Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 04 Nov '15 11:58
    I mean, if you regulate it so that you cannot beat your slave to death, had to feed and clothe it, and had to provide it with healthcare, what's the problem? Seems to me that it would relieve some of the burden from the state and taxpayers. It would also make certain industries more competitive on a global scale.

    It was morally ok at one time. Things come and go, even morals. It is certainly not that humans have evolved, as such is total nonsense. We have barely evolved one iota in the past 1,000 years. It is merely a change in values. So, let's value the welfare of our slaves. We can take care of them. Honestly, most will be better off than living partially or wholly on public assistance. They will probably have more and will develop a sense of accomplishment and investment in society if they have to work for food and other necessities. What's wrong with that? One could argue that we owe it to them to enslave them once again so that we can better provide for their needs.

    Brought to you by Barak Obama.
  2. 04 Nov '15 12:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    I mean, if you regulate it so that you cannot beat your slave to death,
    How do you keep them under control?

    had to feed and clothe it, and had to provide it with healthcare, what's the problem? Seems to me that it would relieve some of the burden from the state and taxpayers.
    Where is the saving coming from again? Because you are not allowing them access to drugs perhaps? Or are you limiting how many big screen TVs they can buy?

    It would also make certain industries more competitive on a global scale.
    Again, where is the saving again? Remember you have promised to provide healthcare, something you claim is waaaay to expensive for you to provide to non-slaves.

    It was morally ok at one time.
    Only in the twisted minds of apologists.

    Brought to you by Barak Obama.
    One thing is for sure, you have never ever been the spokesman for Obama.

    I have a question for you:
    You have in the past claimed to support local government, yet all you ever talk about is Obama. Why don't you ever promote or discuss more local issues and personalities? Who is your local mayor?
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    04 Nov '15 13:24
    Originally posted by whodey
    I mean, if you regulate it so that you cannot beat your slave to death, had to feed and clothe it, and had to provide it with healthcare, what's the problem? Seems to me that it would relieve some of the burden from the state and taxpayers. It would also make certain industries more competitive on a global scale.

    It was morally ok at one time. Things com ...[text shortened]... once again so that we can better provide for their needs.

    Brought to you by Barak Obama.
    Why don't we ask the 21 million slaves of today how they like it:

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/21/pf/labor-trafficking/
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Nov '15 13:31
    Originally posted by whodey
    I mean, if you regulate it so that you cannot beat your slave to death, had to feed and clothe it, and had to provide it with healthcare, what's the problem? Seems to me that it would relieve some of the burden from the state and taxpayers. It would also make certain industries more competitive on a global scale.

    It was morally ok at one time. Things com ...[text shortened]... once again so that we can better provide for their needs.

    Brought to you by Barak Obama.
    ===Honestly===

    Putting that word in that post is truly ironic.
  5. 04 Nov '15 13:46
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    [b]How do you keep them under control?
    If they like to eat they will do as you say.

    The only way this works is to extinguish all hope of escape.

    Collectivism fits the bill. They spread till they have consumed everything like locusts in a corn field.
  6. 04 Nov '15 13:48
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    [Where is the saving coming from again? Because you are not allowing them access to drugs perhaps? Or are you limiting how many big screen TVs they can buy?
    You have a few slave masters and the common people slaves.

    Naturally, you would have to dangle a carrot in front of their faces to get their consent on some level at first, like an Obama phone. Then once under your control, you will be free to treat them as you like.
  7. 04 Nov '15 13:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    had to feed and clothe it, and had to provide it with healthcare, what's the problem? Seems to me that it would relieve some of the burden from the state and taxpayers.
    Where is the saving coming from again? Because you are not allowing them access to drugs perhaps? Or are you limiting how many big screen TVs they can buy?
    Health care is easy. Take care of the healthy ones, cuz they are your work horses. Not only is it dirt cheap to take care of them, you may also make them thankful and loyal to you for taking care of them.

    The slaves that are sickly you can just treat half heartedly until they die since they are a burden to the collective, much like they do in the VA.
  8. 04 Nov '15 13:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It was morally ok at one time.
    Only in the twisted minds of apologists.
    Twisted minds? What is a twisted mind?

    I thought there was no such thing as right and wrong. All that matters is the legislative power and military might to back you up.

    Might makes right.
  9. 04 Nov '15 13:57
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I have a question for you:
    You have in the past claimed to support local government, yet all you ever talk about is Obama. Why don't you ever promote or discuss more local issues and personalities? Who is your local mayor?[/b]
    Most have no idea who their mayor even is.

    Most only vote during Presidential elections.

    Have you ever wondered why this is? Voters in the US have been conditioned to be collectivists, that is, turn to one strong handed ruler for all their needs, whether it be how to educate their children or what doctor they should see or not see.

    With virtually all power given to the President, can you blame them? Congress and SCOTUS have pretty much given the Executive Branch all power over pretty much everything.
  10. 04 Nov '15 14:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    I mean, if you regulate it so that you cannot beat your slave to death, had to feed and clothe it, and had to provide it with healthcare, what's the problem? Seems to me that it would relieve some of the burden from the state and taxpayers. It would also make certain industries more competitive on a global scale.

    It was morally ok at one time. Things com ...[text shortened]... once again so that we can better provide for their needs.

    Brought to you by Barak Obama.
    In antebellum days, many slaves were better off than many freemen. Of course, many were not.

    In Virginia, if the slave was a valued house servant, he or she enjoyed most everything that the family did. This in contrast to sugar or cotton plantation slaves who worked while the sun was up, and lived in mud huts.

    Irish immigrants at the same time in New York, often suffered as bad or worse deprivations. They did however go and come as they pleased.
  11. 04 Nov '15 14:09
    Originally posted by whodey
    If they like to eat they will do as you say.
    You clearly stated that you would have to feed them.

    The only way this works is to extinguish all hope of escape.
    And how do you achieve that if killing them is not an option?

    Collectivism fits the bill. They spread till they have consumed everything like locusts in a corn field.
    So you are promoting collectivism?
    And you think collectivism is slavery?
    You are confused. Go find a dictionary before you post again.
  12. 04 Nov '15 14:10
    Originally posted by sh76
    ===Honestly===

    Putting that word in that post is truly ironic.
    Honestly, isn't multi-generational dependency on government handouts, at least equally as bad as slavery?
  13. 04 Nov '15 14:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    In antebellum days, many slaves were better off than many freemen. Of course, many were not.

    In Virginia, if the slave was a valued house servant, he or she enjoyed most everything that the family did. This in contrast to sugar or cotton plantation slaves who worked while the sun was up, and lived in mud huts.

    Irish immigrants at the same time in ...[text shortened]... York, often suffered as bad or worse deprivations. They did however go and come as they pleased.
    And I'm sure many slaves may have stayed on their plantation for this very reason if given a choice
  14. 04 Nov '15 14:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Twisted minds? What is a twisted mind?
    Yours is a good example.

    I thought there was no such thing as right and wrong.
    Yep, thats definitely a twisted mind you have.

    All that matters is the legislative power and military might to back you up.
    Might makes right.

    Its truly sad that you think that. I hope you never get any position of authority. (or the military might to take one). You are a communist or facist at heart.
  15. 04 Nov '15 14:12
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Yours is a good example.

    [b]I thought there was no such thing as right and wrong.

    Yep, thats definitely a twisted mind you have.

    All that matters is the legislative power and military might to back you up.
    Might makes right.

    Its truly sad that you think that. I hope you never get any position of authority. (or the military might to take one).[/b]
    No, I believe in right and wrong. What I'm saying is you don't. I'm saying your mind is twisted.

    If you do believe in right and wrong, what makes something right and something wrong?