Should we have picked our own damn cotton?

Should we have picked our own damn cotton?


  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

missnu

Well-Known Member
Well the South would have had to become more industrialized, because farming is hard work...they could have never made it off of cotton...So the US economy could have been stronger if all fronts had been working towards a common goal...then again without cotton and large scale southern farming the farmers wouldn't have had the cajones to go to war to begin with...so...I am not sure how it would have been better...

But I bet anything we would have a lower crime rate today in America if we had never used slavery to gather our farmed goods..
 

Illegal Smile

Well-Known Member
1. There was no United States when slavery was first imposed on this continent, but there was certainly an America, which is what Europeans called it. In fact there was a north and a south america.

2. Slavery was an absolute disaster for the economy of the south. As missnu intelligently (in contrast with the nimrods) says - the northern economy grew because it innovated and embraced technology, while the south remained a backward feudal region living on old agriculture and slavery. The south was doomed from the beginning - the civil war was the culmination.

3. The libruls on this board are a parody of librulism. Real libruls will man-up and answer the question. I have seen some very good answers, too.
 

deprave

New Member
Let me help you nimrods - this is a choice between the moral and the pragmatic. The moral position being that slavery is always wrong and can never be justified. The pragmatic being that if a race is greatly elevated over time as a result of slavery, then that slavery must be viewed as positive. Conservatives never have a problem with this, they say slavery was wrong. That puts liberals in the position of saying that the conservatives are saying slavery was wrong only because it means the black race never happens in America, and they, being conservatives, are racists. But it also puts liberals in the position of saying that without slavery we would have no blacks, no Obama, no fundamental justification for liberalism, therefore no - they wouldn't go back and eradicate slavery if they could.

What this very old question really does is force the respondent to closely examine his beliefs (or cowardly not respond). Conservatives take a simple moral view and they don't have to think about it. Liberals have to agonize with "oh no if I say that it means.... b-but if I say that it sounds like..... oh my! oh my!" And that's the difference between conservatives and liberals - genuine core values.
This type of group think is the essence of racism. You live and breathe this stereotypes. There I said it...In your view..your a fucking commie...fucking hypocrite. Quit spouting your Rush Limbaugh shit, Your not in their club dummy.

EDIT: And oh yeah..stupid fucking question...Should we have picked our own cotton? WTF?
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Let me help you nimrods - this is a choice between the moral and the pragmatic. The moral position being that slavery is always wrong and can never be justified. The pragmatic being that if a race is greatly elevated over time as a result of slavery, then that slavery must be viewed as positive. Conservatives never have a problem with this, they say slavery was wrong. That puts liberals in the position of saying that the conservatives are saying slavery was wrong only because it means the black race never happens in America, and they, being conservatives, are racists. But it also puts liberals in the position of saying that without slavery we would have no blacks, no Obama, no fundamental justification for liberalism, therefore no - they wouldn't go back and eradicate slavery if they could.

What this very old question really does is force the respondent to closely examine his beliefs (or cowardly not respond). Conservatives take a simple moral view and they don't have to think about it. Liberals have to agonize with "oh no if I say that it means.... b-but if I say that it sounds like..... oh my! oh my!" And that's the difference between conservatives and liberals - genuine core values.
There would be a continent of affluent blacks had your cracker asses never had a colonial period.
 

Illegal Smile

Well-Known Member
I knew this would piss them off.:hump:

I'm not surprised that none of them can muster either the courage or the creativity to answer.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I knew this would piss them off.:hump:

I'm not surprised that none of them can muster either the courage or the creativity to answer.
I just answered. I told you that there would have been an entire continent of affluent blacks had your ancestors never had a colonial period. Cecil Rhodes assured a poor Africa for posterity.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Quit trying to weasel-word your way out of it, yes or no?
If there was no colonial period, there likely would have been no trans-Atlantic slave trade. So there I go explicating my own logic for you since you lack the ability to do so for yourself. It's ok, I don't mind making it easy for you to read. You need anymore help?
 

Illegal Smile

Well-Known Member
If there was no colonial period, there likely would have been no trans-Atlantic slave trade. So there I go explicating my own logic for you since you lack the ability to do so for yourself. It's ok, I don't mind making it easy for you to read. You need anymore help?
I get it. You want to talk about a fantasy reality in which america was never discovered. :roll:
 

ru4r34l

Well-Known Member
What if slavery had never been brought to America? Would that be a preferable reality? Before answering, keep in mind that US blacks are, by far, the most affluent blacks in the world.
I knew this would piss them off.:hump:

I'm not surprised that none of them can muster either the courage or the creativity to answer.
Courage or creativity :dunce: or maybe the stupidity to end up where your mind is at right now. Clearly you do not know who the most affluent blacks are, do some more research and then ask sensible questions.

regards,
 

Illegal Smile

Well-Known Member
Courage or creativity :dunce: or maybe the stupidity to end up where your mind is at right now. Clearly you do not know who the most affluent blacks are, do some more research and then ask sensible questions.

regards,
I'm disappointed in you nimrods. I thought you'd come up with something better than 3rd grade name-calling.

Name calling = the effort of a feeble mind trying to express itself forcefully
 

ru4r34l

Well-Known Member
I'm disappointed in you nimrods. I thought you'd come up with something better than 3rd grade name-calling.

Name calling = the effort of a feeble mind trying to express itself forcefully
I'm fascinated you decide to research name calling, unfortunately the quote you provided was for the word PROFANITY

Where in my post have I called you names, I think you have the childish name calling behaviour, do yourself a favour and brush up on your googling skillset.

Have you researched the worlds most affluent blacks yet?

regards,
 

Illegal Smile

Well-Known Member
I'm fascinated you decide to research name calling, unfortunately the quote you provided was for the word PROFANITY

Where in my post have I called you names, I think you have the childish name calling behaviour, do yourself a favour and brush up on your googling skillset.

Have you researched the worlds most affluent blacks yet?

regards,
I've learned that name-calling and profanity are the same effort of the feeble-minded here. When profanity is used, I reference profanity. As for most affluent blacks - again, blacks in america are by far the most affluent blacks in the world. That is indisputable.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I've learned that name-calling and profanity are the same effort of the feeble-minded here. When profanity is used, I reference profanity. As for most affluent blacks - again, blacks in america are by far the most affluent blacks in the world. That is indisputable.
It is completely disputable until you provide any evidence.

[h=2]ev·i·dence[/h]   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.


verb (used with object) 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.

5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
 

Illegal Smile

Well-Known Member
In what country is the black population more affluent than the black population in the US?

Data on black affluence in the US is in the census.

I challenge anyone to find a country where it is even half, in terms of per capita income or any other metric.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
In what country is the black population more affluent than the black population in the US?

Data on black affluence in the US is in the census.

I challenge anyone to find a country where it is even half, in terms of per capita income or any other metric.
I challenge you to think
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
In what country is the black population more affluent than the black population in the US?

Data on black affluence in the US is in the census.

I challenge anyone to find a country where it is even half, in terms of per capita income or any other metric.
Then it should be quite easy to shut me up with evidence of your claim.
 
Top