Where are the Reparations

[Folk Metals]

Did you read the post?

I avoided the trap by not advocating slavery today. But instead calmly stated I am against it now, but also noted that without it in the past we wouldn't be where we are.

All historians will gladly agree to this.

I'm quite certain that's what you think happened. You didn't actually address my reply, which appears to be your wont.

So, morally you are against slavery, but you think that might makes right? You don't see the inconsistency there?

No, there is no inconsistency.

As I stated before they fought for their freedoms and won it. Huzzah! You see how that works?
They took their freedoms, therefore might does make things right.

And explain how I didn't address and I happily will. :|

And the people who existed for 400 years before they got their freedoms? What of them?

EDIT: Please note that this is one of the arguments you didn't address that has already been made.

What of them?
Back then it was morally okay, and they didn't fight for their freedoms. I have no sympathy for these people. I have no sympathy for anyone who refuses to fight for what is right, but just sits in apathy.

[Jocabia]

Yeah, let you live for as long as you can until your body actually fails.
Living on a machine is still living.
And there are less vital terms to "pulling the plug" than you stated.

One can do so if there is simply no money left to fund their stay at the hospital. In which you can have them taken off life support and let them die to save yourself some money.

It's a twisted thing, but as I said before, it happens.

If you wish to continue living while on machines, there are ways to express those wishes. You should do so today. Visit a lawyer. Excercise your rights.

If you reach a stage where you can no longer excercise your rights and you chose not do so while you were capable, then someone has to take on that responsibility.

You cannot just "let them die to save money" if it is in direct contrast to their expressed wishes or there is reason to believe it is in contrast to their likely wishes. However, absent that, how do you propose we determine the wishes of someone incapable of expressing them?

Easy, no one in their right mind wishes to die.

Not after long thought an pondering on how hopeless and saddening death is. Not just to one, but to all he knows and cares for. (using "he" as humanity.)

Easily falsified. I am clearly in my right mind. If I am no longer capable of recovering and my brain no longer functions then I have no wish to be kept alive artificially. I have expressed this to my loved ones and, more recently, composed a living will. Your assumption that people should be kept alive on machinery forever is just that. Milllions of people have expressed their will to not be kept artificially alive, so much so that specialized paperwork was created to make it easier to express that wish.

Ignoring the informed will of individuals is not protecting their rights. The current laws do the best possible to determine the will of the person and excercise that. It is exactly this you are complaining about.

[Folk Metals]

No, you just don't understand what has been put before you.

It is in my own opinion rights don't truly exist, but for arguments sake we are saying they do. Follow?

And it was restated because you have yet to beat it.

Oh, I follow. You state there are no rights when you cannot address an argument containing them, and then in the same post or one directly linked to it, you argue as if they exist. If you are allowing for them for argument's sake, then they exist... in EVERY post. You don't get to claim the exist and that they don't at your whim and when it's convenient.

This is what you don't follow. Now, choose whether you are going to argue as if they exist or as if they don't and then be consistent.

I have always argued as if they did. I simply threw it out there as my personal own opinion that they don't.

It was some simply philosophy that you mistook for an argument.

Though, now you have completely lost my argument. Which I am now thinking was your intention in the first place.

No, you haven't. Several arguments you've avoided by either declaring rights to not exist, arguing as if they were the result of right, arguing as if they were granted by governments, and simply attacking the poster. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Do better.

I said rights do not exist, but I always backed it up as if they did.
Rights are granted by the government, whether real or fake it does not matter. That stands true. No one else gives them to you. It's only laws that back them up, nothing else.

This goes back to my original argument.

A child can not act on a law, only an adult.

I've been sarcastic, but I hardly see that as attacking the poster.

[Jocabia]

What of them?
Back then it was morally okay, and they didn't fight for their freedoms. I have no sympathy for these people. I have no sympathy for anyone who refuses to fight for what is right, but just sits in apathy.

You realize that many of the people who have freedoms (including you) never fought for them, right? You realize that many of the people who never got freedoms actually did fight for them, right?

Regardless, we've demonstrated that you don't, in fact, find slavery morally wrong. You find it perfectly acceptable to enslave people provided you're capable of doing so. Thus the contradiction.

[Folk Metals]

Yeah, let you live for as long as you can until your body actually fails.
Living on a machine is still living.
And there are less vital terms to "pulling the plug" than you stated.

One can do so if there is simply no money left to fund their stay at the hospital. In which you can have them taken off life support and let them die to save yourself some money.

It's a twisted thing, but as I said before, it happens.

If you wish to continue living while on machines, there are ways to express those wishes. You should do so today. Visit a lawyer. Excercise your rights.

If you reach a stage where you can no longer excercise your rights and you chose not do so while you were capable, then someone has to take on that responsibility.

You cannot just "let them die to save money" if it is in direct contrast to their expressed wishes or there is reason to believe it is in contrast to their likely wishes. However, absent that, how do you propose we determine the wishes of someone incapable of expressing them?

Easy, no one in their right mind wishes to die.

Not after long thought an pondering on how hopeless and saddening death is. Not just to one, but to all he knows and cares for. (using "he" as humanity.)

Easily falsified. I am clearly in my right mind. If I am no longer capable of recovering and my brain no longer functions then I have no wish to be kept alive artificially. I have expressed this to my loved ones and, more recently, composed a living will. Your assumption that people should be kept alive on machinery forever is just that. Milllions of people have expressed their will to not be kept artificially alive, so much so that specialized paperwork was created to make it easier to express that wish.

Ignoring the informed will of individuals is not protecting their rights. The current laws do the best possible to determine the will of the person and excercise that. It is exactly this you are complaining about.

If you wish for death, and you claim to be in a right state of mind, then I have to say that's "hogwash" (for the lack of a better term.) Either that or your an extremely cold individual. (Though, there are "some" cases in which it has to do with their religious beliefs, which I consider "not in the right mind.") The despair of death, the hurting of loved ones.
Don't get me wrong, personally I do not fear death, but I would never welcome it either. I figured that was a pretty rational thought. Guess it's subject to the individual. Though I'd still argue they weren't in the right mind.

[Jocabia]

I said rights do not exist, but I always backed it up as if they did.
Rights are granted by the government, whether real or fake it does not matter. That stands true. No one else gives them to you. It's only laws that back them up, nothing else.

This goes back to my original argument.

A child can not act on a law, only an adult.

I've been sarcastic, but I hardly see that as attacking the poster.

The government does recognize the rights of children.

Children can actually act on laws. They can acquire their own advocates and use those advocates to enforce their rights when their caretakers do not. They can report abuses, just like I can. They can request intervention. Just like I can. There are limitations to their ability to act, but those limitations are based on their ability, an ability limited by their physical development, which is demonstrably incomplete.

If you feel children do not have rights, then you do not believe that rights are granted by the government.

[Folk Metals]

What of them?
Back then it was morally okay, and they didn't fight for their freedoms. I have no sympathy for these people. I have no sympathy for anyone who refuses to fight for what is right, but just sits in apathy.

You realize that many of the people who have freedoms (including you) never fought for them, right? You realize that many of the people who never got freedoms actually did fight for them, right?

Regardless, we've demonstrated that you don't, in fact, find slavery morally wrong. You find it perfectly acceptable to enslave people provided you're capable of doing so. Thus the contradiction.

My ancestors fought through slavery, thus freeing me and my people. Same with the black people, Jews, etc. I've already covered this.

How have we demonstrated this? I have blatantly put it that I personally do, but I'm also logical about it as well. One can see the pros and cons, and still choose right without being called a racist.

You've put words in my mouth now, I don't think it should happen, but it does happen. And therefore, "might makes right" comes into play again, where it took the might of the people to rise up and free themselves.

[Folk Metals]

I said rights do not exist, but I always backed it up as if they did.
Rights are granted by the government, whether real or fake it does not matter. That stands true. No one else gives them to you. It's only laws that back them up, nothing else.

This goes back to my original argument.

A child can not act on a law, only an adult.

I've been sarcastic, but I hardly see that as attacking the poster.

The government does recognize the rights of children.

Children can actually act on laws. They can acquire their own advocates and use those advocates to enforce their rights when their caretakers do not. They can report abuses, just like I can. They can request intervention. Just like I can. There are limitations to their ability to act, but those limitations are based on their ability, an ability limited by their physical development, which is demonstrably incomplete.

If you feel children do not have rights, then you do not believe that rights are granted by the government.

A child can not go to a lawyer and higher one, pleading his case. As you stated they need an adult to do so, even if the child knew how.

"If you feel children do not have rights, then you do not believe that rights are granted by the government." Because the government grants them to you later on in life, as I also have stated before.

[Jocabia]

If you wish for death, and you claim to be in a right state of mind, then I have to say that's "hogwash" (for the lack of a better term.) Either that or your an extremely cold individual. (Though, there are "some" cases in which it has to do with their religious beliefs, which I consider "not in the right mind.") The despair of death, the hurting of loved ones.
Don't get me wrong, personally I do not fear death, but I would never welcome it either. I figured that was a pretty rational thought. Guess it's subject to the individual. Though I'd still argue they weren't in the right mind.

I don't wish for death. I wish not to have my body used by a machine. I wish to have my body instead used to contribute to the lives of others. It is my opinion that the body dies when the mind does. You haven't established otherwise. And it's provable that I am of right mind.

More assumptions. My loved ones would hurt more by my body lingering and this is an issue oft discussed since my 97-year-old grandmother has long since signed a DNR.

To me, you do appear to fear death. In my family, death is a natural part of life. We accept it as it comes and don't try to fight it off long after the person has disappeared. What possible value could my artificially living body provide to anyone while it lays there inanimate? How is that comforting? You claim it's rational to resist death at that point, but how does draining the resources of my family and my country benefit anyone when there is no hope of my recovery?

[Jocabia]

A child can not go to a lawyer and higher one, pleading his case. As you stated they need an adult to do so, even if the child knew how.

"If you feel children do not have rights, then you do not believe that rights are granted by the government." Because the government grants them to you later on in life, as I also have stated before.

Yes, a child can actually acquire an advocate.

The government grants certain rights to you at birth. At least, the US government does. I'm not sure where you live.

[Jocabia]

What of them?
Back then it was morally okay, and they didn't fight for their freedoms. I have no sympathy for these people. I have no sympathy for anyone who refuses to fight for what is right, but just sits in apathy.

You realize that many of the people who have freedoms (including you) never fought for them, right? You realize that many of the people who never got freedoms actually did fight for them, right?

Regardless, we've demonstrated that you don't, in fact, find slavery morally wrong. You find it perfectly acceptable to enslave people provided you're capable of doing so. Thus the contradiction.

My ancestors fought through slavery, thus freeing me and my people. Same with the black people, Jews, etc. I've already covered this.

How have we demonstrated this? I have blatantly put it that I personally do, but I'm also logical about it as well. One can see the pros and cons, and still choose right without being called a racist.

You've put words in my mouth now, I don't think it should happen, but it does happen. And therefore, "might makes right" comes into play again, where it took the might of the people to rise up and free themselves.

Who called you a racist?

Black people didn't free themselves. The force they were under was overwhelming. It took the cooperation of many who were not black to procure the rights that black people deserved. Prior to that, without that cooperation, black people still resisted, but simply failed.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure what you're missing. You said that people who cannot free themselves deserve to be slaves. That means you don't find it morally wrong. Are you now claiming otherwise?

[Jocabia]

i don't feel like paging through the whole thing, but i assume this has all been about slavery, to the exclusion of, say, the decades of theft and murder that happened after. i mean, it's rarely remarked on but clearly true that significant amounts of land were flat-out stolen from black farmers well into the middle of the 20th century - to say nothing of the tulsa-style events specifically engineered to destroy the black middle and upper classes by burning down their businesses, stealing their property, and outright killing them.

any look into the records (provided they weren't deliberately destroyed, of course) is going to wind up with people who are still living that by all rights are owed millions by various government bodies and insurance companies and identifiable individuals.

some background reading:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020318/brune
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/390.html
http://www.theauthenticvoice.org/Torn_F ... andII.html
http://clyburn.house.gov/statements/cc0 ... kland.html

Let me bump this post, since it's being lost in the ramblings.

[Folk Metals]

If you wish for death, and you claim to be in a right state of mind, then I have to say that's "hogwash" (for the lack of a better term.) Either that or your an extremely cold individual. (Though, there are "some" cases in which it has to do with their religious beliefs, which I consider "not in the right mind.") The despair of death, the hurting of loved ones.
Don't get me wrong, personally I do not fear death, but I would never welcome it either. I figured that was a pretty rational thought. Guess it's subject to the individual. Though I'd still argue they weren't in the right mind.

I don't wish for death. I wish not to have my body used by a machine. I wish to have my body instead used to contribute to the lives of others. It is my opinion that the body dies when the mind does. You haven't established otherwise. And it's provable that I am of right mind.

More assumptions. My loved ones would hurt more by my body lingering and this is an issue oft discussed since my 97-year-old grandmother has long since signed a DNR.

To me, you do appear to fear death. In my family, death is a natural part of life. We accept it as it comes and don't try to fight it off long after the person has disappeared. What possible value could my artificially living body provide to anyone while it lays there inanimate? How is that comforting? You claim it's rational to resist death at that point, but how does draining the resources of my family and my country benefit anyone when there is no hope of my recovery?

I do no fear death, and I can see how you may think that. I just saddens me thinking of how sad it would make others feel if I died. I know I am loved. It's one of the main reasons I tell people, "If I die I don't want you to cry for me, it'll make me feel like crap."

I do believe that people knowing you are still living, and there is that slim chance you may come back is comforting.
After all, there is no 100% chance you'll never come out of a coma til you're already dead.

[Folk Metals]

A child can not go to a lawyer and higher one, pleading his case. As you stated they need an adult to do so, even if the child knew how.

"If you feel children do not have rights, then you do not believe that rights are granted by the government." Because the government grants them to you later on in life, as I also have stated before.

Yes, a child can actually acquire an advocate.

The government grants certain rights to you at birth. At least, the US government does. I'm not sure where you live.

"Advocate", by that you mean an adult who can get a lawyer, sign the papers, etc? Because...that's what I've been saying. You need a middle man.

What rights may those be other than to eat, sleep, and breath? "The three famous rights no one fought for."

[Jocabia]

If you wish for death, and you claim to be in a right state of mind, then I have to say that's "hogwash" (for the lack of a better term.) Either that or your an extremely cold individual. (Though, there are "some" cases in which it has to do with their religious beliefs, which I consider "not in the right mind.") The despair of death, the hurting of loved ones.
Don't get me wrong, personally I do not fear death, but I would never welcome it either. I figured that was a pretty rational thought. Guess it's subject to the individual. Though I'd still argue they weren't in the right mind.

I don't wish for death. I wish not to have my body used by a machine. I wish to have my body instead used to contribute to the lives of others. It is my opinion that the body dies when the mind does. You haven't established otherwise. And it's provable that I am of right mind.

More assumptions. My loved ones would hurt more by my body lingering and this is an issue oft discussed since my 97-year-old grandmother has long since signed a DNR.

To me, you do appear to fear death. In my family, death is a natural part of life. We accept it as it comes and don't try to fight it off long after the person has disappeared. What possible value could my artificially living body provide to anyone while it lays there inanimate? How is that comforting? You claim it's rational to resist death at that point, but how does draining the resources of my family and my country benefit anyone when there is no hope of my recovery?

I do no fear death, and I can see how you may think that. I just saddens me thinking of how sad it would make others feel if I died. I know I am loved. It's one of the main reasons I tell people, "If I die I don't want you to cry for me, it'll make me feel like crap."

I do believe that people knowing you are still living, and there is that slim chance you may come back is comforting.
After all, there is no 100% chance you'll never come out of a coma til you're already dead.

You realize when you talk about how saddened you are, you've left the realm of the rational, yeah?

You also realize that wanting people to cling to hope when there actually isn't a chance of you coming back is also not rational. It's actually unhealthy. The healthy response to such a scenario is to mourn and move on. You don't wish them to mourn and be done with it. You wish to waste their resources and prolong their mourning period and you call that a rational argument. You wanna rethink that maybe?

Yes, there is a 100% chance. For example, in the Schiavo case, there was no chance of recovery, as the autopsy proved. The speculation that she could recover was not scientifically founded. Her brain was destroyed.

[Folk Metals]

What of them?
Back then it was morally okay, and they didn't fight for their freedoms. I have no sympathy for these people. I have no sympathy for anyone who refuses to fight for what is right, but just sits in apathy.

You realize that many of the people who have freedoms (including you) never fought for them, right? You realize that many of the people who never got freedoms actually did fight for them, right?

Regardless, we've demonstrated that you don't, in fact, find slavery morally wrong. You find it perfectly acceptable to enslave people provided you're capable of doing so. Thus the contradiction.

My ancestors fought through slavery, thus freeing me and my people. Same with the black people, Jews, etc. I've already covered this.

How have we demonstrated this? I have blatantly put it that I personally do, but I'm also logical about it as well. One can see the pros and cons, and still choose right without being called a racist.

You've put words in my mouth now, I don't think it should happen, but it does happen. And therefore, "might makes right" comes into play again, where it took the might of the people to rise up and free themselves.

Who called you a racist?

Black people didn't free themselves. The force they were under was overwhelming. It took the cooperation of many who were not black to procure the rights that black people deserved. Prior to that, without that cooperation, black people still resisted, but simply failed.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure what you're missing. You said that people who cannot free themselves deserve to be slaves. That means you don't find it morally wrong. Are you now claiming otherwise?

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.

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.

[Jocabia]

A child can not go to a lawyer and higher one, pleading his case. As you stated they need an adult to do so, even if the child knew how.

"If you feel children do not have rights, then you do not believe that rights are granted by the government." Because the government grants them to you later on in life, as I also have stated before.

Yes, a child can actually acquire an advocate.

The government grants certain rights to you at birth. At least, the US government does. I'm not sure where you live.

"Advocate", by that you mean an adult who can get a lawyer, sign the papers, etc? Because...that's what I've been saying. You need a middle man.

What rights may those be other than to eat, sleep, and breath? "The three famous rights no one fought for."

An advocate is a lawyer. Children have rights to bodily autonomy which is why you cannot have sex with them, for one. And if you think that's a given, then why have people been arguing over whether women retain that right for 100 years?

[Folk Metals]

If you wish for death, and you claim to be in a right state of mind, then I have to say that's "hogwash" (for the lack of a better term.) Either that or your an extremely cold individual. (Though, there are "some" cases in which it has to do with their religious beliefs, which I consider "not in the right mind.") The despair of death, the hurting of loved ones.
Don't get me wrong, personally I do not fear death, but I would never welcome it either. I figured that was a pretty rational thought. Guess it's subject to the individual. Though I'd still argue they weren't in the right mind.

I don't wish for death. I wish not to have my body used by a machine. I wish to have my body instead used to contribute to the lives of others. It is my opinion that the body dies when the mind does. You haven't established otherwise. And it's provable that I am of right mind.

More assumptions. My loved ones would hurt more by my body lingering and this is an issue oft discussed since my 97-year-old grandmother has long since signed a DNR.

To me, you do appear to fear death. In my family, death is a natural part of life. We accept it as it comes and don't try to fight it off long after the person has disappeared. What possible value could my artificially living body provide to anyone while it lays there inanimate? How is that comforting? You claim it's rational to resist death at that point, but how does draining the resources of my family and my country benefit anyone when there is no hope of my recovery?

I do no fear death, and I can see how you may think that. I just saddens me thinking of how sad it would make others feel if I died. I know I am loved. It's one of the main reasons I tell people, "If I die I don't want you to cry for me, it'll make me feel like crap."

I do believe that people knowing you are still living, and there is that slim chance you may come back is comforting.
After all, there is no 100% chance you'll never come out of a coma til you're already dead.

You realize when you talk about how saddened you are, you've left the realm of the rational, yeah?

You also realize that wanting people to cling to hope when there actually isn't a chance of you coming back is also not rational. It's actually unhealthy. The healthy response to such a scenario is to mourn and move on. You don't wish them to mourn and be done with it. You wish to waste their resources and prolong their mourning period and you call that a rational argument. You wanna rethink that maybe?

Yes, there is a 100% chance. For example, in the Schiavo case, there was no chance of recovery, as the autopsy proved. The speculation that she could recover was not scientifically founded. Her brain was destroyed.

It is rational that me being alive gives them some lasting comfort before I die.

And the money would be drained from my savings account. The only thing they would pay for is the gas money. So sad, too bad for them. They don't have to come see me.

And emotions can be very rational, just not always. In this case I gave points to back up how I felt.

In that case there was a lot of misinformation. Her brain being "destroyed" is a very generic term..can mean many things. If it was truly "destroyed" not even machines would have kept her alive.

[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?

[Folk Metals]

A child can not go to a lawyer and higher one, pleading his case. As you stated they need an adult to do so, even if the child knew how.

"If you feel children do not have rights, then you do not believe that rights are granted by the government." Because the government grants them to you later on in life, as I also have stated before.

Yes, a child can actually acquire an advocate.

The government grants certain rights to you at birth. At least, the US government does. I'm not sure where you live.

"Advocate", by that you mean an adult who can get a lawyer, sign the papers, etc? Because...that's what I've been saying. You need a middle man.

What rights may those be other than to eat, sleep, and breath? "The three famous rights no one fought for."

An advocate is a lawyer. Children have rights to bodily autonomy which is why you cannot have sex with them, for one. And if you think that's a given, then why have people been arguing over whether women retain that right for 100 years?

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.)

[Jocabia]

It is rational that me being alive gives them some lasting comfort before I die.

And the money would be drained from my savings account. The only thing they would pay for is the gas money. So sad, too bad for them. They don't have to come see me.

And emotions can be very rational, just not always. In this case I gave points to back up how I felt.

In that case there was a lot of misinformation. Her brain being "destroyed" is a very generic term..can mean many things. If it was truly "destroyed" not even machines would have kept her alive.

The comfort is not lasting. It's not even comfort. Unless your family is somehow incapable of seeing the state of things they would be aware that you're not there anymore and that your body is being held artificially. It would be a temporary comfort filled with the dread of the inevitable, a dread you'd prolong rather than allow them to enter a healthy mourning process, which would be the rational reaction.

Unless you have millions in savings, you are not going to be able to fund life-extending measures at this level for even a short while.

I'm not using misinformation. The autopsy revealed that the damage to her brain was irreversible. The only misinformation is that which claimed she could recover. Her brain was no longer functional. It was destroyed. There is no doubt that she could not have recovered and that any claims of hope or about her being responsive were based on some level of dishonesty.

[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

[Cameroi]

not everything that is morally appropriate is physically possible.

pretty much everyone has been wronged somewhere sometime somehow.
i think the japanese internment was a special case,
as was the mission indigenous "reeducation" system.

and even in the case of the internment thing,
most of those who should have received such compensations,
many anyway, were already long since dead.

i'm not against the idea.
i think it would be better then the huge amounts of capitol that have been handed out
to the criminals in the banking industry, who a great many are the very same who created
the problem it was intended to solve.

but adjusting incentives so that infrastructure, technology, and yes, even culture, are
motivated to evolve in directions that would avoid creating and repeating such criminal
inequities in the future would be an even better investment for everyone.

i mean, i'm sure you could say, give something, even something significant to everyone
who had ever personally in their own lives been wrongfully detained for any reason.

but their decedents, well, indigenous people are a special case because it IS their land,
that for the most part has never legitimately, fairly, or, in a great many cases, at all,
been paid for.

but the decedents of people brought into this country against their will, many generations
before those now living were ever born, i don't know, i don't have anything against the idea,
if it's possible fine. but if it comes out of anywhere, it should come out of what is currently
going to corporate criminals (bankers, oil executives, arms makers, military contractors, and so on)
rather then anything like infrastructure, or much needed and
nearly starved as it is, assistance programs.

[Jocabia]

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?

[Folk Metals]

It is rational that me being alive gives them some lasting comfort before I die.

And the money would be drained from my savings account. The only thing they would pay for is the gas money. So sad, too bad for them. They don't have to come see me.

And emotions can be very rational, just not always. In this case I gave points to back up how I felt.

In that case there was a lot of misinformation. Her brain being "destroyed" is a very generic term..can mean many things. If it was truly "destroyed" not even machines would have kept her alive.

The comfort is not lasting. It's not even comfort. Unless your family is somehow incapable of seeing the state of things they would be aware that you're not there anymore and that your body is being held artificially. It would be a temporary comfort filled with the dread of the inevitable, a dread you'd prolong rather than allow them to enter a healthy mourning process, which would be the rational reaction.

Unless you have millions in savings, you are not going to be able to fund life-extending measures at this level for even a short while.

I'm not using misinformation. The autopsy revealed that the damage to her brain was irreversible. The only misinformation is that which claimed she could recover. Her brain was no longer functional. It was destroyed. There is no doubt that she could not have recovered and that any claims of hope or about her being responsive were based on some level of dishonesty.

"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'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.

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.

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.