Based on "other" that turns out to be called "my report"? Come on.
It's called "my report" because it's my report on my investigation. I suggest you read it. You might be enlightened. You might even enjoy it. A lot of people have. To be fair, it doesn't go into this particular topic (yet).
You are not applying the fallacy correctly.
You were talking explicitly about abortion. That is not black or white. There is a great deal of debate on the topic, and that debate doesn't happenbecause people take such strong stances that there can't be any. The very idea that you state that "abortion is black or white" proves my point.
The constitution, the supreme law of the land (whether correctly observed or not), addresses "The People". Not "Some of the People". Not "Those People".
Wrong. See the 3/5ths compromise as I stated (you probably aren't really reading what I'm writing or you would have seen that).
"Those people" didn't count as real people. It was built into it, from the very beginning.
For another easy example, see the end of the fifth amendment. It states explicitly that those who run the government have more rights to your property than you do. That is an explicit statement that not all people have equal rights. Some have more rights than others. Pure and simple. You have to really dig in to see it, and people don't. They ignore it. Those are just two examples. There are many more.
The rest of your argument falls apart, even worse, as it builds on your base misunderstanding.
You not seeing or knowing things is not "my misunderstanding".
Your entire argument is based on what is told to us in "History." It doesn't address what is left out, which is found when digging into the primary evidence that ISN'T included in official history. "Official history," or even subsequent scholarship doesn't look at who funded the effort. It doesn't look at how these entities that funded it create their conditional loans, nor at the conditions themselves. It doesn't look at who writes the propaganda that leads people to make all the decisions you are claiming were "the real motive." Everything you are talking about is what's on the surface. These are all the things they want you to believe. The evidence you allow yourself to look at creates an organic narrative, exactly as intended. Nothing is organic. Nothing. I suggest you can appreciate the real motive if you look at who created the propaganda and put out the loans, what they state was the intent.
If you look at MY REPORT, these systems will be elaborated. You can perhaps come to an appreciation of how not organic things really are. Again, I don't get to the Civil War yet, but it is sufficient to help you appreciate how society and history is manipulated.
It's called "my report" because it's my report on my investigation. I suggest you read it. You might be enlightened. You might even enjoy it. A lot of people have. To be fair, it doesn't go into this particular topic (yet).
You were talking explicitly about abortion. That is not black or white. There is a great deal of debate on the topic, and that debate doesn't happen because people take such strong stances that there can't be any. The very idea that you state that "abortion is black or white" proves my point.
Wrong. See the 3/5ths compromise as I stated (you probably aren't really reading what I'm writing or you would have seen that).
"Those people" didn't count as real people. It was built into it, from the very beginning.
For another easy example, see the end of the fifth amendment. It states explicitly that those who run the government have more rights to your property than you do. That is an explicit statement that not all people have equal rights. Some have more rights than others. Pure and simple. You have to really dig in to see it, and people don't. They ignore it. Those are just two examples. There are many more.
You not seeing or knowing things is not "my misunderstanding".
Your entire argument is based on what is told to us in "History." It doesn't address what is left out, which is found when digging into the primary evidence that ISN'T included in official history. "Official history," or even subsequent scholarship doesn't look at who funded the effort. It doesn't look at how these entities that funded it create their conditional loans, nor at the conditions themselves. It doesn't look at who writes the propaganda that leads people to make all the decisions you are claiming were "the real motive." Everything you are talking about is what's on the surface. These are all the things they want you to believe. The evidence you allow yourself to look at creates an organic narrative, exactly as intended. Nothing is organic. Nothing. I suggest you can appreciate the real motive if you look at who created the propaganda and put out the loans, what they state was the intent.
If you look at MY REPORT, these systems will be elaborated. You can perhaps come to an appreciation of how not organic things really are. Again, I don't get to the Civil War yet, but it is sufficient to help you appreciate how society and history is manipulated.