Does Ownership of Slaves Define a Historical Figure?

[JoeB131]

As usual, not being content with the single (okay, double) fallacy of sweeping generalization based on vague impressions his teevee ordered him to slobber over yet that he can't itemize, he doubles (okay, triples) down with an ad hom as well. Just in case there was any doubt as to his not having had an argument.

As predictable as it is tedious.

he is a sad little man.

 

[JoeB131]

And yet the fact that it was outlawed in Europoe

I've never heard of a place called Europoe... Maybe you mean Europa, the moon of Jupiter.

Now, I'm just mocking you.

 

[martybegan]

We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.

Actually your OP is bullshit.

Here's why.

How so? The current SJW mantra is that if someone did something bad against a protected class hundreds of years ago their entire legacy is tainted. It's why they are gunning for Washington and Jefferson monuments. it's why they are gunning for Columbus.

Is it now.

Linkie winkie?

Why do you need a link? Just google Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln statue and you will see what is going on.

Defacement, calls for removal, actual removal, either by mob or by cowardly local politicians.

Because you posited an ass-ertion, that's why.

OP did the same thing. He can't prove his either.

Sic semper sweeping generalizations. They're a worthless crutch for those who can't target an argument.

As usual Pogo evades the crux of the post for semantics.

As usual Pogo shoots the post out of the air for its fallaciousnessitude.

Plop.

Fixed it for ya. Complete with appropriate sound effects.

No, as usual Pogo goes off on tangents then declares "victory"

What a fucking moron you are.

As usual, not being content with the single (okay, double) fallacy of sweeping generalization based on vague impressions his teevee ordered him to slobber over yet that he can't itemize, he doubles (okay, triples) down with an ad hom as well. Just in case there was any doubt as to his not having had an argument.

As predictable as it is tedious.

Word-diarrhea, nothing more. you dodge, duck, dip dive and dodge and never discuss the actual topic.

You and JoeBlow are the perfect circle jerk, and old dried up twat, and a useless pseudo-intellectual fucktard.

 

[martybegan]

As usual, not being content with the single (okay, double) fallacy of sweeping generalization based on vague impressions his teevee ordered him to slobber over yet that he can't itemize, he doubles (okay, triples) down with an ad hom as well. Just in case there was any doubt as to his not having had an argument.

As predictable as it is tedious.

he is a sad little man.

This coming from one of the most miserable posters on this board. You and Pogo should go fist deep on each other.

 

[JoeB131]

This coming from one of the most miserable posters on this board. You and Pogo should go fist deep on each other.

Dude, you seem to have this bizarre fascination for gay porn... YOu might want to stop that before you get into trouble.

 

[Pogo]

We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.

Actually your OP is bullshit.

Here's why.

How so? The current SJW mantra is that if someone did something bad against a protected class hundreds of years ago their entire legacy is tainted. It's why they are gunning for Washington and Jefferson monuments. it's why they are gunning for Columbus.

Is it now.

Linkie winkie?

Why do you need a link? Just google Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln statue and you will see what is going on.

Defacement, calls for removal, actual removal, either by mob or by cowardly local politicians.

Because you posited an ass-ertion, that's why.

OP did the same thing. He can't prove his either.

Sic semper sweeping generalizations. They're a worthless crutch for those who can't target an argument.

As usual Pogo evades the crux of the post for semantics.

As usual Pogo shoots the post out of the air for its fallaciousnessitude.

Plop.

Fixed it for ya. Complete with appropriate sound effects.

No, as usual Pogo goes off on tangents then declares "victory"

What a fucking moron you are.

As usual, not being content with the single (okay, double) fallacy of sweeping generalization based on vague impressions his teevee ordered him to slobber over yet that he can't itemize, he doubles (okay, triples) down with an ad hom as well. Just in case there was any doubt as to his not having had an argument.

As predictable as it is tedious.

Word-diarrhea, nothing more. you dodge, duck, dip dive and dodge and never discuss the actual topic.

You and JoeBlow are the perfect circle jerk, and old dried up twat, and a useless pseudo-intellectual fucktard.

Here we see the subject throw his toys about the room and slam doors simply because his hapless fallacacious approach got called out. Then he went right back to it. Proving I guess that there walk among us those who prefer to be incapable of learning.

Sad.

 

[martybegan]

We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.

Actually your OP is bullshit.

Here's why.

How so? The current SJW mantra is that if someone did something bad against a protected class hundreds of years ago their entire legacy is tainted. It's why they are gunning for Washington and Jefferson monuments. it's why they are gunning for Columbus.

Is it now.

Linkie winkie?

Why do you need a link? Just google Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln statue and you will see what is going on.

Defacement, calls for removal, actual removal, either by mob or by cowardly local politicians.

Because you posited an ass-ertion, that's why.

OP did the same thing. He can't prove his either.

Sic semper sweeping generalizations. They're a worthless crutch for those who can't target an argument.

As usual Pogo evades the crux of the post for semantics.

As usual Pogo shoots the post out of the air for its fallaciousnessitude.

Plop.

Fixed it for ya. Complete with appropriate sound effects.

No, as usual Pogo goes off on tangents then declares "victory"

What a fucking moron you are.

As usual, not being content with the single (okay, double) fallacy of sweeping generalization based on vague impressions his teevee ordered him to slobber over yet that he can't itemize, he doubles (okay, triples) down with an ad hom as well. Just in case there was any doubt as to his not having had an argument.

As predictable as it is tedious.

Word-diarrhea, nothing more. you dodge, duck, dip dive and dodge and never discuss the actual topic.

You and JoeBlow are the perfect circle jerk, and old dried up twat, and a useless pseudo-intellectual fucktard.

Here we see the subject throw his toys about the room and slam doors simply because his hapless fallacacious approach got called out. Then he went right back to it. Proving I guess that there walk among us those who prefer to be incapable of learning.

Sad.

You called out nothing, you did what you do on every post, go off on a tangent, drool a bit, then declare victory while wearing your "special helmet" while waiting for the short bus to take you to the next thread to do the exact same thing.

Trolls are one thing, but you are a 1/2 trick pony troll.

 

[Fueri]

And yet the fact that it was outlawed in Europoe

I've never heard of a place called Europoe... Maybe you mean Europa, the moon of Jupiter.

View attachment 362079

Now, I'm just mocking you.

How to argue against such a master stroke! I am vanquished! Lol.

 

[JoeB131]

How to argue against such a master stroke! I am vanquished! Lol.

Well, at least you admit your historical revisionism is kind of silly.

You called out nothing, you did what you do on every post, go off on a tangent, drool a bit, then declare victory while wearing your "special helmet" while waiting for the short bus to take you to the next thread to do the exact same thing.

Trolls are one thing, but you are a 1/2 trick pony troll.

yet he mops the floor with you every time.

 

[martybegan]

How to argue against such a master stroke! I am vanquished! Lol.

Well, at least you admit your historical revisionism is kind of silly.

You called out nothing, you did what you do on every post, go off on a tangent, drool a bit, then declare victory while wearing your "special helmet" while waiting for the short bus to take you to the next thread to do the exact same thing.

Trolls are one thing, but you are a 1/2 trick pony troll.

yet he mops the floor with you every time.

No, he deflects and claims victory.

 

[Fueri]

How to argue against such a master stroke! I am vanquished! Lol.

Well, at least you admit your historical revisionism is kind of silly.

You called out nothing, you did what you do on every post, go off on a tangent, drool a bit, then declare victory while wearing your "special helmet" while waiting for the short bus to take you to the next thread to do the exact same thing.

Trolls are one thing, but you are a 1/2 trick pony troll.

yet he mops the floor with you every time.

Revisionism of your history maybe, which was factually incorrect.

Trying to convince you of it, despite it being documented historical fact, may be silly, and on a day as beautiful as this in Chicago it's bordering on crazy.

Such is my burden, but I've got some racks of ribs slow rolling on the grill and friends on the way, so it's not all bad.

 

[JoeB131]

No, he deflects and claims victory.

sure he does... and here you are whining like a little bitch

Revisionism of your history maybe, which was factually incorrect.

Sorry, dude, I have a degree in history from UIC. Whatever crap you are learning from Racist Websites isn't my problem.

 

[Fueri]

No, he deflects and claims victory.

sure he does... and here you are whining like a little bitch

Revisionism of your history maybe, which was factually incorrect.

Sorry, dude, I have a degree in history from UIC. Whatever crap you are learning from Racist Websites isn't my problem.

Then you should ask for your money back, apparently.

And you may want to get in touch with the National Archives of the UK to let them know their records are racist. LOL.

Slavery and the British transatlantic slave trade - The National Archives

1. Why use this guide? Use this guide for an overview of records held at The National Archives that shed light on the slave trade, slavery and unfree labour in the British Caribbean and North American colonies. The guide is by no means exhaustive, but introduces and illustrates the diverse range...

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

 

[JoeB131]

Then you should ask for your money back, apparently.

And you may want to get in touch with the National Archives of the UK to let them know their records are racist. LOL.

Uh, the slavery was here, not in Britian. that's the point, dummy. They didn't want slaves in the UK.

 

[Fueri]

Then you should ask for your money back, apparently.

And you may want to get in touch with the National Archives of the UK to let them know their records are racist. LOL.

Uh, the slavery was here, not in Britian. that's the point, dummy. They didn't want slaves in the UK.

Uh, dummy, you claimed it was outlawed in most of Europe. That was the historical fact you cited Histo-genius.

You were wrong.

Really, get that money back, cause you apparently don't know shit, nor, apparently can you even read, as it's all on the link provided.

Maybe a cognitive test is in order...

 

[martybegan]

No, he deflects and claims victory.

sure he does... and here you are whining like a little bitch

Revisionism of your history maybe, which was factually incorrect.

Sorry, dude, I have a degree in history from UIC. Whatever crap you are learning from Racist Websites isn't my problem.

That's all he does, and you claiming otherwise is even more of your usual bullshit.

 

[JoeB131]

Uh, dummy, you claimed it was outlawed in most of Europe.

Which is was... there were very few slaves in Europe, they sent them all to the Americas....

Civilized people at the time knew it was wrong. This is what makes the founding slave rapists evil, and we should tear down all their statues.

hat's all he does, and you claiming otherwise is even more of your usual bullshit.

All he does is spank you, because you are so emotional, Marty. Must be tough to be on the wrong side of history.

 

[martybegan]

Uh, dummy, you claimed it was outlawed in most of Europe.

Which is was... there were very few slaves in Europe, they sent them all to the Americas....

Civilized people at the time knew it was wrong. This is what makes the founding slave rapists evil, and we should tear down all their statues.

hat's all he does, and you claiming otherwise is even more of your usual bullshit.

All he does is spank you, because you are so emotional, Marty. Must be tough to be on the wrong side of history.

He doesn't spank shit. He claims victory over tangent shooting.

 

[JoeB131]

He doesn't spank shit. He claims victory over tangent shooting.

Really, Marty, you come off like a five year old with oppositional defiance disorder.

 

[martybegan]

He doesn't spank shit. He claims victory over tangent shooting.

Really, Marty, you come off like a five year old with oppositional defiance disorder.

And you cheerleader for some of the dumbest trolls on the board, like Pogo.