Jump to content

Should commercial ventures and estates in SL be allowed to discriminate?


Hunter Stern
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1947 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I can't answer it.  I can't see into the hearts and minds of millions of business owners in the South.

Obviously laws forced it to end. I have no idea if it would have ended naturally or not, but we'll never find out will we?

When a person or group has power over another person or group they almost never give their power position up without a fight. You can learn that from reading History.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

When a person or group has power over another person or group they almost never give their power position up without a fight. You can learn that from reading History.

And why would anyone want to give up power?

Look what happened to Rhodesia and South Africa

Edited by BilliJo Aldrin
added a line
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I can't answer it.  I can't see into the hearts and minds of millions of business owners in the South.

Obviously laws forced it to end. I have no idea if it would have ended naturally or not, but we'll never find out will we?

I see.   But I thought that people running retail businesses were interested only in the colour green, which I took to mean that market forces would solve all such problems without the need for legislation.  Oh well.

I'm off now, too   Have a good evening, everyone, and Happy New Year.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BilliJo Aldrin said:
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

When a person or group has power over another person or group they almost never give their power position up without a fight. You can learn that from reading History.

And why would anyone want to give up power?

I said power OVER another person or group.....it's abusive...power should be shared.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

 

Obviously laws forced it to end. I have no idea if it would have ended naturally or not, but we'll never find out will we?

I think it is beyond clear it would not in some places. Too many places. Just look around today for abundant evidence of that. (Or look to the Civil War, which was fought primarily because emancipation was not going to happen without law.)

Without laws regulating capitalism there would be no protection of minority rights. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

I think it is beyond clear it would not in some places. Too many places. Just look around today for abundant evidence of that. (Or look to the Civil War, which was fought primarily because emancipation was not going to happen without law.)

Without laws regulating capitalism there would be no protection of minority rights. 

Here we go again, the war was fought to free the slaves.... except it wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Klytyna said:
18 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

What was the fight over?

Money, obviously...

Read and learn...

I don't believe that.

Money played a part in it, and sometimes the sole part for greedy people cashing in as the chaos ensued.  But there's writings from many people going years back before the war saying slavery needed to end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

Almost got bingo!

Omg, I laughed. I live in the South and for the past couple of years, we've been talking about taking down Confederate monuments. I make the mistake of reading comments on these news stories, and reading some of these lines in this photo -- yup. I can almost always tell what race the commenter is based on these lines!!! 

Edited by Nalytha
Spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't believe that.

Money played a part in it, and sometimes the sole part for greedy people cashing in as the chaos ensued.  But there's writings from many people going years back before the war saying slavery needed to end.

Never confuse Politically Convienient Excuses with Real Motives, when talking about wars.

The Trojan War wasn't fought because a middle aged man's young wife ran off with some foreign guy... That's an Excuse, it was fought over trade routes and tariffs on Black Sea grain shipments, but citizen farmers won't volunteer to spend 10 years fighting a major war to boost the profits of Greek Shipping Tycoons who are friends of the King, but they CAN be convinced to fight against "filthy foreign dogs coming over here stealing our women".

MY country abolished slavery almost HALF A CENTURY before yours, and we didn't fight a civil war over it.

The War of Jenkins' Ear, a war that started about 8 years after the ear was cut off, a war that lasted 9 years, but do you REALLY think a nation declared war because some wannabe pirate had his ear cut off by foreign coastguards for 'smuggling'? Or because it was a useful EXCUSE to rouse public opinion and support back home against "filthy foreign devils abusing our people" by corporate interests who had their own financial reasons for starting a war. Interests that involved selling slaves in latin america, as it happens.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slavery was ended because the nation was outgrowing it..It wasn't about being humane..Even some of the southern states like the one I live in were already growing from it..

The heavy battle states where brother fought brother were changing states that took a lot  to turn to secede..

Trust me,if the north still needed it,it would have stuck around longer..

The war wasn't about racism as many today think it was..There was plenty of that in the north..It wasn't an easy vote to get passed.

It was a close vote and only the north were the only ones voting on it.

 

I'm not a southerner by birth and lay no claim or loyalty to either the north or the south or them bastages out west  in that bar out in Tucson Arizona..

I'm not a drinker either ,but I think my husband tricked me and this isn't just some other brand of icetea I'm drinking ,so this may get pretty good if I keep going..

Lets see,I was born a poor Chiricahua girl on the mean streets of Chicago..On the first day of christma my true.....No wait that's something else..

Four score and twenty five..Nope ,wrong track there too.. A stitch in time... O.o

Forget it,I'm done for the night.. Happy New years everyone. I'm going to sleep..be safe..

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I really don't know much about the civil war, and think it would take more time than I want to spend to understand it fully.
But in terms of whether legislation in more recent years helped bring civil rights to the US...from my understanding of how power works in society I believe it did...and I'm certain sometimes we need government intervention to make society better, freedom for the US conservative bigots be damned!

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

Well done... you found a 'fact' wooo hooo, now go and look at the facts preceding it...

Engulf & Devour Inc, use the minority anti slavery protesters, and their bribed and owned politicians, to stir up a PR campaign to end something that most northeners didn't care about, the north passes anti slavery acts, which the southerners fearwill destroy their largely non industrial economic base, so they have two choices as they see it, poverty or independence, the Union splits, and the north declares war to force reunification on THEIR terms...

Engulf & Devour Inc's Terms...

Maybe you should READ the nice web page you linked to... there's a really good quote from one of the founders of the Confederacy...

Here, I'll paste it for you so you dont have to strain your delicate little wrist clicking your own link up the page...

...

Harris insisted. "The time has arrived when the people of the South must prepare either to abandon or to fortify and maintain it. Abandon it, we cannot, interwoven as it is with our wealth, prosperity and domestic happiness."

...

The American Civil War was ECONOMIC warfare carried to the ultimate degree, if you REALLY think it was about "freeing slaves" maybe you should look at the unkept promises made by the Union to Afro Americans during the war, and the official advice given AFTER the war, and their total failure to enforce the new post war Afro American citizens 'rights' to vote, travel, own property, etc.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Well done... you found a 'fact' wooo hooo, now go and look at the facts preceding it...

Engulf & Devour Inc, use the minority anti slavery protesters, and their bribed and owned politicians, to stir up a PR campaign to end something that most northeners didn't care about, the north passes anti slavery acts, which the southerners fearwill destroy their largely non industrial economic base, so they have two choices as they see it, poverty or independence, the Union splits, and the north declares war to force reunification on THEIR terms...

Engulf & Devour Inc's Terms...

Maybe you should READ the nice web page you linked to... there's a really good quote from one of the founders of the Confederacy...

Here, I'll paste it for you so you dont have to strain your delicate little wrist clicking your own link up the page...

...

Harris insisted. "The time has arrived when the people of the South must prepare either to abandon or to fortify and maintain it. Abandon it, we cannot, interwoven as it is with our wealth, prosperity and domestic happiness."

...

The American Civil War was ECONOMIC warfare carried to the ultimate degree, if you REALLY think it was about "freeing slaves" maybe you should look at the unkept promises made by the Union to Afro Americans during the war, and the official advice given AFTER the war, and their total failure to enforce the new post war Afro American citizens 'rights' to vote, travel, own property, etc.



 

Woo! You sure told me! I'm only going by what southerners themselves said ABOUT WHY THEY WERE SECEEDING! Silly me...sorry mistress, I won't do it again.

I love when people try to partially quote something to try to prove something.

Other secession documents contained similar language, and the Constitution of the Confederate States of America guaranteed that "no bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Dilly Dilly!

Edited by janetosilio
I can make pretty colors too!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

Woo! You sure told me! I'm only going by what southerners themselves said ABOUT WHY THEY WERE SUCCEEDING! Silly me...sorry mistress, I won't do it again.


 

What are you doing? Being a pedantic blowhard....

There NEVER was any argument as to why southerners felt they needed to quit the union. The misconception is as to what the North did to make them feel that way, and WHY the north did it.

During the war, the Union told slaves that ...

"After the war, we will divide the plantations up into small plots so you can all have your own house and kitchen garden and a field of corn" - Didn't happen, as that would have ended cotton production.

"After the war, we'll give any of you that wants it, a free settler startup kit, including a wagon and a team of mules, and organise wagon trains to Oregon and Colerado" - Didn't happen, as that would have meant valuable field labour leaving the cotton plantations.

After the war, they told the ex slaves to return to their old plantations and wait for Mr Carpetbagger to show up and offer them jobs picking cotton at special "Lower than slavery level living conditions" wages. They also tended to turn a blind eye to committees of heavily armed "Regulators" who waited at the borders of the southern states, to turn back those ex slaves who found their own wagons and settler kits and tried to leave for the new territories.

Do you STILL think the North in general cared about "freeing the slaves" enough to fight a war?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you for real right now?

10 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

There NEVER was any argument as to why southerners felt they needed to quit the union. 
 

 

1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Here we go again, the war was fought to free the slaves.... except it wasn't.

 

1 hour ago, Pamela Galli said:

Primarily, as I said, it was. There is no question about that.

You're funny, but don't BE funny. The war was fought over the issue of slavery, I don't need your cockamamie paraphrasing for AFTER the American Civil War. Reconstruction is definitely what we were not talking about.

Edited by janetosilio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1947 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...