Corrik is the guy who argued that slavery wasn't a bad thing because it used to be legal. He's completely incapable of understanding nuance, or decency for that matter.
Can someone pull out the previous topics and correctly prove that this quoted comment is untrue and of course (as always here) spun to try and debase the opposing sides argument through nonsense.
No, no one can do that, because you absolutely refused to say unambiguously that slavery was bad.
Exactly this. The discussion was about how slavery was morally wrong and under his "letter of the law" interpretation of the constitution, then slavery was fine because it was legal. When questioned on this, Corrik dodged the question entirely, specifically to avoid either saying something that undercut his stupid position (that slavery was morally wrong and shouldn't have been legal) or saying something that unequivocally made him look like a monster (that slavery was perfectly acceptable because it was written into law.)
It's like in that one topic where Smuffin was arguing that the rights of gay people are abnormal because they're such a small portion of the population, but when I pointed out that there are more gay people than Jews, he refused to call Jewish people "abnormal" by the same logic he used against gays. People like Corrik and Smuffin heavily imply shit, but don't actually say things outright so they can fall back on the "I didn't say that" defense and play the victims of "liberal slander".
There is nothing to imply. I outright stated Slavery was wrong and should have been ended. I also stated I was unsure of how that ever could have been accomplished in the United States without the civil war.
I, however, refused to state every single person who fought for the confederacy or lived in the South was a bad person. There was good and bad people in the South just as in the North.
Your comment is entirely false and has zero accuracy to my before stated comments. ---