You're using a definition of slave that's so ridiculously narrow that to me it seems obviously ad hoc and that means I don't want to talk to you about this anymore because don't think you're being honest. I think we've reached the point in the conversation where you will say basically anything.
Boston Marathon Explosion - Today's Topics: Public Schools
- Thread starter Kedwyn
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
50 year old women from the rice fields = Chinese yuppies.
I'd say you're done here.
Nope. I'm completely right here. First slave profits were blown by the South on the War, and rebuilding. Then the Great Depression and Dust Bowl wiped out what was left. Modern America is built from the fruits of WW2.
You forgot it also makes you an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
I'm using the DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF THE WORD. Somehow that's "ridiculously narrow".
Its not. The problem is that as defined the word doesn't fit your rhetorical purposes.
Take it up with Merriam Webster, wikipedia et al
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slave
>1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.
TheBeagle
JunkiesNetwork Donor
- 8,937
- 30,977
I'm pretty sure you and Mikhail are in complete agreement there. In fact I think Mikhail makes a lot of decent points, but since he's such a pompous aspie and calls everyone retard 5 times in every post(lol) it gets lost and the argument turns into a meaningless battle of semantics.
Oh?
So if someone can own property, no matter how coerced they are in regards to what they do with their time, they're not a slave. Great. That's a really awesome dictionary definition you've got worked out there. You really seem to have grasped the concept.
I (try to) respond to people exactly how they are to me. If they're civil I'm civil.
TheBeagle
JunkiesNetwork Donor
- 8,937
- 30,977
I hear that bro. Finals week is right around the corner. I've got Genetics/Physics II+lab/Stream Ecology + lab/Capstone Thesis this semester. I've spent about 20 of the last 48 hours with my eyes plastered to a microscope sifting through drift net samples for aquatic insects. Not good times.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Strawman.
If you are not owned, you are not a slave. There is no coercion in Chinese economics. You can work whereever you can get a job, based on your education and your experience, etc. Every single premise you're arguing at this point is false. How does it feel to be so backed into a corner that all you have is this nonsense?
Not good, I know.
Do or do not. There is no try. And we all know you don't try. That's why I've given up all pretenses with you. All you are is a bag of stale regurgitated arguments from dead social scientists.
Headache inducing.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
What does it mean for a car to be owned? For a house? For a horse?
You can uh huh all you want but you can't actually provide a single point of citation showing that Chinese people are being coerced, bought and sold, are owned, or any of this other nonsense you're spewing so thanks for playing kiddo.
I'm asking what are the necessary conditions of ownership and what are the sufficient conditions for not-ownership.
Yeah being rented for bottom dollar because your alternatives are even worse totally isn't a manifestation of coercion.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
And I'm telling you there's 8000 years plus of humans enslaving humans as examples for you to reference. None of them fit China.
Redefinition of the meaning of slavery to fit your rhetorical purposes. Got it.
Chinese people who are educated are paid very well. Chinese people who aren't, are not. Americans who are educated are generally paid well. Those who are not, are not.
Care to find me a place on Earth where this isn't the case?
China's hardest job is providing 25 million new jobs per year to their citizens to meet demand. The "worse" alternative you're talking about was just the NORM for 90% of Chinese citizens up until about 30 years ago, now they have a way out of that, and you call it "being given no other choice".
There's an old saying "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth." You should read up on it.
No they pretty much all fit China. The variance is totally superficial.
Not grasping that chattel slavery doesn't represent the whole of the meaning of "slavery." Got it.
The converse is true as well.
So what? The fact of their desperation is NOT a justification for exploitation. That is the SOURCE of the coercion. It's like saying "look how much nicer picking cotton is than being whipped." Yeah, great.
Gifts don't rob the receiver.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Citation required, your continued assertion has already been refuted on its face, leaving you a blubbering sack of shit in the process.
What definition of slavery includes being paid to work, ownership of property, choice of workplace, choice of marriage partner, etc. again?
Oh that's right it doesn't exist.
Citation required again.
Citation on exploitation. Citation on exploitation equating to slavery. Citation on China being a 17th century slave colony in the modern era. All required.
No, its not, because there is no coercion. The premise you are stating is basically, Chinese people living in rural areas who would have, for the past 8000 years, lived lives of abject poverty doing nothing but tending rice fields for 2-4 decades before dying of a horrible disease are being coerced to work in factories by....being given the opportunity to escape 8000 year old lifestyle of poverty for modernity. Giving people the opportunity to escape poverty in traditional lifestyles for cities and modernity and a chance at a good education is not coercion. Its your redefinition of the words, again, to suit your purposes.
No, that would be your dysphemistic attempt to skew the debate away from facts into your conjured up fantasies again.
Citation required on who is being robbed of what when and why.
It is certainly slavery, just a few paragraphs of Marx is all it takes to show that. I can give you citation after citation, as many as you'd like. 'Owning' someone on a piece of paper isn't allowed anymore, but owning their life, their surplus labor output in almost complete totality, and controlling them by other means than outright force, is slavery. The only real difference is the piece of paper. And this is one reason modern economics is so vulgar and tells us nothing about how things truly are. If you want to use a different word other than slavery, feel free to find one.
edit: And I have yet to respond to your question a few pages back; it'll take an exceptionally long post to get through it.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
And opinion invalidated.
It is most certainly not slavery and if the only justification you have for that claim is to cite 18th century social theorists then guess what?
You're wrong.
1. Citation on any of this being applicable to Chinese citizens (its not)
2. Words mean things. You don't get to just redefine them to fit your desires. War is not peace, and slavery is not freedom. Surplus labor value theory has been discredited for literally decades, by the way. Should probably update your understanding of modern social sciences past the 1800s. Citing Marx on economics is like citing Ales Hrdlicka on phrenology, and Marxist theories, without the century and a half plus of renovation and revision conducted on them by critical and post critical theorists and marxist theorists is as much science and evidence of the facts you want to claim as citing cranial size and the position of foramen on the skull as proof of the inherent genetic differences between races.