Post Reply
Page 18 of 21  •  Prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Dialog: What is it and why?
2 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 11:39PM #171
happygardener
Posts: 734

jlb:


"Nope-but it was employed by the poorest, most indigent of society so as to keep them from a life of crime or prostitution."


 


 Selling oneself into slavery would have been  a poor way of avoiding prostitution because most prostitutes were slaves or former slaves.. In any case, the great majority of slaves in ancient Rome were captives of Rome's wars around the Mediterranean. The Roman economy depended on an ever increasing number of slaves, which served to keep wages low for working people . Roman citizens could sell their children into slavery, but it was illegal for a citizen to sell oneself.


 


"And I have already brought up that the US as a modern social service safety net for the indigent. Ancient Rome had nothing in comparison and for you to suggest otherwise demonstrateseither your lack of knowledge of ancient history...or a deliberate misrepresentation...people starved to death in the streets...many sold themselves into slavery to avoid this end."


No jlb, it is you needing the history lesson.  Rome's welfare system dated from about 58 BC to the end of the Empire almost 400 years later.  Free and/or low cost grains, bread,  oil,pork, salt and sometimes even wine was distributed to Roman citizens, paid for by the emperor or through taxes on the rich. In a city of about 1million, commodities were distributed to as many as 200,000 to 320,000 at various times. Rome's policy of grain distribution made it dependent on the graneries of Egypt. the distribution attracted the rural poor into the city, and at times encouraged owners to free slaves to make them eligible.  Besides commodities, the emperor also provided access to the games to entertain the populace. (Almost like having free cable, but bloodier.)Ultimately, the cost of the dole became enough of a burden that it has been identified as a significant cause (one of several) for the fall of the Empire.


You know, jlb, if you're going to use this kind of intellectual bullying in your argumentation, it's more effective if you get your facts straight.


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 6:16AM #172
jlb32168
Posts: 13,390

May 14, 2012 -- 3:08PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Let's review. You've told me I'm a rat for throwing an ancient roman out in the streets instead of . . .


Nope.  Since you're misrepresenting my argument, and rather grossly at that, all dialogue with you is over for me.  I read no further than the word "of".


I hope you enjoy your morning.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 6:26AM #173
jlb32168
Posts: 13,390

May 14, 2012 -- 11:39PM, happygardener wrote:

Selling oneself into slavery would have been  a poor way of avoiding prostitution because most prostitutes were slaves or former slaves.


Now your rebuttal is just absurd because I said that many freedmen would be forced to become prostitutes or thieves.  You just supported my point.


May 14, 2012 -- 11:39PM, happygardener wrote:

No jlb, it is you needing the history lesson.  Rome's welfare system dated from about 58 BC to the end of the Empire almost 400 years later.  Free and/or low cost grains, bread,  oil,pork, salt and sometimes even wine was distributed to Roman citizens, paid for by the emperor or through taxes on the rich.


How does this point rebut anything I said?  Most inhabitants of the Roman empire did not live in Rome – assuming they were citizens, which many of them were not.  Either way, they certainly didn't have the social services net that the US had in the mid 19th Century.


The Empire's system certainly couldn't accomodate the sudden abolition of slavery and the millions of freedmen that would suddenly require its services.


May 14, 2012 -- 11:39PM, happygardener wrote:

You know, jlb, if you're going to use this kind of intellectual bullying in your argumentation, it's more effective if you get your facts straight.


Dude, this last point is just hysterical in its irony.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 8:21AM #174
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,748

jlb:



Here is what you DID say, cut and pasted from post 155 (the bolding of certain phrases is mine):



Yes, if I were in ancient Rome and a poor indigent man approached me saying, “I cannot afford my basic necessities and will die in the street if you do not accept me as a slave into your household”, I would accept his offer and provide for him, releasing him upon my death.



You, obviously, would throw him to the wolves.



Then you added more ad homs for good measure. Anyone can read your entire post 155, but they don't have to. What I quoted above is sufficient to see your POV.


YOU did not say you would pay the man for work so that he could save and get out of his situation. You said you would accept his offer, i.e., to be a slave. Only when you died would you release him.


Perhaps you misspoke in post 155. But when you write that you'd accept a person's offer to be a slave in a certain situation, you're saying you're OK with it in certain situations. 


You might not want to go back and see the positions you've taken here, but they are there. You asserted I'd throw the ancient Roman "to the wolves," never once considering I could just as well have taken him into my home and fed him asking nothing in return. Or that I could have given him money to get him out of the situation. No, the only assumption made on your part was that I'd "thow him to the wolves." 


You attacked me by saying I'd throw somebody "to the wolves." Like I said before, water off a duck's back. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 8:32AM #175
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,748

May 14, 2012 -- 4:15PM, SeraphimR wrote:


Thank you for your clarification.  It is 100% clear.


My religious beliefs have nothing to do with noting that the religious fanaticism of abolitionists caused much more suffering than was necessary.  It is analytical thinking, in this case.




Thank you for your reply, but I asked how your religious beliefs inform your views of slavery. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 9:34AM #176
SeraphimR
Posts: 9,794

May 15, 2012 -- 8:32AM, newsjunkie wrote:


May 14, 2012 -- 4:15PM, SeraphimR wrote:


Thank you for your clarification.  It is 100% clear.


My religious beliefs have nothing to do with noting that the religious fanaticism of abolitionists caused much more suffering than was necessary.  It is analytical thinking, in this case.




Thank you for your reply, but I asked how your religious beliefs inform your views of slavery. 




My view of slavery did not change from the irrelgious to religious periods of my life.

People with a mission to save the earth want the earth to seem worse than it is so their mission will look more important.


P.J. O'Rourke
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 9:38AM #177
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,748

May 15, 2012 -- 9:34AM, SeraphimR wrote:


May 15, 2012 -- 8:32AM, newsjunkie wrote:


May 14, 2012 -- 4:15PM, SeraphimR wrote:


Thank you for your clarification.  It is 100% clear.


My religious beliefs have nothing to do with noting that the religious fanaticism of abolitionists caused much more suffering than was necessary.  It is analytical thinking, in this case.




Thank you for your reply, but I asked how your religious beliefs inform your views of slavery. 




My view of slavery did not change from the irrelgious to religious periods of my life.




What factors or influences do inform your views regarding slavery?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 10:27AM #178
SeraphimR
Posts: 9,794

May 15, 2012 -- 9:38AM, newsjunkie wrote:


May 15, 2012 -- 9:34AM, SeraphimR wrote:


May 15, 2012 -- 8:32AM, newsjunkie wrote:


May 14, 2012 -- 4:15PM, SeraphimR wrote:


Thank you for your clarification.  It is 100% clear.


My religious beliefs have nothing to do with noting that the religious fanaticism of abolitionists caused much more suffering than was necessary.  It is analytical thinking, in this case.




Thank you for your reply, but I asked how your religious beliefs inform your views of slavery. 




My view of slavery did not change from the irrelgious to religious periods of my life.




What factors or influences do inform your views regarding slavery?




Marxism. 


I am not a Marxist insofar as I think his political prescriptions are wrongheaded and his materialism incorrect, but I find his analysis of the forces of production and the relations of production to be basically sound.


Or at least I did.  I don't know that I could expound the theory at that competently anymore.


People with a mission to save the earth want the earth to seem worse than it is so their mission will look more important.


P.J. O'Rourke
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 10:38AM #179
jlb32168
Posts: 13,390

May 15, 2012 -- 8:21AM, newsjunkie wrote:

YOU did not say you would pay the man for work so that he could save and get out of his situation. You said you would accept his offer, i.e., to be a slave. Only when you died would you release him.


That presupposes that I have enough money to pay someone a fair wage for an extended period of time, NJ.


I don't.


May 15, 2012 -- 8:21AM, newsjunkie wrote:

Perhaps you misspoke in post 155. But when you write that you'd accept a person's offer to be a slave in a certain situation, you're saying you're OK with it in certain situations.


Were I an ancient Roman in the Roman Empire, I would do what I said I would do.  I don’t think those conditions are repeatable in modern days.


May 15, 2012 -- 8:21AM, newsjunkie wrote:

You might not want to go back and see the positions you've taken here, but they are there. You asserted I'd throw the ancient Roman "to the wolves," never once considering I could just as well have taken him into my home and fed him asking nothing in return. Or that I could have given him money to get him out of the situation. No, the only assumption made on your part was that I'd "thow him to the wolves."


Then wonderful – you are rich and can afford to offer benevolence w/o measure to each and everyone that comes to you for any length of time.


I am not so financially blessed.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 11:00AM #180
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,748

May 15, 2012 -- 10:38AM, jlb32168 wrote:


May 15, 2012 -- 8:21AM, newsjunkie wrote:

YOU did not say you would pay the man for work so that he could save and get out of his situation. You said you would accept his offer, i.e., to be a slave. Only when you died would you release him.


That presupposes that I have enough money to pay someone a fair wage for an extended period of time, NJ.


I don't.


Why not take him in as if he's another member of your family, rather than your slave?


May 15, 2012 -- 8:21AM, newsjunkie wrote:

Perhaps you misspoke in post 155. But when you write that you'd accept a person's offer to be a slave in a certain situation, you're saying you're OK with it in certain situations.


Were I an ancient Roman in the Roman Empire, I would do what I said I would do.  I don’t think those conditions are repeatable in modern days.


That doesn't change the fact that you're saying that in a certain situation(s) slavery would be or was OK.


May 15, 2012 -- 8:21AM, newsjunkie wrote:

You might not want to go back and see the positions you've taken here, but they are there. You asserted I'd throw the ancient Roman "to the wolves," never once considering I could just as well have taken him into my home and fed him asking nothing in return. Or that I could have given him money to get him out of the situation. No, the only assumption made on your part was that I'd "thow him to the wolves."


Then wonderful – you are rich and can afford to offer benevolence w/o measure to each and everyone that comes to you for any length of time.


I am not so financially blessed.




It does not follow that a person who takes in or gives money to another person who is in need must be rich.


Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 18 of 21  •  Prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook