• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

I heartily oppose both human sacrifice and the jati system, and I don't "struggle" to say either. Why is it difficult for you to take a stand on slavery?
Two reasons:
1) you haven't asked me
Do you oppose slavery? Unequivocally? Without reservation or condition?
Yes.

If you want to get down to it, I might oppose it more than you do. Like... I oppose unmanaged illegal entrants being used as proxy-slaves in the farming and service industries, and I oppose the outsourcing of manufacturing and textiles to countries that use children and the destitute as functional slaves, I oppose the legalization of prostitution because it exacerbates sex trafficking and the slavery of women to serve the sexual desires of men. And I have no fucking tolerance for islam at all because it actively enslaves women, and I get pissed right the fuck off when people defend that horrific and appalling religion and ignore the massive and ongoing human rights violations being practiced by adherents of islam on a daily fucking basis.
 
He had brought up slavery. I asked a specific moral question related to slavery and conservative ideology, whether he in fact supported the rights of the enslaved over the "freedom" of slavers, and he deflected rather than answering.
Well... no... he didn't bring up slavery, he brought up 1984. In response to Jimmy mentioning Orwellian doublespeak. Which comes from 1984.

ETA: Did you genuinely not get this exchange?
Thank you for demonstrating Orwellian Speak.
Freedom is Slavery.
I've read Orwell. I've studied Orwell. And he would approve of my message. He wasn't a man given to thought-canceling cliches, and he did not love the co-option of his work by hypocrites.
 
I heartily oppose both human sacrifice and the jati system, and I don't "struggle" to say either. Why is it difficult for you to take a stand on slavery?
Two reasons:
1) you haven't asked me
Do you oppose slavery? Unequivocally? Without reservation or condition?
Yes.

If you want to get down to it, I might oppose it more than you do. Like... I oppose unmanaged illegal entrants being used as proxy-slaves in the farming and service industries, and I oppose the outsourcing of manufacturing and textiles to countries that use children and the destitute as functional slaves, I oppose the legalization of prostitution because it exacerbates sex trafficking and the slavery of women to serve the sexual desires of men. And I have no fucking tolerance for islam at all because it actively enslaves women, and I get pissed right the fuck off when people defend that horrific and appalling religion and ignore the massive and ongoing human rights violations being practiced by adherents of islam on a daily fucking basis.
See? It's actually very easy to condemn slavery. So why can't Tswizzle?
 
Also, the part where you refused point blank to condemn the transatlantic slave trade or support its violent overthrow, which makes your position as a moral authority deeply questionable in my opinion.
This is a stupid thing to say.
No, ^^that^^ is a stupid thing to say.

Undoubtedly there were those who were willing to accept as moral and just to treat certain peoples like trainable livestock with a bonus, never discussed in polite company, of being able to ‘breed’ the women at will and so ‘grow’ your holdings. Laws and religion worked together to normalize this and to see it as ‘God’s will.’ I understand and accept that there were those who did not question this system but accepted it as right.

But clearly, there were many even in the deep south and even in slave holding families who disagreed, who recognized the barbarity, the inhumanity, the absolute moral wrong. Some few slave holders freed their slaves upon their own death —which begs the question of why they waited until they could no longer benefit. Was it because they felt they could best protect the enslaved while living but had grave concerns about their fate after the ‘master’ died? Or because they could not figure out a way to maintain their wealth and free slaves?

There was a very concerted effort to keep people enslaved, culturally, legally, and using religion. It was forbidden for slaves to read or write but some learned anyway, sometimes with the help and encouragement t of the master or family. Sometimes it was done in secret. Some tried to be kind and allowed slaves to choose to marry and to earn their own money. But they were still slaves, still beholden to someone else’s goodwill and permission and confined to whatever rules were laid out. Punishment would mean beatings, being sold, being separated from family, even infant children. And of course this is a very dispassionate, sanitized version of a horrible, barbaric, unjustifiable, unjustifiable practice.

That some people of the day chose not to look too closely at what was happening is doubtless true. But it is beyond reprehensible for people today to look at such a systemic violation of human rights and all tenets of decent society as anything less that abhorrent and unforgivable.

I
And yet you've refused to condemn the indian caste system, and you've refused to condemn aztec human sacrifices! That makes your moral authority deeply questionable in my opinion.
Where have you been for the last decade? Huffing glue?

Politesse and I have both condemned the Indian caste system on numerous occasions, as well as participated in discussions which directly concerned the fucked up nature of that.

And yet here you are throwing up Whataboutisms rather than actually saying "slavery is bad and slavers are bad".

Oh, let's not forget Dubai, may the slavers there die in the buildings built with the blood of those they used, as they come tumbling down on their heads.

Now, if only she could actually get off her ass and actually support meaningful and effective measures against slavery instead of whatever the fuck she has been doing.

It's way more effective to fight slavery by making immigrants citizens than it is to make it so that people fear for their lives and freedom if they are discovered working...
 
Last edited:
Politesse and I have both condemned the Indian caste system on numerous occasions, as well as participated in discussions which directly concerned the fucked up nature of that.
Also true. I made no bones about my feelings on SB403. Though perhaps Emily does not follow the California megathread.
 
Um, you know the "supposed owners" the rebels slaughtered were the entire white population of Saint Domingue, men, women and children, don't you? You know they took many of them prisoner, and then slaughtered them, don't you? You know after the initial massacres were over they announced there would be no further violence against those still alive, and when people came out of their hiding places, they were slaughtered, don't you? You're daring TSwizzle to say he doesn't consider them criminals, because...; darers go first.

It's kind of interesting that when we discuss the history of slavery in the US, there's always this lingering excuse: "oh that was just people in those times; they didn't know any better. We can't judge them on that basis." Why can't we see that defense here?
Who says we can't? If you feel like offering that defense, knock yourself out. But there's no need for you to -- you didn't dare anybody to justify it so the "darers go first" challenge isn't for you. If Poli wants to offer that defense he's welcome to. But the defense will be fair game for analysis and evaluation, same as any other defense, same as the lingering excuse you mentioned. In other threads I've pointed out why that excuse for US slavery is a steaming pile of dingos' kidneys.
 
Why do you ask somebody what he meant when what he meant was blatantly obvious, and then instead of waiting for an answer, impute the most idiotic meaning you can imagine and spend the rest of your post taking for granted that's what the person meant?
That is the only definition you provided. If you have another in mind, provide it. And I will ask why you apply one set of standards to decide whether a protestor is a fascist, then apply another to yourself. Why are you wasting time whining like a <expletive deleted> toddler about being "misintrepreted" instead of just clarifying what you meant, in plain English? Tswizzle likewise refuses to clarify. Why? It's not hard for most people to call the African slave trade a bad thing.
Hey laughing dog, what did you like about Poli's post? Did you like that he falsely* claimed "That is the only definition you provided."? Did you like that he snipped out the part of my post that proved his accusation was false as well as the part where I'd pointed out that he'd quoted my actual definition back at me? Was it his demand that I do what I'd already done that you liked, or perhaps his "have you stopped beating your wife"-style question, "why you apply one set of standards to decide whether a protestor is a fascist, then apply another to yourself.", offering zero evidence that I'd done anything of the sort? Did you like that he used a schoolyard bully taunt on me for not having done something I had, in point of fact, done? Did you like his trumped-up false** accusation against TSwizzle? If it wasn't some of those things you liked, what does that leave? I guess you could like that Poli is wasting time whining like a toddler about TSwizzle not engaging with his derail.

(* In post #1882 I provided the definition of "fascist" I'm using: "riding roughshod over human rights, particularly the human rights of their political opponents, and having an ideology that legitimizes those methods".)

(** In post #1896 TSwizzle clarified in plain English that he meant "Why do you side with the violent thugs outside Berkeley?".)
 
Back
Top Bottom