Where are the Reparations

[Jocabia]

The trap was to point me out as racist, you said I fell for the trap, innately calling me somewhat racist. Or at least, that's how I took it. I apologize if it was not how it was intended.

No, it wasn't. This is another invalid assumption. The trap was to point the inconsistency of your argument and it did so to great effect.

For the most part, the activists you hear about are all black. From people running the "underground railroad" to Martin Luther King Jr.
I do know, and wont ignorantly state otherwise, that whites who sympathized helped them get their freedom. This isn't to say it wouldn't have happened eventually, which I believe it would have. After all, the Jews didn't have help and got theirs. I believe it's fair to say the blacks would have as well.

When did I say they deserve to be slaves? The one's that do not free themselves just are. Deserving has nothing to do with it.

Though I did state I have no sympathy for those who refuse not fight. Meaning able, but don't.

You think the underground railroad was all black people? Dude, pick up a history book.

Then you should have sympathy for most people who are slaves, because they are not able to fight. At least, not unless they welcome death, which, according to you, no one in their right mind would do. Right?

Knit picking, again. As I tried to convey above, mainly black people won their freedom. I openly admitted that some whites helped. So of course the undergroud railroad wasn't just black people.

You can fight and not welcome death. To say because you fight death is certain is, well silly at best. :s

Mainly black people? First, they underground railroad existed because slavery had been abolished in the Northern States, by white people. It became national as part of a war fought by primarily white people. Were black people active? Yes. Did they play a major role? Yes. Did they do it alone or even mostly alone? Nope. It would have been impossible for a tiny percentage of black people to overwhelm the will of an overwhelming majority.

Death for people who fought slavery in the early times was certain. Absolutely and unavoidably certain. I know you've seen an action film or two that gives you the impression otherwise, but when you try to overwhelm a force of hundreds of men by yourself, you lose. For certain.

[Folk Metals]

Well then I say your statement is false. As I said, a child can not put it's signature on papers, and therefore can not sign a lawyer.

Bodily autonomy? I've already went over this. :s
The child truly does not have the right, this is an instance where the government has to act for the kid, because they have not given the kid it's rights yet.

I don't know a women who were stripped of the rights to eat, sleep and breath through out history.
Excluding concentration camps, prison, etc. (actually, prison you can do all that.)

Well, if you say it's false, well, then it must be. I mean, the existence of child advocates is entirely negated by you saying so. Thousands of lawyers just disappeared in a puff of smoke.

You don't actually know what bodily automony is, do you?

Have to reply to your last two posts, then I'm out.

No, it's false because it is. There is no such thing. You can not, as stated for like, the fifth time now, sign any legal documents if you are underage.

THAT is actually a law.

Bodily Autonomy, the right that to your body pretty much. No one else can use it, supposedly. Though they do, often, quite often. It's in the news all the time.

[Jocabia]

"Health mourning process." You've used that quite a bit now, and yet I've never found that to be true. There is nothing healthy about mourning and pineing over some one already gone. Straight moving on, would be healthy.

You've studied grief, huh? What are the stages of grief? You know at least the first thing, right? I mean, you are arguing there is no such thing as a healthy mourning process. If you want to overwhelm the studied wisdom on this, you must have some background, right?

You're right, I don't have millions. In which case my plug would be pulled and I'd die. It would be out of my hands, as I've stated before.

Which you view as unfortunate? You feel you should be permitted to drain other people's resources at your whim?

I merely meant there was misinformation in that case, not that you used any. Though, I will say again, if the brain was truly "destroyed" then no amount of technology today could have kept them alive.

Ah, the true scotsman fallacy. It wasn't "truly" destroyed. Of course. Meanwhile, it was nonfunctional. Whether you wish to quibble about whether it was more than that is irrelevant. She was no going to get out of that coma. That's not an opinion. It's a fact.

And that's it for me. It's 3am and I have Computer tech assistance class in the morning.

If you wish to continue this debate then you can message me. If not that's fine too.

I'm not going to message you. I'm happy to let it stand as is.

[Folk Metals]

The trap was to point me out as racist, you said I fell for the trap, innately calling me somewhat racist. Or at least, that's how I took it. I apologize if it was not how it was intended.

No, it wasn't. This is another invalid assumption. The trap was to point the inconsistency of your argument and it did so to great effect.

For the most part, the activists you hear about are all black. From people running the "underground railroad" to Martin Luther King Jr.
I do know, and wont ignorantly state otherwise, that whites who sympathized helped them get their freedom. This isn't to say it wouldn't have happened eventually, which I believe it would have. After all, the Jews didn't have help and got theirs. I believe it's fair to say the blacks would have as well.

When did I say they deserve to be slaves? The one's that do not free themselves just are. Deserving has nothing to do with it.

Though I did state I have no sympathy for those who refuse not fight. Meaning able, but don't.

You think the underground railroad was all black people? Dude, pick up a history book.

Then you should have sympathy for most people who are slaves, because they are not able to fight. At least, not unless they welcome death, which, according to you, no one in their right mind would do. Right?

Knit picking, again. As I tried to convey above, mainly black people won their freedom. I openly admitted that some whites helped. So of course the undergroud railroad wasn't just black people.

You can fight and not welcome death. To say because you fight death is certain is, well silly at best. :s

Mainly black people? First, they underground railroad existed because slavery had been abolished in the Northern States, by white people. It became national as part of a war fought by primarily white people. Were black people active? Yes. Did they play a major role? Yes. Did they do it alone or even mostly alone? Nope. It would have been impossible for a tiny percentage of black people to overwhelm the will of an overwhelming majority.

Death for people who fought slavery in the early times was certain. Absolutely and unavoidably certain. I know you've seen an action film or two that gives you the impression otherwise, but when you try to overwhelm a force of hundreds of men by yourself, you lose. For certain.

Actually, no, just no.

First off the North wasn't "just white people."

There were actually free black men in the north, before it was even abolished. These people helped push for it as well.

And one against hundreds? REALLY? And you try to say I'm watching action films. All you have to do is outrun them and, tah dah, you're free. Avoid being seen for a couple years, grow out your hair, you're set for the rest of your life.

Escaping slavery was only hard back then because they didn't know the land. but to say it was impossible is just silly. Many slaves escaped it by running away.

[Jocabia]

Have to reply to your last two posts, then I'm out.

No, it's false because it is.

Wow, that's is the most profound argument ever made.

There is no such thing. You can not, as stated for like, the fifth time now, sign any legal documents if you are underage.

THAT is actually a law.

Bodily Autonomy, the right that to your body pretty much. No one else can use it, supposedly. Though they do, often, quite often. It's in the news all the time.

You don't know what a child advocate is. I get it. It doesn't make it false. It just makes you ignorant of the law. You don't sign a contract. The child advocate is either assigned by a court or has to petition the court to represent the child (AKA a Court Appointed Special Advocate). Because the child cannot make informed consent, the court has to see if the petition makes sense.

So then you are aware of the abortion debate, yes? The one about bodily autonomy? That's why I brought it up. Incidentally, it's a total given that children have the right to bodily autonomy and as such, they can not be used as sex slaves, for example. However, it's so much in question that many courts around the country have attempted to argue that women should be forced to carry a fetus against their will. Even that unsettled questions (according to some, anyway) goes to children by default.

[Jocabia]

Actually, no, just no.

First off the North wasn't "just white people."

The voting North was. Just white MEN, in point of fact. Slavery in the North was abolished by white people in the government and in the electorate.

There were actually free black men in the north, before it was even abolished. These people helped push for it as well.

And one against hundreds? REALLY? And you try to say I'm watching action films. All you have to do is outrun them and, tah dah, you're free. Avoid being seen for a couple years, grow out your hair, you're set for the rest of your life.

Escaping slavery was only hard back then because they didn't know the land. but to say it was impossible is just silly. Many slaves escaped it by running away.

Those slaves, prior to the abolition of slavery in the North, were killed. You weren't assumed to be free by default. You had to prove it. If you couldn't you died.

You're just plain out making shit up now.

I'll play your game though. You're a slave living on a plantation. You were born there. You've never left. You cannot read. You don't know geography. You don't speak very well. You're on a farm with two other slaves. One of them speaks a language you've never heard before. One speaks a little bit of english. You don't know your parents. The plantation is all you've ever known. You've become friends with the children of the owners of the plantation. They have a few other workers who are white, but they can only afford the three slaves.

Ok, go. Plan your escape.

[Callisdrun]

No one who was a slave is still alive. No one who was a slave owner is still alive. Maybe it sounds racist, but I think the fact that none of the people who were wrongly held in captivity as slaves are still alive makes reparations to them a bit silly.

[F1-Insanity]

No one who was a slave is still alive. No one who was a slave owner is still alive. Maybe it sounds racist, but I think the fact that none of the people who were wrongly held in captivity as slaves are still alive makes reparations to them a bit silly.

The idea isn't silly to the one group that will hugely benefit from them, Jesse 'blackmail' Jackson and his racehustling crowd.

[ChengISao]

It would be interesting for all of us to go through genetic testing and see just how many of us are not aware of just how mixed we really are. It is not always physically obvious you know.

[Jello Biafra]

Sorry if I'm just repeating what other people have said, but I don't feel like reading 20 pages, and quoting with"This^" written under it.

If you had done so, you would have gotten the answers to your questions, and I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

First of all, who is going to apologise? Do people vote for who will do the apology? What will they say? What if they fuck up? Who are they apologising on behalf of: their ancestors, or all white people?

The Federal government will apologize. People already vote for the Federal government. They will say something that is appropriate. If they fuck up, they can apologize again. They apologize on behalf of the Federal government.

Secondly, why do they have to apologise? They aren't slaving any more. They haven't ever done slaving. They already rectified this issue by outlawing slavery. None of this generations African Americans have been slaves.

They have to apologize for legalizing, aiding, and abetting slavery. Outlawing slavery is not rectifying the issue any more than ceasing to rape somebody is rectifying your rape of them. Slavery has had consequences, such as other laws passed by the Federal and state governments that harmed blacks. These consequences are still felt today.

Thirdly, isn't it a bit racist, demanding an apology? Think about it, black people demanding an apology from the white people. The white people who are the decendants of the white people who did the slaving.

How do you tackle racism without discussing race?

[Jello Biafra]

No one who was a slave is still alive. No one who was a slave owner is still alive. Maybe it sounds racist, but I think the fact that none of the people who were wrongly held in captivity as slaves are still alive makes reparations to them a bit silly.

If somebody harms your parent, it isn't silly to seek restitution from them, even after your parent dies. Since the perpetrator of the harm (the United States Federal government) is still in existence, there's no reason they shouldn't have to pay reparations.

[Callisdrun]

No one who was a slave is still alive. No one who was a slave owner is still alive. Maybe it sounds racist, but I think the fact that none of the people who were wrongly held in captivity as slaves are still alive makes reparations to them a bit silly.

If somebody harms your parent, it isn't silly to seek restitution from them, even after your parent dies. Since the perpetrator of the harm (the United States Federal government) is still in existence, there's no reason they shouldn't have to pay reparations.

Not after the perpetrator dies as well. The United States Federal Government isn't a person. It's made up of people and represents people. Those people who did the enslaving, and held people in captivity as slaves, are all dead.

[Jello Biafra]

No one who was a slave is still alive. No one who was a slave owner is still alive. Maybe it sounds racist, but I think the fact that none of the people who were wrongly held in captivity as slaves are still alive makes reparations to them a bit silly.

If somebody harms your parent, it isn't silly to seek restitution from them, even after your parent dies. Since the perpetrator of the harm (the United States Federal government) is still in existence, there's no reason they shouldn't have to pay reparations.

Not after the perpetrator dies as well. The United States Federal Government isn't a person. It's made up of people and represents people. Those people who did the enslaving, and held people in captivity as slaves, are all dead.

The United States Federal government doesn't have to be a person to be a perpetrator. While it's true that the government is made up of people and represents people, it is an entity that outlasts the decisions of individual people.
Are you saying that if the government incurs a debt, and the people who authorized the debt die, the government doesn't have to pay the debt?

[Callisdrun]

No one who was a slave is still alive. No one who was a slave owner is still alive. Maybe it sounds racist, but I think the fact that none of the people who were wrongly held in captivity as slaves are still alive makes reparations to them a bit silly.

If somebody harms your parent, it isn't silly to seek restitution from them, even after your parent dies. Since the perpetrator of the harm (the United States Federal government) is still in existence, there's no reason they shouldn't have to pay reparations.

Not after the perpetrator dies as well. The United States Federal Government isn't a person. It's made up of people and represents people. Those people who did the enslaving, and held people in captivity as slaves, are all dead.

The United States Federal government doesn't have to be a person to be a perpetrator. While it's true that the government is made up of people and represents people, it is an entity that outlasts the decisions of individual people.
Are you saying that if the government incurs a debt, and the people who authorized the debt die, the government doesn't have to pay the debt?

No, as debts are inherited in some instances. I'm not that up on legal stuff, but I think it would be true that I couldn't inherit a house that my parents owned outright if they still owed money on it. However, I can't be prosecuted for something my parents did. Well, I can, I suppose, but a conviction would be unlikely and unjust. Crimes aren't inherited. I don't see the US government as an entity independent of the people in it. And it may borrow money in the name of the public, and the successors of the current government will have to pay debts due to that, I don't think that crimes are inherited. Otherwise to me it just reeks of punishing the son for the sins of the father, something I'm extremely opposed to.

[Jello Biafra]

No, as debts are inherited in some instances. I'm not that up on legal stuff, but I think it would be true that I couldn't inherit a house that my parents owned outright if they still owed money on it. However, I can't be prosecuted for something my parents did. Well, I can, I suppose, but a conviction would be unlikely and unjust. Crimes aren't inherited. I don't see the US government as an entity independent of the people in it. And it may borrow money in the name of the public, and the successors of the current government will have to pay debts due to that, I don't think that crimes are inherited. Otherwise to me it just reeks of punishing the son for the sins of the father, something I'm extremely opposed to.

Isn't the fact that the 'successors of the current government' have to pay the debt meaning they're being punished for the borrowing of the prior government?

[Callisdrun]

No, as debts are inherited in some instances. I'm not that up on legal stuff, but I think it would be true that I couldn't inherit a house that my parents owned outright if they still owed money on it. However, I can't be prosecuted for something my parents did. Well, I can, I suppose, but a conviction would be unlikely and unjust. Crimes aren't inherited. I don't see the US government as an entity independent of the people in it. And it may borrow money in the name of the public, and the successors of the current government will have to pay debts due to that, I don't think that crimes are inherited. Otherwise to me it just reeks of punishing the son for the sins of the father, something I'm extremely opposed to.

Isn't the fact that the 'successors of the current government' have to pay the debt meaning they're being punished for the borrowing of the prior government?

No moreso than my having to complete the payment for a house my parents originally bought to actually own it outright upon inheriting it.

Very different from being forced to pay the descendant of someone that my parents wronged. Plus, my ancestors, in the US, were New England dirt farmers. They didn't own slaves. So even if we were under some sort of perverse justice where one is punished for things one's ancestors did, it would be wrong.

[Jello Biafra]

Isn't the fact that the 'successors of the current government' have to pay the debt meaning they're being punished for the borrowing of the prior government?

No moreso than my having to complete the payment for a house my parents originally bought to actually own it outright upon inheriting it.

Good, then. Even if government weren't separate from the people who run it (a concept which runs contrary to the bulk of international law), we are agreed that debt stays with the government, and not with the people who authorized it.

Very different from being forced to pay the descendant of someone that my parents wronged. Plus, my ancestors, in the US, were New England dirt farmers. They didn't own slaves. So even if we were under some sort of perverse justice where one is punished for things one's ancestors did, it would be wrong.

Who exactly, is being "punished" here?

[Tekania]

Questions:
1. What if you are the decendent of a Black Slave-owner....
2. What if you have both slaves owners and slaves in your ancestry?

Personally, I do not think there should be reparations. Reparations can only legitimately go to the persons wronged.... There are no former slaves still alive, and descendants have no right to reparations.

[Jello Biafra]

Questions:
1. What if you are the decendent of a Black Slave-owner....
2. What if you have both slaves owners and slaves in your ancestry?

Both of these questions focus on the wrong subject. Slave owners are not the issue.

[Callisdrun]

Isn't the fact that the 'successors of the current government' have to pay the debt meaning they're being punished for the borrowing of the prior government?

No moreso than my having to complete the payment for a house my parents originally bought to actually own it outright upon inheriting it.

Good, then. Even if government weren't separate from the people who run it (a concept which runs contrary to the bulk of international law), we are agreed that debt stays with the government, and not with the people who authorized it.

Debt for borrowed money and purchased items, yes. This is different to me, than crimes, which stay with the people who committed them, not their successors who had nothing to do with it.

Very different from being forced to pay the descendant of someone that my parents wronged. Plus, my ancestors, in the US, were New England dirt farmers. They didn't own slaves. So even if we were under some sort of perverse justice where one is punished for things one's ancestors did, it would be wrong.

Who exactly, is being "punished" here?

Everybody in the country. Where do you think this reparation money is going to come from? Taxes, obviously. Essentially, I would be fined for something I didn't do. Forced to pay restitution for a crime I didn't commit, to people who are only the descendants of the actual victims of the crime. My girlfriend's family came over around the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, and certainly had no part in slavery. Why should she have to pay for something that not only wasn't a crime she perpetrated, but one that wasn't perpetrated by her ancestors either? It's ridiculous.

[Peepelonia]

Questions:
1. What if you are the decendent of a Black Slave-owner....
2. What if you have both slaves owners and slaves in your ancestry?

Both of these questions focus on the wrong subject. Slave owners are not the issue.

My thought.

How far back in history should we go? Shold we all sue the German gov for the second world war, easpecily anybody who lost a chippy? What about those who's ancesters where killed by my own country when we bomb Dresden to pieces?

Nope, it's all wrong. This life we live it is often not fair, suck it up, go on living.

[Tekania]

Questions:
1. What if you are the decendent of a Black Slave-owner....
2. What if you have both slaves owners and slaves in your ancestry?

Both of these questions focus on the wrong subject. Slave owners are not the issue.

They are valid, how else do you determine who deserves reparations and who pays for them... Otherwise your idea isn't reparations...

[F1-Insanity]

Questions:
1. What if you are the decendent of a Black Slave-owner....
2. What if you have both slaves owners and slaves in your ancestry?

Both of these questions focus on the wrong subject. Slave owners are not the issue.

They are valid, how else do you determine who deserves reparations and who pays for them... Otherwise your idea isn't reparations...

Ding dong we have a winner

[Iceland-Thule]

Blacks allready have reparations.
It's called welfare

[Little Jim P]

Blacks allready have reparations.
It's called welfare

Doesn't count since non-blacks can get it as well.