I have heard no good arguments (or decent evidence) defending the Slave Power.
Who is this we you’re talking about?
Apparently you DO acknewledge that there are different types of authority. That or you are (by your own standards) making petty complaints about the *mere application *of a master’s power over his slaves.
If you have not seen it then you have not been paying attention.
Of course its fundamental nature (if by that you mean physical matter) is not changed by reclassifying something as property. BUT NO ONE CLAIMED THAT.
You don’t see the difference
What systems?
To be honest I am beginning to think that exnihilo is just trolling us.
I don’t know about your opinion on the answers, but the question was an honest one, and not trolling. If asking an honest question is wrong, then there’s something wrong with the forum apparently.
I believe he was talking about exnihilo and his commentary more than anything else.
Amen! I tried to respond to Portrait but his post was just so long that I got lost in it. However, I was shocked to read what appears to be an attempt to justify slavery. Slavery is always wrong. And it still goes on today.
One of my ancestors “owned” slaves. When I was growing up my Mom told me that he was a kind master and that when slaves were freed his now-free slaves stayed with him.
What? You only back up your assertions, when challenged on their truth, if it will change the challenger’s mind? This is a debate. In a debate one should back up one’s assertions with some sort of proof or strong evidence. Otherwise they are just groundless assertions and perhaps even lies.GOD!
Maybe not. If so please feel free to restate your case.
I agree papers do not make you a slave, but slave is a specific term and the point of a philosophical discussion is to fully probe the general and specific conditions. If the conditions of citizenship are just like the conditions of slavery except that your master is a government and not an individual or household then I’m not sure what the fuss is about slavery specifically.
You seem to have a consistent viewpoint. Again we seem to be hung up on words and not the ideas behind the words. I’m not sure that the one forced to work on the island would care about the distinction you have made of master versus tyrant.
Not necessarily. The poor non-slaves were often treated far worse than the slaves. The master cared about his property more than the people who were not his property. One story I’ve heard is a visitor to New Orleans noting it was the poor Irish workers who were in the cargo hold loading ships and not the slaves. This was dangerous as the cargo could fall and kill or maim the worker. When he inquired about why this was it was explained that basically master kept their slaves from this dangerous work. This actually makes sense as people tend to care and protect their property. This is actually the driving force behind capitalism. So while there might be some truth to what you say it is not always exactly true what you said.
Regarding the first question, of course not because even in slavery they considered slaves humans. That is the point. They did not become non-human by being slaves. The second question depends on the system. In some systems the master had sexual rights to his slave. Certainly that aspect of such a system would be wrong, but that does not necessarily make the other aspects wrong, though they could be.You don’t see the difference
Do you think that you would have a right to slaughter and eat a human slave (like a cow)?
Could either one legitimately refuse sexual advances from their master (according to you)?
Well yes I can. The American system. I’ve realized that very few people have actually taken any time to study this. The opinions and thoughts of most people seem to be based on a complete lack of knowledge. Slaves in the American system did have the rights of people though they had a diminished set of rights.
I’m most certainly not trolling. But I can see the topic is not advancing. You seem to think I’m too blind to see. And I think you are making distinctions without a difference.
Can you point me to those cases, specifically? Because I have also seen references to those laws in William Freehling’s Road to Secession duology. However, according to Freehling, those cases are rare exceptions and such laws were bitterly opposed throughout most of the American South.
No. I asked not to have my time wasted. If the facts are irrelevant, which I’m afraid might be the case, then I dont want to spend my time sourcing statements. Especially since some of the evidence is hard to find because people aren’t interested in the whole story.
Whether the back-up changes the challenger’s mind is irrelevant.
If the parent can not make the child work or do anything at all how can the state compell the parents to send them to school? Are you aware than in many places they will jail a parent if their child does not go to school? It seems to me cruel and inhumane to punish someone with jail for something they have no control over. It would be like punishing someone for not making the weather sunny.
Of course at issue is that each state had its own laws. So it is hard to paint with a broad brush. No I cant point to the specific case because I’d have to find where I originally read it and the narrative is so one sided. The problem I have with this topic is that people feel the need to suppress the truth. I think we should be able to look at all the evidence to have a fully informed opinion. There is no doubt that slavery was brutal but it was not always and everywhere such. That statement shouldn’t be controversial and yet it is.
The narrative should be one-sided on that score. You won’t find books saying that the South won the Battle of Gettysburg because they didn’t. Slavery is a bad thing and you won’t find many books arguing that its a good thing because it isn’t. However, William Freehling’s books deal with the issue of murdering slaves and they are generally considered to be the best book on the subject, so those laws aren’t exactly being covered up. I can’t look them up now but I will at the next opportunity.
Slavery was always and everywhere such because the very act of enslaving another human, of claiming absolute dominion over them in that way, is an inherently brutalizing process. The very act is contrary to human dignity.
So you would suppress truth? Whether it is good or bad does not change facts. Is it not good to know facts? Personally I’m not opposed to any fact. It is not a fact that the South won Gettysburg. But it is a fact that George Washington Carver’s former mistress taught him to read and write. Do we have to strike this fact from the history books because it reveals some slave owners to have compassion and treat their slaves as human beings?
This is what you stated:
But I’ll source some claims and then be done with this thread.
I would thank you for providing the references and would respond to the rest of your post but as you have announced that you are done with this thread I’m afraid it would be “a waste of my time.”
