Hammegk and slavery [Archive]

Mossy

20th November 2002, 11:58 AM

[edited to add answers to your questions]

Originally posted by hammegk
I doubt you want to know either.

Have you been to Africa? Lately? S. Africa? Lately?

Yes

Haiti? Killed all the massas in ?1857 I vaguely recall.

Honestly don't know.

Good examples of throwing off the chains of oppression.

Would most people prefer the amenities of downtown Wash.DC or of downtown Lagos, if one were down & out? Would you rather be black in Rio or Sao Paulo, or in Dar es Salaam? Or Kano?

Again, don't know. In all honesty, I think they both have their advantages depending on your perspective - but for my tastes, of course I would D.C.

Actually, imperialism/colonialism "in-country" would be best I suppose.

So hgc's characterization of your position is accurate?

Are you, in effect, saying that the black people in the US are much better off than the black people of Africa, and since they are in America primarily because of slavery, then that is the benefit?

And the follow-up question, if you answer "yes" to the above: would you therefor say that slavery was a good thing? (which isn't to say that slavery would be good now, just that "the ends justify the means" so if it ended up good - we shouldn't be too critical of it)

(not trying to be dense - just trying to understand your position)

-Ed

Q-Source

20th November 2002, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
I notice you find answering questions also too difficult.

And yeah, Slavery=Holocaust. YAAFI. :rolleyes:

Are you talking to me??

I don't discuss with someone who does not respect me.

Good bye

Q-S

hammegk

20th November 2002, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Are you talking to me??
You ARE quick; did someone else mention "Holocaust"?

I don't discuss with someone who does not respect me.

Good bye

Q-S

Sorry, kiddo. I don't mind rhetorical questions, but acting dumb at the same time doesn't get much "respect" from me.

Originally posted by Mossy

(not trying to be dense - just trying to understand your position)

No, I don't think I owe anyone reparations, or even an apology. If you can't make a life for yourself in the US today you are worthless. And, if you are also African-American, I'll take up a collection to send your sorry ass back "home".

Colin Powell & Condy Rice must thank God every morning for their ancestral good fortune.

Tmy

20th November 2002, 12:26 PM

Whiteys history of imperialism and colonialism is the root cause of most of the problems in Africa, MidEast, and in most parts of the world. They moved in, carved up new contries with concearn for local ethinicites and rivalries, throw in some puppet goverments, took what they wanted, then left once the going got tough.

Some Brit Politician has been bringing this up lately.

BPSCG

20th November 2002, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Following that reasoning, then Jews must be thankful for the Holocaust, thanks to that Germany gave them money and now they have Israel!

Hey, I'm thankful for Hitler, 'cuz if he hadn't wanted to turn my paternal grandparents into soap, they wouldn't have fled France in 1940. And if he hadn't declared war on the US the following year, my dad wouldn't have gone back to France wearing a uniform and wouldn't have met my future mom.

So let's hear it for Hitler!!! :p

Should I say that next Thursday when we're all going around the Thanksgiving dinner table and saying what we're thankful for this year? :confused:

Doubt

20th November 2002, 12:37 PM

hammegk,

I request a little clarification on the issue.

1.) Do you assume that the average Black American has a better life than the average African?
2.) Assuming the above is true, does the current situation justify slavery?

If number two is true that sounds a lot like stating that the ends justifies the means, even when the current "ends" was never a goal of slavery and was not foreseen by the slave owners.

Correct me if I am wrong about your perspective.

Michael Redman

20th November 2002, 12:41 PM

I'm thankful for Osama bin Laden, because the terrorist attacks helped put (keep) our economy in the tank, prompting lowered interest rates, which caused a whole slew of home mortgage refinancing, and I just got a job in the home mortgage industry due to the increased business!

headscratcher4

20th November 2002, 12:47 PM

Serious question:

Colin Powell & Condy Rice must thank God every morning for their ancestral good fortune.

If this is true, and I assume you believe it, should not a proud, happy and indipendent Isreali thank-God every morning, because the death of 6 million jews contributed greatly to the founding of Isreal?

Why, logically, does that not follow?

hammegk

20th November 2002, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Serious question:

If this is true, and I assume you believe it, should not a proud, happy and indipendent Isreali thank-God every morning, because the death of 6 million jews contributed greatly to the founding of Isreal?

Why, logically, does that not follow?

Well, darned if I know if Israelis should be as happy about 6 million educated civilized people slaughtered for no purpose as Africans could be about their 2 million aboriginals dead (+-) out of perhaps 12 million(+-) African slaves, with 10 million (+-)reaching new & better lives for their descendents.

What does logic tell you about costs/benefit to human-kind?

Originally posted by Tmy

Whiteys history of imperialism and colonialism is the root cause of most of the problems in Africa, MidEast, and in most parts of the world. They moved in, carved up new contries with concearn for local ethinicites and rivalries, throw in some puppet goverments, took what they wanted, then left once the going got tough.

Yeah, they stopped the process to soon; that was the only mistake. Had they hung around, installing infrastructure & civilization, the crummy job of sorting out rational country boundries might even have occurred.

hgc

20th November 2002, 01:33 PM

Let's face it: everything about the world today, good and bad, is the result of everything that led up to it -- history. There's no way to determine what things would be like, better or worse, if something in history had gone differently. That's the nature of contingency.

When we ask ourselves if some historical phenomenon was a good or bad thing, what's the purpose of the question? I think it has to do with whether it would be good or bad in our present circumstances -- whether under our current moral standards such a thing is desirable. You may also wonder if you lived "back then" if you might have supported such things or not. Or would have even had the context with which to judge (prevailing moral standards).

Robert Novak expressed a similar sentiment as hamm a few years ago on one of those political shows he's on. He apologized the next week. Why does hamm express himself so obliquely instead of coming out and saying what he means? Why does he keep insulting anyone who asks him to clarify. I think he's ashamed of his position.

hammegk

20th November 2002, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by hgc
I think he's ashamed of his position.

You think wrong. The benefits of ancestral salvery far exceed any costs the current descendents suffer, imnsho.

I don't advocate additional slavery, but think a good 25 yr program of imperialism/colonialism is the best hope for most of the underdeveloped world.

hgc

20th November 2002, 01:58 PM

The benefits of ancestral salvery far exceed any costs the current descendents suffer, imnsho.

Such a thing is unknowable. We cannot imagine, in our wildest dreams, what the lives of the descendents of 17th/18th/19th century Africans would be like today without the history of slavery and colonialism.

Michael Redman

20th November 2002, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Well, darned if I know if Israelis should be as happy about 6 million educated civilized people slaughtered for no purpose as Africans could be about their 2 million aboriginals dead (+-) out of perhaps 12 million(+-) African slaves, with 10 million (+-)reaching new & better lives for their descendents.Where do you get these numbers? Can you substantiate that as many as 5 out of 6 taken into slavery lived long enough, and were able to reproduce?What does logic tell you about costs/benefit to human-kind?Nothing. There's no objective way to compare the suffering and death of one person to the benefit of another.

You are simply stating that today's decendants of slaves are better off than their cousins who've been in Africa the whole time, right? And not that slavery was a net benefit to the whole of effected Africans?

specious_reasons

20th November 2002, 02:09 PM

Normally, I have hammegk on ignore, but I decided on a lark to read this thread.

Here's a wacky thought-experiment: What would have happened to the Africans in this country if they were brought over as workers, not as slaves?

Even if the average condition of African Americans wasn't improved over our version of history, wouldn't it still be that much better that their ancestors didn't suffer in slavery?

Doubt

20th November 2002, 02:12 PM

I notice that hammegk has not answered my request for clarification.

I will put it in simplest terms:

Does the ends (current conditions of black americans,) justify the means (slavery.) Take into account that the current conditions for blacks in the US was not intended by those who owned slaves.

Bluegill

20th November 2002, 02:19 PM

This thread brings to mind a question, on a much smaller scale, from my personal life. A few years ago I got a divorce. Though it was not a very rough divorce as divorces go, it was nonetheless the most painful and upsetting period of my life.

Very soon after the divorce, I fell in love with someone else. She and I are now married, and I have never been so happy in any relationship, and never thought that this kind of personal joy and deep-down love was possible outside of sappy fiction.

That makes it really hard for me to call my divorce a bad thing, despite it being the worst thing that has ever happened to me. It’s also the best thing that ever happened to me. Now I know that, if I could, I would never choose to go back in time and prevent that awful loss.

I think that it would be possible for a person to consider slavery “evil” in pretty much any sense of the word I can think of. But it IS possible for good to come of bad. Asking whether hundreds of years of slavery justifies the better lot of African Americans today seems to me to be worthless question. More appropriate questions would be, “How can we correct the Great Evils in today’s world, and how can we do it so that the most people get the greatest possible benefit?”

I would think that, for instance, a Jew in Israel would not give thanks for the Nazis that sent his poverty-stricken family out of Europe towards a prosperous life. Instead, he’d be thankful that he, and those that came before him, we able to take such a bad situation and not only survive, but end up better off than before.

hgc

20th November 2002, 02:24 PM

Bluegill: very well put.

What can we do?
- Understand history
- Do the right thing by your neighbor
- Build for a better tomorrow

Tmy

20th November 2002, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by hgc
Bluegill: very well put.

What can we do?
- Understand history
- Do the right thing by your neighbor
- Build for a better tomorrow

Screw that! Once I finish my time machine I'm going back and fix history.

First thing, go back and kick Eli Whitney's ass! Him and his lousy cotton gin.

So what would you **** with if you could time travel?

hgc

20th November 2002, 03:10 PM

So what would you **** with if you could time travel?

If I had a way-back machine, find a way to stop Michael Jackson from having children.

Bluegill

20th November 2002, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Tmy

Screw that! Once I finish my time machine I'm going back and fix history.

First thing, go back and kick Eli Whitney's ass! Him and his lousy cotton gin.

So what would you **** with if you could time travel?

This seems like a major thread-hijacking. My first one! How exciting! I'm wearing a ski mask and waving a pistol!

I'd go back in time and convince who ever named the Teapot Dome that it should be called The Giant Clitoris. Then, in high school history, I might have actually been able to pay attention when learning about The Giant Clitoris Scandal. Yeah, I DEFINITELY would have paid more attention.

hgc

20th November 2002, 03:18 PM

OK hi-jacker, you wanna play rough?

I'd go back to when those nice pilgrims were sharing the first Thanksgiving feast with the friendly natives, and change the main course form turkey to chocolate pudding.

The Fool

20th November 2002, 03:20 PM

I'm really not sure why Hammy is doing this, Most Racists avoid displaying their opinions.

hgc

20th November 2002, 03:25 PM

I'm really not sure why Hammy is doing this, Most Racists avoid displaying their opinions.

Let me speak for hamm again.

He doesn't think it's racist. He only thinks we think it's racist. So he's willing to say it in a dance-around-it kind of way, but not actually come out with the words, "slavery was good and righteous." Instead it's more like, "look at the benefits," etc.

hamm, as always slap me down if I misrepresent.

20th November 2002, 03:54 PM

hamm, I think you are being too dodgy in this discussion. If you feel white men are superior to black men, then come out and say it. I think we would all appreciate straightforwardness more than this guessing game you are encouraging.

If you are saying that you are against reparations to American blacks, I'm with you. But I may have different reasons than you do.

Seems like everyone has pretty much formed the opinion that you are a rascist, so what difference would it make to speak plainly? And if we are wrong, then straighten us out.

Then we can discuss the reasoning behind each of our thoughts.

The only reason I can see for dodginess is that one isn't secure in one's position.

Racial discussions can be very emotion-laden, but they don't have to be. Nor do they have to be statistics wars. I'm sure we can find a middle ground.

20th November 2002, 03:58 PM

I can't speak for black people, but it would be reasonable, I think, to assume it is possible for a black man to be grateful to be living in America today and not in South Africa, while not grateful that his ancestors were enslaved.

20th November 2002, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
I'm really not sure why Hammy is doing this, Most Racists avoid displaying their opinions.

On the contrary. If a person believes themselves to be in the right, they can be quite vocal about it.

hgc

20th November 2002, 04:15 PM

Seems like everyone has pretty much formed the opinion that you are a rascist, so what difference would it make to speak plainly?

Actually, I have not formed the opinion that hamm is "racist," notwithstanding my previous posts. The reason I say that it's very hard to define, except for the extreme cases. I would say that it's possible and unproven. More importantly, hamm's apparent attitudes about how Africans would be better off if recolonized by us, in that it's probably prevalent, is very harmful in how that attitude transfers over the way black Americans are treated here in this country, today.

For that matter, it's not actually worth debating whether the slavery of the past was harmful or not. That's over and done with. We know, at least most of us do, that to institute slavery today would be real bad. Personally I think that because of the way blacks came to America and were treated here the first few hundred years (slavery) has resonated in ways that are continue to be harmful to them. Is it because the collective white psyche can't get it out of its head that black people are subhuman and were enslaved for a good reason? That's where hamm's thinking leads. Is that overtly racist? I also look for malicious intent too before I toss around a harsh label.

subgenius

20th November 2002, 05:25 PM

This is the most sickening thread I've read, even surpassing JK's defense of the DC snipers, the U of A mass murderer and abortion clinic bombers.
Why doesn't this butthead sell himself into slavery, so his descendents can have a beautiful life? Ooooh someone would have to procreate with him. And if someone has, someone help those kids.

hammegk

20th November 2002, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by subgenius
This is the most sickening thread I've read, even surpassing JK's defense of the DC snipers, the U of A mass murderer and abortion clinic bombers.
Why doesn't this butthead sell himself into slavery, so his descendents can have a beautiful life? Ooooh someone would have to procreate with him. And if someone has, someone help those kids.
Wow! You can spell & string words together to form sentences. One of your better posting efforts; did your Mommy help you?

My offspring are doing fine, thanks for your concern though.

hammegk

20th November 2002, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Where do you get these numbers? Can you substantiate that as many as 5 out of 6 taken into slavery lived long enough, and were able to reproduce?
A quick googol, the 2 mm -- 12 mm are high end estimates. No idea on reproductive stats, but slaves were valuable merchandise, and a well-bred slave was an asset worth having. A dead slave was fertilizer.

Nothing. There's no objective way to compare the suffering and death of one person to the benefit of another.
To that I say horse****, as non-pc at it might be. For example, one of my family is worth all of yours from my viewpoint. Nice of you to feel less certain.

You are simply stating that today's decendants of slaves are better off than their cousins who've been in Africa the whole time, right? And not that slavery was a net benefit to the whole of effected Africans?

You got it.

20th November 2002, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by subgenius
This is the most sickening thread I've read, even surpassing JK's defense of the DC snipers, the U of A mass murderer and abortion clinic bombers.
Why doesn't this butthead sell himself into slavery, so his descendents can have a beautiful life? Ooooh someone would have to procreate with him. And if someone has, someone help those kids.

Why don't we try to actually discuss this issue? I think it is as relevant to our society as psychics are.

hammegk, are you familiar with White Nationalists? Are you in agreement with their general premises?

Skeptic

20th November 2002, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I'm thankful for Osama bin Laden, because the terrorist attacks helped put (keep) our economy in the tank, prompting lowered interest rates, which caused a whole slew of home mortgage refinancing, and I just got a job in the home mortgage industry due to the increased business!

Hell, why stop there? If it wasn't for the holocaust, my grandparents would never have met and I wouldn't have been born.

I guess I should be thankful it happened.

specious_reasons

20th November 2002, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by LukeT
hamm, I think you are being too dodgy in this discussion. If you feel white men are superior to black men, then come out and say it. I think we would all appreciate straightforwardness more than this guessing game you are encouraging.

Speaking of guessing games, I thought that hammegk was a proponent of eugenics. Along with what else he's said on the thread, it implies he does think white people are better. I agree with LukeT - Come out with it, it's not like you care what we think.

subgenius

20th November 2002, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by specious_reasons

Speaking of guessing games, I thought that hammegk was a proponent of eugenics. Along with what else he's said on the thread, it implies he does think white people are better. I agree with LukeT - Come out with it, it's not like you care what we think.
Or we care what bigots think.
I bet you're happy to share your views with all of your Black friends, neighbors and co-workers. And if you don't have any (I can't imagine that), with any random Black person you see in public.
You are man enough to do that, right?

Michael Redman

20th November 2002, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
A quick googol, the 2 mm -- 12 mm are high end estimates. No idea on reproductive stats, but slaves were valuable merchandise, and a well-bred slave was an asset worth having. A dead slave was fertilizer.A "well-bred" slave might be worth having, but that doesn't mean that a such a slave is worth raising and caring for, when you could ship new adults fresh from Africa to replace the dead, rather than waiting more than a decade to farm raise more. I've seen the 12 million number as those taken from Africa in a number of sources, but where do you get the idea that anywhere near 10 million of those survived for any meaningful amount of time? My quick search yielded a claims that 20% - 35% died in transit. That's more than you say died, period. Also, in the Carribean, where most of the slaves were shipped, the lifespan was said to be 7 years after arrival. If this is anywhere near the truth, then the vast majority of those taken from Africa as slaves in the New World were dead a few years later. Those that lived to be the ancestors of modern black New-Worlders were a "fortunate" few.

Further, your comparative analysis of slave v. free ignores the fact that millions of black New Worlders don't live in the US, but in such wonderful places as Haiti and Jamaica. Do you suppose Haitians thank god every day that they're not back in Africa?

(I'll be disapointed if you don't get in at least 4 of your trademark condescending ad hominems. Make them good, I could use a laugh.)

Fade

20th November 2002, 10:26 PM

To that I say horse****, as non-pc at it might be. For example, one of my family is worth all of yours from my viewpoint. Nice of you to feel less certain.

Hammegk, I know you have this thing against reading and understanding what people say, but the poster you're quoting said -objective- way. Your opinion is as subjective as the next.

And, I think this thread proves to those who haven't already figured it out, that you are a mindless idiot.

The Fool

21st November 2002, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

You think wrong. The benefits of ancestral salvery far exceed any costs the current descendents suffer, imnsho.

I don't advocate additional slavery, but think a good 25 yr program of imperialism/colonialism is the best hope for most of the underdeveloped world.

Hammy, Hammy, Hammy.... what a silly little fellow you are. Maybe a little taste of Slavery or Colonial rule would wake you from your fantasy world. How long did it take you to construct this little world you live in? Maybe we could ship you and your family off to an African nation to provide slave labor so they can build a nation off the back of your suffering. Then in a few generations some dickhead would be able to say that your great great grandchildren are better off for it.

You piece of racist garbage, you don't deserve the freedom your society provides for you.

a_unique_person

21st November 2002, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Are you talking to me??

I don't discuss with someone who does not respect me.

Good bye

Q-S

I have hammegk on ignore, and this thread is like listening to south park with hammegk taking the part of Kenny in a conversation.

mffm mfff mmfff mffm mf mf mfmfmf mffm

hammegk

21st November 2002, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by LukeT

hammegk, are you familiar with White Nationalists? Are you in agreement with their general premises?

Separate but equal makes no sense to me. The epithet *igger describes a behavior choice not skin color.

Originally posted by The Fool

You piece of racist garbage, you don't deserve the freedom your society provides for you.
It's called freedom of expression, a concept you obviously prefer didn't exist.

How is your local aborigine population doing? Is multiculturalism making your society better or worse? What is the composition of the slums in your metro areas?

hammegk

21st November 2002, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I have hammegk on ignore, and this thread is like listening to south park with hammegk taking the part of Kenny in a conversation.

mffm mfff mmfff mffm mf mf mfmfmf mffm

Yeah, it seems most atheists/materialists think South Park is an exact description of reality, and use it to bolster their personal beliefs.

hgc

21st November 2002, 06:53 AM

from the inimitable hamm:

The epithet *igger describes a behavior choice not skin color.
Typical of bigotry apologetics.

hammegk

21st November 2002, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by hgc

Typical of bigotry apologetics.

Do I seem "apologetic" to you? If so you are a loon.

Originally posted by hgc

Hammegk, I know you have this thing against reading and understanding what people say, but the poster you're quoting said -objective- way. Your opinion is as subjective as the next.

And, I think this thread proves to those who haven't already figured it out, that you are a mindless idiot.

How does one separate the subjective from any objective evaluation? That is a problem most of you prefer to ignore.

If mindless idiocy is a prereq, most posters here fit right in, although you seem to be the type section par excellance.

Mossy

21st November 2002, 07:15 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong hammegk:

You aren't saying that it would be morally okay to now take native tribes living somewhere in the tropical rainforest, and bring them to some industrialized part of the world to be slaves for a couple generations (in the hopes that their descendants would be better off).

You are saying that because the descendants of slaves have a better life than the slaves themselves did before they were taken, then it would be unfair to say that slavery had no benefits. Kind of a retrospective ends-justify-the-means approach.

If that is accurate:

It seems to have a couple problems with it. In Europe there are many africans (first or second generation Europeans) who are the descendants of those african people who weren't taken as slaves - and their lives are also much better now than the lives of those who were originally taken as slaves.

It seems to me that the effect is because of a passing of time and a general improvement worldwide- and not related to whether or not their ancestors were slaves. For example - our lives are also much better now than the lives of our ancestors from 400 years ago.

Why conclude that it was slavery that made their lives better? Also, as someone else pointed out - they could have come over here as free workers - wouldn'T that yield even better results?

-Ed

21st November 2002, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
A "well-bred" slave might be worth having, but that doesn't mean that a such a slave is worth raising and caring for, when you could ship new adults fresh from Africa to replace the dead, rather than waiting more than a decade to farm raise more. I've seen the 12 million number as those taken from Africa in a number of sources, but where do you get the idea that anywhere near 10 million of those survived for any meaningful amount of time? My quick search yielded a claims that 20% - 35% died in transit. That's more than you say died, period. Also, in the Carribean, where most of the slaves were shipped, the lifespan was said to be 7 years after arrival. If this is anywhere near the truth, then the vast majority of those taken from Africa as slaves in the New World were dead a few years later. Those that lived to be the ancestors of modern black New-Worlders were a "fortunate" few.

Further, your comparative analysis of slave v. free ignores the fact that millions of black New Worlders don't live in the US, but in such wonderful places as Haiti and Jamaica. Do you suppose Haitians thank god every day that they're not back in Africa?

(I'll be disapointed if you don't get in at least 4 of your trademark condescending ad hominems. Make them good, I could use a laugh.)

Michael, I don't have the information right at my fingertips at the moment, but I recall that by the end of the 18th century, slave numbers in America were pretty much self-sustaining. That is to say, there were enough slaves in America procreating to actually increase their number without bringing more in from overseas.

hammegk

21st November 2002, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by specious_reasons

Speaking of guessing games, I thought that hammegk was a proponent of eugenics. ...

Not quite yet. What is your solution to the exploding populations in the wordwide ghettos? Ignore it, & it'll go away?

I suspect some virus or bacteria will crawl out of its' hiding place when we disturb it & do the eugenics job for you.

Victor Danilchenko

21st November 2002, 08:00 AM

The whole discussion is based on implicit acceptance of hammy's presumption -- that the consequence of an act is the sole, or even primary, source of its ethical valuation.

Suppose someone tries to mug you, and accidentally shoots a murderer that was trying to kill you at that moment; he then proceeds to strip you of all your valuables. What does it mean? Sure, you will be happy that you aren't dead -- but the mugger is still the mugger, and the mugging is still the mugging. What matters here for the purposes of the ethical valuation of the act is the intent, not the accidental -- unintended -- consequence. This is why we aren't grateful to Hitler for Israel, and this is why the american blacks, while being happy about their good fortune, should in no way feel indebted for it to the institution of slavery.

The ethical position where the action's consequences are the sole source of its ethical valuation is called "consequentialism". It doesn't work, and others are most certainly under no obligation to accept hammy's consequentialist assumption here.

richardm

21st November 2002, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by LukeT

Michael, I don't have the information right at my fingertips at the moment, but I recall that by the end of the 18th century, slave numbers in America were pretty much self-sustaining. That is to say, there were enough slaves in America procreating to actually increase their number without bringing more in from overseas.

.. Nevertheless, there was still a roaring trade in fresh slaves right up until (and perhaps still existing, but less roaring after?) the American Civil War.

Certainly, it was not uncommon for some slavers to distribute slave women to white crew members in order to attempt to get them pregnant, on the grounds that the resulting child would be mulatto; a half white child would be "more intelligent" and thus more valuable.

Mossy

21st November 2002, 08:09 AM

"consequentialism" - I knew there had to be a better name than "end-justify-the-means-ism".

I agree with you, that end-justify-the-means-ism isn't a valid way of judging the value of some act. But even if I'm willing to assume that's true, I don't think that stands as a "benefit of slavery" since there are other causal factors. Not to mention the fact that those who didn't have that "causal factor" are also better off, and many who had the causal factor aren't better off.

Either way, I don't see how one can label it a benefit of slavery, even with consequentialism...

-Ed

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The whole discussion is based on implicit acceptance of hammy's presumption -- that the consequence of an act is the sole, or even primary, source of its ethical valuation.

Suppose someone tries to mug you, and accidentally shoots a murderer that was trying to kill you at that moment; he then proceeds to strip you of all your valuables. What does it mean? Sure, you will be happy that you aren't dead -- but the mugger is still the mugger, and the mugging is still the mugging. What matters here for the purposes of the ethical valuation of the act is the intent, not the accidental -- unintended -- consequence. This is why we aren't grateful to Hitler for Israel, and this is why the american blacks, while being happy about their good fortune, should in no way feel indebted for it to the institution of slavery.

The ethical position where the action's consequences are the sole source of its ethical valuation is called "consequentialism". It doesn't work, and others are most certainly under no obligation to accept hammy's consequentialist assumption here.

Michael Redman

21st November 2002, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by LukeT
Michael, I don't have the information right at my fingertips at the moment, but I recall that by the end of the 18th century, slave numbers in America were pretty much self-sustaining. That is to say, there were enough slaves in America procreating to actually increase their number without bringing more in from overseas. Possibly, but that was after the millions were churned through the sugar plantations, a style of slavery much different than that in the US. Most slaves did not go to the US, so the typical slave experience was not the American slave experience. My understanding is that self-supporting populations only really got going with the combination of big cotton, and the end of the slave trade.

However, even the most rosy picture of slavery looks pretty bad to me.

Doubt

21st November 2002, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The whole discussion is based on implicit acceptance of hammy's presumption -- that the consequence of an act is the sole, or even primary, source of its ethical valuation.

Victor,

This is the same thing that I was trying to hammy down on, but he won't even acknowledge the concept.

BPSCG

21st November 2002, 09:14 AM

BPSCG

21st November 2002, 09:21 AM

BPSCG

21st November 2002, 09:38 AM

Michael Redman

21st November 2002, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by BPSCG
Actually, importation of slaves into the US was prohibited after 1820. One of the compromises required to get unanimous acceptance for the US Constitution. That's true, but we're not talking specifically about the merits of slavery in the US after 1820, but about the entire cost of slavery to Africans. Most Africans taken into the slave trade did not end up in the US, and were taken well before 1820.

specious_reasons

21st November 2002, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Not quite yet. What is your solution to the exploding populations in the wordwide ghettos? Ignore it, & it'll go away?

I suspect some virus or bacteria will crawl out of its' hiding place when we disturb it & do the eugenics job for you.

So, why would you even consider eugenics a possible "solution" to a problem that nobody's asking you about? Why are you on this board?

hammegk

21st November 2002, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by specious_reasons

So, why would you even consider eugenics a possible "solution" to a problem that nobody's asking you about? Why are you on this board?

Why don't you go suck a di*k, since you obviously have nothing better to do.

Why are *you* on this board?

hammegk

21st November 2002, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Mossy
Correct me if I'm wrong hammegk:
How long do we have? Where would you like to start?

You aren't saying that it would be morally okay to now take native tribes living somewhere in the tropical rainforest, and bring them to some industrialized part of the world to be slaves for a couple generations (in the hopes that their descendants would be better off).
Interesting concept. Are you pursuing it? I'm not.

....a retrospective ends-justify-the-means approach.

If that is accurate:

It seems to have a couple problems with it. In Europe there are many africans (first or second generation Europeans) who are the descendants of those african people who weren't taken as slaves - and their lives are also much better now than the lives of those who were originally taken as slaves.
I'm discussing, specifically,slaves taken to the US. The Euro-dopes & their minor problems don't worry me in the least. Just let the US know when we need to send over our military & bail out their sorry asses one more time.

It seems to me that the effect is because of a passing of time and a general improvement worldwide- and not related to whether or not their ancestors were slaves. For example - our lives are also much better now than the lives of our ancestors from 400 years ago.
I wonder if the average African would agree with you that he is better off today than his ancestors were 400 yrs ago.

Why conclude that it was slavery that made their lives better? Also, as someone else pointed out - they could have come over here as free workers - wouldn'T that yield even better results?

-Ed
Too busy living in harmony with nature & each other probably to worry about extending their short, brutish, lives by going somewhere, and certainly not to "work". Why work when lunch is growing on the trees & it's too damn hot anyway. ;)

21st November 2002, 12:44 PM

hamm, you seem to have a viewpoint that is at odds with a majority of people. But we can't tell exactly what that viewpoint is. Nevertheless, I have a feeling this could be a topic we can sink our teeth into. A change of pace from the rubbish that we are currently plagued with.

So why not speak directly? Why all this oblique behavior?

Man, two pages and we've gotten nowhere. Is this just another waste of time here?

Your thoughts have some interesting potential in both the political and philosophical realms. Let's go!

hgc

21st November 2002, 01:13 PM

LukeT

So why not speak directly? Why all this oblique behavior?
I enjoy answering for hamm, and he hasn't corrected me yet (that I can tell), so here goes:

hamm

Too busy living in harmony with nature & each other probably to worry about extending their short, brutish, lives by going somewhere, and certainly not to "work". Why work when lunch is growing on the trees & it's too damn hot anyway.
hamm thinks that Africans are lazy good-for-nuttin bums that deserve whatever colonization or enslavement comes their way. He thinks that getting your dinner out in the bush doesn't constitute work, although he does describe life there as short and brutish (apparent contradiction).

This took so little time and space to spell out. I don't understand why he spends so much effort on deflecting direct questions. As I said before, he lacks the courage of his convictions.

hammegk

21st November 2002, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by hgc

I enjoy answering for hamm, and he hasn't corrected me yet (that I can tell), so here goes:
My thanks.

hamm thinks that Africans are lazy good-for-nuttin bums that deserve whatever colonization or enslavement comes their way. He thinks that getting your dinner out in the bush doesn't constitute work, although he does describe life there as short and brutish (apparent contradiction).
Not exactly. As a group they have not done well joining modern life under self-rule. See Haiti as the prime example; S. Africa is quickly becoming another ugly mess. Work ethic? Feel free to provide stats that support your position; looking around at US problems I don't see a lot of it, unless crack-whore & crack-dealer/thug is high on your scale of work ethics.

Although tropics life is not as demanding food-wise as harsher climes, no, life ain't a perpetual picnic either.

...As I said before, he lacks the courage of his convictions.
I seem to be getting across to some people, who don't seem to like what I'm saying much. Who lacks conviction & courage? Do you predict I'll be the person who abandons this thread? (or board, until JREF/Randi/mods do make it nice-nice suitable for the kiddies)

Michael Redman

21st November 2002, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Who lacks conviction & courage? Do you predict I'll be the person who abandons this thread? You are confusing courage with obstinance.

hgc

21st November 2002, 02:08 PM

hamm

Work ethic? Feel free to provide stats that support your position;
I didn't state my position regarding work ethic. I stated your position as best as I could discern it from your oblique banter. I don't think I could find reliable statistics regarding work ethic.

hamm

Who lacks conviction & courage?
Try to be careful when quoting me. I didn't say you lack conviction & courage. I said you lack the courage of your convictions. This means that you strongly believe in something, but aren't willing to admit it in public. I believe this based on the way you're dancing around in this thread, not coming out with it. On the other hand you'll let me say it for you so that no one can actually pin it on you.

hgc

21st November 2002, 02:21 PM

While I'm at it, I have another one for the reading comprehension file:

hamm:

The epithet *igger describes a behavior choice not skin color.
hgc:

Typical of bigotry apologetics.
hamm:

Do I seem "apologetic" to you? If so you are a loon.

hamm, your initial statement in this string of quotes is your way of justifying this bigoted behavior by changing the meaning of "n*gg*r" from the way that bigots use it and always have. That makes you an "apologist" for bigotry.

A little help with definitions:
apologetics (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apologetics) apologist (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apologist)

hammegk

21st November 2002, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
You are confusing courage with obstinance.

Care to describe how you would tell the difference from posts on a BBS?

Like porn? You'd know it when you saw it, maybe? LOL!

for hgc
bigot

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

I am often "intolerant of any opinions differing from my own". So what.

The charge of prejudice is yours to make stick, and I deny it. Bigoted opinions are not founded on facts imo. Document facts I've misstated and I'll retract them.

Also hgc:
On the other hand you'll let me say it for you so that no one can actually pin it on you.
And that makes you what??? An innocent bystander???

OK by me.....;)

hgc

21st November 2002, 02:47 PM

I've stated my opinion elsewhere in this thread. Slavery Bad. There it is again. I stated your opinion too, because you would only hint at it.

I will drop out of the thread now. I think it's played out as far as it can. Unless hamm comes up with something new.

hgc

21st November 2002, 02:52 PM

I'm back.. one more thing:

bigot (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot) - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

And this is what I call people who use the use of "n*gg*r" as an racial epithet. Which is what I accuse you of being an apologist for, based on your redifinition of said epithet above.

subgenius

21st November 2002, 02:59 PM

This is not a thread "we can sink our teeth into."
There aren't 2 sides to every issue. The Klan does not have a valid point, for instance, nor the Nazis.
Racist punks go home!
This scumbag still hasn't said he's got the guts to discuss this face to face with any black person.
You can't give this crap any slack.

hammegk

21st November 2002, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by subgenius
This is not a thread "we can sink our teeth into."
There aren't 2 sides to every issue. The Klan does not have a valid point, for instance, nor the Nazis.
Racist punks go home!
This scumbag still hasn't said he's got the guts to discuss this face to face with any black person.
You can't give this crap any slack.

hgc, see above for a bigot.

On the defn "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ", where will you pin the label on me, and why? Do you even know my "group, religion, race, or politics"?

Do you believe everything posted on JREF gives you the complete picture of the poster?

hgc

21st November 2002, 03:36 PM

I tried to drop out.

hgc, see above for a bigot.
hamm, I did not call you a bigot. I called you an apologist for bigotry, and I stated my reason for that twice above. You can also see further up the thread that I defended you against the charge of racist. Maybe "defended" is not the right word. I said that I don't think you're necessarily a racist.

Do you believe everything posted on JREF gives you the complete picture of the poster?
No. But I think that even though you won't state your opinion about certain things clearly, a lot can be gleaned about your opinions based on what you do say. Many examples of what I think I know about your opinions above.

I assume this constitutes only a fraction of the complete picture.

hgc

21st November 2002, 03:40 PM

hamm: Mossy began this thread as a spinoff of another to get to the bottom of a statement you made about slavery having turned out to be a good thing for the descendents of slaves.

I, for one, have my answer.

I also don't think this thread is going to produce anything else of value. We've gotten to the "I said this, you said that" stage, and it's just not interesting.

21st November 2002, 03:52 PM

hamm, your statements so far are right in alignment with White Nationalism.

Michael Redman

21st November 2002, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Care to describe how you would tell the difference from posts on a BBS?Now you're acting stupid. (and I know that you are not.) You responded to what you believed was a challenge to your courage and conviction by asking, "Do you predict I'll be the person who abandons this thread?" I then said that this was not courage, but obstinance. Do you really need for me to explain how I can tell the difference?

Fine. Hanging around an BBS and arguing longer than your opponents takes no courage whatsoever. It does, however, take obstinance. Threatening to stick around longer than your opponents does not demonstrate the conviction of your beliefs, but your intractability.

On the other hand, my responding to you at this point probably demonstrates my foolishness.

hammegk

21st November 2002, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
....Threatening to stick around longer than your opponents does not demonstrate the conviction of your beliefs, but your intractability.

On the other hand, my responding to you at this point probably demonstrates my foolishness.

Might intractability be based on a conviction? or a belief? or both? ;)

BTW, So far as I can see you've haven't demonstrated any foolishness (yet)! :)

Originally posted by LukeT
....
hamm, your statements so far are right in alignment with White Nationalism.

I state again that racial characteristics are not my personal evaluation criteria for an individual. Behavior however is.

hgc thanks for your comments... :)

a_unique_person

21st November 2002, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Might intractability be based on a conviction? or a belief? or both? ;)

BTW, So far as I can see you've haven't demonstrated any foolishness (yet)! :)

I state again that racial characteristics are not my personal evaluation criteria for an individual. Behavior however is.

hgc thanks for your comments... :)

So what are we to make of your behaviour in this thread?

21st November 2002, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

I state again that racial characteristics are not my personal evaluation criteria for an individual. Behavior however is.

You haven't been speaking about individuals. You have been speaking about large groups of people, specifically blacks. For example:

As a group they have not done well joining modern life under self-rule. See Haiti as the prime example; S. Africa is quickly becoming another ugly mess. Work ethic? Feel free to provide stats that support your position; looking around at US problems I don't see a lot of it, unless crack-whore & crack-dealer/thug is high on your scale of work ethics.

That is textbook White Nationalist.

Major Billy

21st November 2002, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Colin Powell must thank God every morning for his ancestral good fortune.

I'm sure he is thankful that his ancestors, (like mine) were fortunate enough to have immigrated to the United States as free people not slaves.

Skeptic

22nd November 2002, 08:21 AM

I state again that racial characteristics are not my personal evaluation criteria for an individual. Behavior however is.

Right.

Which is why you reply in a such an objective, behavior-centered way such as "Why don't you go and suck dick, since you obviously have nothing better to do".

Your position is, essentially, is "I hate n*gg*rs and fags--but its, um, due to their BEHAVIOR, so I'm not a bigot."

Skeptic

22nd November 2002, 08:26 AM

According to someone in this thread, blacks should be grateful for slavery since it brought them to the US.

Well, the potato famine brought over many Irish. Should irish-americans celebrate it?

For that matter, WWII and the holocaust brought over many jewish refugees. Should they celebrate the holocaust?

What about the famine and war in China, which brought many Chinese to the west coast? Should they celebrate it?

Hell, why stop there? The puritans came over due to religious prosecution in England. Should there be a "thank the prosecution" day in the caledar for white americans from the British Isles?

Or should ONLY blacks be thankful for the disasters in their history due to their unintended positive effects hundreds of years later?

specious_reasons

22nd November 2002, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
hammegk said, "I state again that racial characteristics are not my personal evaluation criteria for an individual. Behavior however is."

Right.

Which is why you reply in a such an objective, behavior-centered way such as "[offensive comment removed, so we don't have to see it again]".

To be fair about his comment, I was being a jerk, and he was responding in kind. I was engaging in troll-baiting, and duly apologize to the forum.

Brooklyn Dodger

22nd November 2002, 05:49 PM

Why is it that when slavery is discussed all eyes are on African Americans? Is that the only group that was ever slaves? I seem to recall slavery was practiced worldwide for thousands of years before the first slave was brought to North America. Does anyone know if there was a group not subjected to slavery? I know that slavery is still practiced in parts of the world today, but only where Islam flourishes.

hammegk

26th November 2002, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
Why is it that when slavery is discussed all eyes are on African Americans? Is that the only group that was ever slaves? I seem to recall slavery was practiced worldwide for thousands of years before the first slave was brought to North America. Does anyone know if there was a group not subjected to slavery? I know that slavery is still practiced in parts of the world today, but only where Islam flourishes.

Easy answer; because only the USA has enough left-wing whiny nuts of every color who think individuals have no responsibility for their actions, and sufficient tax-payers that "reparations" sounds like a swell idea.

Being able to actually discourse freely is another added benefit to life here.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Or should ONLY blacks be thankful for the disasters in their history due to their unintended positive effects hundreds of years later?
Considering what the ones who stayed have accomplished with what they had to work with, yes. Know many US blacks who'd like to go back permanently? Do you think Africans don't want to immigrate to the US? Wake up.

a_unique_person

28th November 2002, 04:31 AM

Brooklyn Dodger

28th November 2002, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

it was hammegk who wanted to defend american slavery of africans. his pick.

if you want to talk about slavery in general, i don't think anyone here would want to defend it. hammegk is using special pleading.

Slavery was a fact of life, now gone. It was the way things were throughout the world, not just here.

It still exists. If you want a defense of it, why not ask a Muslim, since they are apparently the last ones who still practice it.

CWL

28th November 2002, 05:35 AM

Hammegk,

If we just for one moment lose the collective perspective and look at this from the point of view of the individual, what positive effects of slavery do you feel that any individual subjected to slavery should consider?

Should an individual subjected to slavery rejoice about the fact that his descendants may have a better life in the country to which the individual has been brought, as compared to a life in the individual's country of origin?

The Fool

28th November 2002, 06:25 PM

I'm uneasy about giving racists a platform to speak from. Maybe this thread is best left to sink........

hammegk

28th November 2002, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
I'm uneasy about giving racists a platform to speak from. Maybe this thread is best left to sink........
Er, wouldn't ttt have been easier to type, Fool? :rolleyes:

The Fool

28th November 2002, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Er, wouldn't ttt have been easier to type, Fool? :rolleyes:

wtf does ttt mean bwana?

29th November 2002, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
I'm uneasy about giving racists a platform to speak from. Maybe this thread is best left to sink........

Maybe I already said this, maybe I didn't, but this is a forum to discuss ideas, and to examine beliefs with a skeptical eye. And not just psychics and magic crystals.

Racial beliefs are just as much a part of our world as psychics. Even more so. I believe these matters are the LAST topic we should avoid.

CWL

29th November 2002, 07:59 AM

I would have to agree with Luke. Better to expose "the dumbness of racists" I say.

29th November 2002, 10:00 AM

Let me just outline what I have learned about White Nationalism from my time on another discussion forum here on the internet that is specifically for WNs. Over there, they label people like me as an "anti."

That's it. Just "anti." :D

Anyway.

White Nationalists seem to believe that Whites are a superior race. Superior in intellect and achievement. Nailing them down on who counts as "White" is not an easy task. Everyone seems to have their own opinion.

Interestingly, they seem to like Palistinians, though I don't think they consider them "White." But Palistinians don't like Jews. So it is a kind of "enemy of my enemy" thing.

WNs believe that, left to their own devices, other races self-destruct. Other races never seem to get off the ground and accomplish anything of merit. All great accomplishments and inventions were done by Whites, or through significant White influence.

WNs also believe that it is inevitable that the races will one day separate into their own little nation-states. Thus the name, White Nation, and White Nationalists.

Here in the U.S., they imagine Blacks will break away and form their own little country. But they don't seem to want the Blacks to have a piece of the American landscape.

Nailing a WN down on exactly where, and exactly how, the Blacks will settle their own country, is difficult.

Most of the more intelligent of the WNs will tell you they don't believe in genocide. They believe in "live and let live." Or, more accurately, since they believe other races will self-destruct once they are out of the White-influenced orbit, they believe in "live and let die."

Once all the other races die out, the world will become one big happy White Nation, living in peace and harmony.

Of course, there are those who call themselves White Nationalists who don't have the intelligence of my labrador retriever. I believe the more intelligent WNs see them as a nuisance, and poor representatives of the "real" White Nationalist cause.

A person who reflexively hates all things racist might fail to see the important nuances and subleties involved here. But if you look at White Nationalism like you would this forum right here, you have your good and your bad. Your smart and your not-so-smart. In other words, it is just like any other societal model you care to name.

It is possible to have an intelligent discussion about these matters with White Nationalists.

29th November 2002, 10:04 AM

Don't get me wrong about the more intelligent WNs. They live in fear of the government, and are very guarded about their true innner feelings. They believe if they stated their darkest thoughts, they would be immediately arrested.

There is a definite whiff of bonfires and gas ovens in the air when you speak with a WN. While they claim not to believe in genocide, I have a feeling that if they really had things their way, things would turn really ugly, really quick.

Some WNs seem like they can hardly wait for racial war.

hammegk

29th November 2002, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Hammegk,

If we just for one moment lose the collective perspective and look at this from the point of view of the individual, what positive effects of slavery do you feel that any individual subjected to slavery should consider?

For an individual, during his lifetime, none. The question is imo at societal/cultural level, and how does that society interact with the world. Are first-world values inherently "better" than those of a pygmy in Central Africa, or a lost tribe in the Amazon basin? Not necessarily; the question is what world do you wish to inhabit.

What would be a significant indicator of ability to "switch" from either worldview to the other? From first-world to stone-age culture, a combo of physical and mental, from stone age to first more likely 1) mental and of lesser importance 2) physical is my thought.

Looking at the cesspool slums around the planet, the move to modernity assuming multiculturalism as the basis is not working, the haves/have-nots gap ever widening.

Should an individual subjected to slavery rejoice about the fact that his descendants may have a better life in the country to which the individual has been brought, as compared to a life in the individual's country of origin?

Nope, and if he does not reproduce, from his view a worst possible outcome.

In the USA, we are now examining survivors here vs survivors remaining in Africa. Culturally & societally, which system is providing better benefits across the human spectrum?

As an aside, Fool complains about non-pc discussions. Would he care to comment on the assimilation of Australia's aboriginal population?

At final level, all we are seeing is the effects of more technically advanced cultures interacting with less-so-advanced groups. Is the racial component the key to apparent disparities? I have no idea.

The Fool

29th November 2002, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

As an aside, Fool complains about non-pc discussions. Would he care to comment on the assimilation of Australia's aboriginal population?

At final level, all we are seeing is the effects of more technically advanced cultures interacting with less-so-advanced groups. Is the racial component the key to apparent disparities? I have no idea.

The problems of Black australians are due to the racist attitudes of white australians. Your attitude that the conditions that white colonialism leaves behind is the fault of the indiginous population Is what I complain about not "non-pc discussions" I suppose we could discuss many "non-pc" topics and invite someone from each area of interest to make us all feel slightly Ill. Well bwana, you have your platform....go ahead. Tell us more of your white mans magic.

hammegk

30th November 2002, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

The problems of Black australians are due to the racist attitudes of white australians.
Ok, I don't know much about Australia & its assimilation of cultures. Do ya'all have a lot of po'white'trash ghettos?

How many generations do you think might be a reasonable amount of time for a stone-age culture to assimilate to a first-world lfestyle & culture?

If the white man had never arrived where would the Abos be
culturewise?

Your attitude that the conditions that white colonialism leaves behind is the fault of the indiginous population Is what I complain about not "non-pc discussions" ....

Seems to me the question is which culture should survive, and why? Shall we all go back to stone age?

As an aside, how are your buddies the Maori doing? They appeared to be a non-white culture closing on technology by their own efforts.

The Fool

30th November 2002, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Ok, I don't know much about Australia & its assimilation of cultures. Do ya'all have a lot of po'white'trash ghettos?

How many generations do you think might be a reasonable amount of time for a stone-age culture to assimilate to a first-world lfestyle & culture?

If the white man had never arrived where would the Abos be
culturewise?

Seems to me the question is which culture should survive, and why? Shall we all go back to stone age?

As an aside, how are your buddies the Maori doing? They appeared to be a non-white culture closing on technology by their own efforts.

Not that it probably worries racists but the term "Abos" in australia is rougly as offensive to Black Australians as your term "N*gg*rs". I would encourage you to come here and use that term near some black australians.
You are a coward and a piece of human garbage, welcome to my Ignore list. I would ask other posters to this forum if they should also consider If they should continue to entertain racist scum such as you.

CWL

1st December 2002, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Seems to me the question is which culture should survive, and why?

Lovely. I seem to recall a gentleman from Austria who asked the very same question...

hammegk

1st December 2002, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Not that it probably worries racists but the term "Abos" in australia is rougly as offensive to Black Australians as your term "N*gg*rs". I would encourage you to come here and use that term near some black australians.
You are a coward and a piece of human garbage, welcome to my Ignore list. I would ask other posters to this forum if they should also consider If they should continue to entertain racist scum such as you.

Fool, you forgot to answer any of the questions. A truthful examination of facts you don't care for *is* painful isn't it? Well, since you have me on ignore I guess we'll never find out.

Racists are people who think some races are in trouble because some other race is keeping them down, and refuse to allow personal responsibility as a basis for ones own behavior and life.

CWL
You really think that your comment applies to me? What a bunch of knee-jerk liberals we seem to have uncovered here.

I've never been on their board but you might be happier thowing crap at posters on stormfront.

Brooklyn Dodger

1st December 2002, 10:47 AM

Simply amazing. The ad hominem attack has become the trademark of the left. The specialty is the accusation of "racism". Has a ring to it, doesn't it? And it eliminates the need for rational discussion, as if it, in itself IS rational discussion! We must never forget that leftism is about what you FEEL, not what you THINK. As long as your motives are pure, who cares what the results are? Conservatives have lived with such invective for decades, and have developed rational responses to questions and invective. The left has not, and when confronted by issues, now must resort to ad hominem attack.

I might have hoped to hear some discussion of, for instance, non-black slavery in Europe predating black slavery in the Americas. Or the Back to Africa Movement. Or whether those who actually made it to Liberia feel themselves blessed to be in Africa, or would they feel better off in the United States. For bringing up these subjects, however, I must be racist.

CWL

1st December 2002, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
CWL
You really think that your comment applies to me?

I am merely implying that your choice of words is... shall we say... interesting.

What exactly do you mean when you say it is a matter of "which culture should survive"? "Should" in which sense? From which perspective?

Victor Danilchenko

1st December 2002, 11:15 AM

Brooklyn Dodger

We must never forget that leftism is about what you FEEL, not what you THINK.This is something I never understood. Whence comes the stereotype that "thinking" is the province of the right? As far as I can tell, the left has more brains (you know, the vaunted academic left and all that), and more thought behind it, then the right -- and yet I see these stereotypes perpetrated all the time, even by big fat idiots (tm) like Limbaugh. What gives? Since when has left been not about rational thought?

Brooklyn Dodger

1st December 2002, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Brooklyn Dodger

This is something I never understood. Whence comes the stereotype that "thinking" is the province of the right? As far as I can tell, the left has more brains (you know, the vaunted academic left and all that), and more thought behind it, then the right -- and yet I see these stereotypes perpetrated all the time, even by big fat idiots (tm) like Limbaugh. What gives? Since when has left been not about rational thought?

Vaunted academic left? Where? Are you saying there are lots of leftist professors on college campuses, like termites? I agree. That is no guarantee of intelligence, unfortunately. As the expression goes, those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

As far as Limbaugh being a big fat idiot, I'll have to ask you to demonstrate your statement with proof. I believe he is about 6'3" and 220 pounds. That seems at variance with the term fat. At one time, and he would agree, he was fat. The past few years, however, he's been proportionate. As far as being an idiot, well, that is a word that has a meaning as well, and I must ask you to prove it.

Let's see some of your vaunted rational thought, or was that just an ad hominem attack?

Victor Danilchenko

1st December 2002, 11:51 AM

Brooklyn Dodger

Vaunted academic left? Where? Are you saying there are lots of leftist professors on college campuses, like termites? I agree. That is no guarantee of intelligence, unfortunately. As the expression goes, those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.have you tried to get a PhD? Do you know what the competition is like? Do you know what sorts of people end up in grad school, and what sort of people graduate?

Academics may have many faults, but lack of intelligence and thinking aren't among them.

Let's see some of your vaunted rational thought, or was that just an ad hominem attack?Ah, we are demanding proof now? Fine. You made the original claim -- that left FEELS and right THINKS -- you prove it. You know, support your original contention.

Have fun, "thinking right". Seeing how your first salvo plowed into the ground on launch, I don't expect much.

As to my rational thought (nevermind that you shifted the topic right there) -- it's all over the place. Read the R&P forum. Whatever else about me you may doubt, my rational facilities aren't in question.

Brooklyn Dodger

1st December 2002, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Brooklyn Dodger

have you tried to get a PhD? Do you know what the competition is like? Do you know what sorts of people end up in grad school, and what sort of people graduate?

Academics may have many faults, but lack of intelligence and thinking aren't among them.

Ah, we are demanding proof now? Fine. You made the original claim -- that left FEELS and right THINKS -- you prove it. You know, support your original contention.

Have fun, "thinking right". Seeing how your first salvo plowed into the ground on launch, I don't expect much.

As to my rational thought (nevermind that you shifted the topic right there) -- it's all over the place. Read the R&P forum. Whatever else about me you may doubt, my rational facilities aren't in question.

While the academics were pursuing their difficult PhDs, I was taking the easy way out. After I graduated with a BA I received a military commission, learned such subjects as radar, aviation, flew transports and fighters, learned air navigation, employment of munitions, weapons and tactics, counter air, suppression of enemy air defenses, and other not very difficult or competitive subjects. Guess I should have stuck around with the intelligent folk.

hammegk

1st December 2002, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Whatever else about me you may doubt, my rational facilities aren't in question.

Your problem is the premises you accept, not the logic you employ. :eek:

a_unique_person

1st December 2002, 06:01 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hammegk

Ok, I don't know much about Australia & its assimilation of cultures. Do ya'all have a lot of po'white'trash ghettos?

How many generations do you think might be a reasonable amount of time for a stone-age culture to assimilate to a first-world lfestyle & culture?

If the white man had never arrived where would the Abos be
culturewise?

Seems to me the question is which culture should survive, and why? Shall we all go back to stone age?

As an aside, how are your buddies the Maori doing? They appeared to be a non-white culture closing on technology by their own efforts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that it probably worries racists but the term "Abos" in australia is rougly as offensive to Black Australians as your term "N*gg*rs". I would encourage you to come here and use that term near some black australians.
You are a coward and a piece of human garbage, welcome to my Ignore list. I would ask other posters to this forum if they should also consider If they should continue to entertain racist scum such as you.

the maoris beat the british to the point that the british called it a draw, and drew up a treaty granting them land rights etc, way back in the 19th century, and they didn't even have guns.

the aboriginies were a very scattered population in a very large, and mostly desert, country. while i am not saying they lived a lifestyle i would have wanted, they had the distinction of having a culture that went back literally tens of thousands of years. if longevity of a culture is a sign of success, they have been the most successful on the planet.

a culture is not something you create overnight, but over hundreds of years. all the cultures in the world reflect this fact. if you destroy a culture, which is what happened to a large extent with the aboriginies, you destroy the people.

the remnants of the culture and people are slowly being built up again, but it is a long, slow process.

other factors are also difficult to deal with. alcohol, for example.

don't tell me the white race has this issue, and other drug issues under control yet, or that it doesn't take a long time for an accomodation with alcohol to be developed, especially when a race that never had alcohol before has been presented with very cheap and potent alcohol in a very short period of time.

many of the more remote tribes have banned alcohol and other drugs, although that doesn't stop white people trying to make a dollar out of selling it outside the tribal areas.

CWL

2nd December 2002, 04:10 AM

Seriously Hammegk,

1) Don't be so sure that I am a "knee-jerk liberal". You know nothing or very little about my political views; and

2) don't dodge the question.

What exactly do you mean when you say it is a matter of "which culture should survive"? "Should" in which sense? From which perspective?

Victor Danilchenko

3rd December 2002, 06:51 AM

Brooklyn Dodger

I noticed how conveniently you failed to answer my request that you support your original lunatic contention -- your claim that the left FEELS and the right THINKS. Somehow, I fail to be surprised.

While the academics were pursuing their difficult PhDs, I was taking the easy way out. After I graduated with a BA I received a military commission, learned such subjects as radar, aviation, flew transports and fighters, learned air navigation, employment of munitions, weapons and tactics, counter air, suppression of enemy air defenses, and other not very difficult or competitive subjects. Guess I should have stuck around with the intelligent folk.Ah, that touched a nerve... :D

I guarantee you that average intelligence of a military officer is lower than an average intelligence of a PhD. I trust you realize that as well, even if you consider such simple criteria as the competitiveness of getting into each respective field.

All the subjects you learned are fine applied fields, I am sure, but you have no idea what is involved in learning advanced academic subjects. In my grad school, for example, the required computational complexity theory class is on average taken twice by each student -- and these are the students with intelligence far, far above average; and it's not because the class requires lots of work, but because it requires a very sophisticated and abstract thinking. Some people take it three or four times, and this is not the only class that's this difficult. You simply have no idea what a truly intellectually demanding subject is.

Yeah, I daresay that PhD gratuates are pretty ****ing smart, and know how to think quite well. Your contention -- that the left (and academics are predominantly left) doesn't think -- is nothing but a kneejerk defensive reaction, a silly myth propagated by the right; unless of course you can actually support your original contrary claim...

Brooklyn Dodger

3rd December 2002, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Brooklyn Dodger

I noticed how conveniently you failed to answer my request that you support your original lunatic contention -- your claim that the left FEELS and the right THINKS. Somehow, I fail to be surprised.

Ah, that touched a nerve... :D

I guarantee you that average intelligence of a military officer is lower than an average intelligence of a PhD. I trust you realize that as well, even if you consider such simple criteria as the competitiveness of getting into each respective field.

All the subjects you learned are fine applied fields, I am sure, but you have no idea what is involved in learning advanced academic subjects. In my grad school, for example, the required computational complexity theory class is on average taken twice by each student -- and these are the students with intelligence far, far above average; and it's not because the class requires lots of work, but because it requires a very sophisticated and abstract thinking. Some people take it three or four times, and this is not the only class that's this difficult. You simply have no idea what a truly intellectually demanding subject is.

Yeah, I daresay that PhD gratuates are pretty ****ing smart, and know how to think quite well. Your contention -- that the left (and academics are predominantly left) doesn't think -- is nothing but a kneejerk defensive reaction, a silly myth propagated by the right; unless of course you can actually support your original contrary claim...

I THOUGHT that it was self evident, but perhaps not. The war on poverty is an example. It cost this country trillions of dollars, and was foisted upon us by leftists of "noble spirit" who only had the highest intent. It was a disaster. But we cannot judge these perpetrators of this disaster on their actual results. No, only a conservative stoop to that. No, we must consider their intent, which was so wonderful. They were trying to end poverty, don't you see. That they were told by conservatives that there was no chance in hell that they could end it that way is beside the point. It is their intent that is given points. And so it is for every one of their myriad of failed programs to this very day. All they need to do is show their pure FEELINGS and they have a pass on the result, even when we see the inevitable result. Generations of welfare cases? Well, that's unfortunate, but we so wanted to help them. Sorry if the result was the opposite to what we intended!

JFK was hornswaggled into signing a bill into law (his final one, it turned out) to de-institutionalize the insane, who were supposedly warehoused in anylums. Fair enough. But failing to see the outcome of this scenario, his people, probably PhDs, by the way, soon saw those insane heading out onto the streets on the cities of America, where they joined what we used to call bums. They now became the group we called the homeless, a new Democrat constituency, and a new cause. The head of the Community for Creative Non-Violence in Washington, DC, Mitch Snyder, who later committed suicide, made a living off the homeless, and by making wild statements such as that there were 3 million homeless. The real number was about ten percent of that, but the left and its friends in the media were delighted to parrot Snyders wild assed numbers. Liberal pols and celebrities would line up for photo ops with the homeless, rather than do anything about the problem, which leftist politicos actually created in the first place.

As to your contentions concerning the relative intelligence of university PhDs versus military officers, I believe I will go with the military officers. I have spoken with some conservative university professors as well, and they are not particularly impressed with the brain quality on campuses. It seems some of the SDS of the 1960s and 1970s decided to stay on campus, and quite a number of these people have earned tenure and PhDs. When they are not thinking pure thoughts, they are intimidating students who might otherwise be non-PC.

Victor Danilchenko

3rd December 2002, 10:33 AM

Brooklyn Dodger

I THOUGHT that it was self evident, but perhaps not.if it was self-evident, people wouldn't be laughing at fools who make pronouncements like yours.

The war on poverty is an example. It cost this country trillions of dollars, and was foisted upon us by leftists of "noble spirit" who only had the highest intent. It was a disaster. But we cannot judge these perpetrators of this disaster on their actual results. No, only a conservative stoop to that. No, we must consider their intent, which was so wonderful. They were trying to end poverty, don't you see. That they were told by conservatives that there was no chance in hell that they could end it that way is beside the point. It is their intent that is given points.A little thinking here, please.

Conservatives by definition resist change -- if you don't try, you won't fail (but you will also not succeed). Your point is like a fan watching a soccer match and badmouthing the goalie.

Yes, liberal agenda often fails -- and it often succeeds; simply because liberal agenda actually includes making changes. Do you realize that most changes that make our society decent, are due to liberals? 40-hour work week, social security, universal suffrage, de-segregation, welfare (yes, it's a good thing to not have children starve for their parents' fault) -- there are many more.

Secondly, conservatives have plenty of failed programs as well. Not nearly as many as liberals, certainly -- simply because they don't try to effect as many changes; but this also means that conservatives have less successes. Consider the prohibition and the War on Drugs, both major failures; or how about McCarthyism and Vietnam? We are talking about major stuff here, dude.

You display exactly the level of intelligence I would expect from someone who proclaims that "liberals FEEL, conservatives THINK"; which is to say, you mistake intellectual sloth for thought. Sure, if all you do is watch soccer, you will never miss a goal, but that kinda misses the point, no?..

hammegk

3rd December 2002, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by CWL

What exactly do you mean when you say it is a matter of "which culture should survive"? "Should" in which sense? From which perspective?

The cultures themselves seem to "make the choice", and history books are usually written by the survivors.

Technology, Economics & Religions appear to have the most significant inputs.

Brooklyn Dodger

3rd December 2002, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Brooklyn Dodger

if it was self-evident, people wouldn't be laughing at fools who make pronouncements like yours.

A little thinking here, please.

Conservatives by definition resist change -- if you don't try, you won't fail (but you will also not succeed). Your point is like a fan watching a soccer match and badmouthing the goalie.

Yes, liberal agenda often fails -- and it often succeeds; simply because liberal agenda actually includes making changes. Do you realize that most changes that make our society decent, are due to liberals? 40-hour work week, social security, universal suffrage, de-segregation, welfare (yes, it's a good thing to not have children starve for their parents' fault) -- there are many more.

Secondly, conservatives have plenty of failed programs as well. Not nearly as many as liberals, certainly -- simply because they don't try to effect as many changes; but this also means that conservatives have less successes. Consider the prohibition and the War on Drugs, both major failures; or how about McCarthyism and Vietnam? We are talking about major stuff here, dude.

You display exactly the level of intelligence I would expect from someone who proclaims that "liberals FEEL, conservatives THINK"; which is to say, you mistake intellectual sloth for thought. Sure, if all you do is watch soccer, you will never miss a goal, but that kinda misses the point, no?..

I see it was a mistake for me to avoid ad hominem attacks. It was not reciprocated.

Not only that, you admit to watch soccer! And you claim some level of intelligence? Prohibition and the war on drugs were not cnservative programs, they were socialist efforts toward control of the individual. Vietnam was most harshly prosecuted by the JFK-LBJ wiz kids that McNamara brought in from the universities, not unlike yourself. You think conservatives could have invented a war like that? The 1964 civil rights act was passed only because LBJ had the support of Republicans, after his own southern Democrats, like Gore's father, had deserted him.

But I can understand your attachment to the failed god of liberalism. It's not unusual that failures retain adherents long after they are exposed as the frauds they are. Charles Manson, after all, still has his fans. You are very much like one of them.

Mossy

4th December 2002, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

Prohibition and the war on drugs were not cnservative programs, they were socialist efforts toward control of the individual.

Uh, what? Are you redefining conservative so as to exclude conservatives?

Can you explain how you came to the understanding that prohibition and the war on drugs were committed by liberals?

Is any attempt to control the individual an act of socialism, thus excluding "real" conservatives from the blame?
-Ed

CWL

4th December 2002, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
The cultures themselves seem to "make the choice", and history books are usually written by the survivors.

Technology, Economics & Religions appear to have the most significant inputs.

So are you saying that for example the Native American cultures "choose" to be overrun by Europan culture?

How was this "choice" made in practice?

:confused:

Brooklyn Dodger

4th December 2002, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Mossy

Uh, what? Are you redefining conservative so as to exclude conservatives?

Can you explain how you came to the understanding that prohibition and the war on drugs were committed by liberals?

Is any attempt to control the individual an act of socialism, thus excluding "real" conservatives from the blame?
-Ed

Woodrow Wilson was a conservative? He was a hardcore leftist. I don't know how you define conservative, but the definition in the post I saw above, which was apparently supplied by an academic, was woefully deficient. It had sothething to do with resisting change. It seems to me conservatives are the ones who wish to see radical change ... back to the Constitution.

Mossy

4th December 2002, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

Woodrow Wilson was a conservative? He was a hardcore leftist. I don't know how you define conservative, but the definition in the post I saw above, which was apparently supplied by an academic, was woefully deficient. It had sothething to do with resisting change. It seems to me conservatives are the ones who wish to see radical change ... back to the Constitution.

It is true that Prohibition was intended to improve society, the same for the war on drugs (keep people out of jail, stop people from doing something harmful, etc...).

And in that way, you could get away with calling it "socialist", but that is the only way. The religious right have all kinds of agendas that they believe will improve society - it has absolutely nothing to do with "going back to the constitution" (reminds me of a good quote, I'll try to find it), it has to do with an attempt to enforce personal morality (no un-approved sex sounds familiar, no gambling, no drinking, etc...).

The biggest supporters of prohibition were the religious right (I forget the name, some like "the women's christian temperance movement" and many others) - but you seem to be trying to say that they were the leftists?

I don't understand that.... :confused:

-Ed

Brooklyn Dodger

5th December 2002, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by Mossy

It is true that Prohibition was intended to improve society, the same for the war on drugs (keep people out of jail, stop people from doing something harmful, etc...).

And in that way, you could get away with calling it "socialist", but that is the only way. The religious right have all kinds of agendas that they believe will improve society - it has absolutely nothing to do with "going back to the constitution" (reminds me of a good quote, I'll try to find it), it has to do with an attempt to enforce personal morality (no un-approved sex sounds familiar, no gambling, no drinking, etc...).

The biggest supporters of prohibition were the religious right (I forget the name, some like "the women's christian temperance movement" and many others) - but you seem to be trying to say that they were the leftists?

I don't understand that.... :confused:

-Ed

You ask a very good question. Conservatives are frequently misidentified these days. Imust agree with you that the "religious right" and Womens Christian Temperence Union seem out of place on the left, and yet, if one examines their PHILOSOPHIES, they really do not seem in tune with the general bent of conservatism. That is, that the government ought to be restricted, and that the rights of individuals increased.

I would also like to rearrange the general perception of where many of us place each other on the political spectrum. Left and right seems adequate for certain simple purposes, but when you get into more complex ideologies, this appears inadequate. For instance, where do we place the Nazis? The liberals, who are on the left, would have us place Nazis on the left. My own scale, however, would measure an ideology based on it's stance regarding the relative strength of government versus the rights of the individual, with strength of government moving the ideology farther left. Libertarians would be somewhere to the right of center, farther right than, say, conservatives. Nazis would be well to the left, along with communists, and farther left than, say, liberals and democratic socialists. Not surprising, since Nazi is a contraction of National Socialist Party, and was a true socialist group, but not actually socialist despite the election.

The WCTU would therefore be somewhat to the left of center, since it would enlist the force of government for a moral or religious cause. This is un-conservative. Since this was essentially their only cause, this is the only thing we can measure them on. The religious right has several issues to measure them on, and since I am not one who bothers to follow them much, I leave it to you to determine how to measure their general philosophy as compared with others on this scale.

This philosophical scale is mine and mine alone. My only claim is that it makes more sense than the so-called scale most assume is in use today. In that one, people claim that left and right seem to meet in the extremes. They usually refer to coomunists and Nazis. In mine they meet too, because they are philosophically very similar, in that they both emphasize government over the individual.

Victor Danilchenko

5th December 2002, 06:43 AM

Brooklyn Dodger

I see it was a mistake for me to avoid ad hominem attacks. It was not reciprocated.You, avoid ad hominem attacks?!. The entire topic -- your claim that liberals tend to FEEL rather than THNINK -- is one big f**king ad-hominem. A little thinking here, please!

Not only that, you admit to watch soccer!No, I don't. I don't have any interest in any team sports. I simply used it as an example -- because, as a european expatriate, it is the team sport i am most familiar with.

And you claim some level of intelligence? Prohibition and the war on drugs were not cnservative programs, they were socialist efforts toward control of the individual.No, they were conservative efforts to enforce public morality at the gunpoint of law; just as the sodomy laws are, just as the gay discrimination is now -- all conservative causes.

if you are pro-freedom in general, then you are not a conservative, because conservatives tend to be for economic freedom, but quite oppressive in their social agenda.

But I can understand your attachment to the failed god of liberalism. It's not unusual that failures retain adherents long after they are exposed as the frauds they are. Charles Manson, after all, still has his fans. You are very much like one of them.And of course you failed to address the actual points in my post -- about the reason why liberals have more failures and more successes simply due to being more interested in change. How utterly unsurprising.

if one examines their PHILOSOPHIES, they really do not seem in tune with the general bent of conservatism. That is, that the government ought to be restricted, and that the rights of individuals increased.That's not conservatism, dude, that's libertarianism. Conservatives are quite happy to restrict others' social freedoms all over the place -- always were. Your point is based on simply defining conservatives to be pro-freedom. Just like my friend Angus (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#scots).

As i said, you exhibit exactly the level of intelligence i would expect from someone making the idiotic proclamations of the sort you made about liberals FEELING and conservatives THINKING.

Brooklyn Dodger

5th December 2002, 06:59 AM

Oh great! Now we have conservatism, as defined by liberals! That's rich!!!

Mossy

5th December 2002, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
Oh great! Now we have conservatism, as defined by liberals! That's rich!!!

I gotta say, it even sounds to me like you are pulling a "no true scotsman". (and I definitely wouldn't call myself a liberal)

These are issues that conservatives (as they call themselves) support - and you are effectively saying, "Well, they aren't true conservatives".

-Ed

Brooklyn Dodger

5th December 2002, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Mossy

I gotta say, it even sounds to me like you are pulling a "no true scotsman". (and I definitely wouldn't call myself a liberal)

These are issues that conservatives (as they call themselves) support - and you are effectively saying, "Well, they aren't true conservatives".

-Ed

What are issues that conservatives support? Prohibition? Are you joking? What iissues are you talking about?

Victor Danilchenko

5th December 2002, 07:32 AM

Brooklyn Dodger

Oh great! Now we have conservatism, as defined by liberals! That's rich!!!Why are you poisoning the well (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem)? Can't you deal with the fact that conservatives only defend some freedoms (the ones they like) and oppose others (the ones they dislike)? Are you that intellectually dishonest?

It looks to me like you simply can't support your original moronic assertion, that liberals FEEL and conservatives THINK; nor even your second moronic assertion, that conservatism is generally about the defense of liberty (conservatives are quite happy to restrict liberty in the areas they dislike) and limiting the government (conservatives are quite happy to enlarge the government, as long as the growth is in the areas lthey like -- such as the military). You surprise me less and less with each post, though.

Just face up to the fact that you were wrong, and that you ****ed up. Show some of that integrity that conservatives tout to be their hallmark!

What are issues that conservatives support? Prohibition? Are you joking? What iissues are you talking about?how about war on drugs? The opposition to that comes mainly from the left, you know. How about the opposition of equal rights for gays?

Mossy

5th December 2002, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

What are issues that conservatives support? Prohibition? Are you joking? What iissues are you talking about?

For starters, yes:
Prohibitionist Party (http://www.prohibition.org/values.html)

Their list of value seems, to me, to be fairly in line with the standard conservative values. Even according to your definition of conservative (a return to the constitution).

Other issues that are typically conservative (some repeats from the previous link, but I think that strengthens my point):

Right to life
Against homosexual rights
Prayer in pubilc schools
The war on drugs - The phrase was coined by nixon, and the strongest supporters of it have been republicans (conservative)

All of the above are issues that are supported by conservatives. And are social issues. (in that the supporters believe it would be a benefit to society)

Even you, when you say the conservatives only want a return to the constitution, it is implied that this is better for society - a social issue.

-Ed

Brooklyn Dodger

5th December 2002, 07:42 AM

Many conservatives oppose the war on drugs, just like libertarians. It is wasteful and criminalizes people for harming only themselves. It makes millionaires of people who would be paupers if not for the "war". Just like prohibition. William F. Buckley has been one of many conservatives who has been for decriminalizing marijuana and other recreational drugs. Opposition to ending the war on drugs comes from politicians of all kinds, left and right, and from law enforcement leaders, most of whom are liberals, appointed by the liberal mayors of big cities. They use it as a means of keeping their budgets high.

I am unaware of any conservatives who are opposed to EQUAL rights for homosexuals or anyone else. As individuals. However, conservatives would be opposed to SPECIAL rights for them, such as single sex marriage.