Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Guns, Guns Guns

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Dilandu   » Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:30 pm

Dilandu
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1909
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

Michael Everett wrote:If America goes all Civil War Round 2, the Democrats would lose quite handily*. Oddly, it's the Democrats who have been staunchly pro-gun-control, putting them at a massive disadvantage should things suddenly heat up.


Maybe because since the invention of Canon de 75 mle 1897 the vast majority of battlefield casualties were caused by indirect fire? ;)
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:27 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by The E   » Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:18 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2217
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

Michael Everett wrote:On a side note, certain left-wing groups are protesting the Declaration of Independence as being "sexist, racist" and potentially therefore invalid. I agree with them. Shred the Declaration and we in the UK will be happy to legally resume control of the Colonies, along with our far, far lower murder rates...
:twisted:


When I clicked on that link, I thought I would get a primary source, an actual article or something. What I got was a "OMG look at those stoopid lefties" youtube video.

Let's see, then, what the actual article has to say!

Yet despite its overwhelmingly positive impact on history, the Declaration of Independence was also a product of its time — and bears some of the shortcomings of its era, including sexism, racism and prejudice against Native Americans.


Please, Michael: Point out which part of that statement is wrong or even questionable? The Declaration was a product of its time, and that means that certain things we take for granted these days were not back then; Equal rights for women or people of color, for example. So, when we are looking at the Declaration from a contemporary POV, we see a forward-thinking, progressive, liberal concept of human rights, looking back at it from today, we see that it is heavily flawed in many areas.

The article singles out a few areas for special consideration:

1. It did not condemn slavery.


It's true. It didn't. Now, granted, abolition of slavery was maybe beyond the scope of of the DoI, but still: It is an omission in a grand document about the rights of man.
The article then points to the (by today's standards) incredibly racist attitudes of people like Jefferson (quoting from a 1782 document of his as a source).

2. It did not protect the rights of women.


Again, it's true. It didn't. The early US was deeply patriarchal, with women's suffrage taking a long time to be established. Neither the DoI nor its authors, it seems, were interested in establishing or strengthening women's rights.

3. To the disadvantage of Native Americans, Jefferson replaced the phrase "property" with happiness when saying that human beings' basic rights include "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


This is more conjectural, but it is a historic fact that land was taken from native americans based upon the theory that they had no rights to that land.

The article then concludes with this:
Is any of this intended to suggest that we should not take pride in the Declaration of Independence? Not even remotely: It was — and continues to be — one of the most eloquent and morally moving political documents ever penned. That said, we must also remember that our Founding Fathers were not the living gods that many believe them to be. They were fallible human beings, and some of their flaws had terrible consequences for people who were not fortunate enough to be born into privileged groups. When we celebrate the Declaration of Independence, we should embrace its underlying spirit — as well as the courage of the men who were willing to risk "our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor" — and simultaneously learn from its shortcomings. This alone can make the spirit of 1776 relevant to the conditions of 2019 — or any other year, for that matter.


Now, I have my issues with the article. I think it's a bland piece that doesn't really add anything to any particular conversation; All points made by it are well-established and not really in dispute. Its conclusion is equally bland, equally well-established, and equally not in dispute.
To single it out as "OMG LEFTISTS ARE CALLING THE DOI SEXIST AND RACIST" is pure outrage mongering - one which you, Michael, fell for hook, line and sinker.

In other words: Please, before reposting bullshit you found on the internet: Engage your critical brain and try to figure out what it is you're watching. Is it actually an incisive piece of journalism that shows a worrying trend in society, or is it just a lone moron on the internet trying to make money off of gullible idiots like smr by feeding them the outrage they crave?
Top

Return to Politics