And their manumission documents were a simple small piece of paper and anyone was allowed to demand to see it. Whereupon the paper would be shredded or burned and poof! Back into slavery.
I'll get my facts from someone who doesn't think being black in America is some kind of sweet deal, thanks very much.
"The law code specifically addressed freed blacks."
Do you think this code was upheld diligently? Is it factually accurate to say that many freed black people ended up being sold back into slavery because having black skin was the only real issue? Do you think freed black people were treated with the same rights and dignity as white people?
You can't divorce the law from the cultural environment at the time or how the law was enforced. It feels as if you're being wilfully disingenuous here. So let's change tack. What's the proposition you're actually trying to defend? That conditions were fine for freed black people during slavery? That only the slave owners were racist and everybody else treated black people with respect? That the mistreatment of black people was limited to the south and black people in the north treated fairly? What do you think we're missing?
"What are you talking about? ItтАЩs not 1860 anymore. We were talking about today."
ЁЯШЕ What are *you* talking about? In this part of the comment tree you're and Chris were specifically talking about the law around freed black people in the north and south. I think we agree that this isn't relevant today.
And where's the ad hominem? It does feel to me as if you're being wilfully disingenuous. That's not an attack on you as a person, it's my honest impression of your arguments.
It's as if I pointed out that the Bill of Rights proves that the founding fathers recognised that all men are created equal. So obviously black people and white people were treated equally. Context matters. The reality of how the law was enforced matters. So if I continued to pretend the Bill of Rights was proof of foundational equality in America, and you assumed I wasn't an idiot, all that's left is that I'm being disingenuous.
"I canтАЩt manage you jumping into every conversation I am having."
This is the only comment of yours I've replied to other than those in our original conversation. Take a breath my friend, I'm not attacking you. I just think you're ignoring important context.
ЁЯШЕ I'm not asking you to. Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic here? It's literally two conversations. In fact, one conversation and a single reply somewhere else.
"Wow, thanks for setting me straight, master. Enlighten me, oh wise one."
I certainly don't expect these to.
You seem to be in a really ugly mood. Take it from a guy who's gotten banned from dozens of forums ... when all you can come up with is attacks, don't post,
And their manumission documents were a simple small piece of paper and anyone was allowed to demand to see it. Whereupon the paper would be shredded or burned and poof! Back into slavery.
I'll get my facts from someone who doesn't think being black in America is some kind of sweet deal, thanks very much.
"The law code specifically addressed freed blacks."
Do you think this code was upheld diligently? Is it factually accurate to say that many freed black people ended up being sold back into slavery because having black skin was the only real issue? Do you think freed black people were treated with the same rights and dignity as white people?
You can't divorce the law from the cultural environment at the time or how the law was enforced. It feels as if you're being wilfully disingenuous here. So let's change tack. What's the proposition you're actually trying to defend? That conditions were fine for freed black people during slavery? That only the slave owners were racist and everybody else treated black people with respect? That the mistreatment of black people was limited to the south and black people in the north treated fairly? What do you think we're missing?
"What are you talking about? ItтАЩs not 1860 anymore. We were talking about today."
ЁЯШЕ What are *you* talking about? In this part of the comment tree you're and Chris were specifically talking about the law around freed black people in the north and south. I think we agree that this isn't relevant today.
And where's the ad hominem? It does feel to me as if you're being wilfully disingenuous. That's not an attack on you as a person, it's my honest impression of your arguments.
It's as if I pointed out that the Bill of Rights proves that the founding fathers recognised that all men are created equal. So obviously black people and white people were treated equally. Context matters. The reality of how the law was enforced matters. So if I continued to pretend the Bill of Rights was proof of foundational equality in America, and you assumed I wasn't an idiot, all that's left is that I'm being disingenuous.
"I canтАЩt manage you jumping into every conversation I am having."
This is the only comment of yours I've replied to other than those in our original conversation. Take a breath my friend, I'm not attacking you. I just think you're ignoring important context.
ЁЯШЕ I'm not asking you to. Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic here? It's literally two conversations. In fact, one conversation and a single reply somewhere else.
Very very few people use "ad hominem" correctly. Sorry to say, you aren't one of them.
Example:
"You can't possibly have a valid opinion on any moral issue because you're in favor of abortion'
Ad hominem = "to the man."
It refers to attacking the person instead of rebutting the issue under discussion.
It does not refer to dismissive talk, disagreement, or insult.
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies
"Wow, thanks for setting me straight, master. Enlighten me, oh wise one."
I certainly don't expect these to.
You seem to be in a really ugly mood. Take it from a guy who's gotten banned from dozens of forums ... when all you can come up with is attacks, don't post,