Moral outrage and the U.S. Civil War

[Imran Siddiqui]

To the "slavery wasn't doomed" crowd ... would you buy products you knew were produced via slavery?

In 2015, no? So is your argument that since boycotts (imposed from the outside) would have eventually doomed slavery over 100 years after it was actually abolished through warfare the warfare was not necessary? And you are calling others' arguments repulsive?

Though, I wonder... with our looking the other way on Chinese pseudo-slave labor, if the North let the South go and the South continued slavery would the entirely institution be viewed a bit differently. After all, there is considerable evidence that Brazil ended slavery partially due to it being snuffed out in the US (less states having slavery harms the slave trade significantly). If the CSA and Brazil continued to have slavery, would it be seen as something more like China - regrettable, but nothing we can do. That's an interesting alternative history novel idea.

[giblets]

How many people actually think about labor conditions when they go clothes shopping? I'd guess not very many.

[Aeson]

And places that produce blood diamonds are all backwards. The diamonds themselves are sold at a huge discount by the producer in a way that's actively detrimental to the economy and stability of the producing nation.

And you're still dodging the question. Would you specifically buy products produced via slavery.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And places that produce blood diamonds are all backwards. The diamonds themselves are sold at a huge discount by the producer in a way that's actively detrimental to the economy and stability of the producing nation.

... but they are still sold in massive numbers. Doesn't that show you a massive flaw in your argument?

[giblets]

I wouldn't deliberately buy products that were made by slaves. If a product did involve slave labor at some stage in the production process I don't think the final product would be stamped with a label saying "Made with slave labor!" in order to advertise that fact.

[Aeson]

In 2015, no? So is your argument that since boycotts (imposed from the outside) would have eventually doomed slavery over 100 years after it was actually abolished through warfare the warfare was not necessary? And you are calling others' arguments repulsive?

Again, the "slavery wasn't that bad" crowd avoiding a direct question. Such intellectual dishonesty and cowardice

You are also ignoring what I have said. I have not given a specific timing. I said it's not possible to predict the timing. I also said that the utility calculation wasn't possible to predict whether the war or allowing secession would be more/less harmful. I specifically left room for either case being true.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again, the "slavery wasn't that bad" crowd avoiding a direct question. Such intellectual dishonesty and cowardice

You are also ignoring what I have said. I have not given a specific timing. I said it's not possible to predict the timing. I also said that the utility calculation wasn't possible to predict whether the war or allowing secession would be more/less harmful. I specifically left room for either case being true.

So basically since we can't predict which should be better, the war was worst choice, right? Repulsive.

As for your "answer the strawman question and if you don't I'm going to try to ding you over and over" - what are you Ben Kenobi? I mean his favorite line was "Answer the question"

[Aeson]

... but they are still sold in massive numbers. Doesn't that show you a massive flaw in your argument?

No. It fully supports the argument that the CSA would have been an increasingly backwards place. They would be using an inefficient form of production to reduce their domestic consumer base and devalue their exports.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which, of course, was only the question to YOU... because in the Aesoniverse, that was what the discussion was about.

Basically, you are a slightly more articulate Ben Kenobi and a ********.

[Aeson]

So basically since we can't predict which should be better, the war was worst choice, right? Repulsive.

No, I have not labelled the war as better or worse than the unknown. You are just lying about that.

As for your "answer the strawman question and if you don't I'm going to try to ding you over and over" - what are you Ben Kenobi? I mean his favorite line was "Answer the question"

You're still dodging the question. Pretending that asking a question is always wrong is absurdly stupid of you.

The question illustrates an important concept that even those arguing that slavery wasn't so bad of an economic system would still not want to buy the products of that system. It's a very clear deflationary force that would have contributed to a slave economy CSA becoming a backwards place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, I have not labelled the war as better or worse than the unknown.

If war is no better than other options, it is morally wrong to engage in warfare. So you are admitting you'd go to war if you weren't sure if it was the best option?

[Aeson]

Which, of course, was only the question to YOU... because in the Aesoniverse, that was what the discussion was about.

It was the question I asked you directly, and which you are too afraid to answer.

It is applicable despite your whining to the contrary. Consumer sentiment is an important factor to consider in regards to any business model. It is a very clear deflationary force for a slave economy trying to persist in the face of rising sentiment against slavery.

[Aeson]

If war is no better than other options, it is morally wrong to engage in warfare. So you are admitting you'd go to war if you weren't sure if it was the best option?

I did not say it was no better. I said whether it was better or worse cannot be said. You are claiming that means war was worse, but that's just because you seem to not be able to comprehend what "better or worse" means.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So because my answer was obvious in an indirect manner, you claim victory? What an odious Ben Kenobi like person you are. As if a direct answer to a question is the victory condition? Especially since the question itself is a strawman in the first place based on your twisting of giblets' position.

What is wrong with you? Really, I'm actually serious here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I mean really, you take a group that says slavery could have been economically viable and survive for 80-100 years after it was actually abolished in the US and you refer to it as a "slavery wasn't that bad" group - an intentionally loaded moniker that you know is intentionally loaded.

What is wrong with you? Have you always been this odious of a person and we didn't realize or is this new?