paranoid yet?

[iain]

[RobBob]

This is ponderous as shit, people.

[Jim]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[MtnGoat]

"Good job missing MtnGoat's point that, you, as one who feels entitled to a part of the fruits of my labor without my consent are indeed enslaving me."

 

Some not only feel entitled to force you to spend a portion of your irretrievable lifespan funding what they wish to have paid for using their belief system as the standard, they also feel entitled to compel you to act in ways that serve their beliefs other than just taking your money.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"so are you entitled to the labor of your slaves? hypothetically speaking"

 

In my religion, no. Nor are you entitled to my labor.

[allison]

JB, give it up. You will get absolutely nowhere with these guys.

[RobBob]

Ahem, Mtngoat, sir. This is your employer. Get back to work!!

[Greg_W]

JB, give it up. You will get absolutely nowhere with these guys.

 

Maybe, Allison, that is because he can't adequately defend his position. If one has a position that can be adequately defended, even if I don't agree, I can respect that. j_b is just clutching at bullshit straws.

[j_b]

JB, give it up. You will get absolutely nowhere with these guys.

 

you are quite right of course. But it is always a pleasure to expose in full light what they really stand for.

[Greg_W]

You haven't uncovered shit except that you cannot adequately defend your beliefs. If you would like to know what I believe, let's get together and we can discuss it.

[j_b]

You haven't uncovered shit except that you cannot adequately defend your beliefs.

 

everybody can read by themselves what you wrote about slavery: "from a white owner's standpoint it sounds right to me: I'm getting my fields harvested, putting some people to work, and making good money with minimal cash outlay. Plus, I get a little strange on the side every once in a while"

 

 

 

[Greg_W]

Have you ever heard of playing the devil's advocate, you nitwit?

[MtnGoat]

"But it is always a pleasure to expose in full light what they really stand for."

 

And what would that be, exactly? What do we "really" stand for? Tell us what we're hiding, what we won't actually say but you "really" know what another person means. Lay it out for us, and if you're right about me, I'll own right up to it, because I'll gladly take responsibility for my own beliefs publicly.

 

Are you bringing into "full light" some are standing up to your interpretation of morality being objective and innate, while you use this basis to jusitify imposing it on others, wether or not you *personally* threaten others?

 

I'll bring that to full light right now! No lines no waiting.

 

We have a claimant here saying his morality is objective, and non relative morality, just like the pope says his morality is neither subjective nor relative. And yet you do not share the same exact value system. That's (at least) one too many objective, non relative value systems.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"everybody can read by themselves what you wrote about slavery: "from a white owner's standpoint it sounds right to me: I'm getting my fields harvested, putting some people to work........"

 

Everybody can also read he never claimed to be a slaveowner, want to be a slaveowner, nor support this viewpoint, it only serves to illustrate subjectivity of the subject.

 

If what you are "bringing to full light" is based on this kind of misreading of someones conversation with you, maybe it's time to actually ask the person if they believe that.

 

[j_b]

What do we "really" stand for?

 

I don't need to interpret. Anybody can read.

 

We have a claimant here saying his morality is objective

 

no. you are saying this not me. I did not claim anything about my morals. On the contrary, I said that assessing human rights violation had nothing to do with morality. I am asking you again: does a slave need morality to decide whether his condition is wrong? (and don't obfuscate by asking the meaning of wrong!)

 

Everybody can also read he never claimed to be a slaveowner, want to be a slaveowner, nor support this viewpoint, it only serves to illustrate subjectivity of the subject.

 

His statement amounted to a justification for slavery. This much is clear enough ....

[Greg_W]

j_b = clueless fucking idiot

[RobBob]

I read these posts and am reminded of The Walrus and the Carpenter:

 

...The Walrus and the Carpenter

Were walking close at hand;

They wept like anything to see

Such quantities of sand:

"If this were only cleared away,"

They said, "it would be grand!"

 

 

"If seven maids with seven mops

Swept it for half a year.

Do you suppose," the Walrus said,

"That they could get it clear?"

"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,

And shed a bitter tear... (etc.)

 

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"On the contrary, I said that assessing human rights violation had nothing to do with morality."

 

Now this is an interesting statement. How can you possibly assess violations if you're not going to use morality to determine what the violations are?

 

 

"I am asking you again: does a slave need morality to decide whether his condition is wrong?"

 

Yes, he does. Wrong is a moral value, so is finding ones situation unjust even in ones own eyes, so morality again becomes the central point.

 

"(and don't obfuscate by asking the meaning of wrong!)"

 

Don't obfuscate by claiming "wrong" has an absolute meaning. What was wrong for the slave, was right for the slave owner. What is OK for a thief is not OK for his victim, and they're both viewing the same act.

 

"His statement amounted to a justification for slavery. This much is clear enough .... "

 

Yes, it was a justification for slavery.....from the slaveowners perspective, which he never claimed to share.