Message from @agag
Discord ID: 493494226047205376
>demand money
>"why are you making this about money?"
^
Fred has yet to bring about a substantial argument for why racism as bad or worse as before 1964 still exists and why we should pay reparations for any wrongdoing we have done to Black people
@Mord it wouldn't surprise me if Ukrainians would want reparations for the Holodomor
So irrational
Or the Armenians for their genocide
I think the justification for Holocaust reparations was that Jews were displaced from Europe as a result and that the Germans needed to pay for their resettlement elsewhere
Or Poland demanding WW2 reparations in retaliation for being ordered to accept migrants
You are wrong
But then again I’m not Armenian so that was a guess
Why should we concede
also they were paid immediately after to people who survived it first hand
@Fred the Fish you're not being rational
you're ignoring the fundamental problems with the idea of reparations
Your plan is about as rational as people who say "if the government gave everyone money we'd all be rich"
You have put zero thought into it
how much money do you suggest paying to black people?
It would be a waste of time
do you want to know what Congress's conclusion would be
If you can find a way to resurrect a slave owner, you can charge him for reparations. Otherwise, it is unjustifiable
it would be, "holy shit, this is way too expensive"
hypothetically they decide to pay $1000 to every single black person in this country
37,144,530 x 1000
that's $37,144,530,000
So you're saying the bank bailout was good
bailing out a fundamental part of the American economy is not comparable to paying reparations to one subset of the country
Yes or no, do you think the bank bailout was a good decision? @Fred the Fish
I just want to determine if you are arguing in bad faith here
my guess would be no
If the bank bailout was not a good decision, why are you using it as an example of how a mass payout can be conducted successfully?
You either support the bailout or you simply don't care if your arguments make sense so long as you get what you want
The latter means you're willing to decieve people to get your payoff, why should anyone take what you say seriously if that is the case?
How do you respond to this?
https://celsus.blog/2013/12/17/why-scholars-doubt-the-traditional-authors-of-the-gospels/
Take your time
i sent that before lmao
Based
it doesn't matter who the traditional authors of the Gospels were, what matters is where their information comes from
we know that they were based on pre-existing sources like the Q document
and from the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 we also know that more or less the same story was being taught by the Jerusalem church very shortly after Jesus's death
1 Corinthians 15:3-4