Since it's beginning, America has been based on, "slavery, white supremacy
and oligarchy ..."
This understanding is just not true and the majority of the citizenry know it. How any individual or group of individuals think(s) they can get away with such HOGWASH is beyond me!!!!
When did America have an oligarchy?
When did America advocate white supremacy? Slavery was always going to be phased out. The Constitution was written FOR ALL citizens, regardless of race, creed, color.
Most white Americans today, would only denie, ignore, or royally lie about the true stats of a very violent and prejudice treatment to non whites. About 79 major wars with brown nations. I call that "slavery, white supremacy and oligarchy ..."
Let's start with America has the largest white population of any country in the world. With worldwide invasions of non white countries only to be exceeded by the white British empire. I call that "slavery and white supremacy. Only white nation America has attacked was Germany. Because it was Americas job to own the world.
The trans-Atlantic slave trade was the largest long-distance forced movement of people in world recorded history. From the sixteenth to the late nineteenth centuries, over twelve million (some estimates run as high as fifteen million) (another lying stats, it was far higher) African men, women, and children were enslaved, transported to the Americas, A great crippling devastation to western African nations. Many captives died during the long journey. White men who wanted to be free by enslaving non whites. I call that "slavery, and white supremacy "
The greatest genocide in human history was the native American native along with native Mexicans.
Hitler was very impressed. I call that "slavery, and white supremacy.
Not until after the civil war where oligarchy grew big time. America was been at war 93℅ of the time since the founding fathers. About 25℅ of the worlds prisoners live in American jails. as slave labor.
America has half of the worlds war budget (offensive, not defensive). Who would dare to attack America who have more guns than People.
America has most nuclear weapons. The only country to use them, even twice. If that is not white supremacy and oligarchy, I can't imagine what is.
Nato, Isreal/America is run much like the Roman empire. It's no hogwash to most citizen of the world, only by many blind faith, deeply programed and hypnotized Americans.
After more abuse, America will get better. Sorry, honest is my best policy,lIke it or not
The constitution was written for all people but look at the phrase three-fifths of a person in Article 1; at how Amendment 13 justified slavery for a crime conviction, how it was not until the 24th Amendment that Blacks were allowed to vote without paying to and that's just a few concerning b lacks.
What happened to the Native Americas after the 13 original states became the United States of America?
How were Asians treated historically?
Stay in your fantasy land and sleep on, it doesn't sound like it's time for you to wake up.
>"When did America have an oligarchy?"<
Around 1789. The definition of Oligarchy is this:
Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people may be distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious or political, military control. Such states are often controlled by families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.
>"When did America advocate white supremacy?"<
From it's beginning.
It's codified in our constitution in Article I sec 2 ( basing a states representation in the House of Rep on its free population and 3/5 of "all other Persons" within its territory): Article I Section 9 9 barring Congress from abolishing the slave trade before 1808); and Article 4 Section 2 (providing for the return of runaway slaves). The very fact that the constitution address slaves and slavery demonstrates the country was a white supremacy by design.
>"The Constitution was written FOR ALL citizens, regardless of race, creed, color."<
That's obviously false to anybody that can read. The constitution was written by a select group of white men, for white men. Women were not addressed in the constitution and had no rights to vote. Only white men had that right. Certainly black men had no such rights, and black women were always excluded. To make the claim you're making is sheer nonsense. The Constitution has been amended 27 times to deal with these and other inequities and flaws.
I agree that all constitution writers were white Europeans but the instructions in it like Article 6.2 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" tells us anything in the body of the nation's or a state's constitution or the nation's or any state's Laws "Contrary" to the preamble's intent is invalid. The problem is no one in government [if there are they are coerced to remain quiet] and few if any of We The People know that is the meaning of the phrase "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
I don't know. We know slavery lasted for a very long time in America....there was certainly racial bias for a long time after that against blacks...there was definitely bias against Asians.. native Americans ...it would be difficult to argue that there aren't a few who wield the most power.
I'm afraid our past is checkered. No more so than the rest of the world and much less than many other parts but you can't say most of that didn't exist at one time in our past.
Obviously, I pi$$ed you off, but I am not here to make people comfortable with lies and warm fuzzies. You are to realize that reality is often times relative depending on which side of the looking glass you are sitting on.
This is my home but when I look at its oppressive history , it has taken a lot for me not be absorbed in it and move on. But, I will not abide revisionist history that lie about these very ugly events in American History as if they never occurred.
The United States Constitution says it all.
What is America is BASED ON
IS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!
End of story.
YOU TRY: I dare you.
Hint: The Federalist papers explain the Constitution.
They are not easy reading and not for the faint of heart.
Show me exactly WHERE in The Constitution any of this hogwash is indicated.
"Blacks are to be shunned."
"Only whites are to gain any advantage from the union of states and the government here established."
"Only the rich shall have a chance earn as much wealth as they so desire and no others shall prosper."
Exactly. That is why the constitution is used as reasoning to fight against injustice. The constitution, with the Declaration of Independence as its benchmark, is how we continue to attempt to find a better understanding.
But, you can't say none has happened. We use these wrongs to work together to come to a collective agreement as to why it is wrong and what alternative path constitutes right.
Think of it this way. Look at the roots of Judaism and later Christianity. People complain it's goat herder mentality. It's barbaric and evil. What they refuse to take into account is that it was what catapulted humanity out of barbarism and evil. For its time, it was revolutionary and good. It gave us the principles which evolved to the principles which gave us the Declaration of Independence. That evolution of thought gave us the ideas which birthed our Constitution.
What is right and good continues to evolve. Because every day is a struggle against collapsing into the barbarism that humanity is capable of. For each wrong exposed and corrected; we find new and novel ways to perpetuate the behavior which can collapse society into barbarism. Over the millennia humanity has slowly continued to find the better path, in pockets. You can't negate the past but you can recognize the good and right ideas which allow the evolution to continue. Or, you can pretend barbaric ideas never existed. Which is somewhat barbaric. It stifles your ability to listen and hope to understand why people feel it exists in our society. If you can't understand the argument you can't be a party for change. You can't bridge the gap.
Our ideals demand, first and foremost, that each voice has value and should have the right to be heard. To fully embrace this ideal we must also accept that the path which led people to the thoughts behind their words must be recognized. We can't dismiss their ideas, out of hand. If we listen and engage, value each other and seek a compromise that is equitable we honor those values.
What good is the American Constitution when a federation of Corperationism owns the goal and makes the rules. What good is US dallors when it's backed by nothing. They own your job, they your home and most of the good land, and in debt your childrens future. Basically they own you.
What people power do you have other then to enprisonment your owners.
>"Show me exactly WHERE in The Constitution any of this hogwash is indicated.
"Blacks are to be shunned."
What does being "shunned' have to do with this? Blacks were enslaved. The constitution states clearly in Article 1 sec 2, Article 1, Sec 9, and Article 4 Sec 2 how to deal with the issue of slaves. The very fact that the issue of slavery is addressed admits to the fact that slavery was an institution in this country.
I think you mean Ridiculous. If you're going to use all caps, at least spell the word correctly.
About 5 % of slave trafficking ended in the US . Think about that , think about anything but stop with this incessant idea that America invented slavery or that it is in anyway still alive in our culture .
America , What other nation in the world went to civil war over slavery where almost a million troops and untold civilians died for it's cause ?
The trans-Atlantic slave trade was the largest long-distance in world history. American were one of the slowest to abolish salavery and to get involved in world war two. To abolish salavery Europe was first again. Denmark in 1792, England 1814, Portugal 1822, french 1848 and last big one Dutch in 1863. America was force to do the same in 1866.
Yet many American claim everyone would be speaking German rather than English over world war two. Nonsense and who cares? English is one of the most bastardized and uncivil language in the world. If many American give the greatest honor to white empire with continuous transition to barbarians. How much hit on the head lessons dose it take to learn a new way or better ways of thinking than murdering mostly innocent people greater than any other group to give the greedy Bastards more profits and you the crumbs from the soils.
I think it's quite amazing how people's modern day hypocrisy is lacking in any grasp of historical maturity or knowledge , Slaves ? The entire world worked over the enslaved-of all nationalities ,races and ethnicities in one way or another , Traffickers ? Even the Africans and Muslims were as direct an example of trafficker as anyone , especially those from America .
Yet today , you all point your fingers at America , take a look at real history of the entire world and not just the fast track version of anti-America taught in our biased education system .So what other nation is talking about "reparations " ? Will African nations and cultures who traded in slaves be held responsible too and do you hold them responsible for destroying cultures , tribes and even entire civilizations for a profit ?
Or is today just for America bashing ?
Each of the four ethnics, Asians for civilization's beginning, Native Americans as civilization's ripening, Africans as harvesting and Europeans as the destroyers like frost and snow does plant life, have their season during "civilizations' years" and anything seen and published, because of rapid communications, in today's America has happened in all of the nations. That is the law of "karma" at work in bringing the termination of this morning world's half of man's earthly plight to make room the coming evening world's time. In the other times only in the area where it was happening was it known but today's rapid international communicating ability anything happening in any one nation is known almost instantly world wide. This is nothing new, "just signs fo the times."
These African slave traders did not crow about a vaunted Constitution and all the rights of man. So, who is talking about reparations except ridiculous rightwing advocates, we know that this is not realistic. Yes, America is guilty of this crime and the effects that followed. Is there any dispute about that?
America is not perfect, are you not honest enough to recognize that but rather hide the dirty laundry if it is contrary to rightwing dogma?
The USA is prefect. It's exactly what it is biblically told it would be, "Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth" where "the waters ... where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues". https://hubpages.com/religion-philosoph … e-Prophecy is only a few of the many prophecies I've interpreted revealing her to be just what we see and more.
"Yes, America is guilty of this crime and the effects that followed."
Is a two year old guilty of the "crime" of breaking a vase or wetting their pants? Remember, slavery was not a crime at all; it was the "natural order" of things at the time, just as serfdom was elsewhere and killing women for being raped still is some places.
We've grown, we've developed and matured - it IS a crime now...and only criminals participate in it (think the sexual slavery that still happens in this country). The country and people of the time were responsible for the results, but are the people today - people that would rather die than keep a slave?
I think not. Responsible for trying to correct those results, yes, but not responsible for them happening.
Slavery was not a crime then because the Constitution built for white men did not consider it so. This was in very conflict of all the flowery talk of freedom and the rights of man. It was economic exploitation and just because the hypocrisy was incorporated in the law of the time did not justify it not being a crime. We are not talking about two year olds, Wilderness. What natural order? For the those groups that enslave others, it is always the "natural order". But is it truly right or lawful? Even by the standards of the time the hypocrisy rang loud and clear.
That's right, except you forget that black men owned slaves too - it took no notice of the color of slave owners. Don't know of any black females as slave owners, but would bet that happened, too.
But in this country it was not in conflict with that "flowery talk" because slaves were not considered as human beings. And no, to the "standards of the time and place there was no hypocrisy. You know that as well as I do for slavery has been an accepted fact and norm throughout history and all over the world. Might have to except the far east as I have no knowledge of slavery there (Did Genghis Kahn keep slaves?), but certainly it existed in Egypt, in the mainland of Africa, in the Americas before Europeans appeared and in Europe. It was accepted biblical practice (ordered so by God) and it still happens today...without regard as to color.
*edit* it didn't take long to find that ancient Chinese were often kept, and sold, as slaves. That leaves the aborigines of Australia - did they keep slaves prior to being "discovered"?
Yes, after reviewing the article below, I am reminded that approximately 3500 blacks owned 12000 slaves relative to the 2.2 million that were there and owned by Whites. Your point is not substantiated with an anomaly that did not even reach 1/2 of 1 percent of the total owned by whites. No, you read your history, Black people were not considered human beings as Chief Justice Taney referred to them and their citizenship rights in 1857 court decision. Why were whites not enslaved in late 18th and 19th century America (and indentured servants are no longer part of this discussion by this time?) Surely, you know that I was not born yesterday, the leading pro-slavery advocates at the time, John C. Calhoun being one among others justify slavery as saying the blacks were members of an inferior race. I am not talking about the "Middle Ages". Supposedly, Western Civilization was part of the "Age of Enlightenment". There were not Constitutions nor rule of law in the 12th century. So, whatever comparison that you are trying to make here is not a good one.
AND YES, there was hypocrisy, the debate of the ethics of slavery and its inconsistency with the vaunted America creed was ongoing decades before the Civil War. The only way that it was justified by slave holders and tolerated by those that did not hold slaves was the argument that the slaves, exclusively black, were of an inferior order not suited for freedom.
https://www.theroot.com/did-black-peopl … 1790895436
I'm not real sure of what you are trying to say. I commented that slavery has been apparent throughout the world at various times, but you insist on only speaking of a particular, short period in US history as if that means it didn't exist anywhere else. You also insist that black slave owners in the US where small in number as if that means it didn't happen elsewhere.
My only point was that at the time and place slavery was quite legal and moral. That in other times or places it was not has no bearing on that fact.
>"My only point was that at the time and place slavery was quite legal and moral."<
No no no....If that's the point you're trying to make, I'm afraid that it fails. It may have been legal but that doesn't make it moral. Legality of something doesn't confer morality on that thing. A simple majority of people can make something legal, but that doesn't make it moral. The majority of people in the south felt that slavery was legal, but a Civil War was fought over the morality of that status. There has never been a time when slavery was moral.
No, no, no. You don't get to apply your own morals to people that lived in a different place hundreds or thousands of years ago. Societies make their own morals, and you don't get to change to match modern ones.
But I will certainly agree that the law does not make anything moral. Or immoral, for that matter.
>" You don't get to apply your own morals to people that lived in a different place hundreds or thousands of years ago."<
I don't think that's what I'm doing. Recognizing the Universality of something is not the same as advocacy. What I'm saying is act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.Universalize the maxim upon which you’re about to act.
If slavery is morally acceptable in any sense, in any time , then you must put yourself into that condition of slavery and tell me that you see it as morally acceptable to you. So the question that you need to answer is whether you would consider your being subjected to slavery just because of your skin color or ethnicity would be morally just? Would you feel that being enslaved was morally right? Would you say, that it must be morally just because that's what these people that have enslaved me believe is moral. Can you accept being a slave? In real terms of chains and forced unpaid labor with no rights at all, and being subjected to torture if your owner deemed it necessary? Having your family broken up and sold off to some other slave owner. Put that in universal terms so that you are subjected to the effects of slavery. Is it still morally acceptable to you?
??? Slavery was acceptable at many places and many time periods. But that does NOT mean that I must find it acceptable at all, for I do not live in the cultures and times. And that I find it morally unacceptable does not mean that other peoples in other times did so, nor is it reasonable to declare that those people were "immoral" because they did not use my morality set.
Problem is that there are no "universal" morals and yet you continue to insist that your morality set is the one and only universal set. Even as you have to know that some of what you find right and wrong will, one day and one time, be found to be wrong and right. Morals do NOT stay static and there is no universality at all about them.
>"I commented that slavery has been apparent throughout the world at various times, but you insist on only speaking of a particular, short period in US history as if that means it didn't exist anywhere else."<
But we aren't talking about how slavery was practiced or viewed outside the US. At least I'm not. My concern is with our history here in this country and how the practice of institutionalized slavery has affected our politics throughout our history.
But I was, and made that very plain. Slavery has been considered "right" in many times and many places throughout history. Including in what would become the US and what was the US. That particular moral (along with a whole raft of others) has changed, but that does not mean that the people of the time were immoral for following their own morals rather than those from a time hundreds of years in the future.
Wilderness, I am not making general comments about slavery as I focus on the United States and how slavery's accommodation in our founding documents was hypocrisy of the highest order.
There's so much to take issue with here, I'm not sure where to start.
>"That's right, except you forget that black men owned slaves too - it took no notice of the color of slave owners. "<
The number of blacks that owned slaves can be counted on one hand. And the ownership of slaves still didn't offer them the basic civil rights that came to whites as a result of winning the genetic lottery. They couldn't vote and had no say in any aspect of society.
>" it took no notice of the color of slave owners. "<
But it did make it clear who the slaves were. There were no white slaves. There was not one instance of a black man owning a white man or woman. No other race was enslaved in our history. Only blacks were property, furniture, cattle. Racism certainly prevailed, but slavery was saved for blacks.
>"But in this country it was not in conflict with that "flowery talk" because slaves were not considered as human beings. And no, to the "standards of the time and place there was no hypocrisy."<
That suggests that truth is relative and not objective. You're saying that the standards of the time made the practice acceptable, which it probably was to those who owned slaves. Hardly acceptable to the slaves however. So what is the Truth? Is slavery acceptable during one period of time but outlawed and a despised practice in a more enlightened time? If the truth is that slavery is an evil, then the truth is that it's always been evil and perpetuated by hypocrites that talked about All Men are Created Equal, except some men are more equal than others, and those others become our slaves. Truth isn't something that's malleable, and suddenly becomes false when it serves another purpose. The Law of Non-Contradiction precedes all of this. You cannot be A, and be NOT A at the same time in the same context. With that in mind, Slavery cannot be acceptable and unacceptable at the same time in the same context.
>" You know that as well as I do for slavery has been an accepted fact and norm throughout history and all over the world. "<
Using that as a justification for slavery is a logical fallacy. It's the appeal to tradition or antiquity. Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can’t learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.
(1) Religion dates back many thousands of years (whereas atheism is a relatively recent development).
(2) Some form of religion is true.
This argument is an appeal to antiquity because the only evidence that it offers in favor of religion is its age. There are many old ideas, of course, that are known to be false: e.g. that the Earth is flat, or that it is the still center of the solar system. It therefore could be the case that the premise of this argument is true (that religion is older than atheism) but that its conclusion is nevertheless false (that no religion is true). We need a lot more evidence about religion (or any other theory) than how old it is before we can be justified in accepting it as true. Appeals to antiquity are therefore fallacious.
>"but certainly it existed in Egypt"<
True, but the Biblical story of Egypt has to do with Moses saying "let my people go" and leading them from bondage and slavery to the "promised land". Slavery was obviously seen as a negative practice even in the writing of Exodus.
I'm not sure what your post is attempting to say but it all sounds like a justification for slavery when there simply isn't one. Using the Bible, and I admit that I did that pointing to Moses, but that was in response to the comment about Egypt, is a totally unacceptable source. You offered this:
>"It was accepted biblical practice (ordered so by God) and it still happens today...without regard as to color"<
You can't really use the Bible as a source to prove a point because the question then becomes, what proves the Bible. what is the authority of the Bible? Is it Gods word? According to who? According to the Bible. But what proves the Bible? Oh yeah, it's the inspired word of God, according to...the Bible. That's circular reasoning. An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion. It might be acceptable to a devout Christian, but you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. It has no authority to an atheist or a Muslim or a Buddhist. .
Someone here is speaking a deeper language, I can understand.
Adagio, I don't remember now where I read it but there were some white slaves shipped to this land before becoming a nation but they were eliminated by the time the U.S was formed. Otherwise very well said.
"Is slavery acceptable during one period of time but outlawed and a despised practice in a more enlightened time?"
Can there be any doubt of that? Slavery still exists today, in some 168 countries; is it acceptable there? It obviously is or it wouldn't exist, regardless of what others might think of it. When you try to assign moral truths as objective and not relative and subjective you are far, far from the truth, for morals (is slavery right or wrong?) are always subjective and relative. There is not a single moral we espouse today that has not been violated in the past, somewhere and by someone, because it was right to do so (slavery is just one example). Indeed, some of what we view as "right" is and was viewed as "wrong" by others.
I used to think that way, but I don't anymore. I would ask you for an example, to demonstrate how what you just said, "for morals (is slavery right or wrong?) are always subjective and relative." is a true statement. You've offered this as an absolute. A Truth. There is nothing relative or subjective about it. You're making a statement of objective truth. You're stating that what you've just said is factually true. If truth is what you get when fact corresponds to reality, then you're stating a truth that contradicts your own statement. That violates the Law (Principle) of Non-Contradiction as presented by Aristotle, that says you cannot be A, and be NOT A at the same time in the same context.
You're making an absolute statement here. A Truth that moral truths are always relative. How can they be relative and absolute at the same time? That's a contradiction. You can't be A and NOT A at the same time in the same context.
The problem here as I see it, is what form of reasoning do you use to determine your own moral compass? Do you subscribe to Consequential Moral Reasoning, or a Categorical Imperative? Those are the only two forms of reasoning that I'm aware of that inform our morality. Do you have another that serves as your moral compass?
I'll offer an example: The ticking time bomb scenario: You're familiar with it I'm sure. A bomb is placed in Times Square and it's ready to go off and will kill hundreds or thousands of people. We catch a suspected terrorist that we think knows about the bomb. We bring him to a room to interrogate him, and we're going to use torture, because we believe that it's justified in order to save the people. What's the life of one asshole compared to the lives of all those people right? Torture works. Lets get on with it. But instead of torturing him, we bring his 5 year old daughter to the room and we strap her into a chair right in front of the suspected terrorist. Standing over her is a man with a pruning clipper. He spreads her fingers apart and he lops off one finger at a time in front of the suspect until we get the information. If the logic that is used to tell us that it's morally acceptable to torture somebody to save hundreds or maybe thousands, then the logic doesn't change because of the age or gender of the person being tortured. If torture works to save those people, then who gets tortured is irrelevant to the outcome. The bottom line here is saving those people from the bomb. So...is it morally acceptable to torture a five year old girl to save the lives of hundreds of people? OR...is torture itself morally wrong regardless of any other considerations? Tell me...where do you stand on torturing a 5 year old to save the lives of others? If you believe that torture is acceptable, then it doesn't matter who gets tortured or the method that's used if you can achieve the results that you want. Or, your moral compass tells you that it's morally unacceptable to use torture period.. No exceptions. Where is true north on your moral compass? Does it point you in an absolute direction or not?
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Morals change through time. People change, cultures change, society changes and that all translates into morals changing with them.
And that in turn means that morals are never an absolute. They cannot be if they are subject to change or if different cultures have different morals.
>"And that in turn means that morals are never an absolute."<
...he said with absolute certitude.
Morals are judgment calls are they not? You've just made a judgment call and stated it as an absolute.
>"Morals change through time. People change, cultures change, society changes and that all translates into morals changing with them."<
If that's the case then morals have nothing to do with Truth. If Truth is not part of your moral makeup then how can you possibly lay claim to any thing you hold as a value worth holding since it's not rooted in the Truth.? Is Truth itself not a value worth holding? Perhaps you think that Truth is relative or subjective, in which case truth doesn't exist. If everybody has their own truth then objective truth doesn't exist. It's all relative and subjective. I have mine and you have yours. And neither of us have a shared reality that we can use to communicate with each other. If that's the case, then what do we have to compare anything to in order to determine truth from fiction?
I think that we get glimpses of absolute objective Truth when we eliminate those things that are false. When we do that, we get more clarity. What' is left after eliminating error, is truth. The falsehood that we've eliminated has obscured reality and once it's removed, ( a process of deductive reasoning) we are left with Truth. It's like having a dirty windshield. We use the window washer and let the wipers do their job and once again, we can see clearly. The wipers serve as the logic. The clean window is objective truth.
>""Is slavery acceptable during one period of time but outlawed and a despised practice in a more enlightened time?"
Can there be any doubt of that?"<
Of course there can. Do you believe that truth is objective or relative? Our morals are the values that we hold. Our moral compass must point to True north or it isn't worth our time is it? If your morals can be compromised, why hold them as values?
The question should be what are they based on? But that question implies that things have bases. So what is the basis for the basis? It can't be it's own base, because you can't base something on itself to prove itself. That's a circular reasoning process and a logical fallacy. It depends on something else. If you pursue this you'll find yourself in an infinite regress and never get to the bottom to locate the basis for the basis for the basis that informs your morality.
Well that sounds confusing ............talk about a circle game .
It's not a circle, because it doesn't come around to itself for it's own justification. It's called infinite regress and demands a justification for whatever basis you use to justify the basis for any moral position that you hold. Whatever that may be, ask yourself what am I basing that on? If you conclude that your view is based on itself...you're playing a circle game and deluding yourself. When you employ a logical fallacy and know that it's a logical fallacy, you're simply irrational, and why should anybody trust an irrational person? We've got one in the White House right now.
Everything in life happens in cycles, ED, once we see the cycle everything points to there is no confusion.
"Our morals are the values that we hold."
And there is the problem - that little word "we", for you are trying to put your morals onto other peoples in other times. Doesn't work, anymore than putting their morals onto you and complaining that you are immoral because you don't follow them.
Morals are not something to be "proven", for there is nothing but current opinion to prove. No "basis" (outside, perhaps, survival) then - just current opinion, and an opinion that will change next year.
>""Our morals are the values that we hold."
And there is the problem - that little word "we", for you are trying to put your morals onto other peoples in other times. "<
No. no no. you're reading that passage wrong and selectively editing to make your argument. That little word "we" is preceded by the bigger word "OUR". That sentence is meant to read that OUR ( as in the human species) morals are the values that we ( again the human species) hold. I could say that Human morals are the values that Humans hold. I'm deliberately not saying "their" as that would separate humans into subgroups.
I don't think you've understood what I've been talking about at all. The reason I say that is because of this: You said; " Morals are not something to be "proven", for there is nothing but current opinion to prove."
Apparently you think I'm trying to "prove" something. I'm not now, nor have I at any time been suggesting or attempting to PROVE a moral position. I never attempt to Prove any theory or belief. I don't believe that theories or beliefs can be proven. So that is not my intention. That's a process of inductive reasoning and you can never prove anything using induction. Certainly not morality which can be as vague as anything we deal with and so easily compromised. That's the idea that we take individual facts and put them together piling them up one on top of another, to come to a final assertion or inference that we have concluded something as true. But that never happens. the best you have is a Generality. The reason is that you can never exhaust all the possibilities that could prove the conclusion as false. And it only takes on thing to disprove an argument. You can make a general inference but that's it.
However, deductive reasoning works the opposite direction.
Deductive reasoning ("top-down logic") contrasts with inductive reasoning ("bottom-up logic") in the following way; in deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules which hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from specific cases to general rules, meaning, there is epistemic uncertainty.
Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true. Infallibly True.
1.All men are mortal. (First premise)
2.Socrates is a man. (Second premise)
3.Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)
That is infallibly true. Statements of morality or values can be subjected to the same scrutiny. We can rule out those values or moral judgments that lack universality. We (humans) can demonstrate why they are false.
So, I'm not interested in proving something to be true, especially morals. I'm interested in disproving things. And that includes questions of morality and values. It's better to demonstrate why something is false than to try to prove why it's true.
You'll probably notice in any of my posts that I'm questioning the veracity of something that somebody has said. I've questioned what you've said, which is why we're here now. I avoid making absolute statements. I'm always questioning those that make them.
Nice to have you adagio,
I want to make a clarification. In biblical text, particularly in the New Testament, Greek Scripture, there are few references to slavery and those were neutral. Basically, it said that slaves were to work for their masters whole souled. Pro-slavery advocates used this to point to the fact that the scriptures acknowledged the existence of slavery and admonished slaves to work for their masters as they would for Jehovah, himself. Masters were admonished to be reasonable as their ultimate fate, as well, would be determined from above. There was never any mention of insurrection and the rights of men verses slaves as such, that I might have expected.
Yeah, I'm aware of that. The Bible was used to justify slavery. That's just another reason why I'm an atheist. There are some really incredible truths in the Bible's New Testament. There's also some really serious bullshit. I think anybody that uses the Bible to support an argument has already lost. I do tend to use some passages to hold up to serious conservative Christians as examples of their own hypocrisy. But it's not to support my own views. I just want to know if the person I'm arguing with is consistent in his views or is he conflicted and contradicting himself.
Wilderness, I don't take the Bible literally but as a book revealing the atrocities of this material civilization. Therefore I see the Australian Aboriginals, European Druids, an Americas' people and an Asia people who were above civilized people's mindset. That is what the Bible's survival of Noah's family from the flood represents, a people of the four primary ethnics maintaining the abilities Jesus demonstrated but without the complete understanding Jesus demonstrated.
Because of two symbolic prophecies of the four primary ethnics in Ezekiel 1:5-10 and Revelation 4:6-7 suggests each of the four will one day be consider "the king of beast" or lion, a "man" less than the king, the king's "prey" or an ox in one and calf in the other and one that "takes flight" or eagle. Respectively they are ...
Ezekiel 1:10 "As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle." ...and
Revelation 4:7 "And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle."
They indicate each of the four ethnic groups during the duration of this civilization will have a time to be in each of the four positions, Today's Europeans [frost and snow of winter, destroyer] are the lion, Asians [yellow budding of spring's plants] the man, Native Americans [ripening fruit of summer] who fled off of their land and Africans [harvest time of fall] the ox or calf. That is the sequence of events happening during this half of woman's [minds unable comprehend all things] earthly plight. It all happens for fulfilling the law of karma without ever ending.
Your personal interpretations of biblical prose notwithstanding, the historical representations of the book plainly reference slavery as something God instructed his people to engage in. Whether He did or not, it seems quite plain that the rulers of the time found it to be a satisfactory arrangement...as long as it wasn't the writer that was enslaved.
I didn't intend to deny that, I'm only suggesting "what is/was is/was what it is/was" and nothing more. The law of existence is change, that includes ways of thinking which is very evident when one study world history - although I am about world history as I am about the taught U.S. history, it isn't 100% accurate, literature of the times often present the more accurate accounts.
>" the historical representations of the book plainly reference slavery as something God instructed his people to engage in. "<
If God thought that slavery was a good thing, then why did he instruct Moses to lead the Hebrews out of bondage in Egypt?
The slave owners used the Bible to justify slavery. The question then is/should be, what justifies the Bible?
Cred, a few thoughts for you to consider, to see if it might lessen your thought of hypocrisy.
At the time of the Constitution, America was a country of white men. The reality of the culture of the times was that women were considered completely subservient to men. Black slaves were an inferior species. I am not saying that by our modern standards this was right, but by period standards it was the cultural norm. These norms weren't necessarily the result of egotistical thoughts of white supremacy - they were 'just the way things are.' I think for a charge of hypocrisy there has to be some degree of purposeful intent. As in 'knowing better'.
There is ample documentation that many of the Founders knew slavery was wrong, and wished it could be abolished in the Constitution, but understood that those thoughts were in the minority, and in reality, to include abolition would have doomed the Constitution to fail. Does that make a difference? Should principle have ruled, and the Constitutional experiment been conceded as doomed, but the effort valiant?
Your comment about "natural order," seems to be a judgement of today. Can you not consider that whether it is right or wrong, the reality is that it was the natural order of the times? Where in history would you peg society's acceptance of the term 'crimes against humanity'?
Truly "right or lawful?" Considering what was at stake, would the old saying 'half a loaf is better than none.' carry any weight? If the choice were to try to build a resilient national contract that could be accepted by the majority, or insist on a perfect contract - which was known to be unobtainable, would you still call anything less than perfect hypocrisy?
Of course we recognize now that slavery was and is a human travesty, but, does that same recognition demand current-day places like Mauritania? *International pressure forced them to formally make slavery illegal in 2007, but it is still the cultural norm there. Are they now hypocrites?
Welcome to the lion’s den, GA, hopefully you can emerge unscathed.
We got here because I made a comment from an earlier poster who stated a concern that we would never return to the America of the Founders. I said that the America of the Founders was based on Slavery, White Supremacy and Oligarchy. I have had many in the forum that wished to dispute this with me.
Funny, that no one made the connection between blacks that were free and otherwise allowed citizenship in many states while accepting blacks that were in bondage as inferior species. The “just way that things were” had plenty of contradictions that most intelligent and honest people should have been able to identify during that time. But, I cannot dismiss your point about the status of women during the period as being structurally subservient. They did not own property nor had no rights beyond those granted by the men.
I did understand the need to come to compromise in order to form the nascent union of states, but it was unfortunate that it was at the expense of an entire group of people and an important principle. Would any of these ‘great’ men consign themselves or their families to such a fate? If John Adams could see through the hypocrisy, could not anyone else? I think that they all did, but economics and greed prevented them from coming to the appropriate conclusion, so much for principle. This is obviously not so much of a principle if you can trade it in at your convenience. It was not so much a cultural norm as it was economic self-interest. As long as it is the “other fellow” and his family, it’s OK. They all knew that it was wrong, or most of them, but who is going to give up their ‘cash cows” because of some principle?
I think that it was just a bunch of greedy folks who exploited others and enriched themselves with free-labor and in the process created an elaborate narrative and supportive cultural myth romanticizing, using pseudo-intellectual arguments to justify the unconscionable. Contrary to your opinion, I think that they did know better. The only “natural order” was, in fact, created to facilitate the exploitation of many for the benefit of the few. So, I consider it all deliberate and criminal. It is always easy to talk about ideals and necessary compromises when you have no skin in the game (no pun intended)
We recognize slavery as a crime today, and think that they recognized it then,too, but had ulterior motives for not acting on it as such, as I explained earlier.
An excerpt from a Library of Congress document:
“freed African Americans, especially in the North, were active participants in American society. Black men enlisted as soldiers and fought in the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Some owned land, homes, businesses, and paid taxes. In some Northern cities, for brief periods of time, black property owners voted. A very small number of free blacks owned slaves. The slaves that most free blacks purchased were relatives whom they later manumitted. A few free blacks also owned slave holding plantations in Louisiana, Virginia, and South Carolina.
Free African American Christians founded their own churches which became the hub of the economic, social, and intellectual lives of blacks in many areas of the fledgling nation. Blacks were also outspoken in print. Freedom's Journal, the first black-owned newspaper, appeared in 1827. This paper and other early writings by blacks fueled the attack against slavery and racist conceptions about the intellectual inferiority of African Americans. “
Well damn Cred, I had to sift through your comment to find something to disagree with - relative to the point of my original response.
First let me ensure you understand what I am talking about.
I agree with your thought "... that the America of the Founders was based on Slavery, White Supremacy and Oligarchy." And I agree that, although not legally a crime, slavery has forever been a humanitarian crime.
But, I still believe I can make valid points countering your charge of hypocrisy, and "the natural order." So as to not repeat myself, I hope you won't feel cheated if I refer you to my coming response to Adagio4639 for the specifics. Consider it to be addressed to you too.
Regarding your " The “just way that things were” had plenty of contradictions that most intelligent and honest people...," consider that speaking on a State/Colony basis, as late as 1780, slavery was legal in all of the original states/colonies. Which I think can support the thought that it was "the natural order" of the culture of the times.
Recalling, vaguely, (and again cheating you of effort by not digging in for the details), that one of the founders did free his family slaves, (not a plantation-size number), and another freed his in his will, I think your charge of hypocritical greed can be somewhat mitigated. Although, in a strict determination, Jefferson might be the hardest to defend.
Which, in the end, forces me into the corner of wondering if a hypocrisy born of cultural norms is any different from a purposeful, self-serving hypocrisy?
To this issue, regarding the Founders and the times, I am stubbornly sticking with my perspective.
"And I agree that, although not legally a crime, slavery has forever been a humanitarian crime."
Really? When Aztecs sacrificed slaves to the gods was it a "humanitarian crime"...to them? I rather doubt it - it was the will of the gods and gods make no errors.
You got me bud. I was less specific than than I should have been.
Let me try again;
And I agree that, although not legally a crime, slavery has forever been a humanitarian crime - by our current secular moral thinking.
I did fall into the trap of speaking as if a moral judgement of today is an objective judgement for all times, (thief! thief!)
However, I do think that with growth, some moral judgments can become nearly objective. Using slavery as an instance, couldn't the objection to it be considered an objective moral judgement - until our human cultural norms change and life is no longer viewed as sacrosanct?
Nature has never viewed it as such. Could our evolutionary growth take us to the same place? Could evolution be circular? Could our current sanctity of life thoughts become known to be just misconceptions of an Existence phase?
Regardless of those answers, you are right, I was applying a subjective standard. I should know better. Especially since that is what I am arguing in this discussion. I'll take that piece of pie now.
Yep - ten lashes with a wet noodle.
But objective morals? Your link said that slavery exists in 167 countries!! Most of it illegal, but listed several where if it is illegal it is only in response to world demands - were it not for the rest of the world those societies would still have slavery and in fact do condone it when the world can't see it.
Some find murder of raped women to be moral.
Severe child abuse is common in many countries.
Genital mutilation is quite moral in some places.
Torture is not uncommon.
Terrorism - the deliberate murder of innocent people for political gain - is moral.
Prostitution and extra-marital sex is moral...outside the hallowed halls of our legislature.
I don't think there is anything at all "objective" about morals; I think they are a total and complete construct of the society they exist in. And that they vary widely according to when and where they are practiced.
Of course morality is objective. You wouldn't even have been able to write your list if they werent.
Quick lovetherain, before he sees this, let me help. You did mean subjective, right?
Well damn Wilderness, Okay then, here is my last word on this;
"You are right, I was applying a subjective standard. I should know better."
>"Really? When Aztecs sacrificed slaves to the gods was it a "humanitarian crime"...to them? I rather doubt it - it was the will of the gods and gods make no errors"<.
There seems to be a lot of justifications for horrendous behavior going on, and dismissing it under the guise of being the "norm's of the culture at that time.as opposed to denouncing what is clearly crimes against humanity.
Believing in Gods that condone torture and murder and human sacrifice in a culture that accepts that as normal, is no excuse. It was most certainly a humanitarian crime to the victims of that sort of thing. So essentially we're looking at might makes right as a justification for criminal behavior. Those that commit the crimes are in the majority and so minorities get the shaft. There's no way to call this just because there is no way to demonstrate the existence of Gods that condone this kind of thing. That's as insane as saying that the full moon tells me I must sacrifice another slave to the moon god. Who came up with that? ( besides me....but you get the point) But then justice isn't being considered here is it. All that matters is a justification for murder.
If an authority claims divine guidance to reclaim the greatness of his nation, and then begins to round up people that become the scapegoat for societies problems, and places them into extermination camps to erase them from the population, and it's accepted by the population as being morally just and legal, what do we say about that? I think we already know the answer don't we? We can say that it's immoral and unjust regardless of what those people that approve of those actions may think, because those actions are not just against a segment of the population but a crime against humanity itself. And that justifies the dismantling of that society and the culture that endorsed those crimes and the leader that ordered them.
>"These norms weren't necessarily the result of egotistical thoughts of white supremacy - they were 'just the way things are.' I think for a charge of hypocrisy there has to be some degree of purposeful intent. As in 'knowing better'."<
I think you're wrong about that. What you're saying is that in the middle of an Age of Enlightenment, the founders simply accepted these illogical and racist views as "just the way things are". Hard to lay claim to "enlightenment" when you ignore slavery for the evil that it is. That's a little hard to swallow considering that they rejected the entire concept of Monarchy and authoritarian rule and taxation without representation which at that time were "just the way things were" throughout the world. America was the very first country that was not ruled by a king and formed a secular state with religious freedom. In other words, they did know better. Slavery was an institution in the country and most prevalent in the South. It was virtually non-existent in the north. In order for the Southern States to ratify the constitution, concessions were made to serve the interests of a Southern agrarian culture. Without those concessions the Southern states would never have joined the new nation. Those Southern planters didn't care about things like hypocrisy. They cared about their own little kingdoms where they held the power of life and death over their slaves.
>"I think for a charge of hypocrisy there has to be some degree of purposeful intent. As in 'knowing better'."<
Why would I or anybody think that they didn't.? I would argue that they were more interested in maintaining their stranglehold on the institution of slavery. I think the fact of the Civil War bears that out as evidence that they knew better, but didn't care.
>" which was known to be unobtainable, would you still call anything less than perfect hypocrisy?"<
>"Can you not consider that whether it is right or wrong, the reality is that it was the natural order of the times? "<
I don't see that as an answer that has any moral substance to it, and we are talking about the moral question of slavery here. You're using an appeal to tradition which is a logical fallacy to justify an immoral practice.
What you're offering here is a utilitarian concept of morality called Consequential Moral Reasoning. We still see it in practice today among most Republicans. It means that whatever serves the interests of the greatest number of people is the morally correct thing to do. That was the view of Jeremy Bentham who invented utilitarianism. It's a utilitarian concept of moral reasoning.
Kant offered the categorical imperative in his 1785 Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. He Introduced a way of evaluating motivations for action. According to Kant, human beings ( All human beings) occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in an imperative, or ultimate commandment of reason, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition declaring a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. In other words, we don't find morality in doing what is pleasing to the greatest number of people. We find it outside of our own self interest. He offered this in 1785... four years before the writing of the Constitution. It's not as if we didn't know better. It's that some people didn't care and would not cooperate unless they could keep their slaves. So we kicked the can down the road and left the issue to future generations to deal with. And they did. And we have been living with the consequences of that original sin ever since.
Hello adagio4639, I have enjoyed your comments, (so far), in these forums as a welcome addition. Probably because you seem to be as prone to extensive explanations as I am. ;-)
Starting with your "age of enlightenment" thought, consider my response to Credence2. As late as 1780 slavery was legal in all colonies/states, and more than one prominent Northern leading family made their fortune in the slave trade. Connecticut/Massachusetts' Saltonstall family is just one example. At the time slavery was made illegal in Connecticut, (just a few years before the Constitutional convention), it has been estimated there were around 5000 slaves in the state. A step farther back shows that around 1740, a fifth of New York's population was slaves. It seems that only a few decades prior to the Constitution, slavery in the North was far from "virtually non-existent," and as late as only a few years before the Constitution there was still a significant number, (not compared to the Southern States of course), of slaves in the Northern States.
I can agree that your mentioned "Age of Enlightenment" did start in the Northern States, but to compare it to a modern term; that "age" was like a 'Blue Wave' that took almost a hundred years to wash down to our Southern States' shores. I think that is indicative of a changing of cultural norms, a changing of the times - as our history shows, is always a slow and prodding process. A fact which I think bolsters my thoughts about the Founders' actions regarding hypocrisy and being men of the times.
With a couple caveats, I still hold that those cultural norms were very much the natural order of things at the time of the Constitution's writing. First, I am in no way trying to defend or legitimize the concept of slavery, or to deny that its motive was economic greed, (or necessity), but I do think it is appropriate to consider it in light of the standards of the times - rather than a strict judgement of morality, (which, agreeing with your thought, I don't think can be denied), and by the measure of today's, (or any subsequent time's), standards.
Considering your thought that;
"I would argue that they were more interested in maintaining their stranglehold on the institution of slavery. I think the fact of the Civil War bears that out as evidence that they knew better, but didn't care. "
Remembering that the discussion is about The Founder's, the writing of the Constitution, and the formation of a new nation, I think that thought is as wrong as you think my defense of "the cultural norms of the times" is.
Nothing I have ever read about the primary Founders would attribute those motives to their actions. And further, your reply, indicating you would allow the '... perfect to be the enemy of the good...', that you would prefer no Constitution over an imperfect one, reinforces my thoughts.
And even further still, no, we were not talking about the morality of slavery here. All responses I have seen consider it immoral, and all have admitted it a crime, (although with some making a legal vs. moral distinction). What my discussions have addressed is the tangent of this thread of whether the Founders should be considered hypocrites because they were men of their times.
Your "logical fallacy" point is also misapplied. I was not validating my perspective with "tradition" as a support, I was using period cultural norms to support my thoughts. The two are not the same. I do not think that difference is just a case of semantics either.
Hopefully, as you see more of my forum participations, you will understand how wrong you are to think that I would consider your "Consequential Moral Reasoning" as support for almost any position I would take. That you perceived that can only mean that either I have been sloppy explaining what I mean, or you have misunderstood because of preconceived notions on your part.
To your Kant thought: if we consider it in the confined context of the writing of the Constitution and the founding of our nation, do you really think it applies to the Founders? Do you really think their motivation was self-interest?
And to address your "It's not as if we didn't know better" - relative to Kant's writing; does it matter to your thought that Kant's writing was published, by your date, only two years before the writing of the Constitution, and that he was a German philosopher, his writing was published in German in Germany, not republished in an English translation until the 19th century, and, that it was considered such an obscure publication that three years later Kant wrote a Critique of Practical Reason as an explanation of his first writing?
I am not certain this Kant rational is a valid consideration - regarding the Founders' thinking of the times.
However, I can certainly agree that, like today's politicians, the can was certainly "kicked down the road," rather than being addressed when most needed. But, I also don't think a Constitution could have been achieved if they had held to strict moral principle and picked up the can then.
Where do you suppose we would be now, without the Constitution of 1789? I think we would be either British or French. But, we would probably have become slave-free a few decades earlier than we did.
Thanks for providing an opportunity for discussion. I am hopeful of future discussions - if the jackals don't wear you down first.
Great reply. Enjoy reading you. (Probably because you seem to be as prone to extensive explanations as I am. ;-)) Hehe. No doubt.
First: my statement: ""I would argue that they were more interested in maintaining their stranglehold on the institution of slavery. I think the fact of the Civil War bears that out as evidence that they knew better, but didn't care. " was directed at those Southern members of the Convention that would insist on the institution of slavery being maintained. The fact of the issue of Slavery being codified in the Constitution in Article 1 sec 2, Article 1 sec 9 and Article 4 Sec 2 demonstrates that slavery was a contentious issue even in 1789. Article 1 sec 9 barred congress from abolishing the slave trade before 1808. Clearly the abolition of slavery was already a topic of discussion.
Regarding this: "your reply, indicating you would allow the '... perfect to be the enemy of the good...', that you would prefer no Constitution over an imperfect one," I think I was responding to your statement where you said: "would you still call anything less than perfect hypocrisy?"< My response was....Yes. And I said yes, in the context of agreeing to a morally abhorrent practice for the sake of getting something else that I valued. I realize what was at stake but I feel that what was agreed to for the sake of getting a constitution was a bridge too far. There could have and should have been a greater debate on the subject. We might have avoided a costly war that ripped the country apart and spared 600,000 lives and a lasting legacy of racism that has plagued this country ever since they kicked that can down the road for future generations to deal with. I feel the same way when the idea of funding a border wall should come as a condition of approving DACA. No deal. The one should not be dependent on the other. The DACA recipients should not be used as pawns for the sake of Trumps wall, that Mexico was going to pay for as he promised.
>"I was not validating my perspective with "tradition" as a support, I was using period cultural norms to support my thoughts."<
I know. I see that as a distinction without a difference. The period cultural norms you speak of lean on traditions for their validity. I just don't regard them as valid. They were as false then as they are today. Of course, the times and norms of that period dictated the actions that people took, and I suppose that I ask too much from those that lived in that period, but when I see examples of a few men that saw beyond those practices, I think about what might have been.and how much better we'd be today if the issue of slavery could have been nipped in the bud so to speak at the time of the Constitutional convention.
>"Do you really think their motivation was self-interest?"<
I do . There were those that had far more altruistic views on the establishment of this nation, and they stand tall. However. if we can agree that a moral foundation to our politics is real, then we have to look at what informs the morality and values that the country was founded upon and I think Washington was probably the best example of establishing our moral compass even though he owned slaves as did Jefferson. The institution of slavery was already established and these men were active participants in that institution. So Washington and Jefferson were speaking to a value system and moral foundation that was a bit off target. It was directed at a white population. But, they missed the point. It’s the idea that human beings as rational beings are ends in themselves not open to use merely as a means to some other end. Every time the motive for what we do, is to satisfy a desire, or a preference that we have, to pursue some interest, we’re acting out of inclination. In so far as we act morally, in so far as our actions have moral worth, what confers moral worth is precisely our capacity to rise above self-interest and inclinations and to act out of duty. It was in the interest of our founders and framers to maintain slavery as an institution and they were writing the rules that we all would live by. They wrote those rules to preserve their own self-interest. There was NO moral worth to that decision. It was a self-serving action and there is no moral worth to acting out of self-interest. It certainly wasn't in the interest of the slaves was it? They ultimately couldn't rise above their own self-interest to do the morally right thing and we've been paying for that lapse in judgment ever since.
>"But, I also don't think a Constitution could have been achieved if they had held to strict moral principle and picked up the can then."<
You're probably right, but we'll never really know. I don't know how much effort was put into the debate on slavery. I do think the important thing for them was getting all the member states to agree to a foundational document. That was the overriding consideration. But here we are today, and we live with a racial divide that is the legacy of an immoral institution that was codified in our constitution.
>"Where do you suppose we would be now, without the Constitution of 1789?"<
Probably where we are today. We no longer live under the Constitution of 1789. We live under the Gettysburg constitution. The 13,14 and 15th Amendment's changed everything about our constitution. I mean everything. The three lessons of our history are:
1776 says the federal government is dangerous. The states are good. They'll protect people.
1789 says the states are still good, but they need to be controlled.
And 1868 says the states are dangerous. The federal government is good.
The theory of the revolution could be called the first lesson of American history, that the general government is a threat to liberty and the states are its protectors. That's the idea of the 1789 Founders' Constitution too. That's what the Second Amendment is about, states standing up against the tyrannical federal government. And that's the idea of the secessionists. That's what they think they're doing. Their articles of secession served the same purpose as the Declaration of Independence and they even cited that as the basis for their argument.
Lincoln's theory is instead that the federal government can protect liberty. It can protect people from the states. The Founders' Constitution doesn't do this, but the Reconstruction or Gettysburg Constitution will.
That's the new birth of freedom that the Gettysburg Address promises, the Reconstruction Amendments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th. These amendments constitute a second founding. They give us a very different constitution than the one the founders imagined. I'm sure you can see that. Most people don't, but I have a feeling that you can.
The defeated Southern states accepted the 13th Amendment, but they didn't want the 14th. It passed Congress only because the Southern senators and representatives had been excluded. When Southern state legislatures refused to ratify it, Congress dissolved them. It put the South under military control and the new constitutional vision that Congress forces on the South is the reconstruction vision:
That's the third lesson of American history. If States are oppressive to their citizens, then the Federal Government will intervene to protect them.
States may oppress their citizens and the federal government will intervene to protect him. The federal government now is the good guys. They were NOT the good guys in the original constitution. The states were. Now, the Federal government was protecting the rights of the citizens against the states that would oppress them.
We like to say that the Constitution is a success, that it served us well for over 200 years. But I want to suggest that actually the Founders' Constitution was in significant ways... a failure. It didn't do what it was supposed to do.
It''s supposed to form a more perfect Union, but 11 states secede. It's suppose to ensure domestic tranquility, but Americans kill Americans, three-quarters of a million of them. That's not success.
We don't like to say this. We like to think of American history as a success story. We look back to the Declaration, and 1776, to the Founders, 1789. We imagine a line that connects us to those great figures of our history, whose wisdom still guides us, whose examples still inspire.
But the Civil War is a pretty significant break in that line. The Civil War is a rejection of the signers' idea that people can always decide to change their government. It's a rejection of the Founders' idea that the states are the primary protectors of liberty. After the Civil War, it's going to be the federal government. It's going to be for awhile federal troops in the occupied South.
So our Constitution now is different. The Constitution we live under, in theory and in practice, is the Reconstruction Constitution. Think about the big cases that define constitutional law. The ones we've seen, Gideon, Mapp, Miranda, Tinker. Brown v.Board of Education. What is the major case that will come up if Kavanaugh is seated on the SCOTUS? , Roe v. Wade. And What confers citizenship? What do all these cases have in common?
They all could never have arisen, they could never have been decided, under the Founders' Constitution. They are all 14th Amendment cases, federal rights against the states.
So, our Constitution, the cases we talk about, the rights we cherish, is not the Founders' Constitution.
And we haven't had it for over 200 years. We've had it for about 140 and some of the most important parts of it didn't really get enforced until about 60 years ago.
We have basically three different constitutional visions, which correspond to the three big lessons of American history.
1.There's the Constitution of the Declaration and the Revolution, the spirit of 1776. This is really the Articles of Confederation.
2.There's the Constitution of Philadelphia in 1789. That's the Founders' Constitution.
3.And there's the Constitution of Gettysburg in 1868, the Reconstruction Constitution.
All of these visions are available. They're all part of our history and that means that you need to choose which one you're going to identify with.
The conventional answer is 1776 or 1789, the Declaration and the founding. But what I'm saying is, those are not the only answers and they are maybe not even the most persuasive ones.
I would say that we are living under the Gettysburg/Reconstruction Constitution today. The 14th Amendment changed everything.
How's that for a long-winded response??
Well adagio, you certainly met the challenge for wordiness, so I will try a tactic of brevity. The result may not seem brief to anyone else, but compared to your response, it will amount to a simple grunt.
I caught a glimpse that your "self-interest" reference might be to the Southern State delegates, (as you explained here), which is why I qualified my reference to Founding Fathers as the primary authors of the Constitution. That "primary" group is commonly recognized as seven names, but I exclude Washington because it appears he was simply the chair that lent credibility to the effort. Of the remaining six, only two were from a Southern State; Madison and Jefferson, of Virginia.
I have done a bit of reading on both, and I would argue neither fit your description. However, I do agree there were other Southern State delegates that did influence the efforts of those "primary" authors.
So, while I can agree with your statement relative to those other Southern State delegates, I can't agree with it relative to the Founders I was speaking of. And they are the ones that I have been speaking of all along.. The ones that had to find the balance between the necessities of reality, and their best desires for a "more perfect union."
Concerning your point about your intentions regarding the "perfect being the enemy of the good" reference, including the entirety of it, all the way down to the DACA thought - I disagree.
I don't think anymore debate or discussion on the issue of slavery would have accomplished anything better than what was achieved. And I absolutely think that there was nothing more that could have been done that would have avoided our Civil War. My view is that anything more than was was included about slavery would have doomed the Convention's efforts to failure. You may feel otherwise, but I feel historical documents chronicling the Founders' efforts, and the arguments pursued, discarded, and amended, support my view that they got as much as they could for a document that had a chance of being ratified.
It would be interesting to hear what other efforts you think the Founders might have made - to achieve what you see as required to avoid the label of hypocrisy, and still finish with a Constitution that had a chance of being ratified.
Now I come to a point that perplexes me. You see a distinction between tradition and cultural norms - but you don't see a difference? Isn't that a mark of distinction - difference? I think you are muddling around for a handhold on this one.
Of course cultural norms are informed by traditions, but just as our cultural norm of a Thanksgiving dinner is "informed" by the tradition of carving a beautiful roasted turkey, many folks have baked ham or fish. The norm is the dinner - the tradition is the menu. There is a difference, (in my opinion of course), and I am surprised that you don't see it.
And then we hit a major stumbling block; your thoughts regarding 'their self-interest'.
A suitable address would take three times the verbiage of its target, so a summary will have to suffice. To me, your reply is yet another example of your willingness to sacrifice the good in a demand for the perfect. Regarding the primary Founding Fathers, (the object of this discussion), I find it hard to imagine any more of a less self-serving group.
The foundational morals of their politics? We will be forever in disagreement if you demand that those morals be judged as more than the subjective realities of their times. I cannot accept a demand that we judge them by the morals of our day. I just got beat-up for misspeaking on this issue, but to be clear, I believe morals are subjective to their times, (there are several discussions of this point in this thread alone), but you appear to believe that morals are objective - that your morals of today are the true morals of all times. How else can I explain your insistence that their motives were only of self-interest, and, that they only compromised because of that self-interest?
I am stuck with the impression that your efforts of philosophy regarding this point might be compared to the idea of socialism - looks good on paper, sounds good at the campfire, but just doesn't mesh with the reality of human societies. Those Founders did the best they could for their nation - not themselves. Their morals - for the times were foundationally honorable - in my opinion of course.
Then comes a bright spot;
"1776 says the federal government is dangerous. The states are good. They'll protect people.
1789 says the states are still good, but they need to be controlled.
And 1868 says the states are dangerous. The federal government is good. "
I like that. I agree with it. Well put. I will probably rephrase it a bit and steal it for later use.
Since I offered brevity, I will stop here. There was a lot I could discuss regarding what follows your quote above, and I will, in a second reply to your comment. I won't try to compete with your "long-windedness."
>"which is why I qualified my reference to Founding Fathers as the primary authors of the Constitution."<
The Founding fathers and the Framers of the Constitution are two different groups. The Founding fathers are generally referred to as those that signed the Declaration of Independence. That's 1776. or thereabouts. The Framers of the Constitution were 1789, and Jefferson was NOT a Framer. He was not even in the country at the time. He was in France.
>"That "primary" group is commonly recognized as seven names, but I exclude Washington because it appears he was simply the chair that lent credibility to the effort. Of the remaining six, only two were from a Southern State; Madison and Jefferson, of Virginia."<
Seven names?? Then who were these guys?
William Samuel Johnson
Gunning Bedford, Jr.
John Francis Mercer*
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer
John Lansing, Jr.*
William Richardson Davie*
Richard Dobbs Spaight
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Rhode Island did not send delegates to the Convention.
The Framers of the Constitution were mostly a different group from those we think of as the Founders. The Founders signed the Declaration. Jefferson was among them. So was Adams. Neither is among the Framers.
The Southern States are indeed well represented with a large group from Virginia .North and South Carolina, and Georgia. And those states were necessary for the Constitution, and they were all slave states.
You are right adagio, in my laziness of relying on memory, I mixed up Framers and Founders. I further confused my memory of correspondence between Madison and Jefferson, recalling it as Jefferson being at the convention.
More properly said would be to change my reference to "primary" Founders, to the "Architects" of the Framers, which of the 55 Framers, I would label less than a dozen as significant architects of the document.
Of those, I would, besides the obvious names of Madison and Hamilton, and Franklin, include the members of the Committee of Detail as most influential to the final document .
To them I would still describe the same motives I did to Madison and Jefferson. My error in naming doesn't change my perspective of their motives.
>"Concerning your point about your intentions regarding the "perfect being the enemy of the good""<
I don't believe that I ever said anything about the "perfect being the enemy of the good". First of all, I don't believe in the idea of perfection coming from anything that man might come up with. I'm a fallibalist. You can't create a perfect system from an imperfect source. And as far as the "good" goes, that's a pretty vague term and about as subjective as it gets. I think I already pointed this out with my response. Here it is again: >"I think I was responding to your statement where you said: "would you still call anything less than perfect hypocrisy?"< My response was....Yes. And I said yes, in the context of agreeing to a morally abhorrent practice for the sake of getting something else that I valued. I used the DACA issue as an example. So, I'm assuming you're trying to paraphrase what you think I said or meant. However, I have never said anything about the "perfect being the enemy of the good". There is nothing man made that is perfect and good is subjective. So...it's not in my makeup to say that.
>"And I absolutely think that there was nothing more that could have been done that would have avoided our Civil War. "<
Other than abolishing the institution of slavery at the beginning...you're right. It was inevitable.
>"I caught a glimpse that your "self-interest" reference might be to the Southern State delegates, (as you explained here), which is why I qualified my reference to Founding Fathers as the primary authors of the Constitution."<
As I said before, the Founding Fathers and the Framers were two different groups of people. A few took part in both. Both Jefferson and Adams were among the signers of the Declaration. Neither one was involved in the writing of the Constitution. That's a matter of historical fact.. I posted the list of those that attended the convention.
>" but I feel historical documents chronicling the Founders' efforts, "<
I would suggest for accuracy sake, you refer to these men as the Framers rather than the Founders.
>"My view is that anything more than was was included about slavery would have doomed the Convention's efforts to failure."<
We'll never know will we. Perhaps a more robust debate could have persuaded some delegates. I suspect however that pursuing that issue was contrary to the self-interest of the Southern Delegates who certainly wanted to maintain the institution of slavery. Lets face a few facts here; Slavery was important to the economy of the Southern States and making that an issue presented a danger that the constitution would fall short of the necessary votes for ratification. Abolishing slavery would have been a threat to the culture and lifestyle of the Southern Landowners.
>"It would be interesting to hear what other efforts you think the Founders might have made - to achieve what you see as required to avoid the label of hypocrisy, and still finish with a Constitution that had a chance of being ratified. "<
I can't think of any, but that just illustrates the fact that the Constitution failed to live up to the statement of values that was made in the Declaration that All Men are Created Equal. You can't make that statement and then become a slave state by design without bearing the label of hypocrite. Certainly you know the meaning of the word. We created a document that codified slavery as an institution and also failed to address women as having any rights. When we said that All Men are Created Equal, we justified that position by claiming that Africans were not actually fully human. Only 3/5's. How convenient of us. How white of us.
>"We will be forever in disagreement if you demand that those morals be judged as more than the subjective realities of their times."<
I can live with that. I've made my position known regarding morality and I stand by it. I don't engage in relative truths and subjectivity. I deal with what is objectively true. When we made the statement that All Men are Created Equal, I'm assuming that you do subscribe to that view. That's a moral statement. It's also objectively true. There's nothing subjective about it. And it's stood for 242 years. Nobody has questioned the truth of that moral statement. There is a way to determine the universality of a moral judgment by reducing it to it's lowest common denominator. If it's universally true, then it must be morally correct. Is there any way to disprove Jefferson's statement of American values that are the organizing principle of this Republic? All Men are Created Equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Is that not a true moral statement? Or is it subjective? I think that we as Americans all accept that as the Truth.
>"You see a distinction between tradition and cultural norms - but you don't see a difference?"<
No. Again you misread me. I said that you were using an appeal to tradition which I cited as a logical fallacy. You then said that it wasn't an appeal to tradition but a recognition of the norms of the time, which of course are compiled through established tradition' as anyone that has read Edmund Burke, the Grandfather of traditional conservatism would know. You've read Burke right? What I said was that you were making a distinction ( a supposed difference between tradition and cultural norms... that of course would be based on tradition...they weren't invented over night and suddenly became cultural norms. Cultural norms are always based on some tradition) without a difference.. What I'm saying is that there is no difference in the traditions and the cultural norms that you are describing. They're the same thing. The cultural norms all stem from traditions so what I'm saying is that an appeal to tradition is a weak argument and a logical fallacy.
>"The norm is the dinner - the tradition is the menu. There is a difference, (in my opinion of course), and I am surprised that you don't see it."<
Oh please...hehe. I find that incredibly silly and total non-sense. I'm 70 years old and in my lifetime I've never heard anybody describe a difference in the Tradition of Thanksgiving as being something different from the norms of what's on the menu. I think you're really grasping at an absurdity here. That's like arguing over whether you have an Evergreen tree at Christmas or a Scotch Pine?. Do you use garland or just tinsel and lights? I think the difference is in your mind. There are traditions that we subscribe to but I can't say that there are any "norms' as to how we celebrate those holidays.
>"I think you are muddling around for a handhold on this one."<
when I need my hand held, I'll be sure to let you know.
>"your thoughts regarding 'their self-interest'.To me, your reply is yet another example of your willingness to sacrifice the good in a demand for the perfect."<
I think I already told you that I don't subscribe to the notion of "the perfect' and the "good" is subjective. What's good for you may be horrible for somebody else. You're offering Consequential Moral reasoning. Did you know that? You are. Consequential reasoning involves looking at the consequences of an action or decision to determine its moral value. In your view accepting slavery was a worthy trade off to ratify the constitution. That made the ratification morally correct regardless of the consequences for some members of the population. The consequences for the majority were what mattered most.
Consequential reasoning involves several steps to arrive at a morally right or just decision or action. The first step involves specifying the action under consideration. The second step identifies all those affected by an action. Step three determines the benefits and harm produced by the action. The fourth step weighs the amount of good, or happiness, brought about by the decision. If the good achieved by an action outweighs any harm that may result, utilitarian theory considers the action a morally right one. In our back and forth I've been able to determine that you are basically a utilitarian and subscribe to consequential moral reasoning. I disagree with that approach. You're in good company. Jeremy Bentham established it and John Stuart Mill was famous for being a utilitarian although he was also a fallibalist and created the "do no harm" maxim.
>"The foundational morals of their politics? "<
Yes. there are moral foundations to our politics. Most of our politics revolve around moral issues. Look around at the questions that come before us today. The Wall,. DACA, immigration, Abortion, the Me Too movement. Healthcare.What subject do we deal with that doesn't have present a moral argument?
>"We will be forever in disagreement if you demand that those morals be judged as more than the subjective realities of their times. I cannot accept a demand that we judge them by the morals of our day."<
Then we disagree. Do I need to agree with you? I don't and I present my argument and reasons why I don't. Are my reasons based on a logical argument or not? If you can demonstrate why they aren't then do so. That's what I've been doing with you.
>"I cannot accept a demand that we judge them by the morals of our day"<
Why not? What does time have to do with whether it's morally acceptable to steal? Or kill? Or cheat on your wife. The 10 commandments has stood for 5,000 years. Now I'm not religious at all. I'm an atheist. But if I'm not mistaken the 10 commandments have presented a moral guide to how we might conduct our lives. Then there is this:
35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’
37 Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
40 And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
What part of that do you disagree with or feel is subjective and simply a moral view of the time not to be confused with morality as we see it today? What changed? What makes those words subjective? Those are the words of Jesus according to the Bible in Matthew 25. Like I said, I'm an atheist but even so, I can recognize truth when I see it.
>"but you appear to believe that morals are objective "<
Those that I just pointed to are. If they were objectively true then, they are simply objectively true.
>"I am stuck with the impression that your efforts of philosophy regarding this point might be compared to the idea of socialism -"<
Then I must be in good company. If you read Matthew 25 I'm not saying anything that Jesus himself didn't say. And furthermore. St Thomas Aquinas said this: "Man should not consider his material possession his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need." How's that for socialism. That sounds more like communism to me. Be that as it may, Aquinas is Paul Ryan's patron saint. Can you believe that? Paul Ryan, who was an acolyte of Ayn Rand, who wrote The Virtue of Selfishness says he looks to Thomas Aquinas for guidance.
Somehow I think Ryan is bullshitting everybody especially the conservatives that buy into his economic ideas.
>".looks good on paper, sounds good at the campfire, but just doesn't mesh with the reality of human societies."<
Really? Sure seems to be working in Denmark, Finland, Norway, etc. Last I checked they were all human.
>"Those Founders did the best they could for their nation - not themselves. Their morals - for the times were foundationally honorable - in my opinion of course."<
Oh please. They were very human men, and loaded with flaws just like all men. They were fallible. And they acted out of self-interest and there is no moral worth to actions out of self-interest. If they weren't doing that, they would have never codified slavery. Period. But they didn't. They kept their slaves and left that issue for future generations to establish a white supremacist slave nation. Fortunately the basic structure of the nation was designed to accommodate the changes that would inevitably address problems that they could not foresee. We started with 10 amendments and now have 27. We did not create a constitution that was locked in stone. It was designed to meet the changes that could never have been anticipated.
I'm glad you like that 'bright spot"
I should point out that my posts can be very long because I try to answer all of your comments and not avoid anything important,.
Back at ya, GA.....
By 1804 slavery was abolished in all northern states or set measures in place for its gradual elimination. Northern slavery crumbled. Throughout the region, slaves and abolitionists took to the courts to use new laws and court rulings as weapons in the battle for freedom. In 1806, President Thomas Jefferson denounced the international slave trade and called for a law to make it a crime. He told Congress in his 1806 annual message, such a law was needed to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights, which the morality, the reputation, and the best of our country have long been eager to proscribe.
Historian James Stewart (1976) explains the abolitionists' deep beliefs: "All people were equal in God's sight; the souls of black folks were as valuable as those of whites; for one of God's children to enslave another was a violation of the Higher Law, even if it was sanctioned by the Constitution rights.
I would submit that it was mainly economic. Slaves just weren't profitable in the north, particularly during the industrial revolution. It's a whole lot easier to get rid of something that you don't really need. In fact, slavery was beginning to die off in the south until the cotton gin made plantations profitable again.
My point is that the “natural order” seemed to change when economic necessity required that it must. If the “natural order” can be so altered based on economic circumstances then I would say that the Natural Order is not so “natural” after all. Even Jefferson knew well of the moral contention associated with the issue, while maintaining Sally Hemmings as a consort. So much for the idea of “inferior races”, huh? So, the Father of the University of Virginia, third President of the United States and an intellectual powerhouse of his time acknowledged the inappropriate nature of slavery, while owning many slaves. Sounds a lot like hypocrisy to me, after the dawn of the 19th century, “natural order” is just an excuse. I could understand that perhaps a century before, in the period of indentured servitude and such, or understand the “natural order “concept when it came to women’s rights which would not be challenged for another century.
So, after 1800, in regards to the ethical construct of slavery, there is no excuse. So, in the face of this controversy, why did all these eminent men keep their slaves? I have to dismiss your idea of ‘cultural norms’, I am being rather adamant about that. I have to simply call hypocrisy what it is when your behavior is inconsistent with what you preach or advocate.
Cred, when I first started reading your comment I thought; Geez Louise, you and adagio are really working me. I leaf-blew a half-acre of my wooded 'homestead' today, then I push-mowered about two-thirds of that. Then I put two coats of paint on two sets of bi-fold doors - and built a shelving apparatus to go beside the clothes washer of my daughter's new home.
When I sat down mid-evening and answered adagio, and then saw your comment, I thought my day-work was a piece of cake compared to dealing with you two.
But ... the more I read of your comment the easier my task became. From the start, all the way down to;
" Sounds a lot like hypocrisy to me, after the dawn of the 19th century... "
... your comment is echoing exactly what I was saying*. I never disagreed with the economical motive for the resistance, or that many of the preeminent names of the time were voicing their contrary thoughts about the institution of slavery. Hell, many of those same voices were saying the same things at the time of the 1787 Convention.
I agree with all you said about those times. But, those times were - generally - post-1800, (particularly the Northern states actions). They were not the actions of 1787. Fifteen or twenty years, and major societal changes, (surely you can agree that the ratification of a new Constitution qualifies as a major change), can quickly alter "the natural order" of a society.
I think that even my agreement with those parts of your comment do not diminish my perspective of the "cultural norms," "natural order," or consideration of the morals of 1787.
However, post-ratification, and with that fifteen or twenty years of "natural order" changes, I can almost agree with the rest of your statement.
*regarding you post-1804 Northern States thoughts ... and, I am treading on thin ice here because I am too lazy to go back and find the original comment - as late as 1804 Connecticut was still estimated to have around 5000 slaves, and as late as 1840 a prominent and leading Connecticut/Massachusetts family, led by Doug Salterton, (I am sure I have butchered that name - laziness again), was racking up another fortune via his slave trading ships - he just stopped bringing then to the states, and shifted operations to the Caribbean. And he was not alone in this - so much for Northern enlightenment.
However, I think you might want to revisit your acceptance of the women's situation as not being as hypocritical as the slaves issue. If you can accept that cultural norms dictated their standing in those times, how can you say the same considerations don't apply to the slavery issue?
Yeah, we are working you, but as always, you hold your own pretty well.
I am busy, too. The Missus is going in for bariatric surgery in the next couple of days. With all the dietary restrictions required prior to the operations, she has been very hungry and told me not to rule out the possibility of cannibalism as a remedy.
I mean, really, GA, take yourself away from a 21st century perspective for just a moment. Most of my observations are more toward the late 18th and 19th centuries. Slavery was a natural order? But after the founding of the republic, Slavery became a natural order only when it applied to the African who was considered inherently inferior. After all, there have been no incidents where whites were enslaved. When I read of how many varied tasks that slaves performed along with the ability to reason that would be no different than your ability, what was the basis of their inferiority? When you read of the elaborate provisions and penalties meted out to slaves that attempted to learn to read or write, a fact that the capacity was well known and provided for in slave codes at the time. So, if you deliberately keep any group of people as uneducated and illiterate, what is the result? Why all these precautions for an ‘inherently inferior people”? They used the say that the slave has a ability of great cunning. Well, cunning is an aspect of intelligence. As an early 19th century man, would you not want to delve into the basis of that belief of inferiority? I have read of many learned men at the time who have and thus form the basis of the anti-slavery and abolitionist movements. Why would you consider them inferior except for the need to have a basis for their subjugation?
I don’t want you to get the impression that I am applying a differing standard toward institution of slavery as opposed to women’s rights.
When I speak of natural order, I am thinking about the fact that there will always be rich and poor among us. The concept of indentured servitude and slavery may have been considered a natural order of things as not everyone had the money to pay the freight to come to the New World, for example. Thus, it was expected that they would have to work off the cost in mandatory labor. The Constitution was bold in its expressed language, changing the “natural order” from that of slavery to, instead, freedom. But, obviously, what was on the document was slow to be applied to conditions on the ground. Jefferson, along with many others, knew and understood the contradictions. I don’t know if 15-20 years is so vast a period of time to explain how a “natural order” belief could change so radically. Was the year 1805 so much different from 1787? Learned and educated people, I believe, whether in 1787 or 1805 were well aware of the contradictions, regardless of the fact that that “natural order” was never intended to apply to white people.
What I said is that by 1804 all the northern states abolished slavery or had very specific provisions for its elimination in a short time.
The status of women at the turn of the 19th century was considered natural law. There was little or no controversy in regards to the woman’s status at that time. There was the Gloria Steinem equivalent in women like Abigail Adams. Reality acknowledges that there was no reason women were to be treated differently in society except for the custom. I did not hear a great deal of controversy from the Founding Fathers regarding rights for women, but the idea of slavery and involuntary servitude, much more. They all wrangled over this issue; women’s rights simply did not resonate in the same way. Just like the Constitution forced an evaluation of the concept of “natural law” regarding slavery, the end of the 19th century will bring questions of “natural law” regarding women’s rights to the forefront, but not in 1805.
Now you are taking it easy on me Cred. I can agree with all your points.
But wait... let's make sure we are both talking about the same thing regarding that "natural order." And note that my reference is not at all connected to the concept of "natural law," which I see as a much deeper and more forceful and structural thing.
What I mean might better be described as 'accepted order,' but considering the small size of our 13 colony nation-to-be, and the universality, (how about that adagio, although homogeneous would be more apt), of the cultural norms due to that small size and common ancestry made "natural order" almost synonymous.
Synonymous except for regional degrees of belief. By that I mean in the South the natural order of African slaves as an inferior race, and slavery as a perfectly acceptable institution were driven by economic reason of not just profit, but survival. No slaves, no plantations, no Southern aristocracy - it was a matter of survival, so more than just accepted - it was ingrained.
I believe the North's acceptance was different. There was not the same economic survival driver, so I think the North's acceptance of slavery was more just because it was deemed acceptable, and they could benefit from it without facing the implications of their acceptance alone. Plus, of course, the natural supremacy of the white man mind-set of the time.
Sort of like; "yeah, it ain't right, but it's okay to do it anyway."
The Constitution was a world-changer. Now the ideals were stated and promoted. Now the "it's okay" was in the spotlight, and folks had to admit it wasn't okay. I think the drive of the falling dominoes, as Northern state after Northern state outlawed slavery supports that thought. You didn't see that in the South because for them it wasn't just a matter of whether it was okay, or not, it was a matter of survival.
So the accepted order, the "natural order," of the North changed quickly. It might be fair to say that the "natural order" in instances like the women issue - more than just suffrage, might take generations, (as it appeared to do for them), but in the instances of such an obvious negative - like slavery - it only needed those few 15-20 years, because the accepted "natural order" was only in place because it was accepted. Once it wasn't, then it was an easy quick-change. Or at least I think that might be one explanation.
In human nature, and societies, it is the rare bird that will stand against something beneficial because it is wrong, when everybody else is saying, it's okay to be wrong.
To a couple of your points; of course it, (slavery), was only okay for Africans. You don't think they would condone white slavery do you? (yes, that was an attempt at sarcasm)
And yes, for the reasons explained above, I do think the years 1787 and 1805 were light years apart in what became to be accepted cultural norms. And if you think of the above explanation, it might also explain why it took so long for a woman's position, (and Rights), in society to take so much longer to change. As bad as the treatment of women was then - compared to our views now - it wasn't nearly as awful as the institution of slavery was. Oops, obviously that is coming from a man. I bet there are some women out there that want to hit me for that rationalization.
ps. best wished for your Missus, and just hide the knives for a few weeks and you should be okay. ;-)
""Yes, America is guilty of this crime and the effects that followed."
Is a two year old guilty of the "crime" of breaking a vase or wetting their pants?"
Whoaa…..Let me digest this for a minute. Are you seriously comparing the slave trade and its after effects which include a Civil War that killed over 600,000 Americans, a period of racial terrorism that included lynchings and murders and bombings of churches, and segregation and the need for an actual Act of Congress to address an issue that you are comparing to a 2 year old breaking a vase or wetting their pants? Really? I mean please don't deny this because you've just put it into the same context as a 2year old breaking a vase or wetting their pants.
Do you maybe, want t re-think this statement of yours, because I've never heard anything as insane as this before. I mean, I've heard apologists for slavery and segregation and some pretty nasty stuff said by bone-headed racists, but I don't think I've ever heard anybody compare slavery and it's after-effects with....a 2 year old breaking a vase or wetting their pants. I've never even heard David Duke say anything like that. Racial division has been the most insidious and toxic problem in America throughout our history and you've just dismissed it on a level that I've never seen or heard before.
... well, its extremism, our common enemy. Woe to those who do not realize they are victims of their own extremism.
Don't forget to America's historical apologists Americans invented slavery , racism , mass murder , war , evil and religious persecution .
Ed, That doesn't agree with the historical repartitions I posted first today.
"Don't forget to America's historical apologists Americans invented slavery , racism , mass murder , war , evil and religious persecution ."
Oh man come on.. Get your brain together. NOBODY has ever claimed that we invented any of that. But we all realize ( all of us that have a functioning brain) that we engaged in all of it. Do you understand now? Probably not. Your defensive attitude betrays your true intentions.
The world seems to be more fully aware of it's and even our own history than modern day U.S. apologists and historical revisionists do . Instead of 5 % of slave traffic ending in the US one would assume 95 % did by reading some of these liberal posts .
My brain is well put together and I didn't even receive modern revised history courses at one of your liberal colleges , especially in Vermont .
It's nice isn't it , Let's all relive and rewrite history to our likings at today's standards of judgements for all of humanity . It's been said before and well worth repeating ," No one alive today was either enslaved nor were they a slave owner " . Let's all quit the guilt shaming for simply being Americans , America has no copyrights on all the negatives of humanity , our ancestors learned it all somewhere , No ? The stories of the evil white monsters are wearing out their welcomes .
I wonder what the shrinks say about how these self induced guilt trips feed the egos ?
>"" No one alive today was either enslaved nor were they a slave owner " "<
It may have been said before, but it's hardly worth repeating. The point being made with that is an obvious attempt to dismiss the past and ignore the present. Although it may be true, there are people who's grandparents or great grandparents were. Were any members of your family, ever slaves? Were any of them slave owners?
>"Let's all quit the guilt shaming for simply being Americans , America has no copyrights on all the negatives of humanity , our ancestors learned it all somewhere , No ?"<
No. lets not. Let's own up to our past. Nobody is suggesting a copyright on negatives of humanity. We're only interested in the negatives that have attached themselves to the fabric of this country.
>"I wonder what the shrinks say about how these self induced guilt trips feed the egos ?"<
Not much I suspect. They're more interested in the avoidance of the past by people that still need a reason to justify their racism.
In sone of the "back woods" of Mississippi, Alabama and most likely Georgia and Louisiana, are still slaves today. I believe it was during the 1990s a Lincoln Parish Louisiana "white" boy was given a slap on the wrist for enslaving two hispanics kept in cages. That I read in "The Ruston Daily Leader" newspaper.
Of course we should all be patient and understand that if democrats didn't keep pumping up the flying racism balloons every single election cycle - They wouldn't have any ideological platform at all to incite their masses to the voting booths . Come December they will once again drop the whole "systemic racism " issue in the boxes with the Hillary lawn signs .
You wouldn't see that if Republicans including the President didn't court the vote of David Duke and proclaim that there are some "fine" Nazi's. There are no "Fine" Nazi's. There are no fine KKK members or White Supremacists. So, if you don't like hearing the words racism being tossed out, don't be a racist. Don't hang out with Racists. Don't become an apologist for racist groups. See how easy it is?
The easiest action in the world is to assume that you can throw out the word " racist " to describe all that you see as wrong today . Again "blow up those balloons for the election cycle ".........You neither know me or anyone today , at least enough to call us racists nor enough about history of America itself to assume it's memory of then is your memory of today .
Simply put in your knowledge of history none of us were here in 1812 , you're using today's morality to judge the acts of a people
who didn't have indoor plumbing and thought that bleeding someone out cured them of dehydration for instance . Welcome to the land of revisionist history writers . Welcome to the election cycle of race relations .
Your entire perception of history means that you must --excuse yesterdays actions by today's standards --What you and many people need to do is read a history book AND PUT YOURSELVES IN THE SHOES of a culture of people who lived in a world where leaking wooden vessels were the only connection to an outside world , Where shoes were a luxury , food something you either pulled from your front yard or bled out after killing it with your own hands .
There SHOULD be a consequence today for calling other people "racist " who aren't , simply because they don't observe history from your position in a seventh floor college classroom or while sitting in an office in a gated community or from the La La land of academia , but there isn't . Oh God , have mercy on them for they don't know enough about which they speak !
Ah.... , the greatest weakness of the first amendment .
Good points adagio.
As far as white salavery it was clear it went on in ancient times. To see color salavery in the 19th century, the whites did have to know what they were doing was wrong. Either in Europe or America.
As an individual I carry no regrets for my pass, only regrets what I don't do in the future. Making my conscious clear, free and progressing forward much easier. As for Nationaism, I find more dangerous than even Religion.
At its founding , United States had proclaim that all men are created equal, and are endowed with inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. US has done a lot of great things for Humanity, today I deeply question their future for lack of dealing with their pass mistakes.
From analyze and critically evaluate Americans history over 54 years. My points of view is that there are countries who have dealt with their traumatic pass mistakes better than others. Like many places in northern Europe or Germany over the Second world war. Where much of American from my deep thorough studies have not. In case, American natives, Mexicans deportation, blacks slavery, and more recently banning Muslims. Whites are forced to get better, yet still have alot more to learn on their own.
If a person allows themselves to be first led by Americans Nationaism rather than the greater power of individualism. I sense they are in deeper troubles. An American Nationaism carry the burden of many problems that were not dealt with right and then forgiving themselves. From the time of Christopher Columbus who first started in North America with the first gold rush, first Christianity, first slavery, first white terrorist, first white theft, white rape, piracy connected to an empire and first white racist and genocides. Some Americans have vandalise statues of Columbus, Where in school I was taught to believe he was my hero, not a villain not all.
From building a pirate museum in Florida, I was shocked from what I discovered. When a black man offer me to build the first American black history museum. Wow, they have to get a white man's approval to explore their own black history, very sad.
I think that too many people here's first introductions to the realities of slavery in America are too tied to your viewing re-runs of the "Roots " movie , marry that up with the fact that grade , middle or high schools and even higher education systems don't get anywhere NEAR a completed teaching of ANY of our history and what do we end up with ? But an army of historical apologists who've not only predetermined that we are ALL racists by association to our very history but still somehow hold slaves to this day !
How shallow and ideologically revealing a lack of depth to today's grasp of reality in American history . I have been doing family genealogy on both sides of my family and found , for one thing , that of two families that have been in America since before the French and Indian wars that approximately 16 members , from great grandparents , to great uncles and their cousins of the era fought in the American Civil War , the war to end the rebellion and slavery .
Fact ; No one alive today in America can stand in good conscious and accuse another of being racist for NOT accepting that we are somehow all collectively racists today JUST BECAUSE we are genetically of a lighter skin tone . It's another story if you want to assume being a racist by association to skin color yet to systematically project some kind of guilt complex onto all others is beneath human dignity .
Not that there isn't "racism" today , look at the required minority servitude to the democratic party , look to those who incite racial divide in your ivory towers of academia , Look to the last president who procured as much divide in race and ethnicity as he did any joining of differences . Look to the exploitation of minorities by a party that never changes the reality on the streets , in the inner cities Democratic party strongholds .
Perhaps our better question really is , Who are the REAL racists in America ?
I can see almost as much to agree with here, as I can to disagree with.
"But an army of historical apologists who've not only predetermined that we are ALL racists by association to our very history but still somehow hold slaves to this day ! "
"... look at the required minority servitude to the democratic party..."
"Perhaps our better question really is , Who are the REAL racists in America ?"
Who is this new Ed Fisher guy?
>"Perhaps our better question really is , Who are the REAL racists in America ?"<
Answer: Republicans and Trumpers, which are the same thing.
Here's at least one problem you have to overcome. The Republican party is all in for Trump. About 85-90% support him. Trump is a racist, That much is indisputable.
1. His very first comments coming down the escalator were about Mexicans being rapists and murderers. An entire ethnicity is painted as rapists and murderers.
2. His call for a Muslim ban ( violation of the first Amendment.) Targeting one specific religion and ethnic group.
3. His claim that Judge Curial should recuse himself in a civil case involving Trump in a fraud charge regarding Trump University because he's Mexican and Trump is building a wall, despite the fact that Judge Curial is an American of Mexican descent, born in Indiana and graduated Indiana University. But no....the Judge is Mexican, and he'll be biased against Trump. So Trumps reason for attacking this judge in a case where Trump is the defendant, is based on the judges ethnicity. That's Racist. If you don't see that, then you need glasses or a better education. Either one. '
4. Trumps statement that there are some "fine" people on both sides of the Charlottesville rioting, gives a pass to the Neo-Nazi's, the KKK and White Supremacists for their behavior. A woman was killed as a result of Nazi behavior. Message to the President: There are no "Fine" people that are Nazi's, KKK or White Supremacists. There is no moral equivalency here. Which is exactly why David Duke came out an praised Trump for his statement which was viewed by White Supremacists as support for their views.
So...if you are a Republican, and if you support Trump, then regardless of your denial, you've demonstrated for everybody that his racism which I've just documented is NOT a deal breaker for you. It's not a disqualifying factor when it comes to Trump and your party, And no matter how you deny your own racism, at some point on the political spectrum you...and David Duke and the Nazi's meet in agreement, and that point is where Donald Trump sits. You have something in common with David Duke, the KKK, the Nazi's and all White Supremacists. And Trump embodies that thing that you can all agree on. Their overt racism is not something that you find objectionable when it comes to Trump or the views that your party holds. They're yours. You own them.
If I ever thought for a moment that I shared any common values with David Duke, I would seek professional help. I would look in the mirror and recoil at what I saw in the reflection. However, for you and those that are still Republicans and Trump supporters, it's clear that his racism is not a deal breaker for you. That makes you sympathetic to their cause whether you'll admit that or not. You vote the same way that they do. They're racism is not something you find objectionable. You can accept it. That makes you complicit. If you don't like that, then reject those people. Don't make excuses for them or adopt some defensive posture and blame others for your own racist leanings. If you reject David Duke and the KKK and the Nazi's then say it and stop this bullshit faux outrage that you're so maligned. When you sleep with dogs you get fleas and you're known by the company you keep. Nobody is going to tolerate intolerance. That's not how tolerance works.
"Trump is a racist , that is indisputable ..........".....better learn something about what "race " is , at least something besides just being a Democratic "tool box " allegation, when all else fails-- throw in the race card ?
Neither term Muslims nor Hispanics are races in and of themselves but hey , don't let truth "muddy up your waters ."
Better learn how to carry on a debate or you come off looking like a total fool. Being Muslim is a religion ( we all know that. he hates them too). Trump is prejudiced against that religion. Being Hispanic is an ethnic group. ( we all know that too. That doesn't change the fact of his racism. It adds to it) Trump hates Hispanics. Neither of those two distinctions changes the fact of his overt racism. They add to it. He's a racist, a misogynist, (we left that one out.. He owns that too) he;s prejudiced towards Muslims, and Hispanics, Did I leave anything out? You're nit-picking is absurd. Whatever his views on Muslims, Hispanics or women, he's still a racist. Does that make you feel better now?
One kicker to that, Adagio, is when one interpret the Constitution according to the Preamble's words "to form a more prefect Union" parties and all divisions being used for developing policies is prohibited. Therein is why slavery was permitted to exist - beyond money of course - then as it is today, the words are used while their "bottom line" definitions are ignored.
Wow, What a fairy tale . Your outdated debating is pointless , David Duke ? I mean Come on dude catch up with 2015 election cycle fake media info.
Former KKK leader David Duke praises Trump for his 'courage'
William Cummings, USA TODAY Published 5:21 p.m. ET Aug. 15, 2017 | Updated 7:50 p.m. ET Aug. 15, 2017
That was just last year. When did endorsements from David Duke become time sensitive?
Oh look! there's more.
David Duke praises Trump for Putin press conference
By Jacqueline Thomsen - 07/17/18 08:48 AM EDT That was just two months ago. Imagine that.
David Duke has as much a right to free speech as you do , so your point ? One man's opinion means nothing but one opinion . because Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton loved visiting the white house under Obama , does that make Obama as racist and anti-American as they are ? Bill Ayers was there too , that make Obama an America hater .........uh , Well you may have point .
Of course he does. I'm not saying he doesn't. And it's a good thing that he can because he exposes himself and what his ilk are all about. I find it interesting that you'd jump to his defense. You're defending an avowed racist. The former head of the KKK. How sweet. You feel that Duke needs defending? You're sympathetic to the KKK and White Supremacy? How interesting. You know...I kind of knew it from what I've read from you.
>"One man's opinion means nothing but one opinion ."<
Yeah, but it's not just one mans opinion. Duke speaks for an entire racist movement. And there's so much more. Maybe you'll find your own name among them. Who knows?
Meet the Horde of Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and Other Extremist Leaders Endorsing Donald Trump
The Republican nominee for president has not disavowed any of them.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 … cism-hate/
Here's just a sample:
With his many appeals to nativism, bigotry, and bitter discontent, Donald Trump has enthralled far-right extremists with his campaign for president. According to an investigation by Mother Jones and the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute, since Trump officially announced his bid in June 2015 he has drawn effusive praise and formal backing from some of the country’s most virulent neo-Nazis, white supremacists, militia supporters, and other extremist leaders. They include the head of the American Nazi Party, three former Ku Klux Klansmen, four people involved in a recent armed standoff against federal authorities at an Oregon wildlife refuge, and at least 15 individuals affiliated with organizations described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups.
Trump has disavowed none of them.
Rocky J. Suhayda
Chair of the American Nazi Party
Endorsement: “We have a wonderful OPPORTUNITY here folks, that may never come again, at the RIGHT time,” Suhayda wrote to Nazi party members in September 2015. “Donald Trump’s campaign statements, if nothing else, have SHOWN that ‘our views’ are NOT so ‘unpopular’ as the Political Correctness crowd have told everyone they are!”
In his own words: “In 1952 when I was born, America was a 92% White/European nation—the system controlled media now gloats that there are presently MORE non-White children being born here than White! That in possibly TEN YEARS—White people will be a MINORITY in their own land, due to birthrates and ILLEGAL immigration!” Suhayda wrote in 2015.
Publisher of the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer
Endorsement: “Trump is willing to say what most Americans think: it’s time to deport these people,” Anglin said in a June 2015 endorsement. “He is also willing to call them out as criminal rapists, murderers and drug dealers.”
In his own words: During the Republican Convention in July, Anglin wrote, “The biggest story in the filthy kike media has been a few lines from Melania’s speech which these Jews claim she stole from monkey Michelle. It is absolutely sickening the way these Christ-killing monsters go after this woman, demonstrating their hatred for the beauty of the Aryan woman.”
There's a lot more, but it would take up the whole page. You can check the link for yourself.
I think we got a case of mis-communication about mortality.
The British empire system heavily influence America con movement, that worked in the sense of moving forward for them. White Supremacism was play out as a Political ( getting what they want) con game between Biblical morals and constitutional ethics, some flaws, yet generally very well done.
Where the Spanish system in much of Centro and South America was a cut throat systems to the top. Yet left much of the native culture to continue naturally rather than synthetically.
Slavery is not ethical, same like murder and theft. Some say salavery is worst than murder. Unlike many biblical morals of confusion. Slavery, no matter when it occurred in the past or where it occurs in the present is not ethical. Many white at the time argued that slavery was right, morally Then who is clearly right between ethics vs morals without a doubt?"
The basic problem about moral relativism. Moral absolutists assert what people think is wrong or right depends on their time and circumstances and what they think is right, regardless of the business of ethics. If the Bible is an objective standard of right and wrong established by Jehovah. In that case slavery is right.
If people who owned slaves thought they were doing the right thing, how do we know we are doing the right thing now? If the person you are doing the thing to doesn't consent then it is wrong. If everyone involved consents then you should be OK. Slavery is non-consentual any human being who acts with ethics.
If White American can not come to rightful term of ethics and decency. If Americans allow the federation of US Corp to continue getting worst. Then you are consenting to owning your job, your home, your childrens future and owning you. Then you are consenting economy salavery today by politicans who can't keep even up to 25℅ of their promises because of their puppeteer masters. I won't work with anybody who can't keep all of their promises.
Salavery held by gun around the world, is larger today in numbers. Than in any other time in human history.
Castle , You have your definition of slavery all askew , the despising of slavery and the despising of working for a living are two completely different issues. Participatory employment in a free market economic system isn't slavery . Never has been never will be .
Anyone alive today has the free will to stay home , eat food stamp bon -bons and watch cartoons , Anyone alive today also has no clue , obviously , what slavery really was in 1775 in America . But keep trying , someones going to find it interesting .
Ed, those staying home and eating "food stamp bon-bons" are still slaves. The "bottom line" of slave is "one depending on something other that the self-reproducing environment to sustain themselves."
In America , The only thing keeping one a "slave " is the constant desire for free stuff from government , the lack of will to get out of bed in the morning and the need to move out one's own parents basement apartment .
When most people do not like their jobs. Wail the Government is leading them, with the least satisfied jobs in the nation, that is one reason.
Every US major city has a homless tent city. Most people in these tent city have a job or 2 or three minimum wage jobs. Many people just can't afford basic living cost.
Boomers are only group not downsizing because their young aldult kids can't make ends meet a
Wail grand parents often move back in due to a lack of income.
I know Canadain can't make it on $20,000 a year. If they go to jail, the Government budget them for $100,000 a year. Wow, you get rewarded 4 times greater for being bad rather than being good hard worker.
>"The only thing keeping one a "slave " is the constant desire for free stuff from government."< Yeah...like Social Security. Oh wait, we paid into that our whole lives didn't we. Now we get to claim it. But conservatives call it an "entitlement" as if it's a Government hand out. Talk about a tired old line of crap. Your ilk has been spewing that nonsense for decades.
And your ilk has been consuming all the entitlements they can , The free ones at least .
Is Social Security an entitlement? Yes or no?
That's right. Give that man a prize. What do we have for Ed. Oh look, it's a nifty set of colored pencils. "That's right Adagio, we have a set of colored pencils for Ed. They're great for coloring books and for just making a mess". Colored Pencils, from Crayola. Back to you Adagio". Ed's on a roll, Can't wait to see what's coming.
Sure general people suffer greater and lived less the half the life span in the pioneer days vs. today. Every generation gets smarter. So why? are American still regreting black slavery and Native genocide? Why because it keep haunting them, due to the lack of honesty and understanding of it, in order to forgive and move on.
I don't think your Government has a conscious. Or the 1℅ that own more than the bottom 90℅ has ethics. Because they have no practice of what ethics is. Maybe the very rare ones.
Yes, you have choices like what colour of jelly beans you want to buy and eat. Corperatism has con and programed Americans of the 90℅ much greater today into volunteer economy slavery. Due to they are too busy or in debt to do anything about it. These American can't pay back the national debt of what they owe the Federal private Centro banks so they are controled by fear. Most American have fallen into the old con job, like the American natives put on reservations. Still the blacks are 1/10 the family income of whites on per capita, due to greedy wealthy whites . Also greater emprisionment and similar segregated of the 60s. At least in the 60s, America was great for most Whites. Most whites owned and paid for their homes, no or little debt, mom stayed home for the family, saving accounts and jobs were secure. How, did us boomers drop the ball and allowed the corporate con job continuous to get worst.
I'm out, they win, yet all they win is more suffering for all until the abuse recycles like the dirty 30s into a world war again.
You chose to leave America's shining example of the most successful and freest all inclusive economy in the world for what , Canadian socialism and sand art? Of course government has no conscious , nor does corporate Anynation ! That's what a vote is for .
Average life span in America today is 79 years (76 male, 81 female). Are you seriously saying that the average pioneer lived to be 158 years old? My great-great grandmother would be alive and doing well, and I'm 68!
I said, Sure general people suffer greater and lived less the half the life span in the pioneer days vs. today.
That sounds like the early pioneers lived less than Age 40 to me.
I find it amazing the ignorant of mankinds morals differ and misguided. Morals differ all over the map of interpretations. Where ethics simplifies any misconceptions. About 6500 years ago, when Religion began. All this time man lived between life span of age mid 20s to rarely passing age 40.
By the time of mid 1800, about the time black slavery ended. By the greater practice of ethics science and new ways of thinking we advance to doubling our life expectancy.
I appear to be stumbling all over the place adagio. And on top of that I have the deficit of only having read a few Burke excerpts.
It looks like the difference in our views stems from a different perspective of morality, and a different point of address. I think reality demands the inclusion of all the shades of gray that are, I think, a fact of any human society, and I have the impression that your position is one of, it must be, because you have reasoned that is how it should be.
Regarding morality I regard it as subjective - even in the face of your validly proposed explanation of why morals must be objective to be true.
You offer The Ten Commandments as proof of objective morals that have enjoyed acceptance by Christians for 5000 years, (3000?), and your acceptance of them as an atheist as proof of the truth of their objectivity.
Similar edicts of the Hindus and Muslims contain several corresponding moral statements, and disagree or omit others. Would that indicate the corresponding moral statements are more true - objective, than the ones that don't find similar agreement? Do you think the similar statements would then be more universal - more truly objective?
If that reasoning were accepted, then it implies anyone, (probably most non-religious folks), not accepting the edicts of those ten commandments were immoral. From what basis would you make that contention? Other than that is the way you have reasoned what is moral?
What about pre-Ten Commandments times? At what point in human development would you say the concept of morality came into being?
I think I recall multiple early cultures - from all corners of the world, that have been noted as having cultures of rigid personal honor and conduct , yet entertained many cultural practices that blow the Ten Commandments to smithereens. Were they all truthfully immoral, or just immoral by your reasoning?
Of course those are all obviously leading questions, but the appearance of your explanations - to me, seems to deny any possibility of morals being connected to cultures, or cultural times. Your philosophy, reasoning labels, and black and white perspective do validly support your view. But I do not think that support, nor the view, comport with the reality of human society.
I still think my socialism comparison was apt, (which of those nations you mentioned can you prove are socialist nations - not just nations of mixed capitalism and socialism?), and just as your question inferred, of course we don't need to agree, it's simply a discussion. We can both feel we are right without any harm to the other - mostly.
Unfortunately for the discussion, that disagreement on morals means there isn't any likely discussion that would lead to a middle ground on most of the other issues either.
But what the hell, sometimes an argument can be as enjoyable as a discussion.
Let me return your "Oh please..."
As knowledgeable as you appear to be regarding the Constitution's birth, to hear you say; "... Africans were not actually fully human. Only 3/5's." with regard to that voting compromise is not what I expected. As validly as that extrapolation can be defended - I believe it to be no more than spin, when the reasoning and efforts used and expended to reach that compromise are so easily accessible.
*as a note, "handhold" referred to a grip, not a helping or comforting hand.
Your point that I was using Consequential Moral reasoning would seem reasonable if I were making a judgement based on what I see as moral. But I wasn't, I was speaking of their judgement - with regard to the morals of the times. I made no judgement as to whether their actions were moral, only whether they were moral for them at their time. So maybe they were using Consequential Moral reasoning to reach their decision.
Your quote concerning my statement about; ">"The foundational morals of their politics? "<" completely ignored the context of that question and inferred I did not think politics involved moral foundations. Which of course is untrue. I completely agree that all politics have a moral foundation, whether it be weak and shallow, or strong and principled. The context of that quote was that I disagreed with your presentation of the moral standard to be judged;
"I believe morals are subjective to their times, (there are several discussions of this point in this thread alone), but you appear to believe that morals are objective - that your morals of today are the true morals of all times. "
And from there on our perspectives diverge. I did not infer the Framers were anything less than fallible humans, and I am not a Paul Ryan fan.
But ... I can agree with your final thought concerning the Constitution and its Amendments. I also see it as a document, a foundational structure, to be built upon. I think history and those other seventeen Amendments have shown that to be true.
>"I appear to be stumbling all over the place adagio. And on top of that I have the deficit of only having read a few Burke excerpts."<
nahh… you're doing fine. Keeps me on my toes. Read Burke. He's the father of the traditional conservative movement. He had a kind of back and forth battle with Thomas Paine back in the day. Russel Kirk wrote The Conservative Mind back in 1953 which was sort of a rehash of Burke brought up to date. Ayling, Stanley. Edmund Burke, His Life and Opinions. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988.
Kramnick, Isaac, ed. The Portable Edmund Burke [speeches and writings]. New York: Penguin Books, 1999. Burke really defined the idea of traditional conservatism. Russell Kirk added his salt and pepper to it and influenced Reagan.
I'm not a fan of Burke. He's famous for his Reflections on the French Revolution. Paine was putting out the Rights of Man, Common Sense, The Age of Reason. that stuff. Very liberal for the times.
>"It looks like the difference in our views stems from a different perspective of morality, and a different point of address. "<
Yeah, that's probably true.
>" I think reality demands the inclusion of all the shades of gray that are,"<
I actually completely agree. I think we all live in fields of grey. But I do think that there is objective truth, and yet I reject absolutists at the same time. I think they miss the mark and regard all their views as absolute while failing to examine their own preconceptions with any degree of critical thinking. If something is True then you should be able to demonstrate what makes it true.
>"Regarding morality I regard it as subjective - even in the face of your validly proposed explanation of why morals must be objective to be true."<
I see truth as something universal, not subjective. If it's not universal then it's simply not Truth. Opinions and Truth aren't the same thing. I can appreciate an opinion that is based on fact. Otherwise it's just a lot of hot air to me.
>"Similar edicts of the Hindus and Muslims contain several corresponding moral statements, and disagree or omit others. Would that indicate the corresponding moral statements are more true - objective, than the ones that don't find similar agreement? Do you think the similar statements would then be more universal - more truly objective?"<
Oh absolutely. Other religions especially Eastern Religions such as Buddhism, Taoism and the like really hit the mark. It's up to us to see the light when it's turned on. But....this: Do you think the similar statements would then be more universal - more truly objective?, my response is no. I don't think that. I don't think something can be more universal that what is already universal or more objective than objective. I think they share the same amount of difference when it comes to describing Truth. There aren't varying degrees of Truth or objectivity. How can we say this is more true than that? It either is or isn't. Like being pregnant. Either she is or she isn't. The number of months don't make her more pregnant than pregnant. She may be closer to delivery but that doesn't make her any more pregnant then the women in her first trimester. They're both pregnant.
>"it implies anyone, (probably most non-religious folks), not accepting the edicts of those ten commandments were immoral."<
The 10 Commandments is an interesting choice. Here they are:
1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
2.You shall not make idols.
3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5.Honor your father and your mother.
6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10.You shall not covet.
Being an atheist, the first four mean nothing to me. I've been pretty solid with the rest. I'm a fallible human and I make mistakes. I'm not a paragon of morality but I'm not hypocritical about it either.
>"What about pre-Ten Commandments times? At what point in human development would you say the concept of morality came into being?"<
That's going back pretty far. Moses was about 5,000 years ago. There were probably codes of conduct in Ancient China that correspond to the Truth.
>"I think I recall multiple early cultures that blow the Ten Commandments to smithereens. Were they all truthfully immoral, or just immoral by your reasoning?"<
Really? You'd have to give me an example of something that blows the concept of Thou shalt not murder, or steal or bear false witness ( Lying about your neighbor) to smithereens. What part of any of that do you see as not universally, morally true? Nothing is going to be more true than true. That's like somebody that suggests that there is something beyond space. Yeah, we call it...more space. There is no space beyond space, and no time before time. There is nothing more true than true. There might be another aspect of Truth as it applies to another situation, but it's still Truth.
>"But I do not think that support, nor the view, comport with the reality of human society."<
I think that they most certainly do, however man is fallible and the societies that you speak of were all created by fallible human beings. They were not perfect in their moral codes which were likely unconcerned with the Truth and more concerned with power structures. . You say this: "but the appearance of your explanations - to me, seems to deny any possibility of morals being connected to cultures, or cultural times." But that doesn't recognize on your part that those cultures were far less than perfect societies and probably didn't concern themselves with whether or not their society corresponded to the truth. Ancient Greece maybe. But that was the cradle of Philosophy. They actually engaged in self-examination and were more introspective than most.
>"I still think my socialism comparison was apt, (which of those nations you mentioned can you prove are socialist nations - not just nations of mixed capitalism and socialism?)"<
I'm not sure which nations you're referring to that I called Socialist nations. I think most European countries have mixed economies just as we do. Some more so than others. Some lean stronger toward Socialism than others. We seem to fight that idea, but I think it's catching on with a large segment of the population. We have so much socialist structure in this country already. Our entire capitalist economy is built on top of a socialist infrastructure that delivers the essential needs that capitalism requires to thrive. I'm talking about our streets our utilities, our water system, electrical grid, transportation system, Highway system, our Military, our police and fire dept, our public schools. I think we need to remove the profit motive from our healthcare system as well. And our Prison system.
>"Unfortunately for the discussion, that disagreement on morals means there isn't any likely discussion that would lead to a middle ground on most of the other issues either."<
I don't know unless I know what those issues are.
>"Africans were not actually fully human. Only 3/5's." with regard to that voting compromise is not what I expected."<
What did you expect? It's written in the Constitution. That's not my view. I didn't come up with it. According to the 3/5 compromise Article I Sec 2 of the Constitution. which bases a states representation in the House of Representatives on its free population and 3/5 of "all other persons" within its territory. The Framers were able to label the slaves as only 3.5 of a person for the purposes of representation in Congress, otherwise the Southern states would have too great an advantage in the House. That means that they weren't fully human according to Congress. See how easy it was for them. Just dehumanize the slaves and problem solved.
>"*as a note, "handhold" referred to a grip, not a helping or comforting hand."<
I'll try to keep that in mind.
>"Your point that I was using Consequential Moral reasoning would seem reasonable if I were making a judgement based on what I see as moral. But I wasn't, I was speaking of their judgement - with regard to the morals of the times."<
Right, But that in itself is a moral judgment. You're judging their judgment as morally acceptable for the times. But what does their morality have to do with the truth? If you ask yourself or them, what is their morality basing itself on...then you or they must come up with some answer because their morality can't be based on itself without admitting that their morality is logically false. Basing any theory of morality or anything else on itself is a circular argument and a logical fallacy. You can't use a theory to prove itself. If you continue to accept that logical fallacy as acceptable then you are admitting to an irrational position regarding your own morals. And whatever my morals might be, I know that they have no home in an irrational stance. I'm not going to reject logic to adhere to some ideology dogmatically. I don't know why anybody would.
And yes, you do apply consequential moral reasoning and are very likely a utilitarian in your world view.
>"I made no judgement as to whether their actions were moral, only whether they were moral for them at their time. So maybe they were using Consequential Moral reasoning to reach their decision."<
So you are making a judgment as to whether they were moral for their times. You are judging whether they were right or wrong in applying their moral values for their time. That's a moral judgment.
>"I believe morals are subjective to their times, (there are several discussions of this point in this thread alone), but you appear to believe that morals are objective - that your morals of today are the true morals of all times. ""<
This isn't about MY morals. This entire discussion on my part is about Truth. Objective Truth. And I don't see how anything can be considered moral that isn't rooted in the Truth. It's up to us to weed out those things that can't be demonstrated as True, and dump them in the trash. If your moral code of ethics or whatever you might call it, is not rooted in the truth than it's not a value worth holding.
Bingo on the Constitution being a living document. I think that additional amendment's demonstrate that as TRUE.
.. and the last becomes the first. (or the primary)
When I reached nearly the end of your comment adagio, I instantly thought of your past references to Circular Reasoning. (not that that is what it was, it is just the first thought that came, but since we had already addressed that point it was at least circular), and then I flashed on images of the Ouroboros.
You closed, (semi-closed) with;
"This isn't about MY morals. This entire discussion on my part is about Truth. Objective Truth. And I don't see how anything can be considered moral that isn't rooted in the Truth. "
But... that isn't what I have been talking about. Since it seems agreed that we are coming from different perspectives, I probably would end up devouring myself if I tried to disprove your "truth," when I never intended any of my thoughts to be addressing the moral truth you are offering.
If we were to have a conversation about truth and true morals, we would probably agree more than disagree - with the major, and insurmountable difference that I see the truth you speak of, and the objectiveness that supports your view of it to depend on your philosophical truth being the only possible conclusion relative to human societies.
What happens if the assumptions of the foundation of your reasoning - the universal truths you have deduced, are upset by an equally reasoned philosophy that would show there are times when murder is moral? How can your universal truth ignore the possibility, (probability?), that a philosophical equivalent of Einstein's Theory of Relativity won't come along and upset your apple cart - just as Einstein did to the science of his time?
But all that is for another thread. As my lead-off noted, we have been talking about different things. Even as I can agree with many of your views on morality, you have not shown me that to consider the morals of a society, at a time of development of that society, to be false morals.
My view is that a society has every right to determine its own rules - for that society. Of course other societies, or later societies, may certainly see things differently. But that is another view - whether it be the result of enlightenment, or just Monday morning quarterbacking.
Hence, I do not believe the framers were hypocritical for not abolishing slavery via the new Constitution. Circumstances; the morality of that society at that time, accepted it. Had they not, then I think those "architects" of the framers certainly would have abolished it.
To your further response concerning my "socialism" analogy, you said; "I'm not sure which nations you're referring to that I called Socialist nations."
In the context of my comment that you were replying to, you said this;
"Really? Sure seems to be working in Denmark, Finland, Norway, etc."
Did I wrongly assume your response intended those to be Socialist nations that proved my thought about Socialism wrong? Nothing in the original analogy spoke of mixed economies, so if mine was an incorrect assumption, I believe it was at least an honest one.
Just one last little tweak. Regarding your "Bingo!"
I did not say I viewed the Constitution as a "living document" - I do not believe it is. What I said was; "...a document, a foundational structure, to be built upon." I think that is a distinction - with a difference.
>"What happens if the assumptions of the foundation of your reasoning - the universal truths you have deduced, are upset by an equally reasoned philosophy that would show there are times when murder is moral?"<
You'd have to demonstrate that. If it's true then it must contain the possibility of it being false. Otherwise the subject is non-falsifiable. If that's the case then the subject is metaphysical and has no way of being demonstrated as true or false. It's like claims that God is real. Well you can't prove it one way or the other so, it can't be falsified. If it can't be falsified then it's just preaching some non-provable belief. It can't be demonstrated as True of False.
However, if you can, then they are disproven and dumped in favor of the thing that has disproven them. But let me warn you in advance, I'm not a foundationalist. I think foundationalism was shown to be false when Einstein imposed a non-Euclidean geometry and a non-Newtonian physics upon nature. Einstein described a natural world that rational beings before him had never conceived. And his descriptions were then corroborated by the results of the experiments that he conceived in order to test them. The success of Einstein’s theory shattered all hopes of explaining the rationality of science in terms of a priori foundations. If Kant could be wrong about the a priori certainty of Newtonian Mechanics and Euclidean Geometry, then how could anyone ever claim to be a priori certain again?
Karl Popper realized that the attempt to explain the rationality of science as a byproduct of its justification had failed. We cannot rationally ground science upon a priori cognition because a priori cognition is unreliable, and we cannot rationally ground science upon sense experience because inductive inference is invalid. I spoke of inductive reasoning as a weak approach to a debate. I opt for deductive reasoning where an infallibly correct answer can be logically demonstrated. If we want to avoid Hume’s conclusion that science is irrationally grounded in custom and habit, then we have to explain how scientific knowledge can be rational given the fact that it cannot be rationally justified. Attempts to do that required inductive reasoning and induction never proves anything. It takes facts and develops a general statement. Generalities are not Proofs. Deductive reasoning takes generalities and reduces them to the lowest common denominator of fact, leaving only the truth as the answer.
But where Hume, Kant, Wittgenstein, and the positivists all agreed that our knowledge must be justified in order to be rational, Popper cut the Gordian knot by arguing that scientific knowledge cannot, and need not, be justified at all — and by saying that it is rational not because we have justified it, but because we can criticize it. Popper argued that any attempt to justify our knowledge must, in order to avoid infinite regress, ultimately accept the truth (or reliability) of some statement (or faculty, or person) without justification. But the fact that the truth (or reliability) of this statement (or faculty, or person) is accepted without justification means that we attribute to it an authority that we deny to others.
Universal statements (or theories) cannot be justified (or verified) by experience. But it takes only one genuine counter-example to show that a universal statement is false. So some universal statements (or theories) can be criticized (or falsified) by experience—or, at least, by the acceptance of observation statements that contradict them. Popper concluded that it is falsifiability, and not verifiability, that distinguishes empirical science from metaphysics.
The great foundationalist programs of the past were attempts to justify our beliefs, where ‘justify’ meant showing them to be true, and ‘true’ meant corresponding to the facts. The collapse of foundationalism in the twentieth century is due to our discovery that it is impossible to justify our beliefs in this way. This is the great philosophical fact of the twentieth century.
It seems to me that in our past dialogue you saw truth as relative, and subjective. Am I right about that? If that's the case, then are falsehoods relative and subjective as well? They would have to be wouldn't they? If so, then what method do you use to distinguish what's true from what's false. What's Real and What's Bogus?. How do you know when an error has been made. What do you compare it to, that informs you that it's an error? If Truth is relative then it's opposite has to be relative as well. That means that there is no false because falsehoods are relative. What do we compare ideas to, that allows us to determine truth from Fiction?
>"you have not shown me that to consider the morals of a society, at a time of development of that society, to be false morals."<
Well, what method of reasoning do you use to determine if something is morally just or not? You certainly must have given the subject some thought and formed a set of ethical principles that guide your own behavior. Would you say that murder is moral? What would you base that determination on? Would you say that your religious beliefs allow for human sacrifice and since its your religion and your tribe you are morally justified in murdering a person and hiding behind your religion to justify an immoral act. I would say no. You haven't demonstrated any morality by simply saying that your religion allows you that option. What gives your religion any moral authority to make that claim? Tradition? Culture? Bullshit. Nothing because your religion cannot justify itself. It's not based on anything but itself and that's simply circular reasoning. It's a Foundationalist morality without a foundation. It's a baseless morality, So I know that it's false and therefore has nothing to do with the Truth and what kind of set of morals can be called moral that don't correspond to the truth? What kind of morality is based on lies?? I suppose this all comes down to our definition of the word moral. One is this:"Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper" Another is "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. I believe that all things are open to criticism. That's how we determine if some idea or theory, holds up to intense scrutiny. When it holds up, we invest ourselves into that idea as a truth, or a fact. And we don't compromise our integrity or reason to accept a contradiction as valid. I think all things are open to criticism, including religions. Nothing is sacred. Just the Truth.
The first thing to consider is the motive according to which we act. Only one kind of motive is consistent with morality. The motive of Duty. Doing the right thing for the right reason. I'll give you an example: You own a store. A young boy comes in with some money from home and buys a loaf of bread. The boy is very young and knows nothing about making change, So you consider short changing him. He won't know the difference. But then you think, what if word got out that I cheated a little boy our of his correct change? I could lose customers. So...after consideration you decide its best to give the boy the correct change.
Question: Is there any moral worth to what you did? The answer is no. You did the right thing but you did it for the wrong reasons. Every time the motive for what we do, is to satisfy a desire, or a preference that we have, to pursue some interest, we’re acting out of inclination. Insofar as we act morally, in so far as our actions have moral worth, what confers moral worth is precisely our capacity to rise above self-interest and prudence and inclinations and to act out of duty. Do the right thing for the right reasons. For an action to have moral worth it must be done for the sake of duty, not out of inclination.
If Reason determines my will, then the will becomes the power to choose independent of the dictates of nature or inclination or circumstance.
Hypothetical imperatives. IF/Then. If you want x, then do y. That's a Modus Ponens or Modus Tollens form of deductive logic. It's a conditional. If this, then that. This therefore that. Modus Ponens.
If this then that. Not that, therefore Not this: Modus Tollens.
IF you want a good business reputation, then don’t shortchange your customers. Word may get out. That is a hypothetical imperative.
If the action would be good solely as a means to some end, the imperative is hypothetical. If the action is good in itself, and therefore necessary for will, which of itself accords with reason, the imperative is categorical.
A categorical imperative commands without reference to or dependence on any further purpose. The actions are done for their own sake. Not for what they will get you. Again, if your actions are promoting self-interest then there is no moral worth to them. The idea is to rise above your own personal interests. “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”.
The Golden Rule is a maxim right? But if you're doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, then isn't your motive one of self-interest? You're only being nice to others because you're hoping that's how you'll be treated. Actually you should be nice to others with no regard as to how they'll treat you. Just do the right thing for the right reason.
>"I did not say I viewed the Constitution as a "living document" - I do not believe it is. What I said was; "...a document, a foundational structure, to be built upon." I think that is a distinction - with a difference."<
Really, then I read you wrong. So you believe that it's a foundational structure, ( which I wouldn't argue with) to be built upon. Then metaphorically speaking, the document is alive and breathing since new information can be added to it over time. I don't think it's what you say it is. I think it's a contradiction. If it's not a living document then it can't be altered through amendment. If it was set in stone we'd still be living under the original Bill of Rights. No 13,14,15. Amendments dealing with slavery and citizenship. No 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. Nothing past the original Bill of Rights. Are you sure that it's not living??
My apologies adagio, it's late, and my early Fall efforts have worn me out. I am not ignoring your reply. I will offer a response adequate to your effort tomorrow.
I can see that you enjoy philosophical discussions adagio, but I think your effort to incorporate them as validations, here, has taken us on a tangent away from the point of the OP. Which I think was to period perspectives - not universal truths.
Whether it is unfortunate, or a bonus - for me, I don't share your fondness for labels. I usually find them either too rigid, or a poor fit. Your Burke references might be a good example. I think it is fair to say that the Conservative of Burke's writings is not the Conservative of today's political environment, (at least that's what I got from the Cliff Notes) - yet that is the conservative relative to these forum's discussions, so a Burke reference would be misplaced. At least that is how I perceive it - based on your other comments, (with Ed, for instance), where you define Conservative as being anti-change. Which, I don't think, is Burke's concept. My point being, that particular label is either wrong, or its usage misplaced.
Regarding the "living document" thing, I don't think allowing for or accepting change implies "living." The foundation has been changed by an addition or subtraction, not changed by re-interpretation, which is what I think "living," as applied to the Constitution means.
None of your mentioned amendments re-interpreted anything, they simply changed things by adding to or subtracting from or superseding them.
For instance; the 13th didn't change the meaning of the three-fifths compromise, it simply superseded and negated it. I am less certain of the 14th, but I don't think it changed or superseded anything in the Constitution, I think it simply added to the Constitution. I believe the 15th and 19th fit the same explanation.
My perception of today's "living document" proponents is that their "living" means a re-interpretation of something - without change, to mean some other today, than it meant back then. Maybe the "militia" of the 2nd argument that the usage of "militia" then should apply to a different interpretation of "militia" today. If true, that would indicate a living document - as I see it.
>" but I think your effort to incorporate them as validations, here, has taken us on a tangent away from the point of the OP. Which I think was to period perspectives - not universal truths."<
Can you give me an example of a period perspective that doesn't base itself on some concept of truth?
>" I don't share your fondness for labels."<
What labels? If you attach yourself to some ideology, then the label comes with it. Which labels are you referring to?
>"Your Burke references might be a good example. I think it is fair to say that the Conservative of Burke's writings is not the Conservative of today's political environment, "<
I agree. Burke was a Traditional Conservative. So was Russell Kirk. Kirk was the greatest influence on Reagan. What we see today is more in line with authoritarian autocracy. Traditional Conservatism always preserves existing institutions. The Republican Party of today under Trump, which continues to regard itself as conservative, is anything but that. It attacks our existing institutions that are essential to our democracy, including the justice Department, law enforcement, the free press, free speech, the constitution itself. This is not conservatism it's Trumpism and it now dominates the party. Conservatives such as Jeff Flake and Bob Corker are leaving the Senate and others like George Will, Max Boot, Steve Schmidt, the late Charles Krauthammer, Joe Scarborough, Nicole Wallace...have left the Republican party precisely because it's no longer conservative.
>"yet that is the conservative relative to these forum's discussions, so a Burke reference would be misplaced."<
Not at all. It's not conservatism. It's something else. It shouldn't be treated as something that it isn't when it fails to recognize the very basic principles that identify conservatism as understood historically. So what do I use as my source for understanding conservatism? I get it from Conservatives themselves who are only too happy to define it for me.
“In his lecture on “The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement” given to the Heritage Foundation in 2003, Dr. Lee Edwards cited Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind as providing the central idea upon which American conservatism is essentially based,
calling it ordered liberty”.
Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism: Canons??
1.A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
2.Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
3.Civilized society requires orders and classes;
4.Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
5.Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
6.Society must alter slowly.
Edwards states that “the work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he gave the conservative movement its name.
Lest we minimize the writings of Kirk, we should point out that one of his biggest supporters was “Mr.Conservative”, President Ronald Reagan. Reagan said this of Kirk:
“As the prophet of American conservatism, Russell Kirk has taught, nurtured, and inspired a generation. From . . . Piety Hill, he reached deep into the roots of American values, writing and editing central works of political philosophy. His intellectual contribution has been a profound
act of patriotism. I look forward to the future with anticipation that his work will continue to exert a profound influence in the defense of our values and our cherished civilization.”
—Ronald Reagan, 1981
For several years he was a Distinguished Scholar of the Heritage Foundation. In 1989, President Reagan conferred on him the Presidential Citizens Medal. In 1991, he was awarded the Salvatori Prize for historical writing. Dr, Kirks conservative credentials are established. He is a
conservative. The Heritage Foundation is a recognized Conservative think-tank that provides the Republican Party with it's talking points. They recognize his credentials. He is qualified to speak on the meaning of conservatism.
What we see today with Trumps party is not Conservative.
>"where you define Conservative as being anti-change. Which, I don't think, is Burke's concept"<
From Kirks Canon: 6.Society must alter slowly. In the mind of Burke and Kirk, slowly means glacially. Burke is the leading voice of the Anti-Enlightenment. I don't think I said, Anti-change, however the change he and Kirk see as acceptable comes at a glacial pace.
>"Regarding the "living document" thing, I don't think allowing for or accepting change implies "living.""<
Really? What would you call it. Scalia claimed it was set in stone. I would ask you this: if the Founders of this country were Liberal minded men looking toward the Enlightenment for their ideas of democracy and denying the idea of a divine right of kings in favor of government by the people, which was a very progressive view for that time, would it seem likely to you that they would be the kind of people that would insist that future generations live according to the way things were in 1789 rather than providing a document that would be flexible enough to deal with a future they could never imagine? Would forward thinking men be inclined to do that to the future generations of Americans? If the constitution were set in stone, then why allow for an amendment process to accommodate a future they could not imagine?
>"The foundation has been changed by an addition or subtraction, not changed by re-interpretation, which is what I think "living," as applied to the Constitution means."<
Then if that's the case, and Roe is considered "settled law" after 40 years on the books, what would you say about repealing it based on a re-interpretation? And would you then say that Plessy v Ferguson was decided correctly and not re-visited or re-interpreted? Is Stare Decisis (Precedent) a legitimate practice for the Supreme Court to use in making their decisions? I think you misread the concept of a living document. Lincoln forever changed the Constitution with the addition of the 13, 14, and 15th amendment. Isn't that an example of a living document? Was he wrong?
>"None of your mentioned amendments re-interpreted anything, they simply changed things by adding to or subtracting from or superseding them."<
No. That's simply not true. The Gettysburg or Reconstruction or Civil War Amendments, that I just mentioned altered our entire constitution. They give us a very different constitution than the one the founders imagined.
I pointed to this before but It think it bears repeating.
The Constitution we live under, in theory and in practice, is the Reconstruction Constitution. Think about the big cases that define constitutional law, Gideon, Mapp, Miranda, Tinker. Brown v.Board of Education, Roe v. Wade. Hobby Lobby, Heller, Citizens United. What do all these cases have in common?
They all could never have arisen, they could never have been decided, under the Founders' Constitution. They are all 14th Amendment cases, federal rights against the states. All of this represents a re-interpretation of the Constitution. So our Constitution now is different. The Federal Government is now the protector of the citizens against the tyranny of the states rather than the states as protector against the Federal government. It's that the people are sovereign, not the states. And that the federal government represents the people. We the People, NOT We the States.
>"For instance; the 13th didn't change the meaning of the three-fifths compromise, it simply superseded and negated it. I am less certain of the 14th, but I don't think it changed or superseded anything in the Constitution, I think it simply added to the Constitution. I believe the 15th and 19th fit the same explanation."<
Obviously they weren't looking to change the meaning of the fraction 3/5. They simply rendered it inoperative with the 13th. It has no meaning that's relevant in the constitution after the 13th. I think we have a completely different take on what the effect of the amendments had. By creating the 13,14, and 15th amendment's they rendered the 3/5compromise obsolete and re-interpreted the meaning of the constitution. They extended rights where they hadn't existed before, They did it with the 19th as well. I don't see how that doesn't re-interpret the constitution as being different from the constitution of 1789. You seem to be under the impression that making additions doesn't re-interpret the document. Well, it certainly expands it and if that doesn't result in a re-interpretation of what the document was originally intended to do, I think we see a semantic difference in what "Interpretation" means. To my way of thinking any alteration of the document results in a re-interpretation of it. It now means more than it did before. I view that as a re-interpretation of the overall effect of the document.
>"Maybe the "militia" of the 2nd argument that the usage of "militia" then should apply to a different interpretation of "militia" today. If true, that would indicate a living document - as I see it."<
The second amendment is something I don't want to get into right now, It's very late and I'm too tired to wade into that issue. However the term militia has a bearing on the amendment. Obviously it's a clause in the amendment so it carries meaning. It's a contentious issue that will be fought over forever I suspect. I think there are sensible ways of dealing with guns without affecting the amendment, but the gun lobby is very powerful and they certainly own a lot of politicians that support the NRA position.
Fascinating discourse, Adagio, your points are well reasoned and thought out.
Here is where I think the "period" aspect of the discussion started adagio, with the OP;
That is where I drew the "period" of the discussion from. Along with several more comments from the thread originator that clarified the discussion to be of the Founding and Constitution's birth years to the period of the topic, and a couple comments from you that also dealt with the topic as period-related issues. To your point about "truth," I think the truth base of the OP was the truth of the period - not the philosophical universal truth of philosophers.
It is hardly unusual for tangents and sub-topics to sprout from a thread's topic, but to be germane I think they should at least follow the vein of the OP.
You ask what labels, then refer to their attachment to ideologies. So you recognize the labels, but want reference to refute, or validate, the legitimacy of their inclusion? I wasn't speaking particularly of ideological labels, but since those are most obvious to all - how can you be confident of placing labels, rather than having them claimed?
As am example. I would wager, (no worries, I have lost wagers before), that you have labeled me a Conservative, yet I don't label myself that. Other's in this forum that self-label themselves Conservatives won't have me because I don't accept all the dogma that goes with it. (I certainly don't agree with several foundational Kirk "canons") And the Liberals won't have me because I disagree with the degrees of too many of their ideological goals.
So I have jokingly labeled myself a 'Purple', and in these political discussions there is no label for Purple, and because there isn't I feel it is dangerously counter-productive to place labels that haven't already been claimed. But, even so, ideological labels aren't the only ones I was referring to.
Since I am not a Kirk fan, I'll skip your reference section and jump back into the "living document" pool.
Your reference to Scalia seeing the Constitution as "set in stone" might benefit from a little expansion. It is true that he identified himself as an 'Originalist.' and others, evaluating his positions and decisions have labelled him Originalist, but that does not mean he believed the Constitution was an unchangeable rock. It merely means he held to the belief of reading the words as meaning what they were intended to mean when written. I think that is much different than viewing the Constitution as unchangeable.
Scalia described himself as a "...'faint-hearted originalist' who would abandon the historical meaning when following it was intolerable. He claimed that “stare decisis is not part of my originalist philosophy; it is a pragmatic exception to it.”
There are other sources that also refute the view that Scalia saw the Constitution as unchangeable, but the point is I disagree with your characterization, and I think that Scalia addition also displaces your Liberal-minded Founders, (Framers?), rationalization.
I do agree that they were very liberal-minded for the times. The whole Constitution thing was an extremely liberal move. I even agree that they would not consider writing a document that would bind future generations of Americans to the realities and mores of their time.
I think it was for that very purpose - to allow for future change and/or liberalization, that they wrote the document as they did; as briefly as possible - to limit it to being a foundation to build on, not an instruction manual for what must be built, wording that was as concise and purposeful as possible to convey their specific intent and to avoid interpretive generalizations, and the inclusion of a mechanism to change the document.
But it appears we are stuck, (or really do have different meanings of "living"). I don't see being changed, or being changeable as fitting the modern usage of "living" - as applied to Constitutional issues. It appears that you do.
Maybe it is just semantics, because I can agree that all of your examples that followed did change the original Constitution. However, I see those changes as additions or subtractions, not re-interpretations, or even re-determinations of validity, (as I would require to meet my definition of "living")
Or maybe our difference is that I have been less than clear in what context I mean when I dispute the "living" school of thought. Let me try another direction, one where a "living document" proponent would say something in the Constitution is no longer applicable because times have changed - once again the 2nd might be an example. Their rational would be that because we now have a standing army, and, state National Guards, the 2nd is no longer applicable because their interpretation of its meaning clearly shows it to be outdated and no longer needed.
You speak of "Stare Decisis" and Roe v Wade, but which of those implies a Living Document? Stare Decisis is just a judicial operator, and Roe v Wade is an original judicial interpretation - a precedent. Were either refuted; a precedent process ignored, or precedent-setting decision overturned, I don't think the act alone would qualify for the "living" descriptor. the resulting effect might, but not the act itself.
>" I think the truth base of the OP was the truth of the period - not the philosophical universal truth of philosophers."<
I think I told you that I don't regard relative truth as Truth. Objective Truth doesn't change over time. That's why I chimed in. I reject that premise as valid.
>"It is hardly unusual for tangents and sub-topics to sprout from a thread's topic, but to be germane I think they should at least follow the vein of the OP."<
As I said, I rejected the premise of her topic. So I've offered an counter argument. That's what the comments section is for. It creates discussions like this one.
>"So you recognize the labels, but want reference to refute, or validate, the legitimacy of their inclusion?
I think you're really getting into the weeds here, but I'll say this: I accept the label of conservative when a person calls themselves a conservative. I accept the definition of what that means according to conservatives that are recognized leaders of the conservative movement dating back to the very beginning of the movement. So when a person calls himself a conservative, I understand what that means. I understand what that entails. I disagree with the logic behind the ideology, and I'm capable of giving my reasons for that critique. I think it's baseless and can't justify itself. And I think I've demonstrated why.
>" how can you be confident of placing labels, rather than having them claimed?"<
I don't understand your question. I'm not placing a label. I'm following the description that another person is using to describe their own ideology. That ideology isn't something new. It's been around for a long time and there's a name for it which makes it convenient for others to study which is what I've taken the time to do. Utilitarianism for example was created by Jeremy Bentham and the entire ideology has been outlined.by Bentham. It follows a given set of guidelines that define the ideology. Traditional Conservatism stems from Burke. He's the leading voice of the Anti-Enlightenment. He opposed the Enlightenment views of Hobbes and Locke. I'm confident because my eyes are open and I can read and understand the English language. I'm observing what others are claiming and I either agree with their views or I offer a critique.
>"I have lost wagers before), that you have labeled me a Conservative, yet I don't label myself that."<
Nope. You lost your wager. I haven't placed any label on you at all. I have no idea what you call yourself. If I were to guess, I'd say you're more libertarian, but I could be wrong. I'm a fallibalist ( there's a label for you) All that means is that I recognize that I'm a fallible human and prone to error. Philosophically I'm what you'd call a critical rationalist.
>"So I have jokingly labeled myself a 'Purple', and in these political discussions there is no label for Purple,"<
In other word, for the sake of brevity, your an independent. We do tend to have labels for pretty much everything including our political, philosophical or ideological leanings.
>" It merely means he held to the belief of reading the words as meaning what they were intended to mean when written. I think that is much different than viewing the Constitution as unchangeable."<
Scalia was and will always be known as a conservative on the bench. He holds conservative views. He was nominated by a Conservative President. He always voted with them. His claim to being an originalist strikes me as false and I'll tell you why I think that. The claim he always made was about "original intent". That points to the motives of the author as opposed to the language or words. The words that were used in 1789 do not carry the exact same meaning as they do in the 21st century. For example a militia in that period doesn't carry the same meaning that it does today because at the time of the writing we had no standing army, so a militia was required to protect the country's national security. That's not the case today. So we can only really know what they meant be looking at previous writings to gain insight as to the meaning of what they wrote in the constitution. Where were they coming from?
Today we have a man hoping to be seated on the court that has indicated in his writing that he thinks that a sitting president should not be subject to subpoena or indictment or even investigation. There is nothing in the constitution that would suggest that. He extrapolates that from the impeachment process in Article II sec 4. It speaks to how a president is removed but makes no mention of indictment. So being an open issue that's never been tested before the SCOTUS he would expand the Executive powers to unheard of dimensions. This is why Trump wants him confirmed. Trumps under investigation and if Mueller wants to indict him, he'll want to challenge that and it would help to have a justice on the court that thinks like Kavanaugh ruling on the matter. Kavanaugh is the only judge that has ever written on this issue and of all the judges Trump could have picked...he picks the guy that thinks a president shouldn't even be investigated. That would put Trump above the law and not held to the constitution. Nice huh?
>" It merely means he held to the belief of reading the words as meaning what they were intended to mean when written. I think that is much different than viewing the Constitution as unchangeable.
And what about ideas, or concepts or freedoms that are not mentioned in the Constitution? Separation of Church and State for example or a Right to Privacy?
>"He claimed that “stare decisis is not part of my originalist philosophy; it is a pragmatic exception to it.” "<
So, did he not believe in precedent or settled law?
>"I disagree with your characterization, and I think that Scalia addition also displaces your Liberal-minded Founders, (Framers?), rationalization."<
What characterization are you referring to, and what do you mean by displacing my liberal-minded Founders/Framers rationalization? Are you suggesting that Scalia's views on the constitution are to be taken in preference to the framers views? The Founders and Framers ( two separate but overlapping groups of men) were all products of the Enlightenment. thinking. I'm assuming you already know that. Jefferson, Paine, Adams, Washington....all products of the Enlightenment that was changing the world. Jefferson was a student of Locke and even borrowed the term Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness from Locke who wrote of Life, Liberty and Property. Washington the Deist always spoke of Providence and never about Jesus or Christian beliefs. Jefferson another Deist edited the Bible to remove the miracles leaving only the philosophy of Jesus in what is called the Jefferson Bible. S
Scalia however espoused Conservative views. Those views come from Burke...the leading voice of the Anti-Enlightenment. His views were all linked to aristocracy and traditionalism. So...when you say that Scalia displaces my liberal Founders rationalization, how can you call Scalia an originalist when his views were those linked to a philosophical view that opposed that of the founders themselves? Where's the consistency in that?
>"I think it was for that very purpose - to allow for future change and/or liberalization, that they wrote the document as they did; as briefly as possible - to limit it to being a foundation to build on, not an instruction manual for what must be built, wording that was as concise and purposeful as possible to convey their specific intent and to avoid interpretive generalizations, and the inclusion of a mechanism to change the document."<
>" But it appears we are stuck, (or really do have different meanings of "living"). I don't see being changed, or being changeable as fitting the modern usage of "living" - as applied to Constitutional issues. It appears that you do. "<
Apparently we do have a different concept of what a living document means. In my view, if a document can be amended, then it lives. That's an alteration of the original text. If you were to print out the original text, you'd be leaving a lot of things out. That would not be the constitution that we live by today. As a human being I have the same organs I had when I was born. Other things have been added or perhaps subtracted from my being, however as a living being I continue to grow. My appearance has changed. That's what living things do. They change. They evolve. I'm not the same person that I was at 5 years of age. I still have all the same working limbs and organs but everything else has changed. My views on everything have evolved. In a metaphorical sense, which is what we're saying regarding a living constitution, I see exactly the same thing taking place with the Constitution.
>" Their rational would be that because we now have a standing army, and, state National Guards, the 2nd is no longer applicable because their interpretation of its meaning clearly shows it to be outdated and no longer needed."<
I think that's a strong argument, but we both know that will never happen. Our culture is tied to guns. That's not going to change no matter how many children die.
>"You speak of "Stare Decisis" and Roe v Wade, but which of those implies a Living Document? Stare Decisis is just a judicial operator, and Roe v Wade is an original judicial interpretation - a precedent."<
Why would that have any effect at all on whether the Constitution is a "living document"? That term doesn't imply that all our laws must now be changed or overturned because the document is a living document. All it means is that future developments in our understanding of rights conferred should not be restrained or denied on some argument based on original intent.
The ninth amendment says The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Ninth Amendment was designed to answer one objection to a bill of rights, which was that if some rights were written down, the government might claim that no other rights existed. Other rights do exist, the Ninth Amendment says. Don't deny them. And the fact that they haven't been written down, doesn't make them any less important. Don't disparage them either. So the practice of enforcing rights that aren't there in the words of the constitution can actually be justified by reference to those words.
>"Were either refuted; a precedent process ignored, or precedent-setting decision overturned, I don't think the act alone would qualify for the "living" descriptor. the resulting effect might, but not the act itself."<
Yeah I agree. Repealing Roe doesn't meet my idea of what a living document means. Our constitution is always looking to expand rights. Not take them away. Repealing Roe would deny a right and I don't see that as something that the Constitution is meant to do.
traditionally and instinctively the right to life is revered.
The right to life, once conceived, for all.
Some do not revere the right to life before born. Only after.
Just because we can suck out a potential human from the womb, does that mean we should?
wouldn't it be better to just abstain until marriage?
But you would say sex before marriage is a right.
... so its all the way you look at rights.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.
Can happiness be applied universally or not?
Well then, it appears that my struggles to relate and address your comments to the OP were my own fault. In my effort to address your comments, I was ignoring the obvious - we were talking about different things.
The only "truth" in the OP was her claim that the opening statement was "hogwash," (which I think neither of us would agree with). I interpreted, and I think most others did also, that the discussion was of the cultural norms of the times - not their validity compared to "universal truths."
But, that aside, the error of not addressing the change in direction - until our later exchanges, was mine. I also think the discrepancies in our opinions can mostly be attributed to that error.
More than just a tangent, I think your direction was a topic in itself - almost unrelated to the intent of the OP.
I will leave the issue of labels where it lies. ideological labels weren't the crux of my comment, but I can see no profit in pursuing the point. Except for one last caveat. A libertarian I am not, but whatever I am, I can say it is highly influenced by a similar "fallibalist" perspective when it comes to anything related to human endeavors. Especially and particularly when it comes to politics.
Regarding your Kavanaugh comments, I was unaware he believed a president could not be investigated. Even though I lack that information, I am skeptical that is a true interpretation of his thoughts. However, it is an unfounded skepticism, so proof would be readily accepted if it were available.
Further on, regarding Scalia, I am at a loss that you draw that he did not believe in settled law or precedent from his statement that pragmatism dictated his acceptance of it. (even though posed as a question). I am a big fan of pragmatism - it accounts for the reality of human interactions - the gray areas. Is acceptance not enough, is rah-rah endorsement required for validation?
To my Founders/Framers displacement thought, it was related to your inference of Scalia as an "originalist" disagreeing with the liberalism of the Founders/Framers and their Constitutional Convention efforts. I do not see Scalia's originalist doctrine as refuting the liberalism of the Framers' efforts. If anything, I think it could be seen as a validation of their efforts and intent in the actual process of writing the document.
>" but since we had already addressed that point it was at least circular)"<
That's not what is meant by a circular argument. Returning to a subject for continued debate does not present a "circular argument". this is a term in logic and describes a particular logical fallacy, It has nothing to do with returning to a topic of debate,. but rather the method one uses in the course of his reasoning. An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove.Example
1.Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
This is using the Bible to prove the Bible. That's circular reasoning, and a logical fallacy because you cannot use a theory to prove itself.
The New JIM CROW has arrived and it resides wholy in the new Democratic party , ripping at the lighter skin colors , haters of the orange haired monster in the white house , Whatever you do don't be a black man and call yourself a conservative . Where democratic politicians are calling hispanic immigrants "the new cotton gin workers " relegating them to only menial jobs with no official citizen status in the labor camps of " sanctuary cities " all across America . Creating an entirely new class of illegal immigrants living at the lower end of the economic spectrum ?
And they call conservatives racists ?
Not only do they call them racists, they call them idiots that make screwball ad hominem attacks exactly like the one above. So the new Idiot America has taken over the GOP. This is juvenile name calling crap and could be responded with The New Nazis have arrived and drape themselves in the cloak of conservatism while plotting to send minorities to concentration camps. Now, this is what passes for a well argued debate among conservatives like...Ed. He insists that he can demonstrate a new Jim Crow with baseless allegations. And of course somebody will respond with an equally nasty charge levelled against him and his minions, and you have a shouting match and the only question is who has a bigger bag of insults to hurl at the other guy. This doesn't pass as intelligent debate. There's no exchange of ideas happening. No questions taking place. No dialogue. It's all a monologue. One person spewing bile at the other. Very impressive Ed. Bravo.
Bottom line : Anyone sick of hearing Democrats call Republicans RACISTS , We can show the entire world the point of who the REAL racists in America are at any given point by this one indisputable fact ;
< The House Vote >
The 1968 civil rights Act Passed in the house by only 78 percent of Democrats voting yes --- Yet , On the other side of the aisle , Republicans by a margin of 94 % Voted Yes .
The answers are always in the numbers .
Yes they are and I'm so glad that you brought this up. It's a favorite topic of mine. The reason that its a favorite of mine is because I was a sophomore in High School at that time. I was attending an integrated high school in the north and the issue was very important to us. I doubt that Ed remembers much if anything about that time. His post demonstrates his ignorance of this subject.
Here's the big reveal: Parties are not inherently racist. They don't come to us wrapped up in an ideology. They are; both Democrat and Republican, vehicles for whatever the dominant ideology or philosophy prevails at the time. A political party is a platform waiting for instructions. They're like a TV set. By themselves they do nothing. They need programming and that comes from the ideology or philosophy that drives them. They are a car that can't move until somebody gets in and drives them.
I'm pretty sure that everybody knows this but incase they don't, the South is the most conservative region of the country. At this particular time in our history the "solid" South, although totally conservative in their ideology, were almost all members of the Democratic Party. That party had ruled the Conservative South forever and conservatives controlled that party all through the slavery years as well as Reconstruction. Andrew Johnson, the VP to Lincoln, who became President and was Impeached was a Southern Conservative Democrat. Reconstruction produced the Jim Crow era, enforced by Conservative Democrats. These are not the liberals that we think of as Democrats today. It was a different party back then. Conservatives were Democrats.
There were Liberal Republicans t the time of the CRA in 1964. Sen Dirkson was my Senator. A Republican that was the main man to push the CRA through. Others were Nelson Rockefeller, Bill Scranton.
When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 CONSERVATIVE southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states." Russell was a Conservative Democrat. A Dixiecrat. He was a segregationist from Georgie.
Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator Strom Thurmond, another Conservative Dem (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."
The Dems that were objecting and filibustering the CRA and trying their best to defeat it were NOT liberal Democrats. They were ALL Conservative Democrats, known as Dixiecrats that opposed the Civil Rights Act.
Democrat and Republican are NOT ideologies or philosophies. They don't teach Democrat or Republican in a philosophy course in any college in the country or anywhere in any country in the world. They do teach the origins of the Conservative movement and the origins of classical liberalism in philosophy courses in every major university the world. They teach about John Locke ( the Enlightenment) and Edmund Burke ( the Anti-Enlightenment. But the don't teach Democrat philosophy or Republican Ideology. There is no such thing.
So, with all that in mind. Here's the breakdown of the 1964 CRA;
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The votes are arranged as Yea/ Nay
The original House version:
Southern Conservative Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%) There were no Southern Republicans in the House at that time. 100% of Conservative Southern Repubs opposed the CRA
Northern Liberal Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Liberal Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Conservative Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor) 20 of 21 southern Senators were Conservative Dems. They all opposed the CRA.
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Liberal Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Liberal Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
The answers are always in the numbers and clearly those numbers can be used to confuse you. Conservatives opposed the CRA. When they lost that vote, the conservatives eventually all left the Democratic Party and that was the beginning of Nixon's Southern Strategy to bring those Conservative's into the Republican party, and that's where they remain to this day. The Conservative South, the region that forced a Civil War to keep slavery alive and after losing enforced Jim Crow laws on blacks right up to the 1964 CRA have always opposed Civil Rights. From Slavery through Jim Crow and right up to today with Trump. Racism has been at the very core of it's identity.
>"The 1968 civil rights Act "<
BTW....it was 1964. Not 68.
Amazing how the intellectual minds just can't handle such a simple experiment as having a little faith .
It's because one would have to suspend all skepticism to accept a line of bullshit like what you have to offer. Rubes might do that. Then they vote for Trump because he tells them that Mexico is going to pay for a wall on the border. And they believe him. So when you say, "have a little faith...faith in who/what? Why would anybody place their faith, in a person that would make such absurd asinine claims as that? It's precisely because an intellectual mind questions things. It weighs the probability of what is being said with how it corresponds to reality. It's not that they can't handle such a simple thing. It's because they have handled it and dismissed it as bullshit. What amazes them is that people like YOU persist in promoting idiot America.
There is perhaps nothing more brilliantly annoying than the pseudo intellectuals who constantly question God , -- my point . They go around and around in circles of supposed intellect trying purposefully to offend the christian , it's been like that from the beginning of time and likely will continue as long as there are obviously bitter , disillusioned , child like people suffering a lack of social graces and general maturity .
They come here in forums from time to time demanding "proof " that a god exists , When I was about eighteen I questioned a minister who gave me a ride as I was hitching one , after listening to his spiel I questioned his preaching and he told me something great minds like yours apparently can never get . " Christianity is the only religion in the world that requires only faith and nothing more".
Yet the brilliant minds of today , much older than I was then and supposedly highly leaned still demand "proof " ? Personally , I don't care if you "get it " or not but if you cannot grasp that some people just simply have faith and some obviously don't and never will ; that is your problem and will continue to be .So continue on with your insults , nobody here really cares . Most Christians are beyond immature insults .
You seem to have issues with anybody that questions your beliefs? You also seem to think that questioning anything is " your problem and will continue to be". What you don't seem to grasp is that nobody cares about your beliefs. But when you attempt to impose them on a debate, they become central to the argument that you are making. That makes them fair game to criticism. There are no sacred cows. Nothing is off limits here.
The framework that I come from permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions including his most basic and fundamental standards, goals, decisions, and basic philosophical position open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith or irrational commitment to ideology to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire. One who is committed, attached, addicted to NO position other than using every means available to find the truth.
>"Most Christians are beyond immature insults "<
If you were among them you wouldn't be bringing this up. And what insult have I hurled at Christians?? Nobody here, at least not me, is attempting to disprove the existence of God. God cannot be proven or disproven. God is a metaphysical concept. There are no instruments that can be used to measure God so there is no scientific way to prove the physical existence of something thing that is metaphysical. You can't use the natural universe to prove a Supernatural existence. It's a belief. So if you believe it, fine. Don't try to prove it because it only undermines your claims of belief. Belief is Faith, and faith doesn't require proof.
Oh Adagio , and you may wish to watch your language here , I have been temporarily banned for much less .
Thanks for the illustration adagio, but that is not what I said.
"I instantly thought of your past references to Circular Reasoning. (not that that is what it was, it is just the first thought that came, but since we had already addressed that point it was at least circular)" [my emphasis]
"Returning to a subject for continued debate does not present a "circular argument"."
No it doesn't present a circular argument, but it does present a circular path. Start here, go there, return here. A circular path.
GA...I think you need to understand what the term circular reasoning means. I've provided the meaning of the term before. I'm not now, nor have I ever suggested that returning to a previous subject has anything...I repeat...anything to do with circular reasoning, or what we would call a circular argument. Trying to present what you call a "circular path" as synonymous with Circular reasoning or a circular argument is simply...wrong. However you're almost there with this:
>"Start here, go there, return here. A circular path."<
That's the path of reasoning used by one person. NOT the circular path of a return to a previous argument.
Circular reasoning is what we call the process that a person uses as a form of argument.
circulus in demonstrando
(also known as: paradoxical thinking, circular argument, circular cause and consequence, reasoning in a circle)
Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. This fallacy is often quite humorous.
X is true because of Y.
Y is true because of X.
>"Start here, go there, return here. A circular path."<
The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.
Just so we're on the same page, a return to a previous argument is NOT circular reasoning. It's not a circular argument. We've had many, many, many debates in congress over guns, abortion, taxes, national security, etc.. but none of those debates are examples of circular reasoning or a circular argument. Circular reasoning address how YOU or me or somebody reasons in presenting an argument. Not the argument itself. I hope this is clear.
awww geez adagio, I did not say it was circular reasoning. I even emphasized that in my initial, and subsequent responses.
As you have said; I repeat... I did not say it was circular reasoning, circular logic, or a circular argument. At least not knowingly, and not from what I can see in what I wrote. I said; "...not that that is what it was..."
Your effort to 'clear that up' for me was unnecessary. You may have appreciated an opportunity to showcase your understandings in an effort to be helpful, but in this case I think it was a created opportunity. The question is what created it?
>" I did not say it was circular reasoning. I even emphasized that in my initial, and subsequent responses."<
You said this: >" but since we had already addressed that point it was at least circular"<
I don't understand why you would even bring up what you call a circular path. If we discuss something that we've discussed before, it's possible that one or both of us has some new information to add to the discussion. Fine. Bring it on. But I have never heard anybody refer to that as a "circular path" as if that had some relevance to circular reasoning. But when I speak of a circular argument, and you toss this into the mix as if it has anything to do with what I just said, which is a reference to an individual's reasoning process, it sounds very much like you're looking to something as both equivalent and acceptable. I can't find the original reference that you brought up, but I responded based on what you wrote which appeared to be a complete misunderstanding of the term "circular argument". In logic that applies to a logical fallacy in the reasoning process that a person uses. I gave example because it seemed very necessary. I'm not here to showcase my understanding. This isn't an ego trip for me I'm here to question the premise of a persons claims. Or to clarify a misreading of something being said. Or conversely to learn something I didn't know before. What I pointed out was something I deemed necessary based on what I read from your comment.
Double damn, and double geez adagio. It was a quip. A mere quip referencing that we had already been there.
You interpreted "path." I didn't say "path." Would you have more easily perceived my "circular' quip, as a quip, if you hadn't jumped to the assumption I meant "circular path?"
I didn't say circular path, and I didn't relate it to circular reasoning - that is on you. Three times now I have tried to clarify the point - with emphasis, and double emphasis, and three times you insist that what I didn't say was what you were responding to.
You should just let this one go adagio. You are arguing against yourself. I usually offer plenty of opportunity for counter-points, (considering that fallibalist perspective of mine), but here, you seem determined to defend a point that wasn't made.
I have frequently noted that I don't like being wrong, but, I don't really mind it either, because when acknowledged - it means I have learned something, which I always view as a a good thing.
So, catch me when I am wrong and I will thank you. Otherwise ...
The truth is what we are after, but the truth will not be recognized by those who do not have a sense of what is true from the depths of their souls.
The truth will only be recognized by those who truly feel love, faith and hope. And why is this? Because reality is based on love, faith and hope.
... those who endeavor to conjure up lies, deceptions and hatred will never find the truth.
Truth comes from an openness to reality.
Lies come from an openness to satanic delusion.
LOVE aka INDIFFERENCE explain what love is, I don't believe you know by your reply.
Love, a word which cannot be defined,
not what you do but a frame of mind;
yet it does create an effect
few are ever able to reject.
It does not build empires by setting boundary lines,
neither does it stake out claiming things as mine.
It's not selfish to any at all,
not to rich nor poor, nor great nor small.
It's not bias in any light,
not to red nor yellow nor black nor white;
but it does make every living thing your brother,
spirit your father and the earth your nursing mother.
Is Truth demonstrable? If it is, can you demonstrate how what you said is True?
Trump haters do not have the will to comprehend the good that trump is trying to do.
Because they LIKE to complain, find fault and wallow in hatred ... just wallow in it! They are not open to the truth of the good that Trump is trying to accomplish.
Trump appreciators place their hope and faith in Trump because he speaks what is in their hearts: a percolating economy for the sake of the survival and prosperity for all.
Trump haters hate the fact that this president will not just collect the money and hand out the dole.
They hate the fact that there are people who are prosperous.
They hate the fact that the rich get to do what they want with the money they make.
They should hate the fact that THEY can't figure out how to make money. Instead they want to blame someone else for their miseries and failures.
The truth is we are responsible for ourselves.
And why is this?
Because we chose to come to earth and take on the challenges of life here.
We were not placed here against our will.
We CHOSE to incarnate.
You DIE or not ... according TO YOUR OWN EFFORTS.
SO ... roll out the Red Carpet of Opportunity for All, please:
That's what the US Constitution is.
And That's what Trump is for.
>"Trump haters do not have the will to comprehend the good that trump is trying to do." Why not? <
I'll give you several reasons why not.
1. He conspired with a foreign power to manipulate our democracy. Proof of that will be demonstrated very shortly with the flipping of Paul Manafort.
2. He has sided with Russia over the US intelligence community with regard to Russian interference in our democracy. And he did that before the whole world in Helsinki. Both of those disqualify and completely smother anything that he could do to earn the respect of the people. that's a game changer for anything that you would consider the "good" that he's done. But there's so much more.
2. He's a racist, a misogynist, a religious bigot.. And he demonstrated ALL of those traits in full view of the entire country.
3. He's a pathological liar. He told YOU and everybody that he would build a wall on the southern border, and Mexico would pay for it. And you believed him. He's a con-artist.
5. He's insulted and alienated our allies that have been our allies for the past 70 years. He's shunned them and is now siding with Russia, and North Korea.
6. He's threatened NATO.
7.He's attacked our democratic institutions such as the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the entire intelligence community that is charged with keeping us safe. He's exposed national security intelligence to hostile foreign governments such as Russia. He attacks the media and the free press, the first Amendment and the entire constitution itself.
8.. He attacks private citizens that might criticize him with avalanche of venom on twitter and uses that technology to bully anybody that he considers his enemy.
9.He's a moral degenerate, having cheated on his wife after she gave birth to his son, with a Porn star, a Playboy playmate,. and then paid them hush money to cover up the story. and has been accused by 19 other women of being a sexual predator.
10. He's a clinical narcissist with a massive insecurity complex and a totally out of control ego. Why you would accept anybody that brags about "knowing all the best words" and being so smart, and how rich he is, is beyond me, but it is a reflection on YOU. Nobody that is truly smart has to tell you that he's smart. Really wealthy people don't brag about how rich they are. What adult do you know in your life that acts like that? He acts like a child. Maybe 4th grade schoolyard bully. I've had children. I know the difference between and adult and a child. Trump acts like a child. If you can't see that, then you're a failure as a parent.
So...those are just a few of the things that totally bury and override any of the so-called good that you seem to think he's done for this country. Only 35% of public approves of him. Our reputation around the world is in the toilet, and you think that he's done so much for the country.
I would say that these things and others not only disqualify him as a competent president, but set the stage for his impeachment.
>"That's what the US Constitution is.
And That's what Trump is for."<
Trump is not for the US Constitution so please don't suggest that he is. It's simply not the case. One of the first things he offered in the campaign was the Muslim Ban. ( I Donald J. Trump hereby call for the immediate halt to allowing Muslims to enter the country") do you understand the first Amendment??? You can't ban a religion from this country. It's a violation of the Establishment Clause of the first Amendment. He isn't "for" the US Constitution. He's never read it. He has no idea of what it's about and he can't stand the idea that it restricts him in anyway, which is why he wants Kavanaugh on the Court. Kavanaugh would vote to expand Presidential powers to shield him from any investigation, subpoena, or indictment in any crime he's involved in. That would put him above the Law. Nobody in this country is above the law. Would you accept that? Would you accept Trump being above the law and not bound by the US Constitution?
>"They should hate the fact that THEY can't figure out how to make money"<
There's more to life than money
>" Instead they want to blame someone else for their miseries and failures."<
Which is the exact description of the Trump voter. Pointing fingers and blaming others for their own misery. They are all about grievance and hate. They believe that minorities and immigrants are to blame for all their problems and of course their hatred of both those groups are demonstrated in full view of everybody at every Trump rally.
Odd - I've never had a single Trump voter express that. Not even one. Perhaps you need to re-think...to dump the liberal lies and think it out for yourself. Talk to conservatives and see what their actual complaints are rather than listening to the talking heads in Washington and swallowing their lies whole.
Then apparently you haven't been watching what's going on. The vitriol and venom coming out of a Trump rally is off the charts. Trump points his fingers at all of those that he blames for all of our problems. He does that all the time. He even makes up names for people. How would you characterize those that march with torches chanting "Blood and Soil", a term from Nazi Germany and the hatred directed at minorities and immigrants. Trump's very first appearance when he announced that Mexico isn't sending us their best, They're sending rapists and murderers. looking to take your jobs and kill your family. And his followers cheer and join in with the mob mentality that we see at all the rally's. Conservatives that I've listened to, can't stand Trump and have left the Republican party. Trumps no conservative and neither are his followers. As for lies, I think you might want to rethink that comment. Trump has no equal when it comes to lying, ( Have we gotten a check from Mexico yet for that wall that he promised they'd pay for? And did you actually believe him? Here's a sample. https://www.politifact.com/personalitie … ing/false/
For instance: Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court because Mr. Gorsuch was "someone who would 'interpret the law as written" and "insure the rule of law."
Really? We've had 44 out of 45 presidents that were White men. Why are you making this about race?
>"Its a pity that Trump is white.
Just a pity.
If he were any other race he would be cut more slack."
You're making all of this about RACE?? Why are you making this about race? Do you understand that by doing that you reveal your own racism? So you're a racist?? Ok .I get it. .. young and dumb,,,and racist too. That's quite a combination.
"Its a pity that Trump is white.
Just a pity.
If he were any other race he would be cut more slack."
Why are you injecting race into this?
>because the LEFT does."
If they jumped off a bridge would you do that too? Nobody on the "left" said that. You did. By injecting race into this discussion, You just demonstrated your own racism. It's clearly an issue for you as you've just demonstrated for everyone here. I take it you haven't figured that out yet. Give it some thought. Maybe it'll sink in.
Its a pity Trump is rich.
But then, if he wasn't, he wouldn't have been able to run for president ...
and save America from the (Extreme Left) Democrat follies.
So, you like the P***ygrabber. Interesting. You like men that cheat on their wives. That black guy that came before him, never did that. He didn't have affairs with Porn stars and Playboy models. What would you have thought about him, if he had done any of that? I think I know the answer.
So a lot of people here DON"T LIKE Trump , wow , how colorful the reasons , how phony the reasons , how delusionary those who just plain hate him and just can't admit the hate so have to invent crimes , invent psychoanalysis , morally judge someone they don't really know ?
I'll say one thing , we who despised Obama for obvious political reasons at least did so because of ideological analysis and not rather immature , personally motivated , pure and simple hatred .
Congratulations , it shows more your mentality than Trumps .
I just posted 10 reasons why Trump is despised and should be removed from office. Not a single one of those reasons is "made up" or "invented". They're documented. 5 members of his campaign team have pleaded guilty to crimes and have flipped on him and are cooperating with authorities. 35 others have been indicted. And there are more to come. The President of the United States is not just the political leader and CIC, he also must possess the moral fiber required to set an example to the world of what American values are. I don't have to know Trump personally to know that he's morally, emotionally and mentally unfit for the office. I can see it with my own eyes.
You despised Obama because he was black. We know that. We despise Trump because he's a threat to our very democracy and has sided with a foreign power over our own country's intelligence community. He believes Putin rather than our own intelligence people on the Russian involvement in our system. He's a tool. A useful idiot for another country. A puppet. He's also an immature moron and acts like a petulant 7 year old schoolyard bully with a massive insecurity complex. A narcissistic bully, who actually seems to believe his self-proclaimed greatness. . He's an admitted Sexual predator who has supported and praised other predators like Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Judge Roy Moore, and now Brett Kavanaugh. I could go on, but those are just a few of the reasons why he likely won't finish his first term.
See , there you have it , you posted a list of BS. all one through ten of them . Sorry pal but you're sounding more and more like Jake here , inventing your own political realities . Trump was elected wasn't he ? OR your visions of high "moral fabric " would havve meant he wouldn't be elected.
Trump represents a movement that you totally ignored while living in your little corner of political correctness up there in Bernie La La Land , face it Trump blindsided your party's perfectly fitted naivete , it can't be all Obama polish , shine and socialist cow manure . Once in a while a leader has to be in charge . And leading Trump is !
None of it is BS. All of it is true.
>"Trump was elected wasn't he ? "<
He won the electoral college. He lost the popular vote by 3 million.
>"OR your visions of high "moral fabric " would havve meant he wouldn't be elected."<
Wrong. The one doesn't automatically result in the other. A functional brain would know that. You don't. So...what are we to conclude about you? But one thing we can determine is that Trump and his minions and that would include you, are completely lacking in anything close to moral fabric.
>" Trump represents a movement "<
So did Hitler and we saw how that turned out. And bowel movements don't count.
>"face it Trump blindsided your party's perfectly fitted naivete"<
With the help of Russian espionage. Trump is a stooge. He's a useful idiot. A puppet of Putin. He took Putin's word over our own intelligence agencies. because Putin owns him and you're simply to ignorant to see it. He's a traitor and he'll be removed from office. What will you have to say then?
>" Once in a while a leader has to be in charge . And leading Trump is !"<
Right over a cliff, and like a lemming you follow. How pathetic. You follow a narcissistic egomaniac that needs to have that ego stroked constantly or he lashes out at those that don't praise him. He attacks anybody that criticizes him. He's totally unfit for the job. He's too thin-skinned and can't stand criticism. He needs a padded cell.
Adagio my friend , Did you just say I was too ignorant to see it ? Seems like that's a reportable offense around here , at least it is for conservatives , ANYBODY in moderators listening ?
Do you know what "ignorant" means? No? Apparently you're ignorant of the meaning of the word. Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge). The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used to describe individuals who deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts. You ignored those 10 facts that I presented and you did it deliberately because it doesn't fit your narrative regarding Trump. So ignorant, comes from the word IGNORE, which is what I'll probably do with you in the near future.
Are you an expert in music theory? No? then you're ignorant of that subject. Are you an expert in rocket science? No? Then you're ignorant of that subject too. Are you an expert in Logic? No? once again your ignorance is demonstrated. It's not a pejorative. Once you learn about something, you're no longer ignorant of that subject. But we live in a society today that frowns on knowledge and regards it as sinister, or devious, or sly, or diabolical. Ignorance is bliss. I find ignorance to be lazy.
I lived in Bernie kingdom for twenty years of my life , Bernie attacks the crowds of nineteen year olds like they were his OTHER illegitimate offspring and he actually cared about them and not the socialism that he wet -dreams of . I believe he has one hidden desire , to be young and not so bright again .
>" young and dumb?"<
Did you really believe that Mexico would pay for the Wall? Yeah...who's Young and dumb? How do you feel about women being molested? Trump admitted to that. And He thinks Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly and Roy Moore and Brett Kavanaugh are great guys. You're ok with that? Young and dumb, huh? Is that your excuse?
Are you a big fan of Putin? Trump is. You must be. Do you like the idea of another country injecting themselves into our elections? Young and dumb, eh? I guess so.
Adagio , Apparently there is a two sided coin in forum moderation around here in calling people names , while THAT does not surprise me at all , I am still surprised you're getting away with it .
So let's talk about political "ignorance" , You belong to a party that still hasn't admitted a political election defeat , you assume somehow that the elected President , well..... isn't the president , You also insist on believing somehow that the popular vote elects the president when we STILL have what's called an electoral college , Your party also is still hanging on every apology speech tour that Hillary is fully willing to get paid to give . You belong to a party of Obstructionists who're still in denial of the fact we live in a representative republic and not a voting democracy , But Hey .........I'm the ignorant guy ?
@Adagio: I'm freaking old too! but at least I'm not NUMB! (four years younger than Ed.) so we have a lot of similar experiences regarding where the nation has been.
We care about where it is headed, because both of us have ancestors that fought in American Revolution. (Right Ed. ahorseback?) its in our DNA. Some might think we should apologize.
But we can't.
Well, I don't.
>" I'm freaking old too! but at least I'm not NUMB! (four years younger than Ed.) so we have a lot of similar experiences regarding where the nation has been."<
I'm not really convinced about that based on what you've posted. And being 4 years younger than Ed really means nothing to me since I have no idea what his age is, but I'd be willing to bet that I'm older than both of you, and I too care very much where this country is headed. My father fought in WWII against the Nazi's and I see that same kind of fascism growing right here in this country. I'm not interested in an authoritarian autocracy. We saw that in Germany in the 1930's. It doesn't end well.
Your ancestry means nothing to me, so I don't know why you would bring that up.
>"its in our DNA."<
No. Your DNA reveals genetic characteristics. It doesn't care about whether you had ancestors from the Revolution. You could be related to George Washington but that doesn't demonstrate anything about you or give you a get out of jail free card or any reason to be taken seriously about anything. . Are you a member of the DAR?? I always found them to be an obnoxious group of elitist twits.
>"You belong to a party "<
Oops...wrong. I'm not a member of any party. Never have been.
>"you assume somehow that the elected President , well..... isn't the president"<
The election was a fraud. That makes Trump a fraud. Well...actually he's always been a fraud. He was sued and had to pay $25 million in his fraudulent Trump University scam. So we've always know that he's a fraud. Now he's occupying the White House, but he's not a legitimate President. He's an embarrassment. Today at the UN, the world laughed at us. He made a fool of himself and all of us in the process.
>"You also insist on believing somehow that the popular vote elects the president when we STILL have what's called an electoral college"<
Nahh...I know how it works. But that doesn't change the fact that he lost the popular vote by 3 million. So I'm not insisting on anything like that. What I am saying is that we have proof that the Russians interfered in our election and Trump refuses to accept that because his ego can't allow for the idea that he needed help from an outside source to win the election. We have an ongoing investigation that has produced 5 guilty pleas and verdicts and 35 indictments. and it's not even 2 years into his first term. He's involved himself in Collusion/Conspiracy to defraud the American people in the 2016 election,, Money laundering, obstruction of justice. I think he's a traitor to this country. I think the entire world see's him as a clown and all of us as nuts for electing him.
>" Your party also is still hanging on every apology speech tour that Hillary is fully willing to get paid to give ."<
Not my party. I already told you. I'm an independent and always have been. But why should Hillary not be paid for giving speeches? What's wrong with getting paid to give a speech?
>"You belong to a party of Obstructionists who're still in denial of the fact we live in a representative republic and not a voting democracy , But Hey .........I'm the ignorant guy ?"<
You admit to it? Good. and we're a democratic/republic. As for being obstructionist. There are so many examples I could offer from the 8 years of Obama to rebut that, but I'll just use this: Merrick Garland. That's the Granddaddy of obstruction. When it comes to obstruction, your party wrote the book. Nuff said.
No one makes anything about race as much as liberals do and have for fifty years ! Even African Americans have more sense than that , Adagio , For god sakes people , let it go . Who has paid more for the worldwide cost of the presence of the WORLD's slavery than Americans today ?
Time for the media's major prejudice to just shut it down .
>"No one makes anything about race as much as liberals do and have for fifty years !"<
She just did. And the only reason that you're saying that is because liberals supported Civil Rights while Conservatives opposed it. So you've been howling ever since that we bring up race. The truth is that we call out racism whenever we see it, and I just saw it right here from Ms Hill. So, I point it out. Maybe, just maybe one day, somebody from your way of thinking will see that racism is a disease in this country that should be eradicated, and the only way to do that is for the racist to be aware of his own racism.
>"Even African Americans have more sense than that , Adagio , "<
Oh really? Even African Americans? Wow, no kidding? When did you begin speaking for African Americans about what constitutes racism? What would you know about it? You're white.
Adagio , Liberals always throw the old horse blanket charges of "Racism " at conservatives and not just in political election debate cycles , It's always done especially to acquire political and media capital , no ?
Let's take one perfect example , your state of residence and my birth state , Vermont . Highly liberal , ultra liberal in fact since 1970 , African American by population 1 % ? Incarcerated African American by population 10 % , can you explain that ideological phenomena ? Perhaps these prisoners have been in jails since 1970 when Vermont WAS politically conservative ?
Where are these African American incarcerated actually from in Vermont jails ? From other liberal enclaves , NY state , Massachusetts , Connecticut , New Jersey , would you care to tell us how these states are politically run ? Democrats !
Interesting how the rhetoric from your party never explains the ultimate truths in the numbers ? So to your question , "What would you know about it You're
Answer , Apparently Just a little more than you do !
>" It's always done especially to acquire political and media capital , no ?"<
No. That's a cynical defense mechanism from conservatives with a guilty conscience. Ms. Hill just created a racist post. She's probably not even aware of it. Out of nowhere, she' goes here: ""Its a pity that Trump is white.Just a pity. If he were any other race he would be cut more slack."
So for no apparent reason she throws race into the discussion,. Why?, because it's on her mind of course. She's revealing her own racism, because that's what a racist does. Obviously she's posting what she's thinking. She clumsily tries to make the case that everything is about race, and if only Trump weren't white, he'd get better treatment because "everybody knows" that non-whites get special treatment. That's a grievance argument. So when I ask her, Why is she bringing up race? Her response is because "the Left do it". But you can't blame others, ( which is exactly what I was saying Trump and his followers are doing) for your own mistakes.
If your argument is because the "Left" do it, and then you offer YOUR supporting claim that "Liberals always throw the old horse blanket charges of "Racism " at conservatives and not just in political election debate cycles , It's always done especially to acquire political and media capital , no ?" and you offer it as a complaint of something liberals do that you find wrong headed....Then why would you and others engage in something that you know is wrong?
What she's doing and what you're supporting is a logical fallacy known as Tu Quoque. The tu quoque fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because someone else has done a thing there is nothing wrong with doing it. This fallacy is classically committed by children who, when told off, respond with “So and so did it too”, ( because the Left does it) with the implied conclusion that there is nothing wrong with doing whatever it is that they have done. This is a fallacy because it could be that both children are in the wrong, and because, as we were all taught, two wrongs don’t make a right.
She's using the argument that two wrongs make a right. And so are you.
That's a form of the ad hominem attack, which is a fallacious argument. It has no validity.
But you also go for the ad hominem with the argument you're making right now.
This type of ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view which I always present, but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them because of where they live. VERMONT for example. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than their address,, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. It's Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists,Christians, Muslims, communists, capitalists, or what state they live in, is fallacious.
So...you and Ms Hill undermine your own argument with these nonsensical ad hominem attacks rather than the rationality of the argument that is being made. All you know is that your tribe is opposed to the other tribe and therefore it's your obligation to draw blood whenever you can regardless of the logic and reason that is used. You ignore evidence that supports a different argument and simply call it "fake" despite the Factual basis that the argument rests on. You've accepted an alternative reality that nobody is going to buy, and apparently you hope that this alternative reality will be accepted as real by enough people so that your grievances and blame game will be seen as legitimate.
Meanwhile the leader of this insanity is being laughed at by world leaders at the UN. Do you actually think that the world is going to bend to an ideology as irrational as this?
>"Interesting how the rhetoric from your party ( I'm not a member of a party) never explains the ultimate truths in the numbers ? So to your question , "What would you know about it You're white ?" Answer , Apparently Just a little more than you do !
I'm afraid that argument isn't going to work. You can't very well speak to what African/Americans think or believe, when you aren't African/American. That's about as fundamental is it gets.
>""Even African Americans have more sense than that , Adagio , "<
Oh really? Even African Americans? Wow, no kidding? When did you begin speaking for African Americans about what constitutes racism? What would you know about it? You're white.
You didn't understand anything about my response did you? Read it again? when I said, Oh Really? Even African Americans?? Wow, No kidding", I was being sarcastic and sending you a message which apparently was too subtle for you. When you say "EVEN African Americans have more sense than that" what you're saying is that African Americans have no sense at all. That they're really stupid, but the subject matter you're talking about is Sooooooooooo simple that even an African American could understand it. That's like me saying that 2+2=4 is so simple that. even a moron like YOU can understand that.
And no...you don't get to speak for African Americans. You're white. You're a conservative and conservatives opposed Civil Rights, and that means you're unqualified to speak for African Americans or what they might think. When you renounce racism and all racists, then you can legitimize your argument. Until then...you're on the outside of that debate.
You know what the dumbest thing is Horse, Ed or whatever you are calling yourself, these days.? I am still Credence by the way.
"Even, We, as African Americans have more sense?" Since when do you get to discount our intellectual ability, and how are you so qualified? One that cannot properly punctuate a sentence is the Rhodes Scholar around here? As Adagio mentioned, how the hell do you know who we are and what we are all about? You have to be joking.... It got to be that right wing arrogance that confuses ignorance for erudition.
That is the problem with the GOP and the Conservatives, the display of disrespect for our people and our aspirations. And, as a result, I don't like you folks very much. Those that disrespect and hold me in derision do not ever get far enough to present anything to me. Pick up Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People", it is a good read.
Now the conservatives and the GOP can hope that there remains enough sclerotic old white men to keep the party afloat in the coming years, or get smart and learn how to appeal to others, if they want to have any chance in the future.
Our electorate is fired up, so you can choose to ignore what that is going to mean; a case of the blue flu for all of you.
Adagio , Credence , Tu quoque ? If conservatives have fInally learned the strategies of the good old Alinsky left , Good on us !
How boring though to accuse conservatives of falsehoods ; have you listened to YOUR party and it's news media of late ? The US Pravda ?
Credence I am thinking of how many times you have told people here to stop hiding behind images and fake names ? Welcome to the club CREDENCE , ADAGIO , this is at least my real name . unlike many forum trolls here . And to listen to you people complain "What do you know about it , you are white " ?
Yes , white Scot's-Irish , but I know one thing , at least I've read and learned enough real history to know that the Democratic party completely ignores history and in fact suffers from major regurgitator effect with historical reality , but then political correctness has not served your party well at all , has it now ?
Adagio , I see you've completely ignored my facts about Vermont , it's democratically held racist policies and demographics . That must have hurt a little. Especially given that the Department of Justice is actively looking into racial profiling by Vermont police departments , No comment there I suppose either ?
Truth be told , The democratic party is imploding in America to the point that the News Media is bailing constantly to keep you ideologically afloat . Maybe that is why you lost a combined 1000 seats in various state and national offices in 2016 and ,by the looks may be repeated in this years mid terms , I have said many times here before . I used to belong to the Democratic party and moved away from it when I realized it's illicit love affair with political hypocrisy . Trump African American approval at election 8% now pushing 30 +% ?
Adagio ,"......... Not a member of a party......... " ,Well you hide that very well in your ideological sputter . ....Not. My comment , "Even African Americans have more sense ..................." I am defining that they are moving to Trump and away from the obvious liberal servitude that your party continually holds them to with your ideological lies .
Good luck in Nov. .......Oh and of course ,stay independent .
I know a liberal when I see one.
by VC L Veasey 2 years ago
Is The Confederate Flag A Symbol Of White Supremacy And Racism?
by Kathryn L Hill 4 months ago
... or not?
by feenix 3 years ago
A black Baltimore man recently died while in police custody, and it is widely suspected that his death resulted from police misconduct and brutality. Well, I say, regardless of all that, thousands of blacks should NOT be out in the streets rioting. In my opinion, their rioting is nothing but a case...
by Credence2 3 years ago
I wanted to add my voice to what Don and wrenchBuscuit were trying to explain. I think that it deserves a more in depth evaluation. I probably should have done a hub.White supremacy is not only something physical but acts at the subconscious level.The PBS special a few years ago entitled Guns,...
by Jack Lee 22 hours ago
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … izens.htmlThe Census is conducted anonymously every 10 years as dictated by our Constitution. Yet, in 2019, we are debating whether we can ask if someone is a citizen or not?If we can’t ask this simple basic question? What is the point of taking a...
by Jack Lee 2 hours ago
Our country needs to have a real conversation about climate change, the science, the myth, the possible solutions, and the impact on every aspect of our lives...We have been told the science is settled by Al Gore. Is it?We have been told we humans are the cause? Are we really?We have been told...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|