50 Times Confidently Incorrect People Blessed Us With Hilarious Fails With Words (New Pics)

I would if I had a clue

True. Many indigenous peoples of the South American continent, of the far northern territories of North America and Russia, of Northern Asia and those of certain islands in the Indian Ocean region prefer to live in isolation from all other cultures and do not participate in a slave trade or slavery because every member of these cultures consider their members to be important to their survival and not a source of commerce.

Huh? He's not justifying slavery as being OK, only that it has a long history. Obviously, it doesn't make it right, so I'm not understanding why you bothered to comment.

Read it again. The first sentence says there is nothing bad about slavery. He was saying that survival of the fittest justifies slavery. Which of course a complete misinterpretation of what Darwin was saying.

I re-read it, and I stand by my original comment. You trying to bring in Darwin makes no sense as humans have never acceded to their nature of origin but continually exploited those they can through monetary power, and not by genetics. Slavery has been the foundation of all civilisations across all cultures and millenia, and continues to be the basis of commerce, down to the clothes you wear and the food you buy at the supermarket, whether you know it, recognize it, or not.

Lol. I literally pointed out the sentence which proves I'm right and you and maybe one other person are the only ones that came to the conclusion you have made. And why are you saying I brought Darwin into the conversation? It's OP that mentioned Darwin, or do you not understand that "survival of the fittest" comes from Darwin? And why continue to repeat what we already know, that slavery always has existed? Absolutely NO ONE is arguing against that. You are tilting against windmills.

No, you're not right, and history has shown throughout millenia that slavery is a part of human nature. It doesn't make it right, but it is a fact that you don't seem to understand.

Again you are tilting at windmills, because I have never disputed that slavery has always been around. You don't seem to understand me, not the other way around. I am tired of going around in circles with you. I will not respond to you any further.

I disagree. From antiquity to modern day, in every culture with a large population and a generally "civilised" structure, slavery has been ubiquitous. It is human nature.

Humans are complex creatures whose behavior is shaped by a combination of instinct, social forces, and environmental factors, and we all have a responsibility to each other to do what we can to make the world a decent place to live. When you excuse something like slavery as human nature, all of that is undermined.

Your platitude is ringing flat-itude, my ratty dude. Scientists, philosophers, and theologians have argued about what is human nature for millennia. It's really not as simple as you're making it. Just because something is present in many societies throughout recorded history doesn't mean that it's inherent to the human experience. Humans have been around for about 200,000 years, but we only have written records for the last few thousand of those. This means that we mostly have information about how humans tend to operate under agricultural conditions of significant density that may push human behavior toward drastic hierarchical structures. This does not imply that slavery is human nature. There are other human behaviors that pop up over and over, like murder, forced child marriage, and sexual violence, but we don't just shrug and say, oh well, those are part of human nature. Such a claim lets us off the hook.

Ah, the classic is-ought fallacy. Just stating that something is in a way or always has been this way doesn't in any way imply it ought to be that way. We have the power to reflect on our actions and pass judgement. We have done this, but we really shouldn't have. It is called progress. A concept that is clearly hard for some people.

Fact is still facts, even if they offend you

Just because it happened doesn't make it right.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

No predictions, learn from history instead of ignoring it. Try read a book

Simply because it occurs does not make it okay. Only humans feel the need to enslave, animals in the natural world do no such thing and have lived in harmony long before us, and I imagine long after, if we don't kill the earth first that is

Max M said "try read a book" but I think that Max needs to "try learn a proper grammar"

Ants have leavebug farms, they milk them to get the sugary stuff.

Sounds like you learn from history by advocating that history repeat itself. (Edited to add the word "like")

If you look at history, you will notice the general behavior of homo sapiens. We can learn from history, but we can't change the basic systems in a human. Most like cheap luxury, cheap stuff, money etc. You can't get cheap stuff for the majority, without someone in the bottom is working almost for free. Now it is so expensive to make stuff in china, that the Chinese start moving their productions to Africa.

Prediction (noun): a statement about what you think will happen in the future. Example: "There...always will be slaves."

Try to* read a book. Take your own advice, max.

Bruno is another Christian who doesn't know his Bible.

While it was used to excuse slavery, the Bible was actually not condoning it, but in times and places where it was already widely practiced, it was meant to serve as a way to ensure that those enslaved people were humanely treated. No person was meant to be kidnapped and sold (Exodus 21:16). Any slave injured by a master was to be set free (21:26, 27). In fact, every, all slaves would be ritually freed in Jewish culture. BUT primarily as it relates to the transatlantic slave trade, this slavery was rarely tied to race or the idea that the people involved were lesser. In fact, it was primarily among the same group of people.

What the King James bible says: Leviticus 25 "44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." Male Jewish slaves could be freed after seven years, but if his owner gave him a wife and they had children he would have to leave them behind or he had to stay a slave for the rest of his life. And a nail would be hammered through his ear. Female Jewish slaves could never go free. The women - all 'virgins' - taken prisoner in wars were used as sex slaves. If the bible is the word of god, why didn't he make 'thou shalt not have another human being as property' one of the ten commandments? So easy to do. .

There were instances were female slaves were freed or keep as outlined in Exodus and some were wives or concubines, yes. Female slaves could be repurchased or saved from slavery by a relative (Ruth 2:20). The law of Moses wasn't written at the dawn of time. Slavery already existed as the prevalent economic system at that time, and in ancient Israel it served a function. Those too poor could sell themselves or their families into slavery. The law prevented them from being overly horribly abusive or generationally abused the way race-based slavery did in the United States. I am not saying it was great or beneficial; I am saying it was a practical solution for what was a near ubiquitous situation.

@BlueEyes You are making excuses for a horrible practice. People who sold themselves into slavery were indentured servants and should have been freed after a certain time. That was the rule for Jewish indentured servants. But apparently if you were not Jewish, that rule didn't apply at all. And what about their children? They didn't sell themselves into slavery but the Bible says they were property and their children would be property as well, ad infinitum. Also, there was absolutely no way that anyone purchasing a foreign slave could know whether that person was kidnapped or not, so they were probably breaking that commandment all the time. You are in fact using the same excuses that people have always used, that since slavery already existed, they bore no responsibility for its existence. In theory, Israel was called to be morally better than the nations around them.

You are right. Slavery is horrible, terrible, inhumane. There are no words for the horrors of slavery. Exploiting humans is always horrible. It was true then and it is true now. I wish humanity was morally better than that, that a law against slavery would eradicate it. I am intimately aware of the horrors of slavery. There are sadly more slaves now than ever in human history. We've never been able to legislate it out of existence. It's never disappeared. My faith in humanity's ability to give up any vice has always been rather low. I don't approve of it, or think that's the way it should be, I just haven't seen much proof to the contrary. I guess that's why I kinda understand trying to make the best of a horrible situation.

@BlueEyes I don't share your pessimism about humanity. The evidence shows that in fact humanity is getting better. Western civilization has eliminated legal forms of slavery altogether. Our standards of what is morally tolerable have improved immensely. We are less violent and hold accountable those who are violent. Just think about what was considered morally okay just a few centuries ago as opposed to now and you see a huge difference. The fact of the matter is that Israel didn't have to wait until slavery went away in other places to make it illegal there. In Western countries, we managed to do it. We didn't at all concern ourselves with the rest of world. And frankly with other issues that's exactly what Israel did. They eliminated practices that were common in other countries but were considered immoral to them. Why couldn't they have done the same with slavery? I am sorry, but you are still making excuses.

The Jewish people were led out of slavery in Egypt by Moses. When they arrived in the promised land they acquired their own slaves. You would think that a people that has suffered slavery for years would not inflict the same on other people. Indentured servitude is just as bad as slavery. Instead of being an empathetic human being - giving the poor man/woman a job and pay them a fair wage so they can pay off their debt in dignity - their freedom and bodily autonomy is taken away. That's just cruel and immoral.

I sense you get your undertstanding from an anti-Christian polemicist, not actually reading the bible yourself. Had you read it yourself, you'd know that (1) the ultimate promise is setting the slave free, (2) most of the rules about slavery describe a situation utterly unrelated to chattel slavery. A "servant" in the bible was someone who sold themselves into service instead of debtor's prison. Debt was not inherited; children born to servants were not servants themselves; all debt was erased every 50 years. The bible further describes abuses done to servants (beatings, even murders), but identifies them as sinful.

Didn't Paul write something like: slave, obey your master even the cruel ones.

@Caroline Nagel: If you mean to suggest that Christianity is oK with cruel masters, you're dead wrong. In the very same context, he tells masters to give fair wages, do not threaten them, do not show favoritism. Also, "slavery" was merely working off debt, which was non-transferable, non-hereditary, and must be completely absolved every 50 years, But while the Jews were bound to such decency they were being oppressed by blood-thirsty foreign invaders, and he was counseling them not to bring vengeance upon them by rebellion, but rather to convert their cruel masters.

Bruno, just stop. For foreign slaves it was hereditary and people just quoted the Bible verses that prove that. The Jubilee where slaves were freed was for Jewish slaves. Also, slaves didn't get wages. I do acknowledge that the Bible does set out some very minimal protections but you obviously are exaggerating the protections.

You stop; you're siding with those spreading hatred, lies and slander, Mary. The verse Caroline Nagel refers to is likely Ephesians 6:5, although 1 Timothy 6:1 is similar. I cited Ephesians 6:9. Your assertion that Jubilee was only for the Jews is utterly unfounded: Leviticus 25, which establishes the Jubilee EXPLICITLY establishes that Jubilee was for Jew and foreigner alike, all those who dwell in the land. There are no fewer than a dozen passages that tell stories of servants earning wages. There's a damned strong reason why Confederate slave-owners prohibited slaves from reading the Bible... because they would learn that the slave-owners were misquoting the Bible.

Why do you keep defending slavery in the bible? Slavery is immoral. It was immoral then, it is now. Heck, it will always be immoral. I know about the Jubilee. But there were loopholes: buy a young slave just after Jubilee and he's your slave for fifty years (and will probably die before the next Jubilee). Don't you think the slave owners knew all about loop holes. Like beating the slave just enough that he didn't die, and would be forced back to work after a day or two. Just don't defend slavery in the bible. It doesn't make you look good. As I said before: god should have taken out the 'thou shalt not covet' commandment and replace it with 'thou shalt not have another human being as property'.

I'm not defending slavery. I'm saying the bible did not condone chattel slavery. I only brought up Leviticus to rebut the lies said, and to contextualize Paul. But you do remind me that I also need to emphasize for the sake of the bountiful idiots that Leviticus is Old Testament and therefore NOT Christian morality, any more than the polygamy. By the time you're at Paul, he's writing to a multiethnic world where Jews typically no longer held slaves, and his audience does not live within a Abrahamic theocracy. The masters he tells slaves to obey are largely non-Christian, non-Jews.

The treatment of Jewish servants was certainly more lenient, so lenient that "servant" is used in English. (The Jewish words for "servant," "minister (as in government official)," and "slave" were the same.) To other Jews, Jews could not charge interest, nor exploit another's poverty, nor buy someone's home outside the city walls, nor permanently take ownership of someone's land, nor indenture for more than SEVEN years. (Not FIFTY, but only SEVEN.)

Were there loopholes? Well, more relevant, being a theocracy, there was no real enforcement mechanism. Once someone gained sufficient wealth, social shunning (the main enforcement mechanism of Israelite religious law) tended to fail. Hence, the formal role of a "prophet" was to reassert religious doctrine.

Now, your claim about the distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish (technically, non-Israelite, of course, since "Jew" could be read as "Judean") slaves misses an enormous "loophole" that favored the non-Jewish slave: Any slave could become Jewish, which simply meant keeping Jewish law. (There were no confessions, no required belief in an afterlife, etc., but there was circumcision.) As for other "loopholes," they speak to immorality, not the religion.

Bruno, I have nothing against Christians nor am I spreading hate. I am simply stating what the Bible says. If you have a problem with that, then your problem is with the Bible, not me. Have a nice day.

There is absolutely nothing in Levitucus 25 that says that foreign slaves were freed at that time. It only mentions Jewish slaves being freed.

It absolutely says in Levitucus 25 that foreign slaves were inherited property for life and that Jewish slaves were not. The verses I posted state that clearly, after saying that Jewish slaves would be freed. Why make that distinction in that context if they were supposed to free foreign slaves?

This is from Levitucus 25: "44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."