ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 1st November 2017, 02:01 AM   #1681
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 28,186
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Is it? There was the infamous 3/5 compromise. A slave still counted for 60% when it came to apportioning House seats. And as since the begin of the 1800s, further importation of slaves from Africa or elsewhere was forbidden, the Southerners were not only slaveholders but also slavebreeders. Just step up that breeding program.
Has any neo-Confederate yet attempted to make the point that "stepping up the breeding program" would result in better conditions for the slaves (after all as both zoos and livestock farmers have shown, happy "animals" tend to be more fecund than unhappy animals) which means that slaves would have been far better off than attempting to make their way in the reconstruction-era South ?

If anyone's a racist its those damn Yankees making things worse for the blacks !!1!!!!!!1111!!!
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 03:07 AM   #1682
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,696
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Really? Are you for real?

The Northerners should have not used their democratic rights because of those poor, misunderstood Southerners and respected their rights to hold fellow human beings in chattel slavery with racist justifications for that?

As it was, the Northern majority in the House was not that big in the Senate, which you conveniently forget to mention, there was parity. Irony wants it that, without the Secession of the Southern states, there was for a long time no chance in hell that a 13th Amendment would have been carried and thus that the Southern slave-holding states for a long time could have still kept slavery. The Secession and the Civil War was self-defeating for their purposes.

The only thing the North could do was to prevent slavery from spreading to new states in the West, and that was what the whole Kansas-Nebraska act and the Missouri Compromise was about. And Lincoln's platform did not go beyond that. But apparently that was not enough for the South, because even before Lincoln had been inaugurated, seven of them had seceded.
As well as new territory acquired in the south. Turning mexico slavery friendly was always a goal of southerners.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 03:58 AM   #1683
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,994
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
As well as new territory acquired in the south. Turning mexico slavery friendly was always a goal of southerners.
Turning Mexico slavery friendly or acquiring it as a slave state(s)? I don't think I've heard this bit before.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Last edited by Upchurch; 1st November 2017 at 04:00 AM.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 05:18 AM   #1684
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,696
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Turning Mexico slavery friendly or acquiring it as a slave state(s)? I don't think I've heard this bit before.
It never came to be and likely wouldn't even if they didn't lose the civil war. But it was a dream of many confederates.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/20360...-latin-america

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden...posed_country)

http://personal.tcu.edu/swoodworth/May.htm

https://www.amazon.com/Southern-Drea.../dp/0813025125
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 05:25 AM   #1685
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,994
TIL
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 06:52 AM   #1686
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,861
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Is it? There was the infamous 3/5 compromise. A slave still counted for 60% when it came to apportioning House seats. And as since the begin of the 1800s, further importation of slaves from Africa or elsewhere was forbidden, the Southerners were not only slaveholders but also slavebreeders. Just step up that breeding program.

Which is exactly what they did.

Between 1808, when it became illegal to import more slaves into the country, and 1860 the number of slaves in the U.S. increased by 400%. The slave trade was an industry in the South second only to the agriculture segment which depended on it.

The 3/5th's Compromise gave the southern slave owners representation in Congress far out of proportion to the number of people who were actually able to vote for its members.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 06:53 AM   #1687
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,858
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Is it? There was the infamous 3/5 compromise.
Here's the weirdest and, to me at least, oddly horrible thing about the 3/5 compromise.

The Confederacy kept it. In Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America... the 3/5 compromise is still used to tally population for the purpose of assigning representation in Congress.

Think about that for a second. To me at least that's when the whole thing, which was already one of the most horrible and absurd political factoids of all time, passes some "absurdity event horizon" and becomes a black hole of absurd from which no rational thought can escape.

I've often argued I can cope with evil. I can't cope with stupidity. I can even cope with evil stupidity. I cannot cope with evil stupidity that doesn't make context within it own evil.

Not counting blacks as people, evil. Wanting those blacks you don't consider people to still count for population to gain political, evil and hypocritical but self serving so that's processable as a... thing. Being forced into a compromise by the "other side" where blacks are people but aren't fully people for purposes of population counting for political representation... totally horrible but again I can understand the process that lead to that point.

At this point everything is just... horrible (seriously people really think the problem is lack of compromise?) but... there's a narrative.

But when the Confederacy keeps the 3/5th compromise that whole narrative snaps in two and I'm left with, to quote Lewis Black, "The right side of my brain looked at the left side of my brain and said 'It's dark in here. And we may die.'"
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 06:55 AM   #1688
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,858
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
The 3/5th's Compromise gave the southern slave owners representation in Congress far out of proportion to the number of people who were actually able to vote for its members.
//Slight hijack//

Even now I think any population vote that represents any distribution of political power should, by Constitutional Amendment if necessary, only count eligible voters.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 09:27 AM   #1689
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Well, that's what I'm asking. "by control of the house" makes it sound like Congress did something, specifically. As far as I recall, the secession was triggered by Lincoln's election, not anything to do with Congress, per se.
Do you genuinely not understand the dynamic in question? We're still dealing with it today.

More republicans get elected, they control the House, then they try to force through legislation to prevent or severely limit abortions. They are using their strength of numbers in the government in order to force their view of morality on others. Wouldn't you object to that use of federal power?

The problem is that the filp side of that is also true: More democrats get elected, control the house, and try to force through legislation to make abortions more easily available and to prevent parents from knowing about their under-age child's abortions. That's also using their strength of numbers in the government in order to force their view of morality on others.

Do you support the use of federal force to impose a view of morality when it aligns with your beliefs, and disregard that force when it doesn't?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 09:31 AM   #1690
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
The Northerners should have not used their democratic rights because of those poor, misunderstood Southerners and respected their rights to hold fellow human beings in chattel slavery with racist justifications for that?
Do the means justify the ends?

At that time in our history, the federal government was NOT supposed to be a vehicle for legislating morality. That was outside the bounds of the understood role of the federal government. The north was trying to use the federal government to legislate morality.

I agree with the morality in question. But I also understand the precedent set, and I understand why there was objection to that political maneuvering from the south.

Take a different issue. Remove the topic of slavery, and play the same thing out with a moral stance that you disagree with - let's say abortion or gay marriage. Now you have a portion of the country that is using their superior numbers to try to legislate their belief that gay marriage is immoral, and hence trying to mandate through the force of the federal government that it should be illegal. Would you object to that use of federal power? Or would you be content to say "Oh, well, they've got more people than my side does, so it's okay. They've got the majority, so they're allowed to force their moral perspective into law."?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 09:41 AM   #1691
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,662
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Do the means justify the ends?

At that time in our history, the federal government was NOT supposed to be a vehicle for legislating morality. That was outside the bounds of the understood role of the federal government. The north was trying to use the federal government to legislate morality.

I agree with the morality in question. But I also understand the precedent set, and I understand why there was objection to that political maneuvering from the south.

Take a different issue. Remove the topic of slavery, and play the same thing out with a moral stance that you disagree with - let's say abortion or gay marriage. Now you have a portion of the country that is using their superior numbers to try to legislate their belief that gay marriage is immoral, and hence trying to mandate through the force of the federal government that it should be illegal. Would you object to that use of federal power? Or would you be content to say "Oh, well, they've got more people than my side does, so it's okay. They've got the majority, so they're allowed to force their moral perspective into law."?

What about protecting the country's inhabitants from tyranny and abuse of power?

Seriously, some things are worth fighting for - the right for a 12-yr old rape victim to have an abortion is one. The right to own someone as property is not.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 09:49 AM   #1692
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
What about protecting the country's inhabitants from tyranny and abuse of power?

Seriously, some things are worth fighting for - the right for a 12-yr old rape victim to have an abortion is one. The right to own someone as property is not.
Yes, they're worth supporting. They're worth fighting for, at least verbally. But there's still a difference between winning other people over to your viewpoint and forcing others to act in accord with your viewpoint whether they agree or not by using the force of government.

There's no easy answer here. I end up in a quandary on many occasions. For example, I think that women and minorities should have equitable and fair opportunities for success in the US... but I don't support affirmative action quotas as a solution for that disparity. I think that GLBTQ and whatever other sexual/partnership orientation you want should be perfectly acceptable, and it should be nobody's business who you sleep with and in what configuration (provided there is consent), and that this should have no bearing on any part of a person's interactions with other people... But I don't support forcing the owners of private businesses to serve those that they have a religious objection to.

I recognize that if I support the use of government force in order to mandate morality that I agree with... that sets the precedent of someone else using making use of government force in order to mandate morality that I don't agree with.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 09:50 AM   #1693
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,696
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Do you genuinely not understand the dynamic in question? We're still dealing with it today.

More republicans get elected, they control the House, then they try to force through legislation to prevent or severely limit abortions. They are using their strength of numbers in the government in order to force their view of morality on others. Wouldn't you object to that use of federal power?

The problem is that the filp side of that is also true: More democrats get elected, control the house, and try to force through legislation to make abortions more easily available and to prevent parents from knowing about their under-age child's abortions. That's also using their strength of numbers in the government in order to force their view of morality on others.

Do you support the use of federal force to impose a view of morality when it aligns with your beliefs, and disregard that force when it doesn't?
Pretty much. That is why you clearly hate all civil rights laws and the actions of all those uppity blacks. The feds even tried charging people with violating peoples civil rights for doing the moral actions when presented with the wrong people being uppity.

We have the memorial to Emmett Till but what about the people enforcing their community standards against him?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 09:51 AM   #1694
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,696
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Do the means justify the ends?

At that time in our history, the federal government was NOT supposed to be a vehicle for legislating morality. That was outside the bounds of the understood role of the federal government. The north was trying to use the federal government to legislate morality.
This is why we should never have gotten into recognizing blacks and women as people, some find that morally acceptable and some not and it isn't the governments role to get involved.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 09:54 AM   #1695
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,696
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
There's no easy answer here. I end up in a quandary on many occasions. For example, I think that women and minorities should have equitable and fair opportunities for success in the US... but I don't support affirmative action quotas as a solution for that disparity.
Was it wrong to ban outright discrimination or not? Can I refuse to promote women in my company because men are supposed to be the heads of households? Am I allowed to enforce prohibitions against selling property to blacks, because it was written into the covenants on the land?
Quote:
I recognize that if I support the use of government force in order to mandate morality that I agree with... that sets the precedent of someone else using making use of government force in order to mandate morality that I don't agree with.
Exactly if you get all upset just because someone lynched your sister and want the government to get involved you are a total hypocrite. That is all about personal morality and local moral standards.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 09:57 AM   #1696
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,858
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Do the means justify the ends?
To end the wholesale institution of subjecting an entire race of people by treating them as property?

*Clears my throat* YES. Yes. A thousand times yes. Absolutely. Across the board. Unequivocally. Without question.

Further more... YOU DON'T? Anyone doesn't? There's actually an opposing side in this fight?

The whole idea that there are people out there that think the Federal Government wasn't in the right in preventing a handful of traitorous states from forming an explicitly pro-slavery country by any means necessary is just mind boggling to me.

Even in politics there are some times when one side is just wrong.

Seriously how far on the end of the slippery slope can you get?

"Today we're letting the Federal government step in to stop millions of human beings from being defined as property, tomorrow they'll be..." what? Finish that sentence. Where exactly does that slippery slope go?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 10:07 AM   #1697
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,662
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
To end the wholesale institution of subjecting an entire race of people by treating them as property?

*Clears my throat* YES. Yes. A thousand times yes. Absolutely. Across the board. Unequivocally. Without question.

Further more... YOU DON'T? Anyone doesn't? There's actually an opposing side in this fight?

The whole idea that there are people out there that think the Federal Government wasn't in the right in preventing a handful of traitorous states from forming an explicitly pro-slavery country by any means necessary is just mind boggling to me.

Even in politics there are some times when one side is just wrong.

Seriously how far on the end of the slippery slope can you get?

"Today we're letting the Federal government step in to stop millions of human beings from being defined as property, tomorrow they'll be..." what? Finish that sentence. Where exactly does that slippery slope go?
Well said.

And the argument against it could be used for the status-quo in any situation as far as I can see. Why get rid of the king? You are just using the tyranny of the majority to remove an unpopular unelected ruler.

It is far better to argue the appropriateness of an action based on the merits of the action not on some hypothetical basis that can be used for anything.

Alternatively, one could go full Ponderingturtle - I really can't see that they have exaggerated the argument in this case.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 10:07 AM   #1698
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
To end the wholesale institution of subjecting an entire race of people by treating them as property?

*Clears my throat* YES. Yes. A thousand times yes. Absolutely. Across the board. Unequivocally. Without question.

Further more... YOU DON'T? Anyone doesn't? There's actually an opposing side in this fight?

The whole idea that there are people out there that think the Federal Government wasn't in the right in preventing a handful of traitorous states from forming an explicitly pro-slavery country by any means necessary is just mind boggling to me.

Even in politics there are some times when one side is just wrong.

Seriously how far on the end of the slippery slope can you get?

"Today we're letting the Federal government step in to stop millions of human beings from being defined as property, tomorrow they'll be..." what? Finish that sentence. Where exactly does that slippery slope go?
I agree with the moral and philosophical stance that people aren't property. ETA: Really strongly and vociferously agree, just in case there's any doubt on that front.
I recognize that at the time the Civil War occurred, many people did not hold that same belief.
I recognize that for a significant portion of human history a very, very large portion of humanity did not hold that same belief.

I can also understand the perspective of the southern side - NOT with regard to whether slavery was moral - but with regard to whether or not it is acceptable for a majority to force their beliefs on the rest of the country via the power of the federal government.

++++++++++++++++++++++

General comment: Can you guys not understand that these are separate issues? They intersect in the time period surrounding the civil war, but they're still two separate issues. One is about whether or not we, as individual people, condone slavery as an institution. The other is about what we, as citizens of a democratic country, view the proper role of the government with respect to how beliefs are treated in law.

Are you unable to consider these two things independently of one another?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 1st November 2017 at 10:08 AM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 10:26 AM   #1699
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,662
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I agree with the moral and philosophical stance that people aren't property. ETA: Really strongly and vociferously agree, just in case there's any doubt on that front.
I recognize that at the time the Civil War occurred, many people did not hold that same belief.
I recognize that for a significant portion of human history a very, very large portion of humanity did not hold that same belief.

I can also understand the perspective of the southern side - NOT with regard to whether slavery was moral - but with regard to whether or not it is acceptable for a majority to force their beliefs on the rest of the country via the power of the federal government.

++++++++++++++++++++++

General comment: Can you guys not understand that these are separate issues? They intersect in the time period surrounding the civil war, but they're still two separate issues. One is about whether or not we, as individual people, condone slavery as an institution. The other is about what we, as citizens of a democratic country, view the proper role of the government with respect to how beliefs are treated in law.

Are you unable to consider these two things independently of one another?
Except one can't separate the right to own slaves from the Civi War.

If the Civil War was about the states rights to allow, say alcohol sales to teenagers then you might have a point. But it wasn't.

Even on your own grounds it doesn't work - the South fired the first shots, just because the North was going to limit the expansion of slave states - not because the North was initially going to ban slavery in the South.


However *that* is a very minor cherry on the icing on the cake.

The main point is that one has to judge issues on their merits. In the case of the Civil War, it is easy because, because there are bad guys (Sherman, Lincoln, Grant Lee, Jackson, Forrest) and good guys (the abolitionists).

It really is a very clear example. Black and White, if you like.


There is no slippery slope.

As an aside, I have mentioned before that I don't believe in rights for groups. These often trample the rights of individuals within the groups.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 10:29 AM   #1700
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,696
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I agree with the moral and philosophical stance that people aren't property. ETA: Really strongly and vociferously agree, just in case there's any doubt on that front.
I recognize that at the time the Civil War occurred, many people did not hold that same belief.
I recognize that for a significant portion of human history a very, very large portion of humanity did not hold that same belief.

I can also understand the perspective of the southern side - NOT with regard to whether slavery was moral - but with regard to whether or not it is acceptable for a majority to force their beliefs on the rest of the country via the power of the federal government.
Are they forcing their beliefs on others, or preventing people from forcing their beliefs on others? Who is the one being forced when someone has to serve a black even if they think it is immoral? Who is being forced when people need to give women equal pay no matter what you think a woman's proper place is?

Why so you seem to always side with the oppressors being the victims of federal government and not with the minorities who had been oppressed with historic morality?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 10:44 AM   #1701
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,662
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
<snip>

General comment: Can you guys not understand that these are separate issues? They intersect in the time period surrounding the civil war, but they're still two separate issues. One is about whether or not we, as individual people, condone slavery as an institution. The other is about what we, as citizens of a democratic country, view the proper role of the government with respect to how beliefs are treated in law.

Are you unable to consider these two things independently of one another?
Many people believed that King Charles I had a divine right to rule. Many people believed that Germany had a right to an empire stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals.

It's hardly a novel moral concept to think that sincerely held beliefs are only sacrosanct as long as they don't lead to actions that curtail other people's fundamental rights. It's not much of a stretch to go from that, to arguing that where people's rights conflict, the one that reduces the other person's freedom the most is the one that should be restricted (in general, and this is complex, which is why we have judges for specific cases).
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 11:07 AM   #1702
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,861
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
<snip>

... where people's rights conflict, the one that reduces the other person's freedom the most is the one that should be restricted ...

<snip>

Nutshell.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 11:07 AM   #1703
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,994
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Do you genuinely not understand the dynamic in question? We're still dealing with it today.

More republicans get elected, they control the House, then they try to force through legislation to prevent or severely limit abortions. They are using their strength of numbers in the government in order to force their view of morality on others. Wouldn't you object to that use of federal power?
Yeah, I understand the dynamic. I also understand separation of powers and checks and balances. In 1859-1860, Southern Democrats still controlled the Senate. There was no way any abolitionist law getting through, unless, you know, all the Southern Democrats up and left.

Blaming the antebellum Republicans for having control of the House is nonsensical. As far as I can tell, they didn't pass anything to specifically provoke the South, let alone "legislate morality".
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 11:23 AM   #1704
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,994
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I agree with the moral and philosophical stance that people aren't property. ETA: Really strongly and vociferously agree, just in case there's any doubt on that front.
I recognize that at the time the Civil War occurred, many people did not hold that same belief.
I recognize that for a significant portion of human history a very, very large portion of humanity did not hold that same belief.

I can also understand the perspective of the southern side - NOT with regard to whether slavery was moral - but with regard to whether or not it is acceptable for a majority to force their beliefs on the rest of the country via the power of the federal government.
...and you've circled back around to moral relativism. Again.

Which means I have to explain how moral relativism doesn't apply in situations where there is abundant and generally known challenges to the moral stance. Again.

++++++++++++++++++++++

General comment: Can you not understand that you have been lied to in your formal early education and that most of your understand of the Civil War era is simply not true? You weren't even aware of the possibility until this thread and, yet, you clean to the ideas and continue to assert them rather than skeptically questioning your own assumptions.

Are you unable to consider that there really is no defense for the Confederacy?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 11:34 AM   #1705
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,482
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Do you genuinely not understand the dynamic in question? We're still dealing with it today.

More republicans get elected, they control the House, then they try to force through legislation to prevent or severely limit abortions. They are using their strength of numbers in the government in order to force their view of morality on others. Wouldn't you object to that use of federal power?

The problem is that the filp side of that is also true: More democrats get elected, control the house, and try to force through legislation to make abortions more easily available and to prevent parents from knowing about their under-age child's abortions. That's also using their strength of numbers in the government in order to force their view of morality on others.

Do you support the use of federal force to impose a view of morality when it aligns with your beliefs, and disregard that force when it doesn't?
The analogy falls apart in a couple of ways though. Slavery negatively impacts slaves in ways that they cannot ever control. Slavery is, inherently, forced on slaves no matter what they do. If they are considered people at all, then ALL their human rights are denied by the very definition. By contrast, things like abortion legislation are not forced on anyone who does not want to avail himself of it. You can make fancy arguments about public morality and so on and so forth, but nothing in any abortion legislation, or gay rights, etc., forces a person to have an abortion or to become gay. You can finagle this into "forcing a view of morality" on people, but it does not force people to do the things that are permitted.

Even if you're right about the issues, and your moral view is a righteous one, the analogy here is a bad one.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 11:35 AM   #1706
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I can also understand the perspective of the southern side - NOT with regard to whether slavery was moral - but with regard to whether or not it is acceptable for a majority to force their beliefs on the rest of the country via the power of the federal government.

By that argument, you would find imprisoning child molesters is wrong, since there are quite a number of people whose beliefs are that sexually abusing children is not only acceptable, but moral. How dare you use federal power to prevent them from acting on their beliefs?

This, as a principle, is morally and intellectually bankrupt, and taken to its logical conclusion, denies the federal government, and indeed, any government, any authority and ability to act.

Quote:
General comment: Can you guys not understand that these are separate issues? They intersect in the time period surrounding the civil war, but they're still two separate issues. One is about whether or not we, as individual people, condone slavery as an institution. The other is about what we, as citizens of a democratic country, view the proper role of the government with respect to how beliefs are treated in law.

That is the falsest of false dichotomies, and presents a level of falsity absolutely nonsensical in its implications. It barely avoids being pure gibberish.

This has nothing to do with beliefs, and everything to do with simple human decency with regard to simple human rights, something a whole lot of Confederate sympathizers seem to lack in abundance. Believing that one has the god-given right to oppress and brutalize an entire class of people for one's own greed is not a belief that has any business being respected by anyone.

If the South had seceded over the right to, for example, rape children, would you still be here defending their "sincerely help beliefs" and decrying "abuse of federal power"? Incidentally, guess what a lot of those poor, misunderstood, and federally-victimized slave-owners did to their young slaves.

This is not the difference between pro-choice and pro-life positions, this is not the difference between free market and socialized healthcare. Those are positions that have sides, and valid arguments on both, and positions where people can discuss and reach a consensus.

Slavery, especially the brutal chattel slavery practiced in the South, is not one of those positions, there is no side, there is only right and wrong. Either slaves were human beings, or they were not. If you believe that the slaves were human beings, deserving of the same rights as any other human being, then any apologetics for the Confederacy is not only flatly wrong, it's not even internally consistent with your own stated beliefs. Any attempt to make it so requires so much historical revisionism, denialism, and twisted distortion of logic as to ultimately make no rational sense at all.

Everyone has the right to their own beliefs, and to practice their own beliefs, as long as doing so does not harm anyone else, or restrict their equal rights to practice their own beliefs. To use the libertarian principles you seem so fond of, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

That's why we don't let groups like NAMBLA have free reign to sexually molest children, and why the US government did not allow the Southern states to promote and enforce brutal and oppressive chattel slavery.

Rather than being an abuse of federal power, situations like these are exactly the primary purpose and justification of federal power. To protect all of its citizens, not just the ones who look like us.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

Last edited by luchog; 1st November 2017 at 11:45 AM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 11:36 AM   #1707
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,662
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
...and you've circled back around to moral relativism. Again.

Which means I have to explain how moral relativism doesn't apply in situations where there is abundant and generally known challenges to the moral stance. Again.

++++++++++++++++++++++

General comment: Can you not understand that you have been lied to in your formal early education and that most of your understand of the Civil War era is simply not true? You weren't even aware of the possibility until this thread and, yet, you clean to the ideas and continue to assert them rather than skeptically questioning your own assumptions.

Are you unable to consider that there really is no defense for the Confederacy?

And as I said earlier, the cherry on the icing on the cake is even by Emily's Cat's standards, the South also was wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugiti...ve_Act_of_1850

This required Northerners to act against their beliefs and in effect allow slavery in the North.

On top of this, the South tried to secede from the United States, and opened hostilities, when the North wasn't intending to abolish slavery in the South.


However that is a *really* minor side point compared to the big issue that slavery was an obscenity and that the Civil War was entirely about Slavery and related issues.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 11:39 AM   #1708
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,482
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Here's the weirdest and, to me at least, oddly horrible thing about the 3/5 compromise.

The Confederacy kept it. .....snipped...
My guess here is that they kept it because it increased the representation of slave owners and regions where slave ownership was greatest. It might serve as an added safeguard against eventual erosion of the support for slavery, and the possibility that secession - which after all would have to be considered an honorable precedent - would not chip away the confederacy.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 11:39 AM   #1709
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,696
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
And as I said earlier, the cherry on the icing on the cake is even by Emily's Cat's standards, the South also was wrong
But your miscegenous marriage oppresses my beliefs in the purity of same race marriage. Loving V Virginia is clearly oppressive northern morality that a true southerner like Emily can not stand being forced on people. I mean the knowledge that interracial couples exist and are not imprisoned is just so revolting to common decency.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 11:39 AM   #1710
Stacko
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,837
This article seems relevant:

Five Books to Make You Less Stupid About the Civil War
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 12:55 PM   #1711
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 12,124
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Do you genuinely not understand the dynamic in question? We're still dealing with it today.

More republicans get elected, they control the House, then they try to force through legislation to prevent or severely limit abortions. They are using their strength of numbers in the government in order to force their view of morality on others. Wouldn't you object to that use of federal power?

The problem is that the filp side of that is also true: More democrats get elected, control the house, and try to force through legislation to make abortions more easily available and to prevent parents from knowing about their under-age child's abortions. That's also using their strength of numbers in the government in order to force their view of morality on others.

Do you support the use of federal force to impose a view of morality when it aligns with your beliefs, and disregard that force when it doesn't?
Not morality, human rights. Rights result from recognition of what a person is -- an autonomous seat of preference and fully legitimate interest -- which is the conceptual cornerstone of democracy.

Human rights are elaborated using agreed-upon parameters concerning the roles and relations among actors/agents in a social system, and the behaviors that system wishes to foster or suppress. They can be argued and formulated without initial "should" mandates or recourse to absolute moral imperatives. Indeed, in democracy it would be odd for such an important aspect not to be subject to consensus. Not so the common humanity itself, ground zero for this form of government.

Rights are defined boundaries beyond which even majorities cannot cross under democracy, let alone minorities, otherwise you risk violating the precepts that underlie democracy itself and equality under the law. This violation reaches its maximum in the case of slavery, as slavery is direct negation of personhood/common humanity, and makes the exact opposite claim about one group that it makes about another. This is untenable. It therefore acts as a cancer in democratic governance, requiring chemo (strenuous opposition) or eventually, removal by surgery (war).

Is this the original understanding in the first draft of the Constitution, or even the position of Lincoln at the start of the war? No. It is, however, what would have motivated the need to end slavery sooner or later, or concede that democracy is not a universal. Once that concession is made, meritocracy and its big brother, monarchy, rear their ugly heads, using criteria for vesting political rights that are arbitrary, partial, or capricious, and often based on brute force. Thus, slavery is the mortal enemy of proper democracy, and its suppression cannot be seen as anything other than an immune response of the system, hardly a move to oppress. Are there losers? Yes. Should they lose? Yes.

I support democracy. Not as scientifically inevitable or morally imperative, but as that option for governance that maximizes choice for the greatest number of individuals, and therefore unleashes the greatest amount of human initiative and consequent well-being.

[The issue of abortion is also one of rights, but for brevity I will not go into it for now; best done in another thread.]
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Make believe is really fun, right up until Mother Nature hands you the bill.
Not that evangelicals would know who their real mother is, of course.

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 1st November 2017 at 01:07 PM. Reason: Light touch-up of phrasing
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 01:04 PM   #1712
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,858
The irony is I'm a massive libertarian on pure government philosophy sense. So much that if we're talking pure political theory I'm practically a strawman libertarian. (It's functional, practical, day to day application is much more nuanced.)

But this isn't libertarianism of either the large or small L variety. This is "Youcanttellmewhattodoism." This is someone holding their breath because someone in authority tells them that breathing is a good idea and they are more enamored with the idea of iconoclasm than... logic.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 01:52 PM   #1713
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 47,907
On the removal of the plaques from the church in Alexandria:
They were right in removing the plaque to Lee...
but removing the plaque to Washington is going too far and has just handed a club to the defenders of the COnfederate monuments.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 02:03 PM   #1714
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 47,907
I expect General Kelly to make a statement any day now that World War 2 was caused by the "Lack of Compromise".
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 02:15 PM   #1715
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,662
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
On the removal of the plaques from the church in Alexandria:
They were right in removing the plaque to Lee...
but removing the plaque to Washington is going too far and has just handed a club to the defenders of the COnfederate monuments.
Yes. Washington is not remembered because he kept slaves, he is remembered despite the fact that he kept slaves. Lee, and Jackson are remembered because they fought for a vile cause.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 03:53 AM   #1716
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,835
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Turning Mexico slavery friendly or acquiring it as a slave state(s)? I don't think I've heard this bit before.
Texas is a recidivist seceder, both from Mexico and the USA. By the time of the secession from Mexico, slavery had already been abolished in that country, and the Texans had to work an "indenture" scam to keep control of their slaves, while under Mexican rule. In fact
In 1829 the Guerrero decree conditionally abolished slavery throughout Mexican territories. It was a decision that increased tensions with slaveholders among the Anglo-Americans.
After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 05:17 AM   #1717
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,929
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Here's the weirdest and, to me at least, oddly horrible thing about the 3/5 compromise.
What I find hilarious, in a way, about that compromise is that the slave states had no problem counting blacks as people when it was convenient to them.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 07:01 AM   #1718
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,482
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What I find hilarious, in a way, about that compromise is that the slave states had no problem counting blacks as people when it was convenient to them.
The very definition of a slave demands that they be considered human beings, as otherwise one might be able to prove exemption from being treated as livestock by demonstrating humanity. The special status of slavery demands a set of suppositions and excuses that are inherently loathsome. Slaves were people enough when master wanted to dip his wick in something that didn't moo back at him too. In a world where you can sell your own children as slaves, and the law allows you to whip them to death for objecting, the search for sense is a futile endeavor.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 07:03 AM   #1719
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,929
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
The very definition of a slave demands that they be considered human beings, as otherwise one might be able to prove exemption from being treated as livestock by demonstrating humanity. The special status of slavery demands a set of suppositions and excuses that are inherently loathsome. Slaves were people enough when master wanted to dip his wick in something that didn't moo back at him too. In a world where you can sell your own children as slaves, and the law allows you to whip them to death for objecting, the search for sense is a futile endeavor.
I think you understand the ability to categorise as one sees fit: humans X are humans but not people, etc.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 07:39 AM   #1720
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Texas is a recidivist seceder, both from Mexico and the USA. By the time of the secession from Mexico, slavery had already been abolished in that country, and the Texans had to work an "indenture" scam to keep control of their slaves, while under Mexican rule. In fact
In 1829 the Guerrero decree conditionally abolished slavery throughout Mexican territories. It was a decision that increased tensions with slaveholders among the Anglo-Americans.
After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.
Say what???
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.