Thursday, July 10, 2025

turning the argument turtle yet again

A cogent argument against reparations. The speaker makes the obvious point about how the punishments for the sins of the fathers shouldn't be visited on their descendants (an archaic biblical concept of inherited guilt); she also notes that the descendants of the white soldiers who freed the slaves shouldn't be forced to pay reparations to the descendants of the slaves. In this vein, she asks whether a child born of a rapist should be branded a rapist because of its father's deeds. Then, she brings it all home by noting that the Democrats were the slave owners and the makers/enforcers of Jim Crow laws, so should we treat today's Democrats as slave owners and advocates for Jim Crow?

The only real question is whether the left has enough self-consistency to heed this argument. The left tends to believe whatever is convenient in the moment.


2 comments:

  1. "whether the left has enough self-consistency to heed this argument"

    That gave me a chuckle. Like that old saw, "if it wasn't for low standards, the left would have no standards at all."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've heard it as, "If it weren't for double standards..."

      Delete

READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING!

All comments are subject to approval before they are published, so they will not appear immediately. Comments should be civil, relevant, and substantive. Anonymous comments are not allowed and will be unceremoniously deleted. For more on my comments policy, please see this entry on my other blog.

AND A NEW RULE (per this post): comments critical of Trump's lying must include criticism of Biden's or Kamala's or some prominent leftie's lying on a one-for-one basis! Failure to be balanced means your comment will not be published.