On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:40:09 -0000
xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

> >     I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, are you
> >     'implicitly' saying that slavery being right or wrong is a
> >     matter of 'cultural interpretation'? Or mostly a matter of
> >     'interpretation'?
> Look, I'm not arguing for moral relativity, which is basically what
> you're asking.

        Yes, that's what I'm asking. And are you sure you aren't
        arguing for it? 

> But I am trying to indicate that morality - even if it is soundly
> objective - is nevertheless interpreted differently, by different
> cultures and different people. 

        There certainly is room for interpreting some 'details' but not
        for the overall principles. 

> When you think on it, morality,
> fundamentally, has as much to do with "right" and "wrong" as it does
> with "in group" and "out group." In many ways, the concepts are
> inseparable.

        Sorry, no, that's just more bullshit on your part. 

> Murder (killing a member of the in-group) is always wrong. What
> changes is who the "in group" is, and who the "out group" is. And
> likewise for slavery. Nowadays, progressive types make "in group" all
> of humanity, mostly

        Not sure what you mean by 'progressive types'? To me
        progressive  means : left-wing, fascist piece-of-shit. 

> but we reserve the right to kill members of the
> out-group, with that out-group being defined as those that attack us
> first. Killing in self-defense is OK, 

        Killing in self-defense is certainly OK, as a last,
        proportional* recourse, at the individual level, and it has
        nothing to do with 'groups' or 'progressive types'.

        *i.e. you can't kill people because they stole a candy from
        you, etc.

> because we're killing a member
> of the out group: i.e. those that resort to violence first.

        Dude, that has nothing to do with any 'group'. If you are an
        attacker, then your victims have every right to defend
        themselves. That's the basic logic of morality. 

> A deeply pacifistic person might disagree, 

        Fine. If somebody doesn't mind being attacked, that's his choice
        which he CANNOT FORCE on other people, both because of logic
        and his own pacifist principles.

> and not fight back even in
> self-defense on moral grounds. Their in-group is even larger than
> yours.

        Bullshit. Their view is stupid, but if they enjoy being
        attacked...I'd actually argue that by not countering attackers
        they are actually doing a disservice to their fellow men. 

> >> Could they still do so? Yes, at a cost. Fuck, for that matter, the
> >> slave could refuse to do his work and not BE a slave too. There
> >> would be a cost: beatings, or death. But he has the CHOICE, right?
> >> THAT is your free will?
> >
> >
> >     So you don't know what free will means, and you are
> >     confusing free will with political freedom.
> Nonsense.
> You are the one that brought up slavery, 

        Maybe you should quit while you are still ahead? (OK you never

        Yesterday YOU WROTE 

        "A white male living in 1740 quite literally was not AS FREE as
        you or I in terms of his beliefs about race, SLAVERY,

> and asked me if I thought the
> slaves WANTED to be slaves. Of course not. But, now we have you saying
> this:
> >
> >     Indeed the slave had free will and could CHOOSE to disobey.
> >     What he didn't have was POLITICAL FREEDOM.
> So let me ask you. IF slaves could choose to disobey, why didn't they
> rebel? 

        Because they didn't want to get killed. 

> Why wasn't there widespread slave rebellion? And if this
> really was a choice, then they CHOSE not to rebel, and one might
> argue that they wanted to be slaves. 
        Your 'type' might argue that...

> Indeed, even after they were
> FREED, many slaves stayed with their former masters, and worked as
> paid laborers. That's a fact. So they certainly wanted to be there,
> probably even AS SLAVES.

        lol...Not only a moral relativist, also a slavery apologist.
        You know, the moment you started whining about off topic
        posts and how people in this list were such experts on 
        "abuses of power" I knew what to expect from the likes of you...

> Why was it the Abolishionist movement among whites that got the ball
> rolling on getting rid of slavery?
> What is your take on that?
> My take is that the slaves didn't fucking KNOW any other life.
> Slavery is all they knew. Period. 

        You are the worse kind of enemy freedom can have. 

> It's not that they WANTED to be
> slaves. Most couldn't fucking THINK about rebelling, or disobeying,
> because there was NEVER an example in their lives of anyone really
> doing so. Even as freed men, they stayed on the same plantation ..
> for the same reason that many free people today never leave their
> small little home towns: FEAR. It CONTROLS the mind and the thoughts.
> A few very strong minded souls could do so, of course, and had the
> heart to take the beatings as a badge of honor, of sorts. A very few,
> were free from fear.
> But to their fellow slave onlookers? They would appear insane.
> I hate to break it to you, friend.

        You are not my friend. 

> But you don't have free will. Not
> quite like you want, at any rate. You're free, yes. But you're
> constrained. Controlled. By what you know, and what you fear. The
> more you know, and the less you fear, the freer you can think. But
> for the uneducated masses, and the slaves of the world.. things
> aren't exactly as simple as you'd like them to be.
> >
> >     If I point a gun at you and say your money or your life, you
> >     are free to decide for yourself what you want.
> LOL. Oh my, what an armchair warrior. I'd love to get you around a
> few of the folks I know. They'd be able to prove to you that in those
> moments, you're not thinking or deciding SHIT except, at best, how to
> keep your bladder in check. You'll be handing over your wallet before
> you even fully understand whats going on.
> >> Sure, from a hard-assed use of the terminology "free will" and an
> >> inflexible way of looking at it, that can be claimed.
> >
> >     You mean, from a correct usage of the terminolgy and
> > sticking to logical thinking.
> Frankly, from that last comment of yours. It seems to me more that
> your "logical thinking" is really code for "woefully sheltered." You
> talk about what, or how you'll think and decide if you look down the
> barrel of gun? Give me a break. Brother, I'll bet you've never been
> in a REAL fight, let alone one that had it escalated to weapons.

        What about you? Maybe you are an ex US military murder, that
        kind of psycho? 

> The simplifying assumptions your "logic" requires go out the fucking
> window when 9 little millimeters appear about 3 meters wide.
> >     You can compare us humans to our primate relatives or to our
> >     dogs and cats relatives or any other relatives. Ultimately
> > the whole animal kingdom is related. Or, you can go even farther to
> >     plants. And? You can find similarities and differences. But
> > you can't make a political philosophy out of the similarities.
> It's better than making a political philosophy based on some nonsense
> about metaphysical free will that, if it exists,

        Dude, you don't know what free will means, and are too arrogant
        to learn. Get a fucking dictionary, for starters.

 only does so for the
> pampered ivory tower types who.. yes, get to CHOOSE because they have
> never suffered.
> But for real life, when you get beaten as a slave all day, it AFFECTS
> When you work a dreary ass job, barely get enough sleep, having your
> very dreams filled up with visions of monotonous days at work.. it
> And when life and death are on the line, when hormones and adrenaline
> That's real life. And it works more according to the laws of biology,
> and the fucking animal kingdom, than your metaphysical abstractions.
> I clipped the rest, because we're going no where.

        Right, I'm not addressing your nonsense point by point
        anymore because it's obviously a waste of time. 

> I think its obvious that we come from very different worlds, and
> perspectives. We're not gonna find common ground on most of this
> stuff, and we could go in circles on the differences forever, so I'm
> content to leave it here.
> I'd rather focus on commonalities, such as they are. If there is
> something particular that you'd really like me to addres, I will,
> however.

        I already asked what practical stuff you think it can be done
        and of course you didn't answer.

        I asked what are the implication of your fuckingly stupid
        preaching about "rivers" and whatnot and you didn't answer
        because you know what follows from your philosophical bullshit

        Here's your preaching : 
        " Find a small, soluble problem that fills a need. Propose a
        solution. Implement it. Repeat." If everyone does a little, a
        lot will get done." 

        My retort : 

        "What kind of small, soluble problems do you have in mind? " 

        And your answer? None of course. Even you don't believe your
        own bullshit. 

Reply via email to