If individualism is derivative, please sign me up!

AggieRain said:

---

If individualism is derivative, please sign me up!

---

Agree.

And maybe I am cynical, but I believe every serious historian or legal interpreter of the general welfare clause and/or the 14th Amendment has a political bias.

Both items have been exponentially expanded by liberals over what the original intent was.

I think that is really hard to dispute.

---

---

+ 7 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

One of the lead authors of the 14th Amendment believed it applied the first 8 amendments to the states and local governments. Incorporation was held up because of a conservative reaction against civil rights for freed slaves leading to Jim Crow and because of an extreme pro-business climate in the Supreme Court from the 1880s through the 1920s, though judicial incorporation began in fits and starts in the late nineteenth century. So it's inaccurate to claim that incorporation of the establishment clause was some novel idea that arose in the mid-20th century.

---

dermdoc said:

And was that guy a liberal?

---

Sapper Redux said:

For 1867, yes. And his amendment with the language protecting individual rights was adopted into the US Constitution.

---

dermdoc said:

Do you ever read anything other than liberal sources?

Like Thomas Sowell?

---

Sapper Redux said:

Thomas Sowell? That's your idea of a historian? I read people working with primary sources and engaged with the historiography in the field. I'm not interested in what political polemicists have to say because at the end of the day they aren't interested in the history, they're interested in creating a narrative they can use to justify their claims in the present. Sowell is a perfect example of ideology bulldozing over nuance and what the record says.

No, I haven't read Sowell in years, just like I haven't read Chomsky or Zinn in years.

---

Serotonin said:

Sowell is brilliant but OK…what are your alternative sources?

---

AggieRain said:

Sowell argues for personal responsibility. Sapper for reparations. No, Sapper will seek to discredit rather than than affirm Sowell. Common sense is an antiseptic not all can accept.

---

Sapper Redux said:

Yeah, that's what it is. You got me.

---

dermdoc said:

Well Sowell is for personal responsibility.

Are you for reparations?

---

Sowell denies systemic discrimination and racism that limits the impact "personal responsibility" can have on a macro scale. I'm not against either. Pretending it's either-or is just lazy political posturing.

---

---

+ 8 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

One of the lead authors of the 14th Amendment believed it applied the first 8 amendments to the states and local governments. Incorporation was held up because of a conservative reaction against civil rights for freed slaves leading to Jim Crow and because of an extreme pro-business climate in the Supreme Court from the 1880s through the 1920s, though judicial incorporation began in fits and starts in the late nineteenth century. So it's inaccurate to claim that incorporation of the establishment clause was some novel idea that arose in the mid-20th century.

---

dermdoc said:

And was that guy a liberal?

---

Sapper Redux said:

For 1867, yes. And his amendment with the language protecting individual rights was adopted into the US Constitution.

---

dermdoc said:

Do you ever read anything other than liberal sources?

Like Thomas Sowell?

---

Sapper Redux said:

Thomas Sowell? That's your idea of a historian? I read people working with primary sources and engaged with the historiography in the field. I'm not interested in what political polemicists have to say because at the end of the day they aren't interested in the history, they're interested in creating a narrative they can use to justify their claims in the present. Sowell is a perfect example of ideology bulldozing over nuance and what the record says.

No, I haven't read Sowell in years, just like I haven't read Chomsky or Zinn in years.

---

Serotonin said:

Sowell is brilliant but OK…what are your alternative sources?

---

AggieRain said:

Sowell argues for personal responsibility. Sapper for reparations. No, Sapper will seek to discredit rather than than affirm Sowell. Common sense is an antiseptic not all can accept.

---

Sapper Redux said:

Yeah, that's what it is. You got me.

---

dermdoc said:

Well Sowell is for personal responsibility.

Are you for reparations?

---

Sapper Redux said:

Sowell denies systemic discrimination and racism that limits the impact "personal responsibility" can have on a macro scale. I'm not against either. Pretending it's either-or is just lazy political posturing.

---

Are you for reparations?

---

---

+ 9 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

One of the lead authors of the 14th Amendment believed it applied the first 8 amendments to the states and local governments. Incorporation was held up because of a conservative reaction against civil rights for freed slaves leading to Jim Crow and because of an extreme pro-business climate in the Supreme Court from the 1880s through the 1920s, though judicial incorporation began in fits and starts in the late nineteenth century. So it's inaccurate to claim that incorporation of the establishment clause was some novel idea that arose in the mid-20th century.

---

dermdoc said:

And was that guy a liberal?

---

Sapper Redux said:

For 1867, yes. And his amendment with the language protecting individual rights was adopted into the US Constitution.

---

dermdoc said:

Do you ever read anything other than liberal sources?

Like Thomas Sowell?

---

Sapper Redux said:

Thomas Sowell? That's your idea of a historian? I read people working with primary sources and engaged with the historiography in the field. I'm not interested in what political polemicists have to say because at the end of the day they aren't interested in the history, they're interested in creating a narrative they can use to justify their claims in the present. Sowell is a perfect example of ideology bulldozing over nuance and what the record says.

No, I haven't read Sowell in years, just like I haven't read Chomsky or Zinn in years.

---

Serotonin said:

Sowell is brilliant but OK…what are your alternative sources?

---

AggieRain said:

Sowell argues for personal responsibility. Sapper for reparations. No, Sapper will seek to discredit rather than than affirm Sowell. Common sense is an antiseptic not all can accept.

---

Sapper Redux said:

Yeah, that's what it is. You got me.

---

dermdoc said:

Well Sowell is for personal responsibility.

Are you for reparations?

---

Sapper Redux said:

Sowell denies systemic discrimination and racism that limits the impact "personal responsibility" can have on a macro scale. I'm not against either. Pretending it's either-or is just lazy political posturing.

---

dermdoc said:

Are you for reparations?

---

Depends. Sorry, mate, I'm not interested in sound bites. There can be a place for some kind of program to work past systemic racism where it still affects people. What that looks like is not something I'm equipped to answer right now. If you consider that reparations, then the answer is yes.

---

---

+ 10 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

One of the lead authors of the 14th Amendment believed it applied the first 8 amendments to the states and local governments. Incorporation was held up because of a conservative reaction against civil rights for freed slaves leading to Jim Crow and because of an extreme pro-business climate in the Supreme Court from the 1880s through the 1920s, though judicial incorporation began in fits and starts in the late nineteenth century. So it's inaccurate to claim that incorporation of the establishment clause was some novel idea that arose in the mid-20th century.

---

dermdoc said:

And was that guy a liberal?

---

Sapper Redux said:

For 1867, yes. And his amendment with the language protecting individual rights was adopted into the US Constitution.

---

dermdoc said:

Do you ever read anything other than liberal sources?

Like Thomas Sowell?

---

Sapper Redux said:

Thomas Sowell? That's your idea of a historian? I read people working with primary sources and engaged with the historiography in the field. I'm not interested in what political polemicists have to say because at the end of the day they aren't interested in the history, they're interested in creating a narrative they can use to justify their claims in the present. Sowell is a perfect example of ideology bulldozing over nuance and what the record says.

No, I haven't read Sowell in years, just like I haven't read Chomsky or Zinn in years.

---

Serotonin said:

Sowell is brilliant but OK…what are your alternative sources?

---

AggieRain said:

Sowell argues for personal responsibility. Sapper for reparations. No, Sapper will seek to discredit rather than than affirm Sowell. Common sense is an antiseptic not all can accept.

---

Sapper Redux said:

Yeah, that's what it is. You got me.

---

dermdoc said:

Well Sowell is for personal responsibility.

Are you for reparations?

---

Sapper Redux said:

Sowell denies systemic discrimination and racism that limits the impact "personal responsibility" can have on a macro scale. I'm not against either. Pretending it's either-or is just lazy political posturing.

---

dermdoc said:

Are you for reparations?

---

Sapper Redux said:

Depends. Sorry, mate, I'm not interested in sound bites. There can be a place for some kind of program to work past systemic racism where it still affects people. What that looks like is not something I'm equipped to answer right now. If you consider that reparations, then the answer is yes.

---

Lots of words to say yes you are in favor of reparations. Own who you are and what you believe. No obfuscation

---

AggieRain said:

---

If individualism is derivative, please sign me up!

---

dermdoc said:

Agree.

And maybe I am cynical, but I believe every serious historian or legal interpreter of the general welfare clause and/or the 14th Amendment has a political bias.

Both items have been exponentially expanded by liberals over what the original intent was.

I think that is really hard to dispute.

---

The original intent was to preserve and protect the citizenship and individual rights and liberties of the newly freed slaves from rapacious persecution by the ex-Confederate states. The authors were quite aware of how revolutionary the amendment was and passed numerous laws at the same time to prevent segregation and violence against the freed slaves.

And fwiw, I like your posts.

Why do liberal academicians feel like they have to use so many words for a simple answer like yes or no?

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

AggieRain said:

---

If individualism is derivative, please sign me up!

---

dermdoc said:

Agree.

And maybe I am cynical, but I believe every serious historian or legal interpreter of the general welfare clause and/or the 14th Amendment has a political bias.

Both items have been exponentially expanded by liberals over what the original intent was.

I think that is really hard to dispute.

---

Sapper Redux said:

The original intent was to preserve and protect the citizenship and individual rights and liberties of the newly freed slaves from rapacious persecution by the ex-Confederate states. The authors were quite aware of how revolutionary the amendment was and passed numerous laws at the same time to prevent segregation and violence against the freed slaves.

---

I completely agree. But will you admit that liberal judicial minds have used it for much broader agendas?

The logic behind those decisions is in the text. That a person in 1868 can't see the full scope of the logic of their position does not mean we default to the understanding in 1868.

Sapper Redux said:

---

The logic behind those decisions is in the text. That a person in 1868 can't see the full scope of the logic of their position does not mean we default to the understanding in 1868.

---

Disagree. Law is law. There is no "living" Constitution.

And you are basically agreeing with me that you only consider liberal interpretations?

Which is fine. I will admit my bias.

Will you do the same?

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

The logic behind those decisions is in the text. That a person in 1868 can't see the full scope of the logic of their position does not mean we default to the understanding in 1868.

---

dermdoc said:

Disagree. Law is law. There is no "living" Constitution.

And you are basically agreeing with me that you only consider liberal interpretations?

Which is fine. I will admit my bias.

Will you do the same?

---

I prefer outcomes that align with my values, sure, and I'm more likely to agree with the logic behind them. But I don't "only" consider "liberal" arguments or interpretations. Also, the Constitution is a living document. There's no such thing as a pure interpretation. Every recent Supreme Court decision you approve of is based on a specific reading of the document that's based in present desires and legal theories and a very selective reading of the document and history.

dermdoc said:

---

And fwiw, I like your posts.

Why do liberal academicians feel like they have to use so many words for a simple answer like yes or no?

---

To provide clarity. Saying Sapper is in favor of reparations is an insufficient way of describing his position.

Won't you have to ether be for or against reparations?

Seems pretty simple.

And maybe I am missing something?

Reparations can come in various forms, from direct large financial payments to slave descendants to programs to help poor black communities. Some even view affirmative action as reparations.

I think throwing the word around without a context is silly F16 nonsense. Like accusing someone of being a socialist for believing in government funded education like Texas A&M

Aggrad08 said:

---

Reparations can come in various forms, from direct large financial payments to slave descendants to programs to help poor black communities. Some even view affirmative action as reparations.

I think throwing the word around without a context is silly F16 nonsense. Like accusing someone of being a socialist for believing in government funded education like Texas A&M

---

I think Derm is probably just referring to the colloquial definition in today's political context which would be a large financial payment.

Ultimately if we deconstruct every phrase and concept we can't really say anything about anything because everything is fluid.

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Reparations can come in various forms, from direct large financial payments to slave descendants to programs to help poor black communities. Some even view affirmative action as reparations.

I think throwing the word around without a context is silly F16 nonsense. Like accusing someone of being a socialist for believing in government funded education like Texas A&M

---

Serotonin said:

I think Derm is probably just referring to the colloquial definition in today's political context which would be a large financial payment.

Ultimately if we deconstruct every phrase and concept we can't really say anything about anything because everything is fluid.

---

Disagree 1000%. That's what sorely lacking in our discourse right now. Thoughtful nuance. The fact that everything has be about an absolute on one end or the other is toxic.

dermdoc said:

---

Won't you have to ether be for or against reparations?

Seems pretty simple.

And maybe I am missing something?

---

The issue is one of assumptions. What you consider "reparations" may not be what I or another poster considers reparations. And without specifics we wind up talking past each other.

To clarify, my definition of reparations is money being given simply for ancestry and/or skin color above the welfare system based on poverty and need.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Reparations can come in various forms, from direct large financial payments to slave descendants to programs to help poor black communities. Some even view affirmative action as reparations.

I think throwing the word around without a context is silly F16 nonsense. Like accusing someone of being a socialist for believing in government funded education like Texas A&M

---

I enjoy public parks. Therefore I'm a raging socialist.

Reparations should have been paid to slaves in the 1800s, considering we paid their ****ing OWNERS reparations instead. Today it makes little sense to do that considering there are no living survivors of slavery. But social programs are certainly a good thing considering the effects of slavery have lingered throughout the generations.

This has been an epic thread derailing.

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

Aggrad08 said:

---

Reparations can come in various forms, from direct large financial payments to slave descendants to programs to help poor black communities. Some even view affirmative action as reparations.

I think throwing the word around without a context is silly F16 nonsense. Like accusing someone of being a socialist for believing in government funded education like Texas A&M

---

Serotonin said:

I think Derm is probably just referring to the colloquial definition in today's political context which would be a large financial payment.

Ultimately if we deconstruct every phrase and concept we can't really say anything about anything because everything is fluid.

---

Macarthur said:

Disagree 1000%. That's what sorely lacking in our discourse right now. Thoughtful nuance. The fact that everything has be about an absolute on one end or the other is toxic.

---

Define irony.

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

The logic behind those decisions is in the text. That a person in 1868 can't see the full scope of the logic of their position does not mean we default to the understanding in 1868.

---

dermdoc said:

Disagree. Law is law. There is no "living" Constitution.

And you are basically agreeing with me that you only consider liberal interpretations?

Which is fine. I will admit my bias.

Will you do the same?

---

Fair enough, then we're in agreement. The Ten Commandments in public schools is on its face unconstitutional and there's no interpretation that makes it constitutionally acceptable.

Please quote the relevant portion you think supports this prima facie reading without invoking a "living constitution" philosophy.

Serotonin said:

---

I think Derm is probably just referring to the colloquial definition in today's political context which would be a large financial payment.

Ultimately if we deconstruct every phrase and concept we can't really say anything about anything because everything is fluid.

---

Sapper's description of the type of reparations he would support does not follow that definition. And this is why he explained it with more than one word. A 'yes' or 'no' would have been inadequate to define his position and would have lead to misunderstanding.

May I ask what reparations sapper supports?

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Reparations can come in various forms, from direct large financial payments to slave descendants to programs to help poor black communities. Some even view affirmative action as reparations.

I think throwing the word around without a context is silly F16 nonsense. Like accusing someone of being a socialist for believing in government funded education like Texas A&M

---

Serotonin said:

I think Derm is probably just referring to the colloquial definition in today's political context which would be a large financial payment.

Ultimately if we deconstruct every phrase and concept we can't really say anything about anything because everything is fluid.

---

What an oracle.

Thoughtful nuance batting .000 so far with definitive statements that are actionable. Some responses read like AI writing a pros and cons paper.

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Reparations can come in various forms, from direct large financial payments to slave descendants to programs to help poor black communities. Some even view affirmative action as reparations.

I think throwing the word around without a context is silly F16 nonsense. Like accusing someone of being a socialist for believing in government funded education like Texas A&M

---

Serotonin said:

I think Derm is probably just referring to the colloquial definition in today's political context which would be a large financial payment.

Ultimately if we deconstruct every phrase and concept we can't really say anything about anything because everything is fluid.

---

Exactly.

dermdoc said:

---

May I ask what reparations sapper supports?

---

You'd have to ask him for more details. But, from near the top of this page:

---

Quote:

---

dermdoc said:


Are you for reparations?

---

Quote:

Sapper said:

Depends. Sorry, mate, I'm not interested in sound bites. There can be a place for some kind of program to work past systemic racism where it still affects people. What that looks like is not something I'm equipped to answer right now. If you consider that reparations, then the answer is yes.

---

He expressed a willingness to support a program to help affected people. He was admittedly vague on details, but the point is that he did not come out in support of cutting a check to every person with a slave ancestor (which is the more common usage of the term 'reparations'.")

My point is that I don't see an issue with a non - 'yes' or 'no' answer.

Your response was to state that he was for reparations without any qualifier.

-----------

Its like if I asked you if killing was 'evil'. And then you responded by saying that it was evil, but that killing in self defense was not evil or killing animals for food was not evil. And then I responded with "Well, Dermdoc thinks killing is fine."

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

May I ask what reparations sapper supports?

---

You'd have to ask him for more details. But, from near the top of this page:

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

Quote:

---

dermdoc said:


Are you for reparations?

---

Quote:

Sapper said:

Depends. Sorry, mate, I'm not interested in sound bites. There can be a place for some kind of program to work past systemic racism where it still affects people. What that looks like is not something I'm equipped to answer right now. If you consider that reparations, then the answer is yes.

---

He expressed a willingness to support a program to help affected people. He was admittedly vague on details, but the point is that he did not come out in support of cutting a check to every person with a slave ancestor (which is the more common usage of the term 'reparations'.")

My point is that I don't see an issue with a non - 'yes' or 'no' answer.

Your response was to state that he was for reparations without any qualifier.

-----------

Its like if I asked you if killing was 'evil'. And then you responded by saying that it was evil, but that killing in self defense was not evil or killing animals for food was not evil. And then I responded with "Well, Dermdoc thinks killing is fine."

---

Forgive me but from what I have read from states like California and dem pols is they are in favor of cutting a check to every person of slave heritage.
Apologize that I did not read sapper's post thoroughly enough but I think when somebody says "reparations" it is implied to be a payment to every slave descendent.

And I am not a very "nuanced" thinker to be honest.

I do not like moral relativism and believe in absolute right and wrong on Biblical principles.

And want to emphasize I am not dissing moral relativists or more "nuanced" thinking.

Just not the way I am wired.

dermdoc said:

---

Forgive me but from what I have read from states like California and dem pols is they are in favor of cutting a check to every person of slave heritage.
Apologize that I did not read sapper's post thoroughly enough but I think when somebody says "reparations" it is implied to be a payment to every slave descendent.

And I am not a very "nuanced" thinker to be honest.

I do not like moral relativism and believe in absolute right and wrong on Biblical principles.

---

Moral relativism aside, I would think that even determining right and wrong on Biblical principles could be full of nuance. Keeping with my example of killing:

Murdering an innocent. . . . okay, pretty black and white. We can all think of a 'classic' murder where there isn't moral ambiguity.

What about killing a home intruder? Maybe justified. Is the intruder armed? What if the intruder is not armed or not believed to be armed and is looking to steal and not harm. Is killing still morally justified? Or what if they are running away?

And what about killing in war? I don't think I'm out of line suggesting that a lot of Christians believe that some wars or some killings in war are justified. But, fighting Hitler in WW2 might be less morally ambiguous than the war in Vietnam or Iraq. Do soldiers bare any weight of moral responsibility for 'following orders' in conflicts which were started for 'bad' reasons?

I mean all of those questions completely rhetorically. I really don't want to start a discussion on any of it. Rather, I'm only suggesting that even with a black & white - right and wrong view, nuance might still be relevant.

---

dermdoc said:

---

Forgive me but from what I have read from states like California and dem pols is they are in favor of cutting a check to every person of slave heritage.
Apologize that I did not read sapper's post thoroughly enough but I think when somebody says "reparations" it is implied to be a payment to every slave descendent.

And I am not a very "nuanced" thinker to be honest.

I do not like moral relativism and believe in absolute right and wrong on Biblical principles.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

Moral relativism aside, I would think that even determining right and wrong on Biblical principles could be full of nuance. Keeping with my example of killing:

Murdering an innocent. . . . okay, pretty black and white. We can all think of a 'classic' murder where there isn't moral ambiguity.

What about killing a home intruder? Maybe justified. Is the intruder armed? What if the intruder is not armed or not believed to be armed and is looking to steal and not harm. Is killing still morally justified? Or what if they are running away?

And what about killing in war? I don't think I'm out of line suggesting that a lot of Christians believe that some wars or some killings in war are justified. But, fighting Hitler in WW2 might be less morally ambiguous than the war in Vietnam or Iraq. Do soldiers bare any weight of moral responsibility for 'following orders' in conflicts which were started for 'bad' reasons?

I mean all of those questions completely rhetorically. I really don't want to start a discussion on any of it. Rather, I'm only suggesting that even with a black & white - right and wrong view, nuance might still be relevant.

---

Fair enough.

Macarthur said:

---

---

I am not evil or greedy. Sorry.