"What are you talking about? It’s not 1860 anymore. We were talking about today."
😅 What are *you* talking about? In this part of the comment tree you're and Chris were specifically talking about the law around freed black people in the north and south. I think we agree that this isn't relevant today.
"What are you talking about? It’s not 1860 anymore. We were talking about today."
😅 What are *you* talking about? In this part of the comment tree you're and Chris were specifically talking about the law around freed black people in the north and south. I think we agree that this isn't relevant today.
And where's the ad hominem? It does feel to me as if you're being wilfully disingenuous. That's not an attack on you as a person, it's my honest impression of your arguments.
It's as if I pointed out that the Bill of Rights proves that the founding fathers recognised that all men are created equal. So obviously black people and white people were treated equally. Context matters. The reality of how the law was enforced matters. So if I continued to pretend the Bill of Rights was proof of foundational equality in America, and you assumed I wasn't an idiot, all that's left is that I'm being disingenuous.
"I can’t manage you jumping into every conversation I am having."
This is the only comment of yours I've replied to other than those in our original conversation. Take a breath my friend, I'm not attacking you. I just think you're ignoring important context.
😅 I'm not asking you to. Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic here? It's literally two conversations. In fact, one conversation and a single reply somewhere else.
"What are you talking about? It’s not 1860 anymore. We were talking about today."
😅 What are *you* talking about? In this part of the comment tree you're and Chris were specifically talking about the law around freed black people in the north and south. I think we agree that this isn't relevant today.
And where's the ad hominem? It does feel to me as if you're being wilfully disingenuous. That's not an attack on you as a person, it's my honest impression of your arguments.
It's as if I pointed out that the Bill of Rights proves that the founding fathers recognised that all men are created equal. So obviously black people and white people were treated equally. Context matters. The reality of how the law was enforced matters. So if I continued to pretend the Bill of Rights was proof of foundational equality in America, and you assumed I wasn't an idiot, all that's left is that I'm being disingenuous.
"I can’t manage you jumping into every conversation I am having."
This is the only comment of yours I've replied to other than those in our original conversation. Take a breath my friend, I'm not attacking you. I just think you're ignoring important context.
😅 I'm not asking you to. Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic here? It's literally two conversations. In fact, one conversation and a single reply somewhere else.