Categories
a voice for men antifeminism are these guys 12 years old? drama drama kings grandiosity hypocrisy internal debate irony alert kitties men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA narcissism no girls allowed paul elam

Manosphere Civil War: AVFM fires back at the MGTOW rebels. Also, kitty pics.

Dude against dude. Not sure why the dogs are floating in midair.

Manosphere drama is always a bit surreal. You may recall my post the other day about the feud developing between two sites that are regular sources of material for us here at Man Boobz: MGTOWforums and A Voice for Men. As you may recall, the folks at MGTOWforums were working themselves into a lather because AVFM was committing the cardinal sin of allowing women – sorry, “cunts” – to post articles and comments. The horror!

Now AVFM has fired back. In a thread on AVFM’s relatively new forum, head cheese Paul Elam lashes out at the “MGTOW Forum Fuckwits,” declaring them a bunch of shit-stirring “piss ants” and announcing his plans to turn the AVFM forum into MGTOW central.

I see an opportunity here, This forum is very user friendly to MGTOW’s. MGTOW Forums is the largest one of its kind, but it is run by children. I will happily siphon off as many of the men they ban and shame for not measuring up to their cliquish little band of alpha wannabe’s as I can.

God knows [MGTOWforums admin] Nacho and his bootlickers run them off as quick as they come in.

AVfM is already a more traveled site than their forum, and as time passes the MGTOW presence here will eclipse their little circle jerk.

Speaking of circle jerks, here’s Paul, in an unrelated thread on his forum, banning a dude for having the temerity to suggest that “Reddit, not avoiceformen.com, is the most important online resource for Men’s Rights Activism.”

BANNED! Nothing must challenge the supremacy of PAUL ELAM!

Naturally, I found out about this by reading about it on MGTOWforums, where A Voice for Men is now being dismissed as — I kid you not — “A Vagina For Manginas.”

Still, the strangest development in this civil war is this: some MGTOWers who’ve been banned from AVFM’s forum have set up an alternative forum of their own, which they’ve rather confusingly named “AVFMforums.” Yes, that’s right, it’s a battle between the AVFM forums and … AVFMforums. How can you tell them apart? Well, when the latter group uses the acronym AVFM they mean “Alternate Voice for Men” rather than the original “A Voice for Men.” Also, the dudes at AVFMforums think that AVFM’s Elam is “a lying hippocrite [sic] with no credibility.”

If this is all a bit confusing, perhaps this brief video clip will help elucidate some of the issues here:

Also, for no particular reason, here are two new pictures of Sweetie Pie Jonus, one of my kittens:

Actually, the combatants in this latest mansophere civil war could learn a thing or two from my kittens. They fight, but always seem to end up licking each other’s heads. The kittens, that is. I’d love to see Paul Elam and his critics doing the same.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

373 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Angela
Angela
7 years ago

Yes, because you clearly don’t want to learn anything today, hellkell. That would just be wrong. Hee! There’s Angela. Do you know what I heard? I heard that she thinks that slavery should have been made illegal in the 1860s! OMG, what a dweeb. Let’s not talk to her. I bet you were really popular in high school, hellkell.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Yes, because you clearly don’t want to learn anything today, hellkell. That would just be wrong. Hee! There’s Angela. Do you know what I heard? I heard that she thinks that slavery should have been made illegal in the 1860s! OMG, what a dweeb. Let’s not talk to her. I bet you were really popular in high school, hellkell.

What the fuck? No, seriously, what the absolute fuck is this?

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

P.S.– Slavery WAS made illegal in the 1860s.

Seraph
Seraph
7 years ago

Annnnd meltdown! We have achieved third grade, people!

*High fives hellkell*

pecunium
7 years ago

FLYING TWISTING AROUND SPAGHETTI MONSTER, YOU CANNOT CHARGE SOMEONE WITH BREAKING THE CONSTITUTION, YOU CAN ONLY BE ARRESTED FOR BREAKING THE LAW AND IF IT IS NOT A LAW YOU CANNOT BE ARRESTED FOR BREAKING IT!

Really… Treason is defined in the Constitution. Are you saying it’s legal.

Quartering troops is prohibited by the constitution; there is no statute which forbids it. So you are saying it’s not forbidden?

Federalist 78 explained that if something isn’t, per the constitution, it cannot be legal

Marbury v. Madison was all about that very question.

So you, legal expert, are arguing that approx. 225 years of caselaw and precedent are wrong. Got it. Why do we listen to you, rather than Marshall, or Frankfurter or even, (God Help Me) Scalia? Explain to me why I should believe your claims over my knowledge of the law. Show me a citation which says, “This is legal because, although the Constitution forbids it, no local statue has been written to make it so.”

Please show me that. Because then I’d see one thing you weren’t pulling out of your ass.

I’ve read a lot of law. I studied it, to some degree, when I was teaching interrogation (if you’d like to discuss the arcana of the Geneva Conventions as General Article 3 of the Third Convention applies to Prisoners of War, Detained Persons, Retained Persons, Displaced Person and Protected Persons I’m probably as expert as anyone this side of Den Haag, or the ICC), as well as when I was contemplating a career in it.

Your misunderstanding of it is great. Your fundamental failure is actually greater than your lack of historical understanding. Both seem to stem from the same failing, which is related to the appeal to emotion you tried to make here:

I don’t want anyone telling me how wrong I am until after you are able to type “I have watched the video, and I got past the bit where Mr. and Mrs. Kinsey finished talking about the letter their great-grand-aunt had written, and I still want to discuss the difference between something being unconstitutional and being illegal”

Ain’t gonna happen. Because the plight of the victims is irrelevant to the question.

If you haven’t done that, I’m sorry. You don’t know what you’re talking about and have nothing to add to the conversation.

Horseshit.That’s an appeal to emotion. The tragedy of the victims changes not one whit the nature of the law. It is, as I’ve said before, your basic problem. You are substituting your outrage for facts

If you think you get to dictate the terms on which you come to engage others, you are in for a life of disappointments. If you think my paying attention to the way the law works, as opposed to some fantasy where the North was conniving to pretend slavery was illegal (and for why… if slavery being illegal wasn’t such a big deal what was the point of not one, but two amendments to make it so?) when it wasn’t?

You keep ignoring that I’m telling you I’ve seen slaves, with my own eyes. I spent a long career doing interrogation. I hope I’ve seen more of the horrid things people can do to each other than you have.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

*high fives Seraph*

Fitzy
Fitzy
7 years ago

Involuntary servitude, also prohibited by this amendment, is much broader in meaning than is slavery. Related to this prohibition of involuntary servitude was the Anti-Peonage Act of 1867, in which Congress announced that “all laws or usages of any state by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are now null and void.”

-From the Civics Library of the Missouri Bar (website)

There was no landmark new anti-slavery legislation done in 1941. When two Texas debt/slave holders were finally prosecuted in 1942, it was under the Anti-Peonage Act. That law had been around since 1867. The Federal government just never cared to enforce it before then. They left all of that to the state/local courts, who handed out pitiful penalties whenever they saw fit to prosecute and convict. There were a few stabs every now and again at enforcement (Teddy Roosevelt’s administration tried and ultimately decided it was too much work). No one decidedly took the involuntary servitude bull by the horns until WWII.

After the United States entered World War II, Roosevelt quickly moved to shore up African American support and silence foreign propaganda about the treatment of the negro in America. He ordered the justice department to not only pass anti-lynching laws but to finally begin enforcing longstanding anti-peonage laws aimed at ending forced labor in the South [emphasis mine].

– From pbs.org, “Slavery By Another Name” Gallery of Themes: FDR and the New Deal

Was it awful that the federal government couldn’t be bothered to help these people before WWII? Yes. Did it mean that the slave/debt holders were acting legally? No. If nothing else, they were in violation of the Act quoted above (and that’s not even bringing the 13th Amendment into the picture). Lack of enforcement does not mean that a law is erased. Just because the cop who lives down the street decides to ignore my neighbor’s meth lab does not mean that the manufacturing and distribution of crystal methamphetamine is now legal. It means that someone’s not doing their job.

If you want an honest-to-goodness, hey-you-can’t-keep-slaves criminal law, you actually have to wait until Harry Truman takes office:

President Truman’s Committee on Civil Rights recommended bolstering the antislavery statute to plainly criminalize involuntary servitude. In 1948, the entire federal criminal code was dramatically rewritten, further clarifying such laws.

-From the Wall Street Journal, “The World War II Effect”

But I would think that a Constitutional amendment would have been enough to make slavery against the law of the land. Otherwise, why bother amending it at all? Why bother having a Constitution at all if it means nothing? You can make the argument that no one upheld it in the case of all of those people who had been imprisoned, abused, and exploited. That doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution said you could not imprison, abuse, or exploit them.

OK, I’m going on media blackout until after the election is over. If the debate is still raging on Wednesday, I’ll answer for my claims then. Good night, and good luck.

Angela
Angela
7 years ago

Seraph, if you had read my whole point, my point it had to be states rights, because if the war was fought for slavery, it was an incomplete emancipation that left a quarter million people dead for an institution that was recreated within 20 years through racist laws and straight kidnapping.

The southern states found time to make vagrancy punishable with a thousand dollar fine and make it illegal to go looking for work while you were already employed but didn’t make holding people against their will in neo-slavery illegal.

I get how horrible states rights are as a reason to fight a war. It choosing between scyalla and charybdis, between slavery and states rights as to which reason the war was fought. They’re both horrible, and made even more horrible by the fact that when the war was over, slavery took a blow to the chin, but it wasn’t defeated by a long shot. 1941 was the first time someone was charged and convicted with owning a slave.

It’s not common knowledge, and it should be.

pecunium
7 years ago

Angela: my whole point from the very beginning was the only thing BOTH sides had in common was how much they disliked black people.

Lie.

You point was the war was about states rights, and the North not being willing to give them to the South.

Do you know what I heard? I heard that she thinks that slavery should have been made illegal in the 1860s!

It was. People broke the law. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but people do that.

Also, there is no Sinter Klaus, the Tooth Fairy was your parents and the Easter Bunny doesn’t shit colored eggs.

Angela
Angela
7 years ago

hellkell, if I’m wrong, simply show me where a law was passed before 1941 that it was illegal to own slaves. I didn’t write the name of the 1941 law down, and I won’t watch the video again for anything. I’m glad it exists, but I won’t put myself through just how many people’s civil rights were violated again.

I really thought there was something with my research that I couldn’t find a single person charged with a single count of holding slaves after the war. I had no idea it was because there weren’t any laws on the books to charge slave-holders with.

But don’t listen to me, I only think the federal government should have stopped the civil rights violations that took place from the police officers to the companies that hired pressed service chain gangs long before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Here’s your law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

That it was unenforced is something else altogether, which you have been told over and over.

ithiliana
7 years ago

*considers bashing head against desk multiple times to override the pain of reading Angela’s bullshit*

Historians all over the U.S. are weeping tonight, drowning in despair they know not why.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

ithiliana! Good to see you!

Yes, the bullshit is strong with this one.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Angela, a lot of your ignorance would be alleviated if you’d read Fitzy’s post above.

Angela
Angela
7 years ago

percunium, the difference between illegal and unconstitutional, is while they are both wrong, but one would get you arrested and fined, the other will get you frowned upon. Slavery was frowned upon for 80 years and you can’t change that.

It was only illegal if the person was kidnapped. If they were “legally” arrested, even if they were found innocent they were sentenced to court costs. If the person didn’t die, they just weren’t released from their chain gang. And there was nothing illegal about that for 80 years.

I didn’t cause that to be, so don’t get mad at me.

But apparently I have no credibility because I think that is a bad thing that happened.

Seraph
Seraph
7 years ago

Seraph, if you had read my whole point, my point it had to be states rights, because if the war was fought for slavery, it was an incomplete emancipation that left a quarter million people dead for an institution that was recreated within 20 years through racist laws and straight kidnapping.

And the reason your point is not only irrelevant but active obfuscation has been pointed out many times.

Tell me: are you a shameless propagandist, or just so deep in denial that you actually think these are convincing arguments?

Seraph
Seraph
7 years ago

But apparently I have no credibility because I think that is a bad thing that happened.

You have no credibility because you keep lying about known facts of history.

thebewilderness
thebewilderness
7 years ago

I am somewhat shocked that Angela has never heard of the Northwest Ordinance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

pecunium
7 years ago

ithiliana: We did what we could. The stupor in this one is strong. Stronger than truth. She wants to believe. It’s sort of strange, she is angry with us because we think worse of some people than she does.

pecunium
7 years ago

thebewilderness: It’s not as if Angela has shown herself to be much for research. Hell, it’s not as if she’s not much for reading what’s handed to her, much less finding things on her own.

ithiliana
7 years ago

Pecunium: I know you did–there was much awesome refutation falling upon somebody who seems to be stuffing cotton and wax into hir ears, wearing headphones, playing loud music through them, spinning around and shouting LALALALALALALALALALALALA to herself.

If this stupor goes on at this rate, I could see a nomination for Troll of the Year.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

No wonder she couldn’t find the 941 law, because it was actually an 1867 law. Whoops.

It’s been a while since we’ve had a troll dig a hole this deep over nothing related to the the OP. Thanks, NWO.

pecunium
7 years ago

ithiliana: Have you seen this: http://american-shakespeare.com/?p=234

pecunium
7 years ago

hellkell: It’s rare to have someone with this dramatic a hobby-horse get riled up. NWO has some power in him still.

ithiliana
7 years ago

*waves at hellkell*

I’ve been reading all along, often on my droid, just not enough time/energy to talk.

Seraph
Seraph
7 years ago

ithiliana – I could see it. NWO has barely been phoning it in lately. Still, TOTY takes more than a single exploded thread.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Pecunium: not only a dramatic opulent gleaming Aryan hobby-horse, but a rather obscure one, at least for these parts.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

ithiliana: hope the semester’s going well for you. Is it midterm time already?

Angela
Angela
7 years ago

I get that what I’m trying to say is so horrible that you’d rather make fun of me than take what I have to say seriously. Enjoy it, yak it up. But what you’re finding HILARIOUS is the story of a woman whose 14 year old brother was charged with trying to find a new job because his old boss beat him. He was charged 40,000 dollars in today’s dollars worth of fines and court fees, and is sentenced to work in a mine where up to 30% of the convicts died in.

Is everyone still laughing? Great. It gets worse.

You can’t contact your local police department. They are the ones who arrested him. Courts, same issues. You can’t go to the papers because you’re black and people don’t care about it. There are thousands of other families just like yours that are missing family members because the cotton mill needed workers or whatever, but whatever your brother is doing, it’s dangerous. They aren’t paying him a red dime for anything because he’s a convict, and they’re beating him because the Black Codes say that you can.

OMG, SIDE SPLITTING. My, my bullshit is strong.

So then, having exhausted all other avenues, you write the president. Your letter gets stored with all the other letters about black workers that have been stolen and their labour sold.

Now, we wait. We wait, twenty years, forty, sixty, even. It totally depends whether your brother was beaten under the black code or the jim crowe laws. But still, you wait. Your brother probably dies, or is so damaged when they finally release him if they ever released him at all. They didn’t have to, you see. He was purchased fair and square from the courts.

So now we come to pearl harbor. And now we’re fighting the Japanese. A propaganda officer comes to you (you’re now a middle management type). He wants to know if there’s anything he should know ahead of time so that the Japanese can’t go through our history and accuse us of anything we may or may not have done.

“Oh,” says someone in the room. “Well, we haven’t been fair in our treatment of the negro.”

Oh. Shit. You say. You go into the files, to see just how unfair you’ve actually been in the treatment of the negro. And you find a letter. You find hundreds of letters, each from a family member who has lost a loved one and can’t find a sympathetic ear to do something about it.

Wait. Are we laughing now? Because now we’re up to date in 1941.

It turns out, no one actually made it illegal ILLEGAL illegal to actually own someone after the civil war. Oh. But the 13th amendment, right? That tots covers our ass. We’re good! Yay USA!

Except you can’t charge someone, in a court of law, with an amendment. Amendments still needs laws to set down penalties and the actual wording of the law.

For eighty some years. It’s been unconstitutional, sure, but not actually against the law. Nothing could have been done to help that poor girl, because what was done to her brother wasn’t actually illegal.

At any point they could have made it illegal, but they didn’t. So the old slave owners died a natural death, spared the hardship of having to give up their slaves if they didn’t really want to, and the crimes against humanity continues.

Drop dead funny to me. Only not even a little bit. Yak it up.

That sums up the first thirty minutes. The rest continues on.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Well, there was the anti-peonage act of 1867, which the people in 1941 you have such a bug up your ass about were prosecuted under.

I’m not making light of or laughing about slavery, I’m mocking the shit out of you because you hilariously fucking wrong about everything, and you’re too stubborn to learn. You have hit all the troll high notes in the short time you’ve been here. Brava.

This horse, it is deader than disco.

pecunium
7 years ago

Angela: I get that what I’m trying to say is so horrible that you’d rather make fun of me than take what I have to say seriously.

No, you don’t. You are acting like a, “true believer”. You refuse to look at the evidence presented, and go on that the only reason we might have to say you are wrong is that we lack brains, heart, soul.

No one has said that any of it is hilarious. That you choose to so lie is why you are getting hostile reactions. You are being dishonest.

I’ve seen that program.

And none of it makes your arguments true. It’s a tragedy. It was a crime. It was a greater crime that the crime was ignored.

And NO ONE HERE HAS EVER SAID DIFFERENT.

What we have said is your underlying arguments are factually incorrect.

Which, actually, means we think worse of the people who did it than you do. But you can’t see that. You want to be “Right” more than you want to know the facts. Emotion is trumping reason.

You are repeating things which have been refuted. You have stopped responding to anything. As I said, there are more than 200 years of laws, and cases, which say that things which are unconstitutional are illegal. There have been laws making slavery illegal (in some parts of the country) for more than 200 years.

People were killing over slavery from well before the Civil War (look up John Brown). The South went to war to keep slaves.

The North outlawed it.

The North refused (for venal reasons) to enforce those laws.

That’s the truth. It’s shitty, and it’s ugly, and it’s actually worse than the story you believe.

But it gives the lie to “state’s rights”.

And you don’t care, because…?

I don’t know. I can make guesses (it makes you feel good to be preaching a story no one believes, and to be railing against an evil they didn’t know existed?), but that’s all they are.

What I do know is you are giving cover to people who say the war wasn’t about slavery. That makes it easier to say, “Slavery wasn’t all that bad”. It makes it easier to cast The Confederacy as standing for bedrock american principles, like freedom.

And that’s evil. Not by intent, but by deed.

And that’s not going to get any slack, at least not from me. I’ve seen to much evil, face to face, and eye to eye, to let that shit slide.

So no, I don’t think it at all funny. I think it sad, and tragic, and; when all is said and done, pathetic.

Seraph
Seraph
7 years ago

*Stands on chair to applaud Angela*

Bravo! Very moving.

And none of it changes the fact that the South went to war to preserve slavery. In fact, it just illustrates the lengths to which they went to preserve it once they couldn’t practice it openly.

If you’re trying to say that the North was racist too, that our hands aren’t clean? No shit. While the South was doing its best to maintain slavery, the North was happily feeding poor people into machines.

But you do not get to feed us that old lie about the CIvil War being about States’ Rights. You do not. We will run you to exhaustion on this. That’s what the “recent comments” column is for. So lies don’t go unanswered.

Angela
Angela
7 years ago

I haven’t wasted any efforts in trying to convince anyone to give up whatever beliefs they have or may not have as to the start of the war. I’ve said it many times I wish I could believe that people would go to war and fight to free the slaves. I believe that for the south, slaves and statehood were hand and hand. Like a selfish child threatened with the removal of a toy, it threatened to take its toy and go home. When it couldn’t, it came out swinging. That ball happened to be slavery. So which is the fight over?

It is solely my personal opinion, but I just don’t think the north fought to free the slaves. Some did, I’m sure of it, but I don’t think they could have filled up their armies with enough people who viewed people of color as actual people.

There were a couple moments of history that I’ve learned that have made me feel deeply ashamed. That the north were likewise racist for the day and not noble freedom fighters was one, and that when the concentration camps filled with gay people were found, the allied troops just left them there was the other. I’m sure there had been hundreds of other moments in history, but its those two very sore points that have haunted me my whole life.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

How is it that I, a British person, understand how the Constitution works better than Angela does?

Dear Angela – lack of enforcement is not the same thing as legality. You can scream and yell and call everyone else heartless assholes as much as you like, but there’s really no way to get around that fundamental fact. Did the US government fail to enforce the Constitution properly? Yep. Does that mean that slavery was still legal? No. It means that enforcement was shitty, because of racism.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

It is solely my personal opinion

And if you’d said “it is soley my personal opinion” right from the beginning then this argument would not have turned out how it has. The problem is that you keep presenting your personal opinion as an objective fact.

Seraph
Seraph
7 years ago

I haven’t wasted any efforts in trying to convince anyone to give up whatever beliefs they have or may not have as to the start of the war.

Liar.

I’ve said it many times I wish I could believe that people would go to war and fight to free the slaves.

And we’ve said it many times that no one did…but the Confederacy did go to war to keep the slaves. And we’re going to keep saying it no matter how many times you try to cloud the issue.

Like a selfish child threatened with the removal of a toy, it threatened to take its toy and go home. When it couldn’t, it came out swinging. That ball happened to be slavery. So which is the fight over?

So you admit that, as I said in the very first post I directed in you in this whole debacle, that the “States’ Right” in question was slavery? Splendid! Reality welcomes you!

It is solely my personal opinion, but I just don’t think the north fought to free the slaves. Some did, I’m sure of it, but I don’t think they could have filled up their armies with enough people who viewed people of color as actual people.

Who are you arguing with? Seriously, who? Is there someone other than NWO on this thread who actually claimed that the North fought to free the slaves, or are you sticking to a script that we never agreed to follow?

There were a couple moments of history that I’ve learned that have made me feel deeply ashamed. That the north were likewise racist for the day and not noble freedom fighters was one, and that when the concentration camps filled with gay people were found, the allied troops just left them there was the other. I’m sure there had been hundreds of other moments in history, but its those two very sore points that have haunted me my whole life.

Know what? At this point, I don’t trust a single goddamned thing you say. Quite frankly, your appeals to our feelings disgust me. You are a base and shameless manipulator.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

And if you’d said “it is soley my personal opinion” right from the beginning then this argument would not have turned out how it has.

Cassandra, I don’t know. I think this one would have called us meanypants for not thinking their opinion was the be all end all of opinions.

Angela, please stop with the bathos. It’s creeping me right the fuck out.

pecunium
7 years ago

Angela: I haven’t wasted any efforts in trying to convince anyone to give up whatever beliefs they have or may not have as to the start of the war.

Lies.

I’ve said it many times I wish I could believe that people would go to war and fight to free the slaves.

No one said they did.

The South went to war to keep them.

The North went to war to stop them from leaving.

The war became about slavery, because the South made it about slavery.

And you’ve lied about what we said, from the start, and never stopped.

You’ve refused to look at the citations (what with the snark about showing my work), and then ignored the evidence handed you on your demand.

You’ve said we found thing hilarious which we condemned; which we condemned BEFORE YOU SAID WORD ONE

Why should we believe you?

Really, why?

princessbonbon
7 years ago

This horse, it is deader than disco.

Hey now, Disco Stu would disagree.

Angela, you are being stupid on purpose because you want to bleat about how awful something was for people.

We agree it was awful.

Where we do not agree is that it was not illegal to act in the manner that you are complaining about.

Because it was illegal.

It was never enforced but it was illegal.

And it reminds me why Harry S Truman is my favorite president.

thebewilderness
thebewilderness
7 years ago

Angela, I am sorry that the discovery that wars are fought for economic reasons and not for peance and freance has haunted you all your life. Still, reality is better than fantasy, even when it bites.

cloudiah
7 years ago

This whole thing has been like arguing with a LaRouchie.

pecunium
7 years ago

And I’m off to bed, so I can go and vote, and maybe (please let it be so) hop the PATH into NYC with My Beloved.

cloudiah
7 years ago

Good luck, pecunium.

Angela
Angela
7 years ago

pencunium, firstly I outlined and cited every single thing I said. You rebutted with “You’re wrong” and “You’re stupid”, but I cited everything.

Secondly, absolutely my point. The north went to war against a state’s right to leave, not against slavery. We agree on something. And since the north had last chance avoidance (they could have just let the south leave and become a new country) wasn’t their reason why is it 100% because of slavery and not because of the right a state has to secede?

Lastly, I appreciate everyone who still thinks that there was no need to make slavery illegal after the war because it was already in the amendment.

But there was a massive need. You’ve missed the whole point about the arresting officers and the courts being paid off by the corporations that were in need of a work force. Thousands of people were bought and sold through the very legal system that was somehow supposed to watch out for people being held against their will.

If you still think I’m wrong, just keep rereading that last paragraph until it sinks in exactly slavery very much needed to be made illegal and on the books as against the law to do so.

Angela
Angela
7 years ago

Gah, I’m tired. That second paragraph was mismash. Basically, both the north and the south’s reason to join the war should have been considered. I’m going to close the webpage and leave it until the morning, I promise.

princessbonbon
7 years ago

It was illegal but until WWII the law was not enforced.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp this? Is it because you are stupid or new to the concept of law?

I am going to go with stupid.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

I’m going with disingenuous, just because I find it hard to believe that anyone could be that stupid and still be able to use the internet.

chibigodzilla
7 years ago

But there was a massive need. You’ve missed the whole point about the arresting officers and the courts being paid off by the corporations that were in need of a work force. Thousands of people were bought and sold through the very legal system that was somehow supposed to watch out for people being held against their will.

And that was illegal.
Fine, let’s, for a moment, assume that your whole unconstitutional != illegal shtick is correct. Do you really believe that the scenario you describe would have been different if slavery had been made illegal through a different legislative process?

Seraph
Seraph
7 years ago

Secondly, absolutely my point. The north went to war against a state’s right to leave, not against slavery. We agree on something. And since the north had last chance avoidance (they could have just let the south leave and become a new country) wasn’t their reason why is it 100% because of slavery and not because of the right a state has to secede?

So let me get this straight. The very thing that we have been saying all night long, and which you have been arguing against – i.e., that the South went to war over Slavery and the North went to war to preserve the Union – is suddenly a point of agreement because you’ve found a way to weasel it around to mean “See? It’s about States’ Rights after all!”

Unreal. You do know, don’t you, that people can go back and read the rest of the thread?

Basically, both the north and the south’s reason to join the war should have been considered.

They have been. You’ve been pretending that they haven’t because when we consider them, we don’t come to the conclusion that the former Confederacy’s favorite face-saving lie is true.

Seraph
Seraph
7 years ago

Fine, let’s, for a moment, assume that your whole unconstitutional != illegal shtick is correct. Do you really believe that the scenario you describe would have been different if slavery had been made illegal through a different legislative process?

But it was, remember? Peonage Act of 1867. That wasn’t enforced, either, but it did make slavery illegal even by Angela’s standards.