Income =/= profit. Income =/= profit. You're arguing that the Church made money by actively sinking money into institutions that could not support themselves. Why? What do you gain by staking a position so ridiculous?
Mass Grave of Over 200 Children Found at Former Canadian Residential School
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
Prisons and sweatshops often lose money.
Edit: Thomas Jefferson quite famously owned many slaves and a massive estate he drove into the ground.
The argument becoming “but they were bad at slavery” is very funny to me. People genuinely think slavery is always the most efficient way to run a business as if the Rockefellers wouldn’t have enslaved everyone west of the Appalachians if that was the case.
I don't believe slavery is the most efficient way to run a business, but that's irrelevant to you claiming these were profitable and paid for extravagant churches. And your argument that it was slavery is still based on working without pay, which still means you think all communes are slavery.
Your arguments are bad, and you should feel bad.
I’m sorry for making that appeal. I apologize for thinking you’d operate under the accepted reality that the Catholic Church is generally wealthy and financially influential particularly in fucking Ireland. I clearly am not just doing this for my own self-satisfaction, and I generally very much care whether or not a particular argument is persuasive to you.
Nah I was pretty repetitive about the rape and abuse aspect of my argument. You’re probably gonna cut this part out again and just address the other half as we both descend down a staircase of Aristotle’s nightmares, but I do think it’s a very important part of the argument.
Rape and abuse happen everywhere that people exist. It's not very important to your argument, you may as well be saying that they breathed air.
Last edited:
People who make a point of hating everything can't imagine how annoying it is to have universal human flaws pointed out in only the things you value.
Is that what I said? That's not what I said. They're not an important part of Revnak's argument is what I said. Because "people were raped and abused in a situation" does not mean "that situation is slavery", or else any human being anywhere could be called a slave. Being the victim of abuse does not make a persona a slave.
People who defend raping child murderers can't imagine how annoying it is to watch someone defend child rape and murder.
All teachers are rapists and child murderers. We should abolish all schools. Do you agree?
Never said all churches should be abolished so don't know why you're making that comparison. In fact no one did. You're not even trying anymore are you? Houseman was more fun.
So you think rapists and murderers should just be allowed to keep doing their thing? That's insane! You're condoning rape and murder!
Haha you're literally taking each individual point and saying that on their own they don't make you a slave while ignoring that ALL of these things happening is what makes them slaves. Christ dude.
None of those things make someone a slave. Being the property of another person makes someone a slave. Someone can be compensated for their work and treated well, but if they are the legal property of someone else, they are a slave regardless. Slavery has a meaning.
You understand that you're insulting yourself, right? I'm not behaving like Houseman...
Oh wow, I got an "I know you are but what am I?" cool.
I mean, the fact you got bored of me behaving like you within 2 posts should be a good illustration of how little value your comments to me are.
Nobody wants to leave while they're behind.