Originally posted by @philokaliaThe analogy about gangrene - as it might apply to slavery - is such an obvious dud, it is little other than evasion.
No, you already know how that is done, as I explained why it existed above. APPLY WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN.
Originally posted by @fmfStop being obtuse.
There is no "axe" being wielded. I am no more wielding an "axe" than you are by firing off words like "idiot", and "retarded", and "stupid".
That is far more frustrating than using harsh language. You are impeding the very nature of discussion.
Originally posted by @philokaliaI am being very straightforward and candid.
Stop being obtuse.
Originally posted by @philokaliaWe are talking about slavery. I don't have a moral objection to killing in self-defence in any period of history.
If you lived in a neolithic tribe and you sat down and explained that maybe we shouldn't have a standing policy to kill the other tribes hunters on sight because there's definitely a better way to proceed... you'll get laughed at, and if you're tribe is stupid enough to listen to you, they'll eventually be wiped out of the gene pool.
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @fmfCart before the horse. Again.
I may well have been a slave owner in the C18th and may well have believed - sincerely, as a Christian - that the economic benefits of being a slave owner made my behaviour morally sound and was, to boot, divinely endorsed. But that context, in terms of slavery, was one of moral darkness. Slavery persists to this day. There may be economic and financial excuses for it. It's morally depraved nevertheless.
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @fmfThe act of surgery is ugly;
The analogy about gangrene - as it might apply to slavery - is such an obvious dud, it is little other than evasion.
The act of killing in defense of your tribe is ugly;
The act of slavery is less ugly than both of these, but was a necessary institution in a time when labor was incredibly plentiful but resources were extremely limited, and is also very ugly to us, but was very natural to them.
Figure it out.
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @fmf"Straightforward & Candid" would be telling me very bluntly why you think I am wrong. Not askign me to spell things out more.
I am being very straightforward and candid.
You use this tactic because you want to frustrate people but we all know this is just a garbage move.
Originally posted by @philokaliaWe are not discussing the morality of killing in self-defence. This is a red herring. We are discussing perspectives on the morality of slavery.
The act of surgery is ugly;
The act of killing in defense of your tribe is ugly
Originally posted by @philokaliaYour economic justifications for slavery are not moral justifications.
The act of slavery is less ugly than both of these, but was a necessary institution in a time when labor was incredibly plentiful but resources were extremely limited, and is also very ugly to us, but was very natural to them.
Originally posted by @philokaliaI think I have been clearer and more on-topic than you.
"Straightforward & Candid" would be telling me very bluntly why you think I am wrong. Not askign me to spell things out more.
You use this tactic because you want to frustrate people but we all know this is just a garbage move.
I have a moral prism on one hand. And, on the other, I have historical understanding. They work in harness and there is no reason for them to be one in the same or to seek to create the same analysis.
The historical understanding informs me that what was considered to be morally sound changed according to each era. The moral prism informs me of what the moral deficit was at any given time and what progress needed to be made.
I think it's an error - and unnecessary - for one's historical understanding to create multiple, ever-shifting moral prisms. The story of the human condition has been one of moving away [not always smoothly or consistently] from moral darkness.
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @fmfIf you think that I'm not following the conversation, then you may be falling back on a "word-string" that hasn't exactly served you very well in the past. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of a lot of your stock 'word salad' which attempts to confuse cause and effect. I keep telling you that you need some 'new tricks', but you never listen. Whether you think that the old tricks are serving you well, or that you've just gotten lazy, is for others to judge.
If you think your well-thumbed 'cart before the horse' word-string works here, you may not be understanding the conversation.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @fmf<<The story of the human condition has been one of moving away [not always smoothly or consistently] from moral darkness.[/b]>>
I think I have been clearer and more on-topic than you.
I have a moral prism on one hand. And, on the other, I have historical understanding. They work in harness and there is no reason for them to be one in the same or to seek to create the same analysis.
The historical understanding informs me that what was considered to be morally sound changed accor ...[text shortened]... condition has been one of moving away [not always smoothly or consistently] from moral darkness.
In some areas, that’s true - definitely not in all areas. And in some areas, the movement has been toward moral darkness.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @suzianne<<Whether you think that the old tricks are serving you well, or that you've just gotten lazy, is for others to judge.>>
If you think that I'm not following the conversation, then you may be falling back on a "word-string" that hasn't exactly served you very well in the past. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of a lot of your stock 'word salad' which attempts to confuse cause and effect. I keep telling you that you need some 'new tricks', but you never listen. Whether y ...[text shortened]... at the old tricks are serving you well, or that you've just gotten lazy, is for others to judge.
I think it’s a little of both.