1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice
LightSpectra
Last Activity:
Jan 26, 2013
Joined:
Mar 31, 2007
Messages:
5,518
Likes Received:
3
Trophy Points:
0
Birthday:
Jun 25, 1990 (Age: 29)
Location:
Vendée

Share This Page

LightSpectra

me autem minui, 29, from Vendée

LightSpectra was last seen:
Jan 26, 2013
    1. MartinLuther
      MartinLuther
      Happy Birthday!
    2. Arakhor
      Arakhor
      "The Catholic Church has never scientifically defined when human life begins; that's left to biologists. We now know that life begins at conception itself."

      How does the second sentence follow from the first?
    3. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      OK, finally last one:lol: At least until you respond

      None of this is to say the Confederacy was flawless, but everyone knows their flaws. I think in the long run, a Southern win would have been better because slavery could only have lasted so long. In the long run, people would remember (Even if somewhat inaccurately) the Civil War being won by the secessionists as a win for decentralization, and in the long run, I think that would have been better for America.

      If you'd like feel free to respond in PM, this response ended up being way longer than I expected.
    4. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      Regarding the South's secession, the US Constitutution does not say by what method, if any, such secession is to be allowed, so there's no clearly defined principle the Confederacy followed.

      However, the tenth amendment says all rights not given to the Federal government are given to the states or to the People. "People" is pretty vague, but I'd tend to think if we're dealing with the secession of a state, "People" can only refer to the people in that state.

      The People didn't vote directly on secession, no, but they did do so through their state legislaures. Maybe its a little wrong (Although considering he got only 40% of the vote, I don't really have a problem with it) to secede because you don't like the President, but its unjustified to wage a massive war over that, and besides, people have an intrinsic right to choose their own government.
    5. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      Sorry this is going so long (And probably at least one more after this to boot)), I try not to give cheezy answers;)

      Regarding the Emancipation, I would have had no problem with a document saying that all slaves in the South were free and therefore would never be returned to their masters, or prosecuted in the North, were they to escape. Even if they used violence to do so. Of course, I'd prefer such a document also free slaves in the North, but if Lincoln was politically limited to doing so in the Confederacy, fine. However, the document as it was written was basically an excuse for more warmongering and putting an emancipatory spin on a war that was from the beginning to stop the Southern states from seceding, as such I have little good to say about it.

      Sherman's March and the like, I think its obvious why that shouldn't have happened. Its ethically wrong to attack civilians on purpose.
    6. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      Regarding those things, Six hundred thousand deaths for a fort is a ridiculously awful opportunity cost, much like a million and a half deaths in Iraq in order to overthrow a dictator who was killing far less people is a horrible opportunity cost. People always say Lincoln thought it would be a quick war, but then he should have made peace as soon as he realized the obvious that war is Hell and that his insane nationalism was hurting people on both sides. Instead, Lincoln fought for four years, and it was out of opposition to the South, not out of a desire to get Sumter back.

      Most people agree that the suspensions of habeus corpus were wrong, but I don't think most people recognize just how wrong it was. They think that since Lincoln supposedly did all sorts of good things they can overlook it. But we wouldn't look kindly on someone who kidnapped thousands of people no matter how much good he did! I don't get why Lincoln's the exception here...
    7. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      Unconstitutional, and worse, pathetic, emancipation proclamation that deliberately targeted all slaves not under his control, thus giving him an excuse to continue warmongering without lifting a finger to help the slaves under his domain. Before you mention it, I'm aware a small fraction of slaves freed were in Union-controlled areas of the CSA, so the statement that it didn't free anyone is inaccurate. It was, however, predominately pointed at the Confederacy and designed to keep "Loyalist" slaves alone.

      Actions such as "Sherman's march" and other total war type actions an established part of war policy.

      "Reconstruction" era allowing the North to politically and militarily control the South.

      Jim Crow hatred that likely would have never occurred had slavery been peacefully and voluntarily phased out.

      Obviously I agree that Lincoln wasn't personally responsible for Reconstruction and Jim Crow, but Republican Warhawks in general were.

      More coming.
    8. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      A few things...

      Firstly, I'm not a big fan of eminent domain in general, but I'm not really feeling sorry for a government who has it done to them, especially since they probably used eminent domain to get the land in the first place. If the South offered to pay for the fort, which they did, and Lincoln insisted on keeping it, all bets are off. It was right in the middle of Southern territory, and so to me is equivalent to an occupation force. I'm not saying the Southern attack was smart, but I think it was at least loosely justifiable.

      Even if not, look at the horror Lincoln unleashed as a response...

      War that killed over 600,000 people.

      Draft forcing people to fight for his personal desire to preserve the Union, whether they cared or not.

      Usurption of near-tyrannical powers including the power to arrest dissidents against his government and supporters of the CSA.

      Placing of Baltimore under martial law.
    9. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      Fair enough on the forts, but I'd still say it doesn't justify the kind of measures that Lincoln took. How was the secession in general "Armed rebellion" rather than legitimate secession though?
    10. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      I guess the difference in opinion is the right to secession then. Obviously no, you could not claim that my house is part of your country, you don't own it. But the South owned the land the fort was sitting on.

      Lincoln knew what he was getting into when he refused to sell.
    11. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      Technically perhaps, but you have no right to maintain a military base in someone else's country, that goes for the current US as well.

      I take Spooner's position in that slavery should have been abolished immediately but that a war to stop secession was immoral.
    12. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      I don't understand how Lincoln didn't provoke the war, however. Lincoln pretty clearly had the upper hand, especially before Virginia, NC, Tennessee, and Arkansas flipped. The deep south frankly was not a threat to him. The South didn't want to conquer the North either. They wanted to be left alone and not have a Union military base in the middle of their territory. Lincoln reenforced it.
    13. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      I do think that some of the myths he has repeated should be refuted though, such as that the North owned any slaves (beyond the 8 in New Jersey), or that Lincoln 'provoked' the war. But alas.

      Sorry, I was counting "Border states" in the "North." I thought New Jersey was more than 8, but I knew it was less than 100, and I wasn't really thinking of them when I posted it either.

      Also, regarding your comment about libertarians and anarchists, I (libertarian, not anarchist) certainly do not think I have any intristic right to post anything in particular on CivFanatics. Obviously Thunderfall owns it.

      .
    14. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      You'd get that one with Ron Paul, and yeah, I agree with you.

      I'm actually curious how muc welfare the poor would actually need if we eliminated the corporate subsidies and restrictions on licensing (In other words, if you want to work as a doctor/anyother career as long as you tell the person how much experience you have and they consent you can't get in trouble.)

      Which issues do you define as "Social"? Just curious because I've heard different things, I once had a Republican tell me they sympathize with the Democrats on "Social policy" and when I mentioned that the Dems support abortion she said what she was talking about was "Social welfare."

      I'd assume the five "Essentials" for Catholics would all count as social issues, speaking of that, are you not allowed to vote for anyone who contradicts one of those five? Or only not allowed to vote for anyone because they contradict one of those five?
    15. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      Did you actually vote for a guy from a fiction novel?:lol:

      I don't know what state you're in. I know Ron Paul's a legitimate write-in in a few states, and he is pro-life... don't know what you think of his other positions, he's probably too libertarian for most Catholics but he supports state's rights which seems in line with subsidiary to me.

      I don't even know whether Romney or Obama will be worse for the country. I'm hoping for 281-257 in favor of Obama just so I can say "Ha! I predicted it right!"
    16. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      Fair enough I just figured I'd point it out.

      Personally I wish I could vote for Johnson in spite of his pro-choice stance on abortion because he'd actually fix the budget situation, legalize victimless crimes, and shrink the government back to what I consider a more reasonable size. As a Catholic you might not even be allowed to vote for him because of the abortion thing though (If he supported Roe v Wade I'd be much less supportive of him but he takes the constitutional view that its a state issue.)

      Mitt Romney is so laughably obviously pro-choice that it makes me laugh that ANYONE would vote for him over Obama BECAUSE of abortion. Yet I know people who are.

      Gary Johnson is more pro-life than Mitt Romney, at any rate.

      But if you want a true pro-life guy, I think Virgil Goode is the only actual option. I'd much prefer him over Romney, but perhaps you wouldn't.
    17. GhostWriter16
      GhostWriter16
      IIRC in most states write-ins don't even count unless the write in candidate is registered.
    18. Arakhor
      Arakhor
      I love living in a rural area, but I don't think I'd want to live in a remote part of the country. There would be no facilities and I'd have to drive to get anywhere.
    19. Arakhor
      Arakhor
      Aah. Cities. I avoid living in them like the plague!
    20. Arakhor
      Arakhor
      Now I can tell you're American, because you invoked that whole dual heritage thing that so many Americans do! It seems to be a particular hankering to the rest of the world, which doesn't seem to be represented elsewhere to my (limited) knowledge.
  • Loading...
  • Loading...
  • About

    Birthday:
    Jun 25, 1990 (Age: 29)
    Location:
    Vendée
    My Computer:
    NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT, 3GB RAM, Pentium Dual-Core E5200 @ 2.50GHz, Windows XP
    Steam ID:
    LightSpectra
    Civ4 Difficulty Level:
    Monarch
    Civ5 Versions:
    Civ4 Versions:
    • Regular Edition
    • Warlords Expansion
    • Beyond the Sword Expansion
    Civ3 Versions:
    Civ2 Versions:
    Civ1 Versions:
    Col Versions:
    Converted to Roman Catholicism on Pentecost, 2007.

    Ethics, metaphysics, theology, hagiography, history, classical music

    Signature

    Bringing up the Catholic cleric sex abuse scandals in discussions to which they are irrelevant is emotionally exploiting the abused victims to win an argument which you know you are wrong about. It is inexcusable and disgusting. / A Defense of Clerical Celibacy

    Five myths about persecutions of Christians & "Only Limited Freedom is True Freedom" & The harmful effects of pornography & Pornography's effect on children & Studies demonstrate premarital sex and cohabitation ruinous for relationships