Total posts: 206
-->
@Intelligence_06
First off, if every use of this world is a misuse, then the word is meaningless, meaning it has no reason to exist.
Precisely. I know you disagree with the sentiment in this conclusion, but at least we are following the same logic.
Why does a word that people use for the eternity of time to describe a problem that exists be completely meaningless?
Actually, the term "racist" has its origins in France, 1906 https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/on-the-origin-of-the-word-racist/ . Popular understanding (and what was once my understanding) was that the word was invent in Soviet Russia at the hands of Leon Trotsky. Although, perhaps Trotsky was the one who made the term popular. In any case, the term has not existed "for eternity".
The reason I believe the term exists is because it's very effective at expressing a feeling, and thereby slandering people with merely one word. For example, if people are researching racial I.Q. and that makes you feel bad, you can dismiss it outright and win progressive approval by labelling it as racist.
Fyi, disbelief in racial distinctions has only been popular as of recent (say the last 40 years).
I guess I can try to understand you when you replace it with another term, but if you think this term is meaningless then you failed to acknowledge the problem of racism that exists in this world.
There can't be a problem with "racism" if the term is so poorly defined and slanderous that we can't begin to critique it without being labelled a "racist".
Would you mind, in other words, what racial problem you are referring to?
Do I even need to present that racism exists?
Absolutely, so we can determine what you really mean.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
And that insult ["piss off motherf*cker"] wasn't separate from the conversation Bear was having so it was clearly on-topic
This is incompetent moderation.
You are no longer required in this discussion. You may leave.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
I wasn't talking to you. You are no longer a part of this conversation.
If Speedrace cannot give me a reasonable response (yet to be determined), then I'll present it to David.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA WHATBRUH THIS DUDE
Imagine a child making these comments and moderating a debate website. It would be hilarious to see how poorly he would enforce the rules and resolve grievances between site members.
Oh...
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Once again, your lack of self-awareness amazes me.
I'm glad you learned the term "self-awareness" in your highschool English textbook recently.
Now run along, kiddo.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
The infractions were not off-topic, in fact they seemed to be quite on topic. And even if they were off-topic, they weren't systemic.
If 5 personal attacks isn't considered systemic, then the TOS is nebulous. It needs to be clearer as to what is systemic, because no one, including you, knows what exactly that entails.
Also, could you please explain to me how "piss off motherf*cker" is an "on topic" comment for that thread? Are you seriously arguing that?
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
You need to be quiet. The adults are talking.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
Did you just...not read the post I made?
Just relax for a second.
You posted comment 15 on this thread, and whilst I was writing a response to your first comment, you posted another. Hence, my first comment responds to your comment #15.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
Firstly, it's the COC, not TOS.
The hyperlink is actually labelled "Terms of Service" https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules
But this is incredibly petty and we should discuss the important things.
Secondly, please cite which part of the COC you believe MisterChris broke
So, there were multiple people who broke the COC, not just Chris.
For Chris, he called me a "dick" here https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=26
Here, he called me "toxic" (which he later retracted by calling my behaviour toxic instead, which is far more acceptable) https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=41
I also had crocodile call me a "jackass" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=28
Finally, we had BearMan say "piss off motherf*cker" to me https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=32
The infractions, as Chris cited himself (which makes this all the more concerning), fall under the category of Objectionable Content "Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions" https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules .
Clearly, these are "off topic personal attacks", and are made worse by the fact that I did not engage in personal attacks beforehand (albeit I was quite critical of Chris' thread).
Just to be clear, I'm not expecting permanent bans over this, but I think that, at the very least, a moderator shouldn't be breaking the rules that he is meant to be enforcing. The other two have breach the rules, too.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
Excellent. We can now see if the moderators are as incompetent as ethang5 has suggested, or if something else is the truth.
Firstly, are you going to address the TOS infractions your fellow moderator has made, as detailed in the OP?
Secondly, are you going to address the more severe TOS infractions the non-moderator people have made, detailed in the OP?
Thirdly, to address your implied question, you have quoted a scathing attack I made regarding someone's post. Please note that this is *not* a personal attack, and hence does not breach TOS violations, unlike Chris' and the other fellows' personal attacks levied against me, of which I have cited in the OP. I sincerely hope you know the difference between personal attacks and criticising posts.
Anyway, the ball is in your court...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
As you begin with the failing tactic of personal attack
Nope. It's an attack on the quality of your previous posts, not on you. Unless you think that your posts are you, then it's not a personal attack.
Anyway, your OP is better to the point where I will start reading what you write again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
As braindead as your posts were previously (they were most certainly on permanent life-support), this one holds a great amount of wisdom.
The human mind is designed to consume indefinitely, be it due to desire or boredom. If you allow it, it will consume until you are unable to, and you will be left miserable, regardless of how much you attained in the process.
Thus, it is important, as you say, to remember to be grateful in life, for the many things that are taken for granted, such as the ability to communicate with people around the world and share comments/ideas/suggestions, all with several clicks of a mouse. Even as little as 30 years ago, websites and their potential did not exist, and it is important to remember how wonderful and fantastic it is to be here.
We should be grateful for the friends that we make here, and remember the technology required to make this a reality.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
YEAH CUZ I'M A WOMAN YOU FUCKING IDIOT now sit there, shut up and suffer.
What a delightful person you are.
Cheerio.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Please do not derail the thread.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
"Every use of this word is a misuse"Lol no. Racism is no misuse when used properly. You presented an example here.
I said I wouldn't criticise the usage there, because that was racial hatred of black people. I think the term "racist" is still wrong to use, but it's forgivable there.
I won't say that is "racist", but that expresses racial hatred.
This is why the terms should not be used because now, seeing that we are using the actual term "racial hatred", we can argue.
My comment there was made in jest (hence the emoji at the end) but it certainly passes judgement upon African Americans. However, "racial hatred" doesn't align, even if I'm making fun of African American I.Q. in a demeaning way. It doesn't make sense to say, "African Americans have lower I.Q. than Whites. I hate them for that".
You could certainly argue that the comment is demeaning, but there isn't racial hatred in it.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
What is mind rot? Is that an ingredient I can put in my husband's sandwiches? It sounds German.
You're unfunny and not worth my time.
Go away.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Aileen Wuornos I rest my case
That is actually a person, believe it or not.
Here's a hint for you: data involves numbers.
I hope your feminist mind rot hasn't too badly affected to respond to basic requests, but you do worry me.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Harvard
I asked for data, not a university.
You're welcome to try again.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Excellent answer! You will be fine.
Good to know :)
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I read the thread in its entirety. Nothing you said in your critique of Chris' OP warranted him calling you a "dick". It seems that past history contributed to his initial reaction.
What is funny is that, as far as I can remember, this is my first interaction with him. If anyone reading this knows otherwise, please quote the post.
The next two posters also insulted you even more rudely than Chris, on the side of the mod. It is clear in this particular case:1. Chris behaved in a way unbecoming of a moderator2. You are correct in your complaint that his treatment of you violated CoC.
Absolutely. Chris has actually been the least rude out of the several that commented, but he is a moderator.
I say all the above to prepare you for this, Demon.A. Chris is a mod, he will suffer no consequenceB. Chris is a young boy, you have no chance against him before the modsC. This is the kind of moderation you get when the average age of the mod 17D. This is the kind of moderation you get when the required disposition of the mod needs to be similar to a typical BLM demonstrator. (We've seen the videos)
Whilst having a young moderation doesn't condemn it to being incompetent, it certainly raises the chances. Perhaps the others moderators are more capable of seeing TOS violations, despite their low age. You have probably seen many things here already, but in my mind, they are innocent until proven guilty.
First, forget this incident. Chris says he is willing to suffer any judgement of the other mods because he is well aware there will be none. You will only make enemies.
Again, I'll have faith in the other moderators until they give me reason not to. I haven't seen what you've seen, so I cannot pass judgement on them yet.
Second, fix your profile page so that you have a few liberal friends, the more the better, and the more liberal, the better. Also, list your age and gender. Be male, and the closer you are to 14, the better. You will see things improve for you immediately.
I'm not interested in lying. I'd rather be hated for who I am than liked for who I am not.
Finally, saying what you actually think here will hurt you. So either be willing to pay the price, or stop saying what you think. Expecting fairness here shows a lack of awareness.
If I'm not allowed to say what I actually think, then this website serves no purpose.
Many members agree that your complaint has merit, but know that openly supporting you is pointless. I'm one of the few (remaining) who have decided to pay the cost of saying what he thinks.
Thank you for understanding, but, like you, I am also willing to pay the cost of saying what I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The website doesn't need you stalking me. I already have a girlfriend and I'm definitely not interested in you. Go away, you creep.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Lol why would you reference a debate that you lost?
George Floyd was a pretty garbage human being that, whilst didn't deserve to die (wasn't convicted with a death penalty for any of his crimes), was involved in numerous crimes and was clearly resisting arrest in the incident wherein he died. It's really difficult to restrain someone resisting, and if you watch a lot of criminal arrest videos, you'll often come across criminals complaining of being in pain (even if they're not), so "I can't breath" isn't out of the ordinary (although it did prove to be true).
One of the crimes George Floyd committed was robbery involving holding a pregnant woman at gunpoint, btw.
Of all the black people you could have pricked to be your innocent martyr, George Floyd is close to being the polar opposite.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You agree with me and then declares that every use of this word is a misuse.
That's because *every* usage of this word is misusage. That's what the entire OP was about. Did you even read it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Please stop responding to every post I make. I've made it clear that I don't want to talk to you. You are being creepy now.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Ah nice to see you again Wylted!
Nice to see you too, Robert Mugabe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So what is the merit of trashing equality of justice for tribal justice?
People are naturally pronounced in tribal [racial] justice, and it takes a lot of conditioning to superimpose your "equality of justice".
The truth is, differing races don't get a long, and pretending that they leads to bloodshed. I'd much prefer if no-one from any race died because of a pipe-dream cerebral idea (equality of justice) was deemed appropriate for every country to instill.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Right... I'm not looking at other countries. I am looking at the US. Thanks for telling me what I already know.
Let's try again a different way.
If other races felt at home in other countries, say Africans in Chad, would this be okay? Is it only not okay when Whites feel at home in America?
And yes. Expanding the scope to other nations, we would hypothesize that the benefits of being within the majority as a white person would diminish when we look at minority white nations, because obviously you can not be within the majority in a nation in which you are the minority. That's true. And it doesn't effect my point one bit.
No, you still don't understand. "Being White" doesn't cause one to "feel at home" in a racial majority country. Being within the racial majority causes one to "feel at home" in a racial majority country. To put it in terms you'll understand, being of African decent (particular of Chad descent) in Chad gives you 'African privilege'.
I don't agree with using the term 'privilege' (as I'm about to get into), but the semantics should shine through for you if I use that term, for this example.
But there is a privilege in that. And if blacks or Hispanics were the majority race in the US they would experience it too. If we really want to go down the rabbit hole, we can talk about privileges that are experienced by minorities (affirmative action much?) and privileges that are not tied to race at all. There's many different categories, some cancelling out the benefit of others. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. If my white majority privilege is cancelled out by someone's minority privilege that doesn't mean I don't have have white majority privilege... it simply means it's not consequential. And that's precisely what I'm arguing. That despite certain white privileges existing it's not consequential in determining success. At least not compared to controllable factors like choices.
"Privilege" isn't a neutral term. It's a loaded term designed to criticise people. When someone says "check your privilege" in response to an argument I'm making, that isn't a neutral comment. That application is designed to shut down conversation *because* the person is deemed privileged.
If you said "there are benefits to being White in a White majority country", then I could agree with you. "Benefits" isn't a politically loaded and charged term designed to shut people down for being a certain race.
Using the term "privilege" also leads to pathologising people for natural feelings (the "feeling at home" feeling), because you're shutting people down and making them feel bad for a natural feeling they have. That is incredibly sinister.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
"TOS infractions"*sigh*
If you are apathetic about TOS infractions, then you shouldn't be a moderator.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Racism and Racist, terms or words?....The terms racist and racism cannot also be inaccurate words.Terms might be inaccurate, but words are just words.
Sure. Now, are you going to address the actual content of the post? Or did you want to post a hit-and-run throwaway comment like the other people have so far?
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well, you condescending dick, I did click your hyperlinks and none of them supported your baseless assertion that "Also, data on the brutality of slave owners to slaves is very hard to find (perhaps because it doesn't exist)." It just shows that you haven't done much research. I of course meant you didn't cite anything relevant to the claim. However, I did misread that you said they were whipped for being educated.
Condescension was appropriate due to you accusing me of providing "zero" citations, despite my OP being littered with them. If you continue engage in blind ignorance, condescension will be a returning guest.
I've spent dozens of hours researching the topic. It is absolutely possible that the data, which argues contrary to what I have, exists and I haven't found it yet. Again, if you have stumbled across it, please cite the data.
Thank you for admitting you misread something. I was quoting someone else who asserted that, and I was debunking it. It is reasonable to expect some level of confusion in that.
I cited wikipedia because you did with the prohibition of education.
Sure, and I'm not sure of the validity in either. I cited Wikipedia, which is against my general case, to show how wrong the quote I was responding to was.
For the record, I'm not sure if education was withheld from slaves.
It speaks volumes that you feel the need to profile me into some "kind" just because I disagree with you on a single topic. You don't know me or what I believe, so take this ignorance out of your replies.
I've encountered your line of argument many times, and a particular person tends to push it. It's reasonable to assume you fit the mold.
Now you've shifted from, prove slaves were whipped, to, prove all slaves were whipped, to, prove a vast majority/minority were whipped. What is "vast" to you? What will you accept as data if not the accounts of slaves themselves?
Incorrect. From the very title itself, you can see the word "overall", which allows room for a level of mistreatment of slaves. Furthermore, this apparent "shift" (lol) is actually implying that you have such little data-driven evidence, that I'm requesting *anything* from you that could prove a decent number of slaves were badly treated. Moreover, this "shift" is indicative of your lackluster position. The fact that you would interpret this as a weakness in my argument is amusing xD
"Accounts of slaves" are anecdotes unless they are complied into data. Do you require me to explain to you why anecdotal evidence is not sufficient?
lol Like slave owners are known for their meticulous beating records. All the data has to necessarily be anecdotal fundamentally, then compiled.
If slave owners are known for their "meticulous beating records," then you should be able to show that. If you need to cite 1000s of anecdotal evidence to replace the data *required* to make such a case, be my guest. However, the absurdity of such a request should indicate that you do not have the mountain of evidence required, and hence your position is indefensible when it is based purely on anecdotal evidence.
I checked and rechecked and the link works for me. Ill repost it here: https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tYJ1vVmnwbAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=punishment+of+american+slaves&ots=de6dHcaFKJ&sig=7TxDjmbmgkPLUQojo73dUZ4NupM&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=whip&f=false
"Preview unavailable." "Search inside unavailable." There's no link to read the file on a Pdf or whatever.
Here is an excerpt from page 85 since your computer is broken: "Punishment on the plantation was, essentially, physical punishment. The whip was the correctional instrument of all purpose. Usually, the slave was stripped to the waist, hands tied, and flogged on the back."
Great. Where is the data backing this conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
*sigh* Once again, I have submitted it for review. It's not "running away" so much as preventing pain for Ragnar and David as they review this thread, and reducing the chances any parties legitimately violate the TOS.
That is acceptable, but it's a shame that you're not going to retract your personal attacks which violate TOS, at least without external intervention.
I suggest you re-read the TOS and reflect on your behaviour.
Created:
-->
@seldiora
boi. that's just a thread. You can say any crazy view you want, give whatever evidence. Throw around ideas however. It's a place to share the ideas. The way you phrased your disagreement just was too much on the nose tbh
You are entitled to this opinion, but being "too much on the nose" isn't in breach of TOS, and doesn't deserve multiple TOS breaking personal off topic attacks, of which the moderator engaged in.
You are arguing that being very critical of something isn't acceptable, which is, frankly, ridiculous prima facie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
This is probably my last post on this subject. I want to leave it here to avoid further escalation.
Your behaviour is in clear TOS violation, which is made worse by the fact that you are a moderator.
This will continue to escalate until you either admit you behaviour was unbefitting a moderator, or you are held accountable for your actions. Running away from the problem will only make things worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
the "oh it's just innocent criticism until you made it personal" act isn't working dude. You were being a jerk and got called out for it.
The fact is that I criticised your OP. Sure, is was harsh, as I have agreed with many times in this thread already. However, never did it devolve into personal attacks.
As you continue to do so here, you continue to engage in personal attacks, as you've called me a "jerk" here. Again, this behaviour is unbefitting a moderator, as it breaks TOS code of conduct.
Your post criticizing my OP was extremely nitpicky and ignored all context. You said it was a bad thread on the basis that I didn't have scientific studies and a constructive at the ready immediately upon creating it.
"Extremely nitpicky and ignored all context", even if true, doesn't qualify as breaking the TOS, and doesn't warrant the personal attacks you launched thereafter (of which do break TOS).
I warned, "Stop being a dick."
The fact that you would quote yourself breaking TOS is astounding.
Jesus christ man, I don't think you understand what a forum is. Nor do I think you understand what this website is. We don't just competitively debate all the time, we're allowed to have discussion. To have positive interaction. And starting with some YouTube videos to be food for thought is entirely acceptable and I would argue more useful for starting that discussion than a bombardment of studies and syllogisms. I would rather have information in a digestible format to allow the most amount of contribution. And there is nothing wrong with that at all.
You're allowed to think that, and I'm allowed to criticise it. You can then criticise my criticism, but you cannot engage in off topic personal attacks that violate TOS (which you did do). That is the chief issue with your behaviour.
You very clearly have some sort of intellectual superiority complex, and when you're called out on it you simultaneously play victim and continue to behave toxically.
A good chunk of this is a personal attack. Although, you actually called me toxic before, so it is pleasing to see you retract that and say that instead my behaviour is toxic, which is acceptable TOS conduct. If you had initially said my behaviour was toxic, instead of calling me a "dick" etc. you would have been acting acceptably as a moderator.
Also, I amended my original statement, it now reads:
It is good to see that your behaviour is becoming more responsible, as I convince you that your personal attack TOS violation is unbefitting a moderator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Your lack of self-awareness amazes me.
Please cite the instance wherein I personally attacked you, or else retract this incorrect statement.
Created:
-->
@seldiora
to be fair, you were the one that first accused of extreme action and saying it was bad.
Incorrect.
I criticised the first post of the thread. The moderator, who owned the first post, then lashed out with personal attacks, and has continued to do so since, all the whilst excusing other personal attacks on me.
Please re-read the thread in order to see that I am correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
But he's just toxic in general and you can read above to see why.
You're a moderator and you continue to engage in personal attacks, of which breach the TOS.
Are you aware of how bad this looks?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
You need to take it easy.
The salient issue with the lacking in quality of the OP. Usually, OPs will cite the research/material they used to reach their conclusion. However, as we saw in this OP's case, the material cited as evidence was severely lacking, and small effort could have made the OP far more compelling (e.g. citing the research, instead of citing the video talking about research (which wasn't linked in the first video), would have been the preferable and easily realised method).
I am well within the bounds of acceptable discourse to criticise what is either lazy or ill-thought conclusions, and Chris' reaction to this (engaging in and excusing personal attacks), as a moderator, is very questionable.
Created:
I think it is worth mentioning that MisterChris has been engaging in behaviour unbefitting a moderator. Note that I am criticising behaviour, not launching a person attack. Please consider this post I made in response to his behaviour. Is this acceptable behaviour for a moderator?:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
In this case, my inclination is that it is passable for all users involved. Within context, we have been responding to someone who has been intentionally and consistently provocative, and objectively contemptible in general.
I criticised (quite severely, to be fair) to OP of this thread as being unsubstantial. None of it was a personal attack on you.
In response, you and several others have engaged in several personal attacks against me (you calling me a "dick" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=26 ), the crocodile guy calling me a "jackass" and saying "I'm an unprofessional guy" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=28 , and now this BearMan has so eloquently said "piss off motherfucker" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=32 .
These are all "off topic personal attacks" (direct words from the TOS), and none of them add to the discussion on whether the OP is good. It is especially concerning when you, as a moderator, are contributing to this.
Furthermore, your statement that "we have been responding to someone who has been intentionally and consistently provocative, and objectively contemptible in general", needs to be contextualised by the fact that I've only criticised your OP, and I have not engaged in any personal, unwarranted, off topic attacks. Furthermore still, this interpretation doesn't appear to be in alignment with the TOS, so it appears this is a case of you making up random rules to excuse TOS violating behaviour (of which some of it is yours).
If you would like other moderators to review it, I am happy to oblige.
I can hardly expect a fair, impartial moderator review by you when *you yourself* are engaging in the TOS infractions, let alone ignoring them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Imagine being a moderator, reading the opening line of BearMan's comment, and doing nothing about it.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well you didn't cite anything
If you use your mouse to scroll up to the OP of this thread (that's the very first post with #1 in the top right of its box), the blue and underlined text is what we call a 'hyperlink', and left-clicking your mouse opens a new page which has the citations I'm referencing (the OP post is mine, btw).
If you can do that for me, you'll get a gold star.
Firstly, this is Wikipedia, which is notoriously historically revisionist. So, I'd like to be able to check the source itself, but of course there is no online reading available.
Do you expect me to take the word of a book that I'm unable to read? Have you read the book yourself?
So this is *precisely* the problem I have with your narrative that your kind likes to push. We have a slave, who, prima facie, appears to have been whipped and badly treated. I have no doubt that there was the odd slave that was treated very poorly like this. Without doing thorough analysis of this, I'd be willing to bet that this account is true and it did happen.
Now, where is the evidence that *all* the other slaves were treated like this, or even a vast minority/majority? If the slaves were treated this badly, then surely there would be data on this topic, instead of mere anecdotes like this. Surely, there would be mass data on slaves dying of infection, neglect, beatings etc.
That's the real data we need to see, not another anecdote.
Fyi I've already provided data on this topic, showing how Africans were treated well enough to grow taller than their slave owners (this information is in the OP).
I have no idea what you expected me to do with this link. "No e-book available" makes it difficult to read. You don't explain what was in the book and how it defends your position here. Have you actually read any of the sources you've provided here?
Created:
Finally, the english portion, no you are still wrong, lets look at this: you claim that because one person's children worked harder than slaves (with only one table to support said table could have been literally made up seeing how its fucking imgur, improper source at its finest)
The reason I posted the imgur of the study's graph is because I don't have access to an online copy of the study, and thus you wouldn't be able to see what I'm talking about, if I didn't post that. It's baffling that you would complain about me showing you the data I'm talking about lol
The vast vast amount of primary sources and documents we have from those times recorded the brutality of southern plantation owners especially.
You haven't posted any of those, let alone a "vast vast amount", either here or in our discussion in the PMs.
Furthermore, seeing that I've actually looked at both sides of the argument, if you do end up posting anything, it's likely to be a personal recount, instead of the superior data that I provided. Anecdotes get destroyed by data, when it comes to debate. Unless you actually have a "vast vast" amount of primary sources and documents you're going to show us, my data objectively wins.
I'd also like to say that there were absolutely genuine instances of slave brutality. Just like in general society, some people are twisted and want to cause harm to others. However, the purpose of this thread is to show that the vast majority of slaves were treated quite well, and slave brutality was the vanishingly rare exception.
Not to mention, the reason that people in Afrian didn't learn English is because there were a know, very few people who spoke English.
Again, you make a claim without any evidence. Unfortunately, the 1870 American census showed that the White people had a literacy rate of roughly 80%, so you're not only making a bare assertion, but you are wrong about it, too. Clearly, you haven't read the other side of the topic, thus your one-sided, bare assertion account of it.
So duh, but again, which is better? Them not learning English and still being in Africa, or them knowing in English and being a slave?
Have you any conception of what life was like in 1870's Africa? Are you even aware of the *rampant* slavery that occurred in Africa during this time, so much so that the economic supply of slaves was inelastic? Just so that point is clear: African American slaves would have been slaves anyway in Africa https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/slaves-in-america-wouldve-been-slaves-in-africa-anyway/ .
Oh yeah, I nearly forgot a couple things about the slaves vs child point: First of all, children today or recently or more educated than a lot of adults in the times of slavery, not to mention that slaves specifically weren't educated, not on average or even a large percentage. Also, you know, technology; which these children have more access even simple terms increase the rate at which they can do the fields. So even if your source were suffcient, you would still be wrong, but again, if you want I can go put that in your slavery discussion
Could you please explain to us how being "more educated" would affect the rate in which someone picks cotton?
Also, could you please tell us how picking cotton with your hands is affected by technology?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
He’s entitled to his opinion. Hate speech laws violate free speech doctrines which is not a policy of DART to my knowledge
100% true.
I suspect Death23 is intent on shutting me down with slanderous garble because he is unable to handle the arguments presented here. He's already established a bit of a history doing it, despite having only interacted with him a couple of times https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5177-at-what-point-does-the-racism-boogeyman-go-away?page=3&post_number=64
America stands as a shining beacon of free speech. It is beautiful.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Sex slaves and rape "victims" are also treated pretty well. You mean to tell me they don't enjoy getting laid?
You haven't presented any data to certify your claims.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No, that's not how that works, you would have to refute my examples and all of that
I refuted what you said sentence by sentence, addressing each sentence of your own with paragraphs and research.
For example, I quoted you saying that the slaves were, "given enough to eat most times", and I used evidence and data to show that the slaves were better fed than that, in that they started to grow taller than their slave masters and such.
We're at loggerheads because I'm directly quoting you, addressing every aspect of your quote in detail (literally sentence by sentence), and you're saying that you don't see a refutation. I cannot do anything more than that, which is why I brought the discussion to forums to have 3rd parties involved. Unfortunately, the extreme left seems to reside here (or at least Centrists and Conservatives haven't responded yet), and thus the only responses I'm getting are snarky, drive-by comments bereft of argument and citations. If those convince you, then discussing this with you is a waste of time.
instead of going on a white washed trying to retell history, and not actually knowing the subject ground.
Your language here suffers from the same issue discussed here https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5191-using-the-terms-racism-and-racist-makes-you-look-stupid
Rather than attempting to address and rebut the points I'm making, you'd rather slander with pejoratives ("white washed") and claim that I don't know the subject ground, despite me citing numerous studies and explaining my stance in detail (and you not explaining why my stance is faulty).
Your behaviour is no different to that of a zealot here, and thus we see a conversations similar to that of the religious forums.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
"whipping your slaves seems illogical therefore it didn't happen"
If it was so prevalent there should be a plethora of data on it. If you're so confident that it happened, fulfil your burden of proof and show us the data.
And no, it doesn't "seem illogical". Purchasing slaves from Africa was expensive and took many, many months. Why would you want to destroy the slave that you put large sums of money and effort into acquiring? That *is* illogical.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
ALL lives Matter is racist too.
I lost 50 I.Q. points reading this absolute mind-rot. Good thing I'm not African American and can afford to lose I.Q. points :^)
Created:
Looks like racism to me.
It's a scientific fact that some races have traits that are better than comparable traits other races have. So, Oxford University Press has decided to construe a definition which attempts to slander scientific fact with ideological zealotry. Thus, Oxford University Press, which isn't a small firm, is anti-scientific, in this regard.
This anti-scientific slant is no different to the middle age denial of round Earth theory, in that "heretics" were the ones denying it, and now we have "racists" presenting scientific fact.
This should be alarming to everyone.
Fyi, Death has blocked me in a fit of rage he had, so that shows how much he is willing to have an open and honest discussion about this https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5177-at-what-point-does-the-racism-boogeyman-go-away?page=3&post_number=63
Created: