Maybe frugality in rations is a wise move when you’re the poorer side in a war.

Also, you seem to think Industry just replaces agriculture…Thats downright foolish. Agriculture is much more important to a countries wellbeing.

You forget that the North traded with Europe and other nations. Since it was an industrial superpower, it could import raw materials and export much more valuable goods, thus allowing it to import as much food as it needed.

Also, the Submarine HADN’t been around for ages, read up on your history. ALSO, the Confederates had an ironclad too.AN ironclad that was slower than the Union Ironclads, but much more powerful.

The first military submarine was made nearly a century before. Also, the Northern ironclad damaged the Southern one more. The one that wins is the superior one; it’s abstract “strength” is rather moot if it still loses.

The SOuth had every right to secede, and Lincoln didnt let them.

Except he didn’t start the war? Learn 2 History.

Maybe he was a communist. It makes sense.

Huh? Proof? Whether you like it or not, you can’t just adopt McCarthy’s strategy of calling everyone he didn’t like a Communist without having to prove it.

The Southern plantation culture was just as good as the Northern culture, once again, bullshit propaganda. Slavery had nothing to do with the war. Slavery wasnt abolished until after the war started.

Again, Lincoln didn’t want to abolish slavery. He just wanted to lessen its influence in Washington by stopping new states and territories from becoming slave states. He used the Emancipation Proclamation as (1) a sort of “unconditional” surrender proclamation and (2) to set a precedent to follow after the war was over. The first would garner support from other nations adverse to slavery (e.g., Britain), the other would allow him to take advantage of the situation and set the political climate to finally abolish slavery after the war, which would really be a victory for the young Republican Party.

Also, Abraham Lincoln made the White Supremacist quote in his 4th debate with Douglas, on September 18, 1858. It can be found in the Collected Works, Volume III, pages 145-146.

I’m sorry he said something racist. This is really not a good point, because I’m not trying to paint Lincoln as a saint. I’m just pointing out that I think the North had a morally, economically, and socially superior motivation for the war.

Also, the North was cruel to former slaves until the 1960’s too. Thats when segregation ended.New England had its own KKK.

Except the South was much worse, and Jim Crow originated from the South.

Ever hear the phrase, “History is written by the victors”? That’s how you learned all that. The North tried to justify killing thousands of Southerners, and completely destroying their economy. So, of course, they turn to slavery.

Except they didn’t start the war…

Every little bit of the civil war that was ever commited to paper and found was collected in a massive volume?Have you read it?

Have you? Have you considered that DiLorenzo may be just as biased, if not moreso, to prove his points? You can’t cop-out to someone else in place of a real argument, and you can’t accuse me of being ignorant of a certain document when you haven’t even touched it yourself. To be frank, I don’t care enough about this debate to spend years reading through dry annals of history, but if you really care, be my guest.

Historians work in favor of whoever they are being controlled by. Why do you think everyone threw such a fit, when Texas tried to change its text books? Thats what is called censorship.

When Texas tried to change its text books to conform to basically everything you have asserted on this forum? So you’re saying that what you believe is propaganda?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / if the south had won the civil war

The US itself was founded on a secession, when one group of people found the exploitation by another group intolerable.

You’re assuming, of course, that I think that our original Revolution was wholly justified by minor economic inconveniences.

Slavery, which was not the real main cause of the war even according to Lincoln himself

You’re taking that Lincoln quote out of context. Lincoln didn’t want to destroy slavery. He wanted to prevent its spread to new territories and prevent any slavery majority in Congress. That was one of the original points of the new Republican party’s platform.

has been used as a club against all protests for states’ rights, nullification, secession, and opposition to centrallization.

I already conceded that much of the tension and motivation was due to past issues on states’ rights. However, I doubt that anyone here would even remotely agree with something as absurd and unconstructive as nullification. What role, then, would a federal government even play if their laws and taxes could just be randomly ignored by whoever felt like it? By the way, the CSA had a very strong central government during the Civil War, also. So I don’t see how you can say that this was a purely principled war and not sound like a hypocrite.

Also, what’s that nonsense about the south trying to impose it’s way on the north? They wanted to peacefully secede. Lincoln maneuvered them into firing the first shot (a common tactic used by warmongers), but the north invaded the south; not the other way around.

Except for the fact that he was giving supplies to what was a Federal fort, and the South was dumb enough to fire first? I’m sorry, but warmongers are actually the people who rationalize that the other person started a war when in reality they fired the first shot.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / if the south had won the civil war

Abraham Lincoln was taxing the crap out of the South, and they’d had enough.

It wasn’t Lincoln, and it wasn’t merely about taxes. It was about states’ rights. Even before Lincoln took a step into the White house, they had seceded, and they did so because they didn’t want a free-soil president. Buchanan sat on his own hands while he watched the South secede. You cannot look at the secession in the context of only economy, only taxes, only slavery, etc. It was a myriad of factors culminating in secession. It goes back to Jackson and the Tariff of Abominations, where people like Calhoun and Clay proposed a system of nullification, in which states could overrule federal laws. Jackson threatened to use military force when South Carolina tried this own, so they acquiesced for the time. The debate over which states should be free and which should have slavery also divided the north and south on the eve of the war. Pretending that this was about taxes is about as ludicrous as pretending that it was purely about slavery.

Only 26 percent of southerners owned slaves, why would the rest fight?

Why did people fight for the king during wars in Medieval Europe? Because they were the main employer and had the power to leverage them into fighting. Also, the CSA drafted people. A real democracy they founded, there.

The North could afford food for their men, because they went down South and started confiscating the Southerner’s food.

Well, not really. If you would have read my quote from a book, a Northerner made ~2x as much as a Southerner. The GDP was therefore approximately 2 times greater per capita. Thus, they could buy food from other places very easily, and use their industrial strength to continue to churn out money long after the South had started to suffer from losing its farmers and fields.

Also, how was the North “moving on to another stage of civilization”? Thats propaganda, if ever i’ve heard it.

Another stage of civilization doesn’t necessarily meant “better.” It could just be interpreted as urbanization, which is definitely true.

If the Confederates had been counted as their own country, they would have been the 4th richest country in the world.

But much has been made of the claim that the 1860 southern economy would have been the fourth richest in the world had it been and independent nation. In contrast, using more meaningful and less volatile wealth measures, the region would come in no better than fifteenth on a world scale, about the same as in postbellum years.

Look at page 124.

Then ole Abe got to them, and destroyed their economy.

… Except their world standing in wealth remained about the same in postbellum years…

Oh, the Confederates also used submarines.

Did the invent them/were they the first to use them? If not, it’s a moot point. You could argue that they were brilliant because they used guns, even though those had been invented centuries before.

As for your idea that all the slaves ran away to the North, that is NOrthern Propaganda

I love how facts backed up by numbers are always Northern Propaganda… What form does Southern truth take, then?

Lincoln was a White Supremacist to the point that today, he would be called a Neo-Nazi. I already said he only freed the slaves to win the war.

I doubt he would be a Neo-Nazi, as he was definitely against the expansion of slavery. However, just because he wasn’t as hardcore abolitionist as some think he was, doesn’t mean he was a flat-out racist.

Also ,Lincoln DID want to nationalize everything, why do you think the south seceded? He was a socialist, but I wouldnt call him a communist.

Heh. I guess a wartime economy brought on by a war that he didn’t start makes him a socialist now? But socialists want racial equality so that contradicts your previous premise that Abraham Lincoln didn’t want voting rights for blacks? Stick to one of those stories. This is as bad as people calling Obama a Muslim and then saying that his Christian pastor has had a bad religious influence on him.

Exactly. my point is right there, you said it yourself. Robert E. Lee was against slavery, but he still fought. That in itself should make it obvious that the Civil War was not about slavery.It was about Patriotism, freedom, and rights.

You are correct. However, that doesn’t change the fact that slavery would have persisted in this Confederacy, and it’s ignoring the fact that the powder keg which set off this entire war was directly related to slavery. Just because it involved other issues doesn’t mean the most direct conflict didn’t involve slavery. Southerners fought for slavery because it was critical to their economy. I imagine that if you were employed by BP and really, really needed the money (and couldn’t get any other job) you would consider defending their legitimacy, even after the travesty of the oil spill. Now, consider that again if you were brought up from an early age to believe that oil spills were a normal part of life. Now, consider that even if you don’t want to fight for BP, their tight ties with the new government allow them to virtually draft you anyway. It’s about money and tied to states’ rights in an ideological scale, yes, but it did involve the legitimacy of slavery very much nevertheless.

Also, Ive never read a southern textbook, I grew up believing Robert E. Lee was evil. Now I know better.

I’m rather sure that I’ve never heard a credible person call Lee evil. I kind of like the guy. Against his cause, yes, but he was a very polite and good-natured man.

Also, the worst quotes of the north happened to be from the President. Meaning, the guy who controled the north….Id say if the quotes were from him, they were a pretty good indication of the Northern mentality.

You can get all sorts of nasty quotes from Southerners, too. Especially ones after the war who still harbored racism much more than Lincoln. Just look at Wilson. He was born in Virginia and stated about the extremely racist movie “The Birth of a Nation” that his “only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” Or just look at the Black Codes following the war. Or look at Plessy v. Ferguson and the Jim Crow that emanated from it in the South. Or look at how it took the federal government to pass relatively unpopular legislation in the 1960’s to get them to stop their irrational refusal to serve people of other races. I’m sorry, but just because Lincoln had some bad quotes and you didn’t see any bad Southern quotes on the same site doesn’t mean they exist.

Considering the South was full of wealthy plantation owners, Id say the 1 in those 4 were the wealthy fatcats that the Confederate army was pissed off at anyway.

They were pissed off at the plantation owners? You mean their primary source of funding? I highly doubt it.

Most of the RICH NOrtherners DID own slaves, I know Abe Lincolns family did.

Actually, slavery was basically outlawed in most places in the north by 1800. Nice try, though.

Also, Im sure the high number of Puritans in the North helped their numbers a bit.

Fail. The Puritans weren’t big on slavery. The Southern settlers in places like Chesapeake bay brought them to the South to farm. The ones in the North were virtually eliminated by 1800, and even when they did have them before that, it was mostly slavery on the basis of perhaps a very rich person having a few personal slaves. Nothing even remotely on the scale of Southern slavery.

Also, everyone seems to assume that the whites went over to Africa and kidnapped all these blacks, crammed them in ships, and sold them in America. You really think the whites went around with little nets, and traps, catching blacks? Thats ridiculous. The blacks over in Africa sold their own tribesman. And if the tribes had prisoners, those would get sold to Europeans too. When someones own family tries to get you to buy them for a few beads, its no wonder that the blacks were considered property. Blacks and whites showed the slaves into ships together.

Ok. I really follow this one. Because Africans had a something to do with the slave trade, the whites who shoved them into ships and sold them and overworked them and beat them are suddenly justified! Nice reasoning.

Also, dont get me wrong, Im not racist. John Brown is one of my heroes,but he could have been just as effective, if not more effective at stopping slavery, if he had started killing slave owners in the North.

What slave owners in the North? The virtually nonexistent ones?

Also, a lot of Freed Blacks owned slaves. Which could also explain the slavery percentage in the south.

Except that didn’t account for most of them…

I would have no problem hanging a Confederate flag in front of my house.

Don’t worry. I won’t call you a redneck. I’d just laugh at it like I would if I saw a Russian with a hammer and sickle on.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / if the south had won the civil war

Also,decentralization is a good thing mxmm, we are paying taxes through the nose that arent going to anything worthwhile, and if the South had won, that wouldnt be happening.

Really? Let’s humor your notion that decentralization is a good thing. Even then, to combat the North and stay on its feet, the CSA still had to centralize to a great extent and draft people to its side. Do you know how many people were against simply setting up the same paradigm by appointing Jefferson Davis as a new president?

Besides, federal taxes are much lower than they used to be, stop whining and pretending that Obama’s taxes were even close to as “socialistic” as your beloved Eisenhower’s.

Plus, you obviously didn’t read my post about why decentralization is bad. Please explain how a decentralized country can protect itself from foreign and domestic enemies. Please tell me how it can levy enough taxes to implement interstate privileges, such as the Interstate Road System? Please tell me why the Articles of Confederation was about to collapse and we’ll see if those taxes are more than what is necessary.

I agree, if the South had won, America would be a lot more prosperous.

Each region would have what the other side wanted. However, if they were independent nations, tariffs would be levied, thus hurting both sides.

Also, Im sure slavery would have been abolished by now.

Really? Even if that were so, civil rights would still be lacking. Decentralization allows the whims of an extremely prejudiced region (yes, they do exist) to do whatever they feel like. The South rejoining the Union stopped reconstruction, fought for the decision of Plessy vs. Ferguson (which set the precedent for the next 60 years) and enacted black codes and several Jim Crow laws.

Im not sure who told you the South had a weaker economy mxmm,. but they were full of crap.

From this perspective, the post-War North-South disparity of roughly two-to-one in per capita income, a persistent feature of the U.S. economy between the Civil War and World War II, was basically consistent with prewar patterns.

You’re right, books are so overrated.

If the South had won, we’d be a lot better off, and so would the blacks.

Tell that to all the blacks that migrated up north in the next 150 years?

The South was very advanced.

But was very weak industrially.

Also, extemma, people would have thought about the tractor, with or without slavery. Gimme a break.

Proof? Necessity is the mother of invention.

Most of you who live in Northern leaning states, have been fed endless propaganda, and brainwashing, because there is still a lot of prejudice against Southerners.

You’re right, facts and logical consistency do tend to lean against prejudice and quixotic ideals of impractical decentralization.

My ancestors fought in the Revolution War to bring America to life. And they fought in the Civil War as Confederates to KEEP America alive.

Cool. My ancestors moved to America 100 years ago because it was so economically prosperous when it was united.

EDIT: Before you accuse me of being some Yankee, I am a Southerner, also.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / if the south had won the civil war

If you are really that optimistic about how an independent South would be, just read The Federalist. It has extremely compelling arguments about how decentralization would destroy the New World. Just for a few examples:

1) Each region would depend on a different industry, so different trade with different countries would develop. Thus, different confederacies would form different alliances with different countries. I have a hard time believing that this would strengthen our unity and goodwill for eachother.

2) Economic barriers would be put up between both confederacies to support industry at home. In the long run, this would hurt the weaker economy (the South) much more, and it would eventually die of economic depravity.

3) More civil wars would inevitably break out.

4) The selection of leaders without a bias towards their local prejudices would be severely limited. You thought Jim Crow laws were bad when the south was making less than half of the laws? Civil rights would still not be given out even today in the South.

5) Divided we fall. We would be easily colonizable by stronger European nations, especially since we would have less economic leverage and military might. Military mobilization (even when the two confederacies would be technically allied) would be severely impaired, and objectives would be nearly impossible to perfectly coordinate.

6) The spirit of decentralization takes away necessary power from the central government to levy taxes and impose laws that supersede state taxes and laws. You wouldn’t like some hick-town in Mississippi to suddenly stop paying taxes and start lynching black people because they want to, would you? There has to be some overruling set of rights enumerated in a document (The Constitution) and interpreted with as little bias as humanly possible (Supreme Court.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Collatz Conjecture and a (Possibly Endless) Toil

There are, of course, many patterns. I tried my hand at this problem about a year ago and was ultimately disappointed, but I did find out many interesting things.

For preliminary knowledge, all that one must do is prove that starting from any number n, the Collatz function will lead to another number k in a finite amount of iterations, where k<n. The number of iterations necessary to satisfy this condition, of course, varies from number to number. For all even numbers, of course, this number is 1.

There is a pattern I found (which I’m rather sure has been found before) that these counts are periodic, in some sense of the word. Take the number 5, whose path to a lower number consists of (5-16-8-4). Now, let’s see if any other number, which is x greater than 5, reaches a lower number in the same amount of iterations:

1) 5+x

2) 16+3x

3) 8+3(x/2)

4) 4+3(x/4)

Now, clearly, 4+3(x/4)< (5+x). Therefore, the only restriction is that x is divisible by 4 to keep every step as an integer. Indeed, you will find that numbers like 9, 13, 17, 21, etc. etc. all take exactly 4 “steps” of the Collatz function to reach a lower number (where the number itself counts as the first step.)

Using the same principle illustrated here, we can generate infinitely many counterexamples from a single example. All you must do is as follows: Find some number, n that reaches a lower number after a finite amount of iterations. All other numbers of the form n+(m 2^k) reach a lower number in the same number of iterations, where we take k to mean the amount of times it is necessary to divide by 2 to get a lower number, and m as an arbitrary integer. In the example above, it takes 2 divisions by 2 to bring 5 to 4, so all numbers of the form 5+m2^2=5+4m reach a lower number in exactly 4 iterations.

Thus, the problem is simplified to finding enough “prime” numbers (the set of numbers that reach a lower number in n iterations, all less than the number 2^n.) I’m not sure if there’s an infinite amount of these “prime” numbers, but there probably is, so even now it’s cumbersome computationally.

EDIT:

Don’t waste your time building your own graph from scratch. This one is good enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Collatz-stopping-time.svg

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hypergame Paradox and Cantor's Theorem

I can’t think of an obvious 1-1 correspondence between R and P(Q) at all really

The easiest way would be to notice, as you said, that P(N)=P(Q). I mean “=” here to imply that there is a 1-to-1 correspondence. Then, using the example similar to yours, show that all reals have a unique binary form, and that all binary forms are exhausted. In other words, do everything the same in your example except use base-2 instead of base-10. Sorry if that’s what you implied… I just saw that you said “decimal” place.

However, this should point out that you would not logically be able to define hypergame like that.

Exactly.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hypergame Paradox and Cantor's Theorem

First off, chess is not an infinite game. If 50 moves are made without the taking of a piece or the advancement of a pawn, the game ends as a draw. A technicality, yes, but nevertheless in the rules of chess.

I’m sorry, but you’d have to explain further why this is a paradox. If you choose hypergame as your selection every time, isn’t it obvious it can be an infinite game, so it should not be able to be chosen?

The reasoning is as follows:

A Hypergame is defined as a game in which the first turn you choose a finite game to play. Thus, there is only one additional move to the usual finite amount of moves. I think you would agree that 1+(some finite number)=(some other finite number). Thus, since the Hypergame must then always be finite, it can choose itself. However, as matt pointed out, this causes a contradiction: it can now choose itself an infinite amount of times, thus making itself an infinite game, and thus contradicting its own nature.

The reason you are having trouble pinning down whether the Hypergame is infinite or not is because it is neither. The Hypergame does not have a logical, consistent existence. The entire point was that matt used the Hypergame to provide an alternate reductio ad absurdum style proof to prove Cantor’s Theorem. Saying that X has a 1-to-1 correspondence with P(X) is the same as saying that the Hypergame exists and is finite. Since the Hypergame cannot exist, there cannot be a 1-to-1 correspondence between X and P(X) if X is an infinite set.

I’m going out on a limb here, but I think the way to relate this to the fact that there are infinitely more irrationals than there are rationals is to point out that each irrational can be “constructed” from a unique subset of Q. Thus, since there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence between Q and P(Q), P(Q)=R is infinitely greater. Matt, please verify or negate my reasoning. I’m really not as well-versed as you are.

EDIT: Even though chess is not an infinite game, I do believe that Checkers can be.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hypergame Paradox and Cantor's Theorem

Ah, well then Hypergame breaks it’s own rules, and one would suggest that you create a seperate Game class which Hypergame runs.

Technically, it doesn’t break its own rules at any finite step. Since Hypergame can only chose a finite game and only adds 1 move to that finite game, it technically is finite. However, since it can choose itself an infinite amount of times, the contradiction arises. Matt was pointing out that the inherent contradiction is this game provides an alternative proof for Cantor’s seminal theorem.

However, when comparing lim t—> inf. y= t and lim t—> inf y= 2^t, it can be seen that 2^t will reach infinity first (in terms of t), however, both will reach infinity eventually, although, at different terms of t.

I feel like we’ve gone over this many times in the .999…=1 thread… None of them “reach” infinity in common sense terms, as reaching something implies a finite amount of steps. Rather, both are defined as having no upper bounds as their variable is allowed to have no upper bounds. They are just as “infinite” as eachother, but the ratio of (2^t/t) will greatly increase over an increase of t. In fact, this ratio approaches infinity and “reaches” it at just the same “time” as the other two functions.