The only one painting me as a slaverysupporteris you.
No, you specifically said there were certain conditions under which slavery was morally justified. Specifically, you made the case that if a society's only option was to enslave people or to kill them, then slavery was morally justified. I content that your underlying premise is flawed, there is never merely one option or another. "Give me liberty or give me death."
So, if someone came to you and said, "Mrs. MacRoss, this man before you has his life in your hands. You can either take him as your slave or I will kill him. You have five seconds to decide." What would you do?
The only one painting me as a slaverysupporteris you.
No, you specifically said there were certain conditions under which slavery was morally justified. Specifically, you made the case that if a society's only option was to enslave people or to kill them, then slavery was morally justified. I content that your underlying premise is flawed, there is never merely one option or another. "Give me liberty or give me death."
So, if someone came to you and said, "Mrs. MacRoss, this man before you has his life in your hands. You can either take him as your slave or I will kill him. You have five seconds to decide." What would you do?
First, when has that ever been the only two options on the table? I would trade my life for his. If it was not possible, I would ask the man his preference. If he chose slavery, I would instantly free him and work against the slave movement - sacrificing my life if necessary.
The only one painting me as a slaverysupporteris you.
No, you specifically said there were certain conditions under which slavery was morally justified. Specifically, you made the case that if a society's only option was to enslave people or to kill them, then slavery was morally justified. I content that your underlying premise is flawed, there is never merely one option or another. "Give me liberty or give me death."
So, if someone came to you and said, "Mrs. MacRoss, this man before you has his life in your hands. You can either take him as your slave or I will kill him. You have five seconds to decide." What would you do?
First, when has that ever been the only two options on the table. I would trade my life for his. If it was not possible, I would ask the man his preference. If he chose slavery, I would instantly free him and work against the slave movement - sacrificing my life if necessary.
THANK YOU!!!!!!
You gave the correct answer: agree to take him as a slave and then work to insure his freedom as soon as you can. You have just morally justified slavery because you know that you can free him later. Even if it takes a while to make him free (depends on how acceptable slavery is in the society in which you live) you know that you can set him free at a later date, preferably far away from the culture that considers slavery to be moral.
No, it isn't a "moral" choice and I wouldn't make the choice, I would leave it up to the guy. I said if he chose slavery, I would instantly free him. Slavery isn't ever a moral choice. It may be the only way to stay alive - which is survival NOT morality. Being the best choice and being a good choice are two seperate issues.
Steve just likes slavery. I never thought that I would ever actually know of anyone living in modern America who condoned slavery in even the slightest way. I'm still trying to get used to it. It's pretty disgusting, actually.
He also likes to criticize the Commander-in-Chief during wartime. Weren't some people saying that was treason a while back? He must hate our troops. Steve, why do you hate our troops so much? Is it because they don't own slaves?
No, it isn't a "moral" choice and I wouldn't make the choice, I would leave it up to the guy.
The guy has a gun to his head, he is not in a position to make the choice. You have made the choice.
Also you can't immediately free him. If you are in the above situation the man who you accepted the slave from is still there. By releasing the slave you sentence him to death because the slave only lives by being your slave.
Steve, that's childish even from you. Anyone can come up with a silly scenario like that. For instance,
This guy has a gun to his head. The man with the gun says that he will kill the guy unless you fellate Barney the White House Dog's shitty prick right after he finishes fucking George W. in the ass, then you have to gargle the cum and give it to Barbara Bush as a snowball while you toss George Sr.'s salad. You have five seconds to decide. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?!!
That's the type of shit middle school kids ask each other on sleepovers. But, as I said, it's the type of sophistication that we've come to expect from you. I suppose it's because you have a similar level of educational experience.
Obama takes presidential oath — again. I'm glad he did that. I was getting tired of the "he's not really the President because he didn't say the oath correctly" conspiracy nuts.
Hey, it's not all bad, Steve. There is always the possibility that the orders he signed between before the second swearing in are not valid. Without a supreme court verdict on the matter, you and your "neocon" pals could dine on that tripe for years and years.
Oh, and maybe the second time around he swore on a Koran? Who can say for certain, there were no cameras! Enjoy, buddy, that one is on the house!
Actually, Glenn Beck, noted conservative wingnut, lost his shit becaue the do-over wasn't done with a Bible. That's conservatives for you - very concerned about the important stuff.
The bible is not required as part of the oath. Anyone who would raise a stink over not using the bible as part of the oath is on shaky ground.
I consider Glen Beck to be the Keith Obermann of the right.
But that's just the sort of important thing you like to spend a lot of time talking about. Maybe it means that he's not really president, hmmm? OOOOh . . . maybe he couldn't use it because it burst into flames in his hands. Maybe he didn't use it because they couldn't find a slave to hold it for him.
Steve, that's childish even from you. Anyone can come up with a silly scenario like that. For instance,
This guy has a gun to his head. The man with the gun says that he will kill the guy unless you fellate Barney the White House Dog's shitty prick right after he finishes fucking George W. in the ass, then you have to gargle the cum and give it to Barbara Bush as a snowball while you toss George Sr.'s salad. You have five seconds to decide. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?!!
That's the type of shit middle school kids ask each other on sleepovers. But, as I said, it's the type of sophistication that we've come to expect from you. I suppose it's because you have a similar level of educational experience.
That's so funny I had to quote it!
You're not thinking the whole hypothetical question through. You can dismiss it by saying it would not happen "today" but you can't dismiss it by saying similar circumstances have never occurred in the past. Your hypothetical is so far fetched no one would take it seriously enough to offer an answer.
You also can not dismiss the fact that many cultures in the past have considered slavery to be acceptable. In those cultures the choice often was between slavery and death for a conquered foe, which makes the hypothetical question I posed a valid one.
If you are asking the question: "is slavery moral or acceptable today?" the answer would be a resounding no. If you are asking it in a general sense then the answer would be yes simply because at one point in history it was considered so. The past can not be properly judged using 21st century morals alone you also need to look at the circumstance of the time period in which you are seeking to pass judgement and the motives behind those cultures when they made those moral judgements.
This discussion does not belong in this thread so I'll not be responding in this thread again to said discussion.
The bible is not required as part of the oath. Anyone who would raise a stink over not using the bible as part of the oath is on shaky ground.
I consider Glen Beck to be the Keith Obermann of the right.
But that's just the sort of important thing you like to spend a lot of time talking about. Maybe it means that he's not really president, hmmm? OOOOh . . . maybe he couldn't use it because it burst into flames in his hands. Maybe he didn't use it because they couldn't find a slave to hold it for him.
Botching the oath would be grounds for saying he was not President because the oath is in the Constitution (Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight ) and must be stated as written before the President-Elect can become the President. Or are you suggesting the oath is optional?
You're not thinking the whole hypothetical question through. You can dismiss it by saying it would not happen "today" but you can't dismiss it by saying similar circumstances have never occurred in the past.
Steve, your hypothetical never happened. Ever. Slavery-boy.
If you are asking the question: "is slavery moral or acceptable today?" the answer would be a resounding no. If you are asking it in a general sense then the answer would be yes simply because at one point in history it was considered so.
Jesus, that's stupid. If you go far enough back in the past, EVERYTHING could be considered moral. Hell, if you go far enough back in the past, killing and eating your kids for breakfast would be moral.
You've already publicly stated that you support slavery and that slavery saved people as recently as sixty-five years ago. Nice try, but you can't wiggle out now by trying to say you didn't understand the parameters of the question. People are always going to remember you as a defender of slavery.
Actually, maybe you didn't understand. Is this some sort of lyme disease derived problem with reading comprehension?
This discussion does not belong in this thread so I'll not be responding in this thread again to said discussion.
I don't fucking believe you. You have never simply shut up about anything. If you keep this promise, it'll be the first time.
Botching the oath would be grounds for saying he was not President because the oath is in the Constitution (Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight ) and must be stated as written before the President-Elect can become the President.
OOOOh, well, maybe he wasn't actually President before the do-over then. Maybe everything he did between the first oath and the do-over was illegal. Maybe you and your conservative buddies can chew on that for awhile.
Botching the oath would be grounds for saying he was not President because the oath is in the Constitution (Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight ) and must be stated as written before the President-Elect can become the President.
OOOOh, well, maybe he wasn't actually President before the do-over then. Maybe everything he did between the first oath and the do-over was illegal. Maybe you and your conservative buddies can chew on that for awhile.
Anyone who would raise a stink over not using the bible as part of the oath is on shaky ground.
Particularly considering the precedents - both Roosevelt and John Quincy Adams did not use a bible or bibles as part of the oath, and both were still considered to be President, as I'm sure you're well aware.
Botching the oath would be grounds for saying he was not President because the oath is in the Constitution (Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight ) and must be stated as written before the President-Elect can become the President.
OOOOh, well, maybe he wasn't actually President before the do-over then. Maybe everything he did between the first oath and the do-over was illegal. Maybe you and your conservative buddies can chew on that for awhile.
Are you suggesting the oath is optional?
LOL, I knew you'd lose your shit over that. Think about it - you could say that every action taken between the two oaths is illegal. That should give you lots of tin-hat stuff to worry about.
Anyone who would raise a stink over not using the bible as part of the oath is on shaky ground.
Particularly considering the precedents - both Roosevelt and John Quincy Adams did not use a bible or bibles as part of the oath, and both were still considered to be President, as I'm sure you're well aware.
Of course, but that's the kind of thing clueless conservatives like Beck worry a lot about.
Botching the oath would be grounds for saying he was not President because the oath is in the Constitution (Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight ) and must be stated as written before the President-Elect can become the President.
OOOOh, well, maybe he wasn't actually President before the do-over then. Maybe everything he did between the first oath and the do-over was illegal. Maybe you and your conservative buddies can chew on that for awhile.
Are you suggesting the oath is optional?
LOL, I knew you'd lose your shit over that. Think about it - you could say that every action taken between the two oaths is illegal. That should give you lots of tin-hat stuff to worry about.
Botching the oath would be grounds for saying he was not President because the oath is in the Constitution (Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight ) and must be stated as written before the President-Elect can become the President.
OOOOh, well, maybe he wasn't actually President before the do-over then. Maybe everything he did between the first oath and the do-over was illegal. Maybe you and your conservative buddies can chew on that for awhile.
Are you suggesting the oath is optional?
LOL, I knew you'd lose your shit over that. Think about it - you could say that every action taken between the two oaths is illegal. That should give you lots of tin-hat stuff to worry about.
Thank you Joe for once again pointing out to the forum members that you do not care about the law of the land. That you will always put your politics ahead of anything else. Even when others criticized Obama for changing his views during the primaries you remained silent.
The oath matters. It is laid out in the Constitution and it must be spoken correctly for the President to take office. Would a challenge based on his flubbed oath ever be granted cert in SCOTUS? Probably not because the Chief Justice is the one who screwed up the oath. That's doesn't make it right or just.
You used to be a great debater on here Joe, what happened? You can't even tell when someone is playing Devil's Advocate unless they tell you they are.
When someone asks, "what is X" during a discussion you jump on them as if they are ignorant fools yet you use the same tactic in a discussion and claim you already knew what X is. You can't have it both ways. Asking other members what something means is a legitimate way to keep the discussion moving and allows people to properly discuss a topic.
Asking other members what something means is a legitimate way to keep the discussion moving and allows people to properly discuss a topic.
Steve, you didn't ask what "rape kit" means. You said that you thought it was an actual kit people carried with them to prevent rape. You said it without any trace of irony, and you said it without any indication you were trying to "keep the discussion moving", even allowing for your generally poor lyme disease-impaired writing skills.
BTW, I don't think it's your job to "keep the discussion moving", slavery-boy. No one appointed you moderator.
Oh yeah, about that oath: what about the legality of everything that happened between the oaths? Was Obama actually President during the time between the oaths? If he wasn't, then who was? Gasp!
Anyhow, well Steve, you have a president that now at least honor's the law. That's why he did the oath over again, to stop all the right wing E-mails crying horrible things about him already! (I mean look at those Stupid Political E-mail thread) At least at this point we have a president who tries his darnedest to not get caught up in stupid petty legal battles, I can only imagine the discussion about how Roberts botched the Oath afterwords... I figured they would have someone reciting the oath into his ear... Guess not :-p
Steve, I've been trying to stay out of all this, but I have just one thing to say: Some people are transparent because they make a promise to be so, and others are transparent because they are inept. Guess into which category you fall.
Anyhow, well Steve, you have a president that now at least honors the law.
Yeah, it's odd how someone who is so wound up with "following the law" didn't have any problems with GWB; but, now that Obama is restoring the rule of law, that same someone feels it is his duty to bring the full power of his high school education to bear on every document produced by the Commander-in-Chief in order to make sure nothing fishy is going on.
Of course, but that's the kind of thing clueless conservatives like Beck worry a lot about.
Pardon my ignorance, but who is this beck to which you refer?
We know that Joe said he'd never watch the inauguration on TV - despite dodging questions about how far away he was and having the apparent supernatural ability to ignore the hundreds of TV monitors on the mall.
How about listening to the ceremony on CD? Did you invoke your superpowers to drown out any such noise?
That is quite possibly the weakest attack against any person on the forums that I've ever seen. Even "u suck" is a stronger argument. If condemning Joe for not telling you where he was standing at the inauguration isn't grasping at straws, I don't know what is.
It's not meant to be taken seriously, Sail. Please. I understand that the atmosphere makes it completely different.
The point is that it demonstrates how Joe doesn't come back with facts. This argument was retorted with a simple response - one that never came. Just like how Joe still refuses to respond to questions put forth in the torture debate. Just like Joe asked to end conversation regarding a question he himself posited, just like Joe chooses to mis-characterize an affirmatively party-neutral statement, just like... well... you get the idea.
The best way to combat this is to point out when it happens.
It's not meant to be taken seriously, Sail. Please. I understand that the atmosphere makes it completely different.
How could you even misinterpret me that badly? Do words just magically transform themselves before your eyes so that you can read what you want to hear? Now I really understand why no one can stand to argue with you.
Comments
You gave the correct answer: agree to take him as a slave and then work to insure his freedom as soon as you can. You have just morally justified slavery because you know that you can free him later. Even if it takes a while to make him free (depends on how acceptable slavery is in the society in which you live) you know that you can set him free at a later date, preferably far away from the culture that considers slavery to be moral.
He also likes to criticize the Commander-in-Chief during wartime. Weren't some people saying that was treason a while back? He must hate our troops. Steve, why do you hate our troops so much? Is it because they don't own slaves?
Also you can't immediately free him. If you are in the above situation the man who you accepted the slave from is still there. By releasing the slave you sentence him to death because the slave only lives by being your slave.
This guy has a gun to his head. The man with the gun says that he will kill the guy unless you fellate Barney the White House Dog's shitty prick right after he finishes fucking George W. in the ass, then you have to gargle the cum and give it to Barbara Bush as a snowball while you toss George Sr.'s salad. You have five seconds to decide. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?!!
That's the type of shit middle school kids ask each other on sleepovers. But, as I said, it's the type of sophistication that we've come to expect from you. I suppose it's because you have a similar level of educational experience.
I consider Glen Beck to be the Keith Obermann of the right.
You're not thinking the whole hypothetical question through. You can dismiss it by saying it would not happen "today" but you can't dismiss it by saying similar circumstances have never occurred in the past. Your hypothetical is so far fetched no one would take it seriously enough to offer an answer.
You also can not dismiss the fact that many cultures in the past have considered slavery to be acceptable. In those cultures the choice often was between slavery and death for a conquered foe, which makes the hypothetical question I posed a valid one.
If you are asking the question: "is slavery moral or acceptable today?" the answer would be a resounding no. If you are asking it in a general sense then the answer would be yes simply because at one point in history it was considered so. The past can not be properly judged using 21st century morals alone you also need to look at the circumstance of the time period in which you are seeking to pass judgement and the motives behind those cultures when they made those moral judgements.
This discussion does not belong in this thread so I'll not be responding in this thread again to said discussion.
You've already publicly stated that you support slavery and that slavery saved people as recently as sixty-five years ago. Nice try, but you can't wiggle out now by trying to say you didn't understand the parameters of the question. People are always going to remember you as a defender of slavery.
Actually, maybe you didn't understand. Is this some sort of lyme disease derived problem with reading comprehension? I don't fucking believe you. You have never simply shut up about anything. If you keep this promise, it'll be the first time. OOOOh, well, maybe he wasn't actually President before the do-over then. Maybe everything he did between the first oath and the do-over was illegal. Maybe you and your conservative buddies can chew on that for awhile.
The oath matters. It is laid out in the Constitution and it must be spoken correctly for the President to take office. Would a challenge based on his flubbed oath ever be granted cert in SCOTUS? Probably not because the Chief Justice is the one who screwed up the oath. That's doesn't make it right or just.
You used to be a great debater on here Joe, what happened? You can't even tell when someone is playing Devil's Advocate unless they tell you they are.
When someone asks, "what is X" during a discussion you jump on them as if they are ignorant fools yet you use the same tactic in a discussion and claim you already knew what X is. You can't have it both ways. Asking other members what something means is a legitimate way to keep the discussion moving and allows people to properly discuss a topic.
BTW, I don't think it's your job to
"keep the discussion moving", slavery-boy. No one appointed you moderator.
Oh yeah, about that oath: what about the legality of everything that happened between the oaths? Was Obama actually President during the time between the oaths? If he wasn't, then who was? Gasp!
Anyhow, well Steve, you have a president that now at least honor's the law. That's why he did the oath over again, to stop all the right wing E-mails crying horrible things about him already! (I mean look at those Stupid Political E-mail thread) At least at this point we have a president who tries his darnedest to not get caught up in stupid petty legal battles, I can only imagine the discussion about how Roberts botched the Oath afterwords... I figured they would have someone reciting the oath into his ear... Guess not :-p
Obama's Staff arrives to white house to find it in the technological dark ages
How about listening to the ceremony on CD? Did you invoke your superpowers to drown out any such noise?
The point is that it demonstrates how Joe doesn't come back with facts. This argument was retorted with a simple response - one that never came. Just like how Joe still refuses to respond to questions put forth in the torture debate. Just like Joe asked to end conversation regarding a question he himself posited, just like Joe chooses to mis-characterize an affirmatively party-neutral statement, just like... well... you get the idea.
The best way to combat this is to point out when it happens.