Billo Slavesplaining

Excon · Aug 3, 2016

JasperL said:
No, I don't believe slavery was ethical at any time,

Then you ignore the reality of the time and contradict your saying you knew it was different between then and now.

JasperL said:
unless the standard for ethics is no more or less than, "Might makes right."

Are you saying that can't make up part of what is ethical about something? I hope not.

JasperL said:
I suppose if pressed ...

Stop with the absurdities.
You think any treatise exist from Sumerian, Biblical or Roman times as to why slavery was ethical?
How about from Africa where it was practiced as well?
Gee, even the American Indian engaged in slavery.

And yet apparently want to argue it wasn't ethical during those times even though they engaged in it.
Sorry, you just can't do that.

JasperL said:
But you're not even making that kind of argument.

Wtf? I do not have to make any such argument.
It was known to be ethical at the time.
It is also known that the ethics have changed over time.

JasperL said:
And I'm sorry but your argument just is the dictionary definition of a circular argument.

1) Slavery was ethical in e.g. 1716.
2) Therefore, slavery was ethical in 1716.

1) Slavery is unethical in 2016.
2) Therefore, slavery is unethical in 2016.

The conclusions follow from the original premise - that IS a circular argument. Obviously the premise can be true, but stating it without any other rationale doesn't make it true.

No. No one is saying it was ethical because it was ethical.

We know it was ethical then because it was widely practiced and legal.

Stating it was ethical (a factual statement) has nothing to do with what you now want this to be about. Nor were you asking why it was. You were simply saying it wasn't with nothing to back it up.

How about those who sacrificed humans to their Gods? You don't think they believed it was ok? Of course they did or it wouldn't have become the norm.

JasperL said:
OK, then what is your principled or moral basis for determining what is or is not ethical other than that it was considered ethical at that time? I keep asking this question and you guys can't answer.

No you haven't been asking me that, nor would I have to present any argument as to why they believed something was ok to engage in. I do not have to present their reasoning.

The fact that it was the norm at the time and that they engaged in it in such a widespread scale is enough to establish they thought it was ok to engage in.

JasperL · Aug 3, 2016

Excon said:
Then you ignore the reality of the time and contradict your saying you knew it was different between then and now.

If I said that, and I don't believe I did, I misspoke and clarified my position already.

Are you saying that can't make up part of what is ethical about something? I hope not.

Depends on what your definition of "ethical" is. Of course those with the power set societal norms through laws. If the existence of a law, established by those with power, is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the law is therefore "ethical" at that time and place, then "might makes right" is how ethics are determined.

Stop with the absurdities.
You think any treatise exist from Sumerian, Biblical or Roman times as to why slavery was ethical?
How about from Africa where it was practiced as well?
Gee, even the American Indian engaged in slavery.

And yet apparently want to argue it wasn't ethical during those times even though they engaged in it.
Sorry, you just can't do that.

I'm asking on what moral or principled basis is or was slavery "ethical." Citing potential sources isn't getting us to an answer.

Wtf? I do not have to make any such argument.
It was known to be ethical at the time.
It is also known that the ethics have changed over time.

Known by whom? Slave owners or slaves? I imagine the ethics of the situation might change depending on your answer.

No. No one is saying it was ethical because it was ethical.

We know it was ethical then because it was widely practiced and legal.

The fact that it was the norm at the time and that they engaged in it in such a widespread scale is enough to establish they thought it was ok to engage in.

OK, circular argument restated with different words to describe same concept still circular argument.

blaxshep · Aug 3, 2016

JasperL said:
I'll keep the discussion to slavery, and I don't see how it's possible that slavery was "just and ethical" unless the slave consented to the arrangement, and in the Americas blacks simply did not have the opportunity to consent to that. They WERE slaves, period and they were slaves because slave owners used brutal force when necessary, backed by the state, to keep them in bondage. Might makes right. When a system of human bondage hinges in the ability of the slave owner to exercise brutal and if necessary deadly force, then you might rethink your conclusion that such a societal arrangement is inherently "ethical."

Think about the argument you're making, which is it was "ethical" in 1716 to deprive a person of all of his basic rights, including the rights of life, liberty and the opportunity to pursue happiness, based entirely on the color of his skin. That's the ethical formula you're embracing. It's fascinating you won't recognize it for what it is, which is after the fact rationalization of might makes right.

Ethics have a context for society in the framework of the time that we are discussing. In 1716 there was no ethical dilemma with slavery. It was ethical to own slaves in 1716. You cant wrap your head around that I cant help you.

Lets say in 2255 Abortion is outlawed and has been for 100 years the future you would not be able to grasp that in 2016 Abortion was legal, ethical and accepted. This is where we are with you and slavery.

JasperL · Aug 3, 2016

blaxshep said:
Ethics have a context for society in the framework of the time that we are discussing. In 1716 there was no ethical dilemma with slavery. It was ethical to own slaves in 1716. You cant wrap your head around that I cant help you.

All you're asking me to wrap my head around is your circular argument that it was ethical in 1716 because it was ethical. It seems that's the best argument anyone can come up with.

Lets say in 2255 Abortion is outlawed and has been for 100 years the future you would not be able to grasp that in 2016 Abortion was legal, ethical and accepted. This is where we are with you and slavery.

I'm not sure how that affects the "ethical" question about abortion. Whether it's "ethical" now or then is based on some principle, on morality, or religion perhaps, and I'm not sure how or why that changes with time. Society's general attitude towards that and anything else can change but then all we're saying is, "if widely accepted, then ethical" with that decision unmoored from any identifiable principle. With slavery, unless the slave elects to be a slave, I can't see how forcibly keeping a person in bondage through the threat or use of force can ever be considered an ethical system.

blaxshep · Aug 3, 2016

JasperL said:
All you're asking me to wrap my head around is your circular argument that it was ethical in 1716 because it was ethical. It seems that's the best argument anyone can come up with.

I'm not sure how that affects the "ethical" question about abortion. Whether it's "ethical" now or then is based on some principle, on morality, or religion perhaps, and I'm not sure how or why that changes with time. Society's general attitude towards that and anything else can change but then all we're saying is, "if widely accepted, then ethical" with that decision unmoored from any identifiable principle. With slavery, unless the slave elects to be a slave, I can't see how forcibly keeping a person in bondage through the threat or use of force can ever be considered an ethical system.

Ethics depend on the collective opinion of the society, to the slaves I'm sure it wasn't ethical, but to Americans in that time frame it was. Blacks were not people they were property. Were they wrong, yes I would say they were, but the fact remains that in that time it was considered ethical. Your attempt to digest the abortion argument tells me you can understand it. Is it right to burn witches at the stake, no not by our standards today but in the 1600 it was right. Were they also wrong, yes I would say they were.

Excon · Aug 5, 2016

JasperL said:
If I said that, and I don't believe I did, I misspoke and clarified my position already.

Oy Vey!

JasperL said:
Excon said:

Oy Vey! As pointed out, things are different today than they were back then.
Your failure to reply to what was stated is again acknowledged.

Click to expand...

I know "things are different" but what you can't explain is how the ethics of slavery have changed, when that change happened, and why.

You know things are different yet want me to explain to you the hows and whys?
I do not need to.

JasperL said:
Depends on what your definition of "ethical" is. Of course those with the power set societal norms through laws. If the existence of a law, established by those with power, is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the law is therefore "ethical" at that time and place, then "might makes right" is how ethics are determined.

That is one way.
It was accepted as the norm back then.
That acceptance allowed them to employ "might" to enforce laws regarding it, not to make it acceptable.

JasperL said:
I'm asking on what moral or principled basis is or was slavery "ethical." Citing potential sources isn't getting us to an answer.

iLOL You can't actually provide any treatise from that time. You can probably provide them from later times, but not from then.
And all that history shows is that morals ethics and values were changing.

JasperL said:
Known by whom? Slave owners or slaves? I imagine the ethics of the situation might change depending on your answer.

Known by whom? iLOL Society in general.
What slaves thought? iLOL Property didn't have a valid opinion then unless their owners allowed them to have one.

JasperL said:
OK, circular argument restated with different words to describe same concept still circular argument.

No. Just stop with your nonsense.
The argument being made is that it was ethical at the time. That is evidenced from it being the norm and it's widespread practice.
That isn't a circular argument.

You apparently want to delve deeper into the "whys" folks thought it was ethical. That is personal of those folks at the time. For that you would have to reference what ever it is you have from that time period. But I do not have to support why they thought it was ethical as it is sufficient for this argument that we know they did by the fact that it was engaged in, the norm, legal and widespread.

It would be the same in a DP argument. I do not have to explain why the Death Penalty was almost universally accepted (ethical) at one point in time. It is sufficient to know that it was engaged in, the norm, legal and widespread.

Things change.

Tigerace117 · Jan 6, 2017

RetiredNSmilin said:
(I had to delete my first reply to you. You have proven to be incapable of MUTUAL respect)

Texas did not loose.

but that was not my point.

Need I have to restate it for those that missed the thought?

...or are too biased to see things from either side.

SCARS of Slavery kept being brought up over and over again, yet the South is told to forget about the SCARS inflicted on them during the Civil War.

That is not how human nature works. If you forgive one, then you need to forgive all.

I see by your post, you are all for the continued hatred that war brought up.

OK, as I said before in my post, ATTACK ours, and you will be ATTACKED in kind.

You seem to be all for the continuation of the hatred from that awful time, and prefer to DISRESPECT your Southern countrymen with that kind of talk.

That is why there will NEVER be any peace in the South, as long as you continue your DISRESPECT of our culture. We don't like it, and we fight back.

Black, Whites, and Browns have all learned to get along in the South, but then people like you come along and ruin it for us all with your arrogant and over-the-top DISRESPECTFUL language.

You need to know the 60's are over. The 1860's AND the 1960's.

However, if you prefer to come down here and stir up crap, you will be obliged.

Saying it is OK to continue to HATE and DISRESPECT the South is a good way to keep the hate festering.

The scars inflicted when you guys committed treason en masse in order to continue to buy and sell human beings, don't forget. And murdered thousands of loyal American soldiers in process before you were finally defeated.

Why exactly should anybody respect treason and hatred?

Tigerace117 · Jan 6, 2017

RetiredNSmilin said:
(I had to delete my first reply to you. You have proven to be incapable of MUTUAL respect)

Texas did not loose.

but that was not my point.

Need I have to restate it for those that missed the thought?

...or are too biased to see things from either side.

SCARS of Slavery kept being brought up over and over again, yet the South is told to forget about the SCARS inflicted on them during the Civil War.

That is not how human nature works. If you forgive one, then you need to forgive all.

I see by your post, you are all for the continued hatred that war brought up.

OK, as I said before in my post, ATTACK ours, and you will be ATTACKED in kind.

You seem to be all for the continuation of the hatred from that awful time, and prefer to DISRESPECT your Southern countrymen with that kind of talk.

That is why there will NEVER be any peace in the South, as long as you continue your DISRESPECT of our culture. We don't like it, and we fight back.

Black, Whites, and Browns have all learned to get along in the South, but then people like you come along and ruin it for us all with your arrogant and over-the-top DISRESPECTFUL language.

You need to know the 60's are over. The 1860's AND the 1960's.

However, if you prefer to come down here and stir up crap, you will be obliged.

Saying it is OK to continue to HATE and DISRESPECT the South is a good way to keep the hate festering.

The scars inflicted when you guys committed treason en masse in order to continue to buy and sell human beings, don't forget. And murdered thousands of loyal American soldiers in process before you were finally defeated.

Why exactly should anybody respect treason and hatred?

volsrock · Jan 6, 2017

What else do we bring up so often that happened 150 years ago besides slavery?

Keep in mind the FIRST time this witch was proud of her county in her life time was not until 2008

RetiredNSmilin · Jan 7, 2017

Tigerace117 said:
The scars inflicted when you guys committed treason en masse in order to continue to buy and sell human beings, don't forget. And murdered thousands of loyal American soldiers in process before you were finally defeated.

Why exactly should anybody respect treason and hatred?

It is not me who is keeping all that HATRED smoldering in your soul.
It is YOU, as evidenced with your post above saying you have not gotten past something that happened 150 years ago.
This is YOUR personal problem, not mine.
Stand in front of a mirror the next time you feel like REFLECTING your INNER HATRED on others about something that ended 150 years ago.

NEWS FLASH: The 60's are over. The 1860's and the 1960's.

Tigerace117 · Jan 7, 2017

RetiredNSmilin said:
It is not me who is keeping all that HATRED smoldering in your soul.
It is YOU, as evidenced with your post above saying you have not gotten past something that happened 150 years ago.
This is YOUR personal problem, not mine.
Stand in front of a mirror the next time you feel like REFLECTING your INNER HATRED on others about something that ended 150 years ago.

NEWS FLASH: The 60's are over. The 1860's and the 1960's.

Well, judging from the fact that until recently state governments were still flying the confederate flag, neither has anybody else. So spare me the hypocrisy.

Though I do think despising people who fought to keep holding other human beings in bondage is only natural. General Grant said it best.