« first day (1452 days earlier)      last day (3177 days later) » 

fredsbend
fredsbend
1:17 AM
@BruceAlderman There's some pretty indisputable facts laid in there. It's apparently a response to this currently popular web video.
I made a few comments to someone who first posted that video, then posted the article
> After the war, the political power at the time (so called radical Republicans) didn't just slap the wrist of the south, but found any way to oppress it, which eventually included the total take down of Slavery, despite having promised to keep it just a few years earlier. This occurred in what is often called the "reconstruction era" and the South is still sore about it. In fact, I'm surprised a second civil war didn't ensue during that time.
And also:
> And in light of the following from that article, I don't think the video previously posted should be considered trustworthy:
> > "The narrator states categorically that “Lincoln’s view [on slavery] never changed.” This is perhaps the most absurd claim that is made. In reality, Lincoln’s views “changed” on slavery when it became politically expedient.
> > Lincoln was a racist in a time where racism was commonplace; one can simply reference the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates for corroboration of this. He confirmed this notion in several speeches and in his First Inaugural Address, that he supported the Corwin Amendment, then being considered by the Congress – which would have explicitly prevented the abolition of slavery in any of the states for all time."
@BruceAlderman Anyway, like I said, that article quotes actual historical documents and makes a pretty compelling case with them, especially compared to the video.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
1:41 AM
@Mr.Bultitude doesn't seem very logical to me - I agree with Marc. Lack of evidence of a global event does not in any way constitute evidence for a local event. Even assuming that there has definitely been an event, if both things are lacking in the physical evidence department, then you have no way of knowing which is true.
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
@El'endiaStarman And other mods who are not immediately pingable (sp?):
This use just doesn't get it. Only three answers, all no upvotes, while I recall at least two questions and a few other answers, so there's deleted ones too. I'm not sure yet, but moderator intervention might be or become necessary.
 
Mr. Bultitude
Mr. Bultitude
2:31 AM
@bruisedreed Well, floods happen. Local floods don't leave behind all that much evidence. It's reasonable to expect a global flood to leave behind massive evidence. Ergo...
But that's getting into arguing over the validity of the answer, which wasn't really the point. If we delete it, it's because it's not an answer, not because it's an illogical answer.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
 
Mr. Bultitude
Mr. Bultitude
2:46 AM
4
A: If a question is closed, are we allowed to edit the question in such a way that invalidates the answers in an attempt to get it re-opened?

FlimzyI really think this needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. For old questions, which were once considered acceptable, it is better to close the question (or lock it for "Historical Significance"). This keeps the (once relevant) question and valid answers around. For new questions, however...

I strongly agree with @Flimzy's thoughts here, but it's only got 4 upvotes at the moment, partly because the question wasn't asked with old (once-allowable) questions in mind. Could more people check this and up- or down-vote as they think appropriate?
We've had a few cases lately where people disagree on whether to edit or close a question, and it would be very helpful to nail this down.
 
Bruce Alderman
Bruce Alderman
2:59 AM
@fredsbend Yeah, I saw the Facebook video. Prager "University" is not an actual university, but a propaganda machine, so I understand the impulse to reply to the viral video. But it's pretty well established that slavery was the dominant issue that led to southern secession.
The article asserts that the secession documents of several states don't refer to slavery. But a quick internet search will pull up these documents, verifying that if they mention a reason at all, the reason is to protect slavery. (Arkansas, which the article mentions by name, is a notable exception.)
The article also asserts, "Lincoln was perfectly willingly to accept the “state’s right to slavery” in the slave states that remained in the union," and yet it's clear from many historical documents that Lincoln believed this would never work. In his famous "house divided" speech, delivered two years before he was elected, Lincoln said we would need to make slavery legal everywhere, or illegal everywhere.
 
bruised reed
bruised reed
@Mr.Bultitude ah but it wouldn't have been just a local flood - it would have been a civilization destroying flood. Additionally, proponents of global flood claim that there is evidence for it (I'm not expert enough to weigh their opinions - it's all just appeal to authority stuff for me as far as that side of things is concerned). I take your point about validity - voting should be the metric for this. So I will conclude discussing the matter with casting my downvote...
 
Bruce Alderman
Bruce Alderman
@fredsbend It's clear, too, from the newspaper editorials of the time, that southerners understood the subtext of Lincoln's speech to be calling for the eventually abolition of slavery.
Here is an article that references historical documents and comes to essentially the same conclusions as the Prager video.
Secession must also be understood in the context of 1850s politics, particularly the Compromise of 1850, which opened up the possibility of slavery in the territories in the Southwest; and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise and opened up the possibility of slavery in all new states.
 
 
13 hours later…
Ask Elisha
Ask Elisha
3:59 PM
4
Q: Are there any written records of Norse mythology dated prior to Christianization?

Wad CheberAs I understand it, most of what we know about Norse mythology is based on texts written in sagas by Christians in the late Middle Ages. Do we have any contemporary accounts of Norse mythology from the period in which it was still believed?

religion christianity sources vikings norse-mythology
 
Ask Elisha
Ask Elisha
4:14 PM
0
Q: Is there any record of the Ebionites outside of the antiheretical polemics of the church fathers?

Wad CheberThe Ebionites were a sect of Jewish Christians in the early centuries of Christianity. Little is known about them, and it appears that most or all of their texts were destroyed or lost, possibly as a result of efforts by the proto-Orthodox faction to marginalize and eliminate their movement. Th...

religion christianity jews
 
 
3 hours later…
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
7:19 PM
Do "Not an answer" flags get reviewed as "Low Quality Posts" in the review queue?
 
 
2 hours later…
Mr. Bultitude
Mr. Bultitude
8:50 PM
@LeeWoofenden yes
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
9:21 PM
@Mr.Bultitude Thanks. Confusing, but good to know.
 
 
2 hours later…
fredsbend
fredsbend
11:27 PM
@LeeWoofenden All flags put it in the review queue. The "custom flag" puts it in a special moderator queue, so use that only when really necessary.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@fredsbend We mods do also see NAA flags. Not sure if we always see them, or if they're in the review queue for a bit first. That's probably more likely the case for VLQ flags.
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
11:49 PM
@bruisedreed There's really little reason to criticize a rather excellent answer to a horrible question.
I hope you stick around and answer more questions. The problems on this page are with the question and certainly not your answer. You write well and seem knowledgeable. We'd be happy to have you participate. Do keep in mind though, that there is a strict policy that you must answer questions from the viewpoint that the question has given. That's probably the most important rule. What should we do about matching the viewpoints of askers and answerers? — fredsbend 1 min ago
This is clearly the kind of user we want around. Excellent prose, clear and concise logic, proper grammar and formatting... We want this guy to stick around.
 

« first day (1452 days earlier)      last day (3177 days later) »