Black militia man shoots a police officer in the head in Florida

[Elixir]

OMG, how terrible that we haven't forgotten that people tried to overthrow the government of the United States at the behest of the then sitting POTUS who didn't like the election results!

#BLMers have been doing a lot more damage with their rioting and occupations. ...
My overlord? I did not even vote for him either time.

You're sure making amends for that "mistake" now, though.
Trying to equate Property Damage caused in the course of protest by people who have been dying by the score at the hands of police, and who have suffered for hundreds of years at the hands of privileged white people - equating that with a violent, murderous mob of privileged white people attempting to end American democracy, kill duly elected representatives and institute an autocracy - all because the murderous orange psychopath they favored LOST AN ELECTION! Murdering and maiming over a hundred police officers in the process and TRASHING the NATION'S CAPITOL..
That kind of false equivalence is sheer scumbaggery by any measure.
tRump would be beaming with pride to know you're out there "fighting" for him so stridently.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's just the usual act of blaming the effects for the cause. The very concept of racial supremacy is a European invention. Any idiot walking this earth advocating black supremacy is not only wrong & dangerous, they are also following the lead of their sensei's.

Quite a bit of racism in China and that's not a European import.

I had relatives in China that I have never met--because the link to those relatives was someone who felt my wife did wrong in marrying outside her race. (Ironically, now that the relevant marriage has failed I might end up meeting them!)

There was also the restaurant (here in the US) we ate at one day--a bunch of Chinese waitresses who had no problem with my wife marrying an American--that is, until they found out it's not a green card marriage.

We have also had relatives worried about us visiting parts of China where the Han culture isn't dominant.

There's also the day in Zambia my parents were arrested as spies--for the crime of being white and in a crowd. (The idiot's supervisor quickly realized how stupid it was and released them.)

Europeans have no monopoly on racism.

 

[Gospel]

It's just the usual act of blaming the effects for the cause. The very concept of racial supremacy is a European invention. Any idiot walking this earth advocating black supremacy is not only wrong & dangerous, they are also following the lead of their sensei's.

Quite a bit of racism in China and that's not a European import.

I had relatives in China that I have never met--because the link to those relatives was someone who felt my wife did wrong in marrying outside her race. (Ironically, now that the relevant marriage has failed I might end up meeting them!)

There was also the restaurant (here in the US) we ate at one day--a bunch of Chinese waitresses who had no problem with my wife marrying an American--that is, until they found out it's not a green card marriage.

We have also had relatives worried about us visiting parts of China where the Han culture isn't dominant.

There's also the day in Zambia my parents were arrested as spies--for the crime of being white and in a crowd. (The idiot's supervisor quickly realized how stupid it was and released them.)

Europeans have no monopoly on racism.

Nice, it's too bad none of that disputes the fact that the concept of racial supremacy is a European invention. I offer you my sincere condolences.

 

[Gospel]

Feel like I need to elaborate a little. There is a difference between being a racist and a supremacist. Everyone is guilty of racism but not everyone is guilty of wanting to kill & or enslave other races because they are the superior race. Kna mean? Racial Supremacy is a European invention.

 

[TomC]

Feel like I need to elaborate a little. There is a difference between being a racist and a supremacist. Everyone is guilty of racism but not everyone is guilty of wanting to kill & or enslave other races because they are the superior race. Kna mean? Racial Supremacy is a European invention.

I disagree.

Humans are a tribal species, always have been. Euro-Christian colonialism took that to a new level, but they didn't invent it.

Had Asian people or African people weaponized gunpowder and smallpox and navigation technology as early as Europeans did, history would be extremely different.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Feel like I need to elaborate a little. There is a difference between being a racist and a supremacist. Everyone is guilty of racism but not everyone is guilty of wanting to kill & or enslave other races because they are the superior race. Kna mean? Racial Supremacy is a European invention.

I disagree.

Humans are a tribal species, always have been. Euro-Christian colonialism took that to a new level, but they didn't invent it.

Had Asian people or African people weaponized gunpowder and smallpox and navigation technology as early as Europeans did, history would be extremely different.
Tom

Bollocks. Europeans didn't invent war, they didn't invent slavery, they didn't invent racism, they didn't even invent colonization. But there is no historical evidence that anything similar to the Europeans invention called racial supremacy nor their style of slavery existed prior to the Europeans. And boy did they like to write everything down.


Rap snitches, telling all their business
Sit in the court and be their own star witness
Do you see the perpetrator? Yeah, I'm right here
Fuck around, get the whole label sent up for years


~MF DOOM~

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Feel like I need to elaborate a little. There is a difference between being a racist and a supremacist. Everyone is guilty of racism but not everyone is guilty of wanting to kill & or enslave other races because they are the superior race. Kna mean? Racial Supremacy is a European invention.

I disagree.

Humans are a tribal species, always have been. Euro-Christian colonialism took that to a new level, but they didn't invent it.

Had Asian people or African people weaponized gunpowder and smallpox and navigation technology as early as Europeans did, history would be extremely different.
Tom

This. Europe got a big advantage from it's position (see Guns, Germs & Steel to understand why) but they simply had more ability to do what most everybody was trying to do.

 

[J842P]

Feel like I need to elaborate a little. There is a difference between being a racist and a supremacist. Everyone is guilty of racism but not everyone is guilty of wanting to kill & or enslave other races because they are the superior race. Kna mean? Racial Supremacy is a European invention.

I disagree.

Humans are a tribal species, always have been. Euro-Christian colonialism took that to a new level, but they didn't invent it.

Had Asian people or African people weaponized gunpowder and smallpox and navigation technology as early as Europeans did, history would be extremely different.
Tom

Bollocks. Europeans didn't invent war, they didn't invent slavery, they didn't invent racism, they didn't even invent colonization. But there is no historical evidence that anything similar to the Europeans invention called racial supremacy nor their style of slavery existed prior to the Europeans. And boy did they like to write everything down.


Rap snitches, telling all their business
Sit in the court and be their own star witness
Do you see the perpetrator? Yeah, I'm right here
Fuck around, get the whole label sent up for years


~MF DOOM~

I don't know where you get that idea. I've seen it circulating around a lot in place like twitter. But definitely, the Europeans did not invent chattel slavery, that has probably been around for a very long time, before even the modern Europeans lived in Europe. In any case, you can read the accounts from ancient Mesopotamia where the Akkadians (IIRC) decide that they are justified in going on slaving raids because their civilization is superior, and the surrounding hillsmen might as well be beasts.

The idea that some group is "just the best around" is hardly new, and there is a long history of using that perceived self-specialness as a justification for enslaving, conquering, and exploiting other peoples. The idea that this is unique to Europe is just ridiculous.

 

[J842P]

Feel like I need to elaborate a little. There is a difference between being a racist and a supremacist. Everyone is guilty of racism but not everyone is guilty of wanting to kill & or enslave other races because they are the superior race. Kna mean? Racial Supremacy is a European invention.

I disagree.

Humans are a tribal species, always have been. Euro-Christian colonialism took that to a new level, but they didn't invent it.

Had Asian people or African people weaponized gunpowder and smallpox and navigation technology as early as Europeans did, history would be extremely different.
Tom

Well, actually, Asians, the Chinese, invented gunpowder and weaponized it first. They also had very advanced navigational technology. Indeed, the Ming were well positioned to become colonialist (to a much greater extent than they already were) but they famously decided to "turn inward". So it might have just come down to historical idiosyncrasy.

 

[Gospel]

Bollocks. Europeans didn't invent war, they didn't invent slavery, they didn't invent racism, they didn't even invent colonization. But there is no historical evidence that anything similar to the Europeans invention called racial supremacy nor their style of slavery existed prior to the Europeans. And boy did they like to write everything down.


Rap snitches, telling all their business
Sit in the court and be their own star witness
Do you see the perpetrator? Yeah, I'm right here
Fuck around, get the whole label sent up for years


~MF DOOM~

I don't know where you get that idea. I've seen it circulating around a lot in place like twitter. But definitely, the Europeans did not invent chattel slavery, that has probably been around for a very long time, before even the modern Europeans lived in Europe. In any case, you can read the accounts from ancient Mesopotamia where the Akkadians (IIRC) decide that they are justified in going on slaving raids because their civilization is superior, and the surrounding hillsmen might as well be beasts.

The idea that some group is "just the best around" is hardly new, and there is a long history of using that perceived self-specialness as a justification for enslaving, conquering, and exploiting other peoples. The idea that this is unique to Europe is just ridiculous.

The Akkadians treated their slaves better.

Edit: What I meant to say is, Akkadian slaves were slaves mainly because of poverty and/or war. European slaves derived from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells by electromagnetic radiation. It's not that complicated.

 

[Gospel]

it also doesn't help your dumbass point that the Akkadians enslaved their own people (that's the poverty part) while Europeans did what now?

 

[J842P]

Bollocks. Europeans didn't invent war, they didn't invent slavery, they didn't invent racism, they didn't even invent colonization. But there is no historical evidence that anything similar to the Europeans invention called racial supremacy nor their style of slavery existed prior to the Europeans. And boy did they like to write everything down.


Rap snitches, telling all their business
Sit in the court and be their own star witness
Do you see the perpetrator? Yeah, I'm right here
Fuck around, get the whole label sent up for years


~MF DOOM~

I don't know where you get that idea. I've seen it circulating around a lot in place like twitter. But definitely, the Europeans did not invent chattel slavery, that has probably been around for a very long time, before even the modern Europeans lived in Europe. In any case, you can read the accounts from ancient Mesopotamia where the Akkadians (IIRC) decide that they are justified in going on slaving raids because their civilization is superior, and the surrounding hillsmen might as well be beasts.

The idea that some group is "just the best around" is hardly new, and there is a long history of using that perceived self-specialness as a justification for enslaving, conquering, and exploiting other peoples. The idea that this is unique to Europe is just ridiculous.

The Akkadians treated their slaves better.

Edit: What I meant to say is, Akkadian slaves were slaves mainly because of poverty and/or war. European slaves derived from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells by electromagnetic radiation. It's not that complicated.

What?

 

[J842P]

it also doesn't help your dumbass point that the Akkadians enslaved their own people (that's the poverty part) while Europeans did what now?

No, I'm saying they enslaved other people, and explicitly justified their slaving raids by saying those people were inferior.

(Again, forgive me but I'm not certain it was the Akkadians, but one of the major players in post-Sumerian Mesopotamia).

Also, the Europeans didn't just see black people and decide, "hey, we should enslave these Africans because they are black".

Rather, a whole network of enslaving people existed already in Western Africa, feeding into the Islamic slave trade before it. The Europeans just became the major purchasers.

 

[Gospel]

it also doesn't help your dumbass point that the Akkadians enslaved their own people (that's the poverty part) while Europeans did what now?

No, I'm saying they enslaved other people, and explicitly justified their slaving raids by saying those people were inferior.

(Again, forgive me but I'm not certain it was the Akkadians, but one of the major players in post-Sumerian Mesopotamia).

Also, the Europeans didn't just see black people and decide, "hey, we should enslave these Africans because they are black".

Rather, a whole network of enslaving people existed already in Western Africa, feeding into the Islamic slave trade before it. The Europeans just became the major purchasers.

Sweet! It's the ole Africans enslaved each other defense! A classic. So, the Europeans were just doing what the African's were already doing right? How do you explain the part where Europeans didn't enslave their own people? I'm certain you can find a comparison in history somewhere. I'll wait but I'm not an immortal so don't take forever mmkay?

 

[Bullmoose Too]

Sweet! It's the ole Africans enslaved each other defense! A classic. So, the Europeans were just doing what the African's were already doing right? How do you explain the part where Europeans didn't enslave their own people? I'm certain you can find a comparison in history somewhere. I'll wait but I'm not an immortal so don't take forever mmkay?

Europeans did enslave other Europeans.

“ Slaves were acquired from all the wars Rome fought during the Republic and the imperial era. Each war fetched thousands of slaves. Romans recruited slaves from all regions without any regard for race. Most of these slaves belonged to Thrace, Gallia, Carthage, Britain, Syria, North Africa, and Germanic tribes.”

Romans fathers even had the right to sell their own children into slavery. Or if a child is abandoned they could easily become a slave or die from exposure.

“Abandoned children were also used as slaves. Roman law allowed fathers to sell their adult children as slaves. This right was awarded by the founder of Rome, Romulus.”

Source: https://www.historyforkids.net/roman-slaves.html

Also you keep treating Europeans as a monolithic group. They were not.

And how is J842P pointing out that Africans enslaved other Africans a defense? A defense of what?

 

[Gospel]

Sweet! It's the ole Africans enslaved each other defense! A classic. So, the Europeans were just doing what the African's were already doing right? How do you explain the part where Europeans didn't enslave their own people? I'm certain you can find a comparison in history somewhere. I'll wait but I'm not an immortal so don't take forever mmkay?

Europeans did enslave other Europeans.

“ Slaves were acquired from all the wars Rome fought during the Republic and the imperial era. Each war fetched thousands of slaves. Romans recruited slaves from all regions without any regard for race. Most of these slaves belonged to Thrace, Gallia, Carthage, Britain, Syria, North Africa, and Germanic tribes.”

Romans fathers even had the right to sell their own children into slavery. Or if a child is abandoned they could easily become a slave or die from exposure.

“Abandoned children were also used as slaves. Roman law allowed fathers to sell their adult children as slaves. This right was awarded by the founder of Rome, Romulus.”

Source: https://www.historyforkids.net/roman-slaves.html

Also you keep treating Europeans as a monolithic group. They were not.

And how is J842P pointing out that Africans enslaved other Africans a defense? A defense of what?

Never claimed they were monolithic. Nice try. So the Romans enslaved the Africans. Learn something new every day.

Edit: And we are talking about the slaves of the transatlantic slave trade right? And you're saying the Romans did that?

 

[Gospel]

Oh BTW. The challenge I presented was to find a nation (you have all of history to look) that had slavery where they did not enslave their own people and only enslaved people with a certain skin complexion like the Europeans did. The Romans are not an example because they did enslave their own people. My point is the European form of slavery is unique, in that it targeted a specific group of people (not because of the country they were from because the slaves were from many African Nations) because of the color of their skin.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh BTW. The challenge I presented was to find a nation (you have all of history to look) that had slavery where they did not enslave their own people and only enslaved people with a certain skin complexion like the Europeans did. The Romans are not an example because they did enslave their own people. My point is the European form of slavery is unique, in that it targeted a specific group of people (not because of the country they were from because the slaves were from many African Nations) because of the color of their skin.

No other nation has been in a position to be able to do this. Thus this test means nothing.

 

[Bullmoose Too]

Sweet! It's the ole Africans enslaved each other defense! A classic. So, the Europeans were just doing what the African's were already doing right? How do you explain the part where Europeans didn't enslave their own people? I'm certain you can find a comparison in history somewhere. I'll wait but I'm not an immortal so don't take forever mmkay?

Europeans did enslave other Europeans.

“ Slaves were acquired from all the wars Rome fought during the Republic and the imperial era. Each war fetched thousands of slaves. Romans recruited slaves from all regions without any regard for race. Most of these slaves belonged to Thrace, Gallia, Carthage, Britain, Syria, North Africa, and Germanic tribes.”

Romans fathers even had the right to sell their own children into slavery. Or if a child is abandoned they could easily become a slave or die from exposure.

“Abandoned children were also used as slaves. Roman law allowed fathers to sell their adult children as slaves. This right was awarded by the founder of Rome, Romulus.”

Source: https://www.historyforkids.net/roman-slaves.html

Also you keep treating Europeans as a monolithic group. They were not.

And how is J842P pointing out that Africans enslaved other Africans a defense? A defense of what?

Never claimed they were monolithic. Nice try. So the Romans enslaved the Africans. Learn something new every day.

Edit: And we are talking about the slaves of the transatlantic slave trade right? And you're saying the Romans did that?

In that post you asked “Europeans didn’t enslaved there own people.” That’s treating Europeans as a single group.

In that post you asked “How do you explain the part where Europeans don’t enslave there own people? I’m certain you can find a comparison in history somewhere.” You did not specify the Transatlantic Slave Trade in that post. So I found a moment in history where Europeans enslaved other Europeans. Even Europeans belonging to their own in-group, or people if you prefer.

Oh BTW. The challenge I presented was to find a nation (you have all of history to look) that had slavery where they did not enslave their own people and only enslaved people with a certain skin complexion like the Europeans did. The only Romans are not an example because they did enslave their own people. My point is the European form of slavery is unique, in that it targeted a specific group of people (not because of the country they were from because the slaves were from many African Nations) because of the color of their skin.

No other nation has been in a position to be able to do this. Thus this test means nothing.

I think the purpose of the test is to merely vilify Europeans.

 

[Gospel]

Never claimed they were monolithic. Nice try. So the Romans enslaved the Africans. Learn something new every day.

Edit: And we are talking about the slaves of the transatlantic slave trade right? And you're saying the Romans did that?

In that post you asked “Europeans didn’t enslaved there own people.” That’s treating Europeans as a single group.

In that post you asked “How do you explain the part where Europeans don’t enslave there own people? I’m certain you can find a comparison in history somewhere.” You did not specify the Transatlantic Slave Trade in that post. So I found a moment in history where Europeans enslaved other Europeans. Even Europeans belonging to their own in-group, or people if you prefer.

Oh BTW. The challenge I presented was to find a nation (you have all of history to look) that had slavery where they did not enslave their own people and only enslaved people with a certain skin complexion like the Europeans did. The only Romans are not an example because they did enslave their own people. My point is the European form of slavery is unique, in that it targeted a specific group of people (not because of the country they were from because the slaves were from many African Nations) because of the color of their skin.

No other nation has been in a position to be able to do this. Thus this test means nothing.

I think the purpose of the test is to merely vilify Europeans.

Wow, I thought this message board was full of intelligent people and me the idiot. The transatlantic slave Trade denotes modern Europeans (winks at Bullmoose Too). There is such a thing as modern Europeans right? and it was Europeans (yes I know it wasn't only them it's just they are the only ones that didn't enslave their own people like their ancestors (like the Romans) did).

And to Bullmoose, Trust me, the Europeans did a fine job villifying themselves. What an idiotic thing to say.

 

[Gospel]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Slavery has generally been of defeated outgroups. The Europeans are the only society that has been in a position to take slaves from areas of other races, the fact that they are the only ones to have done so is meaningless.

 

[laughing dog]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Slavery has generally been of defeated outgroups. The Europeans are the only society that has been in a position to take slaves from areas of other races, the fact that they are the only ones to have done so is meaningless.

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

 

[TomC]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Slavery has generally been of defeated outgroups. The Europeans are the only society that has been in a position to take slaves from areas of other races, the fact that they are the only ones to have done so is meaningless.

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

I don't think so.
Europeans were the last and most technologically sophisticated culture to do so. They were also the most ethically sophisticated culture, which is why abolitionism became such a thing.

History is messy. There aren't many cultural saints or irredeemable sinners.
Tom

 

[TomC]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Slavery has generally been of defeated outgroups. The Europeans are the only society that has been in a position to take slaves from areas of other races, the fact that they are the only ones to have done so is meaningless.

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

Exactly who do you mean by "Europeans"?
From Fins to Greeks, from Irish to Swedish, are you putting all of our ancestors in one big pot, calling them white, and blaming us for slavery?

But handwaving away the fact the the Transatlantic Slave Trade was European people buying slaves from African people?
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Slavery has generally been of defeated outgroups. The Europeans are the only society that has been in a position to take slaves from areas of other races, the fact that they are the only ones to have done so is meaningless.

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

Placed themselves?? No, they were simply in the technological lead in order to have the capability to take slaves from farther away. They were the first power to be able to do this, widespread slave-taking ceased before anyone else was in a position to do so.

 

[Gospel]

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

Exactly who do you mean by "Europeans"?
From Fins to Greeks, from Irish to Swedish, are you putting all of our ancestors in one big pot, calling them white, and blaming us for slavery?

But handwaving away the fact the the Transatlantic Slave Trade was European people buying slaves from African people?
Tom

When I said Modern European's I meant it. Name one Modern European nation that did not enslave African's and we can talk.

Swedish - They had the Swedish African company.
Irish - They used the Swedish African company.

Then the more obvious names like the Netherlands, France, Spain, England, Portugal, Denmark & Spain. Germany likes to act like they had nothing to do with it yet directly benefited from the slave trade so they can kick rocks. But it's wrong for me to say modern Eurpeons when so many of them were involved? You set trippin TomC.

 

[Gospel]

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

Placed themselves?? No, they were simply in the technological lead in order to have the capability to take slaves from farther away. They were the first power to be able to do this, widespread slave-taking ceased before anyone else was in a position to do so.

Yeah they took the technology lead in doing slavery in the way that their ancestors have not done. Thanks for playing but you've failed the challenge.

Edit: Oh and forgot to mention, they were the first (like you said) but they were also the ONLY.

 

[southernhybrid]

OMG, how terrible that we haven't forgotten that people tried to overthrow the government of the United States at the behest of the then sitting POTUS who didn't like the election results! I mean, it's been five and half months already.

#BLMers have been doing a lot more damage with their rioting and occupations. And not only property damage, but deaths too. Including an 8 year old girl in Atlanta.

We should all be happy to do what your overlord Trump declares we should do and forget about the whole thing. Big nothing burger.

My overlord? I did not even vote for him either time.

As is often the case, this thread is all over the place but I wanted to correct the idea that the BLM protests caused a great amount of damage and deaths. I will trust academic sources that actually studied this instead of the opinion of one poster.

https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelmingly-peaceful-our-research-finds

Here is what we have found based on the 7,305 events we’ve collected. The overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.
First, police made arrests in 5% of the protest events, with over 8,500 reported arrests (or possibly more). Police used tear gas or related chemical substances in 2.5% of these events.
Protesters or bystanders were reported injured in 1.6 percent of the protests. In total, at least three Black Lives Matter protesters and one other person were killed while protesting in Omaha, Austin and Kenosha, Wis. One anti-fascist protester killed a far-right group member during a confrontation in Portland, Ore.; law enforcement killed the alleged assailant several days later.
Police were reported injured in 1% of the protests. A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement, not anti-racism protesters.
The killings in the line of duty of other law enforcement officers during this period were not related to the protests.

Read the link. Most of the damage that was done was due to the reaction of the police or counter protesters. Americans have the right to peacefully protest. The police don't have the right to harm peaceful protesters, not even when they may be blocking traffic. Sometimes the anti war protests that happened during my youth turned violent, but the only one that stands out in my mind was when some National Guardsmen shot 3 unarmed students. The protests I attended were completely peaceful. In fact, we had police and veterans marching with us. The BLM protests in my small city were not only peaceful, they were accompanied by members of our local police department. Most protests are peaceful, so your claims aren't based on facts. I trust the information in this academic study because they looked at over 7000 individual protests to determine the truth.

We all know that both Black and White people can be guilty of committing crimes, so what is the point of starting a thread almost every time a Black person does something criminal? Anyone who isn't biased also knows that Black folks, especially Black males are stopped, harassed and/or arrested for minor crimes far more than White people who commit the same minor crimes. It's not even worth arguing over because the evidence overwhelmingly supports that fact.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

Placed themselves?? No, they were simply in the technological lead in order to have the capability to take slaves from farther away. They were the first power to be able to do this, widespread slave-taking ceased before anyone else was in a position to do so.

Yeah they took the technology lead in doing slavery in the way that their ancestors have not done. Thanks for playing but you've failed the challenge.

Edit: Oh and forgot to mention, they were the first (like you said) but they were also the ONLY.

They were the only ones capable of doing it. Thus you can't draw any conclusions.

 

[Gospel]

Yeah they took the technology lead in doing slavery in the way that their ancestors have not done. Thanks for playing but you've failed the challenge.

Edit: Oh and forgot to mention, they were the first (like you said) but they were also the ONLY.

They were the only ones capable of doing it. Thus you can't draw any conclusions.

Sure I can. They are the only ones that did it. Is that not true?

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah they took the technology lead in doing slavery in the way that their ancestors have not done. Thanks for playing but you've failed the challenge.

Edit: Oh and forgot to mention, they were the first (like you said) but they were also the ONLY.

They were the only ones capable of doing it. Thus you can't draw any conclusions.

Sure I can. They are the only ones that did it. Is that not true?

Not actually true. There is a LOT of racially segregated slavery happening all across the world now that others can do it. How else do you think Dubai was built?

The thing is, they just acquire their slaves different ways, and don't strictly talk about "owning" them anymore.

It's the same practice, just with the language and practices obfuscated behind layers.

 

[Gospel]

Sure I can. They are the only ones that did it. Is that not true?

Not actually true. There is a LOT of racially segregated slavery happening all across the world now that others can do it. How else do you think Dubai was built?

The thing is, they just acquire their slaves different ways, and don't strictly talk about "owning" them anymore.

It's the same practice, just with the language and practices obfuscated behind layers.

Ok so your claim is the Emirati's enslaved a specific group of people based on the color of their skin & also did not enslave any of their own people to build Dubai. Why haven't I heard of this before? Could it be because it's complete bullshit?

 

[Jarhyn]

Sure I can. They are the only ones that did it. Is that not true?

Not actually true. There is a LOT of racially segregated slavery happening all across the world now that others can do it. How else do you think Dubai was built?

The thing is, they just acquire their slaves different ways, and don't strictly talk about "owning" them anymore.

It's the same practice, just with the language and practices obfuscated behind layers.

Ok so your claim is the Emirati's enslaved a specific group of people based on the color of their skin & also did not enslave any of their own people to build Dubai. Why haven't I heard of this before? Could it be because it's complete bullshit?

More, enslaved them not because of a specific quality they have, but because of a specific quality they lack: they are not Emerati.

Once they are imported on false promises of jobs, their passports are taken away and they are dumped into worker tent cities.

It is their inability to leave and their lack of Emerati citizenship that creates a slave class.

 

[Gospel]

Ok so your claim is the Emirati's enslaved a specific group of people based on the color of their skin & also did not enslave any of their own people to build Dubai. Why haven't I heard of this before? Could it be because it's complete bullshit?

More, enslaved them not because of a specific quality they have, but because of a specific quality they lack: they are not Emerati.

Once they are imported on false promises of jobs, their passports are taken away and they are dumped into worker tent cities.

It is their inability to leave and their lack of Emerati citizenship that creates a slave class.

What is that quality they lack? If they happen to have not lacked this quality would they have not been enslaved? When the Europeans enslaved Africans is there a quality an African would have had that would have caused the Europeans to not enslave said African? And I'm not talking about missing Arms/legs (but if you want to be the typical semantic prick I'll accept that answer then ignore you).

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok so your claim is the Emirati's enslaved a specific group of people based on the color of their skin & also did not enslave any of their own people to build Dubai. Why haven't I heard of this before? Could it be because it's complete bullshit?

More, enslaved them not because of a specific quality they have, but because of a specific quality they lack: they are not Emerati.

Once they are imported on false promises of jobs, their passports are taken away and they are dumped into worker tent cities.

It is their inability to leave and their lack of Emerati citizenship that creates a slave class.

What is that quality they lack? If they happen to have not lacked this quality would they have not been enslaved? When the Europeans enslaved Africans is there a quality an African would have had that would have caused the Europeans to not enslave said African? And I'm not talking about missing Arms/legs (but if you want to be the typical semantic prick I'll accept that answer then ignore you).

The "quality" is being an Emerati Muslim. That is the entirety of it. It is racial, but of the "you are not *" rather than of the "you are *" variety. Most of the enslaved are, ironically, African afaik.

The quality that would have spared Africans? Being a white European probably would have done it.

 

[TomC]

Yeah they took the technology lead in doing slavery in the way that their ancestors have not done. Thanks for playing but you've failed the challenge.

Edit: Oh and forgot to mention, they were the first (like you said) but they were also the ONLY.

They were the only ones capable of doing it. Thus you can't draw any conclusions.

Sure I can. They are the only ones that did it. Is that not true?

They're also the only ones who mounted a huge abolitionist movement and fought a war to end slavery.

While writing all this down.

Is that not true?
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Sure I can. They are the only ones that did it. Is that not true?

They're also the only ones who mounted a huge abolitionist movement and fought a war to end slavery.

While writing all this down.

Is that not true?
Tom

Yes. I don't have an issue with accepting the truth. Why is it so hard for you to accept what they did with slavery was different from all the others?

 

[TomC]

Sure I can. They are the only ones that did it. Is that not true?

They're also the only ones who mounted a huge abolitionist movement and fought a war to end slavery.

While writing all this down.

Is that not true?
Tom

Yes. I don't have an issue with accepting the truth. Why is it so hard for you to accept what they did with slavery was different from all the others?

I didn't say that. I know it's true. I tried to explain it.

Meanwhile, you don't even know about what the megarich people are doing to imported workers today! Maybe you don't care, because those rich folks keep your energy prices down?
Tom

 

[Gospel]

What is that quality they lack? If they happen to have not lacked this quality would they have not been enslaved? When the Europeans enslaved Africans is there a quality an African would have had that would have caused the Europeans to not enslave said African? And I'm not talking about missing Arms/legs (but if you want to be the typical semantic prick I'll accept that answer then ignore you).

The "quality" is being an Emerati Muslim. That is the entirety of it. It is racial, but of the "you are not *" rather than of the "you are *" variety. Most of the enslaved are, ironically, African afaik.

The quality that would have spared Africans? Being a white European probably would have done it.

Most of the enslaved being African does not mean all of the enslaved are African. Who are the rest of the slaves if not all Africans? to my knowledge a lot of Dubai's slaves are also from India & Asia. Did the Europeans Enslave people from India &/or Asia (that did not happen to have brown enough skin to be mistaken for African?).

 

[Gospel]

Yes. I don't have an issue with accepting the truth. Why is it so hard for you to accept what they did with slavery was different from all the others?

I didn't say that. I know it's true. I tried to explain it.

Meanwhile, you don't even know about what the megarich people are doing to imported workers today! Maybe you don't care, because those rich folks keep your energy prices down?
Tom

I don't see how my pointing out that the European style of slavery was uniquely evil = that I'm ok with slavery of any other form. You'd need to explain. Oh let me guess, you're just trying to hurt my feelings.

 

[Trausti]

Yes. I don't have an issue with accepting the truth. Why is it so hard for you to accept what they did with slavery was different from all the others?

I didn't say that. I know it's true. I tried to explain it.

Meanwhile, you don't even know about what the megarich people are doing to imported workers today! Maybe you don't care, because those rich folks keep your energy prices down?
Tom

I don't see how my pointing out that the European style of slavery was uniquely evil = that I'm ok with slavery of any other form. You'd need to explain. Oh let me guess, you're just trying to hurt my feelings.

Also unique about the European style of slavery is emancipation and abolition. And then those evil bastards imposed these European values on the rest of world through imperialism.

 

[Gospel]

I don't see how my pointing out that the European style of slavery was uniquely evil = that I'm ok with slavery of any other form. You'd need to explain. Oh let me guess, you're just trying to hurt my feelings.

Also unique about the European style of slavery is emancipation and abolition. And then those evil bastards imposed these European values on the rest of world through imperialism.

You're not all that bad after all Trausti.

 

[Jarhyn]

What is that quality they lack? If they happen to have not lacked this quality would they have not been enslaved? When the Europeans enslaved Africans is there a quality an African would have had that would have caused the Europeans to not enslave said African? And I'm not talking about missing Arms/legs (but if you want to be the typical semantic prick I'll accept that answer then ignore you).

The "quality" is being an Emerati Muslim. That is the entirety of it. It is racial, but of the "you are not *" rather than of the "you are *" variety. Most of the enslaved are, ironically, African afaik.

The quality that would have spared Africans? Being a white European probably would have done it.

Most of the enslaved being African does not mean all of the enslaved are African. Who are the rest of the slaves if not all Africans? to my knowledge a lot of Dubai's slaves are also from India & Asia. Did the Europeans Enslave people from India &/or Asia (that did not happen to have brown enough skin to be mistaken for African?).

I don't think they did, no. I guess my point is that slavery along divisions of race (is-black; isn't-emerati) is not something anyone had a monopoly on. It's a fairly strong guarantee when you have dark-age religion, economic strength, and access to "foreign" peoples, There will probably be some element of large scale slavery.

You can see similar happening now with the slavery being imposed on the Uighurs in China.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah they took the technology lead in doing slavery in the way that their ancestors have not done. Thanks for playing but you've failed the challenge.

Edit: Oh and forgot to mention, they were the first (like you said) but they were also the ONLY.

They were the only ones capable of doing it. Thus you can't draw any conclusions.

Sure I can. They are the only ones that did it. Is that not true?

You can't infer probability from a sample of one. Are they outliers in motivation, or only outliers in ability? I see no reason to think others would have refrained from taking distant slaves if they had been able to. Enslaving the out group and/or one's enemies is just how the world worked back then.

 

[Gospel]

Sure I can. They are the only ones that did it. Is that not true?

You can't infer probability from a sample of one. Are they outliers in motivation, or only outliers in ability? I see no reason to think others would have refrained from taking distant slaves if they had been able to. Enslaving the out group and/or one's enemies is just how the world worked back then.

As of the moment, you read this sentence & regardless of what the neurons are doing within that 1400 grams of meat in your head; Europeans are the only ones that have done it. End of discussion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure I can. They are the only ones that did it. Is that not true?

You can't infer probability from a sample of one. Are they outliers in motivation, or only outliers in ability? I see no reason to think others would have refrained from taking distant slaves if they had been able to. Enslaving the out group and/or one's enemies is just how the world worked back then.

As of the moment, you read this sentence & regardless of what the neurons are doing within that 1400 grams of meat in your head; Europeans are the only ones that have done it. End of discussion.

But you can't draw any conclusions about what others would have done. This is a case of a lack of data--nobody else had the ability to take slaves from distant lands.

And when you look at the world these days the quasi-slavery that exists isn't being perpetrated by Europeans.

 

[Gospel]

As of the moment, you read this sentence & regardless of what the neurons are doing within that 1400 grams of meat in your head; Europeans are the only ones that have done it. End of discussion.

But you can't draw any conclusions about what others would have done. This is a case of a lack of data--nobody else had the ability to take slaves from distant lands.

And when you look at the world these days the quasi-slavery that exists isn't being perpetrated by Europeans.

Tell yourself whatever you need to make it better Loren. I ain't mad at cha.

 

[TomC]

Sure I can. They are the only ones that did it. Is that not true?

You can't infer probability from a sample of one. Are they outliers in motivation, or only outliers in ability? I see no reason to think others would have refrained from taking distant slaves if they had been able to. Enslaving the out group and/or one's enemies is just how the world worked back then.

As of the moment, you read this sentence & regardless of what the neurons are doing within that 1400 grams of meat in your head; Europeans are the only ones that have done it. End of discussion.

May I post(quote) this response in a different thread?
Tom

 

[Gospel]

I don't see anything in the TOU stating you can't, so have at it.