Well many people find it important to know details about wars, like which side was the aggressor, was the war just, etc. I really don't see how that's difficult to understand.
There's a difference between understanding the details and actually picking a side/being sympathetic to the South. That's the part I'm difficulties with.
It's pretty clear from a libertarian perspective that the South had the right to secede, and therefore the war was unjust. Among libertarian scholars I've never even seen disagreement on this matter, it may exist, but I haven't seen it.
From that same perspective, the South must have been a very tyrannical nation. I don't see myself personally choosing sides in this conflict.
Abortion is a very significant part of the women's rights movement. And to think having your seedless watermelon labeled properly is more important than a woman's control over her own life and body is downright asinine. I'm sure you've talked to a lot of women about this issue.
Why should the government even be involved in this issue? Of course they shouldn't ban abortion, that should be up to the individual and their health care provider of choice. But why does the government need to fund abortion clinics? How is that their job and why can't abortion clinics be privately funded by those who use and support said services? Now before I say this I want to make it clear that I am not referring to women who have been abused...but... Why should someone like me pay for the termination of a potentially world changing human because they chose to practise unprotected sex and then "couldn't afford" the baby?
Do you think the GMO issue only results in watermelons being seedless? If you you are very mis informed. Take a look at this study on lab rats. GMO corn produced tumors in lab rats that would be equivelent to baseballs in humans. Baseball sized tumors. I think cancerous tumors caused by a catalyst that is present is almost every single piece of food on the shelf in your supermarket is far more of a concern than a petty abortion issue. http://commonground.ca/2012/10/gm-corn-proves-deadly-for-lab-rats/
I'm not going to get into a GMO debate here, suffice to say that yes I realize GMO goes beyond watermelons (I was using it as an example to show the absurdity of your comments) and that I probably know a bit more about the science of genetic modification than the average person. In reference to your lab rat study, I encourage you to read this article from Nature, one of if not the world's premiere scientific journal. You could learn something about digging into the science of a study rather than eating up the media's interpretation of it: http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-maize-study-faces-growing-scrutiny-1.11566
Even with the rats being prone to tumors, and a supposed small use of control rats and such, there was still a significant increase in the tumor production between the control and the variable groups. GMO and peoples health is far greater than any petty abortion issue.
Ignoring the means by which a conclusion is made only to support said conclusion because it falls in line with preconceived notions is the essence of intellectual dishonesty.