Celebrating Secession?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

as long as we speak about humans, it’s neither one way nor the other.
language and concepts are interlinked.

depends on your definition of intelligence.
i thought we were speaking about humans.

and btw, even if we take non-verbal and pre-verbal intelligence into account, that doesn’t change the fact that your notion of individuality is neither non-verbal nor pre-verbal.

your atomistic notion of individuality (as the source of all rights) is actually a very recent cultural construct.

Now you are just making up stuff and talking out of your ass. You obviously have never read anything on early childhood development. Thoughts and concepts are not dependent on language in any way. Period. And yes, concept of self is entirely independent of language.

And I never claimed the individual is the source of rights.

And you also apparently know nothing about autism. There are many people/children that can not communicate. And saying that it’s simply due to deficient cognitive functions is beyond retarded. It simply is not true. Many times these same people have much much higher cognitive capability. They simply lack social and language ability. In many respects autistic children are actually smarter. Quit running your mouth, you sound like a fool.[/quote]

You were so reasonable in the thread on infinity… and, here you go being a douche.

Kamui may not have read a single thing on early childhood development (though I doubt it), but his assertions here fit with just about everything I have read on the subject. It also fits with my wife’s position on the topic, and she has a degree in it and is a 4th-grade teacher.

Also, you should re-read what he said about autism. he did not reduce the inability to communicate to a deficiency in cognitive function. In fact, you largely agreed with him on this point and then paid him a rather unnecessary insult… curious.

Last point: Language and cognitive development in humans are inextricably linked. This is part of the epigenetic regulation of cognition, and it’s well supported in literature on the topic. I happen to have read two very good books on just this recently: Wild Minds by Marc Hauser, and The Making Of Intelligence by Ken Richardson (mentioned in a previous post.)

262

oh god
self awareness doesn’t develop itself before the sixth month at best.
read whatever author you want (i will suggest you to start with Piaget and Dolto) but they will all say the same thing.

the point remains that an human child born wild and left without any contact will not survive long enough to even develop basic prehension capacity.
he will never know what an object is, let alone what a subject or an individual is.
because he will be dead in three days.

[quote]
And you also apparently know nothing about autism. There are many people/children that can not communicate. And saying that it’s simply due to deficient cognitive functions is beyond retarded. It simply is not true. Many times these same people have much much higher cognitive capability. They simply lack social and language ability. In many respects autistic children are actually smarter. Quit running your mouth, you sound like a fool. [/quote]

you are still confusing speech and language.
and you fail to see that the ability to communicate IS a cognitive capacity.
it’s just not the only one.

i’m perfectly aware of the existence of high-functionning autism and Asperger syndrome. but you were speaking about autists that “have no language”, and I, for one, know that the majority of Asperger and HFA have a language. their language ability may be impaired, below age expectancy, lacking, etc, but they are not inexistent.
Even if they do not communicate verbally they are still able to think conceptually. and they are often able to read and write, and can even use formal languages such as mathematics. that’s not speech, but it’s still language.

263

[quote]kamui wrote:

oh god
self awareness doesn’t develop itself before the sixth month at best.
read whatever author you want (i will suggest you to start with Piaget and Dolto) but they will all say the same thing.

the point remains that an human child born wild and left without any contact will not survive long enough to even develop basic prehension capacity.
he will never know what an object is, let alone what a subject or an individual is.
because he will be dead in three days.

Concept of self is inherent. there is not inherent concept of group. Period. And now by your definition pretty much all animals have language. So everything is “smart”.

Both you guys are still claiming groups do things that only individuals do. And individual births a child and an individual can raise a child. A child always will die unless an individual does something about it. Interjecting survivability is besides the point anyway It has nothing to do with the subject.

Lastly there is generally, undoubtedly a correlation between mental development and language. You however are claiming an unsupported causal link which as I’ve shown is violated in certain cases.

264

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Taxation: something that people (ostensibly) derive a benefit from. It’s called being a member of society.

Slavery: something that there is no benefit to be derived from on the part of the enslaved, except for food and shelter which is only provided in order to make sure that the slave does not die and cost his owner.

Taxation: something that can be altered through participation in the democratic process through voting and other such political activity that does not carry the imminent threat of death for protesting against.

Slavery: something that the enslaved have no legal recourse to escape from or alter.

Taxation: something that can be entirely avoided by freely moving out of the country if the democratic process fails to remove all taxes.

Slavery: something that the enslaved cannot voluntarily leave; escape is the only recourse and it carries the imminent possibility of death or severe punishment if captured.

Taxation: a system that takes on average about 35% of our paycheck and uses it to fund things that the country as a whole gets some benefit from that we elect leaders to keep funded (hence no leaders currently elected arguing for the abolishment of ALL taxes)

Slavery: a system that takes not only any money earned beyond a mere pittance (except in the most extraordinary of circumstances) but it takes your life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness away as well with no prospect of ever getting it back.
[/quote]

I guarantee a few will read this and still claim taxes = slavery. It is amazing.

265

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You can’t get past it. Property lines are imaginary lines. Property lines rely on social consent and force (since you’ll never have unanimous consent). It’s a social construct, not a law of the universe. [/quote]

Lines are imaginary but a fence or a wall is real and that takes labor to build.[/quote]

That’s what ladders and bolt-cutters are for.[/quote]

And they take labor to use so therefore theft is a legal and natural right. Since theft = taxation = slavery then they are all perfectly acceptable.

266

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Also, anyone who would argue that food and shelter for slaves is a benefit might want to consider this: there were a lot of slaves who felt that anything that kept them alive longer, especially well before the Civil War when there wasn’t any sort of major movement to free them, was hardly beneficial to them. Only to their owners was it beneficial.[/quote]

Working slaves to death is quite common throughout history.

267

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Also, anyone who would argue that food and shelter for slaves is a benefit might want to consider this: there were a lot of slaves who felt that anything that kept them alive longer, especially well before the Civil War when there wasn’t any sort of major movement to free them, was hardly beneficial to them. Only to their owners was it beneficial.[/quote]

Working slaves to death is quite common throughout history.[/quote]

It is?

How common?

If I owned slaves I’d be at least smart enough to not have to replace them too often.

268

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Taxation: something that people (ostensibly) derive a benefit from. It’s called being a member of society.

Slavery: something that there is no benefit to be derived from on the part of the enslaved, except for food and shelter which is only provided in order to make sure that the slave does not die and cost his owner.

Taxation: something that can be altered through participation in the democratic process through voting and other such political activity that does not carry the imminent threat of death for protesting against.

Slavery: something that the enslaved have no legal recourse to escape from or alter.

Taxation: something that can be entirely avoided by freely moving out of the country if the democratic process fails to remove all taxes.

Slavery: something that the enslaved cannot voluntarily leave; escape is the only recourse and it carries the imminent possibility of death or severe punishment if captured.

Taxation: a system that takes on average about 35% of our paycheck and uses it to fund things that the country as a whole gets some benefit from that we elect leaders to keep funded (hence no leaders currently elected arguing for the abolishment of ALL taxes)

Slavery: a system that takes not only any money earned beyond a mere pittance (except in the most extraordinary of circumstances) but it takes your life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness away as well with no prospect of ever getting it back.
[/quote]

I guarantee a few will read this and still claim taxes = slavery. It is amazing.[/quote]

Except for the fact that there are instances that violate every single one of those points.

Plus many people Receive MUCh less benefit than what they are forced to sacrifices. Government is a net negative on them, so no, they do not benefit.

Many slaves also received many more benefits than what you mention. Many lead wealthy lives.

Many taxes throughout history have not been representative. Note everyone gets to vote. But besides, simply voting on something gives it the sanctioning of popularity but not conscience. You probably could have held elections in southern states to vote on slavery, even allowing blacks the vote, and ended up validating the system. Many horrible things have been done by the vote. Democracy is mob rule.

And last I checked, there are even laws making it illegal to renounce US citizenship in order to stop paying US taxes. Literally, I think you are legally required to pay taxes for an additional 10 years after you leave and get a citizenship somewhere else and renounce us citizenship. Which by the way is a ridiculously expensive and difficult process to begin with. You are not “simply free to leave”. Much the same way slaves many times could do things to earn money, save up, and purchase their freedom.

269

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Also, anyone who would argue that food and shelter for slaves is a benefit might want to consider this: there were a lot of slaves who felt that anything that kept them alive longer, especially well before the Civil War when there wasn’t any sort of major movement to free them, was hardly beneficial to them. Only to their owners was it beneficial.[/quote]

Working slaves to death is quite common throughout history.[/quote]

It is?

How common?

If I owned slaves I’d be at least smart enough to not have to replace them too often.[/quote]

Slaves were a cheap commodity. If you have a cheap pair of shoes that can be replaced for 20 or 30 bucks, do you bother with taking extra good care of them, or do you just wear them until they’re no good anymore, toss 'em out and get a new pair?

270

DD, I would love for you to show me some primary evidence that indicates that a significant amount of slaves enjoyed a wealthy lifestyle. Come on, how wealthy can one really be when one is a PIECE OF PROPERTY?

271

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
DD, I would love for you to show me some primary evidence that indicates that a significant amount of slaves enjoyed a wealthy lifestyle. Come on, how wealthy can one really be when one is a PIECE OF PROPERTY? [/quote]

Never said significant But it was possible, it did happen, and it was still slavery.

Ever read uncle toms cabin?

I thought it was a very interesting commentary. There is a particular exchange that really stuck with me. When tom is living with the rich easy going, nice slave owners house. He has the cousin, from the north, that is rebuking him on his participation in slavery. In the conversation it is revealed that while the northerner is against slavery, it is in part because they are disgusted by the black race. He doesn’t want them preparing his food, interacting with his children, est. While the southerner thinks nothing of his kids playing with black children and black women handling his food.

You see I think many abolitionists, were right, but for the wrong reasons. While southerners saw blacks as an inferior race that could be domesticated, northerners say them as a weaker inferior race that needed to be protected like you would a cute animal and segregated from white society. I would really call them animal rights activists, not the civil rights activists like most think of them today.

272

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
DD, I would love for you to show me some primary evidence that indicates that a significant amount of slaves enjoyed a wealthy lifestyle. Come on, how wealthy can one really be when one is a PIECE OF PROPERTY? [/quote]

Never said significant But it was possible, it did happen, and it was still slavery.

Ever read uncle toms cabin?

I thought it was a very interesting commentary. There is a particular exchange that really stuck with me. When tom is living with the rich easy going, nice slave owners house. He has the cousin, from the north, that is rebuking him on his participation in slavery. In the conversation it is revealed that while the northerner is against slavery, it is in part because they are disgusted by the black race. He doesn’t want them preparing his food, interacting with his children, est. While the southerner thinks nothing of his kids playing with black children and black women handling his food.

You see I think many abolitionists, were right, but for the wrong reasons. While southerners saw blacks as an inferior race that could be domesticated, northerners say them as a weaker inferior race that needed to be protected like you would a cute animal and segregated from white society. I would really call them animal rights activists, not the civil rights activists like most think of them today.[/quote]

You make an excellent distinction between the North and South’s views of slaves, except for one thing: Southerners saw blacks as an inferior race that they considered to be less than human and therefore property, whereas the North saw blacks as an inferior race, but a race that should not be treated as property but as humans, however inferior their status as humans may have been.

The South was protecting property, the North was trying to eliminate the possibility that humans could become property. To say that taxation is akin to becoming property of the state is, from a purely theoretical standpoint, partially valid in that there are some small similarities. But in reality, taxation and slavery are miles apart.

I understand that you did not say “significant” regarding wealthy slaves, but I think that for your argument to have merit slaves must have been wealthy in significant numbers. Sure, there were a few who were “well-off”, especially in comparison to other slaves, but that number is no more significant than the number of people who lose virtually everything to taxes. I simply don’t think that because there are a very, very small amount of similarities between slavery and taxation that the two are the same, comparable, equal or anything else along those lines.

Look, I don’t like taxes any more than the next, but the inequities behind the taxation that we have in this country are simply microscopic in comparison to the inequities involved in slavery, so the comparison is inappropriate.

273

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

oh god
self awareness doesn’t develop itself before the sixth month at best.
read whatever author you want (i will suggest you to start with Piaget and Dolto) but they will all say the same thing.

the point remains that an human child born wild and left without any contact will not survive long enough to even develop basic prehension capacity.
he will never know what an object is, let alone what a subject or an individual is.
because he will be dead in three days.

Concept of self is inherent. there is not inherent concept of group. Period. And now by your definition pretty much all animals have language. So everything is “smart”.

Both you guys are still claiming groups do things that only individuals do. And individual births a child and an individual can raise a child. A child always will die unless an individual does something about it. Interjecting survivability is besides the point anyway It has nothing to do with the subject.

Lastly there is generally, undoubtedly a correlation between mental development and language. You however are claiming an unsupported causal link which as I’ve shown is violated in certain cases.[/quote]

DD, you are making claims here that are not supported as far as I know by the progress made in infant psychology, evolutionary psychology, etc…

Concept of social group is an inherent cognitive tool in humans and many animal species. If I’m not mistaken, Piaget proved this rather well. A few have argued that he and others have misinterpreted the results of their studies… but, this is a very small minority. Either way, you are placing an undeserved weight of truth in your position.

Also, there is most certainly a causal link between language and mental development. It’s kind of a basic tenant of modern cultural anthropology… the epigenetic regulation of cognitive development through cultural norms and memes. I don’t think anyone here has tried to reduce mental development to being solely a result of language, but saying that there is no causal link from language to mental development flies in the face of a mountain of published work.

274

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
DD, I would love for you to show me some primary evidence that indicates that a significant amount of slaves enjoyed a wealthy lifestyle. Come on, how wealthy can one really be when one is a PIECE OF PROPERTY? [/quote]

Never said significant But it was possible, it did happen, and it was still slavery.

Ever read uncle toms cabin?

I thought it was a very interesting commentary. There is a particular exchange that really stuck with me. When tom is living with the rich easy going, nice slave owners house. He has the cousin, from the north, that is rebuking him on his participation in slavery. In the conversation it is revealed that while the northerner is against slavery, it is in part because they are disgusted by the black race. He doesn’t want them preparing his food, interacting with his children, est. While the southerner thinks nothing of his kids playing with black children and black women handling his food.

You see I think many abolitionists, were right, but for the wrong reasons. While southerners saw blacks as an inferior race that could be domesticated, northerners say them as a weaker inferior race that needed to be protected like you would a cute animal and segregated from white society. I would really call them animal rights activists, not the civil rights activists like most think of them today.[/quote]

You make an excellent distinction between the North and South’s views of slaves, except for one thing: Southerners saw blacks as an inferior race that they considered to be less than human and therefore property, whereas the North saw blacks as an inferior race, but a race that should not be treated as property but as humans, however inferior their status as humans may have been.

The South was protecting property, the North was trying to eliminate the possibility that humans could become property. To say that taxation is akin to becoming property of the state is, from a purely theoretical standpoint, partially valid in that there are some small similarities. But in reality, taxation and slavery are miles apart.

I understand that you did not say “significant” regarding wealthy slaves, but I think that for your argument to have merit slaves must have been wealthy in significant numbers. Sure, there were a few who were “well-off”, especially in comparison to other slaves, but that number is no more significant than the number of people who lose virtually everything to taxes. I simply don’t think that because there are a very, very small amount of similarities between slavery and taxation that the two are the same, comparable, equal or anything else along those lines.

Look, I don’t like taxes any more than the next, but the inequities behind the taxation that we have in this country are simply microscopic in comparison to the inequities involved in slavery, so the comparison is inappropriate.[/quote]

Um, a lot of people go bankrupt over taxes.

275

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Slaves were a cheap commodity. If you have a cheap pair of shoes that can be replaced for 20 or 30 bucks, do you bother with taking extra good care of them, or do you just wear them until they’re no good anymore, toss 'em out and get a new pair?[/quote]

So cheap in fact that EVERYBODY owned some – just like family pets, huh?

Hahahahaha!

You really have no clue.

276

Are you guys aware that the US collects taxes from people based on citizenship, not location. And since you are by birth a citizen and it is both hard and expensive to renounce it, they essentially take money solely based on the fact that you were born. This “you can just leave” thing is total BS.

277

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Slaves were a cheap commodity. If you have a cheap pair of shoes that can be replaced for 20 or 30 bucks, do you bother with taking extra good care of them, or do you just wear them until they’re no good anymore, toss 'em out and get a new pair?[/quote]

So cheap in fact that EVERYBODY owned some – just like family pets, huh?

Hahahahaha!

You really have no clue.[/quote]

Obviously I meant cheap for those who had a need for them. Slaves were owned by the rich and were nothing more than property and an investment in their plantations. Given this, yes slaves were cheap, especially given the return on the investment that they represented.

By the way, you still haven’t answered those questions I posed to you earlier. Still letting Murray Rothbard do your talking for you? Or are you going to answer them yourself, which would require you to think for yourself? Perhaps you haven’t answered them because you have no answer.

278

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
DD, I would love for you to show me some primary evidence that indicates that a significant amount of slaves enjoyed a wealthy lifestyle. Come on, how wealthy can one really be when one is a PIECE OF PROPERTY? [/quote]

Never said significant But it was possible, it did happen, and it was still slavery.

Ever read uncle toms cabin?

I thought it was a very interesting commentary. There is a particular exchange that really stuck with me. When tom is living with the rich easy going, nice slave owners house. He has the cousin, from the north, that is rebuking him on his participation in slavery. In the conversation it is revealed that while the northerner is against slavery, it is in part because they are disgusted by the black race. He doesn’t want them preparing his food, interacting with his children, est. While the southerner thinks nothing of his kids playing with black children and black women handling his food.

You see I think many abolitionists, were right, but for the wrong reasons. While southerners saw blacks as an inferior race that could be domesticated, northerners say them as a weaker inferior race that needed to be protected like you would a cute animal and segregated from white society. I would really call them animal rights activists, not the civil rights activists like most think of them today.[/quote]

You make an excellent distinction between the North and South’s views of slaves, except for one thing: Southerners saw blacks as an inferior race that they considered to be less than human and therefore property, whereas the North saw blacks as an inferior race, but a race that should not be treated as property but as humans, however inferior their status as humans may have been.

The South was protecting property, the North was trying to eliminate the possibility that humans could become property. To say that taxation is akin to becoming property of the state is, from a purely theoretical standpoint, partially valid in that there are some small similarities. But in reality, taxation and slavery are miles apart.

I understand that you did not say “significant” regarding wealthy slaves, but I think that for your argument to have merit slaves must have been wealthy in significant numbers. Sure, there were a few who were “well-off”, especially in comparison to other slaves, but that number is no more significant than the number of people who lose virtually everything to taxes. I simply don’t think that because there are a very, very small amount of similarities between slavery and taxation that the two are the same, comparable, equal or anything else along those lines.

Look, I don’t like taxes any more than the next, but the inequities behind the taxation that we have in this country are simply microscopic in comparison to the inequities involved in slavery, so the comparison is inappropriate.[/quote]

Um, a lot of people go bankrupt over taxes.[/quote]

No. Taxes are what sends them over the edge, but people who go bankrupt are largey responsible for it, not taxation. People need to realize their own part in any sort of failure, rather than blame it on other people or taxes.

279

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
DD, I would love for you to show me some primary evidence that indicates that a significant amount of slaves enjoyed a wealthy lifestyle. Come on, how wealthy can one really be when one is a PIECE OF PROPERTY? [/quote]

Never said significant But it was possible, it did happen, and it was still slavery.

Ever read uncle toms cabin?

I thought it was a very interesting commentary. There is a particular exchange that really stuck with me. When tom is living with the rich easy going, nice slave owners house. He has the cousin, from the north, that is rebuking him on his participation in slavery. In the conversation it is revealed that while the northerner is against slavery, it is in part because they are disgusted by the black race. He doesn’t want them preparing his food, interacting with his children, est. While the southerner thinks nothing of his kids playing with black children and black women handling his food.

You see I think many abolitionists, were right, but for the wrong reasons. While southerners saw blacks as an inferior race that could be domesticated, northerners say them as a weaker inferior race that needed to be protected like you would a cute animal and segregated from white society. I would really call them animal rights activists, not the civil rights activists like most think of them today.[/quote]

You make an excellent distinction between the North and South’s views of slaves, except for one thing: Southerners saw blacks as an inferior race that they considered to be less than human and therefore property, whereas the North saw blacks as an inferior race, but a race that should not be treated as property but as humans, however inferior their status as humans may have been.

The South was protecting property, the North was trying to eliminate the possibility that humans could become property. To say that taxation is akin to becoming property of the state is, from a purely theoretical standpoint, partially valid in that there are some small similarities. But in reality, taxation and slavery are miles apart.

I understand that you did not say “significant” regarding wealthy slaves, but I think that for your argument to have merit slaves must have been wealthy in significant numbers. Sure, there were a few who were “well-off”, especially in comparison to other slaves, but that number is no more significant than the number of people who lose virtually everything to taxes. I simply don’t think that because there are a very, very small amount of similarities between slavery and taxation that the two are the same, comparable, equal or anything else along those lines.

Look, I don’t like taxes any more than the next, but the inequities behind the taxation that we have in this country are simply microscopic in comparison to the inequities involved in slavery, so the comparison is inappropriate.[/quote]

Um, a lot of people go bankrupt over taxes.[/quote]

No. Taxes are what sends them over the edge, but people who go bankrupt are largey responsible for it, not taxation. People need to realize their own part in any sort of failure, rather than blame it on other people or taxes.[/quote]

Many many thousands of people go bankrupt every year that wouldn’t without taxes. It can happen a number of ways not all of which are so easily preventable as you suggest. But preventable and at fault are 2 different things. A girl can dress slutty and walk down a dark alley, but getting rapped is never her fault, though it is many times preventable.

Much the same way I think people have the right to not pay (resist money being taken from them under threat of violence) though legal repercussions are preventable.

280

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Slaves were a cheap commodity. If you have a cheap pair of shoes that can be replaced for 20 or 30 bucks, do you bother with taking extra good care of them, or do you just wear them until they’re no good anymore, toss 'em out and get a new pair?[/quote]

So cheap in fact that EVERYBODY owned some – just like family pets, huh?

Hahahahaha!

You really have no clue.[/quote]

Obviously I meant cheap for those who had a need for them. Slaves were owned by the rich and were nothing more than property and an investment in their plantations. Given this, yes slaves were cheap, especially given the return on the investment that they represented.

By the way, you still haven’t answered those questions I posed to you earlier. Still letting Murray Rothbard do your talking for you? Or are you going to answer them yourself, which would require you to think for yourself? Perhaps you haven’t answered them because you have no answer.[/quote]

You’re lame. How long does it take to profit from a slave? Keep in mind they are not born with the ability to labor. They required production to a bare minimum of laboring capacity.

They were no cheaper than tractors are today. Moron.

No one does my thinking for me. I have done my homework but you are lazy and you fail.