tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post4284520180033160228..comments2024-03-28T19:11:42.225-05:00Comments on Marshal Art's: Agenda Lies 3: No Slippery SlopesMarshal Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-2870993297377503132011-09-01T12:23:29.681-05:002011-09-01T12:23:29.681-05:00"That's very funny...in a pathetic, pitif..."That's very funny...in a pathetic, pitiful, non-clever Parklife kinda way."<br /><br />lol.. Ma.. you never like a joke at your expense.Parklifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-85010786138261632012011-08-31T10:52:48.373-05:002011-08-31T10:52:48.373-05:00That's very funny...in a pathetic, pitiful, no...That's very funny...in a pathetic, pitiful, non-clever Parklife kinda way.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-14654548641765234422011-08-31T06:28:06.138-05:002011-08-31T06:28:06.138-05:00Get your own literary references...
............ o...Get your own literary references...<br />............ oh............ wait, that' not possible.<br /><br />Never mind.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-5826971440572903092011-08-27T01:06:59.192-05:002011-08-27T01:06:59.192-05:00feo,
"I love these “Lenny” and “George” conv...feo,<br /><br /><i>"I love these “Lenny” and “George” conversations."</i><br /><br />What a coincidence. I saw you as Lenny, too, only not as bright.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-74412442173180297092011-08-26T23:06:59.755-05:002011-08-26T23:06:59.755-05:00I love these “Lenny” and “George” conversations.I love these “Lenny” and “George” conversations.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-75710814616900235222011-08-26T21:53:40.103-05:002011-08-26T21:53:40.103-05:00Mark,
"Save your energy to debate those who ...Mark,<br /><br /><i>"Save your energy to debate those who are willing to learn."</i><br /><br />But they are so few and far between as to render my blog posts comment-free. I'd much rather help those willing to learn by exposing the falsehoods and corrupted reasonings of those who think they know everything. That way, those willing to learn can better face those who sometimes can be convincing in their corruption.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-52120586437756145792011-08-26T21:45:46.836-05:002011-08-26T21:45:46.836-05:00"When God gives free license to a society, it...<i>"When God gives free license to a society, it doesn’t imply anything about the morality of the practice?"</i><br /><br />No, of course it doesn't. It is merely God giving license to do something, in the same manner as when He allowed the tribes the avenue of divorce.<br /><br /><i>"Wow. Try that thinking on a Simp."</i><br /><br />I've been doing just that, but you're far too much of a simpleton to understand what is so easily understandable to honest people.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-29603505594344667532011-08-26T17:11:03.711-05:002011-08-26T17:11:03.711-05:00As I said, there is no point in arguing further wi...As I said, there is no point in arguing further with Feodor. <br /><br />You have once again, as we all have many many times, explained the intent of the 3/5 compromise to him, and he either fails to grasp the concept or is too stubborn to admit he is wrong.<br /><br />Either way, you're beating a dead horse. <br /><br />Feodor will never, never, ever admit that he has been bested. Save your energy to debate those who are willing to learn.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-81139056394633498162011-08-26T14:35:01.433-05:002011-08-26T14:35:01.433-05:00When God gives free license to a society, it doesn...When God gives free license to a society, it doesn’t imply anything about the morality of the practice?<br /><br />Wow. Try that thinking on a Simp.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-31125952570799888922011-08-26T13:28:25.762-05:002011-08-26T13:28:25.762-05:00Regarding the compromise, you still fail to suppor...Regarding the compromise, you still fail to support your contention that it was some kind of slippery slope. You also fail with understand the meaning of words.<br /><br />You rebuke my use of the term "group" in this discussion, but "all other persons" <i>is</i> a group. And again, it was not a slight on individual slaves at all. It merely stated that whatever the total of "all other persons" was in a given slave state, only 3/5 of that number could be used to determine the number of representatives. This was done because the slaves were not free people (obviously) and to count them as people needing representation was unconscionable. Congressmen represent self-determining people and their legislative policies have self-determining people in mind, affecting how such people are able to live in a free society. The thought was that if they are to be considered property, then to count them in the same manner as free people, without their being able to live their lives as they choose, then why not count the mules, and the hammers and any other tool used by the slave holder in the pursuit of prosperity. The compromise, while not freeing anyone, was a move toward realizing the personhood and worth of the enslaved by limiting the manner in which the slave holder viewed the person enslaved. <br /><br />What's more, you fail to regard the word "compromise" in the whole equation. "Compromise" does not mean that both sides feel the same. This should be obvious to even a psuedo-intellectual like yourself. It implies that each side of a decision is agreeing to something not preferred. It is in effect saying, if you Southerners insist on maintaining the institution of slavery, you cannot then pretend they are equal as free men for the purpose of gaining greater representation or favorable taxation. <br /><br />Finally, I never said the compromise led to a perfect balance between northern and southern states in Congress, but only that it balanced it better than it would have been without it as you own recent offering supports nicely.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-74025985137651130722011-08-26T13:11:37.147-05:002011-08-26T13:11:37.147-05:00Feodor,
Enjoy your time away. Make it a working ...Feodor,<br /><br />Enjoy your time away. Make it a working vacation and take time to understand reality and the meanings of words and how they're used.<br /><br /><i>"So you’ll allow Simp, but not the Simp? One is an inoffensive abbreviation and the other is an offensive name. Right?"</i><br /><br />Wrong. That is, your conclusion is wrong. To state it again in other words that hopefully might be more understandable to you, I <i>would have</i> allowed "Simp" as an abbreviation had you simply said "Simp" and not "THE" Simp. I <i>may not</i> have recognized it as more than a mere abbreviation, regardless of your intention for using it. But when you add "the" in front of it, it implies a possibility of pejorative. And considering the source, I elected to take no chance. And so there's no further confusion, henceforth, you will NOT refer to ANY visitor by anything other than their nom de plume or their true name, should they choose to make it known.<br /><br /><i>"As you know, but are unable to deal with, the writer used a Hebrew word, a Hebrew word used in its legal context and which carries the sense of free license."</i><br /><br />As does the word "may", you twit. In any case, giving "free license", on any level, in any sense, in law or otherwise, does not imply anything about the morality of the behavior. God didn't say anything like, "because slavery is cool" or "because I like some people owning others". He merely permitted it as He did divorce, though it is clear He doesn't like divorce, and not clear whether He approves or disapproves of slavery itself. Your argument fails again for not addressing the point.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-34681976720905646982011-08-26T11:38:21.243-05:002011-08-26T11:38:21.243-05:00I’m off on vacation, Marshall, which will be as mu...I’m off on vacation, Marshall, which will be as much fleeing the Hurricane as getting out of town for relaxation.<br /><br />So I probably will not check in on how you are fighting, or giving into, your voluntary and stubbornly preserved disability.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-46245609728179979802011-08-26T11:36:15.243-05:002011-08-26T11:36:15.243-05:00“Slavery was already legal in a number of colonies...“Slavery was already legal in a number of colonies…”<br /><br />True. But the colonies were not the United States. There was no United States until the Constitution was ratified. And there was not Constitution to be offered for ratification until, and only until, the 3/5 Compromise was agreed to. Thus, no 3/5, no Constitution, no United States. And the 3/5 Compromise is the Constitutional article which thereby legally legitimizes slavery in the new United States.<br /><br />You use the word “recognition” as if being recognized 3/5 of a human being for the sake of increasing the franchise of other people, with no 3/5 franchise for self, confers any dignity. This is more of your autistic, twisted thinking.<br /><br />And this point, I really love: "this compromise never stated that a single slave was 3/5 of a person, but that only 3/5 of the entire slave population could be counted.”<br /><br />The problem here, in terms of logic, is that you will never be able to get to the count of the “entirety” without considering each slave as “1” and then totaling the number. So, each slave is counted as “1”, but then all are reduced to 3/5. The exact language itself talks about persons, not entire groups. Each free person counts as one (“number of free persons”) and, logically, you can only count them by ones, by each person. And then, “add to the whole number of free persons… three fifths of all other persons.” So, logically, count all slaves by ones, and then reduce all slave “persons” to 3/5:<br /><br />"which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.<br /><br />As for the balance you think was struck, again, your autistic limitations delude you. Gary Wills, in "Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power,” observes for us:<br /><br />"In 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War."Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-53994258767486557202011-08-26T11:35:08.025-05:002011-08-26T11:35:08.025-05:00So you’ll allow Simp, but not the Simp? One is an ...So you’ll allow Simp, but not the Simp? One is an inoffensive abbreviation and the other is an offensive name. Right?<br /><br />Marshall, do you ever take a moment to hear yourself explain things? It seems so narrowly focused, so anally retentive that to the reader it seems you’re living only in that 12 inch box on your shoulders and cannot make real, practical sense to the world.<br /><br />Just like your autistic focus on the word, “may.” As you know, though cannot deal with, the writer did not use the word, “may,” in writing Leviticus. And so the writer did not intend any of the relative conditions that the English word, “may,” carries. As you know, but are unable to deal with, the writer used a Hebrew word, a Hebrew word used in its legal context and which carries the sense of free license.<br /><br />You want to infer a grudging allowance. You can only do that, though even the English gist is against your autistic visions, because your playing with English senses. But the Hebrew gives us a strict delineation that it is illegal, against God’s direct command to enslave an Israelite in the same way the God is perfectly willing to give license (to legitimate, not mere grudging allowance) to enslaving non-Israelites for six years of slavery.<br /><br />An umpteenth fail.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-59260418466152550072011-08-26T01:55:09.518-05:002011-08-26T01:55:09.518-05:00The 3/5 compromise did not codify slavery into law...The 3/5 compromise did not codify slavery into law. Slavery was already legal in a number of colonies. The question was whether they could be counted in order for determining taxation and representation. As slaves could not vote, the North did not want the slaves counted at all, initially. If the slaves were counted by their total number, the slave states would have had more control of the House of Representatives giving them inordinate power. The slave states were playing games with when the slave population could be given status, using them as property when it suited, and treated them as people when that worked to their advantage. The 3/5 compromise mitigated this behavior, which actually served to recognize them in the Constitution firmly.<br /><br />What's more, in case you're not understanding the distinction, this compromise never stated that a single slave was 3/5 of a person, but that only 3/5 of the entire slave population could be counted for the purpose of determining how many representatives a slave state could send to Congress. <br /><br />Thus, rather than any "slippery slope", the compromise moved the nation toward the uphill climb toward freedom for all, and any people with minds and integrity, that should be as simple as pie to understand. Those suffering from white guilt, possibly from marrying into a black racist family, might have trouble with this easy to understand history.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-81716722045714790092011-08-26T01:44:16.843-05:002011-08-26T01:44:16.843-05:00feo,
Mark deigns to analyze the left...etc"
...feo,<br /><br /><i>Mark deigns to analyze the left...etc"</i><br /><br />Mark can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he meant that he doesn't give a hoot about your opinions of <i>him</i>. Your opinions of other things is a different story. <br /><br />As for your 3PM comment on the 25th, you have not yet made the case that God has commented on the morality of slavery itself. Your excerpts do not say a thing about it. As God had done with divorce, which He does not like, there were certain laws/mandates/guidelines that served to mitigate their behavior away from what it had been. <br /><br />First, He prohibits members of His Chosen from taking others of His chosen as slaves. It isn't slavery He is prohibiting, nor is He in any way saying slavery is wrong. <br /><br />Then, He says the <i>may</i> take slaves from among the surrounding peoples. The word "may" suggests that He is <i>allowing</i> them to take slaves, not mandating that they should. This is not an example of God saying that He approves of slavery. As I said, He allowed some things that Jesus later clarified to God's true intention, because of the character of the people at the time.<br /><br />So for the umpteenth time, nowhere is Scripture is there an excuse for the attitude that slavery is mandated by God. No honest person could rightly hold that position. Those "white Christians" who used Scripture to justify their positions were distorting Scripture, though not nearly as badly as you do, even if they sincerely thought otherwise. <br /><br />Moving on to your next...Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-85700202747593786132011-08-26T01:27:51.095-05:002011-08-26T01:27:51.095-05:00Jim,
Nice try. If feo had merely said "Simp...Jim,<br /><br />Nice try. If feo had merely said "Simp", I could accept it as an abbreviation and likely would not even have given it a second thought. But to say "THE" Simp? Uh,uh. That's a not-even-thinly-veiled shot at Neil. What's more, there's a big-assed difference between using an abbreviation of a legitimate word for a group of people which is based on their psychological defect, and messing with someone's family name.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-16080343047305769562011-08-25T22:31:04.429-05:002011-08-25T22:31:04.429-05:00Just like "homo" is an abbreviation for ...Just like "homo" is an abbreviation for "homosexual", "simp" is clearly an abbreviation for 4simpsons.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-2346817278483521662011-08-25T15:18:23.438-05:002011-08-25T15:18:23.438-05:00The 3/5 compromise is the principle on which slave...The 3/5 compromise is the principle on which slavery was established as constitutional policy in the United States ( Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3).<br /><br />And so it stood until the 14th amendment, July 9, 1868, after the Civil War which made ALL persons born or naturalized in the US citizens of the US and gave due process and equal protection to all citizens - all citizens - and killed off the 3/5 compromise moot.<br /><br />1787 - No 3/5 compromise, not constitution, no United Sates.<br /><br />1868 - No slavery, no 3/5 compromise.<br /><br />As simple as pie for people with minds and integrity.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-511926208357242102011-08-25T15:00:52.618-05:002011-08-25T15:00:52.618-05:00“...or that he is in anyway meant to be a slave as...“...or that he is in anyway meant to be a slave as if God wants it that way…"<br /><br />OK, Marshall, for the umpteenth time, and obvious to the most casual observer - except you who are so committed to your twisted sense of self that you will not admit biblical clarity - I’ll only take the time to point out Leviticus 25. And, because you are so dishonest on this, I’ll emphasize five verses: 42,43, 44,45, and 46.<br /><br />As for the Israelites, God will not have them be slave for God brought them out of Egypt and so they now all belong to God as servants and cannot serve as slaves to anyone else: "For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold.”<br /><br />God does not want Israelites as slaves.<br /><br />BUT, God says, "As for the male and female slaves whom you may have [and this, now, is in legal language of commandments: “you may not”/“you may”], it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.”<br /><br />God outlines what God wants: for slaves, they must be taken from the other nations and not from Israel.<br /><br />Any other way you want to twist is this just plain wrong to the thrust of the Hebrew legal language in this passage. <br /><br />And this is just Leviticus 25. There is a lot more, obviously, for anyone who cares to be honest.<br /><br />I’ll not even take the time to label how glaringly a failure you are to engage in honesty. You’re repugnant as well as wrong as well as committed to the wrong.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-3519262533011249782011-08-25T14:45:39.067-05:002011-08-25T14:45:39.067-05:00Mark deigns to analyze the left but cannot compreh...Mark deigns to analyze the left but cannot comprehend his own lacking grasp of logic in saying he doesn’t give a hoot about me or my opinions… even while responding to them.<br /><br />Not that he’ll get this simple point, either.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-69059902769987560722011-08-25T07:52:36.778-05:002011-08-25T07:52:36.778-05:00I think Feodor confuses me with somebody who gives...I think Feodor confuses me with somebody who gives a hoot about him or his opinions.<br /><br />Art, don't expect Feo to actually explain the relationship between his misapplication of the 3/5 compromise to your post.<br /><br />Liberals are great at making pronouncements, but not so good at explaining their relevance.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-50315980550643641282011-08-24T14:25:16.288-05:002011-08-24T14:25:16.288-05:00feo,
There is no fear of ANYONE confusing you wit...feo,<br /><br />There is no fear of <i>ANYONE</i> confusing you with Abe Lincoln. None whatsoever. You could disguise yourself to look just like Abe, and once you open your mouth, you'd give yourself away and no one would be fooled.<br /><br />As to your excerpts, there is nothing there that in the least sounds like me. Not even close, despite how badly you want it be so. <br /><br />These people you quote are doing the very thing I have said they do, which is to distort Scripture to pretend slavery is condoned by Scripture. So I'll say it again: the Bible makes no comment either for or against slavery, with the notable exception of enslaving one's self to God, which is clearly a good thing. Meanwhile, all the Bible does is to guide the behavior of both master and slave toward each other. This is NOT meant to suggest that the slave <i>should</i> be content with his lot, or that he is in anyway meant to be a slave as if God wants it that way. Nor can this be proven to be the case by any other passage of Scripture. It only means they are to deal with each other in a Christian manner WHILE the situation exists. And again, what slavery was back then was not exactly the same as slavery pre-Civil War.<br /><br />I've also merely maintained a fact, that some slaves WERE content in their situation and that was BECAUSE of the manner in which their masters treated them. It also is not condoning the institution of slavery to say this, especially since it is only relating a fact.<br /><br />And to be more clear, but please, read this slowly and sound out the words...get help if you need it, which you likely do...I do NOT support the institution of slavery in any form EXCEPT for enslaving one's self to God and His Will.<br /><br />Furthermore, "Rick Santorum" is the name of a fine American and are NOT "two ugly word". "Abraham Lincoln" are not "two beautiful words" but is the name of another fine American. EVen "feodor" is not an "ugly word", but is the pen name of a complete asshole who is arrogant beyond reason and a false priest, which is an ugly thing to be. <br /><br />Finally, as expected, you have failed to show any connection between bringing up the 3/5 compromise and the topic at hand. Slavery in America did not lead to anything that was not already happening except perhaps the war the led to its demise, though in one sense, there had been a war on the issue since the founding of the nation, just without shooting. Homosexual activism, as part of the moral decline to which I refer, has led to two other sinful behaviors whose participants are pushing for recognition, just as Santorum easily predicted. That doesn't necessarily make Santorum more brilliant than you, though you haven't ever demonstrated any brilliance here, but it clearly makes him far more honest than you by his acknowledging the clear logic of the negative effect of tolerating one form of sexual depravity. But of course, a false priest is too false to acknowledge such obvious consequences when supporting depravity as something "God-blessed".Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-42555146249190857912011-08-24T14:04:56.997-05:002011-08-24T14:04:56.997-05:00Mark,
You haven't broken the rule if you say ...Mark,<br /><br />You haven't broken the rule if you say someone is stupid and then explain why. This is different than calling someone a "stupid asshole" for example. But to refer to someone as "the Simp", and also to do so with no explanation, does indeed break the very clearly explained rule. How typical is THAT of the lefties?Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-60575663935041161002011-08-24T11:15:00.921-05:002011-08-24T11:15:00.921-05:00I think Mark confuses me with Abraham Lincoln.
An...I think Mark confuses me with Abraham Lincoln.<br /><br />And himself as having integrity.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.com