Thrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 20,295
- Reaction score
- 9,801
- Location
- Texas, Vegas, Colombia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
you must be, beings that you are arguing against meWho says that?
nope.. not arguing that at all... the law itself allowed for such things... but i wouldn't argue that all slaves ran away either..... many that didn't run, didn't get beat.Are you arguing slave owners didn't punish slaves who tried to run away?
not once have i argued that they weren't all that terrible... this is a lie you are putting out there... I have repeatedly said slavery is evil.. and I have even specifically that all slaveowners are evil....Again, this is the 4th page where you argue that they weren't all that terrible even though their entire position of slave owner is dependent on them instilling enough force and fear for the slaves to not run away.
I don't know that 6 people here in this thread agree that i am a slavery apologist or a slavery supporter.... if there are, then that makes at least 6 people that are wholly incorrect... and you, the guy who keeps spreading lies.6 posters have seen through your argument now. The writing is the wall my man. :shrug:
what have I been dishonest about... be specific.
you picked up the liars talking points about me and ran with it without hesitation... I didn't ask you to or give you reason to... you chose to.
I'll present arguments to those whom are deserving ( like CC, so far).. Hatuey has proven himself not to be deserving... you are well on your way.
Your claims to have a real argument, and your reasons for failing to present that argument. I don't think you have a real argument. I think you're posturing to cover up that fact.
Aww. Did I hurt your feelings? Man up and get over it. Better yet, prove me wrong.
And I'm increasingly convinced that you're telling yourself these things as a feeble attempt to justify your continued refusal to address my actual arguments.
But that's neither here nor there. This is getting tedious. I won't be responding to any further posturing from you.
I'm trying to think what is good about slavery. So far, I haven't been able to think of anything. There are only degrees of bad. I suppose a really good slave holder is one who buys slaves and then immediately sets them free, but I don't know that that has ever happened.
there ain't much good in slavery... nothing that comes remotely close to making up for slavery itself.
I don't think i've ever heard of anyone buying a slave and immediately setting them free.... i've heard that some would allow slaves to work for their freedom, but hell, they kept them as slaves nonetheless... that earns them a "badguy" label too...
on a side note, I hate that modern day slavery has a (nearly) blind eye pointed at it...the international sex slave business is paid lip service to by most... and that is just as egregious as the African slave trade.
That's like saying there are good serial killers... ones that don't torture their victims first, and bad ones. Just because some slave owners didn't treat their slaves horribly doesn't alter the fact that they owned SLAVES.
I disagree with that.It depends on who the serial killers victims are. If his victims were rapists and other murders then I would think people would consider him a good serial killer.
that would result in a slaveowner that beats, abuses, or kills his slaves being on the exact same level as a slaveowners that treated his slaves humanely or even "kindly"( educating them, not beating them, etc,etc.)
is not one worse than another?
I think it's a given that all slaveowners were bad/evil (given the fact that they engaged in slavery).... but i don't it's a given that all abused their slaves.
there were, infact, slaveowners that took on a paternalistic ideology concerning their slaves.. they took on a moral responsibility and treated them like their "children" ( this was rare though).. a great number looked at it from a businesslike point of view, in that they treated slaves like an investment... the labor cash cow
and then there was the abusers, also a great number.. who treated them with malicious cruelty.
the "businessman" probably didn't treat them as badly as the "abuser", but he was worse than the "father figure".... if that makes sense.
I don't think it's impossible to oppose slavery and still point out that not all slaveowners abused, beat, or killed their slaves.
I disagree with that.It depends on who the serial killers victims are. If his victims were rapists and other murders then I would think people would consider him a good serial killer.
Your talking about a manner of degree that really isn't relevant. Were there slaveowners that did NOT beat, abuse, or kill their slaves? I'm sure there were. In the grand scheme around the concept of slavery, does that matter? Not at all.
actually, i'm talking about a degree that is entirely relevant to the debate...
refer to the OP... the article basically says it is false that some slave owners did not beat, abuse , or kill their slaves...some folks pointed out that it is not a false statement.
..and were immediately labeled as slavery apologists/supporters by the usual suspects.
if this debate was over slavery in general.. the grand scheme of things,as it were.. i would agree... it's a rather irrelevant differentiation.
To me, the comments in the OP misrepresent slavery and infer that, in some cases, it wasn't so bad. I don't think making the differentiation between types of slaveowners serves any kind of purpose... or at least not one that I think is helpful. However, seems to me that, in accordance with your last sentence, we are basically in agreement.
without any context, i think it's unwise to make that inference.
i mean, we are talking about a solitary blurb taken from a textbook with absolutely no context.
( i think the article did this on purpose, as to encourage the inference.. but that might just be me )
I highly doubt the textbook casts slavery in a positive light or attempts to minimize it ... yet that is really the only inference that can be drawn from the single factoid being used to represent the textbook.
as for serving a purpose, i dunno.. i don't know the context of the chapter... it may have been titled " treatment of slaves" with multiple pages addressing the cruel treatment of slaves and this single blurb saying some didn't...who knows?.. we surely can't tell with the Mother Jones article.
I agree that context is important, but I really can't think of any context where the comment in the OP would not make that kind of inference. It minimizes.
It may not in the big picture, but even if this is just one comment, this one comment does minimize the negatives of slavery.
Perhaps. However, the statement certainly minimizes things. It states that the majority of slaveowners did not mistreat their slaves. I cannot see, regardless of what the Chapter title or focus might have been, how a statement that uses the word "majority" doesn't minimize the negative impact of slavery.
it's be nice if i could offer an argument here... but without the textbook, i'd just be pissin' in the wind throwing out guesses.
I don't know if it minimizes any aspect of slavery, or if it's just an aside... I don't have a clue without context... none of us do.
Well, then we can just chalk it up to a difference of opinion. I just don't see how in any reasonable context, that statement couldn't infer what I've stated.
i'm not arguing against your opinion.. hell, you may be entirely correct... i'm just saying I don't have enough information to base an opinion off of... " don't know" isn't an opinion.
hell, we don't even know if the quote is accurate or not... it might not even be in the textbook at all...or it might be under the chapter titled "Slavery: not as bad as we think it is"... I've been around too long to discount the possibility/probability of stupid **** being said or taught to kids.
I'm trying to think what is good about slavery. So far, I haven't been able to think of anything. There are only degrees of bad. I suppose a really good slave holder is one who buys slaves and then immediately sets them free, but I don't know that that has ever happened.
So your Niece is going to a Christian private school?
I know the answer for the following but it appears you don't, does the LA voucher program mandate attendence to religioius school?
My niece is currently living with my sister's husband's freaky Christian family. My sister and I are not talking right now so I don't know what school she is going to but I wouldn't be surprised if she were. She was in a Catholic private school when she was here (hated that brainwash camp, too, but at least I don't THINK they were teaching the kids that humans walked with dinosaurs).
You're being a douche for apparently no reason.
attendance*, by the way. I don't get how people can spell words incorrectly when it highlights the misspelled words for you.
And yes, I know the answer. But I think I already addressed your assumptions up there^.
A new reason to *headdesk*.
Now people want to debate whether slavery was unkind?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?