Slave owners [Archive] - SciForums.com

Fraggle Rocker

04-17-04, 11:52 PM

Some of the founding fathers were slave owners. I am ashamed to live in a country where the founders owned slaves and you all should be too!Can you name a country whose founders were not guilty of some despicable misdeed?

England. As the Roman Empire began to collapse and lose power over its colonies, the Angles and the Saxons sailed over from what is now Germany to seize prosperous, civilized, suddenly unprotected Britannia. But they didn't just take over the Romans' role as governors. They actually ran the Celtic Britons out of their own country, took over their homes, and turned it into "Angle Land."

Mexico. It's hard to decide who was worse. The conquistadores who burned the Aztec libraries and virtually obliterated one of the indigenous civilizations in the Americas -- or the Aztecs themselves, who delighted in human sacrifice.

Sweden. The exploits of the Vikings are legendary.

Israel. According to their own holy book the ancient Jews were such evil sinners that God has never stopped punishing their descendants.

There is not one person on Earth who does not have a few ancestors who were unforgiveably wicked. There is no spot of land on this Earth where something unspeakably evil has not been committed. There is no nation, church, or other human institution whose history is not sullied with shameful acts which, if brought to light, would demand that it be cast out of the circle of civilized humanity.

In other words, if we all are required to repent the sins of our forebears, we're going to be so busy repenting that we won't be able to get anything else done.

What matters is how we live, what we accomplish with what we've inherited. Can we let our lives be guided by such overwhelming pride, wisdom, love, and compassion, that those who suffered at the hands of our ancestors could look us in the eye and say, "You are good people. We cannot in conscience hold you responsible for things that were done before you were born. Go forth with your heads held high. You cannot change the past, but you can build a better future. No one needs to beg forgiveness for things they did not do, but they can earn praise for the things they do themselves."

Do not grieve for the past, my dear friend, but by all means learn its lessons. The future needs your attention and it is there that you will acquit yourself.

Spyke

04-18-04, 12:26 AM

Of course nobody's perfect.

But that was the point. Nobody's perfect. We all have baggage.

lixluke

04-19-04, 05:41 PM

The point is the degree of baggage as well as the overall intentions and methods.

Spyke

04-19-04, 10:51 PM

So where on the scale is that random point where we decide the baggage is simply too heavy and outweighs what are the admirable qualities in men?

invert_nexus

04-19-04, 11:04 PM

ah, but is it random or delta-epsilon relationship?

lixluke

04-19-04, 11:44 PM

There is no exact point on any scale.
You as an individual admire whoever it is you find admirable though you may like it or not.
How you find somebody admirable is by recognizing their characteristics, good and bad. The degree of baggage as well as the overall intentions and methods.

A person that saves a person's life while drowning, then turns around, and whips the slave.
Some might find that admirable.
Some might not.

A person that molests children. Then turns around, and admits he has been hurting others, and will dedicate his life to educating others about it.
Some might find that admirable.
Some might not.

lixluke

04-19-04, 11:51 PM

RonVolk: "people can do things that are bad and still be admirable."
cool skill: "I wouldn't consider people that own slaves or do other things to hurt others too admirable."

Perhaps RonVolk does.
That was the topic we were dicussing correct?

What you seem to be doing Spyke, is giving examples that are not part of the topic.
Sure, just as he said" "people can do things that are bad and still be admirable." - If we are speaking in general out of the bounds of this thread.

But when it comes to the topic of this thread which is slavery, "people can do things that are bad and still be admirable." as in people can beat their slaves, and do other political, scientific, and progressive deeds.

Despite that, I wouldn't admire them because of they hurt other people.

Spyke

04-20-04, 11:12 AM

There is no exact point on any scale.
You as an individual admire whoever it is you find admirable though you may like it or not.

I agree with that, and would say that was my point with the 'random point on the scale' comment. We each find our own point. That's why it's random.

What you seem to be doing Spyke, is giving examples that are not part of the topic.
Sure, just as he said" "people can do things that are bad and still be admirable." - If we are speaking in general out of the bounds of this thread.

Well, I didn't realize we had to keep it focused solely on slave ownership when discussing flawed character, but ok, we'll keep it confined.

But when it comes to the topic of this thread which is slavery, "people can do things that are bad and still be admirable." as in people can beat their slaves, and do other political, scientific, and progressive deeds.

Despite that, I wouldn't admire them because of they hurt other people.

Which is your right. For my part, while I recognize the flaws and weaknesses of the 3 Virginians as slaveowners, I can also admire their courage and commitment in first taking the steps to rebel against the mother country, and second, in their dedication to building the republic. It's simply a matter of separating their personal lives from their public ones in judging their character.

Xev

04-20-04, 11:51 AM

Spyke:
It's simply a matter of separating their personal lives from their public ones in judging their character.

How is slavery a matter of one's "personal life"? It's an economic decision, not a matter of personal preference.

What matters is how we live, what we accomplish with what we've inherited. Can we let our lives be guided by such overwhelming pride, wisdom, love, and compassion, that those who suffered at the hands of our ancestors could look us in the eye and say, "You are good people. We cannot in conscience hold you responsible for things that were done before you were born. Go forth with your heads held high. You cannot change the past, but you can build a better future. No one needs to beg forgiveness for things they did not do, but they can earn praise for the things they do themselves."

Bourgouis sentimentality.
Slavery has existed since man's incept and will exist so long as we can coerce others to labor on our behalf.

The "I'm ashamed!" posturing is pathetic. Be ashamed of your democracy - the Greeks were a slaveholding people. Be ashamed of your cartography - the Vikings were as well. Our entire civilization is founded on oppression.

Furthermore, it's ridiculous to see such sentiment from people who are, in every liklihood, wearing the products of child slavery. The labor that goes into making your Nikes is likely just as heinous as that which eighteenth century slaves endured.

lixluke

04-20-04, 12:41 PM

I can also admire their courage and commitment in first taking the steps to rebel against the mother country, and second, in their dedication to building the republic. It's simply a matter of separating their personal lives from their public ones in judging their character.
Screw them. There is no seperating personal and public lives in that sense.

What you do to yourself in your own privacy that nobody knows about, and doesn't hurt others is 'personal'.

What you do to other people with chains and whips is 'not personal'.

Sure they overcame great odds in order to declare free themselves from British rule, but that doesn' mean that they are not a bunch of sick nutcases that would put humans in shackles to do their labor.

jinchilla

04-20-04, 12:44 PM

What you do to other people with chains and whips is 'not personal'.

It was considered personal. Was. Slaves were considered personal property.

Now it has to be consensual.

Xev

04-20-04, 12:54 PM

"It was considered personal. Was. Slaves were considered personal property."

Kidnapping hundreds of thousands of people over a several hundred year period and exploiting them for a labor product worth billions is quite far from personal, if for no reason other than the sheer scale involved.

jinchilla

04-20-04, 01:01 PM

I thought we were keeping this in context of slave ownership in regards to "our founding fathers".

jinchilla

04-20-04, 01:03 PM

I was unaware of any individual "Kidnapping hundreds of thousands of people over a several hundred year period and exploiting them for a labor product worth billions..."

Xev

04-20-04, 01:08 PM

No, it's called the "peculiar institution" for a reason. Everyone, from governments to business owners, was involved in slavery (in this context, the exploitation of Africans)

A person who participates in such an action is not acting privately, they are acting collectively.

jinchilla

04-20-04, 01:20 PM

My point was perceptions were different then.

Kinda curious. Have you ever lived in the south?

lixluke

04-20-04, 02:09 PM

It was considered personal. Was. Slaves were considered personal property.
Are you insane?
Considered by whom?
The slaves?

perceptions were different then.

Who's perceptions?
The slave driver's?
Of course, the profited off of those perceptions.

Thersites

04-20-04, 02:44 PM

It'r worth remembering that it's only a few hundred years- a very short time historically speaking- since slavery was not accepted in every society.

jinchilla

04-20-04, 03:20 PM

I am insane but, that's another matter. :bugeye:

The perceptions of those refered to in the initial post of this thread is what i was "talking" about. You own your pets? Talk to PETA. You coexist with them and are responsible for their dependency.

I'm not saying slavery was "right" by my definition. Jesus, you people take observations as if they were firmly held personal beliefs.

Oh, hell. There's no point in not declaring slavery is right! You can't refute it. You can argue all day long based on your personal convictions though.

spidergoat

04-20-04, 03:31 PM

The Europeans are just as responsible for slavery as the founding fathers, after all, it was their insatiable desire for sugar that fueled the slave trade.

lixluke

04-20-04, 03:57 PM

You own your pets? Talk to PETA. You coexist with them and are responsible for their dependency.
Are you comparing house hold animals to humans as pets?

Why so fixed on the perceptions of the slave traders.
Not that I don't think everybody's perception should count no matter what you do.
I just find you are fusing to the very biased perception of these people into your statement like it was normal for everybody back then to think that way.

jinchilla

04-20-04, 04:29 PM

I compared pets to humans as an example of another perception that some currently hold.

Again, I was only referring to the perceptions of those that the poster of this thread mentioned.

It was apparently normal for many back then. That's my point. Seperate from our modern views.

Getting to the shame appealing to guilt. I don't feel guilty therefore, I don't feel shame. And I'm not going to express outrage as if I learned all this yesterday.

That seemed to be the poster's point. So... do you (in the US) feel shame for the slave trade building this nation (southern agriculture really)?

guthrie

04-20-04, 04:32 PM

"The Europeans are just as responsible for slavery as the founding fathers, after all, it was their insatiable desire for sugar that fueled the slave trade. "

Indeed. The triangular trade. Manufactured goods and guns and stuff to Africa, slaves to the USA, sugar to Europe. Profit on every leg. Very lucrative. I could tell you more but cant find a book I have that talks about this.

spidergoat

04-20-04, 04:54 PM

From "Food of the Gods" by Terence McKenna,

"Another example that's interesting, that shows how blinded and unaware we are of how drugs have shaped our society...We all know that slavery ended in the United States in the Civil War. And most people, if you question them, think that slavery existed before the Civil War in many places back into ancient times. This is not true at all. Slavery died in Western civilization with the collapse of the Roman empire. During the Dark Ages and the medieval period, if you owned a slave, you owned *one* slave. It was the equivalent of owning a Ferrari or a Lamborghini. It was an index of immense wealth, and social status, and that slave would be a houseboy, or a cook or something like that, someone close in to you, taking care of you. It was inconceivable to use slave labor in the production of an agricultural product, until Europe acquired an insatiable desire for sugar.

Now, let's think about sugar for a moment. Nobody needs sugar. You can go from birth to the grave without ever having a teaspoon full of white sugar. You will never miss it. Throughout the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, sugar was a drug, a medicine. It was used to pack wounds, to keep wounds septic. And it was very expensive and there was very little of it. Nobody even knew where it came from. It was called cane honey, because they knew it came from some kind of jointed grass, but nobody had a clear picture of what sugar was.

Well, when you extract sugar from sugar cane, it requires, in pre-modern technology, a temperature of about 130 degrees. You cannot -- free men will not work sugar. It's too unpleasant. You faint, you die from heat prostration. You have to take prisoners and you have to chain them to the sugar vats. And so, before the discovery of America, in the fifty years before the discovery of America, they began growing sugar cane in the east Atlantic islands, Medeira and the Canary Islands. And they brought Africans, and sold them into slavery specifically for sugar production.

Now when we get American history, they tell you that slaves were used to produce cotton and tobacco. In fact, this is not quite the truth. They had to find things for slaves to do, because they brought so many slaves to the New World to work sugar, and they had so many children, that then they just expanded and said, 'Well, we've used slaves to work sugar, we might as well use them in cotton and tobacco production.' In 1800, every ounce of sugar entering England was being produced by slave labor of the most brutal and demeaning sort. And there was very little protest over this. It was just accepted. To this day, sugar cultivation in the third world is a kind of institutionalized slavery. Christian, you know, the Popes, the kinds of Europe, all of Christian civilization acquiesced in the bringing back of a practice that had been discredited during the fall of Rome, in order to supply the insatiable need for sugar. It was an addiction. It had no cultural defense whatsoever. "

Spyke

04-20-04, 05:37 PM

Xev
How is slavery a matter of one's "personal life"? It's an economic decision, not a matter of personal preference.

Semantics. In this sense, referring to 'public' life is referring to politics, which is the same way they referred to politics. I'm separating what they did in their political lives from their personal lives on their plantations.

coolskill
Screw them. There is no seperating personal and public lives in that sense.

Sure there is. I've already done it.

What you do to yourself in your own privacy that nobody knows about, and doesn't hurt others is 'personal'.

What you do to other people with chains and whips is 'not personal'.

Pointless argument. I merely separated their public/political lives from their personal/plantation lives.

Sure they overcame great odds in order to declare free themselves from British rule, but that doesn' mean that they are not a bunch of sick nutcases that would put humans in shackles to do their labor.

I can separate the twain in judging them. You can't. Not my problem.

RonVolk

04-20-04, 06:04 PM

Wrong.
I said people that "do[]things to hurt others" are not so admirable.
Not people that do things to help others.
Asshole.

When a person is born they hurt their mother, so by your logic no one is admirable. If you really wanted to be guilt free you should of strangled yourself with your umbilical cord in the womb.

Asshole.

Perhaps RonVolk does.

When you insult you make everyone think your smart.

lixluke

04-20-04, 08:58 PM

When a person is born they hurt their mother, so by your logic no one is admirable.
That's the dumbest argument ever.
Since when does being born mean intentionally hurting your mother?
That's has so little to do with a person that hurts others.

I was saying that a person that hurts others is not admirable.
You are telling me that because babies hurt their mother when they are born, nobody is admirable.
That's the dumbest thing on the planet.

The baby doesn't even hurt their mother. WTF?
It's the labor pain during delivery that hurts.
Even so, you're too much of a moron to see the difference between a baby with no intention of hurting thier mother and a slave owner intentionally causing humans beings to suffer.

"I merely separated their public/political lives from their personal/plantation lives."
Why would you even want to separate something like that?
Somebody is politically helping the nation become free, and at the same time hurting others.
What's to admire about that?
You admire the so-called "courage and commitment" of these idiots.
I guess you might also find a ton of things to admire about Hitler as well.

"I compared pets to humans as an example of another perception that some currently hold."
You argued that slaves were considered personal property, and that this was normal.

Then you compare slavery to pets, and PETA's views.
You were saying that it is normal for people to own pets.
In the same way, it used to be just as normal for people to own slaves.
Therefore, you seem to think that being that it was personal, it has no relevance when considering a person's public/political achievements.

Which is not the case because slavery was never normal in that sense.
Not for anybody. They knew before they started doing it that it was wrong.
But they would do it anyway, just as they would take another persons life.
All for the sake of profit.

Take the United States president, GW Bush.
Human life means nothing to him.
That's why he can go about promoting his charades of war.
Because it means nothing to him.
Do you really think his attitudes are 'normal' in the modern era?
Either way, those attitudes are controling the country right now.

jinchilla

04-20-04, 09:22 PM

OK, cool. You just told me what I was doing and what I meant. My view is really not so different from yours and you'd see that if you weren't looking for reasons to say I'm simply wrong. I do give up now.

lixluke

04-20-04, 09:34 PM

Thanks. And I wasn't telling you what you meant. You were telling us what you meant. I was just trying to make sense out of the jumbled points you were throwing in.

jinchilla

04-20-04, 09:42 PM

I was entertaining thoughts that weren't mine. Attempting anyway. To tell you the truth, I gave your's some weight and expected reciprocity. Too much to ask. Thanks anyway. Goodbye.

lixluke

04-20-04, 10:59 PM

I was entertaining thoughts that weren't mine. Attempting anyway.
How so? Try making some sense.
Bye!!!!

Fraggle Rocker

04-21-04, 12:55 AM

That's the dumbest argument ever. You were saying that it is normal for people to own pets. In the same way, it used to be just as normal for people to own slaves. Which is not the case because slavery was never normal in that sense. Not for anybody. They knew before they started doing it that it was wrong.I don't think you're right on that. Even the Bible treats slavery as if it's just a matter of fact that can be discussed without controversy. The Old Testament is full of rules on the business of slaveholding.

Wars used to be much nastier than they are today. OK they didn't have nuclear weapons but when one country beat the other, it was considered proper to take all their people as slaves. And that was perfectly fair in the sense that both sides fought by the same rules. You can bet that if the other country won, they would just as happily take the citizens of the other side as slaves. Or at least it would be fair if the majority of the citizens who were actually being wagered for slavery had a vote in it.

There was also the practice of the "civilized" nations (and I have to use the word literally, implying nothing more than "having already built cities") using their Bronze-Age technology to go out into the boondocks and capture the "uncivilized" people (literally, "not yet having built cities"). The people who had advanced into the Era of Civilization looked down on the ones who had not. They considered this their right; the natural order; their gift from their gods.

So no, I don't think that the average slave owner or would-be slave owner really "knew" that it was wrong. Philosophy and ethics simply had not evolved to that level yet. You get to be called "civilized" just by figuring out how to build and live in cities. It doesn't imply anything about your morals.

In America, where slavery was based upon racism, I am absolutely certain that those Southern plantation owners genuinely believed that they had a god-given right to enslave the Africans, who they genuinely believed to be inferior.

And I hasten to add that I'm not in the least suggesting that there was not some evil at work here. But it was not the evil of dishonor -- of doing something that one knows is wrong out of weakness or greed. It was a far worse evil: the evil of the Abrahamic religions. Most of those Southern planters were hard-core Christians. Their religious leaders assured them that the Africans were indeed inferior people and that therefore it was right and proper to keep them as slaves. The people who were managing the slave trade at the African end were Muslims. (I can't vouch for them being hard-core Muslims, but they definitely were not Bahais or Zorastrians.) And the teachings of their faith led them to the same conclusion: Africans are inferior and it's right and proper to enslave them.

Abe Lincoln himself went on record as agreeing that the African people were inferior to the people of European ancestry. Yet he did not believe that this entitled the latter to enslave the former. Abe Lincoln was dead wrong, possibly even stupid considering that he was what passed for a man of learning in his day, and in fact today he would most surely be called a racist pig. Yet he did not believe in slavery because his religious beliefs did not go so far as to teach that it's ok to enslave people who are inferior to yourself. He even decided it was time to free the slaves. Admittedly this revelation came rather late in his life and was motivated by pure politics, yet here we have an example of political motivation leading to a good deed whereas motivation based on the teachings of the disciples of Abraham led to a bad deed.

I have to be fair and not beat up on the Abrahamists too bad. The Quakers were always outspoken opponents of slavery and according to anecdotal accounts many of them took great personal risk to try to improve the lot of the slaves and/or sneak them across the Mason-Dixon line into one of the free states.

I'm rambling. My point is that no, people did not "know" that slavery was wrong. Quite the contrary. Because of their religious beliefs, which were all Abrahamist, they "knew" that slavery was OK.

Beat up on the religious leaders, not their disciples. Humans are pack animals like gorillas and chimpanzees. It is in our nature to follow our leaders. So it is the leaders upon whom our wrath must be focused, if it is to have any practical effect.

Spyke

04-21-04, 10:03 AM

"I merely separated their public/political lives from their personal/plantation lives."
Why would you even want to separate something like that?

Because it separating the personal from the public helps to evaluate their places in history. I evaluate one separate from the other. I find the public lives of these men admirable, while examining their personal lives reminds me that they were indeed human.

Somebody is politically helping the nation become free, and at the same time hurting others.
What's to admire about that?

What's to admire about it? This... "Somebody is politically helping the nation become free ...is what I admire about that.

You admire the so-called "courage and commitment" of these idiots.
I guess you might also find a ton of things to admire about Hitler as well.

*Sigh* Strawman. And to paraphrase you, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

lixluke

04-21-04, 11:42 AM

"Strawman."
How so?
You can find these people admirable for doing something good.
Despite all the bad that they do that completely outweighs the good.
I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find good things that Hitler has done that wasn't in self interest.
Sure the bad that he does completely outweighs the good.
But regardless, just like the forefathers, is it not like you might find him admirable as well?

You separating the public achievements with private horrors, is little different, than saying: Let's overlook tha bad they did, and admire them because of the good they did. Screw that.

lixluke

04-21-04, 11:56 AM

Fraggle Rocker,

First of all, why are you misquoting me.

Second of all, your argument seems to run as if I said that slavery was never normal period.

spidergoat

04-21-04, 01:06 PM

In America, where slavery was based upon racism, I am absolutely certain that those Southern plantation owners genuinely believed that they had a god-given right to enslave the Africans, who they genuinely believed to be inferior.

Slavery was based on money, not racism. Racism was a way to justify this practice, and assuage their guilt.

lixluke

04-21-04, 02:59 PM

Right.
They even so far as rationalized, and distorted the interpretation of certain verses in the bible.
They rationalize that the verses mean that those people are animals/beasts, and therefor not human. Therefore, it is ok to enslave them.

Spyke

04-21-04, 03:31 PM

"Strawman."
How so?

Because you picked out one of the most notorious mass murders in history and asserted that because I can admire a George Washington or a Thomas Jefferson as nationbuilders and revolutionaries, that I must also naturally admire an Adof Hitler. That's a silly assertion. Not to mention the fact that when I used Martin Luther King, Jr. as an analogy of a flawed character that we still can admire, you complained..."What you seem to be doing Spyke, is giving examples that are not part of the topic." So if you expect everyone else to stick to topic, do so yourself. Hitler has nothing to do with the slavery issue.

You can find these people admirable for doing something good.
Despite all the bad that they do that completely outweighs the good.
I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find good things that Hitler has done that wasn't in self interest.
Sure the bad that he does completely outweighs the good.

I'm sure Hitler did some good things too. Hell, crime was virtually non-existent in Germany. And thanks to his idea of the Autobahn we have a nice Interstate system. But obviously those minimal goods don't outweigh the evils. And to suggest that the Founding Fathers were on a similar level is ludicrous. The way I see it, they were slaveowners, and that makes them flawed, but that's not the reason I admire them.

But regardless, just like the forefathers, is it not like you might find him admirable as well?

Gonna stick with the irrelevant, huh?

You separating the public achievements with private horrors, is little different, than saying: Let's overlook tha bad they did, and admire them because of the good they did.

Ridiculous. I've as yet to say that I overlook the bad they did. What I did say is that I can separate the two and admire them for what they did publically. If you can't grasp that, that's your own limitations.

Screw that.

Do whatever. It's all relative.

lixluke

04-21-04, 07:41 PM

Spyke

04-21-04, 10:50 PM

Because you picked out one of the most notorious mass murders in history and asserted that because I can admire a George Washington or a Thomas Jefferson as nationbuilders and revolutionaries, that I must also naturally admire an Adof Hitler.
That's a silly assertion.

Of course not. It's obvious from your previous post mentioning all of Hitler's supposed contributions.

'All' of Hitler's contributions? All two of them I mentioned, which I noted were minimal, but even then only mentioned after you said..."I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find good things that Hitler has done that wasn't in self interest"... so maybe I should question why you were thinking Hitler did some good things.

I am simply comparing one monster to another. -> Me saying 'monster' here might be considered straw man.

I wouldn't call it a strawman, but I would call it absurd attempting to compare Hitler, a man who tried to conquer the world and commit genocide on a race with Washington, a Virginia slaveowner. I'd say that's far more extreme than comparing a Virginia slaveowner to a plagiarizer and adulterer such as MLK, Jr., who you didn't want in the thread.

Sure the bad that he does completely outweighs the good.
But regardless, just like the forefathers, is it not like you might find him admirable as well?

Well, since I never once said I admired him, I'd say no, I never indicated I find him admirable, that it was merely another weak misdirection attempt on your part.

You separating the public achievements with private horrors, is little different, than saying: Let's overlook tha bad they did, and admire them because of the good they did. Screw that.

Again, it's you who is attempting to say that I'm saying that. I didn't say I overlook that they were slaveowners. I said that I recognize their flaws, but in spite of, still find their nationbuilding skills admirable. You're doing nothing but trying to argue something I've never implied.

"when I used Martin Luther King, Jr. as an analogy of a flawed character that we still can admire, you complained"
Very funny.
I was referring to the statement Ron made that "people can do things that are bad and still be admirable."
I said that was wrong.
Then you spoke of MLK. MLK was not included in the "people" that I was talking about when I said that statement was wrong.
As you know I was referring to the slave drivers we were discussing here.

I don't give a rat's ass what you said to Ron Volk. I know what we were discussing here. It's only relevant what you said to me..."What you seem to be doing Spyke, is giving examples that are not part of the topic"... which implied that using MLK, Jr. had no relationship to the topic of slaveowners. And neither does Hitler.

"Hell, crime was virtually non-existent in Germany."
Well since you legalize murdering jews and minorities, I guess so.
I guess crime was non-existent despite all the murder that was going on because nobody was really breaking the law.

Irrelevant.

"And to suggest that the Founding Fathers were on a similar level is ludicrous."
How were they not on the same level? How could you even think that they were any different from Hitler?

Let's see, on one hand we have 3 men who owned slaves, and while slavery itself was morally wrong, there is no record of them abusing or torturing their slaves, and on the other hand we have a man who ordered the genocide of millions of people and tried to conquer half the world, and you think there is no difference. :rolleyes:

And remember, it was you who said in an earlier post...

"You as an individual admire whoever it is you find admirable though you may like it or not...
A person that saves a person's life while drowning, then turns around, and whips the slave.
Some might find that admirable.
Some might not.

Each individual has their own random point.

They owned slaves. They manipulated their own screwed heads, and people into thinking this was OK.

You're simply making shit up as you go, because you really know little about it. They didn't manipulate anybody. Slavery existed in the Americas before they were born. They were simply born into a society that both practiced and accepted slavery. They didn't try to convince anybody it was ok during the framing of the constitution. They were under pressure from other southerners, particularly slavowners from South Carolina and Georgia, that those states wouldn't ratify the Constitution if the prohibition of slavery was included. It was a choice between creating a federal government and the continued existance of slavery in the southern states.

It's not OK to eradicate a race, but it is enslaving human beings isn't as bad?

Umm, again, nobody said slavery wasn't bad, but it's certainly not as bad as committing genocide.

"I've as yet to say that I overlook the bad they did."
That's what it sure seems like. When you say lets separate them, it's like saying:
"Well folks, despite the human torture they commited, we will focus on their good qualities that make them admirable people instead of sick losers."

It is what I said it is. You're last quote..."Well folks, despite the human torture they commited, we will focus on their good qualities that make them admirable people instead of sick losers"... is just that. Your quote. Not mine. You're also now calling them torturers. Show some evidence that any of the 3 Virginia Founders tortured their slaves.

lixluke

04-22-04, 11:11 AM

"so maybe I should question why you were thinking Hitler did some good things."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because not everybody is exempt from doing something for others.
That doesn't mean I'm going to admire it all.
Why would you admire one psychopath and not another?

"I would call it absurd attempting to compare Hitler, a man who tried to conquer the world and commit genocide on a race with Washington, a Virginia slaveowner. I'd say that's far more extreme than comparing a Virginia slaveowner to a plagiarizer and adulterer such as MLK, Jr., who you didn't want in the thread."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of bull.
Hitler and these other founders are the same thing. They have no respect for human life, and torture humans.

"that it was merely another weak misdirection attempt on your part."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't attempting anything.
You were the one that was sitting there acting like he mad all these oh so wonderful contributions to the highways and legalizing murder.
You act like you want to marry him.

"You're doing nothing but trying to argue something I've never implied."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I was arguing duh.
cool skill: "Well folks, despite the human torture they commited, we will focus on their good qualities that make them admirable people instead of sick losers."
Spyke: "I said that I recognize their flaws, but in spite of, still find their nationbuilding skills admirable."
What's the big diff?

"I don't give a rat's ass what you said to Ron Volk."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you very well should give somebody's ass.
You were the one that jumped in about what I was saying to Ron.

"which implied that using MLK, Jr. had no relationship to the topic of slaveowners."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not what it implied. I was talking to Ron. You brought up MLK which was not part of the what I was referring to when I was talking to Ron.
I was referring to the slave owners that are the topic.

"And neither does Hitler."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh puh-leeeez.
Hitler and the slave owners have very little difference. They are all the same.
People that have no respect for human life or right's.

"Irrelevant."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. Therefore we should congratulate Germany's low crime rate because the death toll is irrelevant.

"while slavery itself was morally wrong, there is no record of them abusing or torturing their slaves"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me for assuming that they didn't give the slaves a nice vacation house where they can relax at and sip tea all day.
And good clothes, education, and living conditions.
I could have swore the slave owners bought them to make them do their labor.
There is no proof that they didn't give the slaves the torture chamber. Who cares?
They gave them menial living conditions, shackles, beat them when necessary, subjected them to the most dangerous labor.
And you say there is no proof of torture and abuse? What complete ignorance.

"A person that saves a person's life while drowning, then turns around, and whips the slave.
Some might find that admirable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Each individual has their own random point."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No kidding. Point?
Your point was that having slaves in bondage doing labor is a small thing compared to the great things these people accomplished.
Are you trying to point out that this is your random point.
A point influenced by the fact that treating slaves as such to do your work for them is not torture and abuse?
Therefore, it is not as bad as Hitler?
I hope you never have to go through the things the slaves went through before you realize what horrible torture it is.

"You're simply making shit up as you go"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes they were born into a society that practiced, and accepted it, but they became powerful, and knew all the intricacies behind keeping it acceptable.
Instead of fighting it, they continued to manipulate and torture. They didn't give a crap. Sure they were brought up not to give a crap.
That doesn't mean they didn't know what they were doing.

"It was a choice between creating a federal government and the continued existance of slavery in the southern states."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the hell. How you figure it was a choice?
You are trying to presume that they could not have made a free government unless they kept slavery going.
Bull shit. More of a reason not to admire those morons.

"Your quote. Not mine."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It might as well have been your quote.
As I depicted earlier, you pretty much said the same thing.

Spyke

04-22-04, 02:29 PM

"so maybe I should question why you were thinking Hitler did some good things."
Because not everybody is exempt from doing something for others.
That doesn't mean I'm going to admire it all.
Why would you admire one psychopath and not another?

I don't remember saying I admired any psychopath. Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word before tossing it around in arguments.

"I would call it absurd attempting to compare Hitler, a man who tried to conquer the world and commit genocide on a race with Washington, a Virginia slaveowner. I'd say that's far more extreme than comparing a Virginia slaveowner to a plagiarizer and adulterer such as MLK, Jr., who you didn't want in the thread."
What a load of bull.
Hitler and these other founders are the same thing. They have no respect for human life, and torture humans.

No one with any sense would compare a George Washington to an Adolf Hitler. And show me some evidence that any of the founding fathers we're talking about tortured their slaves.

"that it was merely another weak misdirection attempt on your part."
I wasn't attempting anything.
You were the one that was sitting there acting like he mad all these oh so wonderful contributions to the highways and legalizing murder.

Those are yor words, not mine. You are the one that brought Hitler up and said he must have made some good contributions, so I pointed out two minor things he could be credited with, so quit the silly embellishments. It just makes you look even more foolish.

You act like you want to marry him.

Yeah, that's telling me. Real effective.:rolleyes:

"You're doing nothing but trying to argue something I've never implied."
That's what I was arguing duh.
cool skill: "Well folks, despite the human torture they commited, we will focus on their good qualities that make them admirable people instead of sick losers."
Spyke: "I said that I recognize their flaws, but in spite of, still find their nationbuilding skills admirable."
What's the big diff?

Well, first of all, one big difference is the way you arranged our quotes above is not the way it actually was. This is the way it really was. You said...
You separating the public achievements with private horrors, is little different, than saying: Let's overlook tha bad they did, and admire them because of the good they did. Screw that.

...to which I replied...
Again, it's you who is attempting to say that I'm saying that. I didn't say I overlook that they were slaveowners. I said that I recognize their flaws, but in spite of, still find their nationbuilding skills admirable. You're doing nothing but trying to argue something I've never implied....

...I never once implied that I overlooked that they were slaveowners, I said that being slaveowners obviously made them flawed characters, but that I could still admire them for their good qualities, the same as I could admire a Julius Caesar for his military genius, but at the same time recognize his obvious character flaws. It's obviously not that hard to understand, so I'm left with three choices: #1) you're arguing for the sake of arguing, #2) you can't make a point but your stubbornness won't let you back out gracefully, or #3) you're a complete idiot. I'm leaning towards choice #...

"I don't give a rat's ass what you said to Ron Volk."
Well you very well should give somebody's ass.
You were the one that jumped in about what I was saying to Ron.

These are open threads. I'll 'jump' in when I choose. But it still doesn't change the fact you were addressing me about the MLK post.

"which implied that using MLK, Jr. had no relationship to the topic of slaveowners."
That's not what it implied. I was talking to Ron. You brought up MLK which was not part of the what I was referring to when I was talking to Ron.
I was referring to the slave owners that are the topic.

Then what was your point of introducing Hitler to a topic on slaveowners?

"And neither does Hitler."[i]
Oh puh-leeeez.
Hitler and the slave owners have very little difference. They are all the same.
People that have no respect for human life or right's.

Just for the sake of argument, if a slaveowner doesn't consider a slave to be human, how can say that being a slaveowner means having no respect for human life or rights. But the truth was, many southern slaveowners actually believed that their slaves were better off than the free blacks of the North, who were free in name only, but had no citizenship, no ability to get good jobs, no ability to move around freely.

[i]"Irrelevant."
OK. Therefore we should congratulate Germany's low crime rate because the death toll is irrelevant.

Still irrelevant. Unless you want to discuss Nazi Germany.

"while slavery itself was morally wrong, there is no record of them abusing or torturing their slaves"
Excuse me for assuming that they didn't give the slaves a nice vacation house where they can relax at and sip tea all day.
And good clothes, education, and living conditions.
I could have swore the slave owners bought them to make them do their labor.
There is no proof that they didn't give the slaves the torture chamber. Who cares?

You would be correct. Now, back to what I said. Show me some evidence that the 3 founders in question tortured their slaves, as you've been claiming. I've already acknowledged that owning slaves was a flaw in their characters, but I want proof of your claims that they actually tortured them.

And you say there is no proof of torture and abuse? What complete ignorance.

No what is complete ignorance is making claims when you have little knowledge of the subject. We can all agree that slavery was morally wrong, that the actual owning of another human being is in itself a form of abuse, but that's a long way from actually physically torturing someone, as you keep asserting. The evidence shows that none of those 3 men were physically abusive to their slaves. Why would they? A slave was an expensive piece of property, probably the most expensive investment on the plantation. You wouldn't torture your prize horses, and neither would you torture your slaves. When that happened, it was usually by a driver, someone hired to oversee the slaves, who did it without the absentee owners knowledge.

"Each individual has their own random point."
No kidding. Point?
Your point was that having slaves in bondage doing labor is a small thing compared to the great things these people accomplished.
Are you trying to point out that this is your random point.

No, what I've been pointing out is that I can separate the two when evaluating their lives, just as I noted with Caesar. I can do it with many people throughout history.

A point influenced by the fact that treating slaves as such to do your work for them is not torture and abuse?
Therefore, it is not as bad as Hitler?

Well, if we're going to put in on a scale, then it goes like this: comparing MLK's adultery is not as bad as owning slaves, and likewise, owning slaves is not as bad as commiting geoncide on 6 million people. That's how my scale works.

I hope you never have to go through the things the slaves went through before you realize what horrible torture it is.

I hope I never go through the things slaves went through...period. Fuck the educational value of it.

"You're simply making shit up as you go"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes they were born into a society that practiced, and accepted it, but they became powerful, and knew all the intricacies behind keeping it acceptable.
Instead of fighting it, they continued to manipulate and torture. They didn't give a crap. Sure they were brought up not to give a crap.
That doesn't mean they didn't know what they were doing.

They neither manipulated, nor tortured. That's the shit you're making up.

"It was a choice between creating a federal government and the continued existance of slavery in the southern states."
What the hell. How you figure it was a choice?

Read a history book and get back to me. Madison wrote the draft of the Constitution. Washington was the nominal head of the constitutional convention. Jefferson doesn't matter here, because he was the US minister to France and wasn't even in the country at the time, but the point is, Madison and Washington realized the necessity of getting the constitution accepted if the country was going to survive. But delegates from the southern states, where the slave labor system supported their economies, said the constitution would not be ratified if the new government tried to prohibit slavery. So the choice was to leave the choice of slavery to the individual states or there would be no constitution, and therefore no federal republic.

You are trying to presume that they could not have made a free government unless they kept slavery going.
Bull shit. More of a reason not to admire those morons.

You're knowledge of US history is amazing. :rolleyes:

RonVolk

04-22-04, 09:09 PM

That's the dumbest argument ever.
Really? my arguement is dumb, but you think being ashamed of something you can't change is intelligent?
Since when does being born mean intentionally hurting your mother?
That's has so little to do with a person that hurts others.

I was saying that a person that hurts others is not admirable.
You are telling me that because babies hurt their mother when they are born, nobody is admirable.
That's the dumbest thing on the planet.

The baby doesn't even hurt their mother. WTF?
It's the labor pain during delivery that hurts.
Even so, you're too much of a moron to see the difference between a baby with no intention of hurting thier mother and a slave owner intentionally causing humans beings to suffer.

Amazing, You call my arguement dumb but you believe we should be ashamed of something, someone were probably not even related to did several hundred years ago.
OK, maybe my analogywas bad, but how about a scientist that uses lab rats to test vaccines, the lab rats suffer and die but does that mean the scientist is evil? Or does your compassion only extend to humanbeings?

lixluke

04-23-04, 01:57 AM

This was my first post=>
Cool skill: “I'm not ashamed to live in a country founded by slaves.
It's still being supported by slaves, and I'm still here.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can’t comprehend how you could imply from that=>
Ron:
"you believe we should be ashamed of something, someone were probably not even related to did several hundred years ago."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the did I ever say we should be ashamed of somebody else’s actions?
I might have implied that they should be ashamed for what they did.
But I would like to know how dumb you could be to think that I ever implied that I would be ashamed for something I didn't do.

This was my first post:
Cool skill: “I'm not ashamed to live in a country founded by slaves.
It's still being supported by slaves, and I'm still here.”

“OK, maybe my analogywas bad, but how about a scientist that uses lab rats to test vaccines”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTF!!!!
In other words:
Yes ok, my analogy was bad, so let me put an even worse one.
After all, human slaves and lab rats. No big difference.

“Show me some evidence that the 3 founders in question tortured their slaves, as you've been claiming.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What more evidence do you need?
I already mentioned the evidence previously.
I guess you neglected to read.

“The evidence shows that none of those 3 men were physically abusive to their slaves.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bullshit. I already stated it above.

I guess I’ll just reiterate=>
cool skill:
A point influenced by the fact that treating slaves as such to do your work for them is not torture and abuse?
Therefore, it is not as bad as Hitler?
I hope you never have to go through the things the slaves went through before you realize what horrible torture it is.

Being that I can’t throw you into their shoes, and make you live their lives, do I have to spell it out?
cool skill:
“I could have swore the slave owners bought them to make them do their labor.
There is no proof that they didn't give the slaves the torture chamber. Who cares?”
A person making you do their labor for them is abuse/torture.
A person holding you captive providing you with just enough to keep you working is abuse/torture.
Do you really have to live their lives in order to get this through your head?

And weather it was the owner or somebody the owner hired, it’s still torture and abuse.

“I don't remember saying I admired any psychopath.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spyke: “I can also admire their courage and commitment”
In other words, let’s admire the courage and commitment of psychopaths who abuse and torture human beings.

“No one with any sense would compare a George Washington to an Adolf Hitler”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both are nut cases with no respect for human life and freedom.
And who both abused and tortured human beings.
How hard is that?

“And show me some evidence that any of the founding fathers we're talking about tortured their slaves.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already answered this in the previous post. I suggest you learn how to read so people don’t have to repeat themselves.

“You are the one that brought Hitler up and said he must have made some good contributions”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Sorry if I wasn’t being clear.
What I meant was that he may have committed some friendly gestures at one time or another.
Something everybody does.

cool skill: “Let's overlook tha bad they did, and admire them because of the good they did.”
Spyke: “I never once implied that I overlooked that they were slaveowners,”
“I said that being slaveowners obviously made them flawed characters, but that I could still admire them for their good qualities”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never implied that you implied that you overlooked the fact they owned slaves.
I implied that you overlooked the severity/significance of the fact that they own slaves: “Let's overlook tha bad they did”
Spyke: “I recognize their flaws, but in spite of, still find their nationbuilding skills admirable.
cool skill: “Well folks, despite the human torture they commited, we will focus on their good qualities. . .”
I am implying that you are overlooking the bad they did.
You find them admirable for the good they did because the bad they did wasn’t that significant or severe.
Get it straight.

“#1) you're arguing for the sake of arguing, #2) you can't make a point but your stubbornness won't let you back out gracefully, or #3) you're a complete idiot.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re the complete idiot.
I’m not the one making 3 outrageously idiotic presumptions about the person I’m debating with.

“These are open threads. I'll 'jump' in when I choose.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No shit you moron. Show me where I ever implied that you can’t jump in.
Show me.

“But it still doesn't change the fact you were addressing me about the MLK post.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right.
Spyke: I don't give a rat's ass what you said to Ron Volk."
cool skill: Well you very well should give somebody's ass.
You made a comment based on what I was saying to Ron.
I, based on what I was saying to Ron, addressed you about the comment.
Therefore, you cannot just not give a rat’s ass about something that was the basis of the discussion in the first place.

“Then what was your point of introducing Hitler to a topic on slaveowners?”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you haven’t figured it out yet, I was comparing the similarities between Hitler and the slave owners’ respect for human life and rights.
Neither of which, judging by their horrible actions, displayed any.

Ron mentioned that a person can be admired despite his faults.
I disagreed, but under realm of the topic that these faults were the atrocities of the people.
Therefore, I said he was false.
But I admit that I wasn’t clear that I was basing the falsehood under the realm of the topic because I thought it would be assumed.

The reason MLK didn’t apply to the argument was because MLK was not one of these slave owners.
Therefore, it might be true that somebody can still be admired despite their faults in general.
But assuming we are referring to the atrocities of the slave owners, I asserted that somebody cannot be admired despite their faults.

“Just for the sake of argument, if a slaveowner doesn't consider a slave to be human, how can say that being a slaveowner means having no respect for human life or rights.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of crap!!!! Am I on crack for expecting better from you?
You’re mixing perceptions.
A slave owner does not consider a person human.
That does not change the fact that the person is human.
A slave owner with no respect for the life of a human, no matter what he sees the human as, has no respect for the life of a human.

“But the truth was, many southern slaveowners actually believed that their slaves were better off than the free blacks of the North, who were free in name only, but had no citizenship, no ability to get good jobs, no ability to move around freely.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that’s still the truth. The reason is because they are not really free.
It’s not that the being a slave was better off. It’s that it’s pretty much the same thing.
The only difference is that a slave might be living better than a free person.
But the slave still didn’t have the same potential to get the lucky break that would allow them to start a business.
But you are right. There were a few owners that purchased slaves, purely for the sake of giving a slave a good life.
In other words, the owner required nothing of the slave in terms of work or any form of repayment.
They simply supported and educated the slave as they would their own family.

“Still irrelevant.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How so? You claim that their accomplishment is a low crime rate.
Yet the death toll was pretty high.
Therefore, I would hardly call that an accomplishment.

“No, what I've been pointing out is that I can separate the two when evaluating their lives”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sure doesn’t look like it =>
Spyke: “Each individual has their own random point.”
It looks more like you are pointing out that your admiration of these individuals is based on your individual random point.
To be more specific =>
cool skill: “having slaves in bondage doing labor is a small thing compared to the great things these people accomplished”

“That's how my scale works.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you need to fix it.
Your scale makes the torture and abuse of owning slaves seem insignificant.
Both parties committed atrocious acts with no respect for human life or rights.

“I hope I never go through the things slaves went through...period. Fuck the educational value of it.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well obviously the educational value is relevant as you can’t seem to figure out that life as a slave is torture.

“They neither manipulated, nor tortured. That's the shit you're making up.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I’m not not. Yes they did.

“So the choice was to leave the choice of slavery to the individual states or there would be no constitution, and therefore no federal republic.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the hell is that a choice?
The states want to have the right to choose slavery. Therefore, I shall own slaves as well.
What crap.

“You're knowledge of US history is amazing.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why thank you.
But away from all sarcasm.
Do you seriously believe that they could not have made a free government unless they kept slavery going?
I guess it’s not getting through to you. Those people you admire so much for freeing the country are ass holes.

Spyke

04-25-04, 12:53 PM

Rather than continuing to wade through all the crap, let's stick to what's relevant.

Spyke:“I don't remember saying I admired any psychopath.
I can also admire their courage and commitment”
In other words, let’s admire the courage and commitment of psychopaths who abuse and torture human beings.

Here's the problem with your argument, trying to make the assertion that the founders were psychopaths. Slavery existed since the beginning of civilizations, and at the time of the founders was legal in virtually every nation in the world. Slavery was an accepted part of societies going back to the beginnings of recorded history. It has only been since the time of the founders, barely 200 years ago, that slavery began to be recognized as a moral wrong. But if the founders are to be considered psychopaths for being slaveowners, then most of the world was psychopathic as well, which simply means that the founders were fairly normal for their times.

And the comparison to Hitler is still ridiculous. Again, slavery was accepted and practiced by virtually every society in the world in the late 18th century. On the other hand, Hitler's attempted genocide of a race was neither accepted, nor was it legal. Neither was attempting to conquer the world, as there were international laws in place by the time Hitler tried. So the comparison is baseless, and how you can continue to cling to it is beyond logic.

“That's how my scale works.”
Well you need to fix it.

I don't need to adjust my scale to match yours. I don't like yours. But as I said before, it's all relative.

Your scale makes the torture and abuse of owning slaves seem insignificant.

No, merely separate. I'm capable of judging their historical accomplishments while recognizing that they had extreme weaknesses. Repeating this is getting tiresome.

Both parties committed atrocious acts with no respect for human life or rights.

According to you, but then you seem to equate mass murder with slave owernship. While I can agree that both are wrong, 200 years ago one was practiced across the world, while the other has never been accepted.

Do you seriously believe that they could not have made a free government unless they kept slavery going?

Here's how it worked. Without the southern states agreeing to the Constitution, the northern states were not going to either, meaning that they would have remained a loose confederation of jealous states, with a Congress that had no real power, and had it continued that way, we would have seen more rebellions within the states, and possibly some states deciding it would be better to be back within the empire. I'm not going into the long version here, but quite simply, the states giving up some of their sovereignty to a federal government was an all or nothing deal.

I guess it’s not getting through to you. Those people you admire so much for freeing the country are ass holes.

They may very well have been. A lot of great people were assholes, but still did great things. But what's not getting through to you, is I don't care about their personal lives, nor do I care what you think.

lixluke

04-26-04, 10:39 AM

"Slavery existed since the beginning of civilizations, and at the time of the founders was legal in virtually every nation in the world. Slavery was an accepted part of societies going back to the beginnings of recorded history."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could give a crap.
I asserted they were psychopaths based on the fact that they treated people inhumanely and had no respect for their lives and humanity.
Even if you were right about it being so normal as you claim.
Even if the whole planet was doing the same thing that they were doing.
That doesn't change the fact that they treated people inhumanely and had no respect for their lives and humanity.
Ergo they were psychopaths.
And so was anybody else that accepted this behavior as appropriate.

Where are you going with this argument?
It appears as if you are attempting to justify the morality of their actions based on the fact that it was commonly accepted as normal.
Spyke: "Here's the problem with your argument, trying to make the assertion that the founders were psychopaths."
People accepted it as normal.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with having no respect for human rights and human lives?

You said that you wish to admire their commitment.
I said that you are admiring psychopaths. People that treat others inhumanely with no respect for their lives and humanity.
Are you asserting that people aren't psychotic scum for committing these atrocious acts?
All because most people accepted it as acceptable?
Do you mean to say that anybody that thought abusing humans was appropriate didn't have a screw loose?

"It has only been since the time of the founders, barely 200 years ago, that slavery began to be recognized as a moral wrong."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's nice. Where are you going?
Are you trying to tell me that the majority of the population didn't understand that this was not appropriate,
Therefore it was appropriate?
That the public has to recognize that it is wrong. Otherwise, it's perfectly fine?
The majority of the public hasn't recognized that industry is doing serious damage to the earth.
Does that mean it's perfectly fine that we are doing so?
I don't give a crap if half the people on the planet had slaves and the other half were slaves.
It's a moral wrong. And anybody that believed it was appropriate was sick in the head.

"But if the founders are to be considered psychopaths for being slaveowners, then most of the world was psychopathic as well, which simply means that the founders were fairly normal for their times."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK so it was normal for people to be psychotic scum that had no respect for humanity and right to live freely.
Point? Where are you going with this? These psychos felt this behavior was appropriate.
Does that make people any less psychotic for the atrocities they committed?

"And the comparison to Hitler is still ridiculous."
"Again, slavery was accepted and practiced by virtually every society in the world in the late 18th century.
On the other hand, Hitler's attempted genocide of a race was neither accepted, nor was it legal."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You assert that one was accepted by society. The other was not accepted by society.
Does that mean that both parties were not inhumane scumbag psychopaths with no respect for humanity and life?

What are you trying to prove?
Everybody was doing it. Therefore, there was nothing wrong with it. Therefore, people with no respect for these humans are not inhumane psychopaths.
Is that the problem with my assertion that they were psychos?

"but then you seem to equate mass murder with slave owernship."
"So the comparison is baseless, and how you can continue to cling to it is beyond logic."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are trying to tell me that I cannot make the comparison that:
They are both psychotic scumbags with no respect for humanity or human life.

Do you mean to tell me that because these people didn't attempt genocide like Hitler,
they had any less lack of respect for human life than Hitler?
The basis of my assertion and the logic behind it is this:
You might feel you can make a human your slave.
Or you might feel you can massacre a million people.
Either way you have no respect for humans rights and lives.
If you have no respect for human life, you have no respect for human life.
Period.
Weather you do it to a massive degree or you do it to a relatively smaller degree.
Weather it's unacceptable or widely accepted.
If you treat humans without respecting their lives, there is really something wrong with your head.
Ergo Hitler along with your admirable forefathers => psychotic motherfuckers.

My comparison was based on the fact that both parties had no respect for humanity and human life.
I made the clear from the beginning.
One abused and tortured humans in captive.
The other did the same to a larger degree, and attempted genocide.
You are attempting to prove that I cannot say both committed atrocious acts.
That is a comparison.
You are trying to tell me that I cannot make the comparison that:
They are both psychotic scumbags withy no respect for humanity or human life.

"No, merely separate. I'm capable of judging their historical accomplishments while recognizing that they had extreme weaknesses."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya extreme weaknesses.
Let's separate their 'extreme weaknesses' from their accomplishments.
Therefore they are admirable because of their accomplishments.
They are not sick people because we 'separated' their sick behavior when we decided to examine the admirability of their character.

"According to you"
"While I can agree that both are wrong, 200 years ago one was practiced across the world, while the other has never been accepted."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares? What are you attempting to justify by saying that slavery was accepted by most people??
According to me: "Both parties committed atrocious acts with no respect for human life or rights."
First, you assert that you agree these acts were wrong.
Then you assert that the collective psychos 200 years ago believed these acts were not wrong.
Therefore, one of the parties did not commit atrocious acts with no respect for human life or rights?
You're contradicting yourself left and right.

thegreat

04-26-04, 11:57 AM

i agree slavery is just evil, to give people two different sets of rules is just criminal

Spyke

04-26-04, 07:36 PM

"Slavery existed since the beginning of civilizations, and at the time of the founders was legal in virtually every nation in the world. Slavery was an accepted part of societies going back to the beginnings of recorded history."
I could give a crap.

And I'm supposed to care because...?

I asserted they were psychopaths based on the fact that they treated people inhumanely and had no respect for their lives and humanity. Ergo they were psychopaths.

Define 'psychopath'.

On Jefferson:

One thing that may seem a bit ironic, is that despite his struggle for freeing slaves, Jefferson at one moment had 170 slaves working for him.
According to him, slaves who have been brought up in slavery, would not be able to manage the freedom they would get if they were set free.
Though, he freed a few of his slaves, after teaching them responsibility and how it was to live a life outside slavery.
However, Jefferson was very careful with the way he treated his slaves.
They were never to work harder than “free” people.
http://www.mimersbrunn.se/arbeten/3112.asp

The documents below suggest that Jefferson's attitudes and behavior toward his slaves derived from a combination of paternalistic concern and calculations of how to manage profitably his slave labor force. Jefferson reflected his paternalistic regard for the large group of people on his plantation by referring to them as "my family."
http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/earlyrepublic/fehn.htm

On Madison:

Slavery was a Southern tradition and was practiced on the Madison plantation. James Madison’s father owned 118 slaves. Yet, unlike most plantations of the time slaves were treated well by the Madison’s, often being referred to as, “part of the family.” James Madison while growing up played with both black and white children. This is reflected in James Madison’s abhorrence of slavery.

Madison continued his father’s humane treatment of slaves, yet his dependence on them increased. He told one of his overseers, “treat the Negroes with all the humanity and kindness consistent with their necessary subordination and work.”

In his later years Madison believed strongly in the American Colonization Society and gradual abolition of slavery. In his last years he attempted to free his slaves, yet an increasing amount of debt caused him to sell some of them.
http://www.jamesmadisonmus.org/hoa/madison.htm

1819: JM proposed that after being freed blacks be given land west of the United States because if they stayed among the whites they would be discriminated against and: "must be always dissatisfied with their condition as a change only from one to another species of oppression; always secretly confederated against the ruling & privileged class; and always uncontrolled by some of the most cogent motives to moral and respectable conduct. The character of the free blacks, even where their legal condition is least affected by their colour, seems to put these truths beyond question...Nor is it fair, in estimating the danger of Collisions with the Whites, to charge it wholly on the side of the Blacks."(Madison.1999,p729)
http://www.nas.com/~lopresti/ps4.htm

On Washington:

Plantation records indicate that in 1760, Washington had 43 slaves. By 1774, the total had climbed to 119 and by the year of his death, Washington owned or rented 317 slaves.

Yet slavery was repugnant to the nation's president. He disliked the inhumanity of the system. Many families had to be split up; often married men lived far from their wives and children. Supervision frequently resulted in corporal punishment and sickness and death were prevalent.

To make the best of a bad situation, Washington treated, fed and clothed his slaves well. In writing to his plantation manager, he was clear: "In the most explicit language I desire they may have plenty; for I will not ... lye under the imputation of starving my negros and thereby driving them to the necessity of thieving to supply the deficiency."

Slaves were not to survive on bread alone, but were to benefit from a diversified diet and plots for farming and produce. In his journals, Washington also discussed attention to medical care. Overseers were "to be particularly attentive to the Negros in their sickness." Such treatment, Washington commented, was not always widespread. Wealthy slaveowners ... "were not always as kind," he lamented, "and as attentive to their wants and usage as they ought to be."

Even as he took pains to improve daily life, Washington became increasingly critical of slavery as an economic system. An eminently practical man, Washington was often disturbed by its inefficiency. Of the 317 slaves, for instance, 132 were either too young or too old to work. Many were sick and unskilled. Many would not work unless closely supervised, a supervision which simply was not possible given the demands of multiple plantations over thousands of acres. As a consequence, over time he began to dream, dream -- as Robert Dalzell explains in George Washington's Mount Vernon -- "of a rational, orderly system that motivated workers to work efficiently and rewarded managers for seeing that they did."

As early as 1786, Washington had determined that the only acceptable solution would be emancipation. "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery]," he wrote to Robert Morris. While he took no steps politically, he began to take steps personally -- at home at Mount Vernon -- to bring the sorry system to an end. At first he devised a scheme to rent out his estates. With cash from land sales and income from the rents, he wrote privately to his manager, he hoped to "liberate a certain species of property which I possess, very repugnantly to my own feelings." Unfortunately, there were no acceptable offers to lease the farms.

Having had no success during his lifetime, Washington began to think of what might be done upon his death. In 1799, he took to preparing a will, over 28 pages, which he wrote, and copied himself. In many ways, the will was unremarkable. It provided for the payment of outstanding debts and stipulated that his wife Martha was to have use of the estate during her lifetime.

What was revolutionary, however, were the next few lines. In them, George Washington provided that all of his slaves be freed and that they be supported financially or trained for a period of years for "some useful occupation" to assure their preparedness for life as free men and women.
http://www.house.gov/petri/gw007.htm

Toward the end of his life, Washington privately expressed opinions critical of slavery. In 1797, in a letter to his nephew, Washington confided: "I wish from my soul that the Legislature of the State could see the policy of a gradual Abolition of Slavery; it would prevt. much future mischief." (36) John Bernard talked with Washington about slavery in the summer of 1798 and quoted Washington as saying that the end of slavery was:

an event, sir, which, you may believe me, no man desires more heartily than I do. Not only do I pray for it, on the score of human dignity, but I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union, by consolidating it in a common bond of principle. (37)

Finally, at the end of his life, Washington fully faced the implications of his changed attitude toward slavery. When he was drawing up his will in the summer of 1799, he made "the first and only tangible commitment... to the emancipation of the slaves." (38)
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0KVD/4_1/86058401/p5/article.jhtml?term=

Slaveowners yes, and for that we can critize them. But hardly psychopaths.

Where are you going with this argument?

Umm, I'm not going anywhere with it. I'm simply saying I can admire one aspect of their character while still recognizing their flaws. You're the one that can't seem to accept that, apparently won't let it go and have gone off on some tangent about 'psychopaths'.

What are you trying to prove?
Everybody was doing it. Therefore, there was nothing wrong with it. Therefore, people with no respect for these humans are not inhumane psychopaths.
Is that the problem with my assertion that they were psychos?

One of the characteristics of a 'psychopath' is anti-social behavior. Therefore, if you are doing something that is and has been a part of society for centuries, if not thousands of years, it is not anti-social, and certainly not 'psychopathic'.

You are trying to tell me that I cannot make the comparison that:
They are both psychotic scumbags with no respect for humanity or human life.

Not at all. You're obviously welcome to say anything you want. Just don't expect it to have an impression on me if I think it makes no sense.

First, you assert that you agree these acts were wrong.
Then you assert that the collective psychos 200 years ago believed these acts were not wrong.
Therefore, one of the parties did not commit atrocious acts with no respect for human life or rights?
You're contradicting yourself left and right.

Ridiculous. I said I believe slavery is wrong and when we study the founders we have to remember that they were not larger than life, but human, and therefore had human flaws and weaknesses. But they were also products of their time and their society, where slavery was and had been interwoven into the society of the South for several hundred years. But, as the links above note, as men who had fought a revolution declaring that all men wre created equal, they each recognized the problems with slavery, and grappled with it. They didn't free their slaves while they were alive and they have to be faulted for that, but each of them attempted to see their slaves were treated as humanely as slaves could be treated, so I don't consider their treatment of their slaves as 'atrocious', and I consider comparisons to someone such as Hitler way off base. And certainly not psychopaths.

lixluke

04-27-04, 02:44 AM

"Define 'psychopath'."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already did. Nnsno!!!!

cool skill: "I asserted they were psychopaths based on the fact that they treated people inhumanely and had no respect for their lives and humanity."
Too difficult to interpret with your qdb cqbho?
Let's try to make it clear:
With regards to this thread, - (do you get that part?)
a psychopath is - (are you following?)
anybody that treated people inhumanely and had no respect for their lives and humanity. - (clear enough)
Or is it still too difficult for you to figure out?

"But hardly psychopaths."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes ok. Abusing and torturing human beings.
Real sanity there.

"I'm not going anywhere with it. I'm simply saying I can admire one aspect of their character while still recognizing their flaws."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spyke: "Slavery existed since the beginning of civilizations"
What does that have to do with admiring one aspect of their character while still recognizing their flaws?

"Therefore, if you are doing something that is and has been a part of society for centuries, if not thousands of years, it is not anti-social"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
That has to be the most ****** up thing I have ever heard.
Abusing and torturing humans is not anti-social?
It was accepted by most people. Therefore, is a sociable thing to torture and abuse humans?
Having no respect for human life and rights is real social behavior?

"and certainly not 'psychopathic'."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already went over this:
cool skill: "People accepted it as normal.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with having no respect for human rights and human lives?"
I guess you missed out on my previous post where I elaborated on this.
I will not do so again as it will be redundant.
You probably have no clue what I said in the previous post anyway.

"You're obviously welcome to say anything you want."
"So the comparison is baseless, and how you can continue to cling to it is beyond logic."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you are telling me my comparison is valid.
Before you said it is beyond logic.
You're evkm ng rihu.

"I don't consider their treatment of their slaves as 'atrocious', and I consider comparisons to someone such as Hitler way off base. And certainly not psychopaths."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sure do.
You try to make it sound from your quotes that they were not psychopaths committing atrocities.
They used their slaves to do their labor. How hard is that to figure out that they had no respect for these people's lives?
You have proven they knew it was seriously wrong from the beginning, and continued to do it.
Even if they didn't know it was wrong, they would be screwed in the head for thinking such a thing is not wrong.

Your article seems to assert that being a slave in some cases is better than being free.
That's the most nutcase thing ever.

Psychopath: 'I feel you are better off with me than if you were free. Therefore, you must remain in captivity. You are not allowed to be free.'
Sane: 'I feel you are better off with me. You may choose to work here with what I have to offer you. But you are free to leave anytime you want.'

Tell me how on this planet, not having freedom to leave anytime could ever be worse than being forced to be a slave?
I'd love to hear a situation.
A person might be much better off living in a certain situation.
Therefore, there are circumstances which would be better to force the person to live in captivity than to let the person choose?

Spyke

04-27-04, 10:31 AM

cool skill: "I asserted they were psychopaths based on the fact that they treated people inhumanely and had no respect for their lives and humanity."
Too difficult to interpret with your qdb cqbho?

Sorry, I don't read gibberish. Obviously no intelligent life here. And obviously you didn't read any of the links and are sticking to your same idiotic argument, so no point going too far with this, although I will comment on a couple of points:

You try to make it sound from your quotes that they were not psychopaths committing atrocities.
They used their slaves to do their labor. How hard is that to figure out that they had no respect for these people's lives?

And employers used wage slaves to do labor. Do you think employers had any more respect for their employees' lives? It would be another 100 years, well after the end of slavery, that workers would manage to get the government to begin passing laws to stop the oppression of wage labor. But the founders' slaves probably had better lives than the average worker in a Northen industry would have in the early Industrial Revolution.

You have proven they knew it was seriously wrong from the beginning, and continued to do it.

Yes they did, and tried to make the best of what they knew was a bad situation, by treating their slaves as humanely as they could. Hardly the definition of a psychopath.

Your article seems to assert that being a slave in some cases is better than being free.
That's the most nutcase thing ever.

Each of them believed that as bad as slavery was, releasing them into society, where they had few rights and little opportunities, could be a worse fate than being on the plantation. If you know anything about conditions for free blacks 200 years ago, that might not seem so far-fetched, when comparing life on a plantation such as the 3 founders, where the treatment of slaves was nothing like the average plantation. They believed a slave that grew up on a plantation could not survive if released into white society. And there's nothing psychopathic in that line of thought. Sure, 200 years later that might seem absurd to us, but it was a legitimate thought at the time.

Psychopath: 'I feel you are better off with me than if you were free. Therefore, you must remain in captivity. You are not allowed to be free.'
Sane: 'I feel you are better off with me. You may choose to work here with what I have to offer you. But you are free to leave anytime you want.'

Many slaves of the period were able to leave the plantations after they had completed their shifts, and move about the community. Before cotton became big in the early 19th century, most plantations operated on the task system, rather than a gang labor system. Slaves were assigned a particular task each day and when it was completed they were through for the day, and were free to work in their own crops or projects, or leave the plantation. Slave life in that period was little different that the live for an indentrued servant. The rebellions of the early 19th century that led to the passage of slave codes in the South is when it got really oppressive.

lixluke

04-27-04, 02:59 PM

"Obviously no intelligent life here."
Obviously me.

"And employers used wage slaves to do labor. Do you think employers had any more respect for their employees' lives?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not here to discuss the inhumanity of capitalism and minimum wage.

"But the founders' slaves probably had better lives than the average worker in a Northen industry would have in the early Industrial Revolution."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you get anymore utterly irrelevant as usual?
Wow. One master hit his slave one less time than the master hit the other slave.
Let's congratulate the master of the other slave.
The fact that a slave did not have the life of the average industry worker does not mean that the slave was not in a seriously inhumane living situation.
Where are you going with this?

The slaves were not treated inhumanely because industry lived a certain way.
It makes no sense.
I could give a flying flick how the industry people lived.
It will never change the fact that the slaves were being inhumanely used by psychopaths to do labor.
You seem to come up with ugfcvlcdru irelevant arguments.

"Each of them believed that as bad as slavery was, releasing them into society, where they had few rights and little opportunities, could be a worse fate than being on the plantation. If you know anything about conditions for free blacks 200 years ago, that might not seem so far-fetched, when comparing life on a plantation such as the 3 founders, where the treatment of slaves was nothing like the average plantation. They believed a slave that grew up on a plantation could not survive if released into white society. And there's nothing psychopathic in that line of thought."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words=>
Psychopath: 'I feel you are better off with me than if you were free. Therefore, you must remain in captivity. You are not allowed to be free.'
Sane: 'I feel you are better off with me. You may choose to work here with what I have to offer you. But you are free to leave anytime you want.'
So choosing the psychopath is better than choosing the sane?

I could have sworn we went over this.
Do you assert that we haven't already went through this?
Do you enjoy repeating ruqheruzudndost that I have already responded to?
How would you figure this hasn't already been discussed?
Why are we redoing it? Why?
Why can't we move on?

"Many slaves of the period were able to leave the plantations after they had completed their shifts"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER THEY HAD COMPLETED THEIR SHIFTS.
Oh you mean they couldn't leave any time?
Real humane.

"and move about the community."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yay! They can move in the community not because they were free to.
Because they were ALLOWED to. Let's cheer on the psychopaths.

"when it was completed they were through for the day, and were free to work in their own crops or projects, or leave the plantation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares?
In other words, you are telling me the slaves weren't free to do anything without the permission of the master.
We all know this. What's your point?

"Slave life in that period was little different that the live for an indentrued servant. The rebellions of the early 19th century that led to the passage of slave codes in the South is when it got really oppressive."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of crap. Slavery is oppression. It has been oppressive since it was invented by scumbags just like your admirable forefathers.
SO they felt it should be eventually abolished. Yet they participated in it.

goofyfish

04-27-04, 03:04 PM

Exactly who do you think "invented" slavery?

:m: Peace.

chuck u farley

04-27-04, 03:09 PM

Well, Fabrinator and Cool Skill the deranged Pinoy and these other guilt-filled goofballs can feel bad about slavery all they want. Not me. I got amnesty.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.html

Spyke

04-27-04, 04:31 PM

"Obviously no intelligent life here."
Obviously me.

Obviously.

"And employers used wage slaves to do labor. Do you think employers had any more respect for their employees' lives?"
I'm not here to discuss the inhumanity of capitalism and minimum wage.

I've yet to see that you're here to discuss anything.

"But the founders' slaves probably had better lives than the average worker in a Northen industry would have in the early Industrial Revolution."
Can you get anymore utterly irrelevant as usual?
Wow. One master hit his slave one less time than the master hit the other slave.
Let's congratulate the master of the other slave.
The fact that a slave did not have the life of the average industry worker does not mean that the slave was not in a seriously inhumane living situation.

You miss the point. Why am I not surprised? I've already shown, although you pretend to ignore, that the founders did not treat their slaves inhumanely. Yes, yes, they owned them, bad boys, bad boys, but they were treated well. But the point of the above was that they correctly accessed that releasing their slaves into a society that didn't accept them as equals was not bettering their lives.

The slaves were not treated inhumanely because industry lived a certain way.
It makes no sense.
I could give a flying flick how the industry people lived.
It will never change the fact that the slaves were being inhumanely used by psychopaths to do labor.
You seem to come up with ugfcvlcdru irelevant arguments.

If you can't get it, it's not my problem. The point is, the founders, as noted from each of those articles, did not needlessly mistreat any of their slaves. The only indications of harsh punishment were when slaves caused problems, but wage labor worked just as long hours as slaves and were just as likely to receive harsh punishment for causing problems.

Psychopath: 'I feel you are better off with me than if you were free. Therefore, you must remain in captivity. You are not allowed to be free.'
Sane: 'I feel you are better off with me. You may choose to work here with what I have to offer you. But you are free to leave anytime you want.'
So choosing the psychopath is better than choosing the sane?

That's how slavery worked. That doesn't make all slaveowners psychopaths. I could just as easily say you are psychopathic because you can't make a legitimate argument.

I could have sworn we went over this.
Do you assert that we haven't already went through this?
Do you enjoy repeating ruqheruzudndost that I have already responded to?
How would you figure this hasn't already been discussed?
Why are we redoing it? Why?
Why can't we move on?

I suspect we haven't moved on because you can't let it go. I've already made it clear why I admire them despite their flaws. I don't consider them psychopaths and you've offered nothing to make me change my mind. You either accept it or you don't.

"Many slaves of the period were able to leave the plantations after they had completed their shifts"
AFTER THEY HAD COMPLETED THEIR SHIFTS.
Oh you mean they couldn't leave any time?
Real humane.

Can you walk off your paying job in the middle of a shift? Or are you even old enough to have a job?

"and move about the community."
Yay! They can move in the community not because they were free to.
Because they were ALLOWED to. Let's cheer on the psychopaths.

Doesn't exactly suggest inhumane torture, does it?

"when it was completed they were through for the day, and were free to work in their own crops or projects, or leave the plantation."
Who cares?

I imagine the slaves cared. I'm sure you don't, because it kills your 'psychopath' rant.

In other words, you are telling me the slaves weren't free to do anything without the permission of the master.
We all know this. What's your point?

The point is, I'm having to teach you history as I go in this thread, because you obviously don't know it.

"Slave life in that period was little different that the live for an indentrued servant. The rebellions of the early 19th century that led to the passage of slave codes in the South is when it got really oppressive."
What a load of crap. Slavery is oppression. It has been oppressive since it was invented by scumbags just like your admirable forefathers.

Since they invented it? Christ! That explains everything. I might as well be arguing with a fencepost.

top mosker

04-28-04, 01:30 AM

Some of the founding fathers were slave owners. I am ashamed to live in a country where the founders owned slaves and you all should be too!

But you continue to accept the evolved form of that government...
It still is the united states of america regardless of the events of the last 200 years.

lixluke

04-28-04, 01:55 AM

Exactly who do you think "invented" slavery?

I have no idea, but whoever it was is seriously deranged.
Shall we continue attacking semantics?

"the founders did not treat their slaves inhumanely. Yes, yes, they owned them, bad boys, bad boys, but they were treated well."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
You have yet to explain to me how holding somebody in captivity to do your labor is treating them well?
Perhaps they might do the same to you, and we will see how quick you will claim that your rights are not being abused.

"The point is, the founders, as noted from each of those articles, did not needlessly mistreat any of their slaves."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. Holding somebody in captivity is not needless.
And it's not mistreatment either.
They needed to live abused and tortured lives.

"That doesn't make all slaveowners psychopaths."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh ok so not all slave owners held human beings in captive against their own will?
Or that that holding humans captive and making them do your work against their own will is not psychotic.
Or are we still trying to assert that holding humans captive and making them do your work against their own will is not inhumane treatment.

"Can you walk off your paying job in the middle of a shift?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I wasn't aware slavery was a 'paying job'.
As in - work that somebody is free to leave for any reason.

I'm trying to figure out where you are going with this one now.
Let's say if I walk off my paying job I would get fired and have no money to live.
I'm so unbelievably stumped. I cannot for the life of me figure out where you are going.
You ask these screwed questions out of the blue. So let's back track.

You asserted slaves are able go to town. But only after they completed their shift.
I asserted that it would not be humane, and it would be blatantly psychopathic.
If I had the nerve to claim it my arrogant right endowed by my Creator unalienable to allow you to go into town.
And to furthermore give it to you as an allowance for completing MY job that I am forcing you to do.

You made a reply. Your reply made it appear as if you disagreed with my assertion.
Therefore, you felt that it was humane and healthy of them to claim the right to grant permission to a human that completed a job that they are forcing him to do.
You attempted to prove this by asserting that I would not be able to leave my job. Otherwise I would not afford to live.

I would not be able to afford to live if I leave my job.
Therefore, it is humane and healthy of them to claim the right to grant permission to a human that completed the job they are forcing him to do.
Is that where you were going?

"Doesn't exactly suggest inhumane torture, does it?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh ya. spsbkbrtgpkf.
What would you tell me if I said to you, "I grant you permission to go into the community as long as you finish my job for me."?
You would get on your knees and worship me for ALLOWING you to go after you completed MY work for me?
Would you claim I?m being real humane?

"I imagine the slaves cared."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That they weren't free to do anything without the permission of the master?
I'm sure they were overjoyed about that.

I'm sure you don't, because it kills your 'psychopath' rant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do all my work for me, and I reward you by giving you MY permission to go into the community.
Therefore, I am not a psychopath. Sure.

Spyke

04-28-04, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by goofyfish
Exactly who do you think "invented" slavery?
I have no idea, but whoever it was is seriously deranged.
Shall we continue attacking semantics?

I think what Goofy was attacking was the obvious fact you don't have a clue as to what you are arguing. You've just gotten caught and don't know how to gracefully step away.

"the founders did not treat their slaves inhumanely. Yes, yes, they owned them, bad boys, bad boys, but they were treated well."
Wrong.
You have yet to explain to me how holding somebody in captivity to do your labor is treating them well?

When have I attempted to claim that holding someone in captivity is treating them well? I've said from Post #1 of this thread that slavery itself was wrong, and for that we have to say that some of the founders had serious flaws, but that has nothing to do with your silly arguments that they tortured slaves, or that they were psychopaths. You've not been able to back your arguments up so now you're trying to argue that I'm condoning slavery. You're argument has gone from weak to non-existent.

Perhaps they might do the same to you, and we will see how quick you will claim that your rights are not being abused.

Sure. If I was a slave I would no doubt feel my rights were being abused. But if I was being decently housed, decently clothed, decently fed, working in shifts, had 1 and 1/2 days a week off, and allowed to move around the community once my work shift was done, it would be hard for me to scream "torture", or that my master was a psychopath.

"The point is, the founders, as noted from each of those articles, did not needlessly mistreat any of their slaves."
Sure. Holding somebody in captivity is not needless.
And it's not mistreatment either.
They needed to live abused and tortured lives.

You're argument is stagnant. You're not showing me anything that suggests torture or psychotic behavior. We've already established that slavery was wrong.

"That doesn't make all slaveowners psychopaths."
Oh ok so not all slave owners held human beings in captive against their own will?
Or that that holding humans captive and making them do your work against their own will is not psychotic.
Or are we still trying to assert that holding humans captive and making them do your work against their own will is not inhumane treatment.

One last time, and I'll do it in bold print so that we can try and overcome your obvious comprehension skills:

THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY WAS INHUMANE AND I HAVE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT FACT SHOWS THAT THE THE FOUNDERS FROM VIRGINIA WERE FLAWED CHARACTERS, AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY RECOGNIZED IT WAS WRONG, NEVERTHELESS DIDN'T FREE ALL OF THEIR SLAVES, BUT, STILL, WHILE THEY CONTINUED TO HOLD SLAVES, THEY MADE SURE THEIR SLAVES WERE TREATED AS HUMANELY AS POSSIBLE IN AN INHUMANE INSTITUTION, AND FOR THAT REASON IT IS ABSURD TO SAY THAT THEY TORTURED THEIR SLAVES OR COULD BE CONSIDERED PSYCHOPATHS.

"Can you walk off your paying job in the middle of a shift?"
Yes. I wasn't aware slavery was a 'paying job'.
As in - work that somebody is free to leave for any reason.

And you would be punished for walking off, same as a slave. The level of punishment being the only difference.

I'm trying to figure out where you are going with this one now.
Let's say if I walk off my paying job I would get fired and have no money to live.
I'm so unbelievably stumped. I cannot for the life of me figure out where you are going.
You ask these screwed questions out of the blue. So let's back track.

Christ. This is getting sillier by the post. I said slaves in the task system worked shifts, just like paid employees. Slaves work their complete shift, just like a paid employee. After the shift is complete, slaves were free to leave the plantation, just like a paid employee is free to leave work. Slaves had to be back to start their shift the next morning, just like a paid employee. Only difference was, the slave was actually owned by the planter, whereas the paid employee is not technically owned by his employer.

You asserted slaves are able go to town. But only after they completed their shift.
I asserted that it would not be humane, and it would be blatantly psychopathic.

You're arguing that slaves being allowed to go to town is not humane and blatantly psychopathic? If that's psychopathic to you then there is no point in arguing further.

If I had the nerve to claim it my arrogant right endowed by my Creator unalienable to allow you to go into town.

That doesn't even make grammatical sense, much less common sense.

And to furthermore give it to you as an allowance for completing MY job that I am forcing you to do.

And where is the torture and psychopathic behavior in there?

"Doesn't exactly suggest inhumane torture, does it?"
Oh ya. spsbkbrtgpkf.

Is hitting the keys randomly to create gibberish supposed to impress me?

What would you tell me if I said to you, "I grant you permission to go into the community as long as you finish my job for me."?

"Thankya, Massa."

You would get on your knees and worship me for ALLOWING you to go after you completed MY work for me?

Do you get down on your knees and worship your boss for allowing yo to go home at the end of the day?

Would you claim I?m being real humane?

If the choice at the end of the shift was being whipped and thrown into a cellar or being allowed to leave the plantation, I think if I'm allowed to do the latter I'd think you were being humane.

You made a reply. Your reply made it appear as if you disagreed with my assertion.

I disagree with everything you've said. You've not made one lucid point to date. I don't think you have a clue as to what you're even arguing at this point.

Therefore, you felt that it was humane and healthy of them to claim the right to grant permission to a human that completed a job that they are forcing him to do.
You attempted to prove this by asserting that I would not be able to leave my job. Otherwise I would not afford to live.

Correct. I've already established that slavery itself was wrong. What we're arguing is how individuals were treated within the institution. So if the choice is between being allowed a certain amount of freedom on the plantation or being in chains and whipped, I'd say the masters who practiced the former exhibited rather humane treatment, all things considered.

I would not be able to afford to live if I leave my job.
Therefore, it is humane and healthy of them to claim the right to grant permission to a human that completed the job they are forcing him to do.
Is that where you were going?

See above.

lixluke

04-28-04, 12:15 PM

"I think if I'm allowed to do the latter I'd think you were being humane."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it's not get it straight.
It might not be as bad as getting whipped.
But it allowing people to do things as if you owned them is still inhumane abuse of human rights none the less.

"Thankya, Massa."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are a racist.
You would thank me for forcing you to do my work for me.
And then allowing you to go into the community as if I owned you.

"Is hitting the keys randomly to create gibberish"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get real sduzsc. There is nothing about cryptography that is random.
But I guess znvqunp etnaun figure that out.

"And where is the torture and psychopathic behavior in there?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVERYWHERE.

"You're arguing that slaves being allowed to go to town is not humane and blatantly psychopathic?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Are you finally getting it that this is not humane and extremely demented?

"And you would be punished for walking off, same as a slave. The level of punishment being the only difference."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Punished by who? How? I might get fired? OK.
So a slave would get punished for walking off a job that he is getting no compensation for.
Point?

"IT IS ABSURD TO SAY THAT THEY TORTURED THEIR SLAVES OR COULD BE CONSIDERED PSYCHOPATHS."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You assert they are not psychopath because they treated the slaves "as humanely as possible."
I don't see any slaves being released.
Or I guess you don't think that not trying to interfere with their choice weather to leave anytime they wanted or continue to work for proper compansation would not be as humanely as possible.
They did not give them their free choice.
Therefore, they were not treating them as humanyly as possible.
Holding somebody in captivity to do your labor for you is torture.
I don't care how well you dress them and feed them. It's torture.
Torturing and abusing humans is psychotic.
I don't care how accepted it is.
Get it through your oppressive head.

"1 and 1/2 days a week off, and allowed to move around the community once my work shift was done"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have the nerve to justify that they weren't abusing the slaves when you continue to clearly show that they were ALLOWING the slaves to do things.
How is that not abuse?
They are allowing people to do something as if they owned the person.
How is thinking that you own a person not psychotic.

"it would be hard for me to scream "torture", or that my master was a psychopath."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for me. I find it pretty easy actually. This demented psycho is torturing me.

"When have I attempted to claim that holding someone in captivity is treating them well?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How etnabr gtdjdzo xptcd?
We both asserted that the founders held people in captivity.
Spyke: "the founders did not treat their slaves inhumanely."
Holding people in captivity is not inhumane enough?
cool skill: "You have yet to explain to me how holding somebody in captivity to do your labor is treating them well?"

Holding humans in captive and making them do your labor for you makes you a total psychopath. I don't care if everybody is doing it.
You have yet to prove to me how doing so is not inhumane as you claim.
How is forcing somebody to do your labor is treating a person humane?
How is forcing somebody to do your labor not torture and abuse?
You haven't yet explained.

You just keep claiming they treated the slaves well.
They held the slaves in captivity to do their labor.
Oh but holding somebody in captivity is treating them well because all their friends were doing it?
You're argument has gone from weak to non-existent.

"I think what Goofy was attacking was the obvious fact you don't have a clue as to what you are arguing."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No he wasn't. Get a clue. Caught by what? You're weak defense for psychos? Sure.

goofyfish

04-28-04, 01:17 PM

I have no idea, but whoever it was is seriously deranged.
Shall we continue attacking semantics?

No one is attacking semantics. You made a direct accusation and I asked you to support it.

:m: Peace.

lixluke

04-28-04, 01:42 PM

No.You played on my words to turn it into a direct accusation.
Spyke asserted that slavery got really oppressive in the South.
I asserted that something that has always had a certain quality could not have eventually gotten the quality it always had.
You jumped on the way I phrased my assertion.
How hard is that?

Spyke

04-28-04, 05:41 PM

"I think if I'm allowed to do the latter I'd think you were being humane."
Well it's not get it straight.
It might not be as bad as getting whipped.
But it allowing people to do things as if you owned them is still inhumane abuse of human rights none the less.

If the choice is being chained and getting beaten or being allowed to move around on my own after my shift, it's a no-brainer. The stupidest dog can discern the difference between what causes pain and what doesn't.

"Thankya, Massa."
You are a racist.
You would thank me for forcing you to do my work for me.
And then allowing you to go into the community as if I owned you.

No, I'm just mocking you.

"Is hitting the keys randomly to create gibberish"
Get real sduzsc. There is nothing about cryptography that is random.
But I guess znvqunp etnaun figure that out.

Sorry, but I threw my Cracker Jack Super De-coder Ring away when I got out of grade school, so you're still talking gibberish.

"You're arguing that slaves being allowed to go to town is not humane and blatantly psychopathic?"
Yes. Are you finally getting it that this is not humane and extremely demented?

I already told you what I'm getting out of this thread. That you're simply babbling without an argument.

"And you would be punished for walking off, same as a slave. The level of punishment being the only difference."
Punished by who? How? I might get fired? OK.
So a slave would get punished for walking off a job that he is getting no compensation for.
Point?

You tell me the point. You were the one that said being allowed to leave the plantation after finishing a shift was inhumane torture, and then you made an issue of being able to leave when you want. Nobody simply walks off a job without consequences.

You assert they are not psychopath because they treated the slaves "as humanely as possible."
I don't see any slaves being released.

And I don't see any torture or psychopathic behavior.

Or I guess you don't think that not trying to interfere with their choice weather to leave anytime they wanted or continue to work for proper compansation would not be as humanely as possible.
They did not give them their free choice.
Therefore, they were not treating them as humanyly as possible.

They were treating them as humanely as possible in an institution that everybody understands was oppressive by its very nature, but they could have made much worse by physcially and mentally abusing their slaves.

Holding somebody in captivity to do your labor for you is torture.
I don't care how well you dress them and feed them. It's torture.
Torturing and abusing humans is psychotic.
I don't care how accepted it is.
Get it through your oppressive head.

Holding someone in captivity is wrong. It's oppressive. Yes, it's inhumane. But, it's not inhumane torture, nor is it psychotic. Locking someone in chains and beating them is inhumane, abusive torture.

"1 and 1/2 days a week off, and allowed to move around the community once my work shift was done"
You have the nerve to justify that they weren't abusing the slaves when you continue to clearly show that they were ALLOWING the slaves to do things.
How is that not abuse?

Because they have the option to NOT allow slaves to do things.

They are allowing people to do something as if they owned the person.
How is thinking that you own a person not psychotic.

- Psychopath: A person with a mental disorder manifested especially in agressively antisocial behavior. -

That's how.

"it would be hard for me to scream "torture", or that my master was a psychopath."
Not for me. I find it pretty easy actually. This demented psycho is torturing me.

That simply shows me that not only do you not understand the meaning of 'psychopath', you no longer understand the meaning of 'demented' either.

"When have I attempted to claim that holding someone in captivity is treating them well?"
How etnabr gtdjdzo xptcd?

dfgnfgjngndlf

See. I can hit keys randomly too. And it's the same indecipherable nonsense as yours.

We both asserted that the founders held people in captivity.
Spyke: "the founders did not treat their slaves inhumanely."
Holding people in captivity is not inhumane enough?
cool skill: "You have yet to explain to me how holding somebody in captivity to do your labor is treating them well?"

I have yet even attempted to explain that holding someone in captivity is treating them well. That's simply your inability to comprehend. What I've been saying for several days now is how were slaves treated in slavery. That is where we get different degrees of separation. If the founders had physically abused and tortured their slaves I think people would have a tougher time looking at them as great men. But they didn't.

Holding humans in captive and making them do your labor for you makes you a total psychopath. I don't care if everybody is doing it.
You have yet to prove to me how doing so is not inhumane as you claim.

I've never said slavery was not inhumane. I've said that the founders didn't torture there slaves, nor are they psychotic. Your failure to understand the meaning of psychotic is just that...your failure.

You just keep claiming they treated the slaves well.
They held the slaves in captivity to do their labor.
Oh but holding somebody in captivity is treating them well because all their friends were doing it?
You're argument has gone from weak to non-existent.

My argument has remained consistent from the beginning. It's yours that's quickly degenerated into little more than a rant.

"I think what Goofy was attacking was the obvious fact you don't have a clue as to what you are arguing."
No he wasn't. Get a clue. Caught by what? You're weak defense for psychos? Sure.

I think it was pretty obvious what Goofy was attacking. Apparently he recognizes crap too.

15ofthe19

04-28-04, 06:12 PM

My reading comprehension skills are above par and it's irrefutable that cool skill made the accusation that these men invented slavery. No semantic argument was made.

My opinion: cool skill presumes the other readers of this thread to be so poorly equipped at discussion as to fall prey to a pedestrian circular argument. I hate to disappoint cool skill, but his/her presumptions would be better suited to the sandbox. And this specific case the argument could be made that of all the members of sciforums to challenge on the issue of these men, he/she chose the absolute worst opponent to try and dizzy with circular logic.

Nevertheless, I do find myself enjoying a certain morbid yet humorous pleasure in watching someone spin out of control like a not-so-slow speed trainwreck.

lixluke

04-28-04, 07:03 PM

My reading comprehension skills are above par and it's irrefutable that cool skill made the accusation that these men invented slavery. No semantic argument was made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Read again.
My words were played on in an blatantly over literal manner.
I made an assertion.
The wording I used to make my assertion was attacked and turned into something else.

lixluke

04-28-04, 07:09 PM

"If the choice is being chained and getting beaten or being allowed to move around on my own after my shift, it's a no-brainer."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point?
It might not be as bad as getting whipped.
But it allowing people to do things as if you owned them is still inhumane abuse of human rights none the less.

"No, I'm just mocking you."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough.

"and then you made an issue of being able to leave when you want."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You dissected my assertion in order to imply something that had nothing to do with point as a whole.

"I don't see any torture or psychopathic behavior."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess holding humans in captive against their own will and forcing them to do your labor for you isn't psychotic enough.
Perhaps it's because you think that giving them some food and clothes and time to go into the community negates the fact that they were being abused.
Let's force you to do all my labor.
Then give you some food and clothes.
Then tell you that you are living better than the industrial workers.
And this is common practice so that what I am doing to you is appropriate.
Perhaps you would thank me instead of think I am psychotically taking advantage of your human rights.

"but they could have made much worse by physcially and mentally abusing their slaves."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for them.
Too bad forcing people into captivity and labor is abuse and torture.
Not whipping them and giving a few measly allowances won't change that.
Too bad forcing people into captivity and labor is extremely psychotic.
The common acceptance of it will not change that.

"But, it's not inhumane torture, nor is it psychotic."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is.
Spyke: "Locking someone in chains and beating them is inhumane, abusive torture."
Sure it is.
A slave owner might not do all that.
It might not be as severe.
But holding people in captivity to do your labor for you is inhumane abusive torture none the less.

"Because they have the option to NOT allow slaves to do things."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you kidding me?
Of course they don't have that option.
Nobody has the option to NOT allow a person to do things.
Claiming that I do have the option to NOT allow you to do things is and always will be abuse of your rights.

"Psychopath: A person with a mental disorder manifested especially in agressively antisocial behavior."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all you are dealing with semantics.
I already asserted that when I use the term psychopath I use it to mean anybody that treated people inhumanely and had no respect for their lives and humanity.

cool skill:
"Let's try to make it clear:
With regards to this thread, - (do you get that part?)
a psychopath is - (are you following?)
anybody that treated people inhumanely and had no respect for their lives and humanity. - (clear enough)
Or is it still too difficult for you to figure out?"

It shouldn't have been difficult to figure out that I was not using it in the exact dictionary definition.
Anybody could have easily realized that.
But regardless, it is not far at all from your little dictionary attempt to invalidate my argument.

As your definition states: A person with a mental disorder manifested especially in agressively antisocial behavior.
Treating people inhumanely and having no respect for their lives and humanity is aggressive antisocial behavior.
Ergo psychotic behavior.

Hopefully you won't attempt the same by attacking my implied definition for antisocial. In other words, get over it and MOVE ON.
We all know what I mean when I say psychotic: -Deranged,sick in the head, demented, coocoo, nuts.
Why are we putting dictionary definitions up?

"That simply shows me that not only do you not understand the meaning of 'psychopath', you no longer understand the meaning of 'demented' either."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure thing.

"dfgnfgjngndlf

See. I can hit keys randomly too. And it's the same indecipherable nonsense as yours."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Wrong as usual. I guess you don't know how to read an entire post before you schop it.
Otherwise, you might have noticed that I said it was not random.

"If the founders had physically abused and tortured their slaves I think people would have a tougher time looking at them as great men. But they didn't."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes they did. We have already established that holding a person in captivity to do your labor is torture and abuse no matter what they did.

If I were to kidnap somebody and keep them underground, but make their stay as comfortable as possible.
You would probably say that the fact that I am keeping them underground is not abusive and torturous.

Spyke

04-29-04, 12:59 AM

"If the choice is being chained and getting beaten or being allowed to move around on my own after my shift, it's a no-brainer."
Point?

I'd say the point is obviously over your head, as has become painfully obvious, so no point in repeating it.

It might not be as bad as getting whipped.

Well, there you go. It's not as bad as getting whipped.

But it allowing people to do things as if you owned them is still inhumane abuse of human rights none the less.

Yes it is, as I've said several times. But it is not the torturous actions of psychopaths, again as I've said several times.

"and then you made an issue of being able to leave when you want."
You dissected my assertion in order to imply something that had nothing to do with point as a whole.

Your point was ridiculous to begin with, which was to imply that allowing slaves to move around freely after a shift was somehow still inhumane. I simply pointed out that even wage labor had to finish a shift before leaving unless they too wanted to suffer some sort of repercussions.

"I don't see any torture or psychopathic behavior."
I guess holding humans in captive against their own will and forcing them to do your labor for you isn't psychotic enough.

All signs point to 'yes'.

Perhaps it's because you think that giving them some food and clothes and time to go into the community negates the fact that they were being abused.

It negates the claim that they were tortured.

Let's force you to do all my labor.
Then give you some food and clothes.
Then tell you that you are living better than the industrial workers.
And this is common practice so that what I am doing to you is appropriate.
Perhaps you would thank me instead of think I am psychotically taking advantage of your human rights.

Or they could have been a free black in the work force, not allowed to vote, being told where they couldn't live, where they couldn't work, buying their own food, their own clothes, on the tiny amount of money they made from some shit job.

"but they could have made much worse by physcially and mentally abusing their slaves."
Good for them.
Too bad forcing people into captivity and labor is abuse and torture.
Not whipping them and giving a few measly allowances won't change that.
Too bad forcing people into captivity and labor is extremely psychotic.
The common acceptance of it will not change that.

Repeating the same tired mantra over and over won't make it come true.

"Because they have the option to NOT allow slaves to do things."
Are you kidding me?
Of course they don't have that option.
Nobody has the option to NOT allow a person to do things.
Claiming that I do have the option to NOT allow you to do things is and always will be abuse of your rights.

That makes no sense even for you. Let me spell it out for you. I own you. Therefore I have the power to treat you with at least a certain amount of dignity, or either kick you into a corner and beat the shit out of you every day. I have the power to torture you or NOT to torture you.

"Psychopath: A person with a mental disorder manifested especially in agressively antisocial behavior."
First of all you are dealing with semantics.

Uh, no, I'm dealing with the actual meaning of the word.

I already asserted that when I use the term psychopath I use it to mean anybody that treated people inhumanely and had no respect for their lives and humanity.

I know how you've tried to use the word. Badly.

cool skill:
"Let's try to make it clear:
With regards to this thread, - (do you get that part?)
a psychopath is - (are you following?)
anybody that treated people inhumanely and had no respect for their lives and humanity. - (clear enough)
Or is it still too difficult for you to figure out?"

We're watching coolskill go into scrambling mode. He's decided now that he should be allowed to redefine the word so it fits his rant. Sorry. No can do. I'm having too much fun watching your tautology fray.

It shouldn't have been difficult to figure out that I was not using it in the exact dictionary definition.

It wasn't difficult at all. It was actually rather obvious you didn't know what you were talking about.

Anybody could have easily realized that.

Oh, I'd say it's pretty obvious from the various comments that 'anyone' viewing has realized your misuse of the word.

But regardless, it is not far at all from your little dictionary attempt to invalidate my argument.

Your argument was invalidated a long time ago.

As your definition states: A person with a mental disorder manifested especially in agressively antisocial behavior.
Treating people inhumanely and having no respect for their lives and humanity is aggressive antisocial behavior.
Ergo psychotic behavior.

Owning slaves in a slaveowning society is not aggressive antisocial behavior. You can spin it any way you want to try and save face but it's not going to change.

Hopefully you won't attempt the same by attacking my implied definition for antisocial.

Oops! I just did.

In other words, get over it and MOVE ON.

I'm enjoying this too much.

We all know what I mean when I say psychotic: -Deranged,sick in the head, demented, coocoo, nuts.

yes, and that's why your argument is limp.

See. I can hit keys randomly too. And it's the same indecipherable nonsense as yours."
Nope. Wrong as usual. I guess you don't know how to read an entire post before you schop it.
Otherwise, you might have noticed that I said it was not random.

Well, gosh, yes, but you see I didn't really know how you meant 'random', since you don't apparently don't use words according to their dictionary meanings. And I'm helpless without a de-coder ring.

"If the founders had physically abused and tortured their slaves I think people would have a tougher time looking at them as great men. But they didn't."
Yes they did. We have already established that holding a person in captivity to do your labor is torture and abuse no matter what they did.

No, not 'we'.

lixluke

04-29-04, 10:22 AM

"Or they could have been a free black in the work force, not allowed to vote, being told where they couldn't live, where they couldn't work, buying their own food, their own clothes, on the tiny amount of money they made from some shit job."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's force you to do all my labor.
THEN TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE LIVING BETTER THAN A FREE BLACK IN THE WORK FORCE.
Then give you some food and clothes.
Then tell you that you are living better than the industrial workers.
And this is common practice so that what I am doing to you is appropriate.
Then force you to do some more of my labor.
Perhaps you would thank me instead of think I am psychotically taking advantage of your human rights.
You would get down on your knees and thank me that I am forcing you to do my labor instead of giving you a choice weather or not you want to discontinue.
All because I feel you would be better off doing my bidding.

Forcing people into captivity and labor is abuse and torture.
Whipping and giving them worse conditions won't change that.
Giving a few measly allowances won't change that.
They could have made their lives worse.
They could have gave them a few more allowances.
It will never change the fact that forcing people into captivity and labor is abuse and torture.
Period.
Forcing people into captivity and labor is extremely psychotic.
The common acceptance of it will not change that.

You have yet to provide sufficient evidence that it is not torture.
So they weren't whipped. who cares?
They were being held in captivity to do labor.
That in itself is torture.
You have yet to provide proper claims that it isn't.
So they had meager allowances.
That doesn't mean that the fact that they were being held in captivity to do labor in itself is not torture.
Your argument has no real substantial support.
Just pathetic examples that attempt to downplay the severity of the fact that being held in captivity in it self being torture.
Why on this planet would you want to downplay the severity of being held captive to do labor?
It is torture and it will always be torture.

"I own you. Therefore I have the power to treat you with at least a certain amount of dignity, or either kick you into a corner and beat the shit out of you every day. I have the power to torture you or NOT to torture you."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point exactly.
Completely psychotic and insane behavior.
They claimed that they owned the person.
Therefore they had the power to do this and that.
I don't care what certain amount of dignity he is treating you with.
Weather you are being kicked or fed.
The plain fact that you are forced to abide by a nutcase's psychotic demands is plain and simple torture.

"I'm dealing with the actual meaning of the word."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, you have no argument.
If you do not wish to argue the point, you have nothing.
If you wish to be act in an extremist over literal manner, you cannot focus on the point.
You can only focus on the word.
I asserted that they were psychopaths.
You decided to change the meaning of what I meant by my assertion.

"It wasn't difficult at all. It was actually rather obvious you didn't know what you were talking about."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I did know what I was talking about.
You are the one that does not know how to overlook the words, and argue the point.
You would rather just take the meaning of the point out of completely out of context and change the context.

"I'm enjoying this too much."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously you would rather sit there and play with semantics than actually focus on the point.
That is the only way you can make any attempt at winning your argument.
Who cares what word I chose to describe them.
I used the word psychopath to describe people that are sick in the head and participate in sick behavior.
They are psychopaths.

You on the other hand are not focused on what I meant.
You are focused on controlling other people's points like a nazi.

You do this because your premise has no validity and this is the only way you know how to cling to an invalid argument.

"He's decided now that he should be allowed to redefine the word so it fits his rant."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You might not have the capacity to understand that I am not redefining anything.

You do not wish to stick to the topic.

Instead you wish to change a point. Then, argue against a changed point.

What is the sense in me making the point?

Then, you changing the meaning of the point?

Then you arguing the meaning that you changed it into instead of arguing the actual meaning of the point?

Do you think you are going to accomplish anything like this?

Do you think you will get anywhere?

I might not have used the exact dictionary definition, but it is easy to understand the meaning and point behind the words.
You claim to know the meaning and point behind the words.
But you then make an argument against the the response acoording to dictionary definitions of the word instead of the point behind it.
Knowing what the point was and knowing that the dictionary definition was not the point made by the debator.
why would you argue against something that was not the point?
What did you expect to accomplish by doing so?
You claimed to enjoy do doing so.
What is so enjoyable about arguing a point that was never made by the dabator?
Where would you expect to go with an arguing against a completely different version of the opponents point instead of arguing the the oppenents point?

I clearly informed you a number of times that I was not using the dictionary definition of the word psychotic from the beginning.
Why would you continue to argue the dictionary definition of the the word instead of the point that I was using the word to make?
How will that make progress for the debate?

Spyke

04-29-04, 03:02 PM

I'm avoiding all of your continued comments on the institution of slavery itself. That was never the issue. Your misuse of 'psychopath' to describe the founders has been the issue at hand from the beginning. You know it. I know it.

Forcing people into captivity and labor is abuse and torture.
Whipping and giving them worse conditions won't change that.

I'd say it changes a lot.

You have yet to provide sufficient evidence that it is not torture.

I've provided plenty of it. It apparently flies over your head.

So they weren't whipped. who cares?

A good bet would be the slaves.

They were being held in captivity to do labor.
That in itself is torture.

That is cruel and obscene. Whipping them and other physical or mental pain would be torture.

You have yet to provide proper claims that it isn't.

I've literally been slapping you upside the head with proof.

"I own you. Therefore I have the power to treat you with at least a certain amount of dignity, or either kick you into a corner and beat the shit out of you every day. I have the power to torture you or NOT to torture you."
My point exactly.
Completely psychotic and insane behavior.
They claimed that they owned the person.
Therefore they had the power to do this and that.
I don't care what certain amount of dignity he is treating you with.
Weather you are being kicked or fed.
The plain fact that you are forced to abide by a nutcase's psychotic demands is plain and simple torture

Ah, now we're getting to the good stuff. Your continued misuse of words. Too funny. Hey, if I've got the money to buy you and put you to work for me, and society allows me to do that, that simply makes me a savvy businessman. To not take advantage of what society allows me would more likely make me a nutcase. If I, however, whip you while I own you then I am torturing you. If instead I attempt to make your captivity as bearable as possible, while I may be an a-hole for owning you, I'm hardly a demented torturer. And definitely not a psychopath. And bear in mind I'm using 'psychopath' in its real sense, not the definition you made up in your fantasy world.

"I'm dealing with the actual meaning of the word."
Therefore, you have no argument.
If you do not wish to argue the point, you have nothing.
If you wish to be act in an extremist over literal manner, you cannot focus on the point.
You can only focus on the word.
I asserted that they were psychopaths.
You decided to change the meaning of what I meant by my assertion.

Damn! You got me there. I can't respond if I have no clue what you just said. Is that some more of that 'crypto' stuff? Anybody got a de-coder ring I can borrow?

"It wasn't difficult at all. It was actually rather obvious you didn't know what you were talking about."
No. I did know what I was talking about.
You are the one that does not know how to overlook the words, and argue the point.
You would rather just take the meaning of the point out of completely out of context and change the context.

*blank stare* I'm glad you know what you're talking about, because I'm drawing a blank here. All I know is that when someone uses a word as a descriptive, it is customary to assume they are using it properly. To use a word out of context multiple times in an argument, and after being continually called on it, and suddenly say everybody should know how you meant it is bush league.

"I'm enjoying this too much."
Obviously you would rather sit there and play with semantics than actually focus on the point.

The point is you don't know what you're talking about. Semantics schemantics.

That is the only way you can make any attempt at winning your argument.

I won this argument a long way back. I'm just enjoying watching you squirm at this point.

Who cares what word I chose to describe them.
I used the word psychopath to describe people that are sick in the head and participate in sick behavior.
They are psychopaths.

I rest my case.

You on the other hand are not focused on what I meant.

I focused on what you said. And that's where you got into trouble.

You are focused on controlling other people's points like a nazi.

Now I feel bad.

You do not wish to stick to the topic.

I've stuck to the topic like white on rice.

Instead you wish to change a point. Then, argue against a changed point.

The point was that the founders, while slaveowners, were not psychopaths who tortured their slaves. I've been on that same point since the beginning. It's you that are now dancing around the definition of 'psychopath'.

I might not have used the exact dictionary definition, but it is easy to understand the meaning and point behind the words.

I understand the meaning of the word. I understand your point. The two are incompatible. If you had simply said you couldn't respect the founders for being slaveowners, fine, your point would have been taken. Nobody insists you have to like them. But instead you had to screech about 'insane psychopathic demented asshole torturers', and it was obvious you didn't know what you were talking about, so I called you on it.

You claim to know the meaning and point behind the words.
But you then make an argument against the the response acoording to dictionary definitions of the word instead of the point behind it.

You're point was wrong.

Knowing what the point was and knowing that the dictionary definition was not the point made by the debator.
why would you argue against something that was not the point?
What did you expect to accomplish by doing so?
You claimed to enjoy do doing so.
What is so enjoyable about arguing a point that was never made by the dabator?
Where would you expect to go with an arguing against a completely different version of the opponents point instead of arguing the the oppenents point?

You're rambling, and not saying anything of value.

I clearly informed you a number of times that I was not using the dictionary definition of the word psychotic from the beginning.

No, you didn't. You've just started back-pedalling in your last couple of posts.

Why would you continue to argue the dictionary definition of the the word instead of the point that I was using the word to make?

Simple. Because not only were you msisuing the word, you weren't making a valid point either.

How will that make progress for the debate?

This 'debate' ended a long time back. I'm just stringing it on because it amuses me. I'm actually surprised a mod hasn't locked the thread as yet, but until they do...

goofyfish

04-29-04, 04:04 PM

...You are focused on controlling other people's points like a nazi.And the judges invoke Godwin's Law (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Godwin's%20law), and cool skill loses the debate!

:rolleyes: Peace.

lixluke

04-29-04, 11:21 PM

"Your misuse of 'psychopath' to describe the founders has been the issue at hand from the beginning."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
The issue was that you took the word psychopath out of the context I was clearly using it for.
you even took the word out of context after I clearly explained what the context I was using it for was.

"I'd say it changes a lot."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure it does. The severity of the torture that is already at hand increases.
Giving people allowances might decrease the severity of the TORTURE of slaving them.
Whipping people might increase the severity of the TORTURE of slaving them.
With either severity, it's still TORTURE.

"I've provided plenty of it. It apparently flies over your head."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No you haven't. You haven't even argued the point I was making.
You created your own point by slanting mine, and argued it.
Spyke: "I'm enjoying this too much."
At least somebody is having fun. Too bad that somebody can't prove anything by having fun.
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.

"To not take advantage of what society allows me would more likely make me a nutcase."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To take advantage if of society offering you the chance to profit by PSYCHOPATHICALLY TORTURING others is not savvy business.
It is sick in the head.
If you do such a thing, you are a PSYCHOPATH.
Holding a human captive is the same as TORTURING the human.

"Damn! You got me there."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you cannot figure it out.
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.

"I won this argument a long way back."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't win anything.
Your joke of a premise has been torn to shreds.
You don't even have a clue what you are talking about.
You think you win something you have no knowledge about.
The plain and simple fact its thaT YOU LOST AND YOU KNOW IT.
I guess you can't seem to realize you're under water.
Wipe yourself off. YOU'RE DROWNING!

"I've stuck to the topic like white on rice."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
The only thing you stuck to is serious lack of logic.
You have been pulled out of your wooden world like a puppet.

"The point was that the founders, while slaveowners, were not psychopaths who tortured their slaves."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't even know the meaning of the word point.
You prbably pull out your mother's dictionary for each word you see and still can't figure it out.
You are clinging on to a ghost. Boo. you're dead. Your argument is in logicless limbo.

"It's you that are now dancing around the definition of 'psychopath'."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. It's quite easy.
It's even easier when you stumble all over it with your mother's dictionary trying to use it to win your burnt argument.
Then falling all over your baseless assertions in flames.

"But instead you had to screech about 'insane psychopathic demented asshole torturers', and it was obvious you didn't know what you were talking about, so I called you on it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's not to know.
You're admirable forefathers are insane.
You might as well follow in their footsteps if you think they are so healthy and level headed.

"You're point was wrong."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too bad you didn't provide any logical back up to prove it.
Instead you created your own point out of it.
Then you argued against that.
That doesn't work with me.
You have buried yourself in your own lack of knowledge of what is being discussed.

"You're rambling, and not saying anything of value."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously you have no way to prove me wrong.
Therefore you state a claim with no real substance.
Nice try. Hope you learned your lesson.

"No, you didn't."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did. I stated what it meant from the beginning.
Yu fall through yet another one of my flames that burnt your weak completely invalid assertion to crisp.

"Because not only were you msisuing the word, you weren't making a valid point either."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of always getting killed?
You did it because you had nothing to counter my point.
Therefore, you might as well accept your horrible defeat. Stop trying to keep a grip when you've already fell off.

"I'm just stringing it on because it amuses me."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure.
I'm sure you are thoroughly amused by being blown to pieces.
You have nothing to show for yourself.
The only thing you've proven is that if you were in their place, you would have surely did the same thing.
Your racism is apparant in your baseless assertions. You have been revealed.
I hope you are very amused that your argument has been thoroughly ripped to shreds.