Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
- Nov 15, 2008
- 55,062
- 16,609
*sigh* The Constitution says nothing about "value of a person". It originally provided a compromise, as a measure to inhibit the power of the slave states in the federal government, that slaves could only be counted in the census and for representative apportionment purposes to the same extent that free citizens were.
Or did you think it would have been a GOOD thing for slave owners to buy and sell people like cattle and THEN use them to gain even more control of the federal government so they could propagate the slave system?
***sighs deeply***. Yet, it is a proportional value assigned, just not monetarily. How many times do I have to state that slavery was an abomination? Are you really having a hard time comprehending that?
What the hell are you babbling about? Who said it wasn't proportional, or that it was monetarily? The fuck does money have to do with it? And who argued that slavery WASN'T an abomination? Is that really the point you think you were making?
I realize that substance over style is very hard for people to grasp these days, so I'll go slowly. Counting slaves in the census the same as free citizens was the PRO-SLAVE position. It would have allowed slave owners to use their enslaved human beings to increase their own power in government and thus continue enslaving them.
You appear to think the phrasing of the words is more important than their intent or effect, and that the point of the exercise was to "raise self-esteem" or some other bullshit.
I see you still don't understand. I give up.
I just heard, "I realized how stupid I sound, but I'm too dishonest to admit it, so I'll just run away."
No, thats what I said. I tried to keep it simple and you trainwrecked into the forest with all this blah blah blah yakfest that amounted to a dog chasing his tail.
You tried to keep it simple, and ended up keeping it simpleminded. Also wrong. You screwed up, and now you want to pretend it all away. "Nothing to see here; just keep moving."
LordBrownTrout: “Three-fifths clause” found in Article I, section 2, clause 3.
Me: What about it?
LordBrownTrout: It was an abomination that was ended. Same should be done to roe v wade.
Me: An anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution was an abomination?
LordBrownTrout: No, no, no. The clause was ended. It referred to the value of a person, 3/5. It was wrong. Come on Cecille.
Making one correct observation - and a painfully obvious one, at that - does not make it okay to slop around and say incorrect, stupid things in service of that observation.