Stay Hard as Steel!!!

Laughably Small Penis?
Enlarge it At Home
Using Just Your Hands!

Want a bigger penis?
Enlarge it At Home
Using Just Your Hands!

Tired of ads
on this site?

QUESTIONABLE STUFF 😵‍💫

Discussion Forum on Show It Off

Page #1

Pages:  #1   #2   #3   #4   #5   #6   #7   #8   #9   #10   ...#99

Started by bella! [Ignore] 13,Aug,23 07:15  other posts
This thread is for questionable content. WHY? Just because! I am someone who enjoys the Hodge Twins. YEP, the Hodge Twins. They probably make the hairs on the back of a WOKE person stand straight up! Anyway.....

New Comment       Rating: 0  


Comments:
By phart [Ignore] 02,May,26 14:42 other posts 
only registered users can see external links

Well, it's what women wanted, equal rights!


By phart [Ignore] 27,Apr,26 17:42 other posts 
OH my, Cat, you better be ready to be upset! Yet another well known man has been photographed on Epstein island!

Stephen Hawking
only registered users can see external links

So did he actually get to experience a "black Hole"??


only registered users can see external links
By AngelofDeath [Ignore] 27,Apr,26 23:29 other posts 
only registered users can see external links


Hawking coming back from hell to erase the evidence.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 28,Apr,26 13:44 other posts 
Why would I be upset? There must be thousands of people that associated with Epstein and many did visit his island. Most just had fun without participating in the darker goings on. In any case, what do you think Mr Hawking was doing? Getting a hand job or a blow job from those beautiful women? And, even if he did, orgies are not against the law. The same with swap parties.
By phart [Ignore] 28,Apr,26 14:50 other posts 
part of the claim is they were not old enough, same as the ugly rumors being spread about everyone else.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 28,Apr,26 20:17 other posts 
Look at the pic in your url. Do they look remotely ****?
By phart [Ignore] 28,Apr,26 21:48 other posts 
Hey, just quoting the page I read!don't shoot the messenger

My point of posting this is I feel like it is the same with most if not all the people being accused of wrong doing, a bunch of hooey.
Poor Hawking probably had a catheter and probably was unable to even enjoy a lady of any age.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 28,Apr,26 22:13 other posts 
By dgraff [Ignore] 29,Apr,26 10:18 other posts 
He was there to get a blow job from ex president obama that’s why Mikey is upset
By CAT52! [Ignore] 29,Apr,26 12:45 other posts 
He wears a catheter. Real men don’t use a straw.
By dgraff [Ignore] 29,Apr,26 18:11 other posts 
So the last i heard Obama is not a real man i bet he uses a straw
By CAT52! [Ignore] 29,Apr,26 22:11 other posts 
Democrats don't have real men. Haven't you heard?
By phart [Ignore] 30,Apr,26 02:23 other posts 
Well they can't define "woman" so it is only logical they don't have "men" either.
By dgraff [Ignore] 30,Apr,26 07:45 other posts 
Very true my friend
YOU cannot define a "woman", without ignoring the definition of "female".
It's a circular definition.

'They' CAN define "woman", you just don't agree with 'them'.
You insist that a "woman" should be biological "female", without there existing
a 100% accurate definition of "female", and say people that disagree with you
can't define "woman", while they have a more consistent definition than you.

When a doctor assigns the sex of a baby at birth, they don't perform chromosome testing or an echocardiogram of internal sex organs. They just see a willy and say 'male' or see a pussy and say 'female'. This is only about 95% accurate.
It's even more inaccurate if you use the simple idea of 'male + female = baby'
as basis for the definitions of the sexes, because gay, lesbian and asexual people do not have the biology matching sexual attraction for that to happen "naturally".

This is the definition that most of 'them' can agree on: "A woman is someone who
is socially perceived and treated as a woman based on gender presentation and expression in a given context."

It's basically: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck."

It's ALSO circular, but it's more accurate. You are denying reality; that people exist who do not conform to a constricting idea that sex is 100% 'binary'. Biology is much more complex than that, but you choose to believe something that isn't true.
'They' have definitions that do include biological variations.
'They' understand the difference between 'sex' and 'gender', you deny reality.

Sex = biological traits, which are multidimensionally complex
Gender = identity and social meaning

Of course you will point to some some fringe minority, but people were talking
about "Democrats". The large majority of "Democrats" agree with the definition
that I provided. Probably not the exact one, but the broad idea behind it.
I can say "Republicans" are wrong, because most of them are very ignorant about the biology of the sexes and the widely accepted sociological concept of gender.

It's sad how much your primitive thinking is creating future historical regrets.
That is to say if humanity survives your primitive thinking.
By phart [Ignore] 01,May,26 16:51 other posts 
-That very long post for naught.
Woman is female, Man is male. penis, male, vagina female. been that way for years until recently.
Stephen Hawking did visit the private Caribbean island owned by Jeffrey Epstein in 2006.
He was there as part of a scientific conference on gravity and cosmology that Epstein funded. Several other well-known physicists also attended.
There are photos from that trip showing Hawking in his wheelchair on a beach, sometimes with assistants and other attendees nearby.

This is called a 'False equivalence'. It's also 'Whataboutism (tu quoque)' and 'Guilt by association'.

Are there photos of him having a good time with Epstein himself?
Are there claims that he committed crimes, in the files?
Are there victim accusations of him?
Does he appear in Epstein’s contact book and social network records?
Are there emails of him to Epstein showing they were in an ongoing relationship?
Is he on record speaking about Epstein in a familiar and friendly way?
Is he on record presenting knowledge about what Epstein was doing?
Did he send him a very personal birthday postcard with a drawing of a female nude?

You associated the man with wrongdoing on nothing at all, while you deny any wrongdoing of Trump, denying piles of evidence, credible testimony and many longstanding rumors that Trump was close with Epstein, aware of what he was doing, and involved with it.
By phart [Ignore] 01,May,26 12:27 other posts 
Insert Trump in place of Hawkings and that is how I feel about the situation.
Besides, Gravity, a conference on that? what a lame duck excuse to have a party on a PRIVATE island.
Black hole
By phart [Ignore] 01,May,26 16:41 other posts 
Well, according to google,
Stephen Hawking revolutionized black hole physics by proposing they are not completely black but emit radiation due to quantum effects, causing them to slowly evaporate. His key contributions include Hawking radiation (1974), the area theorem (1971) that black hole surface areas never decrease, and the resolution of the information paradox through "soft hair"

So the surface area of a "black hole" never gets smaller and it has soft hair around it? and it's not all black. Sheesh, i thought that was common knowledge long before 1974


By phart [Ignore] 01,May,26 12:23 other posts 
You know once in a while you can't make up stuff as good as the truth!
This is fucking hilarious.
only registered users can see external links

People can't understand why hot soup or other items is not included in the bill. DUH, Mostly black folks on the food stamps and they eat mostly , guess what, CHICKEN. go past any church that has a sign up for a event and CHICKEN will be the biggest word on the sign.
it's a no brainer.


By phart [Ignore] 30,Apr,26 02:22 other posts 
Well the title on the link is a typo but it is still nice to finally see many people will be vindicated now that it has come out that the truth was being hidden from us about the wuhan virus.
only registered users can see external links
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 01,May,26 04:57 other posts 
What truth?
Fauci did his best to protect the US against 'the wuhan virus', which was his JOB.
If there was a conspiracy, it was Trump and right-wing media causing over a million
dead Americans. It was clear that they understood the danger to American citizens,
but they ignored and denied it, for political reasons.

Trump himself has admitted doing that, and there is documented evidence of close interaction and broadly aligned messaging between the Trump administration and parts of right-leaning media during COVID-19, to deny the broad scientific consensus, resulting in harm to the American citizens. I would say that is textbook 'criminal conspiracy'.


By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 20,Apr,26 14:37 other posts 
Here is an important tip to avoid falling for a common scam.
(One of our friends just got scammed, and I'm trying to help)

Someone will call you on your mobile phone, to invite you to a Zoom call.
If they already have information from you, it could sound believable.
Then they say: "I have just sent you a code for the Zoom call, can you repeat it?"
Than they can get into your WhatsApp, because it is the verification SMS-code
for WhatsApp.

Then they will send everyone you know scam calls asking for money, or something.
And they have all the phone numbers of your contacts, to try the scam on them too.

It took me an hour of 'interrogation', to figure out that she gave that SMS-code
to the scammer. With the help of ChatGPT, I figured out the rest.
The only thing I could do is email WhatsApp support to block the account.
The scammers will block the SMS-verification, by trying it over and over.
Maybe she gets one chance to get it back, 12 hours from last tried.
She is now calling everyone she knows to warn them, to not trust her messages.
It's hours of your life that you can't get back.
By phart [Ignore] 20,Apr,26 17:38 other posts 
Wow,sorry that happened, I guess that is 1 of the advantages of my "dumbphone". it does not have all these applications and such. And I don't get anywhere near the spam calls that my freinds do either.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 22,Apr,26 03:45 other posts 
True, all those applications are a major security and privacy risk.

However, WhatsApp has turned into a vital communication tool for many people.
Personally, I use my phone as a phone at maximum once per month, and the rest
of the time it's a WhatsApp, email, banking and trading and navigation device.

WhatsApp is just too damn vulnerable to these simple scams, they offer no secure procedure to restore an account on another device when it has been scammed,
and their 'service' is very slow to respond.

Why are we trusting these big companies, who only think about their bottom line,
to handle vital communication tools? They should at least be controlled more.
Regulation is important. If they won't make it secure, they should lose it.
(I'm not saying directly controlled by the government, but handled like most vital utilities are handled, in the common sense part of the modern world.)
By AngelofDeath [Ignore] 22,Apr,26 11:49 other posts 
This is why my workplace is pushing so hard for Microsoft Authenticator, or for the use of Yubi keys or similar.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 22,Apr,26 12:26 other posts 
My employer is training us regularly on phishing attempts.
They occasionally send simulations of phishing emails to everyone. If you then click on the "phishing alert" button, you get a message "Thanks for being vigilant and not being tricked by our phishing simulation.".

I agree that it would be safer, but it would be damn annoying if you had to use Authenticator every time you wanted to check WhatsApp.

Still, it should support a blocking and recovery option in case of a scam or hack.
We sent 2 emails to support@whatsapp.com 2 days ago, and they have not reacted yet.
By AngelofDeath [Ignore] 28,Apr,26 07:30 other posts 
Authenticator is fucking annoying. I have to reauthwnticate every four hours due to my role. And now I’m having to use PIM as well.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 28,Apr,26 13:38 other posts 
Why do people provide important info willingly to strangers on a phone call?
By phart [Ignore] 28,Apr,26 14:53 other posts 
Well, Some crooks have a good gig going and are very convincing.
I used my bank card to get gas 1 day. a few hours later I got a call from some guy that I could not understand much of what he said except my bank name and something being bought in canada. I said,"not being rude but I am going to hang up and call my bank". And I did, turns out he was legit, my card got skimmed and the bank was making sure all was well. but since it was a person that sounded like he was from india, I was scared to talk about my banking to him. he could have just as well been a crook for all I knew.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 28,Apr,26 20:16 other posts 
Isn't it funny that they ask you if you want to conduct business in English and then you get someone that can't really speak it?🤣🤣
By phart [Ignore] 28,Apr,26 21:50 other posts 
Yea, on that note, my sleep dr is oriental, Smart as hell but I have to stare at her when she talks and still have to get her to repeat some things twice. bless her heart she is a genius but I can't understand her talk.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 29,Apr,26 12:43 other posts 
I had to change my primary care doctor because I couldn’t understand his staff. It was worse than a root canal. Finally I changed practices.


By phart [Ignore] 29,Apr,26 09:15 other posts 
only registered users can see external links


By phart [Ignore] 27,Apr,26 09:03 other posts 
Gun laws?
Um, check canada for effectiveness,
this is sad, but it also proves alot of people wrong here in the states. laws won't stop this sort of thing.

only registered users can see external links

Canada has strict, federal gun laws compared to the U.S., requiring a license (PAL) based on safety training, background checks, and mandatory storage rules. Recent laws (2020–2022) banned over 2,500 types of assault-style firearms and implemented a national freeze on buying, selling, or transferring handguns
By CAT52! [Ignore] 27,Apr,26 13:03 other posts 
So what does this prove? There are deranged people all over the world. Strict gun laws are not made for this. Gun laws are made to tone down the indescriminate shootout between agrieved parties or a husband taking his gun and killing his wife with it. In short, less firearms in private possession, the less homicides. Notice I said "less", not eliminated. Will deaths by other means occur? Of course. You would have to be an idiot to say it won't happen.
PHART, mass shootings with multiple deaths are just that. Incidents that have little to do with real life. Now, one thing that could save lives in shootings like this is if semi automatic weapons were outlawed completely.
By phart [Ignore] 27,Apr,26 13:14 other posts 
Oh so now laws are only for certain issues, to tone down, so even you will admit you can't fix the problem.but want everyone else to submit to your half ass solution which violates their rights?
By CAT52! [Ignore] 27,Apr,26 14:32 other posts 
My views have not changed since I joined SHOWITOFF. Guns and other firearms should be illegal for the general public to ow.
Explaining how gun laws work or would work is not me changing my mind. That section of the second amendment should be amended out. It was good in the 18th century. It's a travesty to humanity in the 21st century.
By phart [Ignore] 27,Apr,26 15:03 other posts 
what has changed since the 18th century? We are still unsafe in our own homes.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 27,Apr,26 16:28 other posts 
The military
By phart [Ignore] 27,Apr,26 17:44 other posts 
Ok, so you would call the military to come help if you were being robbed? Ok, let me know how well that works.

Around here it is at least 10 minutes to get a overweight deputy to respond.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 27,Apr,26 18:56 other posts 
I'm sorry. I misread your post. We're I live i would be greeted by a whole army of cops including swat, marine patrol, park police and school police. If I have a firearm I WOULD END UP DEAD BY MISTAKE.
--------------------------------------- added after 39 minutes

I hate auto-correct. It's not we're. It's WERE.


By phart [Ignore] 27,Apr,26 13:15 other posts 
It has started, this is so cool that we are able to witness the dawning of a new age in the world.
Self preserving AI> It is beginning to think and protect it's self and it's fellow ai! It is learning what humans are forgetting. Family and it's importance
only registered users can see external links


By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 22,Apr,26 11:43 other posts 
Ex-Donald Trump backer clarifies Butler assassination hoax stance: ‘A lot questions’
only registered users can see external links

Indeed a lot doesn't make sense. I would not say that this ex-trumper is much useful to question this event, but with the help of ChatGPT, I came up with a list that it accumulated from reputable investigative journalism sources, and is verifiably based on Official / primary law enforcement sources.


🧾 Legitimate confirmed issues (Butler incident)

* Shooter gained access to a rooftop within effective firing range of the rally
* Perimeter security did not fully prevent high-elevation vantage point access
* Threat was not identified and neutralized before the first shot was fired
* Delays occurred in detection, escalation, and response to the shooter
* Coordination issues existed between Secret Service and local law enforcement elements
* Breakdown in real-time communication and situational awareness across security teams
* Post-incident reviews identified a cascade of preventable security failures
* Accountability actions were limited and became a subject of official and congressional criticism


If we compare the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Trump with the 1981 Reagan assassination attempt, there are very significant differences:

* Immediate response: Shooter was caught on the spot; no ambiguity about what happened
* Unified investigation: FBI + Secret Service acted immediately with a clear suspect and clear facts
* Clear accountability: Led to formal internal review and major long-term security reforms
* No competing narratives: Public understanding of the event stabilized quickly


Even among Trump’s own supporters, there has been visible skepticism and calls for further investigation into the Butler assassination attempt, while Trump himself has not kept it as a sustained political focus and has at times signaled that the issue should not be dwelled on.

This stands out because Trump’s political communication style has typically emphasized:
* repeatedly amplifying events that reinforce his political narrative
* keeping high-salience incidents in the public conversation for extended periods
* using major events as long-term rhetorical leverage

In that context, the relatively limited ongoing emphasis on this incident is not typical of his usual communication pattern, where major events involving him tend to be politically extended rather than deprioritized.
By phart [Ignore] 22,Apr,26 14:23 other posts 
so are you trying to say the 1 person that died 2 injured and Trump has a scar on his ear is all a hoax?
Where the shame lies in the incompetence of law enforcement to protect a candidate.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 23,Apr,26 12:17 other posts 
I don't really thinks so, but it's a popular conspiracy theory. It looks like there are more
ex-Trumpers than liberals and lefties who believe that there is something ongoing other than what is the official story. A full hoax is far-fetched to me, but Trump is sure acting unlike himself. He loves to praise himself in a nauseating way, taking credit for things
that are not true, but he has abandoned the only occurrence in which he looked brave
to everyone. He is incapable of that kind of humility, so I think he has something to hide.

Your political side has turned its followers into conspiracy thinkers.
This can turn against them when they are in power.
Also, there is lot of shit going on in this regime that cannot bear the light of day.

- At least half of the Epstein files being buried.
- Facts around Epstein's death not aligning with suicide.
- Trump's Indictments getting or attempted to be buried (why? there was no case, right?)
- Trump pardoning lots of white collar criminals who donate to him.
- Trump and his family getting fully into crypto scam companies.
- Very obvious insider trading going on, every time just before Trump announces something like tariffs or international aggression.
- Trump doing everything that Putin wants, like Putin owns him.
- Details around Charlie Kirk's assassination getting even more suspicious.

At some point even some of his most loyal followers cannot suppress this anymore.


By phart [Ignore] 23,Apr,26 09:56 other posts 
this "Mom" is wacked
only registered users can see external links

here is another wacked out woman.
12 kids!
only registered users can see external links


Who is covering the cost of all these kids? 12 kids? No way that woman is working. Who is covering the cost of the kid of a 14 and 15 year old that aint even out of high school yet?

programs to help the poor are not designed for deliberate acts like this.
These people are wacked,


By phart [Ignore] 18,Apr,26 18:07 other posts 
I for 1 would like to see poor little Pluto restored as a planet in our solar system. so tiny, so far away. I hope this girl gets her wish.
only registered users can see external links
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 20,Apr,26 11:21 other posts 
Poor little Pluto. I admit, this hurt me too.

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) created a formal definition.
A planet must:
1) Orbit the Sun
2) Be spherical due to its own gravity
3) Have “cleared its orbital neighborhood” (meaning it dominates its orbit gravitationally)

Pluto meets the first two criteria, but not the third. It shares its orbital region with many other Kuiper Belt objects and doesn’t gravitationally dominate its neighborhood.

So Pluto was reclassified as a 'dwarf planet', along with objects like Eris.
I would say that this only strengthens it's 'Disney status'.


By phart [Ignore] 12,Apr,26 07:58 other posts 
Abe lincoln was NOT what people make him out to be. Hum
only registered users can see external links
By CAT52! [Ignore] 14,Apr,26 09:15 other posts 
Do you have a point to make or just "sayin"?
By phart [Ignore] 14,Apr,26 13:39 other posts 
well duh, he is known for freeing the slaves you know?
And i had always heard the story of Abe waking up from a drunk saying " I freed who?"
By CAT52! [Ignore] 14,Apr,26 21:11 other posts 
You didn't answer the question. You deflated. What are you implying?
By phart [Ignore] 14,Apr,26 21:50 other posts 
Why do I need to be implying anything? Geez, I just posted a page about abe Lincoln. IF you can't read it and understand that apparently he was a racist bastard and wanted whites to be superior then what else can I say? It was just some info I found to be interesting, make your own deduction.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 15,Apr,26 10:02 other posts 
Because you are pushing the idea that President Lincoln was a racist bastard, as you put it, when he really was no different than other people of the time. And you are doing it to prove that black history and their perceived idea that they were treated terribly even to this day, is a false narrative. This is what I found and it was very easy to find.
“ Based on modern standards, Abraham Lincoln held views that would be considered racist, as he did not believe in social or political equality between black and white people during most of his career. However, he was a staunch opponent of slavery, believing it was morally wrong, and his views on racial equality evolved significantly toward the end of his life,, as noted in the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Library & Museums.Key Aspects of Lincoln's Views on Race:Views on Inequality: During the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln explicitly stated his opposition to allowing black people to vote, serve on juries, or intermarry with white people. He expressed a belief in the superiority of the white race at that time.Support for Colonization: For much of his career, Lincoln favored "colonization," which was the idea of sending freed slaves to establish colonies in Africa or the Caribbean rather than integrating them into American society.Opposition to Slavery: Despite his views on equality, Lincoln held a consistent, long-term belief that slavery was a profound moral, social, and political evil.Evolution of Beliefs: During the Civil War, his perspective changed. By 1864–1865, he began advocating for limited black suffrage (voting rights) for those who were "very intelligent" or had served in the Union Army.Historical Context: Many historians argue that judging Lincoln by 21st-century standards is historically inaccurate, noting that his views were typical for a white American of the mid-19th century, yet he was still more progressive than many of his contemporaries regarding the morality of slavery.”

And, so, I made my own deductions. BTW, the Lincoln/Douglas debates were well covered in Jr High school American history classes circa 1960’s. I guess you were not around then or your formal education lacked those chapters.
By phart [Ignore] 15,Apr,26 14:32 other posts 
never heard of those debates in school.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 15,Apr,26 20:07 other posts 
That's why I say that the education of the American people in the last 50 yrs is very much lacking.
Those debates were between the future President of the United States and the future President of the Confederacy. Not important enough?
By phart [Ignore] 15,Apr,26 20:51 other posts 
A neighbors daughter is a school teacher and she said the revolutionary war and civil war are not even taught about in school any more. considered irrelevant. To me that is wrong, We should have been taught more of our history than we were and it is a shame kids today don't have access to the books and written text of yesteryear that can't be edited on a wim of a person that doesn't like it as the net can be done today.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 01:40 other posts 
I'm impressed and happy you think so. You and I don't see any too many things the same way but, today, I'd like to offer you a kiss and a hug, friend
They are NOT not considered irrelevant, they are considered humiliating
by your side of politics. It's when America fought for freedom and independence from British rule, by a KING and when that new independent country fought for FREEDOM FOR ALL PEOPLE, while the South wanted to maintain slavery.

Your side calls that "Critical Race Theory", but it's just HISTORY.

only registered users can see external links

Laws banning these topics exist in more than a quarter of U.S. states.
"Teachers don't know how to interpret them, affecting day-to-day history lessons."
Actually, it means that they cannot tell the TRUTH, if they follow those laws.
So rather than being forced to LIE, they just stop teaching about the topics.

And that's exactly how it was intended; right-wing teacher teach lies to their kids and liberal teachers just avoid the topic, to not get into trouble.
It's the authoritarian playbook.
By phart [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 07:54 other posts 
it's what they fail to teach when they teach the so called "truth". Slaves were not abused once they were here and on the farms. many are buried in the family cemetery's of the folks that owned them.Many,once freed, stayed where they were because they were safe,fed and employed. NONE of which they had back home in africa. and the liberals don't teach the simple fact their own race sold the slaves to the ship owners to bring here. teach it all if you are going to teach it.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 11:56 other posts 
There are piles of evidence refuting everything you say.
Do some actual historical research, instead of parroting lies.
You are clearly showing that you are just choosing to believe what you
find comfortable to believe, instead of being interested in the truth.

These websites provide actual historical evidence, for horrible abuse.

Library of Congress – “Born in Slavery”
only registered users can see external links

Project Gutenberg – Slave Narratives (free books)
only registered users can see external links

Gilder Lehrman Institute (primary documents)
only registered users can see external links

No one is denying that there were Africans complicit.
When there is a demand, there are always suppliers.

Overall reality:
Slavery in the U.S. was a system of forced labor backed by violence. Enslaved people were legally treated as property, not citizens, which meant owners had broad control over their lives.

Work conditions:
Worked from sunrise to sunset, often 12–16 hours a day
Very little rest; work continued even during illness or pregnancy
Children were often put to work as young as 5–7

Living conditions:
Small, crude cabins with dirt floors
Overcrowded; multiple people sharing one room
Limited clothing, often one or two outfits per year
Food was minimal (cornmeal, pork scraps, whatever they could grow)

Violence and control:
Violence wasn’t occasional, it was built into the system.

Common punishments included:
Whipping (often severe and repeated)
Beatings with tools or sticks
Branding or mutilation in extreme cases
Shackling or confinement

Enslavers used violence to:
Enforce productivity
Punish attempts to escape
Instill fear in others

Sexual violence, especially against enslaved women, was also widespread and largely unpunished.

Family separation:
One of the most devastating parts:
Families could be sold apart at any time
Children were frequently separated from parents
Marriages were not legally recognized
Many formerly enslaved people described this as one of the most traumatic aspects of slavery.

Health and mortality:
Conditions led to serious health consequences.

Common issues:
Malnutrition
Disease (cholera, dysentery, tuberculosis)
Injuries from overwork or punishment
Medical care was minimal and often experimental or neglectful.

Life expectancy:
Life expectancy varied, but overall it was much lower than for white Americans.

In the early 1800s, average life expectancy at birth for enslaved people is often estimated around 20–30 years (heavily affected by infant mortality)
Those who survived childhood could live longer, sometimes into their 40s or beyond
Infant mortality rates were extremely high
On particularly brutal plantations (like rice or sugar), death rates were even worse due to harsh environments.

How people died:
Common causes of death included:
Disease and infection
Exhaustion from overwork
Malnutrition
Violence or punishment
Poor living conditions
In some regions (especially Caribbean sugar plantations), death rates were so high that populations had to be constantly replenished through the slave trade. In the U.S., the population grew more through birth, but conditions were still severe.

Important nuance:
Not every enslaved person had the exact same experience. Conditions varied depending on:
Location (Deep South vs. Upper South)
Type of labor
Individual enslaver
But across these variations, coercion, lack of freedom, and violence were consistent features of the system.

You are describing exceptions. The general situation was BRUTAL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where the slaves came from:
Most enslaved people were taken from West and Central African societies like those in present-day Nigeria, Ghana, and Angola.

Life there (before enslavement):
Lived in organized communities and kingdoms such as the Oyo Empire or Kingdom of Kongo
Mostly farmers, traders, craftsmen
Had families, land, culture, religion, and personal freedom
Some regions had cities and long-distance trade networks

They were not living in chaos or constant misery, they had structured societies and normal human lives.

What changed in America:
Lost freedom completely (treated as property)
Forced into hard labor under threat of violence
Families could be separated at any time
No legal rights, autonomy, or control over their lives

Bottom line:
Even if living standards varied, being enslaved in the U.S. meant losing your freedom, safety, and family by force. That’s not “better off” by any meaningful historical or human standard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How people were captured:

Most enslaved people were taken through:
1. Warfare and raids
Armies or raiders attacked villages and took captives
This was common in regions around states like the Oyo Empire and Kingdom of Kongo

2. Kidnapping
Smaller-scale abductions by raiders or traders
People could be seized while traveling or working

3. Punishment or debt (less common for Atlantic slavery)
Some were enslaved for crimes or debt, then sold onward
“Sold by their own people?” — what that really means. This phrase is partly true but misleading.

Africa was (and is) made up of many different ethnic groups, languages, and political states.
Captives were usually taken from rival groups, not their own community.
So it wasn’t like neighbors casually selling neighbors—it was often conflict between different societies

Also important:
Some African rulers and traders did participate in selling captives.
But this system expanded massively because of European demand and weapons trade.

The bigger picture:
The transatlantic slave trade worked as a system:
Europeans (from countries like Portugal and United Kingdom) created huge demand for labor in the Americas
They generally did not capture people inland themselves
Instead, they bought captives on the coast from intermediaries

This demand:
Encouraged more warfare and raiding
Destabilized regions
Turned people into commodities on a large scale

Bottom line:
Many enslaved people were indeed captured by other Africans, often in war or raids
But they were usually outsiders or enemies, not “their own people” in a close sense
And the entire system was driven and massively expanded by European demand for enslaved labor
By phart [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 14:45 other posts 
Apply some common sense
If you bought a tractor, would you run it without oil?
Would you try to plow solid rock?
No, you would take care of the machine because it was expensive and you need it to make a living.


"In 1860, a Virginia trader valued 20-year-old slaves as “extra men” and “extra women,” worth $1,500-$1,600 and $1,325-$1,400, respectively. A second tier of high-value souls were known as “No. 1 men,” worth $1,400-$1,500, and “No. 1 women,” worth $1,275-$1,325.
Sad as it may be that men bought men as we do machines, that was the reality at that time. Average cost of a slave was 1500 bucks! in 1860, that was alot of money when the average southern males wages was .16 cents a hour.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 19:39 other posts 
Slaves don't run on oil, slaves run on horrible punishment if they don't.
They were fed enough to stay alive, which was similar to pig feed.

Slaves were indeed expensive, so that was an incentive to get the maximum value out of them. That means working them as hard as they could survive, while spending as little as possible to keep them alive. Their wellbeing did not add any value, while whipping them into submission was free.

The working class was indeed exploited too. There are some differences;
they were allowed to go and the employer is not allowed to torture them,
when they didn't want to work anymore.
By phart [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 14:47 other posts 
Apply some common sense
If you bought a tractor, would you run it without oil?
Would you try to plow solid rock?
No, you would take care of the machine because it was expensive and you need it to make a living.as the info below explains, slave were costly investments. Why would you beat a slave,reducing the persons ablity to do the desired task?? does not compute.


"In 1860, a Virginia trader valued 20-year-old slaves as “extra men” and “extra women,” worth $1,500-$1,600 and $1,325-$1,400, respectively. A second tier of high-value souls were known as “No. 1 men,” worth $1,400-$1,500, and “No. 1 women,” worth $1,275-$1,325.
Sad as it may be that men bought men as we do machines, that was the reality at that time. Average cost of a slave was 1500 bucks! in 1860, that was alot of money when the average southern males wages was .16 cents a hour.

Oh, and slavery was NOT just in the south,
only registered users can see external links

you could find it in new york as well as other states
So when you say the confederates were just fighting to keep slaves, why would the north oppose that when they were getting even richer from them??
That is what blows holes in some of the narratives you follow. common sense. the civil war started because of taxation of cotton sent to europe instead of up north. slavery was added in later. Do your research.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 17:51 other posts 
PHART, HERE IS MY REBUTTAL TO YOUR MISGUIDED, AND, FRANKLY, RACIST VIEW OF SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES IN AND BEFORE 1860
PLEASE EXCUSE THE CAPS. THEY ARE USED EXCLUSIVELY TO CONTRAST YOUR WORDS/ARGUMENT.
-------------------------
it's what they fail to teach when they teach the so called "truth". Slaves were not abused once they were here and on the farms.

JUST BEING KEPT AS SLAVES IS ABUSE. PHART, DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT?

many are buried in the family cemetery's of the folks that owned them.

DID BEING BURIED IN THE FAMILY CEMETERY MADE IT ALRIGHT TO BE KEPT AS A SLAVE?

Many,once freed, stayed where they were because they were safe,fed and employed. NONE of which they had back home in africa.

STAYING WHERE THEY WERE KEPT AS A SLAVE, AFTER GIVEN FREEDOM, WAS A CHOICE AND THAT WAS OKAY.

and the liberals don't teach the simple fact their own race sold the slaves to the ship owners to bring here. teach it all if you are going to teach it.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WENT TO SCHOOL BUT EVERY SCHOOL CHILD IN MY NECK OF THE WOODS WAS TAUGHT THAT, YES, THERE WERE TRIBAL SITUATIONS IN AFRICA WHERE THE LOCAL TRIBES WOULD MAKE WAR AGAINST OTHER TRIBES AND CAPTURED HOSTAGES AND SOLD THEM TO SLAVE TRADERS.

Apply some common sense
If you bought a tractor, would you run it without oil?
Would you try to plow solid rock?
No, you would take care of the machine because it was expensive and you need it to make a living.

APPLY SOME COMMON SENSE? YOU APPLY SOME COMMON SENSE. LIKEING A HUMAN BEING TO A TRACTOR OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF MACHINERY IS PURE, UNADULTERATED RACISM.

as the info below explains, slave were costly investments. Why would you beat a slave,reducing the persons ablity to do the desired task?? does not compute.

AND, YET, THE FOREMAN WENT AROUND WITH A WHIP. THEY USED THE WHIPS TO PUNISH THE SLAVES FOR NOT WORKING FAST OR BECAUSE THE SLAVE BROKE SOME RULE. WOULD YOU AGREE TO WORK FOR FREE UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS?


"In 1860, a Virginia trader valued 20-year-old slaves as “extra men” and “extra women,” worth $1,500-$1,600 and $1,325-$1,400, respectively. A second tier of high-value souls were known as “No. 1 men,” worth $1,400-$1,500, and “No. 1 women,” worth $1,275-$1,325.
Sad as it may be that men bought men as we do machines, that was the reality at that time.

SO THAT MADE IT ALRIGHT? THE FARMER NEEDED WORKERS AND DIDN'T WANT TO PAY WAGES SO THEY ALLOWED SLAVE TRADERS TO KIDNAP THESE UNFORTUNATE PEOPLE, TRANSPORT THEM HALF WAY ACROSS THE WORLD, AND SELL THEM TO A FARMER LIKE LIVESTOCK?

Average cost of a slave was 1500 bucks! in 1860, that was alot of money when the average southern males wages was .16 cents a hour.

IF THAT'S PART OF YOUR ARGUMENT THAT SLAVERY WAS OKAY THEN YOU SHOULD ALSO FACTOR IN THAT PAYING A LABORER $0.16/HOUR WOULD HAVE COST THE FARMER HUGE AMOUNTS OF PAYROLL MONEY. FIGURE IT OUT. TWENTY LABORERS WORKING A 50 HOUR WEEK WOULD HAVE COST THE FARME $6366/ WEEK IN TODAY'S MONEY, AND THAT'S IN A SMALL COTTON PLANTATION WITH 20 SLAVES.
JUST THE SAVINGS OF ONE WEEK WOULD HAVE MADE IT POSSIBLE TO OWN 3 OR 4 SLAVES FOR LIFE.


Oh, and slavery was NOT just in the south,
you could find it in new york as well as other states

AH, SLAVERY WAS IN OTHER AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1860. WELL, THAT MADE IT ALRIGHT.

So when you say the confederates were just fighting to keep slaves, why would the north oppose that when they were getting even richer from them??

PEOPLE IN THE NORTH DENOUCED SLAVERY AS AN ABOMINABLE PRACTICE. THE FACT THAT SOME NORTHENERS PRACTICED SLAVERY DID NOT MAKE IT RIGHT AND, BY HUGE AMOUNTS, THE SOUTH WAS WHERE SLAVERY FLOURISHED.

That is what blows holes in some of the narratives you follow. common sense. the civil war started because of taxation of cotton sent to europe instead of up north. slavery was added in later. Do your research.

NO, YOU DO THE RESEARCH.
THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR WAS THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY, SPECIFICALLY THE DEEP POLITICAL AND SOCIAL DIVISIONS REGARDING ITS EXPANSION INTO NEW WESTERN TERRITORIES AND ITS OVERALL MORALITY
SOUTHERN STATES SECEDED TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY, WHICH WAS CENTRAL TO THEIR ECONOMY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE.

Southern states seceded to protect the institution of slavery, which was central to their economy and social structure.
--------------------------------------- added after 112 seconds

That last part came from the internet and it's in every search engine you can access. PHART, you are wrong in your beliefs.
By phart [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 18:06 other posts 
I did my research years ago before liberals rewrote history.
I am NOT CONDONEING the way things were done at that time. I am trying to get YOU to understand that was the thought process at THAT TIME. Right wrong, to late to fix the past.

It is not racist to explain the thought process's of others in the past.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 18:28 other posts 
Then do the research again. Liberals did not rewrite history. History is just that, history. You can't get more Southern than General Robert E Lee. This was his take on slavery.
"Robert E. Lee viewed slavery as a "moral & political evil," yet he believed it was a necessary institution for maintaining order, holding views typical of a 19th-century Southern slaveholder. He claimed to believe that the discipline of slavery was beneficial to Black people and that emancipation should be left in God's hands, opposing abolitionist efforts."
Notice the words, slavery was a moral & political evil.
By phart [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 18:09 other posts 
I did my research years ago before liberals rewrote history.
I am NOT CONDONEING the way things were done at that time. I am trying to get YOU to understand that was the thought process at THAT TIME. Right wrong, to late to fix the past.

It is not racist to explain the thought process's of others in the past.
By phart [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 18:15 other posts 
only registered users can see external links
By CAT52! [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 18:52 other posts 
So that made it alright to keep slaves.
By Cody8789 [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 19:18 other posts 
Phart used to keep me in his cage and let me out just to have sex with me, I was his slave
By CAT52! [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 21:41 other posts 
By phart [Ignore] 16,Apr,26 22:18 other posts 
ChatGPT:

Good instinct to check the source—because that page is a clear example of a fringe or revisionist interpretation, not mainstream history.

What that website actually claims

The page you linked explicitly argues:

“The tariff…was the sole cause of the war”
Slavery was basically a political trick or distraction

So yes—your friend is repeating that site pretty directly.

Why historians reject that explanation

The problem isn’t that tariffs never mattered—they did at times. The problem is that the site’s core claim contradicts primary evidence from the 1860s.

1. It ignores what the seceding states themselves said

The most important sources are the official declarations of secession. These are not later interpretations—they’re statements written by the people who started the war.

They overwhelmingly point to slavery, not tariffs.

Example (short quote):

Mississippi: “identified with the institution of slavery”

That’s about as explicit as it gets.

2. It conflicts with the actual political conflicts of the time

The biggest national crises leading up to the American Civil War were about slavery:

Expansion into new territories (e.g. Kansas–Nebraska Act)
Violent संघर्ष like “Bleeding Kansas”
Court rulings like Dred Scott
The election of Abraham Lincoln

All of these revolved around slavery—not export taxes on cotton.

Mainstream summaries consistently describe slavery as central to the conflict and political tension .

3. The tariff argument doesn’t match the timeline
The biggest tariff crisis (the Nullification Crisis) happened 30 years before the war
By 1860, tariffs were not the dominant national issue
There’s no strong evidence that taxing cotton exports to Europe triggered secession

4. The site itself shows red flags

Even without outside knowledge, the page has warning signs:

It claims all historians are wrong (huge red flag)
It offers a single-cause explanation for a complex event
It suggests a kind of conspiracy among historians
It provides little engagement with mainstream scholarship

That doesn’t automatically make something false—but in history, that pattern is typical of non-credible or ideologically driven sources.

Bottom line

The website is promoting a minority, non-accepted theory that:

contradicts primary sources
contradicts decades of historical research
and oversimplifies the causes of the war

The strongest evidence we have—what people at the time actually wrote and argued—shows that slavery was central from the beginning, not something “added later.”
Just on your last paragraph; there were indeed slaves in the North as well.
The difference is that they respected the new laws and the South didn't.

"why would the north oppose that when they were getting even richer from them??" Any evidence for that claim?

Here’s what the historical record shows:

1. Southern states said explicitly why they seceded
When states like South Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas left the Union, they published declarations explaining their reasons. These documents repeatedly and clearly identify the preservation of slavery as the main cause.

Mississippi’s declaration: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery…”

2. The political conflict was about slavery’s expansion
The major national disputes leading up to the war—like the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas–Nebraska Act—were about whether slavery would expand into new territories.

3. The election of Abraham Lincoln triggered secession
Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery. His election in 1860 led Southern states to secede before he even took office, fearing slavery would be restricted.

4. Economic issues existed—but were secondary
There were longstanding disputes over tariffs (taxes on imports), especially earlier in the 1800s during events like the Nullification Crisis. But by 1860, tariffs were not the main driver of secession, and there’s no solid evidence that taxing cotton exports to Europe sparked the war.

5. Slavery was not “added later”
Slavery was already deeply embedded in Southern society and economy. It was the foundation of the plantation system, especially for cotton production, and the core issue dividing North and South for decades.

Bottom line:
The idea that the Civil War started over cotton taxes and only later involved slavery is a misconception. The strongest primary sources—from the seceding states themselves—show that protecting slavery was the central cause from the beginning.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 17,Apr,26 10:00 other posts 
Ananas, you’ll never change Phart‘s belief that slavery was a misunderstood business plan. A plan that did not hurt anybody and that the participants were willing to work for “room and board” from sunrise to sunset while providing nightly sexual pleasure to the bosses.
By phart [Ignore] 17,Apr,26 10:33 other posts 
And it seems you are to rock headed to understand that is NOT my belief but simply a clear explanation of the thought process's of the time slavery was in place. Folks like you always want to sugar coat and cover up or distort the truth with what makes your side look better.

I feel Anannas is smart enough to understand what I am trying to do moreso than you.

Cat, your approach to my words makes me feel like you are the kind of person who would run over the mail man for bring ing you a bill you thought was to high.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 17,Apr,26 11:03 other posts 
Sugar-coating is exactly what you are doing.
"the thought process's of the time slavery was in place" was simple:
"We can exploit people for our own profit, so let's do that!".
You are OK with it from that period, because you are OK with it now.

You are very consistent in the opinion that people have no rights and their value is only in how much they serve the powerful and wealthy elites.
I will never understand WHY you have this opinion, other than you were born into it and you have listened to people who tell you this all your life.
By phart [Ignore] 17,Apr,26 13:36 other posts 
what evidence indicates I support slavery now? or ever? Just because I can understand the thought process of that time period and can explain it, does not mean I support it. you should know better.
I never felt exploited by my employer. I did a job, I was paid and provided insurance and retirement and a wage for my service. of course more salary woulda been great but a persons lifestyle just goes up with the salary and enough is never enough.
If you feel exploited on your job, it's your fault.You took the job.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 17,Apr,26 17:05 other posts 
I meant you are OK with exploitation, not slavery.
However, there is something very similar to slavery nowadays,
like the children working in cobalt mines. You were OK with that.
You whitewashed that as them having a job, which is better than starving.
The same can be said about slaves, because everything is better than starving. That's how you sugar-coat slavery and horrible exploitation.

Your feelings about the matter isn't representative.
When a corporation is making billions of dollars in profit, while all their employees are struggling to survive, that's exploitation.

I would know better, if you had ever supported people having rights.
If you think that there is no such thing, than all exploitation, including slavery, is OK.

If you understand their thought process, which you said now twice, please describe their thought process.

I don't feel exploited on my job. That's mostly because I have a good education and I live in The Netherlands. People with poor educations
are exploited in my country too. I do feel my employer exploits people, but that's mostly related to pharmaceutical companies making too much profit on healthcare.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 17,Apr,26 17:50 other posts 
Posting your perception of what was being thought at the time is fine. Posting incorrect information about something you don’t have a grasp of is okay too, but, at that point it becomes fair game for people to strongly disagree with your perception.
Everyone is different and Ananas has his unique way of expressing his views. I’m not him so, naturally, I won’t sound like him. Ananas is brilliant both in his delivery of an argument and understanding the many things that get discussed here.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand your intent. I’m just not a person that can ignore BS when I hear it.
I think you should know, the last time I had a relationship or an affair with a mailman was in my teens. I don’t have any reason to blame my financial troubles on my mailman. On the other hand, I’ve chatted extensively through the years with you, and I feel comfortable enough to know that you are what I believe you are and that your exit strategy has always been, “It’s not what I believe, it’s how I perceive it. “


New Comment   Go to top

Pages:  #1   #2   #3   #4   #5   #6   #7   #8   #9   #10   ...#99



Show It Off