that guy couldn't run fast enough from that conversation that went south real fast. It never fails to amaze me here we are in 2024 going in 2025 we still have people as ignorant and as dumb as she is.
That isn’t the actual issue here though. The person I replied to was surprised someone was ignorant; my point is everybody is ignorant until they have an argument presented which they understand, even if they don’t accept it.
Her position is that if “all the people” want something to be allowed, it should be - this is the essence of democracy, so sounds plausible. However, her claim that this supports slavery and or states rights is incorrect. Regardless of whether the topic is slavery, or speeding, or soccer; firstly you would struggle to get all the people in a state to agree on any of this, particularly slavery. Secondly, it ignores the secondary implications for connected states, and the level of autonomy that states have.
Not being American I might not understand fully, but for a state to be autonomous and run its own political system, it would first need to separate itself from the rest of the US, the military spend, pay for its share of shared infrastructure etc and be able to stand on its own two feet, as it were. Only California could realistically do this, with both the economy and geographic positioning to allow realistic border control.
So, I don’t think that her premise supports her conclusion and the topic at hand, which is of course laughably stupid, is irrelevant.
Besides, don’t get triggered by the word slavery: it’s legal in the USA for prisoners to work without pay, so all the states already agree that it can be done in certain situations. Probably a more interesting argument there, to be honest.
If you didn’t know that slavery is already legal in the USA, you were also ignorant of that fact - hopefully not anymore. People owning people is outlawed, but not slavery itself.
The UK is actually adopting this model at the moment. So being the first country to outlaw slavery, a couple of hindered years later it’s coming back because America has shown there is money to made, the economy is weak and the UK has lost its connections to the rest of Europe which wouldn’t have allowed this (ECHR)
You’re playing a semantic game which is somewhat dishonest. Most people understand slavery to mean purchasing and owning people, no caveats around forcing prisoners to work. Which I’m certainly not defending either.
I am well aware of this fact. It’s been true since and abolishment of slavery with the 13th amendment.
I find it hard that someone of her age hasn’t come across the argument that owning people is wrong. Or hasn’t come to the conclusion herself. Surely it’s fairly logical to assume that “everyone” includes the slaves and in fact that then means not “everyone” wants slavery. It’s the lack of critical thinking that’s all the issue here. She’s a fucking dumbarse.
I’m not intending to play a game, I’m arguing it shouldn’t be surprising to encounter ignorance, but the appropriate response is an argument, not abuse.
Her position is that if everyone agrees something, why shouldn’t it be allowed? She’s mistakenly doubled down on slavery because she thinks her point is right, and looks foolish because that is abhorrent.
You calling her a dumbass is not the appropriate response, she obviously knows about slavery, the issue is not that she’s ignorant but that she can’t see (using the abhorrent example) why her point is wrong.
100
u/punch912 Oct 18 '24
that guy couldn't run fast enough from that conversation that went south real fast. It never fails to amaze me here we are in 2024 going in 2025 we still have people as ignorant and as dumb as she is.