So his argument was that they should have got payed when the humans they enslaved were freed because they originally had to pay money for them.

Thats not much better.

If slaves get reparations then slave owners should too was his point. The main point being no one should get reparations. However the it's a false equivalent between giving someone money because they were enslaved and used to produce profit for hundreds of years and giving someone money because the humans they bought were no longer legal to own. You gotta be fucked to argue that people who enslaved humans should have been compensated for their loses once those humans were given their natural God given right to freedom and liberty.

Does that not feel grimey as shit to you? To give money to people who enslaved humans because they lost profit from no longer being able to exploit people.

Conservatives are for freedom and liberty usually and this point flies in the face of it. Why would someone be compensated for taking away the freedom and liberty of another individual?

How can you be anti-abortion since it is another humans life but be for the hypothetical compensation of people who were taking away the life and liberty of other humans?