- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 34
show where someone said it was better???
Virgil James said it was better, and then you agreed with them.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-p...d-given-plants-history-25.html#post1069557003
show where someone said it was better???
Virgil James said it was better, and then you agreed with them.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-p...d-given-plants-history-25.html#post1069557003
slavery was better here in that we were based on freedom so it led to most of the world being freed; most recently 1.4 billion in CHina being freed from libcommunism. Do you understand?
What utter nonsense. You are speaking to subjectivity, not objectivity.Morality is objective if looked at from the POV of morality having the team in mind.
It is not about the needs of the individual. The needs of the individual is what makes it subjective. Each individual will try to maximize self in a way only objective to oneself, but subjective to others.
If you look at the commandment, thou shall not steal, if we all refrained from stealing we could live with much less security needs and we could trust even stranger more. This utopian place is good for all. Relative morality is about the individual placing themselves before the team. The thieves will not like this rule, even if more secure for everyone, since stealing is how they earn a living. They will reason the need to steal. Now the team has to lock the house and mistrust strangers, all because of the relative morality of the few.
Relative morality is about the individual putting themselves ahead of the team using what appears to rational arguments slanted in their favor. The thief may say I stole to feed my hungry child, whether true or not. But to do this, again and again, he may say lying is good at times. Lying may be good for the con artist, but the team benefits more by facts and reliable data, than fake news. Fake news may benefit part of the team. Relative morality will create victims.
The reason slavery lasted so long in USA was the relative morality of the Democrat party; self serving. Objective morality took longer. We are all equal; one team, and therefore the same rules of freedom apply to all.
Liberal education has confused relative morality as morality. There is objective morality, but it has to be about the human team and not a subjective clique.
You get the warm and fuzzies when you ponder slavery?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hey look you just said it was better again.
What utter nonsense. You are speaking to subjectivity, not objectivity.
Morality is subjective. Period. What one thinks is right or wrong may be seen differently by others.
It's the reality. Our species has been enslaving each other since agriculture began. And now, in the US, we at least try not to enslave each other any more. Unless being stuck in a job you hate counts as slavery.
One, of many, things liberals today do not see is that slavery is over. Yes, it is over. And now we have found plenty of other nasty things we can do to each other.
Slavery was practiced in most ancient agricultural societies. There was slavery in Africa long before the USA existed, and slavery was legal in parts of Africa long after it was abolished in the USA.
So most of what is said now about slavery is ridiculous.
Hundreds of thousands of southerners died fighting for slavery. Not a single other power fought a massive civil war over it.
Yes, the southerners who ran away rather than face a country where they couldn't own other human beings weren't the starters of slavery, but they were a symptom of the root problem.
In a way that is still the case: According to PHD Thomas Sowell and PHD Walter Williams, Leftist policies like Welfare have done more harm to the Black Community than did Jim Crow or Segregation. It's the Democrats buying votes with such policies and enslaving all they ensnare. It's the American Right encouraging their independence.
but thats not the point. If liberals can make you believe your county is rotten at its core based on slavery, then it will be easier for them to switch it to communism which they imagine is based on love, despite those little incidents wherein 120 million were slowly starved to death.
Maybe communism is based on love, but love can be deadly.
Liberals inhabit a fantasy narrative. As they make steady progress in their quest for tolerance and love for all, they stir up rabid hatred for anyone who disagrees even slightly with any of their absolute "truths."
Yes women's march is good example. They have conflicting identity groups within the women's identity group. Pretty soon white men will be a minority and they too will fight back as a separate identity group.
Who cares if it was the same or better. There is no way to prove it since it was so close.
for 4th time: so you think slavery was bad, but do you think all the other equal wrongs of human history were bad too??
Oh, sorry. I thought you were being rhetorical. Yes, the things I feel were bad throughout human history also are considered bad by me.
If we had no industry we would all be slaves to plowing and planting and butchering animals. Industry is a lighter work load than bending over all day, but we still have slavery, It's called the reverse rule. play and pay me on a 18 year note. Child support. Please someone make men a pill, we don't need planned slavery.
and yet your liberal handlers told you to focus only on American slavery?
We are right now In YOUR thread, which is about slavery.
What the hell are you yammering on about?