|[original cartoon pending]|
Rasheed, Muhammad. "A Flabby Flex Attempt.'" Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2023 [cartoon pending]. Permanent marker w/Adobe Photoshop color.
CLICK & SUBSCRIBE below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!
M. Rasheed on BitChute!
Q: Is it possible that the United States could have abolished slavery in a gradual manner that would have prevented a war?
Chris Bast - Anything's possible, but in this case it would have taken a much longer time. Like, multiple generations long.
Realistically slavery would have eventually faded away no matter what happened. Industrialization makes slavery inevitably unprofitable. But that would have taken so long we might have gone well into the 20th century before slavery finally ended for good.
To accelerate the process, we would have to engineer, essentially, an industrial revolution in the Southern states. Someone would have had to convince the South AND the North that a grand program of economic reform was necessary and practical. That could have, in theory, weaned the South off of slavery. But like I said, it would take a long time. A lot of elections would have to go right for this to work.
Although that doesn't address the cultural problem. Making slavery unprofitable doesn't make blacks and whites equal, socially speaking. You might have ended slavery but you'd probably still have something resembling Jim Crow for a very long time.
The Civil War was unfortunate, but compared to the several generations of work that could have gone wrong at multiple points, I think it was the lesser evil.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: “Realistically slavery would have eventually faded away”
Realistically, no one would willingly give up free slave labor. It would never just fade away; people have to be forced to stop doing wrong when they lack the moral fabric to do the right thing.
Chris Bast - M. Rasheed wrote: "Realistically, no one would willingly give up free slave labor."
Nonsense. There's no such thing as “free” labor. Even slaves have to be fed, clothed, and housed. Machines don't. They cost less money and take up less space. And they don't ever revolt.
People will absolutely willingly give up “free” slave labor when the alternative is probably cheaper.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: “Nonsense. There's no such thing as ‘free’ labor.”
That’s the formal definition. You’re right though that EVERYTHING costs something as your very misplaced pedantic point.
Chris wrote: “Even slaves have to be fed, clothed, and housed.”
True. So, the pre-Civil War version of U.S. chattel slavery was replaced with the mass incarcerate state, where the U.S. gov paid for the overhead of the convict leasing modern version of slave labor and businesses pay a fee to use that labor force.
Chris Bast - Oh please. A minuscule percent of the labor in this country is done by prisoners.
Knock that racial chip off your shoulder and join us in the real world.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: “Oh please. A minuscule percent of the labor in this country is done by prisoners.”
A minuscule percentage of the pre-Civil War populace owned slaves, too, but the nation still ran on the chattel slave economy. You don’t have a point. Checkmate.
Chris wrote: “Knock that racial chip off your shoulder”
I don’t actually have a “racial chip” on my shoulder, since the weaponization of African & Caribbean immigration reveals that America’s “peculiar” systemic racism legacy is actually xenophobe-based discrimination against my American Descendants of Slavery ethnic group and not racial after-all.
Chris wrote: “and join us in the real world.”
Based on the strength of your argument (such as it is), I can’t say I understand what you mean by that. I doubt it means you are a fan of the Tate Bros. lol
Chris Bast - Okay, you realize we can all see who you are replying to, right? You don’t have to keep repeating who you’re quoting like a child.
M. Rasheed wrote: "the nation still ran on the chattel slave economy."
Not even close to true.
M. Rasheed wrote: "I don’t actually have a 'racial chip' on my shoulder"
You’re only lying to yourself.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: “You don’t have to keep repeating who you’re quoting like a child.”
This must be a form of the Tone Police Fallacy. lol
Chris wrote: “Not even close to true.”
It’s quite true.
Chris wrote: “You’re only lying to yourself.”
Since you’ve resorted to fallacies and willfully ignorance denials that we both know you have zero evidence for, it’s clear which one of us is actually lying to ourselves with a reddened face. lol
Chris Bast - M. Rasheed wrote: "This must be a form of the Tone Police Fallacy. lol"
That’s…not a fallacy.
M. Rasheed wrote: "It’s quite true."
I know you really want to believe that, but…
M. Rasheed wrote: "Since you’ve resorted to fallacies"
I’m convinced you don’t know what that word means.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: “That’s…not a fallacy.”
Geez. Do you know anything at all? Your existence must be pretty sad living in a fact/knowledge/truth void.
Chris wrote: “I know you really want to believe that, but…”
…somehow you believe that no one wanted to use free slave labor in a free slave labor economy. smdh I think you have a ‘being wrong fetish.’ You love it. lol
Chris wrote: “I’m convinced you don’t know what that word means.”
hahahahaha At this point, you should delete your account.
Chris Bast - M. Rasheed wrote: "Do you know anything at all?"
Do you? Just because some idiot wrote it up on a blog and it got thrown into the google algorithm doesn’t make it a formal (or informal) fallacy.
Besides, you are not in a position to complain about fallacies since your every comment is full of them. Indeed, you are using that very “fallacy” (which is not really a fallacy) right now.
M. Rasheed wrote: "smdh I think you have a ‘being wrong fetish.’ You love it. lol"
Ad hominem fallacy.
M. Rasheed wrote: "hahahahaha At this point, you should delete your account."
Appeal to ridicule fallacy.
I guess you either really don’t know what fallacies are, or you really really like them.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: “Do you?”
I certainly know more than you do on the topic of U.S. race relations. You appear to solely rely upon a foundation of white supremacist emotionalism as your evidence sources.
Chris wrote: “Just because some idiot wrote it up on a blog and it got thrown into the google algorithm doesn’t make it a formal (or informal) fallacy.”
True. Fortunately for our purposely, this blog is actually the structured explanation of fallacies using the book Logically Fallacious by Dr. Bo Bennett as the source text. So, we don’t need to fear being taken by “some idiot” who doesn’t know what he is talking about, as the title is itself well-sourced and peer-reviewed in the proper fashion.
Chris wrote: “Besides, you are not in a position to complain about fallacies”
“Complain” isn’t the appropriate term here. “Amused” would be more accurate, since I’m watching you flip around like a beached fish desperately trying to save face. lol
Chris wrote: “(which is not really a fallacy)”
To be clear, “tone policing” is indeed an official logical fallacy, and described as such within every definition from any source you’d care to use, since you hate blogs published by the “idiot” at the top of my casual Internet search for the term.
Anyway, I’m not guilty of tone policing you at all and have managed to skillfully address your actual (weak) message content. I challenge you to demonstrate HOW I’m guilty of the charge, if ye are truthful. ;)
Chris wrote: “Ad hominem fallacy.”
For example, in order to successfully prove that I’m guilty of the ad hominem, you’d have to show where I purposely ignored the content of your claim to instead attack you as a person. At no point have I done this, and in fact, I instead fully addressed your content point-by-point, using my signature style that you attacked with your tone policing faux-complaint. After I made my counter-point, and it was clear you had nothing to offer to defend your position, then I was free to tease you all I liked. Were I to have committed the ad hominem fallacy, I would have attacked your person INSTEAD of addressing your point, while pretending I addressed your point.
You see, you’ll need to first take the time to understand what the fallacies actually are, and know what they mean, before you are able to use them to call out your opponent’s trip ups. Your argument level is not that advanced, I’m afraid. Did you somehow believe it was? Based on what exactly? I’ll admit bafflement at your misplaced confidence based on what you’ve demonstrated thus far.
Chris wrote: “Appeal to ridicule fallacy.”
Again, the fallacy claim is only true if the opponent ridicules you instead of addressing your content. I did nothing of the sort. All of my ridicule came after you proved incapable of defending your position and were thoroughly checkmated and thus, butthurted, as we see demonstrated here in your enthusiastic fish-flopping exercise.