Well this has to go down as one of the most dumbest and crack pot things I have ever heard

But did not humans domesticate dogs, before having slaves????
Also what is the situation then for Asian and Black dog owners?

I seriously dispair at the lunacy of some people

It's a very stupid thing to say, but I do wonder whether people haven't been enslaving one another since the dawn of humanity. Or at least since the discovery of agriculture.

Danielle’s obviously an apologist who’s guilty for being a white person.
Poor girl.

I think domesticating dogs came before slaves, although if clans fought clans for hunting areas they could well have done both at the same time, at least women and children would have probably been forcibly taken into another clan in a successful raid.
She doesn't seem to know much about dogs and their indulgent carers.

Vintage wrote:I think domesticating dogs came before slaves, although if clans fought clans for hunting areas they could well have done both at the same time, at least women and children would have probably been forcibly taken into another clan in a successful raid.
She doesn't seem to know much about dogs and their indulgent carers.

I totally agree with your last sentence, Vintage.

Ben Reilly wrote:It's a very stupid thing to say, but I do wonder whether people haven't been enslaving one another since the dawn of humanity. Or at least since the discovery of agriculture.

Since the invention of capitalism, it's much more subtle.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It's a very stupid thing to say, but I do wonder whether people haven't been enslaving one another since the dawn of humanity. Or at least since the discovery of agriculture.

Since the invention of capitalism, it's much more subtle.

Oh yeah. I hate the argument that capitalists make, that wage-slave workers voluntarily accepted their shitty jobs. Nobody takes a shitty job unless all alternatives are even worse.

Then again, rich people do tend to have a hard time understanding the things people will put themselves through when they're faced with homelessness, starving, etc.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Since the invention of capitalism, it's much more subtle.

Oh yeah. I hate the argument that capitalists make, that wage-slave workers voluntarily accepted their shitty jobs. Nobody takes a shitty job unless all alternatives are even worse.

Then again, rich people do tend to have a hard time understanding the things people will put themselves through when they're faced with homelessness, starving, etc.

"Let them eat cake."

In Jeffery Epstein you are seeing how trickle down economics really works. $77-million in the home safe as escape money, the rest to fund an underage-girl prostitution ring.

He tried to explain trickle down economics to Trump, but Trump totally missed the concept. Trump tried his own version in a hotel room in Moscow.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It's a very stupid thing to say, but I do wonder whether people haven't been enslaving one another since the dawn of humanity. Or at least since the discovery of agriculture.

Since the invention of capitalism, it's much more subtle.

Oh yeah. I hate the argument that capitalists make, that wage-slave workers voluntarily accepted their shitty jobs. Nobody takes a shitty job unless all alternatives are even worse.

Then again, rich people do tend to have a hard time understanding the things people will put themselves through when they're faced with homelessness, starving, etc.

Not ALL rich people...because not ALL rich people are evil, heartless bastards.

And some rich people started off piss poor. There’s a novel thought.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It's a very stupid thing to say, but I do wonder whether people haven't been enslaving one another since the dawn of humanity. Or at least since the discovery of agriculture.

Since the invention of capitalism, it's much more subtle.

Oh yeah. I hate the argument that capitalists make, that wage-slave workers voluntarily accepted their shitty jobs. Nobody takes a shitty job unless all alternatives are even worse.

Then again, rich people do tend to have a hard time understanding the things people will put themselves through when they're faced with homelessness, starving, etc.

Not ALL rich people...because not ALL rich people are evil, heartless bastards.

And some rich people started off piss poor. There’s a novel thought.

Yeah, didn't mean ALL rich people. Some rich people have hearts of gold.

But very few people go from piss-poor to rich -- even if you look into the backgrounds of actors and actresses, who make up the majority of rags-to-riches stories, you find so many who were born well-off. Hollywood loves to hire rich people's children, because that makes it easier to fund their movies.

And plenty of people get rich and forget where they came from, of course.

People get rich and forget where they came from...hell yeah! They’re busy enjoying the money they made.

People are just human and simply want to enjoy their lives. If I struck rich tomorrow would I go straight ahead and help the poor first? Fuck no. I’d spoil my family and friends and have a bloody good time.

Let’s not forget most people just want to be happy and not tired all the time from working hard to make a pittance.

eddie wrote:People get rich and forget where they came from...hell yeah! They’re busy enjoying the money they made.

People are just human and simply want to enjoy their lives. If I struck rich tomorrow would I go straight ahead and help the poor first? Fuck no. I’d spoil my family and friends and have a bloody good time.

Let’s not forget most people just want to be happy and not tired all the time from working hard to make a pittance.

Which is basically the point I was trying to make about how bullshit it is to say that people have a choice as to what job they take, or to say it's their fault they're working at a shitty job. People will do just about anything to avoid being destitute. I hardly call shitty-job-vs.-being-destitute a choice.

Okay well that wasn’t my point. My point was about rich people being portrayed as uncaring and pointing out that most people who come into money suddenly aren’t going to suddenly become Patron Saint of The Poor...

Because really, why should they? Rich people are humans. I think some people may forget that.

eddie wrote:Okay well that wasn’t my point. My point was about rich people being portrayed as uncaring and pointing out that most people who come into money suddenly aren’t going to suddenly become Patron Saint of The Poor...

Because really, why should they? Rich people are humans. I think some people may forget that.

But do you have to be the patron saint of the poor to remember how to treat people decently?

I'm not saying people who either are rich or who become rich should just start flinging fistfuls of their money at the poor.

But when they hire people for lower-level positions in their companies, they could pay a bit of attention to the cost of living, and at least pay their employees what they need to get by.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay well that wasn’t my point. My point was about rich people being portrayed as uncaring and pointing out that most people who come into money suddenly aren’t going to suddenly become Patron Saint of The Poor...

Because really, why should they? Rich people are humans. I think some people may forget that.

But do you have to be the patron saint of the poor to remember how to treat people decently?

I'm not saying people who either are rich or who become rich should just start flinging fistfuls of their money at the poor.

But when they hire people for lower-level positions in their companies, they could pay a bit of attention to the cost of living, and at least pay their employees what they need to get by.

That’s a fair enough post, I tend to find no fault in your statements but I will just say this:
I have no idea what it costs to run a profiting company and what I would need to do to keep it running whilst still running a big house and making sure my kids got the best education and great holidays....

Sometimes we, as humans, make great sweeping assumptions about how other people live and until we live it, we have no clue as to what it really takes.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay well that wasn’t my point. My point was about rich people being portrayed as uncaring and pointing out that most people who come into money suddenly aren’t going to suddenly become Patron Saint of The Poor...

Because really, why should they? Rich people are humans. I think some people may forget that.

But do you have to be the patron saint of the poor to remember how to treat people decently?

I'm not saying people who either are rich or who become rich should just start flinging fistfuls of their money at the poor.

But when they hire people for lower-level positions in their companies, they could pay a bit of attention to the cost of living, and at least pay their employees what they need to get by.

That’s a fair enough post, I tend to find no fault in your statements but I will just say this:
I have no idea what it costs to run a profiting company and what I would need to do to keep it running whilst still running a big house and making sure my kids got the best education and great holidays....

Sometimes we, as humans, make great sweeping assumptions about how other people live and until we live it, we have no clue as to what it really takes.

Thanks -- and to be fair, I'm talking more about the people who pay themselves tens of millions every year, while paying poverty-rate wages and periodically laying off thousands of employees simply to fatten their bottom line, rather than the relatively well-off small business owners trying to make sure their children have it a bit better than they did.

For me, this topic just underscores the biggest flaw I see with capitalism -- that while everyone should have the right to work hard and provide for themselves and their families, capitalism can't promise there will be enough jobs to go around, or that you can ever work hard enough to get by.

There's plenty I like about capitalism, which is why I wouldn't abolish it -- but there are big flaws, which I think are best addressed by the government stepping in to help (aka "socialism").

Fair enough. Just had to make sure I was fair. You know me...a walking Scales Of Justice.

eddie wrote:Fair enough. Just had to make sure I was fair. You know me...a walking Scales Of Justice.

Yes, and now let's bring this topic back to "are dogs stand-in slaves for white people?" I think if that was true, you wouldn't see so many people (like me) who lavish their dogs with attention, toys and treats, while never making them work.

If anything, I think dogs take the place of children for a lot of people, which is a whole separate issue. But no, they're not a replacement for slaves.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Fair enough. Just had to make sure I was fair. You know me...a walking Scales Of Justice.

Yes, and now let's bring this topic back to "are dogs stand-in slaves for white people?" I think if that was true, you wouldn't see so many people (like me) who lavish their dogs with attention, toys and treats, while never making them work.

If anything, I think dogs take the place of children for a lot of people, which is a whole separate issue. But no, they're not a replacement for slaves.

Of course they’re not. The girl who wrote that is just ashamed of being white and should bore off, right?

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Fair enough. Just had to make sure I was fair. You know me...a walking Scales Of Justice.

Yes, and now let's bring this topic back to "are dogs stand-in slaves for white people?" I think if that was true, you wouldn't see so many people (like me) who lavish their dogs with attention, toys and treats, while never making them work.

If anything, I think dogs take the place of children for a lot of people, which is a whole separate issue. But no, they're not a replacement for slaves.

Of course they’re not. The girl who wrote that is just ashamed of being white and should bore off, right?

Either she's ashamed of being white or she's trying to impress minorities and her liberal friends at how enlightened she is. Probably a little of both. But I bet it seemed like a great idea when she posted it

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Fair enough. Just had to make sure I was fair. You know me...a walking Scales Of Justice.

Yes, and now let's bring this topic back to "are dogs stand-in slaves for white people?" I think if that was true, you wouldn't see so many people (like me) who lavish their dogs with attention, toys and treats, while never making them work.

If anything, I think dogs take the place of children for a lot of people, which is a whole separate issue. But no, they're not a replacement for slaves.

Of course they’re not. The girl who wrote that is just ashamed of being white and should bore off, right?

Either she's ashamed of being white or she's trying to impress minorities and her liberal friends at how enlightened she is. Probably a little of both. But I bet it seemed like a great idea when she posted it

Well she’s a c u n t.

eddie wrote:Okay well that wasn’t my point. My point was about rich people being portrayed as uncaring and pointing out that most people who come into money suddenly aren’t going to suddenly become Patron Saint of The Poor...

Because really, why should they? Rich people are humans. I think some people may forget that.

I didn't mean to focus on rich people. I said capitalists.

The point is that capitalists intrude themselves into the production economy, and demand ownership, or property shares. The capitalist's sole dedication is to profit. The profit motive means arranging one-sided contracts with labor.

One-sided contracts are adhesion contracts: "A type of contract, a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage." https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhesion+Contract

A contract of adhesion returns the laborer to slavery.