Ok, first of all, Mista Biggs, thats just shameful. Im like you, I dont research everything I buy, so something I own could be “slave” made, I will acknowledge that Falk, but I wouldnt knowingly buy something that was “slave” made.
Ok, on to the point.
We seem to differ in the defintion of slaves. I seem to have a broader definition.
I think the problem is not that, but that you keep referring to today, which IMO is unrelated to the question of whether we pay reparations to the descendants of former slaves, that was the topic, and the basis of my argument, if it is the same for you, than thats why we are differing so much, because you seem to be arguing about something different.
Can you be sure that nothing you own is “clean” and not produced in sweatshops
No Falk, I cant be sure. Like I already said, something could be slave made that I own, but I buy from brand names, that to the extent of my knowledge, dont use “slave” labor, and if I knew something was “slave” made, I wouldnt buy it.
Slave made products are still cheaper, but not at all for domestic use. Tariffs are more or less non-existant, except for things that non-western countries could produce and export to us (that is: food).
Ok, here, you are either talking about today, or need to brush up on your history.
The only problem with that: banks don’t die. They may be bought, merged or whatever, but the debt account will live forever! Try it, your grandkids will love you for that…
I fear I am going to lose my temper with this one, Its an analogy. You said bank in the scenario you used, so I am just clarifying. Of course banks dont die, but people do. You decided to akin the former slaves to the bank, but they die, even if the bank does not. unlike a son, grandson, etc, owing a debt to a bank from the father, they would not (IMO) owe a debt to a son, grandson, of a person the father owed a debt to, you either missed that, or ignored it, or something.
Nothing explains the difference between “between slavery and today”. I see your point (and went on to that in the following notion of my previous posting). My question still stands:
What happened between then and now? If i accepted that there was a “then and now”, i would accept that there is no slavery in the world anymore.
How would you call working in the sweatshops? I call it slavery, because that term fits best.
Again, I think you do not understand what I am saying. The things happening between then and now (if you dispute that there was a then and now, I will shoot you) are referring to the money, not the slavery. I was commenting on the transfership of money that invariably goes on.
WHAT ???
Existing slavery is unrelated to the point wether we should pay reparations for slavery?
Please, explain that. I can not follow you at all here.
Existing slavery of today, as you call it (im not going to argue that here, as it is mostly a question of semantics), is not included in the question of should we make people pay reparations to the descendants of slaves. when thinking about the past, you do not include the present, as it has no impact on it, rather, you do it the other way. the existing slavery of today, is a seperate matter.
Just think of that: Who produces, who is the one that the sweatshops work for? Third world people? First world corporations?
A simple misspeak on my part (i dont know if thats a word, but you get the point)
Second: “to save money” is “to profit”.
I would disagree with you on that, but i wont fight it.
and its not really blood money, because generally that applies to money for a murder, or assasination"
the difference being that mine is a complete thought, saying what it applies to, while yours simply disputes mine, without supplying what it does include now (and yes, i realize that grammatically, yours is also a complete thought)
Slavery today is not irrelevant.
Wrong
And i could give you a bucketful of examples for modern slavery. For the western societies that profited from slaves, it is pretty easy: all.
Im not asking for examples of western societies, im asking for examples of corporations and individuals
Seems like you ignored the “explicitly” i put in there.
Well then maybe I am missing something, but I fail to see how that changes it
Thus, the profit still is “with us”, though probably not traceable to a single person.
The descendants of former slaves also being a part of this society, the profit would then affect them as well, why pay reparations?
Slaves had no faces, the ones who profited (and the ones who received the interest) have no faces.
then again, how can you justify making individuals pay reparations to individuals, if there is no face?
You talk of “now”,
I talk of now? I TALK OF NOW?!? You are mentioning the slavery of today, I keep saying it has no relevance, when I talk of now, it is because you have
when i obviously talk of the past (Merkantilism!)
You mentioned it once
I used past the words “colonies”, mostly past tense for the verbs, and you did not notice that i was not talking of today?
If everything you said was about past slavery, then you seriously did not do a good job of getting your point across, because most of your argument seemed to consist of today