• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

14 Wacky "Facts" Kids Will Learn in Louisiana's Voucher Schools

your inferences do not mean much to anyone else.

I didn't see her as apologizing for slavery whatsoever.... you did.

I think she would agree that slavery was , indeed, very evil... and I think she can also state facts such as not all slaves were abused.

I think it's a testament to you character ( more accurately, lack of character) that you would try to stick her with the label of "slavery apologist".. you oughta be ashamed of yourself

Oh no? Here:

I believe slave owners were kind. They had quite an investment in their slaves. They were valuable assets. I think the majority of slave owners probably did not abuse their slaves any more than they would abuse their horses.

Sounds like an apologetic to me and the 3 other people who thanked my reply to her (including MaggieD) herself. Now you can try and complain all day that you aren't downplaying slavery by saying that slaveowners were 'kind'. Whatever that means. However, the fact remains you are just as if you tried to downplay a wife beater by highlighting all his other qualities. None of which do away from the fact that he's still a wife beater and a slaveowner is still a slaveowner at the end of the day regardless of how many rations of food he allows his slaves.

Aren't you a Libertarian? It's funny how you all of a sudden forget the fact that slave owners denied people of freedom with government help. Change your lean to authoritarian maybe? :)
 
Not to mention it is very limited in scope and examples and in no way proves that these few cases are or are not endemic in the system itself. We are given 14 "facts" of individual instances in a much larger system. Obviously, the intent is for people to apply it to the entire system, but the article simply does not provide any evidence that it is endemic.

This is true as well.

It's a just a hit-piece by the partisan Left.
 
Speaking the truth isn't dishonest, Hatuey. The article makes it seem as though point #6 is factually wrong, even though it's historically true. Likewise when it comes to NAZI's there were quite a few that were against Hitler and his actions. The movie Valkyrie is one good exaple of this, and there were supposedly 42-43 failed assassination attempts on Hitler's life. There is absolutely nothing dishonest about stating the entire truth, instead of stating a group was 100% all bad or all good.

Ah good, so I guess I'll see you ranting less about the Black Panthers from now on seeing as how the truth is that they're aren't all racist? :)
 
Ah good, so I guess I'll see you ranting less about the Black Panthers from now on seeing as how the truth is that they're aren't all racist? :)

How is that even relevant to the discussion at hand, Hatuey?

If memory serves, I believe you're partaking in the "Red Herring" logical fallacy.
 
Sounds like an apologetic to me and the 3 other people who thanked my reply to her (including MaggieD) herself. Now you can try and complain all day that you aren't downplaying slavery by saying that slaveowners were 'kind'. Whatever that means. However, the fact remains you are just as if you tried to downplay a wife beater by highlighting all his other qualities. None of which do away from the fact that he's still a wife beater and a slaveowner is still a slaveowner at the end of the day regardless of how many rations of food he allows his slaves.
"sounds like to me".. that says it all right there, bruddaman

Maggie is correct when she stated they were treated like prized possessions(and not abused)... and no, that doesn't detract from them being slaves ( which all agree is abhorrent)
anyone here can state facts about slavery and still hold that slavery was evil and a scourge upon mankind( that is still ongoing).
one does not need to be dishonest in order to find slavery to be evil.. it's evil on it's merits alone.

Aren't you a Libertarian? It's funny how you all of a sudden forget the fact that slave owners denied people of freedom with government help. Change your lean to authoritarian maybe? :
)
why would I change my lean?... I abhor slavery...oh sure, i know you are trying to paint me as a slavery supporter, but that just speaks to your habitual dishonesty.
 
they were treated like prized possessions(and not abused)... and no, that doesn't detract from them being slaves ( which all agree is

Can't agree on this statement, though.

Some were likely treated "kindly," probably very few were treated like prize possessions, and likely quite a few were mistreated/raped/beaten/whipped/chained/etc.
 
How is that even relevant to the discussion at hand, Hatuey?

If memory serves, I believe you're partaking in the "Red Herring" logical fallacy.

This is exactly where I wanted you. The "fact" that a few insignificant times the KKK may have helped some people in communities is in and of itself a red herring in a history where the majority of its acts were guided towards terrorism of their communities. So what is the relevance of saying that the KKK helped people sometimes when the overwhelming majority of the time they were out committing terrorism? None. It's a red herring itself.

Glad you played the game of historical relevance. :)
 
This is exactly where I wanted you. The "fact" that a few insignificant times the KKK may have helped some people in communities is in and of itself a red herring in a history where the majority of its acts were guided towards terrorism of their communities.

Glad you played the game of historical relevance. :)

To be blunt if you're going to treat debate and discussion like some sort of game then it likely isn't worth continuing this discussion with you.
 
Can't agree on this statement, though.

Some were likely treated "kindly," probably very few were treated like prize possessions, and likely quite a few were mistreated/raped/beaten/whipped/chained/etc.

never said otherwise....
 
"sounds like to me".. that says it all right there, bruddaman

Maggie is correct when she stated they were treated like prized possessions(and not abused)... and no, that doesn't detract from them being slaves ( which all agree is abhorrent)
anyone here can state facts about slavery and still hold that slavery was evil and a scourge upon mankind( that is still ongoing).
one does not need to be dishonest in order to find slavery to be evil.. it's evil on it's merits alone.

Ah, it doesn't detract, even if it she claims slave owners were kind even if they were - gasp - slave owners. Do you even realize the kind of zero you'd have to divide by in order to excuse the fact that a person who is committing an evil act is not evil because they say please and thank you? Slavery was evil, people who partook in it were evil regardless of how polite they were and how well fed they kept property.

) why would I change my lean?... I abhor slavery...oh sure, i know you are trying to paint me as a slavery supporter, but that just speaks to your habitual dishonesty.

Awww how cute, the libertaria doesn't like being called out. I'm showing you are an apologist. You excuse the evils of slavery with red herrings and distortions of slavery conditions.
 
Last edited:
I believe slave owners were kind. They had quite an investment in their slaves. They were valuable assets. I think the majority of slave owners probably did not abuse their slaves any more than they would abuse their horses.

Kidnapping, breaking families apart and punishing those who try to escape is part of slavery's bones, so to speak. I'm referring to how they were treated on the plantations who bought them. Unless owners were psychotic, they didn't destroy the very people they viewed as valuable assets. JMVHO.

The slaves were necessary for the work needing to be done through slavery... but there was undoubtedly much room for mistreatment and cruelty of these slaves as well. Slaves were treated as 2nd-class citizens, if that. They were worked very hard, fed little, and their lives were generally miserable.
 
To be blunt if you're going to treat debate and discussion like some sort of game then it likely isn't worth continuing this discussion with you.

It's okay if you don't like getting logically exposed Wake. You're not really much of a history inclined debater anyways. :shrug:
 
Ah, it doesn't detract, even if it she claims slave owners were kind even if they were - gasp - slave owners. Do you even realize the kind of zero you'd have to divide by in order to excuse the fact that a person who is committing an evil act is not evil because they say please and thank you? Slavery was evil, people who partook in it were evil regardless of how polite they were and how well fed they kept other human beings.

yes, slavery was evil... and slaveowners were evil for owning slaves.... I think we can all agree on that.
why must we lie about their treatment of their slaves though?... why is it necessary to be dishonest?


Awww how cute, the authoritarian doesn't like being called out.
no, I just don't like people lying about me.... sorry to inform you, but you do it a lot dude.. honesty is simply not your strong suit.
 
yes, slavery was evil... and slaveowners were evil for owning slaves.... I think we can all agree on that.
why must we lie about their treatment of their slaves though?... why is it necessary to be dishonest?

Their treatment? You mean the destruction of family ties, being bred like animals and treated as cattle wasn't horrible enough?

no, I just don't like people lying about me.... sorry to inform you, but you do it a lot dude.. honesty is simply not your strong suit.

Ah complaining about your position is not my fault. :)
 
Their treatment? You mean the destruction of family ties, being bred like animals and treated as cattle wasn't horrible enough?
those are indeed horrible things.... so i guess i now have to believe all were beaten,abused, or killed...right?


Ah complaining about your position is not my fault. :)
you can complain about my positions all day long... but you may not assign a position to me that i do not hold, then complain about it.
honesty 101... learn it.

sorry you take offense to me correcting your lies about me... but it will continue until you decide not to tell lies.... you clear on that?
 
those are indeed horrible things.... so i guess i now have to believe all were beaten,abused, or killed...right?

Who said they were? The consensus is simple: Slaves were kept at bay by the threat of force. The majority didn't escape because of fear of what would come if they were to escape. That said, it's widely accepted that even if they weren't all systematically beaten, they were kept slaves by fear of the force that would be used if they tried to escape slavery.

you can complain about my positions all day long... but you may not assign a position to me that i do not hold, then complain about it.
honesty 101... learn it.

sorry you take offense to me correcting your lies about me... but it will continue until you decide not to tell lies.... you clear on that?

Hey, it was you who claimed MaggieD wasn't an apologist. She clearly is. It wasn't that bad because their masters were kind. Whatever that means. How can you be kind and forcefully keep somebody enslaved at the same time? Generous wife beater fallacy.
 
yes, slavery was evil... and slaveowners were evil for owning slaves.... I think we can all agree on that.
why must we lie about their treatment of their slaves though?... why is it necessary to be dishonest?

This is an excellent question, and one you should probably be asking of yourself. The fact is, treatment of slaves in the antebellum south was brutal and degrading in a wide variety of ways. It was especially bad for female slaves, who were frequently subject to sexual violence, not to mention forced separation from their children. Lie to yourself all you want, but the fact remains, slaves were routinely subject to either actual beatings, or the threat thereof, extraordinarily long workdays, unsanitary living conditions and the diseases and high death rates that accompany same, and of course an almost total lack of legal rights. For example:

"Yet we must never forget that these same welfare capitalist plantations in the Deep South were essentially ruled by terror. Even the most kindly and humane masters knew that only the threat of violence could force gangs of field hands to work from dawn to dusk, "with the discipline," as one contemporary observer put it, "of a regular trained army." Frequent public floggings reminded every slave of the penalty for inefficient labor, disorderly conduct, or refusal to accept the authority of a superior." - David Brion Davis (an historian at Yale and Cornell).

And this:

"Buried in tattered and filthy blankets ... here, in their hour of sickness, lay those whose health and strength are spent in unrequited labor for us ... to buy for us all the luxuries which health can revel in." - Frances Anne Kemble (a prominent abolishonist, married to a plantation owner) -http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4narr1.html

And this:

"On this plantation were more than 100 slaves who were mated indiscriminately and without any regard for family unions. If their master thought that a certain man and woman might have strong, healthy offspring, he forced them to have sexual relation, even though they were married to other slaves. If there seemed to be any slight reluctance on the part of either of the unfortunate ones, “Big Jim” would make them consummate this relationship in his presence. He used the same procedure if he thought a certain couple was not producing children fast enough. He enjoyed these orgies very much and often entertained his friends in this manner; quite often he and his guests would engage in these debaucheries, choosing for themselves the prettiest of the young women. Sometimes they forced the unhappy husbands and lovers of their victims to look on."
-http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai/enslavement/text6/masterslavesexualabuse.pdf

and this:

"Many authors of slave narratives agree that Christian slave owners were in fact the cruelest of all masters, including Jacobs, Douglas and Equiano. Douglas refers to these men as the “meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others”. This article enlightened me on many of the justifications that the slave owners believed in this time period. Extreme priests and slaveholders seek out Jesus-like sufferers to use in the crucifixion for their sins. For the Christian slave owner, this comes in the form of the enslaved African American whom they can beat to a pulp as a sign of devotion to the Lord."
-http://www.nines.org/exhibits/Violence_in_Slavery

Need I go on?
 
Who said they were? The consensus is simple: Slaves were kept at bay by the threat of force. The majority didn't escape because of fear of what would come if they were to escape. That said, it's widely accepted that even if they weren't all systematically beaten, they were kept slaves by fear of the force that would be used if they tried to escape slavery.
yes, i know....blablabla

so you aren't arguing all slaves were beaten , abused, or killed?... if not, why do you take offense to that fact being stated?





Hey, it was you who claimed MaggieD wasn't an apologist. She clearly is. It wasn't that bad because their masters were kind. Whatever that means. How can you be kind and forcefully keep somebody enslaved at the same time? Generous wife beater fallacy.

yes, I have claimed she is not an apologist.... and i've said i don't support slavery.... and yes, we also see you claim otherwise, despite the lack of standing or proof.


pertaining to your wife beater argument... if a wife beater is a very good provider...does pointing out he is a good provider equate to supporting wifebeating?.. is it accurate to say he is a good provider who is still horrible for beating his wife?
 
This is an excellent question, and one you should probably be asking of yourself. The fact is, treatment of slaves in the antebellum south was brutal and degrading in a wide variety of ways. It was especially bad for female slaves, who were frequently subject to sexual violence, not to mention forced separation from their children. Lie to yourself all you want, but the fact remains, slaves were routinely subject to either actual beatings, or the threat thereof, extraordinarily long workdays, unsanitary living conditions and the diseases and high death rates that accompany same, and of course an almost total lack of legal rights. For example:

"Yet we must never forget that these same welfare capitalist plantations in the Deep South were essentially ruled by terror. Even the most kindly and humane masters knew that only the threat of violence could force gangs of field hands to work from dawn to dusk, "with the discipline," as one contemporary observer put it, "of a regular trained army." Frequent public floggings reminded every slave of the penalty for inefficient labor, disorderly conduct, or refusal to accept the authority of a superior." - David Brion Davis (an historian at Yale and Cornell).

And this:

"Buried in tattered and filthy blankets ... here, in their hour of sickness, lay those whose health and strength are spent in unrequited labor for us ... to buy for us all the luxuries which health can revel in." - Frances Anne Kemble (a prominent abolishonist, married to a plantation owner) -http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4narr1.html

And this:

"On this plantation were more than 100 slaves who were mated indiscriminately and without any regard for family unions. If their master thought that a certain man and woman might have strong, healthy offspring, he forced them to have sexual relation, even though they were married to other slaves. If there seemed to be any slight reluctance on the part of either of the unfortunate ones, “Big Jim” would make them consummate this relationship in his presence. He used the same procedure if he thought a certain couple was not producing children fast enough. He enjoyed these orgies very much and often entertained his friends in this manner; quite often he and his guests would engage in these debaucheries, choosing for themselves the prettiest of the young women. Sometimes they forced the unhappy husbands and lovers of their victims to look on."
-http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai/enslavement/text6/masterslavesexualabuse.pdf

and this:

"Many authors of slave narratives agree that Christian slave owners were in fact the cruelest of all masters, including Jacobs, Douglas and Equiano. Douglas refers to these men as the “meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others”. This article enlightened me on many of the justifications that the slave owners believed in this time period. Extreme priests and slaveholders seek out Jesus-like sufferers to use in the crucifixion for their sins. For the Christian slave owner, this comes in the form of the enslaved African American whom they can beat to a pulp as a sign of devotion to the Lord."
-http://www.nines.org/exhibits/Violence_in_Slavery

Need I go on?

you can go on if you like... but I'm not arguing cruelty , abuse, maltreatment, beatings, or killings didn't exist.... so it would be a wasted effort.
 
you can go on if you like... but I'm not arguing cruelty , abuse, maltreatment, beatings, or killings didn't exist.... so it would be a wasted effort.

You suggested that the common understanding that the treatment of slaves was bad was a lie. That amounts to the same thing.
 
Hey, it was you who claimed MaggieD wasn't an apologist. She clearly is. It wasn't that bad because their masters were kind. Whatever that means. How can you be kind and forcefully keep somebody enslaved at the same time? Generous wife beater fallacy.

to the portion in bold....

where did Maggie claim that "it" ( meaning slavery) wasn't that bad?

that seems to be a value judgement you have assigned to her, rather than a value judgement she made herself
 
You suggested that the common understanding that the treatment of slaves was bad was a lie. That amounts to the same thing.

no, I've "suggested" that many slaveowners did not beat, abuse , or kill, their slaves.. that, like maggie said, they treated them as prized possessions.( meaning they weren't abused because their labor was necessary to the slaveholders economic wellbeing... it's a "you don't slaughter the cash cow", kinda thing)

if my words have carried the suggestion that abuse did not occur, then either i was unclear or misunderstood.. because it most certainly did occur.
me stating it did not occur would be just as false as stating it always occurred.
 
no, I've "suggested" that many slaveowners did not beat, abuse , or kill, their slaves.. that, like maggie said, they treated them as prized possessions.( meaning they weren't abused because their labor was necessary to the slaveholders economic wellbeing... it's a "you don't slaughter the cash cow", kinda thing)

And this is exactly what I'm arguing against, because it's simply not true. Of course you don't slaughter the cash cow, but let's run with that analogy for a second. Pack animals were, in fact, routinely beaten. During the time period we're talking about they lived in squalid conditions. If they got sick, they were left to die, or shot to avoid spreading disease. They were interbred according to the whims of their owners. Is this really an analogy that's useful to your position? That slaves were treated like chattel?

Furthermore, you're right that the labor of slaves was necessary to the slaveholders economy, but that doesn't really support the conclusion that you're suggesting, for at least two reasons:

1) Because in order to get slaves to labor at the pace and to the degree necessary for plantations to be as profitable as they were, they needed to be under the constant threat of violence. Nobody works 12-14 hour days for no money without at least the threat - if not the actuality - of brutal force hanging over their heads.

2) Look at the economics again. For the plantation owner to maximize profits, it's in his best interest to reduce costs. How does he do this? Among other ways by reducing any comfort in his slaves' lives. This leads to the conclusion that slaves routinely lived in squalid, disease-ridden conditions. Slaves were a renewable resource, both because they were bread and because for quite a while, more were constantly being shipped to north america. Why would the owner give a crap if individual slaves were used up and worn out after a short and brutal life? He could always breed or buy more.

Of course we don't really need to reason this out at all, because there are plenty of surviving first-hand accounts that spell it out pretty clearly. I've pointed you to a couple of them already.
 
And this is exactly what I'm arguing against, because it's simply not true. Of course you don't slaughter the cash cow, but let's run with that analogy for a second. Pack animals were, in fact, routinely beaten. During the time period we're talking about they lived in squalid conditions. If they got sick, they were left to die, or shot to avoid spreading disease. They were interbred according to the whims of their owners. Is this really an analogy that's useful to your position? That slaves were treated like chattel?

Furthermore, you're right that the labor of slaves was necessary to the slaveholders economy, but that doesn't really support the conclusion that you're suggesting, for at least two reasons:

1) Because in order to get slaves to labor at the pace and to the degree necessary for plantations to be as profitable as they were, they needed to be under the constant threat of violence. Nobody works 12-14 hour days for no money without at least the threat - if not the actuality - of brutal force hanging over their heads.

2) Look at the economics again. For the plantation owner to maximize profits, it's in his best interest to reduce costs. How does he do this? Among other ways by reducing any comfort in his slaves' lives. This leads to the conclusion that slaves routinely lived in squalid, disease-ridden conditions. Slaves were a renewable resource, both because they were bread and because for quite a while, more were constantly being shipped to north america. Why would the owner give a crap if individual slaves were used up and worn out after a short and brutal life? He could always breed or buy more.

Of course we don't really need to reason this out at all, because there are plenty of surviving first-hand accounts that spell it out pretty clearly. I've pointed you to a couple of them already.

Don't expect Thrilla to answer in any honesty to this. The guy has been downplaying slavery while arguing he's not downplaying it but doing it anyways. The good wifebeater syndrome if I've ever seen one.
 
Kidnapping, breaking families apart and punishing those who try to escape is part of slavery's bones, so to speak. I'm referring to how they were treated on the plantations who bought them. Unless owners were psychotic, they didn't destroy the very people they viewed as valuable assets. JMVHO.

Yeah, they were just flogged daily and raped :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom