Possible Montana Secession?

Tokorona said:
AoS: Technically speaking, if the federal ban is constutional, Montana's constutition does not have the authority to say they're wrong.
Click to expand...

True, but the issue is if the US constitution gives congress the power to ban in the first place. Their powers under the commerce clause are broad, but there are some, albeit fuzzy, limits.

I should also note that the 2nd amendment itself could be repealed, and this, standing alone, would have no effect on a states' rights to ALLOW guns, it would merely remove a federal limit to a states' rights to RESTRICT guns. Additional legislation would have to be enacted to restrict guns at the federal leve.

Tokorona said:
However, you can get gay marriage ins ome states and it's not valid in others even with full faith and credit.. so I really don't know how that'd work.
Click to expand...

That's really a more complex issue. The DOMA purports to restrict the FF&C so that states do not have to honor same sex marriage from other states. There is some question if the DOMA is constitutional or not. With the current SCOTUS, it probably would pass muster. Even a EP argument is not likely to work IMO with the current court composition.
 
skeptical said:
Just curious, are you saying:

1) Anything from the teaching company is propaganda?
Or
2) Anything from the listed author is propaganda?
Or
3) Anything that doesn't agree with your opinion on the civil war is propaganda?
Click to expand...

None of the above. He stated that if I listen to the lecture I would think that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. This demonstrates that the lecture has the purpose of propagandizing towards this conclusion.
 
Tokorona said:
It is by large and far the main cause. Just not the entire cause. Therefore, it's not propaganda. (IIRC, Lincoln didn't enter it to end slavery, but that ist he main reason teh Southern states left. However, right now, I'm reading about the 1760-1790 area of American Politics. SOoo.)
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. I would recommend reading the writings from that time period, not text books recently written telling you was was going on then.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are incorrect. I would recommend reading the writings from that time period, not text books recently written telling you was was going on then.
Click to expand...

Why is it so imprtant that the Civil War (ooops, I'm sorry, the War Between the States:rolleyes:) be about other things than slavery?
 
Why would text books aroudn now be wrong? Sorry, Jerome. You're just wrong here. While there is an interesting school of thought that sectional divisions led to it as well, the primary dispute was slavery (and slaves rights - espically the ability to nullify some federal decisions).

However the primary cause IS slavery.
 
Tokorona said:
Why would text books aroudn now be wrong? Sorry, Jerome. You're just wrong here. While there is an interesting school of thought that sectional divisions led to it as well, the primary dispute was slavery (and slaves rights - espically the ability to nullify some federal decisions).

However the primary cause IS slavery.
Click to expand...


So, the writings when the event occurred by the people involved in the events are wrong and current school text books are correct.

Welcome to the Brave New World.
 
Your complaint makes no sense. Why would you reject a source just because it was convincing; without knowing whether it was true or not?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
None of the above. He stated that if I listen to the lecture I would think that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. This demonstrates that the lecture has the purpose of propagandizing towards this conclusion.
Click to expand...

Ummm, no. First of all, I have many experiences with the teaching company courses, and none of them are what I would consider "propaganda". Many of them are better than some University courses I have taken.

Second, the poster merely expressed an opinion that they thought you would be convinced by it. Perhaps they felt that the information is so well presented and factually based you would change your mind. Their opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with the factual content of the course they recommended. For all you know, the course may present many different angles of the slavery question, and it just so happens that the weight of evidence leads to certain conclusions. You don't know, and the poster didn't present nearly enough information for you to make the HUGE jump in reasoning that you have made.

You have made a completely unwarranted assumption about a quality program based on a single offhand comment of an anonymous poster on an Internet forum. What their thoughts about what the program would/would not convince you of are completely distinct from the program itself. There is simply no basis in reality for you making the sort of illogical leap you have made from their opinion to your assertion that the course is "propaganda".

What, if anything, do you think this indicates about your willingness to consider new ideas contrary to your current opinions?
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are incorrect. I would recommend reading the writings from that time period, not text books recently written telling you was was going on then.
Click to expand...

Primary sources are good, and should of course always be consulted by serious historians. However, there are many reasons not to accept anything written from people living during a momentous event at face value either. Obviously, writers on the North and the South had a tremendous incentive to portray their own side in the best possible light, and many of them did so.

Additionally, assumptions made by authors during the civil war may not have panned out in the light of the broader view that more modern scholars have of the later history. Period writers rarely, if ever, have all the information at their disposal that later period writers have. This is especially true with older time periods when the authors did not have access to modern research facilities and tools.

For any historical events, it is important to have both primary sources AND secondary sources that have the advantage of a broader view of both multiple sources and subsequent events in the broad spectrum of later history.

Your casual acceptance of only primary sources, and equally casual dismissal of later historians I find rather strange unless your argument is that current historians are _ignoring_ primary sources?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
So, the writings when the event occurred by the people involved in the events are wrong and current school text books are correct.
Click to expand...

Here's a hint, Jerome.

The people involved in the events were politicians.

Politicians lie to present their position in the most favorable light.

One of the professional skills that historians develop is the ability to ferret out relevant non-publicized documents, and to cross-riff between all of the relevant documents in order to determine which of the public documents were flat out lies.

So, yes, in short, the writings when the event occurred by the people involved in the events are wrong and current school text books are correct.

I find it interesting that you wouldn't take Obama's word that it was raining if he came in with a dripping wet umbrella, but you believe any whopper that Jefferson Davis might have spun while in his cups. Well, "interesting" isnt' really the right word. More "pathetic," really.
 
gtc said:
Your complaint makes no sense. Why would you reject a source just because it was convincing; without knowing whether it was true or not?
Click to expand...

I am not completely rejecting the source. I am not going to pay for a source which is purported to have an agenda.
 
skeptical said:
What, if anything, do you think this indicates about your willingness to consider new ideas contrary to your current opinions?
Click to expand...

I stated that I am willing to listen to the course. In fact, I generally seek out presentations which hold contrary views. I just am not going to pay for information which is purported to present a conclusion which is incorrect.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
So, the writings when the event occurred by the people involved in the events are wrong and current school text books are correct.

Welcome to the Brave New World.
Click to expand...

Woohoo! Jerome gives me another opportunity to invent a new fallacy. In addition to your reductio ad orwellum arsenal, you now wield reductio ad huxleyum. Although that one doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Maybe a general fallacy would be better?

reductio ad dystopium

Either way, welcome aboard the failboat, crew = you.

(How's having an internet stalker working out for you? I'm having a blast) :D
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
Here's a hint, Jerome.

The people involved in the events were politicians.

Politicians lie to present their position in the most favorable light.

One of the professional skills that historians develop is the ability to ferret out relevant non-publicized documents, and to cross-riff between all of the relevant documents in order to determine which of the public documents were flat out lies.

So, yes, in short, the writings when the event occurred by the people involved in the events are wrong and current school text books are correct.

I find it interesting that you wouldn't take Obama's word that it was raining if he came in with a dripping wet umbrella, but you believe any whopper that Jefferson Davis might have spun while in his cups. Well, "interesting" isnt' really the right word. More "pathetic," really.
Click to expand...

These are extremely revealing thoughts.

You then would agree with this statement. Current public policies are based upon incorrect characterizations and we will only understand the truth of today in the future when it has been examined by historians and written down in text books.
 
D'rok said:
Woohoo! Jerome gives me another opportunity to invent a new fallacy. In addition to your reductio ad orwellum arsenal, you now wield reductio ad huxleyum. Although that one doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Maybe a general fallacy would be better?

reductio ad dystopium

Either way, welcome aboard the failboat, crew = you.

(How's having an internet stalker working out for you? I'm having a blast) :D
Click to expand...


Do you agree with drkitten's assessment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom