40 people shot in 3 days

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

I did read the first part of the article. Are you proposing we invent a time machine to go back to a time when drugs didn’t exist?  

 

Correct.  Time travel is very underrated. 

I find it interesting the anti gun folks think we can/should disarm the entire country, person by person, and make the folks who don't surrender instant felons. This was thrown out as a way to punish and deter those not turning their firearms. But the same can't be done for illicit drugs? Could we not also have a turn in your drugs or you are instant felon day?   Or does it not work that way since guns bad, heroine junkie good?  When someone, anyone can tell me why we should have fentynol on the streets, and that it's good for society, I'll be all ears  

* I only quoted you for the time travel, not the rest. 

[DixonHur 11959]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Correct.  Time travel is very underrated. 

I find it interesting the anti gun folks think we can/should disarm the entire country, person by person, and make the folks who don't surrender instant felons. This was thrown out as a way to punish and deter those not turning their firearms. But the same can't be done for illicit drugs? Could we not also have a turn in your drugs or you are instant felon day?   Or does it not work that way since guns bad, heroine junkie good?  When someone, anyone can tell me why we should have fentynol on the streets, and that it's good for society, I'll be all ears  

* I only quoted you for the time travel, not the rest. 

Who said anything about guns?  Obviously I can't speak for everyone on this thread, but I certainly have no issue with people owning guns.  Not sure why it has to be an either or question.

And, a better question would be why did fentynol make it's way to the streets?  And why have so many died from it?  Knowing that, coupled with an understanding of what happened during prohibition, will help you understand one of the reasons users would be better off if it were legal.

[fattyflattie 4640]

Would we not just be better off without drugs in the streets?  Question should be why are they "necessary"?

[RayDog 682]

28 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

 When someone, anyone can tell me why we should have fentynol on the streets, and that it's good for society, I'll be all ears  

We cannot prevent having Fentanyl available. What we can do is have consistent purity and dosage to help prevent accidental overdoses. We can also lower the cost so that we eliminate the illegal drug trade and the associated violence. At the same time by making recreational drugs more affordable, we can minimize secondary criminal activity related to getting money for drugs. It would no longer by on the streets but in licensed pharmacies. We can also offer counseling and drug treatment options to users to improve treatment and lower the number of addicts. And, like in Portugal we can identify problem drug users in critical jobs where recreational drug use is not appropriate.

As for guns, this would minimize the drug related gun violence which is a substantial component to the topic of this thread.

The savings already outlined  plus the improved standard of living for people currently caught up in drug use, drug trade or legal problems associated with them, will make legalization even more worthwhile.

[DixonHur 11959]

Fuck no...

I can't even begin to imagine how boring shit would be if everyone we 100% sober, 100% of the time.

Not to mention, most people prefer to be anesthetized when undergoing surgery, and appreciate the painkillers afterwards.

[fattyflattie 4640]

And I guess that's where the hangup is. I can think of 100 things I'd rather my tax dollars be spent than a bunch of fucking druggies. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Not to mention, most people prefer to be anesthetized when undergoing surgery, and appreciate the painkillers afterwards.

Last I checked, those fell into legal drugs? 

[Thatguy 9362]

7 hours ago, Incredulity said:

A $10 sixer every single night is $3650. So maybe take a step back on “most people spend 5-10k”

    Because people drink $10 sixers? People also drink wine, buy drinks at restaurants, and sporting events. An average drinker spends about 5k annually when you think about all the nights at restaurants, vacations, and other places with overpriced drinks. Let's not pretend people econo-drink at home all the time.

[Flg8rfan 201]

The problem isn't that enough money isn't spent on them, its that the parents do not give a fuck about their own kids.
Even with twice the amount of money poured into those schools would mean nothing if nobody cares once those kids leave school. 

This all day long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Thatguy 9362]

On 5/4/2018 at 9:53 AM, whatup said:

You make it sound like poverty is an uniquely American trait. it isn't. 

Also, I didn't say that they don't love their kids. They just don't give a shit about their kid's education, but that might have something to do with their own upbringing. But pouring more money into this still isn't going to solve it. 

    This is a dumb take to say the least. You think people don't care about their kid's education, which is absolutely wrong. If you have a poor education, how the hell are you going to help your kids with their education? I know a guy who made it all the way to the 10th grade and can't read. His parents couldn't read to help him. How does that happen? That happens because the teachers didn't give a shit about him. How else can a kid get passed along like that?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

29 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

    Because people drink $10 sixers? People also drink wine, buy drinks at restaurants, and sporting events. An average drinker spends about 5k annually when you think about all the nights at restaurants, vacations, and other places with overpriced drinks. Let's not pretend people econo-drink at home all the time.

This is all true.  And most Americans are idiots with money.  If it weren’t overspending on booze it would be other shit. Our country doesn’t value saving.  And that is across all racial lines.  

[Incredulity 11876]

Perhaps I should have highlighted, EVERY NIGHT.

I drink my fair share but it isn’t 6 drinks every single night.  I don’t think “most people” (from post in question) drink 6 every night.  

I agree people are stupid with money.  The 5-10k struck me as extreme given the average income in the US.  

Edited May 14, 2018 by Incredulity

[RayDog 682]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

And I guess that's where the hangup is. I can think of 100 things I'd rather my tax dollars be spent than a bunch of fucking druggies. 

Treatment is usually much cheaper than incarceration and with better long term outcomes.

[hookem48 4849]

On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 9:55 PM, Helobious said:

It looks like of the 40 shooting victims, only 1 has died. That's fucking incredible.

they're used to getting shot

[DixonHur 11959]

 

2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

And I guess that's where the hangup is. I can think of 100 things I'd rather my tax dollars be spent than a bunch of fucking druggies.  

Well, aren't you just Mr. Compassion.  You know I could think of a million things I'd rather my tax dollars be spent on than fucking wars in the ME, but oh, fucking well.  And  as RayDog pointed out, you're tax dollars are already do going to "fucking druggies", as you so eloquently refer to them. 

 

2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Last I checked, those fell into legal drugs? 

Define legal?  Is your position that if papa government says you can have them then they are good drugs?  You know cocaine, heroin, and marijuana were all legal over the counter drugs at one point, right?  Hell, paregoric was an OTC drug until 1970 and it's active ingredient is opium.

So I guess they were "good" drugs when they were legal, but became bad all of the sudden when the government decided to deem them so?  Some of us think the government should stay out of our private lives, but I guess you prefer them to tell you what you should do and when you should do it.

[hookem48 4849]

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 7:44 PM, RayDog said:

In Portugal the number of heroin addicts alone dropped 75%. 

Big pharma will not be killing each other, and they can price illegal distributors out of business as long as the taxes are not too high.

Around 100,000 people a year are dying in the US and Mexico as part of the drug war. The solution is not more war on drugs.

How do they know how many addicts there are?

[DixonHur 11959]

3 minutes ago, hookem48 said:

How do they know how many addicts there are?

I'm sure it's an estimate based on statistical analysis of things like community outreach data, shelter, hospital and prison records, etc., but it doesn't really matter what the number is.  Even if the number of addicts stayed constant or ticked up slightly, the tax savings from ending the war on drugs, coupled with the additional tax revenue would be worth it. 

[RayDog 682]

Along with the end of the drug wars in Mexico.

[Catdaddyhorn 3467]

On 5/12/2018 at 11:39 AM, Spankytoes said:

1. Where else is gun violence common? Which country would be an apt comparison to that of the black community in the U.S., which you state is being wrongly crucified? Guns are legal all throughout the U.S. Can you point to an area in the suburbs where white people are mirroring this violence?

The combination of dense impoverishment with access to guns always results in intense gun crime. Dense poverty (as opposed to rural poverty) breeds desperation which in humans results in pathological dysfunction. The battle for drug territory exacerbates this already endemic issue. In America, Black communities have been locked into communities of dense impoverishment for generations due to housing policies that began in the 20s and 30s. Many communities in South America and Central america suffer from similar issues. We saw it in here America with other communities as well when they resided in densely impoverished areas. 

2. If drugs and guns are the root of the violence, why aren’t you more supportive of these offenders getting locked up and taken out of the environment? Isn’t that a good thing?

The root of problem is isolated communities that are densely impoverished leaving those whom reside there with a large set of bad choices buttressed up against only a few good ones. 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Catdaddyhorn

[Catdaddyhorn 3467]

On 5/6/2018 at 7:53 PM, riloh05 said:

Can you explain why the Nigerian community doesnt seem to have this problem?

Is this a serious question? Nigerians weren't quartered off into communities isolated from commerce and any chance of greater "assimilation". Nor were their families destroyed in every era of American history. This is quite simply a dumbfuck question. 

[Catdaddyhorn 3467]

Johnny Sack may or may not be a racist, but 55 and David are putting things up as "fact" that are just flat out wrong. What?  I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but come on...nobody "invented" Rock & Roll.  It was born from the fusion of many musical styles, some predominately white and some predominately black...most notably blues and country.   As for sports and Alexander Hamilton...I'd love to know which sports you're talking about, and I'm not even sure how you invent a person, so I'll leave that one alone.   Pretty sure it was the Navy Seals who killed Osama.  Obama is in my Top 10 Presidents list, so while I give him major props for having the balls to order the mission, but don't act like he stormed the compound with an M4...or without one, like Trump would.  

Me and my 3 semesters of African anthropology classes beg to disagree.  Slavery was already a common practice in sub-Saharan by the time the Europeans arrived.  They just became another customer.  The number of Europeans in the slave trade who ventured more than 10 miles from the sea during the middle passage years was next to zero.  The slaves were brought from much farther inland...sometimes hundreds of miles away...by rival tribes and traded for textiles. 

The white guilt slavery angle always bugs me because while slavery is a barbaric practice, with zero redeemable qualities, it has been practiced by every culture on Earth at some point in history.  Just because trans-Atlantic slavery was one of the last ones, doesn't make it any worse, or more historically significant than the ones that existed over the previous 5,000 years. 

I'm a white, American male, so yes, for this period in history, I hit the genetic jackpot!  I have things way easier than black people, women and most people not living in America.  I recognize that I had nothing to do with earning any of my white privilege, but I also don't feel guilty about it, nor do I feel that I owe a debt to anyone not white, male or American.  Just as I don't get bent out of shape that tall, handsome men tend to get better jobs and hotter chicks than average sized and average looking guys.   We all have our cross to bear...it's just some crosses are heavier than others.

 

 

 

 

There was a difference in the justification for slavery in the Americas vs that in every other part of the world outside of maybe the Ancient Greeks. Much like with the Romans, slavery in sub-Saharan Africa was a tradeoff for people of conquered lands. The choice for those captured was death or slavery for that particular person. It didn't mean every single one of your descendants would be slaves into perpetuity. This form of slavery allowed for conquered people (ie slaves) to be absorbed into those conquering societies. The justification for slavery in America was the Aristotelian idea of slavery which is that slaves are people who are either morally inferior or lack the judgment to make independent choices. The logic behind this allowed for a "good" justification for enslaving them which also happens to have the added benefit of all their offspring and descendants becoming slaves as well. This notion of slavery into perpetuity is actually fairly rare in human history.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Catdaddyhorn

[riloh05 107]

2 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Is this a serious question? Nigerians weren't quartered off into communities isolated from commerce and any chance of greater "assimilation". Nor were their families destroyed in every era of American history. This is quite simply a dumbfuck question. 

but black...Some seem to think the color of your skin limits your opportunities today in this country. I would also lament that it solidifies how important the family dynamic is. So...if there are a lot of moving parts you can zero in on family dynamic for cause/effect. Sorry the dumbfuckery is lost on you and doesnt help certain narratives.

Edited May 14, 2018 by riloh05

[Bateshorn 9991]

I wish I cared about anything as much as certain people on a board about Texas Longhorn Sports care about violent crime in the greater Chicago area.

[Catdaddyhorn 3467]

but black...Some seem to think the color of your skin limits your opportunities today in this country. I would also lament that it solidifies how important the family dynamic is. So...if there are a lot of moving parts you can zero in on family dynamic for cause/effect. Sorry the dumbfuckery is lost on you and doesnt help certain narratives.

Why stop there? The thing that gets me about people who follow this rationale is the lack of rigor utilized when discussing these issues. You imply their family dynamic is garbage. The obvious question is what caused the black family dynamic to be in such poor shape in your eyes? Why are people in places as disparate as Memphis, Chicago, St. Louis, Washington D.C., etc making similar choices? What is it about their situation that makes their familial choices seem rational to them. Is it genetic? Your example with Nigerians seems to reject that notion. Is it cultural? If so, why did their culture evolve in that manner? Cultures don't form in a vacuum? Human beings develop behaviors, beliefs, and characteristics to help them survive. Why did the black familial structure result in its current setup? Is it welfare? If so, why was the black illegitimacy rate 8 times that of whites before blacks were ever even allowed to be recipients of welfare? What's the reason?

 

[Chrispy 132]

53 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Why stop there? The thing that gets me about people who follow this rationale is the lack of rigor utilized when discussing these issues. You imply their family dynamic is garbage. The obvious question is what caused the black family dynamic to be in such poor shape in your eyes? Why are people in places as disparate as Memphis, Chicago, St. Louis, Washington D.C., etc making similar choices? What is it about their situation that makes their familial choices seem rational to them. Is it genetic? Your example with Nigerians seems to reject that notion. Is it cultural? If so, why did their culture evolve in that manner? Cultures don't form in a vacuum? Human beings develop behaviors, beliefs, and characteristics to help them survive. Why did the black familial structure result in its current setup? Is it welfare? If so, why was the black illegitimacy rate 8 times that of whites before blacks were ever even allowed to be recipients of welfare? What's the reason?

 

Walter E. Williams, a professor at George Mason University, has written on this particular topic extensively. 

http://www.hngn.com/amp/articles/93816/20150520/black-illegitimacy-rate-75-due-politicians-civil-rights-groups-serving.htm

https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/07/31/black-selfsabotage-n1651550

[riloh05 107]

57 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Why stop there? The thing that gets me about people who follow this rationale is the lack of rigor utilized when discussing these issues. You imply their family dynamic is garbage. The obvious question is what caused the black family dynamic to be in such poor shape in your eyes? Why are people in places as disparate as Memphis, Chicago, St. Louis, Washington D.C., etc making similar choices? What is it about their situation that makes their familial choices seem rational to them. Is it genetic? Your example with Nigerians seems to reject that notion. Is it cultural? If so, why did their culture evolve in that manner? Cultures don't form in a vacuum? Human beings develop behaviors, beliefs, and characteristics to help them survive. Why did the black familial structure result in its current setup? Is it welfare? If so, why was the black illegitimacy rate 8 times that of whites before blacks were ever even allowed to be recipients of welfare? What's the reason?

 

I am not smart enough to have any of the answers nor do I think there is one specific answer. Garbage is your word, important is my word regarding family dynamic.

[fattyflattie 4640]

12 hours ago, DixonHur said:

 

Well, aren't you just Mr. Compassion.  You know I could think of a million things I'd rather my tax dollars be spent on than fucking wars in the ME, but oh, fucking well.  And  as RayDog pointed out, you're tax dollars are already do going to "fucking druggies", as you so eloquently refer to them. 

 

Define legal?  

So I guess they were "good" drugs when they were legal, but became bad all of the sudden when the government decided to deem them so?  Some of us think the government should stay out of our private lives, but I guess you prefer them to tell you what you should do and when you should do it.

Sorry I don't have compassion for junkies/druggies/dregs of society whatever you want to call them. Except in the rare case when a baby was born "hooked", these people made a choice. A poor one. I'm compassionate enough to feel bad for them for their choices, but what the fuck they think was going to happen?  I'll just do crack on the weekends and keep my 9-5? I've never seen heroin negatively affect anyone, why not?  

Do I really have to define legal? 

Stay out of our private lives, until it's time to state sponser the junkies like Portugal?  Come to the park for your free drugs and sandwiches. Gtfo. How about quit dragging down our society, get a fucking job and get on with your life. Like the rest of civilization. 

Im not going to argue shit about the ME or amount of treasure and life spent there, but don't tell me the money couldn't be better spent on schools/teachers/infrastructure/first responders/beaches/parks/etc etc than drug addicts.  Think of it as a reward to those of us who decided not to use drugs, but to get jobs and pay taxes. 

[seven 1368]

What a square 

[fattyflattie 4640]

23 minutes ago, seven said:

What a square 

Yep. No need for heroin use or violently defending my territory here. 

[David Dennison 19537]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Sorry I don't have compassion for junkies/druggies/dregs of society whatever you want to call them. Except in the rare case when a baby was born "hooked", these people made a choice. A poor one. I'm compassionate enough to feel bad for them for their choices, but what the fuck they think was going to happen?  I'll just do crack on the weekends and keep my 9-5? I've never seen heroin negatively affect anyone, why not?  

Do I really have to define legal? 

Stay out of our private lives, until it's time to state sponser the junkies like Portugal?  Come to the park for your free drugs and sandwiches. Gtfo. How about quit dragging down our society, get a fucking job and get on with your life. Like the rest of civilization. 

Im not going to argue shit about the ME or amount of treasure and life spent there, but don't tell me the money couldn't be better spent on schools/teachers/infrastructure/first responders/beaches/parks/etc etc than drug addicts.  Think of it as a reward to those of us who decided not to use drugs, but to get jobs and pay taxes. 

You're going to spend money on them one way or the other.

[DixonHur 11959]

58 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Sorry I don't have compassion for junkies/druggies/dregs of society whatever you want to call them. Except in the rare case when a baby was born "hooked", these people made a choice. A poor one. I'm compassionate enough to feel bad for them for their choices, but what the fuck they think was going to happen?  I'll just do crack on the weekends and keep my 9-5? I've never seen heroin negatively affect anyone, why not?  

Do I really have to define legal? 

Stay out of our private lives, until it's time to state sponser the junkies like Portugal?  Come to the park for your free drugs and sandwiches. Gtfo. How about quit dragging down our society, get a fucking job and get on with your life. Like the rest of civilization. 

Im not going to argue shit about the ME or amount of treasure and life spent there, but don't tell me the money couldn't be better spent on schools/teachers/infrastructure/first responders/beaches/parks/etc etc than drug addicts.  Think of it as a reward to those of us who decided not to use drugs, but to get jobs and pay taxes. 

Wow, Fox News has it's hooks deep in you.  You're probably one of those folks that thinks most welfare recipients are drug users even though when drug testing for welfare was implemented in 7 GOP states (Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arizona), only 0.2% tested positive.

You should also note that there is a difference between a recreational drug user and an addict.  The rate of addiction for cocaine and meth is only slightly higher than for alcohol. 

I know you're probably comfortable in your fact free Fox bubble, but maybe it's time to spread your wings and fly.  It's actually a really beautiful and safe world out here.

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

I know you're probably comfortable in your fact free Fox bubble, but maybe it's time to spread your wings and fly.  It's actually a really beautiful and safe world out here.

Am I hitting their talking points?  I burned out on 24 hour “news” politics in mid 2000’s. I probably haven’t watched more than a 2 minute snipped in 5 years, or an entire show in close to 10.  Just talk radio and reading on sites like this. That’s 100% the truth, I was actually stunned when I saw a recent pic of Hannity on the other thread, he looks 20 years older than when I would occasionally watch him (too high strung for me )  

I’ve never given much thought to welfare recipient drug abuse, however you are correct.  I would have assumed it was much higher, and am glad there is testing for the recipients - they have bigger issues to worry about than getting high.  

I can believe your recreational coke #’s, I’m not certain on the meth, but I’ll assume you are correct.  Drug use is still not a positive for our society.  

Edited May 14, 2018 by fattyflattie

[seven 1368]

Moderate drug use is essential for society 

[Neonmoon 38130]

30 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Am I hitting their talking points?  I burned out on 24 hour “news” politics in mid 2000’s. I probably haven’t watched more than a 2 minute snipped in 5 years, or an entire show in close to 10.  Just talk radio and reading on sites like this. That’s 100% the truth, I was actually stunned when I saw a recent pic of Hannity on the other thread, he looks 20 years older than when I would occasionally watch him (too high strung for me )  

I’ve never given much thought to welfare recipient drug abuse, however you are correct.  I would have assumed it was much higher, and am glad there is testing for the recipients - they have bigger issues to worry about than getting high.  

I can believe your recreational coke #’s, I’m not certain on the meth, but I’ll assume you are correct.  Drug use is still not a positive for our society.  

Are you including alcohol in this opinion? Or just the devils weed?

[DixonHur 11959]

9 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

There was a difference in the justification for slavery in the Americas vs that in every other part of the world outside of maybe the Ancient Greeks.

I'm sure the slaves throughout history would by comforted to know the nuanced differences between their subjugation and suffering.

 

9 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Much like with the Romans, slavery in sub-Saharan Africa... didn't mean every single one of your descendants would be slaves into perpetuity.

Beep, beep, beep...back it up...in Ancient Rome, the law stated that children of slaves were also slaves and breeding slaves was big business. 

Quote

Slavery is a human invention and not found in nature. Indeed, it was that other human invention, war, which provided the bulk of slaves, but they were also the bounty of piracy ... or the product of breeding. - Gaius 161CE

Contrary to your assertion, it was sub-Saharan (West African) slavery that was the exception...not the other way around.  There are many possible explanations for this, but the most commonly accepted version is that African societies had a different view of ownership in general.  Land was communal so, the only way to acquire wealth was from selling the products you could produce from the land.  Since the ability to generate products was predicated on how many "hands" you had available, slavery became a popular way to acquire workers.  While many were indeed eventually absorbed into their new families, they always had a lower status.

The most common form of slavery was of the chattel variety, in which slaves were property...and the children of slaves were born into slavery.  This is how it was in ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Arabia, India, and China.

47 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Drug use is still not a positive for our society.   

Neither are fast food or sugar...heart disease and diabetes are nos. 1 & 6 respectively in terms of death in America....but I don't think they should be banned either.  Dumb people gonna dumb...some people are always going to be their own worst enemies.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

12 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I'm sure the slaves throughout history would by comforted to know the nuanced differences between their subjugation and suffering.

 

Beep, beep, beep...back it up...in Ancient Rome, the law stated that children of slaves were also slaves and breeding slaves was big business. 

 

 

Not sure how one makes any kind of argument about examples of slavery being better than other examples of slavery.

 

And, I think breeding with slaves was a thriving practice as well.

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, seven said:

Moderate drug use is essential for society 

Interested in why you feel this to be the case. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Interested in why you feel this to be the case. 

Because he's on some serious doctor moderated meds, I pray to god..... for societies sake.

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Are you including alcohol in this opinion? Or just the devils weed?

I believe there are probably many more lives ruined by alcohol than marijuana, and the laws are beginning to shift in the favor of marijuana users.  I could be looking at this wrong but marijuana and methanphetamine shouldn't be used in the same context. Caffeine is a drug, and so is fentanol.  They just aren't the same discussion, unless we are being obtuse. 

To answer your question, no. I have also not considered caffeine or tobacco in the discussion. I'm almost certain that's not what the kids in Chicago are killing each other over. 

Its clear I should bow out of this thread. I've only known one drug addict (plenty of users tho) and it seems many of you have more experience in the subject.  Ideas rarely win out over experience  

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3467]

5 hours ago, DixonHur said:

I'm sure the slaves throughout history would by comforted to know the nuanced differences between their subjugation and suffering.

 

Beep, beep, beep...back it up...in Ancient Rome, the law stated that children of slaves were also slaves and breeding slaves was big business. 

Contrary to your assertion, it was sub-Saharan (West African) slavery that was the exception...not the other way around.  There are many possible explanations for this, but the most commonly accepted version is that African societies had a different view of ownership in general.  Land was communal so, the only way to acquire wealth was from selling the products you could produce from the land.  Since the ability to generate products was predicated on how many "hands" you had available, slavery became a popular way to acquire workers.  While many were indeed eventually absorbed into their new families, they always had a lower status.

The most common form of slavery was of the chattel variety, in which slaves were property...and the children of slaves were born into slavery.  This is how it was in ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Arabia, India, and China.

Neither are fast food or sugar...heart disease and diabetes are nos. 1 & 6 respectively in terms of death in America....but I don't think they should be banned either.  Dumb people gonna dumb...some people are always going to be their own worst enemies.

Well who am I to believe? You? Or those who pursue academic research on the subject? 

Michael Munger Duke university

 

Quote

Michael Munger: Yeah. So, the way we defined it in this paper was that racism became a substitute justification for slavery. And the reason was, the original justification for slavery, which was the Roman one of wasn’t good enough. And so Southerners cast about and found basically an alternative, which was the Greek justification for slavery. And let me just say very briefly what those two are. The one justification for slavery, and it was pretty common in Rome, was that if you lost a battle and were captured, then you might either be killed or kept as a slave. And there is a mutually beneficial exchange, if you will, in the sense that you’ve already lost. So, me saying, ‘I tell you what: I won’t kill you if you will agree to act as my slave for the rest of your life. And I may free you; I may not; but that’s up to me.’ And you say, ‘Killed/be a slave: I’m going to go with the slave thing.’ But, it meant that some slaves were very excellent. And in Roman society some slaves occupied very high positions, positions of respect. It’s just that they made this promise. It was an economic institution. And that was the way that slavery had existed in Africa: if you lost a battle, then you would be captured by the other side. It was almost like indentured servitude: you could work it off.

Well, that didn’t work in the American South because they wanted to maintain slaves, to be able to identify slaves and to have a justification that would allow them to enslave the children — which the old Roman justification would never have allowed. You are not going to be a slave if you are born to a slave, because you didn’t lose in battle: you would have been free.

So, the Southerners needed a different way, so they were looking for the Aristotelian notion of slavery, which is that slaves are people who are either morally inferior or lack the judgment to make independent choices. They are like children or like horses. That means that you actually have a positive-good justification for enslaving them: if I have a thoroughbred horse or a fancy dog, it would be cruel of me to set it loose to let it run around, because it’s not capable of taking care of itself. I have obligations to take care of it. My ownership actually gives me obligations. And what’s interesting and what this paper is about is how Southerners worked that out between about 1815 and 1835, and started to understand the implications for how they had to change the economic institutions of slavery to match this new ideology that they were creating.

 

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3467]

5 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 

Not sure how one makes any kind of argument about examples of slavery being better than other examples of slavery.

 

And, I think breeding with slaves was a thriving practice as well.

Yeah subtle nuances such as only one or two generations being enslaved vs you and every single one of your descendants into perpetuity. No distinction whatsoever. 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Catdaddyhorn

[DixonHur 11959]

7 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Well who am I to believe? You? Or those who pursue academic research on the subject? 

Michael Munger Duke university

 

 

 

Dude, nice one source argument.   Your post and that  article were like word, for word  But you'll forgive me if I believe the writings, and laws of actual ancient Romans over an economist at Duke.

Roman Slave Laws:

"The causes of slavery were: (I) Birth;(2) Facts; events or circumstances occurring after birth. The child of a slave mother was a slave-no matter who was the father-as a slave woman could not marry. and it was only in marriage that child was linked to father."

Please stop while you're ahead...the facts will always win.

Edited May 15, 2018 by DixonHur

[Thatguy 9362]

25 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Dude, nice one source argument.   Your post and that  article were like word, for word  But you'll forgive me if I believe the writings, and laws of actual ancient Romans over an economist at Duke.

Roman Slave Laws:

"The causes of slavery were: (I) Birth;(2) Facts; events or circumstances occurring after birth. The child of a slave mother was a slave-no matter who was the father-as a slave woman could not marry. and it was only in marriage that child was linked to father."

Please stop while you're ahead...the facts will always win.

    What he is getting at is slaves in the Ancient Roman days ran the gamut from prostitution to doctors. Whatever your skill level was the Romans allowed you to use it in their system. In America slaves were prevented from getting an education, or even simply reading. Slaves hid their ability to read from their owners as it would likely get them killed. American slave owners did anything and everything to dehumanize them. Once they gained their freedom, they had no education and no skills, which set them back generations. Couple that with the overt racism and Jim Crowe laws and.....

[Sawbonz 28219]

14 hours ago, seven said:

Moderate drug use is essential for society 

Depending on how heavily your 401k is weighted toward pharma

[FondrenRoad 4378]

17 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Wow, Fox News has it's hooks deep in you.  You're probably one of those folks that thinks most welfare recipients are drug users even though when drug testing for welfare was implemented in 7 GOP states (Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arizona), only 0.2% tested positive.

You should also note that there is a difference between a recreational drug user and an addict.  The rate of addiction for cocaine and meth is only slightly higher than for alcohol. 

I know you're probably comfortable in your fact free Fox bubble, but maybe it's time to spread your wings and fly.  It's actually a really beautiful and safe world out here.

Welfare actually requires paperwork and follow through. Substance abusers struggle with both. Theres a reason why the line between functional and disfunctional alcoholism is nearly a cliff. The disfunctional alcoholic fucks up the unemployment application and doesn't even bother to make sure to have money for rent when his wife leaves him. 

[ChiTownDoc 21345]

Some incredibly naive motherfuckers in here.  Wish I was surprised.  

[thrillhammer 686]

21 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

 but don't tell me the money couldn't be better spent on schools/teachers/infrastructure/first responders/beaches/parks/etc etc than drug addicts.  Think of it as a reward to those of us who decided not to use drugs, but to get jobs and pay taxes. 

except that yours is the party that wants to cut budgets on schools/teachers/infrastructure/first responders/beaches/parks/etc.

[Thatguy 9362]

21 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

 

Im not going to argue shit about the ME or amount of treasure and life spent there, but don't tell me the money couldn't be better spent on schools/teachers/infrastructure/first responders/beaches/parks/etc etc than drug addicts.  Think of it as a reward to those of us who decided not to use drugs, but to get jobs and pay taxes. 

   The point everyone is trying to make to you is that you are paying for those people either way. In the current scenario you are paying for 3 hots and a cot, medical fees, and clothing for them to be jailed. You are also paying for the building, and all the bodies and technology it takes to make sure they stay there.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Thatguy

[DixonHur 11959]

1 hour ago, Thatguy said:

    What he is getting at is slaves in the Ancient Roman days ran the gamut from prostitution to doctors. Whatever your skill level was the Romans allowed you to use it in their system. In America slaves were prevented from getting an education, or even simply reading. Slaves hid their ability to read from their owners as it would likely get them killed. American slave owners did anything and everything to dehumanize them. Once they gained their freedom, they had no education and no skills, which set them back generations. Couple that with the overt racism and Jim Crowe laws and.....

He specifically made the argument that Roman Slavery was different because it didn't didn't transcend through the generations.  That's what I was responding to.

If he wants to amend his rebuttal to be about slave "career" optionss, that's a different argument.  

[fattyflattie 4640]

3 hours ago, thrillhammer said:

except that yours is the party that wants to cut budgets on schools/teachers/infrastructure/first responders/beaches/parks/etc.

Rather bold assumption.