You only have to pay for them to afford food and living quarters— and as many people complain on the internet you barely have to do that and can just get a replacement without an increase in expenditure.

I’m totally confused at what is your argument here, not even trying to be rude. My original point was that you cannot secure freedom by appealing to the moral sense of your oppressors. To which I used the example of American slavery. My evidence is slaves revolted, rebelled and committed suicide for centuries before there was ever and inkling of a changing “moral compass”. Slaves routinely escaped only to be branded with “drapetomania”. They cried screamed and pleaded for release for centuries to no avail

The ruling class only thought it was important to free them when the security of the union of the democracy was also on the line. Otherwise nothing would’ve happened. Slavery existed in America for 400 years before anyone in government thought “freeing slaves is too important to let it continue we should free them right now and not a moment later”

"It wasn't people convincing their oppressors to let them go on moral standing. It was abolitionist movements!". "And who lead abolitionist movements?". "Slaves and ex slaves, trying to convince oppressors to free people on moral standing".

Good lord this guys logic and reasoning is through the floor.

What do you think was the catalyst for the union needing saving? A moral shift taking place in half the country but not the other half... And you think England doing the exact same thing even sooner is somehow evidence against there being a moral shift?...

I can't tell if you're just being purposefully dense to argue or not, but what you are saying is literally nonsensical.

How is it a moral shift? The war was only to maintain the union. I’ve used the quote three times already but here ya go

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

-Abe Lincoln

And further even if one half of the country wanted to end slavery, which is a generous estimate because most northern whites were ambivalent and freedom by no means meant equality, the entire other half of the country was fighting FOR slavery. By the time of the civil war England had already abolished slavery so America was LATE and STILL hesitant to give up the practice

As opposed to the paid workers for your fields that evidently don't need food or shelter?

Not owning slaves yourself and pushing for legislation making it where nobody can are two drastically different things... And you mean the war that came about largely as a dispute over half the country already wanting to get rid of slavery?

What you are saying just doesn't make any sense. That is an extremely obvious case of a moral shift.

[removed]

“Free” other than feeding, housing, and imprisoning them, sure

Slave rebellions were too costly too let continue. And y’know… the war

Free labor was too costly to continue?

Preference for harm reduction? Harm is in practice defined in the eye of the beholder so it's not useful to talk about it as universal. On top of that once you add context and scrutinize it - it doesn't even hold water. Nobody will prefer living under a bell shielded as much as possible from any "harm" because then they would be the weakest. Suddenly there are obvious conditionals to this "preference for harm reduction." My point is the phrase is too vague and relative to be useful anchor of explanation unless contextualized with specific content and boundaries. Taleb's concept of antifragility comes to mind why this doesn't hold much weight without additional conditionals.

Why I seem pedantic or even petty about these distinctions? Because we could have seen in last decade term "harm" being used and abused for all sorts of ideologies to bully in changes into societies that otherwise people would never democratically agree upon under the pretense this is something universally good, almost like holy good - dogmatic and not to be questioned. And that's not good...

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1.)Frontal lobe damage and general brain damage is caused by psychiatric medications e.g. neuroleptics.

2.)There are no tests for 'mental disorders' including no genetic tests.

3.)Brain circuitry dysfunction is the new pseudo-scientific fad of psychiatry. Has it been disproven yet like chemical imbalance theory ?No, but the onus of proof is on Psychiatry not their opposition.

ADHD and OCD are some of the most clear cut cases of disorders serving the neoliberal capitalist class :

The contemporary moment of labelling children with mental disorders is strongly related to the requirements of late capitalism for compliant, disciplined, and higher-skilled workers.

Neo-liberal governance is typified by its emphasis on citizen involvement as individuals take independent action and become enterprises (or entrepreneurs) unto themselves and in a sense police themselves by internalising and enacting prevailing truths about the identification and management of risks … Neo-liberalism depends on self-governance (or in the case of children, governance by parents and similar authorities). For instance, mothers increasingly turn to … individualising children’s (mis)behaviour as disordered through mental illness discourse, of which attention deficit disorder (ADD)/Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent around the globe today.

In case you don't know neoliberalism is the current mode of late Capitalism.

Such a good summary !

History is not spurred by power but by the demands of people. People in power do not move until they are moved

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

-Abe Lincoln

My understanding of the history of the civil war is very different than “some quakers and slaves revolted”.

Former slaves, current slaves and sympathetic communities like Quakers lead abolition movements. Slaves typically lead slave uprisings. Most rich people were content to sit idly by

Who do you think led the abolition movements? You can try to split it up but ultimately many people in power who could have been oppressors rejected slavery and actively fought to end it. There were also numerous stories of slaveholders freeing their slaves although obviously this was an extreme minority.

[removed]

Uh no, most slavery ended because it was too costly to continue. Due to wars, slave revolts and widespread abolition movements

Isn’t that exactly how slavery ended in many places, with those in power banning it?

In vastly different ways though.

This reminds me of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation

[removed]