The Alma Mater wrote:
Comparing yourself to the Joker does not really help with the whole "not evil" thing
Gonna be honest, if anyone links anything of Chris Nolan's Joker and you take them seriously, that's on you.
Advertisement
by Kowani » Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:17 am
The Alma Mater wrote:
Comparing yourself to the Joker does not really help with the whole "not evil" thing
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:56 am
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:58 am
by The Two Jerseys » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:47 am
by Baltenstein » Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:27 am
Kowani wrote:Purpelia wrote:You literally just said that your goal is to watch the world burn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGhJ5FuxUZU
by The Alma Mater » Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:29 am
by Ifreann » Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:54 am
Trollgaard wrote:Alcala-Cordel wrote:Only it was till just as immoral and there was an anti-slavery movement then. Once again, there is no justification.
Not by a majority or large chunk of the population, no. You can't judge the past based on present beliefs, or beliefs a generation or two past their time. It doesn't work like that.
You have a very black and white view of this...and the world is much more grey on most matters.
Washington owned slaves, yes. Washington is also a hero and founder of this country, and was loved and respected in his day. He was a good man, and he is worthy of remembrance and praise.
Saiwania wrote:Alcala-Cordel wrote:He did own some of them, but regardless there's no excuse for having slaves. It's too terrible to dismiss or ignore. Washington was a slaveowner.
Blame the economics of the era more so than the people participating in it. Slavery was normal and accepted back then for the landed gentry or wealthy elites who primarily cared about staying rich or becoming even richer. Lets keep in mind that hard physical labor had much more value then than now. We have machines that can do a ton of work for us that simply didn't exist. We would probably still have slavery in the traditional sense if coerced manual labor still was more profitable than expensive.
Now it has evolved to wage slavery where people largely aren't free to spend their waking hours as they want to, people who aren't rich enough typically trade their time for money in the process of selling a service or skill they have. Nearly every method of generating income will have a downside in terms of what is required to bring about material gain.
by Northern Davincia » Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:17 am
Ifreann wrote:Washington was widely criticised in his day, even by other Founding Fathers. He was publicly called out during his lifetime for ostensibly fighting for freedom and liberty for all men while he held men in chains and forced them to work for him.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Ifreann » Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:29 am
Northern Davincia wrote:Ifreann wrote:Washington was widely criticised in his day, even by other Founding Fathers. He was publicly called out during his lifetime for ostensibly fighting for freedom and liberty for all men while he held men in chains and forced them to work for him.
Criticism against Washington was largely drowned out by the overwhelming praise for him.
Still, he corrected that inconsistency as best he could.
by Purpelia » Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:30 am
by The Emerald Legion » Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:36 am
Purpelia wrote:People must be judged solely based on the morals of their time. We can not impose modern morality on them. The reason is extremely simple. Morality is NOT ABSOLUTE. It CHANGES with every generation. The good of today is yesterdays evil and might be evil again tomorrow. And if we were to apply our morals to men of history than we must also be judged by the morals of those that are not yet born. Which is utterly insane of a proposition since we can obviously not be expected to behave in accordance to rules that have not been written yet.
by Northern Davincia » Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:38 am
Ifreann wrote:Northern Davincia wrote:Criticism against Washington was largely drowned out by the overwhelming praise for him.
Pay no attention to the rebellion against his whiskey tax.Still, he corrected that inconsistency as best he could.
The double think that emerges from the worship of Washington truly is something to behold. On one day he is single-handedly defeating the one of the most powerful empires the world had ever known, on another there is simply nothing he can do about all the slaves he owns except continue to grow rich from their labour.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Kowani » Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:38 am
Purpelia wrote:People must be judged solely based on the morals of their time. We can not impose modern morality on them. The reason is extremely simple. Morality is NOT ABSOLUTE. It CHANGES with every generation. The good of today is yesterdays evil and might be evil again tomorrow. And if we were to apply our morals to men of history than we must also be judged by the morals of those that are not yet born. Which is utterly insane of a proposition since we can obviously not be expected to behave in accordance to rules that have not been written yet.
by The Reformed American Republic » Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:43 am
Kowani wrote:...Except for the fact that communists think that the people should control and own the automation, and I don't. I...also don't think that worker ownership is the only way to achieve automation, though it is a way.An-Tanwir wrote:
Those two beliefs coexist. Communists too want us to reach full automation, but they believe that worker ownership of the means of production is the only way to advance technology to the point of full automation due to contradictory forces in capitalism caused by commodity production (assigning quantitative value to inherently qualitative goods and services).Increases in technology are limited by demand, of course. If I own a business that produces 10 commodities with $1 profit per commodity, and you offer me technology that would allow me to produce 100 commodities with $0.10 profit per commodity, but there's only, say, 50 consumers in the market, I would lose profit by switching to your technology.
This is not only untrue, it's bad analysis from any perspective.The Reformed American Republic wrote:Civic religions keeps society together. Your post modernist agenda will atomize society.
...What, did you think I didn't have an idea of what to fill in the blanks with?The Alma Mater wrote:
Multivac or Skynet ?
Neither. It cannot be all-knowing, and deliberate mass murder is...not really my goal.
by Kowani » Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:50 am
The Reformed American Republic wrote:What you propose would probably be some half baked idea that left-wing sociologists came up with, like seeing who can grandstand the most.
by Philjia » Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:56 am
Purpelia wrote:People must be judged solely based on the morals of their time. We can not impose modern morality on them. The reason is extremely simple. Morality is NOT ABSOLUTE. It CHANGES with every generation. The good of today is yesterdays evil and might be evil again tomorrow. And if we were to apply our morals to men of history than we must also be judged by the morals of those that are not yet born. Which is utterly insane of a proposition since we can obviously not be expected to behave in accordance to rules that have not been written yet.
by Ors Might » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:00 am
Purpelia wrote:People must be judged solely based on the morals of their time. We can not impose modern morality on them. The reason is extremely simple. Morality is NOT ABSOLUTE. It CHANGES with every generation. The good of today is yesterdays evil and might be evil again tomorrow. And if we were to apply our morals to men of history than we must also be judged by the morals of those that are not yet born. Which is utterly insane of a proposition since we can obviously not be expected to behave in accordance to rules that have not been written yet.
by Auze » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:27 am
by Ifreann » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:04 am
Purpelia wrote:People must be judged solely based on the morals of their time...
by Esotyrica » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:34 am
Purpelia wrote:People must be judged solely based on the morals of their time. We can not impose modern morality on them. The reason is extremely simple. Morality is NOT ABSOLUTE. It CHANGES with every generation. The good of today is yesterdays evil and might be evil again tomorrow. And if we were to apply our morals to men of history than we must also be judged by the morals of those that are not yet born. Which is utterly insane of a proposition since we can obviously not be expected to behave in accordance to rules that have not been written yet.
by Cisairse » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:40 am
Purpelia wrote:People must be judged solely based on the morals of their time. We can not impose modern morality on them. The reason is extremely simple. Morality is NOT ABSOLUTE. It CHANGES with every generation. The good of today is yesterdays evil and might be evil again tomorrow. And if we were to apply our morals to men of history than we must also be judged by the morals of those that are not yet born. Which is utterly insane of a proposition since we can obviously not be expected to behave in accordance to rules that have not been written yet.
by The Black Forrest » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:49 am
by The Reformed American Republic » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:50 am
Cisairse wrote:Purpelia wrote:People must be judged solely based on the morals of their time. We can not impose modern morality on them. The reason is extremely simple. Morality is NOT ABSOLUTE. It CHANGES with every generation. The good of today is yesterdays evil and might be evil again tomorrow. And if we were to apply our morals to men of history than we must also be judged by the morals of those that are not yet born. Which is utterly insane of a proposition since we can obviously not be expected to behave in accordance to rules that have not been written yet.
But we're not applying modern morality to historical figures. We're applying modern morality to inanimate statues that exist in modern society.
by Cisairse » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:58 am
The Reformed American Republic wrote:Cisairse wrote:But we're not applying modern morality to historical figures. We're applying modern morality to inanimate statues that exist in modern society.
By refusing to recognize their contributions to our republic by taking those statues down, you are judging them by modern standards, especially when you are doing it for reasons that were fine back then.
by Asle Leopolka » Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:00 am
Cisairse wrote:The Reformed American Republic wrote:By refusing to recognize their contributions to our republic by taking those statues down, you are judging them by modern standards, especially when you are doing it for reasons that were fine back then.
The idea that removing a statue is "refusing to recognize their contributions to our republic" is laughable.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bovad, Corporate Collective Salvation, Cratic, Ethel mermania, Fahran, Google [Bot], Heldervin, Hidrandia, Kenmoria, Marxist Mississippi, Nioya, Nusan-tara, Pale Dawn, Socialist Gestachia, The Black Forrest, Tsardom of Alaska, Umeria, Valrifall
Advertisement