Well if you buy a stolen radio and don't know it's a stolen radio then this analogy doesn't work
Good I'm glad we agree, I also pointed out other reasons showing that if that wasn't what he meant its still a shit analogy.
Forcing a slave. Slave is not free person...
A slave is not a free person correct. Good thing I said 'forcing a person'.
Its also irrelevant as I was making a point about how its morally abhorrent thing to force someone to do something. Whether you define that person as a slave or whatever, doesn't change the argument, it doesn't make it ok if you don't define the person as a slave.
That's what he said. Enslave someone means make from a free person a slave. Sure it has also different meanings,
No. He used the word just because in his view enslaving someone is worse than buying a slave.
All he did is he used analogy to distinguish people buying slaves and people enslaving another people.
Come on, if you're arguing I'm twisting his words I can say the same thing about you. You're twisting his words to defend him.
This is like how Donald Trump says he isn't racist and doesn't hate muslims and definitely wasn't mocking that disabled reporter. Maybe he didn't know the reporter was disabled but being on first name terms with him for years beforehand and the fact that he strangely decided to act disabled when mocking the reporter, kind of implies he knew and was mocking his disability. It still COULD be he didn't know, but extremely unlikely.
Most people when they read that would think 'just' means only. Most people would consider not making the slaves free as enslavement. And we didn't 'only' buy the slaves. Our relationship with the slaves did not end when we bought them, there were significant events after buying slaves that made the slave thing so bad and makes comparing that to buying a stolen radio so ridiculous.
Now considering the context of the comments weren't just about (you understand what I mean by just in this context don't you?) the act of purchasing rather the slave trade as a whole and the use of the word 'just' implies he thinks all the fault lies on those selling the slaves.
You may view him as correct and there is an argument there if you interpret him in a very nuanced way, but most people would interpret what he said as bullshit, just like how you can defend Trump, but taken as a whole its pretty obvious he hates muslims.
As you seem to like things being nuanced. To dispel his beliefs 'white people didn't enslave black people' all we need is two white people enslaving two black people and we both know that definitely happened. So this guy even by nuanced standards spouted shit.
So what? You choose to ignore the historical context so you can be offended?
No I'm not ignoring the historical context. Your point was well things have changed we now know slavery is bad but back then it was perfectly acceptable. And I agreed but pointed out the person who I quoted was trying to argue that what we did wasn't too bad, where he judges what is bad or not based on his current present day perceptions. I was pointing out by quoting him and mocking him how believing what he does in the present day is abhorrent.
I will accept as you do there are different interpretations to his comment. I think you're an idiot for blissfully misinterpreting his comment so you don't view him as a racist. You think I'm a moron twisting his words to suit my SJW agenda, so lets just agree to disagree