|
United States43263 Posts
On January 27 2013 08:48 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 08:45 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2013 08:38 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 27 2013 08:36 KwarK wrote:
In 61 AD there is a riot over 400 innocent slaves being executed (on the basis of a Senate debate deciding they should be) and Nero sends in the army to stop the riot and make sure the slaves get executed. Nothing the US government has done is in the same league. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears ... And Nero was worse than our President... We're comparing apples to oranges here though. I think we need to focus on the treat of individual slaves in each society. The institutional system that the South setup was as bad as any Roman system I believe. Okay, firstly, as bad was my point. I was the one arguing that basically being a slave is pretty shit wherever you are. You were the one arguing that it's worse to be worked to death by a man who thinks you're inferior based on your skin colour than worked to death by a man who thinks you're inferior because you were taken as a slave. You can't steal my argument like that. I'd notice. In fact, I did notice. Secondly, as i keep saying, there is no real evidence for the experience of an agricultural slave in Rome, only that which can be assumed indirectly by things like the fact that the stock was not self perpetuating (they died a lot). What? I didn't steal your argument. I've been arguing the whole time that being a slave is bad everywhere. Let me quote myself from two hours ago... Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 06:31 BronzeKnee wrote:
Please check the source I presented. It is a great article.
I am not disputing that Roman slaves were treated really badly.
In the prologue to his book, Generations of
Captivity, Ira Berlin makes it very clear that, “no history of
slavery can avoid these themes: violence, power, and labor,
hence the formation and reformation of classes and races.
The study of slavery on mainland North America is first the
study of enormous, hideous violence that a few powerful men
wielded to extort the labor of others"
But the fact is, I have been the one arguing that it's worse to be worked to death by a man who thinks you're inferior based on your skin colour and the fact your a slave than worked to death by a man who thinks you're inferior because you were taken as a slave. Look at this way. Let's say you have two slaves, one is Asian and one is Black. But your racist and you really hate Asians, even though you'll work them both like slaves, won't you treat the Asian worse, because you hate Asians? Does that not make sense?
At this point you need to cite the evidence that American slaveowners were more violently hateful than Roman ones. What you have done thus far is state "under the following conditions, my argument would totally be correct". What you need to do is actually show that the following conditions were relevant.
We're back to the whole adult table problem again.
|
Actually, I think I've done it.
We know that in Nazi concentration camps Jews generally got the worst treatment because of racism, compared to the other races that were sent to the camps.
Thus is conceivable that while owning a slave from a race you despise means you'll treat that slave worse than one from your own race.
At this point you need to cite the evidence that American slaveowners were more violently hateful than Roman ones. What you have done thus far is state "under the following conditions, my argument would totally be correct". What you need to do is actually show that the following conditions were relevant.
We're back to the whole adult table problem again.
I've always been at the adult table man, you were the one who got up in a fit of rage and tried to mock me and allowed posts like this:
On January 27 2013 07:24 maybenexttime wrote:
You smacked him like a Roman slave owner would've smacked his slave, presumably.
I can show that American slave owners were violently hateful and racist, though we have no way of knowing if they were more violent than Roman ones. We can only infer that from human nature, and the fact that Romans would work/earn their way out of slavery while African Americans could not generally.
I will admit that there is a possibility that Romans were as cruel or more cruel than Southern slave owners and that my indoctrination in grade school through college in America is playing a part here. I'm clinging to it still because it makes logical sense. However, Rome's institutions were often more cruel as noted...
And I am dead serious about banning me from the General Forums only.
|
United States43263 Posts
You have gone from arguing absolutes to arguing that your point is conceivable. Just so you know. Is it because Ryan Stevens no longer has your back?
Also racism in the modern sense didn't exist in Roman times. Had a module on that last year oddly enough. Skin colour wasn't the defining feature of barbarians. But there was definitely a concept of us and them and the vast, vast majority of slaves were them. In Roman times you didn't need to look different to be past of the despised outsider class.
|
United States43263 Posts
On January 27 2013 08:57 BronzeKnee wrote:though we have no way of knowing if they were more violent than Roman ones.
The boy learns!
I have taught!
|
You guys are arguing too much over racism and slavery, wouldn't it be better to focus on humans being the plague of the earth? Humans use cows and chickens as slaves, so human slavery isn't really all that much different, it's just people instead of other animals. Isn't that just like racism?
Anyway...... Do you really think that racism and/or slavery would qualify for the "plague of the earth" title? Honestly, I don't think it is -that- detrimental to the earth itself, only the society/culture/people.
|
On January 27 2013 09:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 08:57 BronzeKnee wrote:though we have no way of knowing if they were more violent than Roman ones. The boy learns! I have taught!
Sit back down at the table. I am always learning.
And if you haven't learned anything from this conversation, then I feel sorry for you.
|
United States43263 Posts
I've learned how incredibly indoctrinated the American system makes you. You realise that you personally didn't enslave anyone, right? Just don't call them niggers, challenge racism when you see it, hire/promote whoever is best for the job, treat everyone pretty much equally and get on with life. Jeez.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 27 2013 09:09 KwarK wrote:
I've learned how incredibly indoctrinated the American system makes you. You realise that you personally didn't enslave anyone, right? Just don't call them niggers, challenge racism when you see it, hire/promote whoever is best for the job, treat everyone pretty much equally and get on with life. Jeez.
To be fair the UK has some equally dumb shit. Like the pm apologising for the slave trade as if he were partly responsible for it
|
United States43263 Posts
On January 27 2013 09:15 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 09:09 KwarK wrote:
I've learned how incredibly indoctrinated the American system makes you. You realise that you personally didn't enslave anyone, right? Just don't call them niggers, challenge racism when you see it, hire/promote whoever is best for the job, treat everyone pretty much equally and get on with life. Jeez. To be fair the UK has some equally dumb shit. Like the pm apologising for the slave trade as if he were partly responsible for it
And yet Blair armed Gaddafi in exchange for oil money and no fucks were given.
|
The world will balance itself out. If there are too many people, and it is truly unsustainable, people will die off. With less people, others can survive. How hard is it to figure out?
|
On January 27 2013 09:21 SEA KarMa wrote:
The world will balance itself out. If there are too many people, and it is truly unsustainable, people will die off. With less people, others can survive. How hard is it to figure out?
Good thinking Karma  . I don't think many people were questioning that though lol
|
On January 27 2013 09:09 KwarK wrote:
I've learned how incredibly indoctrinated the American system makes you. You realise that you personally didn't enslave anyone, right? Just don't call them niggers, challenge racism when you see it, hire/promote whoever is best for the job, treat everyone pretty much equally and get on with life. Jeez.
I'm happy with the argument set out in my last post, so I suppose this discussion is over. Of course the American system is indoctrinating, every system will be. Someday maybe we can have a discussion on the Revolutionary War and see the differences in what we were taught...
Anyway, we got on this because we were arguing over whether resources started the American Civil War, I hope you are convinced it was ideology. If not, oh well.
Please, if you would be so kind, please ban me from the general forums.
|
On January 27 2013 09:21 SEA KarMa wrote:
The world will balance itself out. If there are too many people, and it is truly unsustainable, people will die off. With less people, others can survive. How hard is it to figure out? I'm not really sure how this got derailed into racism and nazi concentration camps... but back on topic.
I think what people are trying to figure out is the morality of more people. What you're suggesting, just let things run their own course, is almost certainly not an optimal solution. Optimal in regards to human life, and productivity, and so on. If we have the ability to choose a better path then shouldn't we?
Can we sustain more people (you would think yes with technology but the uneven distribution of resources in today's world suggests otherwise), and on a deeper level, should we make a conscious effort to curtail growth.
Some countries have tons of problems, generally the poorer and developing ones like China, India, and Africa, while richer countries (Japan, Scandinavia) are shrinking in population. Is doing nothing to control population moral when we have the ability to taper growth? These are tougher questions that people can't agree on so easily.
|
United States43263 Posts
On January 27 2013 09:31 BronzeKnee wrote:
Please, if you would be so kind, please ban me from the general forums.
No such option exists.
|
On January 27 2013 08:09 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 08:08 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 08:05 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 27 2013 08:03 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 08:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 27 2013 07:59 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 07:55 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2013 07:54 imallinson wrote:On January 27 2013 07:39 BronzeKnee wrote:
To me, logically it makes complete sense and because most scholars agree I am.
That is terrible argument. Just because something logically makes sense doesn't make it true. I could give you a long list of things that don't logically make sense but is true or makes logical sense but isn't true. And you keep saying that most scholars agree with you doesn't make that more true. They also don't agree with him for what it's worth. He got that idea after googling what he believed to be true, finding Ryan Stevens and taking Ryan Steven's generic opening paragraph massively out of context and then presenting Ryan Stevens as somewhere in between Stephen Hawking and God. Yeah I saw that. I'm just laughing at the fact that he is still claiming it is based on a student and a law professor. That article is based on student. The book is from a law professor. No claiming, it is. Yes but he is a law professor not a history professor. It's like saying climate change isn't happening because one geology professor says so. My objective here is to give you enough sources so that you accept that American slavery was harsher than Roman slavery, and that it is common knowledge, which I know. The sources can come from anywhere as long as they are reliable. Perhaps the best evidence for what I am arguing is to compare Roman slave law to America slave law. Read the article, he shows the clear distinctions of why it is more harsh. Except sources can't just come from anywhere. If you source something from a student or from a professor in a different field it doesn't add much credibility to your argument. Perhaps the best evidence for what I am arguing is to compare Roman slave law to America slave law. And who better to consult that a law professor? On January 27 2013 08:09 AmericanNightmare wrote:
All I ask is you learn the real reason behind the American Civil War... and stop lying to those from other parts of the world.
I'd like to change my original opinion about who are plagues...
Last time I went down South, I flew into Norfolk Virginia... and what was in the airport, a case displaying Confederate uniforms, and bunch of Confederate Flags. Talking to a Southerner who believes that the war wasn't about slavery is like talking to a Holocaust denier, it is useless. I've tried it. I already gave the history constitutionally in this thread and if you look at what happened in Congress you'll realize what it was about. There was no war of Northern Aggression. The South fired first, because they didn't want to lose their slaves, they didn't even care for the democratic process, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in Southern states. To argue it wasn't about slavery is beyond ridiculous. End of story.
Who said this? "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
I'll give you a hint, it's the same man who said," My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."
Ending slavery in the South was punishment for them rebelling. Why else would Lincoln leave hundred of thousands of slaves in the northern slave states alone?
The purpose of the American Civil War was to preserve the Union... said so by the man himself. Are you calling Lincoln ridiculous? Are you saying that Lincoln was wrong and he actually did it all to end slavery without knowing?
|
On January 27 2013 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 05:54 KwarK wrote:
You have also completely mischaracterised the nature of slaves as government officials. You are talking, I believe, about the emperor Claudius who distrusted everyone but his own household and entrusted a lot of the business of government to his slaves and freedmen under his direction. It was by no means standard, it was an aberration and is noted in our sources as an aberration which leads me to believe you have not read them.
You do not understand that of which you speak. Come on KwarK, I expect better. During the early Empire freed slaves held so many key positions in the government bureaucracy, that Hadrian restricted their participation by law. However, he deemed that any future children of a freedman would be born free, with full rights of citizenship. This is known, look it up. Now, Rome had a long history and sources are limited and unreliable so maybe this isn't the best discussion to have. Fact is, Roman slaves didn't face racism, because they came from all races. Americans slaves did. And because of this African Americans face racism today in America, yet there were no lingering bad sentiments after Roman slavery ended. We need moar sources! Here are sources: http://books.google.com/books?id=K-o8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA396&lpg=PA396&dq=hadrian restricted freedmen&source=bl&ots=LOp0EOZeXw&sig=yNgKdfSLJQo-DAc_Ik2prWs3PnM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DEQEUZvcK4f-0gGu_oHQBQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hadrian restricted freedmen&f=falsesehttp://books.google.com/books?id=iklePELtR6QC&pg=PA564&dq=hadrian restricted freedmen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SEUEUairFoHo0gHZ5YHwDw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=hadrian restricted freedmen&f=falseAnd I really just need to stop.
No racism? You should read up on Barbarism and from whence it originates. Rome was fanatically racist. Two wrongs do not make a right. Also, the War Between the States, was about more than just slavery. Hell, South Carolina threatened to seceede in the 1830s and Jackson threatened to exterminate the lot of them if they so tried over tariffs. It was a war over regional economic interests (agrarian vs. mercantile), where one region wanted to punish the other to subsidize their industries. In any event, the entire country was Racist in those times except for the few lot of libertarian folks of the day like Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, etc. Hell, Lincoln even wanted to deport all the Africans back to Africa. Perhaps you should read of the 'free Blacks' in the North account of how they were treated. It is also historical fact, that there were Northern Slaves even in 1861 (notably in Maryland and New Jersey).
http://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/Maryland_During_the_Secession_Crisis_RS_1.pdf
|
The problem isn't just too many humans to support, but also resource exploitation. Sadly, most resources don't just magically regenerate like ore mining nodes in an RPG...
|
There are many things that are a plague on the planet. None of them belong here either.
People need to stop listening to these idiot technocrats. He's a nobody and shouldn't be given the attention.
|
On January 27 2013 10:54 Khul Sadukar wrote:
There are many things that are a plague on the planet. None of them belong here either.
People need to stop listening to these idiot technocrats. He's a nobody and shouldn't be given the attention.
people calling David Attenborough an idiot would have been tossed off Taygetus without a second thought, it's so hard to not insult you lol
people are a plague, everyone even remotely intelligent knows that. where Attenborough is wrong is that the earth won't limit our population much since the technology is improving at incredible rates, artificial food etc is already possible. we're just going to eliminate every animal from earth that's not a vermin or parasite or domestically bred.
|
Even if there is a problem - I am not here to argue about that but - what could humanity or mankind do? I dont think there is any "good" way to turn this process back, just to slow it down, or not even that.
Just tell me some methods, which wont cause any repercussions in the population or method that will do in a reasonable time.
Its like fuckin politics most of the time. This and that is bad lets do the revolution changed them, but wait? For who?
Like the CO2 quotes. They made a new "currency" a new tradeable "resource" of that, while "saving" Earth. Mankind does what mankind likes to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
