BF2S Forums Who pays reparations now?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1) jesus riding a dinosaur old information

2) Does not in any way excuse the ethical travesty of slavery promoted or at the very least not stopped by the U.S. government. Independent of the idea of reparations.

Fine, it does not excuse it, but it doesn't make me responsible. Why should people who were never slave owners be pressured into continuing special treatment programs?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1) jesus riding a dinosaur old information

2) Does not in any way excuse the ethical travesty of slavery promoted or at the very least not stopped by the U.S. government. Independent of the idea of reparations.

Fine, it does not excuse it, but it doesn't make me responsible. Why should people who were never slave owners be pressured into continuing special treatment programs?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Independent of the idea of reparations.

Stingray24 wrote:

Appears what little logic existed in favor of reparations is found lacking ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/opini … &scp=1

The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred.

If no-one had bought a single slave none of the above would have happened.
Supply and demand doesn't happen without demand, you can't blame supply.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

If no-one had bought a single slave none of the above would have happened.
Supply and demand doesn't happen without demand, you can't blame supply.

If no one had sold a single slave none of the above would have happened.
Supply and demand doesn't happen without supply, you can't blame demand.

Which I guess makes everyone blameless for everything.

since when did you become a socialist?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

the case for reperations is that insurance companies who profited from insuring slaves would pay out descendants.

This is not at all a reasonable justification, even ignoring the fact that insurance companies would simply raise rates and I'd still be paying for something I didn't do.  Slavery was 100% legal and explicitly condoned by the government.  A company that has a hand in such an activity should not be held liable if later the activity is deemed immoral and even outlawed.

Dilbert_X wrote:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

If no-one had bought a single slave none of the above would have happened.
Supply and demand doesn't happen without demand, you can't blame supply.

If no one had sold a single slave none of the above would have happened.
Supply and demand doesn't happen without supply, you can't blame demand.

Which I guess makes everyone blameless for everything.

No-one was forced to buy a slave as far as I know. If they hadn't supply would have disappeared.

No one was forced to supply a slave either.

How would a third (or fourth or fifth) generation offspring be entitled to reparations anyway? No one living in this country has ever been a slave (or even the child of a slave at this point) so how is anyone living owed anything? Can't really make the claim that they've been 'emotionally scarred' by their families past either, doesn't hold water imo.

Either way, I want off the hook since all of my grandparents were immigrants.

Edit - Same goes for native tribes that got payouts in recent decades too. Complete bs.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-04-27 20:23:50)

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Exactly.  We can go round and round with this 'til the cows come home.  Why?  Because both arguments are crap.

QFT

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No one was forced to supply a slave either.

Of course, I keep forgetting:

It was the evil europeans who forced americans to buy slaves.

Its the evil arabs who force americans to buy oil.

Its the evil mexicans who make americans buy drugs.

My bad.

Considering your previous argument, do they not have an ethical obligation to not supply something objectionable to preempt demand?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No one was forced to supply a slave either.

Of course, I keep forgetting:

It was the evil europeans who forced americans to buy slaves.

Its the evil arabs who force americans to buy oil.

Its the evil mexicans who make americans buy drugs.

My bad.

Considering your previous argument, do they not have an ethical obligation to not supply something objectionable to preempt demand?

Of course, but without demand supply evaporates. As we know with drugs if there is demand there will always be a sleazeball ready to supply.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Of course, I keep forgetting:

It was the evil europeans who forced americans to buy slaves.

Its the evil arabs who force americans to buy oil.

Its the evil mexicans who make americans buy drugs.

My bad.

Considering your previous argument, do they not have an ethical obligation to not supply something objectionable to preempt demand?

Of course, but without demand supply evaporates. As we know with drugs if there is demand there will always be a sleazeball ready to supply.

As we know with drugs if there is a supply there will always be an idiot in demand.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1) jesus riding a dinosaur old information

2) Does not in any way excuse the ethical travesty of slavery promoted or at the very least not stopped by the U.S. government. Independent of the idea of reparations.

Fine, it does not excuse it, but it doesn't make me responsible. Why should people who were never slave owners be pressured into continuing special treatment programs?

same goes for nazi germany and forced labourers. and still, it was (morally/ethically) right to pay reparations to them