>My character is a good aligned slave owner
Oh look, it's that thread about cultural relativity again. This is a new and exciting discussion.
What if it's the person selling themselves into slavery for money or to pay a debt, for a number of years as per a contract, and are free upon expiration? Both parties are consenting.
>>46707423
Sounds like student loans.
Yes. Yes he is.
He buys slaves from shitty owners then makes them pay off their life debt to him, turning him a profit with which he buys more slaves that'd otherwise go to the sacrificial breeding pits of Lamashtu (Now with 60% more Gnoll rape and Mind break!)
He can't free them off the bat because then he'd be broke.
He's not powerful enough to change the system, yet.
What's the point of this thread?
>>46707423
Not technically slavery then, that's known as indentured servitude.
>>46707446
Not entirely true, there is slavery that existed just like that. It was pretty prominent in Roman times for example, and they definitely were slaves rather than indentured servants which also existed but were distinctly different.
>>46707415
Are you saying than the Pater Patriae George Washington was not of good alignement?
>>46707415
This never happened ever in the Roman Empire? Hell, there were laws on how to treats said slaves back then.
>>46707644
You can trace it back to pre-Solon greece, even.
>tfwHe owed slaves as well, you know
>>46707415
That immortal guy ended up dating a black chick, so it works out in the end
>>46707415
Anon, the alignment system is so fucked that trying to make any sense OR non-sense out of it is fucking pointless.
The only proper way to approach it is from a heroic point of view. As in, "Achilles and Agamemnon had a giant tantrum-fight because Agamemnon wanted Achilles' sex-slave" heroic. People are good if they were thought of as good in the culture your character is playing in (e.g. not!Homeric Greece). Otherwise, the system just doesn't work.
>>46707415
I'm fairly certain "Slave Owner" isn't a class in any edition of D&D. Are you using third party supplements, you little shit?
>>46707415
It's all relative and OP is a faggot
>>46707446
You have no idea what slavery is.
>>46707780
It's not relative, it just doesn't exist.
>>46707762
Thrallherd maybe?
>>46707716
He also wanted to get rid of them and abolish slavery but knew better than to open that can of worms so early in America's life as a country. He did have them freed in his will though.
>>46707811
>He did have them freed in his will though.
This was a common thing in *Rome*, anon.
>>46707832
And?
>>46707859
Rome is not well known for its upstanding defence of modern moral values.
>>46707864
Which has what to do with the topic of George Washington?
>>46707893
Anon said it as if having slaves freed in your will makes you a progressive superhero.
>>46707811
> Man I really wish people didn't own slaves.
> Such a shame I can't do without them. Oh well.
People who had principles about slavery didn't own slaves.
>>46707934
Oh yes, they did. They might not have called them slaves, but...
>>46707802
"Any Alignment", so I don't think it fits OPs complaint. Pretty sure it just calls for those who actually want to follow someone like the PC.
The Bible doesn't say slavery is wrong, so what's the problem?
>>46707934
I don't know, I don't want people to live miserably but man, those china prices. Love them.
>>46707934
>Lawful Stupid, the post
>>46707959
The Bible isn't the entirety of Christianity, and Christianity isn't the entirety of the world.
>>46707934
>>46707969
Ever heard the term "hypocrisy"?
>>46707832
Romans get far too much shit for their slave practices. Yeah, they held slaves, but their slaves were also generally freed after a certain period of service aka years, and their descendants could become free citizens in generation or so. How do people think Rome became so huge and multicultural in the first place? It sure as fuck wasn't exclusively because of patrician families alone.
>>46708023
I'm giving them shit for their everything practices.
>>46708016
>I really want to get rid of X
>Getting rid of X right now would do more harm than good
>As a result I'm not going to get rid of X and try my hardest to make the best of the situation while avoiding worse outcomes
>HYPOCRISY!
>Live in society where economic conditions make slavery necessary (ie. most historical agricultural societies, inb4 "serfs don't count because of some semantic technicality")
>Have slaves as a result
>Don't be a dick about it
>??????
>PROFIT
Further, it is entirely possible that a good-aligned character has a personal understanding of cosmology akin to that common in medieval Europe, sometimes referred to as "the old deal," wherein everything has a preordained place on earth. So long as everyone does their job, the organic machinery of society will improve every person's life. In that case, it's probably morally neutral to own a slave, especially if the setting is one in which no slavery means you'd fucking die.
>Huge orc raids weekly
>Require slavery to work land to feed knights or paladins or whatever
>Slave would either be dead, or worse, if not part of this system
tl;dr deal with it nerd, slavrery is GOOD
>>46707969
Not really. Serfs, for example, were basically slaves in all but name.
>>46708068
> Slavery is bad, I don't think people should own slaves.
> I'm gonna own slaves though.
> I'm a good person though, because I think it's bad, even though I do it.
>>46708068
How would not owning slaves cause more harm than good?
>>46708088
As were many industrial age workers.
>>46708091
>completely ignoring the social and political climate of the era and the historical context of which the situation is taking place in
Typical autist.
>>46708091
George Washington created a country. What have you done with your life?
>>46708091
>Completely disregarding the key "make the best of the situation," part
>Actually believing this sort of absolutist thinking is in any way practical
>>46708074
People also forget that a land owner had a DUTY to remind his peasants from time to time who was boss and to whom they owned allegiance to because he was protecting them from everyone else. It wasn't part of some default "let's be dicks to our property" mentality, it was required by they genuinely believed it served a purpose and kept the society going.
>>46708102
>How would not owning slaves cause more harm than good?
Because the fucking civil war you retard. George Washington didn't abolish slavery at the time of his presidency because he knew states would secede and even if they didn't the newly-made country needed to build up an economy and infrastructure to support itself without them. You can't just look at things in absolutes.
>>46708115
Ad hominem please.
>>46708114
>>46708125
It's not like some of his revolutionary fellows set their slaves free or anything.
>>46708114
The campaign to abolish slavery began years before Washington was President.
They didn't own slaves.
Please tell me how Washington was forced to own slaves.
>>46707415
This is why you hire necromancers to make you an army of skellingtons and zombies. I'm sure slaves would drop the MUH ANCESTORS attitude if you declare you're setting them all free as a result.
>>46708125
>"make the best of the situation,"
Making the best of the situation is not owning slaves.
You don't make the best of the situation in Brazil's favelas by fucking children.
>>46708135
Reading isn't your strong suit, huh?
>>46708126
>land owner takes what he wants from peasants because "muh protection money"
>if he wasn't there someone else would take over which most likely wouldn't be any harsher on the peasants
>only reason outsiders raid them is because they can't do the same thing to them that the lord is already doing since the lord stops them
The peasants were just unlucky and caught in the middle of the elite's power struggles. Nothing but a regular protection racket.
>>46708115
>George Washington created a country
>>46707474
This, in Africa Muslim incursions had long made slavery the norm before white men got involved, it was actually quite hard to fight it as many preferred slavery as in the Arab world it was not seen as being the same, slave was more of an origin, a slave could rise all the way o the top.
For women slavery was mostly easy, it was domestic and unlike in the west Africans/Arabs did not go all out working their slaves, they were more easygoing and in many professions shared the same hardships and allowed their slave to take on side jobs to buy his freedom.
Military slaves were common for men, Colonel Gordon wrote about a bunch of guys wandering up to some slavers, selling themselves as military slaves then turning around and buying their own slaves to caddy for them.
Simply put slave was often short hand for origins unknown etc. A slave could become a governor or the lover of a king, there was no taboo about a master/his family interacting with/living alongside slaves.
>>46707423
Sounds like Mass Effect, on Elisium.
>>46708173
>You don't make the best of the situation in Brazil's favelas by fucking children.
Says you.
>>46707632
>>46707716
>>46707811
I dunno, teeg, his treatment of Ona Judge after she escaped was pretty uncool. Plus the fact that he flouted the Gradual Abolition Act in Philly when it was the capital.
>>46708173
Of course, not. You burn them first.
>>46708184
>This is what historically illiterate communists actually fucking believe
Man, I hope you experience some grade A medieval-style genocide. A "protection racket" might start to sound like a good idea.
Besides,
OPTION A)
>Work land all day, take food for family, get killed by heretics
OPTION B)
>Work land all day, work 3 weeks per year for lord, do not get killed by heretics
Peasants had a good deal. Even slaves got to eat instead of dying so that wasn't so bad either.
>>46708190
sadly everyone just looks at american slavery system as a standard. which is hilarious because at its core it was african nignogs selling other less fortunate african nignongs into slavery.
>>46708213
Ah, libertarians.
>>46708223
I guess that's why Libtards to this day think watching Thai CP is totally fine.
>>46708213
Things at least started looking up for peasants when mercenaries and other professional armies finally took over from peasant levies.
>>46708240
I have never heard a liberal say that, anon.
Are you sure you're not living in a hugbox?
>>46708213
Of course, peasants who try to live for themselves are heretics.
>>46708102
>How would not owning slaves cause more harm than good?
Every slave he owned and treated decently is one who wasn't bought by some bullwhip-toating, rape-happy dickhead.
"I'd rather they not be slaves at all, but if that's not feasible at the very least I can treat them better than others would" is perfectly sound logic.
>>46708213
What heretics are you referring to in this case? What people were slaughtered if they put up no resistance? Whether it be the Assyrians or the Mongols, they didn't kill or shit up the lives of those who didn't resist them.
>>46708263
No it isn't. That's shit logic. Why not make legal standards? There's only so many people you can enslave.
I'm as realist as it gets, but that's why I'm not anti-slavery (specifically) as a concept. Because slavery is just another name for what actually matters.
>>46708276
Hussites, German peasants -- you know, common folk who realise they can hold a spear by themselves. And coincidentally realise the Pope is full of shit.
>>46708223
The difference lies in the levels of ethical education the societies had received, as well as the amount of power granted to those "nignogs" who accommodated those who bought slaves, and the hammer that came down on those who resisted.
>>46708256
>Of course, peasants who try to live for themselves are heretics.
Yes, only heretics would do that. God said not to. :^)
>>46708276
The first example that comes to mind. RIP sweet, sweet non-denominational prince.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
>>46708256
"Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally," Ruwart wrote. "When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will."
Can Libertarians Go Mainstream - TIME Magazine, 2008
Excerpt from 1999 book, "Short Answers to the Tough Questions", by Mary Ruwart.
She was the leading candidate for the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nomination.
> MFW CP should be legal, because the alternatives are "worse"
BTFO
>>46707415
>My character is a good aligned slave owner
BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
...eh, no.
>>46708310
Anon, libtard refers to liberals. Not right-wing libertarians.
>>46708263
> Every slave he owned and treated decently is one who wasn't bought by some bullwhip-toating, rape-happy dickhead.
Freemen existed at the time and were successful people. Your argument is invalid.
>>46708301
I've always wondered if Crusades in general would've worked out better if they didn't put entitled nobles with probably zero people skills in charge of them. You can imagine them getting all uppity with newly conquered territory and people, only to wonder HOW DARE THEY TURN AGAINST US?!? or some similar idiocy.
>>46708325
I've seen it used for both.
I was referring to Libertarians.
>>46707644
Slavery has always had plenty of room for abuse, but it only took on its supremely nasty overtones in the US due to interslave politics (there were white and black slaves of varying status at the same time, so it was convenient for some people for them to hate each other).
Dunno if I'd want to be a slave in the classical era, but it probably on average wasn't that bad. They were mostly fed and had a path to freedom. Outside of tricky shit, it was probably no worse than being a third-world, bottom-tier wageslave is today.
>>46708263
>I can treat them better than others would
By NOT OWNING THEM
>>46708330
Nobles were raised to be people-people. They had shit logistics because all wars had shit logistics. All wars *do* have shit logistics.
>>46708338
I've never heard it for libertarians, but either way, there's a reason I deliberately said "liberals" in the post you replied to.
>>46708330
To be honest, that Crusade was like 50% just "let's steal some land that's currently not defended particularly well due to historical circumstances." I forget what happened and I'm too tired to skim the wiki article right now, but someone died or whatever and it wasn't defended that well. They then used the excommunication as a pretext for invasion (allowed to invade any excommunicated dude's shit).
But there were lots of other examples, Baltic Crusades have a few cases of random slaughter, for example. There are plenty of examples in Asia and Africa but I can't remember the proper names at the moment.
>>46708338
It's lolbergs, m8. "lol" because lol@NAP and "berg" for obvious reasons.
>>46708346
It was generally a damn sight better than being free and poor, unless you're a philosopher or something.
>>46708346
It was worse, but mostly because of bad living standards/technology in general. You'd be lucky to live past thirty-five.
And that's taking child mortality into account.
>>46708355
>Nobles were raised to be people-people.
yeah, with other nobles. everyone else was expected to bend backwards for them.
>>46708163
Making an overt show of support for the abolition movement would drag the politics of that issue into the independence movement, dividing his support into +Independence+Freedom vs +Independence-Freedom camps. It would also have split the abolition movement as well by alienating those who were loyal to Britain but opposed slavery. This would have weakened the entire revolution with infighting.
Washington was a landowner, and his social station carried certain expectations. These expectations were subject to yet greater scrutiny due to his prominence in the independence movement. Simply choosing not to own slaves would in itself have been an endorsement of abolition, while owning them but treating them well simply maintained a neutral status quo, lending implicit support to neither side.
>>46708350
If he didn't buy them, someone else would, and they'd treat them worse.
Welcome to reality.
>>46708330
Firstly, Crusades in general? They were extremely different from each other. Albigensian Crusade only really has the name and the sponsor in common with the Baltic Crusades and THE Crusades.
Secondly, what do you mean "probably zero people skills"? The ones who led them generally had great people skills. Hard to lead an army without that. One may add that the newly conquered people didn't turn against them either. Muslims in the Crusader states were pretty well off and content in the main, according to Muslim sources. They didn't lose because they were overthrown by some popular uprising there. They lost because they were beaten militarily by a superior force with better logistics and (by that time) better leadership. Still impressive they lasted as long as they did. They didn't do that by being idiots.
Thirdly, there were non-noble crusaders. They were idiots who got slaughtered because they had great people skills and no tactical sense.
>>46708350
Yeah, let's release the nigs in pre-civil war Murika, I'm sure it will work out for them. After all, they won't get shot by some redneck for the crime of existing. Not will they get enslaved again by anyone. Justice will certainly protect them from ill-intentioned whites, you know?
>>46708297
Well, I was generalizing pretty heavily. And it still resembles a protection racket, and if anything just reinforces my point: that those offering you "protection" were just as willing to fuck you up as those they said they were protecting you against were.
>>46708327
>>46708350
If you refrain from purchasing them, they remain slaves are will instead be sold to others, who may treat them badly.
If you purchase and release them, you will shortly find yourself bankrupt. Washington was already involved in a revolution that had a budget of half a frayed shoestring; he had no money to spare for making an ideological statement on another issue entirely. To do so would jeopardize both causes by attracting attention without aiding with substance.
>>46708382
Not if they were freed you fucking idiot.
>>46708379
The clergy? The bankers? The free city people in general? Hell, if they were smart (and many were) they had to maintain a good rapport with the village aldermen too. They were not equals but ignoring inferiors was never considered a good tactic.
I think you may be confusing medieval nobility with early modern nobility. When nobles moved from the castles and estates to the royal court they indeed ended up being out of touch with their subjects (with plenty of notable exceptions, but still as a general rule) and eventually reality. Proper feudal nobility, for all of its many flaws, generally could not afford to just ignore the subjects. Soem did and paid a heavy price.
>>46708419
> If you refrain from purchasing them, they remain slaves are will instead be sold to others, who may treat them badly.
By that logic it's okay to pay child pornographers for webcam shows.
>>46707801
Your face doesn't exist.
>>46708427
By who, you bloody cretin?
>>46708396
I agree with most of what you said, but
>best logistics
in this case basically means "lived nearby instead of a fucklong distance away, and knew where water holes were." Keep in mind how a massive quantity of crusaders died on the journey, one way or another. (RIP Frederick I)
>>46708440
Your mum doesn't exist.
>>46708404
>Yeah, let's release the nigs in pre-civil war Murika, I'm sure it will work out for them. After all, they won't get shot by some redneck for the crime of existing.
Oooh where to start...
1) don't but slaves and you won't be owning any or have to deal with this conundrum,
2) if your going to release slaves, do it on the NORTHERN side of the Mason Dixon line.
3) the anti-black racism in the south is your own damn fault, (yes you heard me, racism toward blacks was created as part of the logical back-flips they did to justify owning slaves without admitting to being terrible people, because even in their own time slavery was considered immoral by the rest of the western world)...
>>46708457
Your mum's husband doesn't exist when he's at work.
>>46708427
Yeah, because people in general cared a lot about the rights of the free black people back then.
>>46708450
You're not disagreeing with me on this one either. Yeah, that was most of their logistical superiority right there.
>>46708427
So he should bankrupt himself to aid a few dozen people in the short term? Keep in mind that simply buying and freeing slaves does less than nothing to stop slavery; you're actually providing the slavers with more business, without actually sating the demand for cheap labor driving the industry. A single man cannot help the cause of abolition by freeing his slaves unless he convinces others to do so, and Washington could not take up that banner without affecting the cause of revolution.
>>46708469
>2) if your going to release slaves, do it on the NORTHERN side of the Mason Dixon line.
Because I'm sure northerners welcomed all the slaves coming in taking their low-paying jobs. Despite the propaganda which pegged them that way, Union wasn't all that for accepting former slaves due to economic reasons.
>>46707415
>My character is good, but kills monsters and other creatures of evil alignment
You cannot be good if you deny the will of other sentient beings. If the nazi ask you if you are hiding jews in the basement, you must tell the truth. Thank you based Kant, for showing us the way.
>>46708469
Realise people are still taking about Washington?
Or are you to busy insulting southerners for being southerners?
>>46708409
>protection racket
I think you are doing the common mistake of confusing of a protection racket (non-legal promise to protect a client with violence for a fee) with an extortion racket (non-legal scheme to force others to pay you to avoid using violence on them). Easy mistake to make as many extortion rackets shown in media are disguised as fake protection rackets.
>>46708469
>Racism was created a couple centuries ago
>>46708437
Webcam shows are not a consumable resource; you cannot prevent someone else from viewing by buying up all the tickets yourself.
Slaves, however, are exclusively purchased. A slave you buy is a slave noone else can buy. You can therefore attempt to exclude others from owning slaves by reducing the number of slaves available to them.
This is especially relevant to slavery, because a compassionate buyer might take care to preserve families by purchasing them together, where they otherwise might be sold off piecemeal, never to see each other again.
>>46708114
>>46708115
>>46708125
>americans unironically defending slavery AND hypocrisy
If he hated slavery, why didn't he free his slaves and employ them as servants or workers? Was he afraid they would quit?
>>46708471
Correct. Husbands are spooks.
>>46708537
He's right. Racism *as we know it* was created a few centuries ago.
>>46707790
Slavery is nothing less or more than the ownership of a person, allowing for them to be sold or bought as property.
Debt slavery - where the slave is a slave to pay off a loan or something similar - could arguably become 'not-slavery' provided you had a couple of (Admittedly unlikely) qualifiers.
If the slave in question is willing and without coercion, if they are being paid a reasonably amount for their labor (of the amount of time they are being held as a slave is reasonable), have protections in place to prevent the abuse of a master and an assurance that more debt cannot be added on as time goes by - i'd say with enough clarifications you'd eventually end up with something that could no longer be described as slavery.
At what point does slavery become nothing more than a very strict work contract?
Which is not to say its a good idea - itd be far too open to abuses and basically would only work well as long as everyone was honest and stuck to their word - but if you only use one word for slavery and make it all equivalent then you end up seriously misunderstanding history.
For example, see the comparison between slavery in greece - where slaves were more like a social class akin to feudal peasants and who could buy their own freedom - and slavery in colonial times - where slaves were more like cattle than anything.
>>46708516
Seems that way. I'm not a native speaker of English. Extortion racket sounds more accurate.
And it seems I fucked up the linking as well, go me. >>46708409
was meant for >>46708301
Refusing to pay tithe was even a major reason for the violence against the Albigensians, according to the Wikipage you linked. So that sound quite a lot like an extortion racket.
>>46708591
>Americans unironically being reasonable and historically literate
>Europoors being insufferable leftist faggots
FTFY
>>46707415
If he inherited them and is planning on releasing them, then it's okay.
>>46708540
To actually make an impact on the slave economy, you'd need to be the equivalent to a modern billionaire. Slaves were never cheap to buy and every one is another mouth to feed (Which is why some slaveowners furnished their slaves with fishing or hunting equipment to supplement their own diets).
George Washington was not a billionaire-equivalent and couldn't have afforded to do that on a meaningful scale.
>>46708615
>Americans claiming their Founding Father lived a morally defensible life just because it would've been financially difficult for him not to be immoral
I forget that a person can't be bad for doing bad if doing good would inconvenience him financially.
>>46708657
>Using modern morality to judge people from other times in history
>>46708615
So liberalism and abolitionism is leftist? Okay. I guess I'll take the label then.
You can meanwhile feel justified in keeping a human being in bondage because your comfort overrides your decency.
>>46708643
Good is good even if others keep doing bad. If nobody does good because they think others will stay bad, then nobody will ever start doing good.
>>46708437
That logic doesn't stand at all.
The goal is "prevent bad treatment of these people." Abolition is the ideal widescale method of meeting that end, but on an individual scale buying slaves and treating them well also serves to advance the primary goal. Abolition is a means towards the end of bettering human treatment, not an end in itself, and possesses virtue only because slavery is considered inimical to quality of life. In turn, slavery is considered inimical to quality of life only because the slave has no recourse to address wrongful treatment, which is not a trait inalienable from the idea of slavery in the abstract. This has been noted repeatedly upthread in the context of Greece and Rome, who established legal protections on the rights of slaves to redress wrongful treatment.
In the context of child porn, the goal is "prevent abuse of children." The existence of the Webcam show at all expressly runs counter to that goal, so nothing that fails to address the existence of the show will address the primary goal. The only context in which paying for access is acceptable is if doing so allows you to shut down the show, such as by purchasing access for the purpose of tracing their location.
>who are the romans
>>46707951
A slave who is a slave in all but name is still a slave...
>>46708657
At this point the argument will just be circular.
>>46708674
Going "fuck I h8 racist bastards in the past" and raging over it is leftist behavior, yes.
>>46708591
See >>46708381
He balanced the demands of two causes the best he could.
>>46708672
The idea of abolishing slavery did exist back then, anon. Washington was even for the idea, he just wasn't ready to practice it. That's what we're talking about here.
>>46708591
>If he hated slavery, why didn't he free his slaves and employ them as servants or workers? Was he afraid they would quit?
Because unfortunately there was no guarantee, and little to no chance, that a freed slave would remain free so long as the institution continued to exist.
>>46708699
Abolishing slavery doesn't mean treating them as equals. If he had freed the slaves, you'd be raging against the fact that he didn't give them the vote or remove segregation or the built in justice system prejudices against them.
>>46708698
Alright, point taken. That is indeed a solid justification, assuming it was the real reason. Thanks for clearing that up.
>>46708499
but they wouldn't stop them from continuing north to Canada either, and actually more than a few freed and/or escaped slaves did find a better life in the northern states, Fredrick Douglass just to name one.
>>46708643
Have you ever heard the story about the old man throwing starfish into the sea?
The beach is covered in drying and dying starfish after a storm, and an old man is walking along the beach picking up one at a time and hurling them back into the water. A passerby asks him "Why even bother? For every starfish you throw back, another one washes up on the beach. What difference does it make?"
The old man ignores him for a moment to pick up another starfish. As he throws it into the waves, he turns and replies" It made a difference to that one."
>>46708746
I'm not really raging at all, I'm not nearly naive enough for that. I don't expect anyone to be a beacon of perfect ethical conduct. I'm just saying that he was, morally speaking, not perfect.
>>46708699
See, I have this cute friend, she's all for the idea of faithful monogamous relationship, she's just not ready to practice it...
>>46708780
Gimme her number and I'll straighten her out.
>>46708772
Not when that one is then washed right back up because he threw it directly onto an incoming wave.
>>46708746
>that he didn't give them the vote or remove segregation or the built in justice system prejudices against them.
well all of these things do kind of go against the principle of people being equal before Law, but none of it has been brought up. The question was pretty simple and only regarded slavery. You just really want to hate someone so you build strawmen to throw pitchforks at.
>>46708817
People being equal before the law doesn't apply to beings that don't count as complete people in the eyes of the law. Such as Africans before slavery was abolished.
>All these slutes have never heard of moral realism
>yfw in a generation or so people will seriously be campaigning to change the name of things (even the state and the capital) named after washington because he owned slaves.
>>46709125
Don't worry, if anything, there will be people seriously campaigning to change the name of things named after washington because he was straight white male.
>>46708813
Clearly you are missing the point.
>>46709169
Creating a cycle of financial suicide and false hope is a bad point to make.
>>46709187
well this post is certainly dripping with teenage cynicism. Let me guess, you're in your first year of college and believe you have EVERYTHING figured out about how the world 'really' works, right?
>>46709187
You're right, they never should have been set free.
>>46709237
Imagine that story about the starfish, but every time the old man picked one up, it cost him as much as a new car. And the tide is coming in.
>>46709255
Yep, I was right.
teenage cynicism at it's 'finest'.
>>46709237
>>46709273
"Teenage cynicism"? Really? That's the best you've got. Well, okay then.
But I'm glad you weren't around in Washington's time. I'd hate to see you go bankrupt trying to buy and free slaves.
>>46709294
Nobody suggested Washington should buy slaves for the purpose of freeing them (as far as I'm aware, may have missed a few posts), nor is this hypothetical old man implied to be a rich landowner in the vein of Washington. Also, the point was to debunk the argument "it's pointless to try to do good if others don't follow my example".
>>46709359
The point is that your idea of doing good (Freeing the slaves) wouldn't actually do good. There were absolutely no protections for freed slaves. They could and often would be captured by slave hunting posses who won't care or believe them when they say they were legally freed and not escapees.
"It is a poor thing, to enslave another."
>>46709398
We're not saying he should have abolished slavery, just that he would've been capable of freeing and providing for his own slaves. I mean, he could've educated them, found employment for them. A lot of work and very costly, to be sure, but then again we're not denying the fact that it would've inconvenienced him, just that failure to act morally just because it costs you doesn't make it less immoral. Or in the case of wanting to abolish slavery but not even freeing your own personal slave, less hypocritical. These don't make him a thoroughly shitty person or anything, it just means he wasn't completely moral. Few are.
>>46707415
>my post is one line of greentext
Can I be a good aligned amazon?
>>46709273
Millennial delusion at its finest.
>>46707415
>my game uses alignments
>>46707434
>he plays in Golarion
>>46709908
>playing a female
