I question this, I have doubts as to if you truly mean this. The argument is indeed made, and it's made strikingly well, right here. Should I repeat myself? I suspect you meant the word "hear" in a traditional discussion forum sense, but here's the issue.
You can literally hear this argument. The link I posted goes to Rumble. It's recorded audio. All you have to do is sit back, and listen. In listening, you'll get to hear it.
It's the easiest job ever and a unique service that I offer. You're welcome.
But don't say you want to hear something thinking it makes you look conciliatory among other forum participants while at the same time refusing to hear it. Pick one and just go with it. I also gave the links to the text. Why do I suspect you didn't read the text either but just immediately pressed "reply"?
I question this, I have doubts as to if you truly mean this. The argument is indeed made, and it's made strikingly well, right here. Should I repeat myself? I suspect you meant the word "hear" in a traditional discussion forum sense, but here's the issue.
Well firstly, I said "if you have an argument to support this, I would like to hear it." *You*. Not Frederick Douglas. The reason I don't want to hear his argument as a substitute for yours is because I took the time to read it, and found it uncompelling in light of the evidence against it.
I thought perhaps you would put forth a different, better argument.
Why do I suspect you didn't read the text either but just immediately pressed "reply"?
People see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. I think this is true of you as it is of most people.
I try to be objective. You have a tall order trying to demonstrate the constitution did not lean toward slavery, and I have yet to see anything compelling in this regard either from yourself or Frederick Douglas.
I agree with Douglas' sentiment, but his argument is not very good. It is an "appeal to emotion."