Re:A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive
by pdonis on Saturday May 04, 2019 @03:44PM
(#19828809)
> what would you call slavery but terrorism? Violence to achieve and maintain a political objective. What is war but terrorism really?
So by your definition, the Union fighting a war to free the slaves was terrorism. So your argument is basically to fight terrorism with more terrorism.
> paying southerners to free slaves, is tantamount to paying a kidnapper to release their hostages. If you're smart, you just don't do that. The only thing it does is embolden other kidnappers.
This claim is obviously false when applied to paying slaveowners to free slaves. Great Britain and other countries paying slaveowners to free slaves did not embolden other slaveowners. In fact it did the opposite.
> paying someone for land you live on, you farm, and you make valuable, but they take the profit off of it with no input from you at all?
Huh? We're not talking about the slaves buying their freedom. (Although that did happen in the South--it wasn't common, but it happened.) We're talking about the United States Government paying the slaveowners to buy the freedom of the slaves, in exchange for the slaveowners' agreement to outlaw slavery. Just like Great Britain did with its slaveowners. Do you even understand what actually happened in the latter case?
> you and I just think differently about these things
As far as I can tell, you are thinking not about what I actually proposed, but about straw man versions that you have made up.
So by your definition, the Union fighting a war to free the slaves was terrorism. So your argument is basically to fight terrorism with more terrorism.
> paying southerners to free slaves, is tantamount to paying a kidnapper to release their hostages. If you're smart, you just don't do that. The only thing it does is embolden other kidnappers.
This claim is obviously false when applied to paying slaveowners to free slaves. Great Britain and other countries paying slaveowners to free slaves did not embolden other slaveowners. In fact it did the opposite.
> paying someone for land you live on, you farm, and you make valuable, but they take the profit off of it with no input from you at all?
Huh? We're not talking about the slaves buying their freedom. (Although that did happen in the South--it wasn't common, but it happened.) We're talking about the United States Government paying the slaveowners to buy the freedom of the slaves, in exchange for the slaveowners' agreement to outlaw slavery. Just like Great Britain did with its slaveowners. Do you even understand what actually happened in the latter case?
> you and I just think differently about these things
As far as I can tell, you are thinking not about what I actually proposed, but about straw man versions that you have made up.