 |
| |
|
|
WhiteElephants
|
 |
Toledo Ohio
Mar 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Whites who are ignorant on how slavery affected blacks hoot and harp about how hard their immigrant ancestors worked and with some, succeeded into moving into the middle class in spite of discrimination. Where did I say that we should ignore the factor of inheritance taxes?? |
I'm not hooting and harping about anything. I'm suggesting to you that your theory of intergenerational accumulation of capital is a steaming load of crap. You act as thought when families move into the middle class they are given a stamp of approval and will never have a descendent descend that ladder. I brought up inheritance tax because it draws, and or depletes, from this accumulation of wealth theory you've concocted.
quote:
Blacks never had the same opportunities that white immigrants had. White immigrants never suffered the same degree of institutional racism that blacks have suffered from. |
I find it somewhat troubling that you, and others, take this approach. Lets consider you were growing up and people continually told you how disadvanted you are.
"MrFun is disadvantaged and will never make anything of himself because in MrFun's society he can never get ahead because 'the man' will forever hold him down and there's nothing he can do about it except expect someone to drop a giant bag of money on his lap one day like winning the lottery", and they told you it over, and over, and over. What effect might you think this would have? How might that manifest itself in you?
I'm willing to admit, without a doubt, that slavery was a heinous and immoral act perpetrated on a race. What I'm less willing to admit is this gulf of disadvantages theory that is being crammed down my throat as there are plenty of examples of successful, hugely successful, African American's in our culture. A disproportionate percentage, yes, but then is that any suprise given the fact that they've been told their whole lives there's no hope?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
Another problem is this. Slaves were property, and all Aetna did was insure property - all quite legal, and they committed no crime.
What the lawsuit, in fact, says is that Aetna should have made a moral judgment that would have costed the company to lose money at the time, which is absolutely preposterous.
Say in 200 years, we decide that conscription is wrong, and as bad as slavery. Should descendants of draftees from WW2 have a claim against the US government for doing something that, by the laws of that time, was perfectly legal (well, conscription isn't but that's a different argument)? That makes no more sense than giving descendants of slaves (more) handouts.
Oh, I know - let's take it further. Every one of us who had a descendant die in a foreign war should sue the government for their immoral act of waging war! 
Last edited by David Floyd on 28-03-2002 at 08:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Another problem is this. Slaves were property, and all Aetna did was insure property - all quite legal, and they committed no crime.
What the lawsuit, in fact, says is that Aetna should have made a moral judgment that would have costed the company to lose money at the time, which is absolutely preposterous.
Say in 200 years, we decide that conscription is wrong, and as bad as slavery. Should descendants of draftees from WW2 have a claim against the US government for doing something that, by the laws of that time, was perfectly legal (well, conscription isn't bad that's a different argument)? That makes no more sense than giving descendants of slaves (more) handouts.
Oh, I know - let's take it further. Every one of us who had a descendant die in a foreign war should sue the government for their immoral act of waging war! |
I can't believe I'm saying this...
...but...
:takes deep breath:
I agree with David Floyd 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
KH, of course I say the ex post facto debate. It doesn't make ex post facto laws - or, imposing our moral standard to a time with different conceptions of morality - is absolutely preposterous, surely you can see that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Orange, are you even paying attention? If you scam money from my father, then he dies, I have total right to sue you.
If, on the other hand, your father takes 1000$ of my money then he dies and leaves you 500$, I can only sue you for 500$. If he dies and leaves you nothing then you're off the hook. Corporations don't die. |
That doesn't make sense for a few reasons...
first of all: the owner of a corporation can do whatever he wants with the profits, and may not reinvest much of the profits back into the corporation. He could simply take it and buy something with it. Should the corporation have to account for that money?
Besides, how are you to determine how much money the labor was worth? Or even moreso: how can you punish someone for doing something that was legal at the time (despite the fact that we recognize it was a horrible thing). It's like DF said, you can't punish people for something that was once legal, despite if now we consider it awful.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Has it been established that they are definitely seeking $1.4 trillion? When I first learned of this story, it was merely speculation.
Welcome to the party, KH. Glad you're here.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-03-2002 07:47
|