Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries

[Dill]

(02-07-2018, 07:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  So in your world: someone can resurrect an argument defending slavery, without defending slavery? 

Perhaps dude just shared his opinion to a cause of slavery; yet you insist on it being about race. Do I need to "reword" your words that attempted to make an argument about race that was not?

It's OUR world, since yours is the argument in question. You yourself have proved someone can resurrect an argument used to defend slavery without defending slavery, unless you are now going to say that you WERE defending slavery after all when you said "You used an example of the US righting a wrong that many African countries did to their own citizens." That was your statement, no rewording, right?

Sure you didn't mention race. I am just arguing that you cannot finally claim that "those people" who just happened to be black "enslaved themselves" without ultimately making race the basis of your categorization.  The people who first claimed "they" did it to "their own" were very clear that race was the basis of that claim. All of your attempts to change that basis by saying Africans were just from the same land, or somehow "countrymen" or "citizens" or part of the same "society" operate a double standard not applied to people of European heritage.  This double standard is what Bpat and Fred have brought out with counter examples. It is possible you did not realize this 30 posts back.  But it  should become ever clearer if the discussion continues dialectically.

More food for thought--what is the point of saying the institution of U.S. slavery really somehow began with black Africans rather than white Europeans--who (it is implicitly claimed) do not "enslave their own people"?  Why then frame the Civil War as righting an ultimately AFRICAN wrong? In present day U.S. what politically oriented groups think it important to make such claims?  Could you be unaware of that as well?

[Dill]

(02-07-2018, 04:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  GO back and look at my "quote" in the post of yours I responded to.
Sure, as soon as you find an example of my altering your statements I'll happily retract it. 

To establish your point, you need to 1) present the quote you think was altered. Then 2) present my alteration, so every one can see what was altered. That is how you demonstrate someone "made you say something you didn't say."

Like this:

1. Dill, Post # 335: But it's not there if no one says it out loud while resuscitating the classic three-centuries old defense of slavery--What about the Africans: THEY did it first, to themselves.

2. SSF, Post # 350 "Wait, what?  Who in this thread 'defended slavery'?!" and 353:"You claimed someone defended slavery."

Your first statement makes an implicit claim which the second makes explicit. A claim that someone resuscitated an argument used to defend slavery is not the same as claiming that someone also used it to defend slavery. Instead of telling you to "look again," I can specify how you altered my point, then demanded I defend your alteration.  

Your turn.

(02-07-2018, 04:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: My altered version of what?  I asked a question, I made no declarative or accusatory statement.

Who wrote these declarative, accusatory statements then?

(02-05-2018, 11:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First of all, don't alter my post in your quote by making it say something I didn't say.  Not only is it lame, it's cowardly.  You claimed someone defended slavery.  I asked you to point out who, not to give me a dissembling argument that people in this thread "resuscitated" a former pro-slavery argument.  So either kindly point out someone actually defending the institution of slavery or kindly retract your accusation.  I'll still be here when you actually address my question.

Your "question" being premised on your claim I said someone defended slavery, i.e., your alteration of my claim.

(02-07-2018, 04:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, again, the answer to my question could have been much shorter.  "No one" would have sufficed.

LOL so why didn't this "suffice" from Post # 351?

(02-05-2018, 04:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, in the quote to which you respond, no one claims slavery is defended.  What is claimed is that someone resuscitated a classic defense of slavery.

[Dill]

(02-07-2018, 04:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I absolutely believe that's what you intended, but my question stands, who made that argument?  If you assert that no one did then the answer to my question would be, "No one defended slavery in this thread nor would I imply they did".  That would be an honest answer requiring much fewer words than what I'm currently responding to.

Cool.  You did a great job of answering a question that wasn't asked.

Regardless of who points it out, the fact that Africans sold other Africans into slavery (a process that is sickeningly going on as we speak) is not a fact in dispute.

Jeez, and you wonder why my posts get lengthy, unsnarling misreadings and non points.  The statements above, which I am treating together, just register your difficulty parsing an argument and understanding what is at stake.

No one on this thread has disputed WHETHER Africans ever enslaved other Africans. The problem is how that uncontested bit of information is inserted into political arguments as a comparison to a certain other race which supposedly does not "enslave its own."   Rather than reaffirm what no one disputes ("regardless of who points it out" lol), let's hear your take on whether there is some race out there that does not "enslave its own." If there is not, won't you agree there is no point in claiming Africans enslaved their own?

If I bother to respond to your claim that dissembling Dill said someone on this thread defended slavery, that task requires comparison and restatement to show where and how you got it wrong.  And if you could follow that argument, you'd not have responded "great job of answering a question that wasn't asked." 

And you still "absolutely believe" YOUR alteration of my meaning was really MY intended meaning, even though I quickly proved my statement, as worded, could be supported with evidence from the thread, but not your alteration. 

Maybe my claim was exactly calibrated to available evidence--or maybe I just got lucky on that one??  

[*bfine32*]

(02-08-2018, 12:02 PM)Dill Wrote: It's OUR world, since yours is the argument in question. You yourself have proved someone can resurrect an argument used to defend slavery without defending slavery, unless you are now going to say that you WERE defending slavery after all when you said "You used an example of the US righting a wrong that many African countries did to their own citizens." That was your statement, no rewording, right?

Sure you didn't mention race. I am just arguing that you cannot finally claim that "those people" who just happened to be black "enslaved themselves" without ultimately making race the basis of your categorization.  The people who first claimed "they" did it to "their own" were very clear that race was the basis of that claim. All of your attempts to change that basis by saying Africans were just from the same land, or somehow "countrymen" or "citizens" or part of the same "society" operate a double standard not applied to people of European heritage.  This double standard is what Bpat and Fred have brought out with counter examples. It is possible you did not realize this 30 posts back.  But it  should become ever clearer if the discussion continues dialectically.

More food for thought--what is the point of saying the institution of U.S. slavery really somehow began with black Africans rather than white Europeans--who (it is implicitly claimed) do not "enslave their own people"?  Why then frame the Civil War as righting an ultimately AFRICAN wrong? In present day U.S. what politically oriented groups think it important to make such claims?  Could you be unaware of that as well?

I suppose you would have had to follow the discussion and not just chime in with race to understand the discussion.

The discussion was about savagery in various cultures, so allow the to give you the cliff notes so you can get back on track instead of heading off on your own tangent:

1) Poster A uses the example of Africans enslaving other Africans as savagery in a culture. 

2) Poster B tries to use the example of the Civil War to show savagery in another culture

3) Poster C points out that the Civil War was fought to free those that were enslaved by their own culture and it is an example of the exact opposite of what Poster B was trying to prove

4) Poster D suggests Poster C used incorrect words in his retort; although the premise of African enslaving African is not in question 

5) Poster C and D have a hearty back and forth on the subject of who enslaved whom

Poster E chimes in about race, is made to look like a race baiter, and then spends the next few posts trying to show why race should be part of the equation. 

As I said: Save it for someone who wants to discuss race with you; as it was not my contention.