froztfiend

@LoreLeo1939 @ExoDust7755 I would understand you more if you were talking about european countries that don't already have a strong gun culture

If a monarch in america tries to ban guns it turns into a revolt immediately and trying to find them is like trying to clean up a glitter bomb, good luck And that is before you take into account all of the patriots in the millitary who join the rebels and sabotage the new monarchy from within

If we had to choose between a Monarchy that cares about its citizens and its people over a communist state that only cares about power and will murder and rob its own people for that goal to give to a slave class they imported. Then the Monarchy is better IMO. I’m weird in my beliefs because I believe in the Republic and the Republican system, the problem is when a Republican systems becomes bloated and corrupt and does everything in its power to avoid being held accountable for plundering its own people and protecting the barbarians its imports, then I believe the only way to purge the corruption if for a Caesar like character to come in and do what needs to be done. Any corrupt system that can’t be voted out, because over time to get the system up to protect themselves for it. In the end, the only way corruption can be removed is if it is dragged out. But by some chance, maybe, just MAYBE it can be removed by voting. I hope it can be fixed by voting. 💜🎻🩸

Except a king won't have nearly as many safeguards protecting him from his own citizenry as politicians do If scandals like the tuskegee experiment or operation fast and the furious or the forever wars in the middle east that stretched on for a good 15 years after the public sentiment turned against it happen then he doesn't have a congress of several hundred people circularly pointing at each other saying "the other guy/party did it" to dodge accountability entirely If an absolute monarch isn't fit for their job now that we have guns then their populace doesn't just impotently stand around debating if, when, or what heads will roll because there is only one man or woman responsible for letting this shit fester

That's more or less what I meant, realistically they WANT a dictator, a monarch of their own styling, who will bring about their will, fools, they think a king will be caged. But that is why they do this, keep harming the populace, keep refusing to handle that harm the peaceful way, until eventually the populace has no choice but to act in violence because you have denied every non-violent option. Then they militarize the police and call in the national guard and declare martial law, and remove your right to bear arms because "it's being abused by "domestic terrorists" and "white supremacists," so it's for your own safety" then they dominate you and rule you with an iron fist.

@ShitposterSL @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus Working them to death is a waste of money, mass genocide is bad for business even if they had no purpose anymore thanks to the industrial revolution and sterilizing them means constantly needing to buy new slaves instead of them being an effectively renewable resource

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus Holy shit you really have no reading comprehension. Christian empathy, was the reason the slaves were freed instead of killed or worked to death or sterilized or uncountable worse options. That's it, last thing I reply

Yes you braid dead moron, that’s OUR point! You don’t work out a moral code, you’re handed one from a specific moral and religious context through moral instruction by your parents and teacher and media. It’s not self evident and it differs from other culture’s moral codes. That’s the entire point!

You are desperately trying to cling on to the delusion that christian empathy and only christian empathy freed the slaves And I am saying that is not the case, you don't have to be christian to see the practicality in changing from slavery to mechanization and free men and you don't need special christian empathy to dislike mass slaughter either even before you consider the second order effects you then have to deal with

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus You are still not understanding what I'm saying. It was the 1800s, all the empires of Europe were legally, officially, Christian. Regardless of what individuals believed. There was no others that mattered, so their opinions didn't matter either, only Christian opinion mattered

Mass genociding people (even slaves) horrifies everyone, you don't need to be an "super empathetic" christian to think that Fire is free, but corpses aren't super flammable on account of not being particularly dry, and because gas didn't become common place for another two decades the only way to get a fire hot enough to dispose of the calcium of our bones was very expensive firewood Mass graves still require you to dig up entire square miles several meters into the ground to avoid the diesease spread that comes with decay and rot and now you also have to worry about where you get your groundwater from to avoid contamination, lots of work your making the other townsfolk do to fix your mess And finally composting not only makes the diesease problem worse because you're not even attempting to bury the bodies, your countrymen are going to hate you for making them put up with the fetid odour of tens of thousands of rotting corpses, that smell is a smidge stronger then the expired steak in your compost

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus >Nothing to do with what I said, the ones in power were Christian, they were the ones who ended slavery, because of morality. >Maybe, still cheaper than all the reconstruction efforts irl. >Mass Graves are free, Fire is free, using the bodies as compost is also free.

Except you don't have to be christian to be disgusted by aztech style mass genocide Those slaves aren't just gonna lay down and let you kill them any more then other people and animals you corner, the slave riots are going to wreak havoc which is also a problem for your finances and reputation Now you also have a massive pit of fetid, rotting corpses that you need to dispose of before they start spreading diesiease, the cremation and/or burial is not gonna come cheap either and will piss off the townsfolk more because why should they have to work overtime to fix your mess

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus The last part is what you're not getting. If it wasn't because of morality, they would have just killed the slaves they aren't using anymore because it would have been infinitely easier

They weren't paid when they were slaves Then slavery became an obsolete liability and the practical option was to replace it with free workers on machines Now are you going to keep the slaves you aren't using anymore fed, housed and paid to stay out of trouble, or are you gonna let the bitter ones leave to become someone elses problem in a place you don't have to worry about, or are you going to be the guy who gets blamed for the spike of violence your bitter ex slaves caused in your home turf where you are conducting business, cause that reputational damage is gonna hurt your bottom line more then the ship fare

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus No lmfao, they weren't paid anything because they were slaves. The slaves didn't have a choice to make, because they were slaves. They were granted mercy because of morality. You genuinely don't understand how slavery worked, they had zero agency.

When slavery became obsolete and impractical slave owners had a choice to make, they could either make a permanently dependent class of people that they had to pay infinity amounts of money to support in perpetuity because these people now had no reason to learn any marketable skills since they and their children were being paid just for existing OR they could offer a one time trip back to the slaves homelands so the ones who didn't want to be there could go be someone elses problem The slaves also had a choice to make, they could embrace the hardship that came with staying, they could learn and grow in a place that was objectively safer, more prosperous, and had more and better opportunities for them and their descendents then their ancestral homelands did OR they could get shipped back to the people who sold their family to the white man in their ancestral homelands

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus Shipping thousands upon thousands of people back and forth from the colonies to their homeland wasting money on food for them and ships is not practical either. It's a moral decision, you just refuse to admit it.

@ShitposterSL @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus Why do you think they shipped the unwilling ones to their own countries in the homelands?

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus You think ending slavery to suddenly have millions of poor, unemployed, homeless, uneducated, and most importantly, resentful freedmen all over the world is the *practical* option instead of the moral one? Really?

They set them free because the machinery of the industrial revolution made slavery an obsolete practice And if you think they didn't need an excuse to keep up one of the first ever foreverwars that just means they lost nothing getting rid of slavery, that's still the practical choice here, not the moral one

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus Anyway, it's been almost 2 days I'm not going to keep arguing about this, just one last question. If it wasn't because of the inherent Christian morality, why did the British set them free *at all.*? They wouldn't need slaves as an excuse to fight Muslims as you said before.

You don't get your money back if you set your slaves free, except christians aren't the only ones appalled by mass genocide for no gain and cosplaying the aztechs is how you lose all of your business amd go bankrupt anyway it's cheaper just to free them and ship the ones who don't want to be part of civil society back to their homelands And the courthouse isn't for the slaves its for the free children who started working for the orchards in the summer after emancipation, the cheap workforce I mentioned before this that you didn't need to spend a fortune corralling and containing and had the rights of free people

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus What the hell are you even yapping about man You don't get your money back if you set them free either. And no there wouldn't be any courthouse because they didn't have any rights because they were slaves before the British freed them, do you not understand that?

You do realize christians aren't the only ones appalled by cold blooded murder right? Especially mass genocide for no gain And as for why not forcing them to work till they died, you paid a ton of money for those slaves and you're not getting that money back if you kill him too quickly, and the free children with free parents have rights and working them to death is gonna end badly for you in the courthouse, in business, and probably in life too if the parents decide to take their justified anger out on you for killing their children

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus If it boiled down to profits, why would they care? If it wasn't because of morality or virtue, why not force them to work either way until they drop dead? Why not just kill them afterwards and be done with it instead of trying to set up laws and countries for former slaves?

The vast majority of the farming industry uses machine labor to sow, water, and harvest, the only part of it that is still manual labor is picking fruit of off trees, which could have been done by slave labour certainly I will give you that. Except with the advent of the industrial revolution also making things like child labour in dangerous working conditions like mining less usefull you would have a big crop of cheap labour that you also didn't need to spend a fortune on corralling and containing This is incidentally why schools close down in the summer, that used to be the prefferred summer job for teens Now you could argue ID enforcement coupled with illegal immigration brought slavery back, but this stricter enforcement is only possible with the advent of the internet which did not exist until very recently

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus Funny you mentioning tractors considering how much of today's farming industry is still manual labor, so imagine back then. They could have perfectly well kept the salves for manual labor and have their free citizens in the factories, but they didn't.

Using unwilling slave labour is more profitable and convenient when everything is done by hand, when you can replace threehundred unwilling workers with a single dude on a (very expensive) tractor it becomes the defacto standard choice And now it is better to have a free worker that isn't a slave and gets paid handsomely for his skills operate your tractor because buying it was expensive as fuck and you don't want to replace it because the slave who has nothing to lose drove it into a wall at full speed to spite you. Or worse yet drove it over you and other very expensive machinery before driving it into a wall at full speed

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus They literally did, but alright, why was it then? Do you genuinely believe having both slavery and an industrial revolution wouldn't be even more profitable? The British didn't need an excuse to fight the Muslims they were already at war with

The jesuits fought slavery by practising slavery and the british waited until it was convenient for them to drop the practice then used it as an excuse to go fight the muslims on the ocean, not only losing nothing but actively benefitting from this Ending slavery was a good thing certainly but they did not do it out of altruism or virtue and patting yourself on the back for it won't magically make it more true

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus But they did lmfao, the Jesuits did very explicitly fight to prevent the slavery of the natives, and then another group of Christians, the British, fought to end it worldwide that's the entire point, they did so because of Christianity. No one else did anything

This is the same non commital virtue signalling you tried to lambast the confusians for, they could have taken the virtous road and banned slavery outright and fought to end the institution of slavery but instead they decided "nah this is more convenient and helps us grow our church faster"

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus Yes, they relied on some enslaved people to prevent others from getting enslaved as well In a time when the rest wanted *everyone* enslaved, yes, that gives them a massive high horse

@ShitposterSL @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus So it was alright that they relied on slavery because it was the right race getting enslaved? They outright state their entire society relied on slavery globally, the fact that they only bought black people doesn't make them more virtous either

@Fr0ztfiend @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus Yes, I already said their mission was towards preventing the enslavement of natives, not Africans. Don't repeat what I already said as if that's an argument lmao

@ShitposterSL @Tweet_Ratez @memeticsisyphus So no they did not in fact advocate for ending slavery in the americas, they admit that they fucking RELIED on it to further their missionary and teaching efforts

jesuits.org/our-work/our-r… From their own website which I linked above "The Society of Jesus relied on the labor of enslaved people globally, almost from our founding. In colonial North America, and, over time, in the United States, their involuntary labor helped establish, expand and sustain Jesuit missionary efforts and educational institutions until the abolition of slavery in 1865."