LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Valgora]

He literally raped a fuckton of his slaves Proct, pls. Never mind the fact that he was enslaving people which was in and of itself heinous and should be condemned regardless, considering there were plenty of people that didn't own slaves.

In the meanwhile Marx was the father of illegitimate children which was never recognized by him. Sounds a bit tyrannical, doesn't it?

If true, having illegitimate children ain't no where near as bad as raping one's slaves.

[Great Minarchistan]

I vote myself <3

Sure, why not?

Because I'm the one who should do it :^)

[Great Minarchistan]

In the meanwhile Marx was the father of illegitimate children which was never recognized by him. Sounds a bit tyrannical, doesn't it?

If true, having illegitimate children ain't no where near as bad as raping one's slaves.

Do you have any sort of moral calculator to weigh two atrocious actions and decide which is the worst? Or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

[Proctopeo]

In the meanwhile Marx was the father of illegitimate children which was never recognized by him. Sounds a bit tyrannical, doesn't it?

If true, having illegitimate children ain't no where near as bad as raping one's slaves.

The evolution of moral standards between the times of the two people should be taken into account here.

[Valgora]

If true, having illegitimate children ain't no where near as bad as raping one's slaves.

Do you have any sort of moral calculator to weigh two atrocious actions and decide which is the worst? Or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

I'm taking the act of having sex with someone and having an illegitimate child and then comparing to the act of raping one's slaves (multiple times).
Upon comparing said acts, I have determined that raping slaves is worse than having an illegitimate child.

[Great Minarchistan]

I'm taking the act of having sex with someone and having an illegitimate child and then comparing to the act of raping one's slaves (multiple times).
Upon comparing said acts, I have determined that raping slaves is worse than having an illegitimate child.

You could just boil your word salad to: "I think Jefferson had it worst because I want it to be so".

[Valgora]

I'm taking the act of having sex with someone and having an illegitimate child and then comparing to the act of raping one's slaves (multiple times).
Upon comparing said acts, I have determined that raping slaves is worse than having an illegitimate child.

You could just boil your word salad to: "I think Jefferson had it worst because I want it to be so".

Then you cooked it wrong.

Boiling it down would result in: "I think Jefferson did worse because raping slaves is worse than having an illegitimate child in my opinion."

[Great Minarchistan]

Boiling it down would result in: "I think Jefferson did worse because raping slaves is worse than having an illegitimate child in my opinion."

Referring back to my first question, which shows that you didn't do any calculated decision to determine which is worse, rather you just settled in and said "I think this is worse!"

[Valgora]

Boiling it down would result in: "I think Jefferson did worse because raping slaves is worse than having an illegitimate child in my opinion."

Referring back to my first question, which shows that you didn't do any calculated decision to determine which is worse, rather you just settled in and said "I think this is worse!"

I am my own calculator. And I did make a calculated decision to determine which is worse.

[Torrocca]

Referring back to my first question, which shows that you didn't do any calculated decision to determine which is worse, rather you just settled in and said "I think this is worse!"

I am my own calculator. And I did make a calculated decision to determine which is worse.

GM's argument is your brain on nonexistent morals.

[Torrocca]

He literally raped a fuckton of his slaves Proct, pls. Never mind the fact that he was enslaving people which was in and of itself heinous and should be condemned regardless, considering there were plenty of people that didn't own slaves.

In the meanwhile Marx was the father of a illegitimate child which was never recognized by him. Sounds a bit tyrannical, doesn't it?

Jefferson: *Enslaves six* hundred or so people on the basis of skin color and rapes the fuck out of all the women repeatedly*
Marx: *Has one illegitimate child born from a consensual act of intimacy*
You: "I LiTeRaLLy CaN'T sEe ThE diFfErEnCe!!1!!1!"

[Valgora]

In the meanwhile Marx was the father of a illegitimate child which was never recognized by him. Sounds a bit tyrannical, doesn't it?

Jefferson: *Enslaves a hundred or so people on the basis of skin color and rapes the fuck out of all the women repeatedly*
Marx: *Has one illegitimate child born from a consensual act of intimacy*
You: "I LiTeRaLLy CaN'T sEe ThE diFfErEnCe!!1!!1!"

Reminds me of the person on here who said Marx's views supporting gender equality mean nothing because Marx was a womanizer.
Because apparently having casual sex with many women means that you can't support gender equality.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

In the meanwhile Marx was the father of a illegitimate child which was never recognized by him. Sounds a bit tyrannical, doesn't it?

Unlike many (maybe most) supporters of the current U.S. president, Marxists don't worship Marx.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It was absolutely legal to emancipate your slaves, and it happened all the time for various reasons.

IIRC isn't the whole "you can't legally do that" why Washington still owned slaves, despite hating the institution?

Also, holding everyone to universal moral standards is the opposite of arbitrary. Judging people according to the culture in which they live is what is arbitrary.

Looking at things in the context of the time is superior to pretending that applying modern standards to people hundreds of years ago makes any sense.

If you believe the modern standard is a universally correct standard, then no. If you believe the cultural context of the time excuses moral wrongs, then that makes morality completely arbitrary. We could say that Hitler wasn't evil because he was acting in the context of Nazi morality.

[Genivaria]

In the meanwhile Marx was the father of a illegitimate child which was never recognized by him. Sounds a bit tyrannical, doesn't it?

Unlike many (maybe most) supporters of the current U.S. president, Marxists don't worship Marx.

Okay now this I have to call out as bullshit, yes many Marxists practically worship Marx.

[Genivaria]

IIRC isn't the whole "you can't legally do that" why Washington still owned slaves, despite hating the institution?


Looking at things in the context of the time is superior to pretending that applying modern standards to people hundreds of years ago makes any sense.

If you believe the modern standard is a universally correct standard, then no. If you believe the cultural context of the time excuses moral wrongs, then that makes morality completely arbitrary. We could say that Hitler wasn't evil because he was acting in the context of Nazi morality.

And do we find Nazi morality to actually have any real basis?
I think the answer is no.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Unlike many (maybe most) supporters of the current U.S. president, Marxists don't worship Marx.

Okay now this I have to call out as bullshit, yes many Marxists practically worship Marx.

Certainly not to the extent that Americans worship the founding fathers.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If you believe the modern standard is a universally correct standard, then no. If you believe the cultural context of the time excuses moral wrongs, then that makes morality completely arbitrary. We could say that Hitler wasn't evil because he was acting in the context of Nazi morality.

And do we find Nazi morality to actually have any real basis?
I think the answer is no.

If we judge people based on the cultural context in which they committed their actions, then Nazi morality is basis enough.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

If you believe the modern standard is a universally correct standard, then no. If you believe the cultural context of the time excuses moral wrongs, then that makes morality completely arbitrary. We could say that Hitler wasn't evil because he was acting in the context of Nazi morality.

As a critical realist, I would contend that goodness is built into the nature of things. It is a universal. There is no such thing as nazi morality (or, for that matter, American or French morality). The nazis were simply evil.

[Genivaria]

Okay now this I have to call out as bullshit, yes many Marxists practically worship Marx.

Certainly not to the extent that Americans worship the founding fathers.

Ehhhhhh it's a mixed bag.
Considering that too many ignoramuses like to spout "The Founding Fathers supported THIS!" as if the Founding Fathers could fucking agree on anything.
It's easier to idolize an individual then a vague group I think.

[Genivaria]

And do we find Nazi morality to actually have any real basis?
I think the answer is no.

If we judge people based on the cultural context in which they committed their actions, then Nazi morality is basis enough.

Do we?

[Communist Xomaniax]

In the meanwhile Marx was the father of a illegitimate child which was never recognized by him. Sounds a bit tyrannical, doesn't it?

Jefferson: *Enslaves six* hundred or so people on the basis of skin color and rapes the fuck out of all the women repeatedly*
Marx: *Has one illegitimate child born from a consensual act of intimacy*
You: "I LiTeRaLLy CaN'T sEe ThE diFfErEnCe!!1!!1!"

Is this peak centrism or just rightlibs being rightlibs?

[Torrocca]

If we judge people based on the cultural context in which they committed their actions, then Nazi morality is basis enough.

Do we?

If you would so kindly scroll up, such has been done for Tommy Jefferson. :^)

Jefferson: *Enslaves six* hundred or so people on the basis of skin color and rapes the fuck out of all the women repeatedly*
Marx: *Has one illegitimate child born from a consensual act of intimacy*
You: "I LiTeRaLLy CaN'T sEe ThE diFfErEnCe!!1!!1!"

Is this peak centrists or just rightlibs being rightlibs?

Por que no los dos?

[United Muscovite Nations]

If we judge people based on the cultural context in which they committed their actions, then Nazi morality is basis enough.

Do we?

That is what I am questioning. I'm talking about "Nazi morality" as a rhetorical tool to undermine the idea of relative morality.

[Genivaria]

Do we?

If you would so kindly scroll up, such has been done for Tommy Jefferson. :^)

Is this peak centrists or just rightlibs being rightlibs?

Por que no los dos?

Fair enough.
Frankly though cultural context is a poor defense for slavery as the oldest and strongest argument against slavery comes from the slaves themselves, ask Spartacus or any other slaves who revolted what their thoughts on the matter are.