posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:23 PM
"You have a deep love for objectivity. And humans aren't objects."
This is the best you could come up with? Semantics? Had I simply rephrased the statement differently using 'impartiality'' instead of
'objectivity' would you tell me people aren't partials ? This is ridiculous.
"So long as you have some view that there is some "objective" reason for some humans to be classified as commodities, you'll fail."
Very good. That is exactly what I was looking for. The simple admission that the anti-slavery bias is an emotional reaction based on cultural
conditioning and that those with this particular bias believe they have the right to force their beliefs and cultural conditioning upon others, and I
understand that if I attempt to claim this as more, as objectively evil, I will fail.
"Societies that are rejecting that model are progressing so much faster than their counterparts that they are have literally had to go out of their
way to cripple themselves to not destroy every other culture."
I have no memory of the South going out of their way to cripple themselves to not destroy every other culture. What are you talking about?
"That progress, and better lives and more opportunities have abounded at a pace which exponentially has increased their societies and individual
gains beyond anything ever conceived of in all of history. Every day.
There is an objective reason for you."
The technological, medical, scientific advances in the last 100 years can be somehow attributed to civil rights law? Forgive me but I do not see
"But it still doesn't touch the real source of the problem. Some ideologies can be understood and thought about, without being given MERIT. I can
UNDERSTAND a cultural concept I find abhorrent, without feeling the need to give it equal status. It is an idea. To even allow it to have space on the
table as a possible okay concept, you need to accept that human-as-commodity deserves some play as a possibility."
Yes but doesn't that all depend on who has sufficient power to do the deciding as to which ideologies deserve MERIT? In the 1940s Nazi German decided
that the beliefs of certain groups did not deserve MERIT. Did the fact that they were the source of authority in that country at the time justify
their decision? Did it make them correct? And if not then exactly who gets to make these decisions and was is the basis for their authority?
You can be objective without being tolerant to the point of ridiculousness.
That's funny. It is exactly what I would expect to hear from a racist discussing interracial dating. "Yes, my dear. I can understand you wanting to
help black people get better housing, but to actually date them? Let us not push the idea of being tolerant to the point of ridiculousness."
Forgive me but I do not wish to use the same arguments as these people. If I truly believe my view to be superior than I should have a superior
But the people who like this idea will continue to push that their sociopathology deserves equal consideration. Just because they say it with passion,
doesn't make it so. That their "concept" is so selfish, so self-serving, so gross in its consequences is enough to make it clear that such people
do not argue from a point of morals, culture, or even humanness. They are USING morals and ethics to twist you and hit you with it as a weapon. For
they have NONE, and therefore do not feel constrained by ethical consideration of any kind.
Again, an argument similar to something I would expect to hear in Nazi Germany used against Jews or used by a racist against those supporting
interracial marriage or by slave owners against the abolitionist.
Not all cultural phenomena are equal. Not here, not anywhere.
Perhaps but the obvious question that follows is who gets to decide which are? To simply say I do, or people who will support my view do sounds a bit
like when Bush said dictatorship might not be so bad as long as he got to be the dictator. How do we criticize that argument if we indulge in the
exact same type of logic?
Forget it. I got it. The neo-Platonist decided that what was evil was only what people decided it was and only for so long as they so decided.
When asked in the future what is wrong with slavery other than the fact that I do not approve of it personally, I will reply "It is against the
current social norms". I personally think that's a pretty weak, lame, pathetic argument but it seems no one here can provide me with a better one.
It also forces me to agree that should society change and allow it there can be no objective arguments against it, it having fulfilled all the
requirements needed to be considered a 'social norm'.
Yeah, OK. I understand. Thanks for the assist.