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...
Peace.