• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NAACP issues travel advisory for Florida...

Sand Dancer

Currently catless
With so many successfully owned black business in the state of Florida, I find it comical an organization that is supposed to be looking out for the benefit of black people, are claiming it is dangerous for us there.
If Florida ranks third behind CA and TX, it doesn't lead it, does it? Of course, the states with higher populations, as well as higher populations of minorities, have more businesses.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
If Florida ranks third behind CA and TX, it doesn't lead it, does it? Of course, the states with higher populations, as well as higher populations of minorities, have more businesses.
I didn't say it leads, the headline said that but I think they were referring to per capita. I only said there were a lot of successfully owned black business in the state.
 

Sand Dancer

Currently catless
I didn't say it leads, the headline said that but I think they were referring to per capita. I only said there were a lot of successfully owned black business in the state.
That article title says it leads. Just clarifying. I think that's great though.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I wasn't thinking of that one.
Of course not, but that's nevertheless some of those discussion outside of the classroom. So is telling white people to stay out of the black part of town in small town, rural Indiane because you'll be subject to a battery of violent crime, and to be careful in Detroit because they "have black people."
This is why we just can't depend on or rely on conversations outside of the class. According to some even then we still just shouldn't be talking about race.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Of course not, but that's nevertheless some of those discussion outside of the classroom. So is telling white people to stay out of the black part of town in small town, rural Indiane because you'll be subject to a battery of violent crime, and to be careful in Detroit because they "have black people."
This is why we just can't depend on or rely on conversations outside of the class. According to some even then we still just shouldn't be talking about race.
You might not approve of all discussions
outside of public school classrooms, but
I favor such liberty.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You might not approve of all discussions
outside of public school classrooms, but
I favor such liberty.
I'm not saying ban those discussions, I'm saying they need challenged. As long as ideas like racial superiority/inferiority and concepts like race traitor exists we must teach a better way. And that doesn't begin at home because many homes do not want to hear or discuss a better way.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm not saying ban those discussions, I'm saying they need challenged. As long as ideas like racial superiority/inferiority and concepts like race traitor exists we must teach a better way. And that doesn't begin at home because many homes do not want to hear or discuss a better way.
OK.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
There were many successful black business owners and white collar professions in Tulsa until a bunch of racists killed them.
I'm talking about today; not a hundred years ago.
America had slavery then and still does today.
No. In the 40's and 50's America did not have slaves doing the work illegal immigrants are doing now, and we don't have it today.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm talking about today; not a hundred years ago.

No. In the 40's and 50's America did not have slaves doing the work illegal immigrants are doing now, and we don't have it today.
You would have slaves, based on modern slavery definitions. Australia certainly does. These aren't chattel slaves legally owned by landowners, etc.
Rather they are working under debt bondage, sex trafficking, forced marriage, etc.
I'm not suggesting this is 'the same', merely that when people are talking about First World slavery in modern terms, it's a broader definition than chattel slavery.

In Australia, there are reporting requirements on businesses around this issue, depending on class, etc.

 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You would have slaves, based on modern slavery definitions. Australia certainly does. These aren't chattel slaves legally owned by landowners, etc.
Rather they are working under debt bondage, sex trafficking, forced marriage, etc.
I'm not suggesting this is 'the same', merely that when people are talking about First World slavery in modern terms, it's a broader definition that chattel slavery.

In Australia, there are reporting requirements on businesses around this issue, depending on class, etc.

In America the 13th Amendment bans slavery unless it's a legal punishment. So not only does America have a very high incarceration rate many inmates are sentenced to forced slave labor or are paid sweatshop wages.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In America the 13th Amendment bans slavery unless it's a legal punishment. So not only does America have a very high incarceration rate many inmates are sentenced to forced slave labor or are paid sweatshop wages.
Calling punishment for a crime "slavery" in the
same context as legal private ownership of another
person is overly broad use of the term. Even worse
is fools using "wage slavery" to decry being required
to work to get an employer to pay them money.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
You would have slaves, based on modern slavery definitions. Australia certainly does. These aren't chattel slaves legally owned by landowners, etc.
Rather they are working under debt bondage, sex trafficking, forced marriage, etc.
I'm not suggesting this is 'the same', merely that when people are talking about First World slavery in modern terms, it's a broader definition that chattel slavery.

In Australia, there are reporting requirements on businesses around this issue, depending on class, etc.

Slavery is when a person is owned by another.


Though there are many places in the world where this may be legal, in the United States it is not.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
In America the 13th Amendment bans slavery unless it's a legal punishment. So not only does America have a very high incarceration rate many inmates are sentenced to forced slave labor or are paid sweatshop wages.
Name a Prison system in the United States where prison inmates are actually forced to work against their will? And what will happen to them if they refuse?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Slavery is when a person is owned by another.


Though there are many places in the world where this may be legal, in the United States it is not.

Your link states this:
"... There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined. ..."
So you are proven wrong by your own link. ;)
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Your link states this:
"... There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined. ..."
So you are proven wrong by your own link. ;)
Just because everybody does not agree on the definition does not mean there is no definition. Obviously 100% consensus is not required, otherwise the term slavery becomes meaningless.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Just because everybody does not agree on the definition does not mean there is no definition. Obviously 100% consensus is not required, otherwise the term slavery becomes meaningless.

Or the understand becomes subjective for different definitions.
A different definition is not meaningless as such, it is a different meaning.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Or the understand becomes subjective for different definitions.
A different definition is not meaningless as such, it is a different meaning.
Give an example of how everybody will have their own definition of a word, yet that word remains meaningful.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Give an example of how everybody will have their own definition of a word, yet that word remains meaningful.

Google what is religion and look at the different definitions and e.g. compare a simple dictionary one with say this one:

I mean I can even go deep and find a philosophy of religion definition that is meaningless to you and meaningful to me.
It is not that everybody as individuals have different definitions. It is that definitions are in some cases a result of limited cognitive, cultural and moral relativism.
You are on a forum for which all the members are not from your culture and even you are not the culture for the USA. You as I are in effect different results of nature and nurture with some overlap, but only some.
 
Top