Post literary quotes that didn't age well.

It's fishy that his negative views toward slavery were retconned according to a hidden stash of letters that were miraculously found 150 years after the civil war ended.

Damn Europeans

>He inherited slaves that he freed pretty much immediately
>The slaves were also very well disposed to them
completely wrong. He inherited "two or three families" from his mother in 1829. But he inherited 189 slaves from his father in law in 1857 and despite his will requiring they be freed within 5 years, Lee fought hard in court to extend that period because the estates were in debt and he wanted workers. He drove the slaves very hard and there were plenty of escape attempts

https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-lee-slaveholder/

>please don't point out my hypocrisy, it makes me uncomfortable
>being a one percenter who owns slaves while claiming slavery is evil is exactly like being a serf complaining about his lot in life

owning 200 slaves is probably a 0.01% percent thing

well ignore that repeated percentage

>using modern ideological protest jargon to describe a historical figure
You're dumb.

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
You're dumb.

It doesnt break down. I'm sure you're right about only the fewest of 100,000 choosing to be a slave instead of a slaver. That's their weakness. If their faith were greater and they paid more heed to what sins they are loading on their souls, they would surely chose differntly.
>Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
As always, you must ask yourself What would Jesus do? Its a pity first and foremost for oneself, everytime that one doesnt find the strength to act on the answer to that question.

>filtered by start with the greeks

The Confederates were wrong for continuing slavery rather than deportation, but they all predicted that it wouldn't stop at the abolition of slavery.
To summarize the past hundred years, the liberated have forgotten the fragility of their position and are overstepping their mercy.

I'm a social democrat. I'm also bisexual. We are one pride parade away from total gay genocide.
You cannot do victory dances on the graves of people who aren't dead yet.
You need to read Machiavelli and Stirner.
Liberals will be getting unloaded into mass graves and still not understand the holes in their worldview.

Didn't the KKK come about because of the lawlessness in the South in the years after the war? I recall reading it started as a response to carpetbagging politicians that didn't care to establish law and order.

Worse, it was mostly to resist the predations of the carpetbaggers themselves and injustices of occupation government

Weren't the KKK founded by ~~*Judah P Benjamin*~~ who then went straight to his ~~*newspaper owning friends*~~ to report on how barbaric this organisation was?

Not seeing his name pop up anywhere. It was founded by ex Confederate cavalry

Lee's position is quite clear in that slavery has a necessary use in civilizing the black population. Arguably history has proven him right, in that the current situation is completely untenable.

you're fricking moronic if you think history has proven him right. the reason Black folk have such a shit culture today is because whites actively forbade them from getting education and jobs while they were still slaves and so they had nothing to work with after they were freed.

I'm talking about African Americans

>They haven't been oppressed for a long time
1865 is only a few generations ago. if your great great great grandparents couldn't read and didn't own land and everyone who was available for marriage was also illiterate and poor, and if their descendants still received shit education for the next hundred years, then you would also be a piece of shit.
>getting worse and worse
maybe you can argue they are better in the 60s, but whites have got a lot worse since then as well.

> Blacks are in more or less the same sorry state everywhere they exist on the planet.
Nigerian Americans are the most educated group in America with higher than average income and below average poverty

>nooooo brain drain!
fricking cope homosexual, they should have regressed to the mean by now. just let it go.

cope

it isn't even scientifically verifiable that brain drain is a real phenomenon at all

>Importing the most educated and competent members of a country is just a wild crazy theory

Anon, if you pick a population full of mostly physically weak people, then take the strongest people out of that population and put them somewhere else, they're not going to magically turn into their weaker cousins on the other side of the world. Don't you understand how genes work?

They have lower IQs and libtards can't seperate a person's intelligence from their humanity eventhough they're midwits. Social policy has to be targeted accordingly when it comes to the aforementioned reality but libtards are all about symbolic gestures that don't affect them directly while letting them pretend they're morally superior to others.

Something something Japan two nukes raped recovered two generations world power something Black folk 13 trillion something something 18 marshal plans etc etc.

I'm being very serious when I say that this is the dumbest post I've ever read on this website. I've seen many dumb, short posts, but to find a post of this length that is so utterly moronic is mind-blowing. The idea that the Abe Lincoln quote needs any explanation is idiotic, and to pretend that there is some hidden meaning that most readers won't understand is absolutely moronic. Everything else that you wrote is either wrong or nonsensical as well.

This post is the definition of pseud, and I despise your existence.

This has nothing to do with depth. We were all taught "it was about slavery" exclusively and here we are seeing the contrary.

>considering that executive power wouldntnhave been instituted if itbwerent for the civil war
You're so close, anon.

>If you believe your soul lasts for eternity after death, it follows that you should choose to make every minute on Earth torture if it secured even a tiny chance of making eternity better, and that is why this type of thinking is poisonous and evil.
NTA but that's a strawman and should be pointed out.

What you wrote is still a strawman of his point (i.e. his beliefs don't necessitate immoral action) and your turn to scientism as an answer just makes you come across as a naive fedora tipper.

>This is why it's so dangerous to believe anything regarding your eternal soul, it can easily justify abhorrent things in the present.
That's just as true as putting a one-sided misplaced faith in historicism when it comes to le science, anon. It's a strawman because faith in terms of religious understanding doesn't necessitate the idea that immoral actions are necessary to affirm positive rewards (it's quite the opposite and humility is one of the virtues of religious belief).

>Anon, I literally replied to someone who would choose God rather than science and medicine
He's saying that as the most extreme example of a positive outcome. He sees it as a supreme good to overcome disease but it still isn't worth it if it comes at the cost of rejecting morality. Your bias made you blind to the positive affirmation in his example.
>the other anon literally set up a dichotomy, HIMSELF, of choosing between God or science
Yeah, and it filtered you.
>you stepped in to accuse me of strawmanning YOU when I was talking to another person and accurately representing what entails from their belief
I'm a different anon but if you don't want to believe that it's up to you. I noticed the strawman and hadn't read the entire conversation until making this here post. What you did is still a strawman of the point he was making and the character of it is what lead me to respond--it was reflexive/reactionary and had the mark of the ideological possession that comes with fedora tipping.

>You think "God's will" is the highest good possible
I'm not religious but I have my sympathies and respect for religion.
>central issue is whether to adhere to some schizo idea of "God" rather than real life scientific or medical knowledge in advancing moral good
That's your strawman, anon. Again, that anon was pointing out what he saw as an extremely positive outcome (curing all disease) found wanting if it comes at the cost of rejecting morality. Your bias leads you to color this negatively by asserting he is saying "God no matter the cost" when in reality he's saying "even the most positive of outcomes is rendered negative if morality itself is rejected in order to attain it."

Also, I mentioned that your misplaced faith in a wholly positive historicism when it comes to le science isn't itself justified.
>You felt threatened and had to step in with false accusations,
It's a strawman and I've given clear arguments as to why it is so multiple times now, anon. Also, stop projecting.
>if one becomes convinced that temporal moral evil will advance an eternal good, it logically follows that one would choose the temporal evil which obtains eternal good.
As I've already pointed out to you such an idea isn't necessitated by or necessarily commensurate with religious belief. Also, such ideation isn't restricted to religious systems as utilitarian arguments may justify horrid action in the same way (e.g. genocide and eugenics).
>Your only excuse is your own personal belief of what "God's will" actually is
Again, a key component of religious understanding is personal humility; this may be expressed by not assuming one may dictate the will of the universe nor that they have access to an absolute morality that renders one infallible.
>you are actually subordinating God's will to the moral good of human beings
I'm not. You're making a lot of assumptions that betray the fact you're strongly opinionated about a subject of which you know very little. That's the biggest problem when it comes to fedora tippers.
>With every post you simply dig yourself deeper anon, but I hope if you stick with it you will eventually see your multiple errors
You need to reflect, anon. Good luck.

>You are replacing the word "God" with the word "morality"
In an attempt to afford you the chance to sidestep your bias and not parrot a reflexive argument that only services disingenuousness.
>At this point, you are clearly not capable of understanding your errors or even understanding what the content of this exchange was about
The level of projection in your posts is truly astounding, anon. I've pointed out why you argument was a strawman and made counter-arguments in direct relation to the content of your posts that you're unable to address.
>buzzwords
If that's what you have to believe in order to maintain your pride, so be it. It's hubris though and no one is fooled.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

The bible is such a eloquent work.

The bible contains a ton of trash, even a lot of what Jesus said was terrible. Consider Matthew 19:21 "Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Jesus says that owning possessions makes you imperfect. Couple this with Matthew 6:25 - 34 with quotes like "Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than they?" Jesus is directly admonishing people not to sow their fields or gather any resources into barns, but to live like animals on the prayer that nature or God will supply them. No thrift, no savings, no building up of civilization. This is overt wickedness.

Are you going to provide any insights of your own? Perhaps construct an argument why I am wrong? Perhaps engage with the Bible passages stated which are clearly advising against common sense saving, thrift, and personal security against calamity? No? Just "uhh, well, umm, maybe you is wrong!". Do better anon, for goodness' sake.

Jesus reiterated his stance multiple times. Matthew 19:23: "Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven." And then Matthew 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”"

Jesus directly and explicitly reiterated his point THREE TIMES, and yet you still claim it's insane. Well, anon, have you considered that some of what Jesus said was insane? Again, read his verbatim words, don't rely on some desperate reinterpretation, just look at those passages! Jesus is directly telling you that the more wealth and possessions you own, the worse your chances of getting into heaven, explicitly saying the less perfect you are.

>explicit reference to the israelite's time in the wilderness flies so far above your head it may as well be a bird in heaven

Behold: the consumate dignity of humanism

I don't get why a lot of people think this is bad.

You exemplify my point. You literally would rather sacrifice the well being of humans here on Earth for a pretend fairy tale afterlife. If you believe your soul lasts for eternity after death, it follows that you should choose to make every minute on Earth torture if it secured even a tiny chance of making eternity better, and that is why this type of thinking is poisonous and evil. We need to wake up from this delusion, we need to recognize the only "good" that is possible is here in this life. Every second of existence is precious precisely because there is no eternity afterwards. We need to advance our understanding through science exactly because it allows us to lift people out of suffering and give them a chance at dignity and "the good life". The idea that some people would inhibit this or stand in it's way for the illusion of "life in heaven" after death is lunacy. Emancipate yourself from these mind forged manacles, wake up from these childish stories and confront the fact that we know we have this life and we have our fellow humans in this life, and we should bend our will on making this world the best we possibly can.

Just hook yourself on a meth-fentanyl cycle. It isn't that expensive, non poorgay can afford living 99% of the experience of this scenario up to their death only it's for a lower duration

Behold: the consumate dignity of humanism

. You can easily find more information online on how to achieve it. Unlike what the cartoon implies this isn't science fiction, this is available to you at the street corner, right now.
HedoBlack folk and materialist don't do it en masse because they're pseuds. They prefer vomiting their soulless drivel over realizing the "good life in this world". I have more consideration for those that follow through with trying to immanentize the eschaton.

There is such a thing as depth of pleasure, referring to it only as "duration" is inaccurate. Drug induced euphoria is inferior to the kind of deep satisfaction that the heights of human accomplishment can provide, and everyone knows this which is why even in your narrow understanding you seek to denigrate shallow pleasure seekers like with

Behold: the consumate dignity of humanism

as if it's some refutation of pleasure-seeking, since some people seek shallow pleasure. If you seek deep satisfaction, the kind that comes from living well, raising competent children who become interesting people in their own right, you are still seeking a kind of pleasure.

some cope about the human soul

It's ok when sky daddy does it

No, it's not about pleasure, but about perfection. There is a clear difference between feeling good and being ontologically superior.

t. mechanized technophile bugman homosexual

I don't get why a lot of people think this is bad.

Because you're a subhuman crypto-semite that worships progress in an attempt to rectify the non-existent flaws of nature.

>pretend fairy tale afterlife

Using words like this is why it’s not even possible for your two sides to debate. You can’t argue over which sandwich to make if you can’t even agree on whether or not it needs bread.

>It's patently clear that these are psychological frameworks that are simply passed on and are not the product of an honest or reasonably search in the objective world for truth in a manner that one sets aside their biases and prejudices.
I was raised secular and became Christian as a result of honest and reasonable search for truth.

metaphysics is the highest form of science. the religious will always have a better grasp of morality than any materialist moron for this reason alone

Of course! Somehow, every single culture on earth decided that a higher being existed and most agreed on what it was, and shared a common metaphysical understanding which still shines through modern religions but some German guy addicted to masturbation proved that all of this was silly nonsense!

I have THOUGH

>the Native Americans' belief that everything has a spirit (even rocks)
This is false. The spirits containted within natural elements are only manifestation of a Greater Spirit, which is what the cult aims at meeting. The same can be said of most "animism". It is only the complementary point of view to dualism.
>to the more well known monotheisms which usually center on a father figure who one must both love and fear.
This paternal symbolism is only found in Christianity. On the contrary, Islam is clearly against vieiwing the divine as something related to creatures. However, muslims mystics clearly have panentheistic tendencies, which shows how monotheism, when really looked into, isn't opposed to animism. The christian mystery of incarnation proves that there is no actual dualism in religions. Same for Hinduism: orientalism took as animism because it implies that a soul is contained in everything but when looked into, it's closer to monotheism.

Not sur how it's mental gymnastics. I just showed you that pure monotheism and pure animism do not exist and they instead meet eachother.

>If you mean progress as industrialisatioN and the advancement of our knowledge of engineering, physics and medicine then these acts have alleviated a great deal of suffering within the world.
None of these rectify any amount of suffering, they only compound it by introducing more superfluous humans into the World and stuffing them into cities where they will inevitably face atomization, ostracization, and lack of dignity because the only value of the modern man is his worth to the economy. It should also go without saying but there's tons of pollution being introduced into the environment, much of it shifting the natural ecology for the worse.

how can people write sentences this stupid? are you missing half your brain? you just can't think?

You are just a stockholme syndrome'd homosexual that worships civilization when its apparent it causes the most suffering in the World.

>just have a nice day so we have a functioning economy, bro!
Hahahahahahaha slit your throat urbanite cuck.