Slavery, the Prison/Industrial Complex, and American Hypocrisy

RJS said:
I will save this post to rub in the not a lefty lefty SupeFreak's face, I have been telling him his lefty babes are big RJS fans and he has disputed yours truly, butt, we will see what he has to say about this, thank you.
Click to expand...

Whatever will I do... without all those lefty women?
 
Superfreak said:
While I think that MJ should be legalized and taxed like tobacco, it is not the issue here. Again BAC is claiming that prisoners are slaves. Which is false. No one is forcing anyone to break the law. (Note: if you want the law changed, work to change it) If you break the law and are tried and convicted, you go to jail. Jail costs the taxpayers what? About $30-40k per year per inmate to house/feed??? Let them work and have the prisons re-coup that cost (or at least a good portion of it) if they can. It will save taxpayers the money.

If you don't like the prisoners having to actually contribute anything BAC, then convince them to quit breaking the damn law. If you don't like the law as it currently stands, work to change it. But quit bitching about prisoners being made to work. The Constitution, as you pointed out, clearly allows for prisoners to be forced to work.

I am not going to feel sorry for a prisoner being made to work, especially if the job is teaching him/her a work skill they can use when they get out.

Personally, I think prisoners should be made to work 8 hours a day, study four hours a day and the other 12 are theirs for exercise/sleep/eating etc... Do this Monday-Friday.
Click to expand...

Now let's think about this, SF.

The prisoners "broke the law". The government responded by putting them in prison and making them work. The prisoners did not put themselves in prison, they did not make themselves worked. They may have committed actions that provoked the government into forcing them into prison and forcing them to work, but it is pretty clear that the government actually did the action.

Stop the logical fallacies.
 
Superfreak said:
and I am pretty sure you are trying to be your usual overly dramatic self.

But please, do tell me where I am wrong on this.
Click to expand...

Our high incarceration rate is not necessarily due to drugs or marijuania... many nations imprison people for that. It's due to our sentencing laws, which are, by far and away, the strictest in the world. A prisoner in America can expect to serve terms about 6 times longer than for comparable crimes in the EU.
 
Superfreak said:
Please, please read what I wrote. I SAID.... as long as the prisons are getting comped back from the corps or government (depending on who is using the prison labor) to cover the expenses of actually housing the prison labor then there is nothing wrong with it. The prisoners in effect would be paying for their prison stay rather than the tax payers.

You are teaching the prisoners a skill set. Something that they can use outside of prison when released.

The whole "corps are evil" argument is BS. Because AGAIN, NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE TO BREAK THE LAW.

That does not mean the laws should not be changed, it does not mean we shouldn't strive to correct the causes of the disproportionate numbers of black men in prison vs. other races. But the bottom line is the same. These individuals broke a current law. They were sent to prison for it. They should develop work skills and educate themselves so that when they are released they will have options.

This isn't about race, no matter how much BAC wants to try to make it appear that way. White prisoners are working just as blacks and hispanics and anyone else convicted of a crime is doing.
Click to expand...

Again, we aren't talking about whether anyone forced them to break the law. We're talking about whether someones forcing them to work for corporations.

Don't change the subject. This is called a "non-sequitor".
 
Superfreak said:
I fully understand that Darla. Please explain to me what you find morally repugnant, because I do not understand.

1) I break the law
2) I am convicted of doing so and sent to prison
3) I work for company "x" and learn a skill set
4) Company "x" pays the prison for my labor
5) Prison uses the wages to pay for the expense of keeping me in prison for the crime I committed
Click to expand...

Yes, there's a conflict of interests there. If anything, companies hiring people at slave value is obviously going to lower wages to an unnatural level.

Just think about the plight of the white-cotton picker looking for a job in the 1840's...
 
Watermark said:
Again, we aren't talking about whether anyone forced them to break the law. We're talking about whether someones forcing them to work for corporations.

Don't change the subject. This is called a "non-sequitor".
Click to expand...

Listen Water, I will be patient since you are young, but don't push it.

We are talking about the consequences of their actions and whether or not the prisoners are being treated as slaves. Try to read the fucking posts and you might actually comprehend the points that have been made.

They broke the law. They were sent to prison. Prison costs money to run. They are contributing to paying off that cost by working. Which is clearly justifiable by the constitution.
 
doniston said:
No, rather thsn be biased towards men, I would say it is biased towards celebs. in no way is that sentence fair.
Click to expand...

That too, maybe moreso, but men obviously receive harsher sentences. And my guess it is much for the same reason blacks get harsher sentences, i.e., they are perceived as more threatening.
 
Watermark said:
Yes, there's a conflict of interests there. If anything, companies hiring people at slave value is obviously going to lower wages to an unnatural level.

Just think about the plight of the white-cotton picker looking for a job in the 1840's...
Click to expand...

You should either read the entire thread or STFU....

There is NO conflict of interest by the corporations. AGAIN, they are not paying "slave" value you fucking tool. They are paying the prisons to help off set the costs of the prisoners. in some cases the prisoners also receive tiny amounts of cash as well. Are you fucking drunk or high? Because you are making no sense.
 
Superfreak said:
Please do try to read the entire thread before commenting on my point. It is NOT unjust to have pot illegal. It may be a dumb law, which as I stated it is. But it is law. You all may not like it and neither do I but the law is fair to everyone. It does not discriminate. Now the enforcement of the law can be unfair as can sentencing, but the law itself is just... however pathetic it is .
Click to expand...


So anything that is law is just? I suggest, you have a flawed sense of justice.

Equal application of an unjust law does not make it just.
 
And I see you argue that it is not applied equally, i.e., you stated it is biased towards economic class. So even by your flawed definition of justice it is unjust.
 
Superfreak said:
"Originally Posted by Cypress
Still don't think its about race?


"Lindsay Lohan Charged With Seven Misdemeanors In Two DUIs And Cocaine Find - gets sentenced to one day in prison, and ten days of community service"


Do you think a poor man of color would have gotten that light a sentence?"

No it is not about race. It is about wealth. Because Whitney Houston wouldn't have even spent a day in jail either, but a poor white woman or man would have been sentenced just as harshly as a poor black woman or man. But please, keep dropping the race card you ignorant fuck.
Click to expand...

You just can't bring yourself to use the word "class" can you?

You are right, class does have something to do with it, but class is always intertwined with race and to discuss one without the other is like discussing woman's issues without discussing class...boring, pointless and myopic. And to insist that there is only one reason for such an institutionalized problem is simplistic and has no hope of even beginning to unravel the truth. It is race, and it is class. Why do you have such a need to deny that any racism would be involved at all?
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
You should either read the entire thread or STFU....

There is NO conflict of interest by the corporations. AGAIN, they are not paying "slave" value you fucking tool. They are paying the prisons to help off set the costs of the prisoners. in some cases the prisoners also receive tiny amounts of cash as well. Are you fucking drunk or high? Because you are making no sense.
Click to expand...



Bottom line, superfreak, using prison labor as a below market source of labor profitizes increased arrests. It is WRONG.
 
Darla said:
Ok, I understand. We agree except you have a problem with using the word slavery, it even seems to offend you. And we also disagree on it ever being right to use prison labor for any kind of profit. I agree with Tiana on that. It raises a red flag, and Cypress' idea of public service is a much better one.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you understand that I would in no way offend my own ancestors who were forced into slavery, but slavery takes many forms.

According to the UN the definition of ... Modern forms of slavery

Human trafficking and Slavery can be defined as "the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation."

If the argument were truly about prisoners paying for their "room and board" or paying victims .. then pay them minimum wage not slave wages. Would they not then be better able to pay the victims with realistic wages rather than the pittance they now recieve? Would they not then be better able to pay for their own incarceration .. and more importantly, contribute to their own families at home.

Are we to believe that the multi-national corporations who benefit from their slavery, without paying health insurance, overtime, sick pay, or adhere to any OSHA or labor requirements or standards, cannot pay them minimum wages?

This is slavery pure and simple.
 
blackascoal said:
I'm sure you understand that I would in no way offend my own ancestors who were forced into slavery, but slavery takes many forms.

According to the UN the definition of ... Modern forms of slavery

Human trafficking and Slavery can be defined as "the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation."

If the argument were truly about prisoners paying for their "room and board" or paying victims .. then pay them minimum wage not slave wages. Would they not then be better able to pay the victims with realistic wages rather than the pittance they now recieve? Would they not then be better able to pay for their own incarceration .. and more importantly, contribute to their own families at home.

Are we to believe that the multi-national corporations who benefit from their slavery, without paying health insurance, overtime, sick pay, or adhere to any OSHA or labor requirements or standards, cannot pay them minimum wages?

This is slavery pure and simple.
Click to expand...


I agree with you, but I saw that it was a red letter word for SF and it's what he was getting hung up on, so I wanted to take it out and see how he felt about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top