(02-23-2019 04:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 03:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 03:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You are correct. I am confused despite reading your comments in this thread closely. These are your statements from your two previous posts:
Statement 1- "that's how I view reparations. If you're worse off today than you would have been without the slave ships, then you deserve reparations. If not, you don't."
Statement 2- "I don't know how to figure out if anyone would have been better off had his/her ancestors not been enslaved. Do you?"
Please help me resolve these quandries that may exist in my mind only. Quotations included so we can be sure that I haven't mischaracterized your comments.

I don't know whether anyone is worse off or not. If you are not worse off because of slavery, then you don't have a case for reparations. If you are worse off, then you would have been better off if there had been no slavery. So pay you reparations and put you back in the place you would have been without slavery--Africa.
if you can't figure that out, please tell me you didn't go to Rice.

Your argument is absurd. Sending 21st century families "back to Africa" is ridiculous.

Of course. But that's precisely my point. Reparations are ridiculous.

Quote:It's hard to take this proposal seriously, but perhaps we can start with the intermingling of the DNA from other continents over the past couple hundred years. What is your proposal for that? Who goes to Africa and who goes to Europe? Or Asia? Do you have a percentage qualifier for your plan?

Enough with the deflections and straw men. You've, perhaps unwittingly, figured out my point. Bye.