Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Sam Harris on Reparations" video.

@charliebrown3082 You're not going to get Trump voters anyway. Why not bring your side closer together by healing an old wound?
4
Councilman Les Wynan It would actually probably be easier to show which people with black ancestry didn't descend from slavery. There were 4,441,830 black people, in the US, in 1860, and 3,953,760 were slaves.
3
*inaction
2
@frbe0101 The left loses elections when it is not energized. Psycho Trump voters are already in a frenzy.
2
@frbe0101 Yang's plan sucks ass. As is, it will make giant corporations and the super rich even richer.
2
JB JG The right is pro reparations. Trump's stupid trade war caused farmers a little economic hurt, and he immediately doled out some reparations for the damage he caused.
2
@frbe0101 Because he's throwing his hands in the air with regards to closing tax loopholes on corporations or the super rich, and turning to a VAT. A VAT taxes the consumers, not the corporations. The corporations would simply collect it and pass it along to the government. Those benefitting from the UBI would spend some of that extra money on those corporations, like Amazon, making them even more money. That, then, hands more money to Bezos, for him to hoard, and hoarded money isn't affected by a VAT.
2
@Xanlet It wouldn't be asking specific individuals who are descendants of individuals to pay. It would be asking a nation to pay for its mistakes. Just like if a business was sued and found guilty of an old wrongdoing. Even if it had a new board of directors, it would still have to pay.
2
@Xanlet You're moving the goalpost. Your argument was about "sins of the father". "150 years" is irrelevant to a new board of directors. A company that lost a lawsuit would still have to pay damages, even if it was new people running it. You're moving your argument to time? What would your cutoff time be? Was paying damages to victims of nuclear fallout, 40 years after the fact, with new people in government, wrong? Is settling 122 year old Native American disputes, with new people in government, wrong?
2
@Xanlet You're spouting pure nonsense. A nation is considered a legal entity, and if the current government violates a treaty or trade agreement made by a previous government, the nation can be sued. If it's found out that half of Oklahoma is actually supposed to belong to Natives then descendants of the original Natives who signed the treaty can still sue the current government for the land back, or for compensation. Or, if it's found out that the US hasn't upheld it's end of a 110 year old trust agreement, between Natives and a previous government, then descendants of those Natives can sue the current government. Also, children of dead smokers have won lawsuits against tobacco companies. So now you'll probably move the goalpost to there being no binding legal agreement, or most (not all) being over one generation removed.
2
@Xanlet The point was descendants suing the government, or corporations, for "sins of the father", which was your original goalpost. It is the government's ongoing "sin" that they didn't follow through with reparations for slaves, and only, ridiculously, followed through with reparations for slave owners. They still got sued for nuclear fallout, decades after they stopped blowing up nuclear bombs too close to Nevada residential areas. They still get sued for originally taking Native's land, even if they stopped taking Native's land. Oprah? So George Takei shouldn't have gotten Reagan's Japanese reparations, just because he was successful?
2
@Xanlet So, whether they've done well, or not, is totally irrelevant. Gotcha. A bunch of goalpost moving and irrelevance.
2
@Xanlet Okay slowpoke, so if someone is wealthy, then any disadvantages they personally endured also didn't hold them back. Whether an individual is wealthy is irrelevant. The vast majority of people stay in the same income bracket they were born into. The US is a 5 generations, on average, to get out of poverty country. Some old black people, are just 2 generations removed and had grandparents they knew who were born into slavery. So how does below poverty level assistance help get people out of poverty? Doesn't it mostly just barely help people survive? And, if that's "reparations", then why is everyone else getting it, too?
2
@Xanlet Lol, that is also not a "reparation" policy, if anyone can get a cut. That's like saying anyone, with diseases unrelated to smoking, can get a chunk of the class action lawsuit against tobacco companies. Or, anyone can sue to get Native lands back from the government. That's some pretty dumb shit.
2