Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/10/07 12:11 AM, Memorize wrote: -Confederate Flag: It's just a friggin' flag. And guess what, the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

until they made it about slavery. the slavery point is so beaten in there i'm not sure what the war was about. did the south simply want to secede or was there more stuff i never learnt?

i'm going to look this up.

At 2/10/07 12:14 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

until they made it about slavery. the slavery point is so beaten in there i'm not sure what the war was about. did the south simply want to secede or was there more stuff i never learnt?

Whether or not the Civil War was about slavery is kind of controversial as some historians cite Lincoln to have been a racist, only using the Emancipation Proclamation to hurt the South further. It's really a wierd thing.

At 2/10/07 12:23 AM, Grammer wrote:

I do hope you're joking.

I do hope you're not being that stupid. What did they teach you in school? South is evil, North is pure good? Heh.

The Civil War (if you had any idea what it was about) was about State's Rights. Why do you think when they tried to split off that they were called the Confederacy?

Here's a little fun fact: 6% of whites in the South owned slaves. 25% of free blacks in the South owned slaves. Now then, lets compare work. Truth is, Southern slave owners treated their slaves better than Northern Factory Workers were treated, only difference being that slaves couldn't just quit.

In fact, Lincoln's sole objective was to keep the Union in tact. He denounced slavery, but he more prefered that they be shipped back to Africa.

Now then, you were saying?

At 2/10/07 12:14 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

until they made it about slavery. the slavery point is so beaten in there i'm not sure what the war was about. did the south simply want to secede or was there more stuff i never learnt?

It's all they EVER talked about to me up to Junior High. As soon as we got into the civil war part of History, the teacher would instantly tie it to how blacks didn't have the right to vote and other freedoms that didn't come til the 1960's. They never told me how they were treated in comparison to northern workers. They also never told me that free blacks also owned slaves (more in proportion as well), not until I got into High School.

Many teachers in the US hardly even use current History Books anymore because they do not mention these little facts. How the North wasn't some beacon of light, in fact, they could in some cases, be just as cruel to blacks as any southern owner. Just because they denounced slavery doesn't mean they thought of themselves as equals.

It's only because of how bad slavery was that it's beaten so hard into people. However:

Lincoln's goal-Keep the Union in tact.
Southern Goal-Seperate and grant the state's more power (confederacy-state's rights).

At 2/10/07 12:38 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/10/07 12:14 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

until they made it about slavery. the slavery point is so beaten in there i'm not sure what the war was about. did the south simply want to secede or was there more stuff i never learnt?

It's all they EVER talked about to me up to Junior High. As soon as we got into the civil war part of History, the teacher would instantly tie it to how blacks didn't have the right to vote and other freedoms that didn't come til the 1960's. They never told me how they were treated in comparison to northern workers. They also never told me that free blacks also owned slaves (more in proportion as well), not until I got into High School.

Ha...I'm surprised they even told you that much in High School. I was still getting 'the south was bad because they had slaves and the north was good because they didn't; yay god.'

Many teachers in the US hardly even use current History Books anymore because they do not mention these little facts. How the North wasn't some beacon of light, in fact, they could in some cases, be just as cruel to blacks as any southern owner. Just because they denounced slavery doesn't mean they thought of themselves as equals.

We never used a book...the my teacher did all his coursework from research that he did himself which usually resulted in multiple points of views.

Lincoln's goal-Keep the Union in tact.
Southern Goal-Seperate and grant the state's more power (confederacy-state's rights).

Exaaaactly.

At 2/10/07 12:32 AM, Memorize wrote: I do hope you're not being that stupid. What did they teach you in school? South is evil, North is pure good? Heh.

The Civil War (if you had any idea what it was about) was about State's Rights. Why do you think when they tried to split off that they were called the Confederacy?

Also, slavery. To say that slavery had no part in the Civil War is irresponsible and you know it. The North was not happy with slavery, the south was not happy with being told what to do (as they were physically unable to change the slavery problem without completely [more or less] revamping their economy; not to mention their innate stubborness).

Here's a little fun fact: 6% of whites in the South owned slaves. 25% of free blacks in the South owned slaves. Now then, lets compare work. Truth is, Southern slave owners treated their slaves better than Northern Factory Workers were treated, only difference being that slaves couldn't just quit.

This says otherwise. If you don't trust that, this also says otherwise. As does any history textbook you open up. And any non-white supremecist account.

To save you some time, it states that about 1/3 of families owned at least one slave. 33% is a lot more than 6%, my friend. I have no current sources either negating nor proving your 25% black slaveowners claim, but even if that is true, the population of free blacks compared to whites would have still been proportionally lower even if your 6% figure was correct.

In fact, Lincoln's sole objective was to keep the Union in tact. He denounced slavery, but he more prefered that they be shipped back to Africa.

You are right about his primary goal being to keep the Union intact. I'd like to see some more backing about his preference that they be shipped to Africa though, I'm looking into it as we speak.

Now then, you were saying?

Likewise.

At 2/10/07 12:51 AM, Tancrisism wrote:

This says otherwise. If you don't trust that, this also says otherwise. As does any history textbook you open up. And any non-white supremecist account.

Of course it does. You're taking it from a text book. If you wish to blame anyone, you can blame my History Teacher for giving us an article stating that only 6% of southern whites owned slaves. Altho the teacher said the more likely figure was somewhere around 10% and maybe a little higher.

With slavery as beaten into kids minds (I mean, the 60's arent that far off), do you expect them to state anything about the percentage or mention blacks as also owning slaves? Please.

This says 26%
Wikipedia says around 17 if you do the math.
This says that some free blacks were wealthy enough to own slaves.

Yeah, my history teacher acknowledged that some free blacks owned slaves, but she never gave an exact figure or implied that it would be a number anywhere near 25%.

The AP US History textbook is actually suprisingly VERY unglorious to the good old US of A.

At 2/10/07 02:07 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Yeah, my history teacher acknowledged that some free blacks owned slaves, but she never gave an exact figure or implied that it would be a number anywhere near 25%.

The AP US History textbook is actually suprisingly VERY unglorious to the good old US of A.

Of course, it's bad enough I made a typo from Wikipedia. 1/17% of whites in the South owned slaves. Which is around 5.8%. But meh.

At 2/10/07 11:43 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 2/10/07 01:19 AM, Memorize wrote: Wikipedia says around 17 if you do the math.

Because wikipedia is a reliable source.

Of course, you only say that now as to make my point less valid and your's more. You're just a waste of my time.

And, by the way, if you read above you'd read that wikipedia actually says 1/17 southern whites, otherwise known as 5.8%, which is lower.

Did I say slavery wasn't an issue? No, I said the civil war wasn't about slavery, which it wasn't. Slavery was definetely a part of it, but it was not what they were fighting for. Is that more clear? Or do I have think of you as nothing but an idiot again?

here - Owners provided food and shelter to their slaves. They argued that slaves were better off than Northern factory workers, who were living in conditions that were less desirable (Jones 1). And they also may have had better healthcare than those of northern factory workers.

Good day.

At 2/7/07 11:20 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:
I myself would have less trust for an athiest simply for what their (dis)belief infers about their view of life in general. To me, it's not even a matter of "which religion is correct" so much as it is a matter of "belief in something versus belief in nothing". Among other things, athiesm essentially suggests that life itself is a mistake without any sort of inherent purpose or meaning to it. To me, that kind of perspective just screams "hopeless".

That is so incorrect it hurts. I don't believe in god, or an afterlife, but that's not to say i don't believe in nothing, far from it. I believe in truth, science and, as cheesy as it may sound, good will towards all men women and children regardless of sexual orientation, color etc.

I don't believe as human beings we should have to be taught that you have to be nice or you go to hell, i believe we should be nice for the good of our fellow man, not because were under threat of punishment. Look at all the hatred religion brings towards homosexuals especially, they're people that happen to enjoy a perfectly natural act with someone they weren't naturally intended to do it with, who cares, live and let live.

The hatred against atheists just reinforces my point, you should hate bad people, evil people, inhuman people, not rational people. Damn maybe not even them, but if you have to hate direct it at someone who deserves it instead of fighting a religious war, the crusades are over.

Look at the damages religion has caused, and I'll just touch on the scientific ones not the incredible amount of physical and psychological damage. Stem cell research for example, i believe abortion is wrong, not because the baby has a soul before it is aborted but because it will grow into a human being, but if these babies are being aborted, if they are being miscarried, or even if you just harvest the umbilical cord and placenta why not use it to cure dangerous and devastating diseases? Why let your religious indoctrination serve to cause hatred and death?

Why cant you people look at Early 20th century china for example, Mao Tse Tung was an awful leader, he caused famine death and violations of civil rights, and yet the whole country believed he was all knowing and infallible. Why? because since they were children they were taught in school chairmen Mao is good(church), they were told to recite "nursery rhymes"
praising Mao and the communist party(prayers), mass communication in the form of slogans on large posters, pictures of Mao, and droning over loudspeakers made it so that wherever they went they heard about Mao (god in the pledge, on money etc), they were given little red books to carry around filled with quotations from Mao that they were supposed to live by(the bible).

I mean honestly now, how can any rational half-way intelligent religious person not make the connection between the two and realized they've been the targets of mass brainwashing.

You should be good for the sake of being good, not to avoid punishment, and until people realize this, and move away from religion, we will never be a peaceful prosperous world.

At 2/10/07 12:49 PM, Makaio wrote:

I mean honestly now, how can any rational half-way intelligent religious person not make the connection between the two and realized they've been the targets of mass brainwashing.

You're a dumbass.

Well I personally take a lot of shit about not believing in god because I am racially Jewish. My family never practiced Judaism and we never went to temple or anything like that. In fact, I was raised a baptist. People hear that I dont believe in God and all of a sudden I'm a hipocrit and I'm "ignorant and religiously neglegent". I don't remember reading the pamphlet that states Jews everywhere MUST believe in God or some form of higher power because they are Jewish nor do I remember hearing that if you worship god, you will be smart.. That pisses me off that people pick us out like that. What pisses me off even worse is when people who aren't religious at all make those statements claiming they are "religious" when they know damn well that they dont go to church. Jews have the right to choose to worship something or someone or not to. After all, I didn't ask to be born a Jew, shit just kinda ended up that way.

At 2/10/07 12:52 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/10/07 12:49 PM, Makaio wrote:

I mean honestly now, how can any rational half-way intelligent religious person not make the connection between the two and realized they've been the targets of mass brainwashing.

You're a dumbass.

explain in a way other than "God is good, You are a Blasphemer"

I like how this conversation drifted into slavery, then went back into religion. Do you know how both racial and religious discrimination began? Concededness. Think about it. When we went to africa, we thought, " hey we're better then them, they should do the dirty work we don't want to". Similair to why christians discriminate against aitheists. The christians went" we belive in god, so we are better to you". No one wants to admit someone is their better, so naturally aitheists fought back by saying chrisitianity is dumb. Even this entire debate is blown out of control by people trying to say that someone is dumber then them, and that they are the better person. All these conflicts started because of a petty issue. We can't blame the people who started it, becuase they only started the fire. We are the ones who threw gasoline and lighter fluid into it. The orginal idea behind christianity was that people lacked guidance, and that knowing that a supreme being (God) loved and created them made them have a felling of guidance. Of course someone had to brag that beliving in God caused them to be better. It's human nature, people try to prove themselves better over someone else.

Today of course many people know better. Not everyone tried to make them the better person. Some people however still need to try to prove that they are better, usually making themseleves worse in the process. If people could learn to see past the stupid concededness that caused this entire mess, we might not have a situation like this. We still would have discrimination (we don't know something, we become scared of it. Fear leads to anger, anger lead to hate. ) At least it would be a step in the correct dirrection.

And for the guy who said life's goal was to pass on your genes. That is incredibly short sighted and doesn't work. Abe Lincon wasn't remebered bcause he had more of his genes out there then anyone else. He was remebered because people like him and belived in his views.

That is my personal opinion on all of this. Chose to read it or not, I respect the choices of those who disagree, even if i dislike their point of veiw.

Athesists who claim to be so damn logical sure don't apply that same logic when it comes to geography. A small Mississippi town? You've got to be kidding me, of course you would be discriminated against. Read a history book.

That being said, it's wrong and I totally disagree with it blah blah blah.

Athesists who claim to be so damn logical sure don't apply that same logic when it comes to geography.

The remark kinda lacks direction. Who exactly was it aimed at? If it was me, i didn't call anyone names, making remarks on how they were stupid, or in any way mock christianity and religion.

At 2/10/07 06:03 PM, Makaio wrote:

explain in a way other than "God is good, You are a Blasphemer"

A) It's on a piece of paper. Of which, no one reads.
B) As I said, the pledge, give people the option to say it.

So, how's the unending battle and fighting against something you think doesn't exist?

I am an atheist smoker. No one in America is as hated as I.

At 2/10/07 10:02 PM, GameCrazed wrote: I am an atheist smoker. No one in America is as hated as I.

i can think of one group more hated; a black/latino atheist homosexual smoker.

"I am an atheist smoker. No one in America is as hated as I." You are leaving me out man! I'm a Jewish, teenage, smoking, atheist, drumming, computer geek with mild to moderate ADHD. I should just die lmao

An open-mind is the key to world piece. We shouldn't need to defame anyone beyond a balanced debate.

At 2/7/07 09:24 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Clip 1
Clip 2

This isn't a religious debate. I bring this to your attention because as a moderate atheist (I don't believe in any form of diety, but I respect your right to and do not encourage atheism) this upsets me. I understand some radical atheists are complete douchebags. I don't like them any more than you do. But please, where's the love?

Well, you and other moderate atheists are ok, but they are pissed because there are a whole lot of radical atheists that want God removed from the Pledge and the money or everywhere. Some people can't trust them anymore because of what happened. It could be worse, atheists could have killed people because they were believing in a deity or God.

Still, some atheists are ok because they respect other religions because the religion usually encourages being good to other people. Still, I am wondering how many atheists want God to stay on the pledge and the U.S. money.

Still, some atheists are ok because they respect other religions because the religion usually encourages being good to other people. Still, I am wondering how many atheists want God to stay on the pledge and the U.S. money.

I'm more curious as to how many atheists, compared to Christians, don't care either way........

You'll probably find more people fit this category than either polarized "leave it in" or "take it out" stance. And that goes for atheists and christians alike......

I'll start the poll:
Roman Catholic. Don't give a damn either way.

At 2/11/07 06:10 PM, Imperator wrote: I'll start the poll:
Roman Catholic. Don't give a damn either way.

Strong Agnostic:

Don't give a shit either.

At 2/11/07 06:16 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 2/11/07 06:10 PM, Imperator wrote: I'll start the poll:
Roman Catholic. Don't give a damn either way.

Strong Agnostic:

Don't give a shit either.

Moderate Atheist: I'd prefer it if they were taken off, truthfully, but I wouldn't petition about it or go out and preach it.

You must realize that it's only on the dollar bill because of the Communist scare in the '50s. The logic at the time was "if A = B, then B = A"; if someone is Communist, they are Atheist, thus if they are Atheist they must be Communist. We now know that this isn't true (as many did then despite this). It wouldn't hurt anything for it to be removed.

Similarly, it wouldn't hurt anything if it stayed, overall. The whole stance that "this is a Christian nation" disturbs me a little, and the "In God We Trust" statement seems to be common fuel for this, but that's really the only thing I have against it being there.

At 2/11/07 11:25 PM, Tancrisism wrote: It wouldn't hurt anything for it to be removed.

It wouldn't hurt if it stayed there either. That's why I hate people who complain about it, because it's such a worthless issue. "lets complain about the dollar, it's not like we have jobs".

But honestly, if you wanted to take out everything that had anything religous about it or on it, it would take a very long time to get of it. Especially those important governmental buildings that have things like the 10 commandments on them.

Well, since discrimination has too, by the very laws of nature, exist, lets discrimante against those who have never expierienced it. Hetero-sexual white suburbians. They dish it out, but can they handle the heat? And lets discriminate against the british. Lousy limey bastards.

The entire thing is about principle. "In God We Trust" is a government issued statement siding with one belief over another.

I guess they figure that if this country is so free, than no belief should have presedence over another.

At 2/11/07 06:10 PM, Imperator wrote: I'll start the poll:
Roman Catholic. Don't give a damn either way.

Weak atheist, don't care.