Craig, on his blog, recently wrote, speaking of me (and not understanding my position correctly):
"He
claims that "slavery is evil", which presumes that objective "evil"
exists and that slavery meets that objective standards for being
objectively "evil". Yet his only evidence to back up his objective
claim, is that there is some sort of consensus among some group of
people that agree with his opinion on the matter. Clearly there are
millions of people who believe that slavery is not "evil" and that
slavery is good."
Just to clarify what he's not understanding...
1.
I've been quite clear that none of us can objectively prove our
opinions about moral questions. So, of course, given that clear
starting point, saying slavery is evil does NOT presume that we can
objectively prove evil. Your premise is rationally flawed and not based
in reality.
2. Claiming that "slavery is evil", then, does not presume that objective "evil" exists and can be objectively proven.
3.
Rather, it presumes that we can find rational moral ground based on
fairly universal notions of a golden rule and human rights. That, IF a
society - or, a group of societies - can agree that humans have basic human
rights and generally an obligation to do no harm to others, THEN, we can
generate some basic levels of rules and rights that we can agree upon.
4.
Furthermore, it presumes that some actions - slavery, rape, murder... are SO overtly bad and harmful, that it is important for rational,
moral people strive to prevent them... EVEN IF Craig (or anyone else) is impotent to
objectively prove they are wrong.
I asked Craig if he could agree that HE couldn't objectively prove slavery and rape are wrong? If he
agreed that it is important to fight against them even if he can't prove
they're wrong, objectively? (Craig doesn't entertain these sorts of questions, strangely. Refuses to answer them directly. Weird. He refuses to stake out a position on opposing rape and slavery as always grotesquely wrong/evil/bad. At best, he'll offer a meek, "Well, I personally find them offensive..." WTH?)
5.He has not proven that millions of people think, as he does, that
slavery is sometimes acceptable. (And that is correct, isn't it...? - I asked Craig. "You
do think, for instance, if "god" commands you to enslave someone or
kill babies, then it is not an immoral action in that case?" No direct answer. Marshal has been clear that if he thinks "God" directs someone to kill babies with a sword or enslave others, that it isn't evil... that it's moral, even! Craig, instead, obfuscates.)
6.
Even if there are "millions " of people who think slavery is sometimes
acceptable, in a world of eight billion people, millions is just a fraction (ie, even if eight million supported slavery - a premise not proven - eight million is just .1% of eight billion).
So, even if .1% disagree, the rest of humanity - the far and away vast majority of humanity - can come to rational, moral conclusions against slavery, in spite of the outliers, and indeed, it is vital that we do so. Agreed?
No answer.
Strange how the "moral majority" can't denounce in harsh terms the single most narcissistic, sexist, greedy, un-Christ-like president in our lifetimes and they can't clearly denounce rape/slavery as always a great evil... AND that they don't even blink an eye... they don't wonder why the (no doubt) majority of rational moral adults find that appalling and actually vulgar and evil in the extreme.
So, even if .1% disagree, the rest of humanity - the far and away vast majority of humanity - can come to rational, moral conclusions against slavery, in spite of the outliers, and indeed, it is vital that we do so. Agreed?
No answer.
Strange how the "moral majority" can't denounce in harsh terms the single most narcissistic, sexist, greedy, un-Christ-like president in our lifetimes and they can't clearly denounce rape/slavery as always a great evil... AND that they don't even blink an eye... they don't wonder why the (no doubt) majority of rational moral adults find that appalling and actually vulgar and evil in the extreme.
60 comments:
Marshal made all sorts of vague sort of claims and accusations in a fit of pique. Marshal, do you have something to say on the topic here?
You said:
As to Craig and myself, with regard to slavery, we've both cited statistics as to how many nations of the world where slavery still exists. Are you prepared to produce any poll which addresses the opinions of most people of the world, or are you going to make an argument based on your personal opinion as to how many think what?
What does it prove that there are nations where slavery exists, in your mind? That SOME people think slavery is acceptable to do unto others? Do you imagine they think it's moral or do you think they don't care about the morality of it all? (I suspect the latter.)
Do you think the existence of slavery is proof that slavery is considered moral by more than, say, 1% of the world? If so, PROVE IT.
If you're just noting the reality that some tiny fraction of a minority of the world is okay with slavery, that only proves my point: That those who support slavery are just a tiny fraction of the world, while the vast majority of the world recognizes the idea of human rights and that slavery is a violation of human rights.
Do you disagree? If so, is that based on anything other than your hunch?
As to my reasoning/source: In every organized major religion and philosophy, there is the notion of the Golden Rule. In the rational notion of the Golden Rule, if YOU would not want to be enslaved... if you would not want your children or family to be enslaved, then you would not do that unto others. I just see no support for the notion that anything like a majority of the world supports slavery.
There are roughly half the nations of the world where slavery has not been criminalized, but that doesn't mean it's accepted. How many people do YOU know who'd be okay with being enslaved? Maybe 1% of your friends and acquaintances? Maybe .001% of people you know?
To be clear: You, yourself, are not willing to say that slavery or forced marriages are ALWAYS a great and disgusting evil in every situation? You think, do you not, that it's POSSIBLE (and, indeed, a reality) that God HAS commanded people to enslave others and to put children to death by the sword and, for that reason, you don't think that slavery or slaughtering children is itself, immoral, it just depends on if your "god" is commanding you to do it?
Here, Marshal: Read Jim Stone's first response to this question and tell me where he's mistaken. He points to three claims (Gravity causes objects to fall, ice cream is yummy and genocide is evil) and notes that some claims can be objectively proven (gravity causes objects to fall) and others may not be objectively proven, but they are universally valid (genocide is evil) and that being universally valid IS what we have when it comes to morality, since there simply is no way to objectively prove a moral opinion.
Where is this mistaken?:
A claim is empirically testable if there is, in principle, a way to set up an experiment that will allow us to confirm or disconfirm the claim based on evidence that comes from our experiment.
A claim is universally valid if it holds for all people everywhere, regardless of what they think about the matter.
https://www.quora.com/Can-moral-claims-be-objectively-true
Marshal, are you guessing that you think in your head that your particular moral opinions about, for instance, slavery, rape, opposition to gay folks marrying, killing children deliberately during war time... are objectively proven?
OR, are you willing to admit that you can't objectively prove (ie, prove to be a fact given observable, measurable data that ALL people can see as facts, as opposed to subjective human opinions and vulgar human traditions) your personal human opinions about these moral issues?
Marshal, these are examples of unsupported claims. Such claims from you, with NO support and no admission that they are only your subjective opinions, will not remain on my blog.
Your unsupported attacks on the character of Trump,
as if he's somehow worse than
a president who straight up lies about just about everything
1. It is of course, a stupidly false claim (and here, WHOLLY unsupported) that Biden "straight up lies about just about everything." It's just false and clearly unsupported, and yet, no admission that this false claim is only your subjective, unproven and of course, stupidly false claim.
2. This post does not even MENTION either Trump or Biden, not directly and not indirectly. What in the world are you even talking about with this out-of-place, unsupported, off topic and false claim?
3. People who are opposed to Trump are many - from historians, to presidential scholars, to religious conservatives, to political conservatives to just regular rational people across the political spectrum. This huge swath of public opinion - and in some cases, expert opinion from political scientists, historians, etc - is NOT unsupported by facts.
We oppose Trump (which is not an attack) for normal, good reasons. The pervert has established himself as a pervert, a sexist, a boor, a lecher, a serial cheater on his many wives, etc. At any time in normal history, these characteristics ALONE would cause him to be considered unfit for office. Conservatives of my parents' generation (and mine/ours) would not even consider voting for such an immoral vulgarian.
The man has 90 indictments against him in a wide range of cases. Again, at any normal time in history, no rational conservative would have supported such a candidate. He has personal, legal issues he's dealing with and doesn't have time to run for office.
The man talks as if he's an idiot. I don't mean that as an attack. I'm saying that he objectively talks in a stupid, uneducated, belligerently unintelligent manner. It's measurable, observable. He is a buffoon who, once again, in normal conservative history (let alone moderate or progressive) would not even be considered for office. He's broken the GOP.
And on and on it goes. The reasoned objections to Trump run the political gamut and it's not for nothing. He exposes himself as a corrupt, immoral idiot and people reasonably are opposed to that.
He is different than Biden and all other normal political candidates in these (and many other) ways. There is no rational comparison. If Trump were the Democrat candidate (and he well could have been - he has NO political allegiance... he is a narcissistic engine of chaos), you would have been outraged and yelling in opposition to him as an unfit candidate.
Tell me I'm wrong.
At any rate, because these and the other comments are off topic, stupidly false and unsupported (due to them being stupidly false), they have been deleted. If you want to come in and make stupidly false claims and ADMIT that you can't support them, that they're just your irrational, false subjective opinions, I'd let them stand. But you can't make false claims like this, not here.
For so many, when the light begins to shine on their idols, they start flirting with the darkness. And like an addiction, the denials grown larger and stronger until they just embrace brutality.
For the rigid, the isolated, the misanthropic and the doctrinaire, the present world of the living always appears as more threatened than ever. More threatened than WWII. More threatened than the depression. More threatened than WWI. More threatened than the Atlantic Slave Trade.
More threatened than an expected lifespan of 40.
So they make irrational rage their reason and say it was better back then.
Even though famine is at its lowest per person in the world than ever. Even though slavery, sex trafficking, human trafficking, war and terrorism is at its lowest ever. Even though freedom is at its highest ever. Even though human rights are the highest ever.
They, the brutalizing religious extremist thugs, all of them, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist all react the same way. They are all interrelated. The differences only have to do with comfort. A comfort brought to our special little gang by the gifts of the Enlightenment, Science, and global colonization that brought and still brings depletion and destruction to so many.
Marshal, Craig, Stan, the fake Scotsman, so thuggish, increasingly the children of darkness. And Marshal, as it turns out, the most densely committed ghoul, leads them whether they like it or not.
And let us say always that the only proven policies that decrease abortion are full education and access to all aspects of healthcare, and none more effective than birth control.
So, yet again, the only rational position that is pro life is full human rights for women over their own bodies and full sex education and access to birth control methods for everyone.
The first time any former president has faced criminal trial and possible jail time. And leading in the polls. To what do we ascribe this? We really should think and absorb the news about ourselves.
In your great description, the "moral majority" cannot "denounce in harsh terms the single most narcissistic, sexist, greedy, un-Christ-like president in our lifetimes and they can't clearly denounce rape/slavery as always a great evil..."...
... I would say that it was ever the fact that the "moral majority" was not about moral humanism. It was a big tent of approaches whose apex was always about asserting the preservation of the unmerited power of Whiteness.
And that! is a majority. But just barely. And only because of gerrymandering in Republican majority states.
"Marshal, Craig, Stan, the fake Scotsman, so thuggish, increasingly the children of darkness."
Why do you characterize them all as "thuggish?" Would you care to explain yourself?
Come out of the shadows and tell us how familiar you are with these names and I will.
And how did you come by their blogs, Mr Quiet Beattle? And what does casually mean?
Well, Glenn, we could have a discussion about Whiteness and our anxiety about ethnicity - having none since people of the Western hemisphere are almost all a miscegenation of many ethnicities. We could discuss why white people fetishized the claddagh ring a few decades ago? Why does everyone think they have Irish DNA? Why the study of tartan symbols of clan? Why do white men fly to Scotland to play golf but don’t actually tour the country and get to know its people? Why bagpipes when so few people actually like the sound? Why do the majority of white familiars think they have a link to some Native American or another?
Because Whiteness is a fake identity . There is nothing integral to it as an identity. It’s all political.
Your bagpipes are a fake and shallow need for depth. As a result of rejecting the depth of your own, generational society: African, Asian, indigenous, European heritages. We are all mixed up together. All of us. And you deny and disparage the cultural riches of other American ethnicities. Thereby disparaging how much Jewish, African, Caribbean, Latin, and Whiteness cultural features are part of your own life. Your food, your music, your romantic ideas, you’re reading, you’re medicines and technology and your bridges, roads, tunnels, architecture, etc etc etc.
“
But you claim some foreign origin, the living inhabitants of which think of you as Yank and totally different.
We could discuss that but you’re also a fake man. Claiming never to read what I write, you show yourself to be liar.
Persusing Dan’s blog but never having the Christian courage to engage with him or the world.
You’re fake. Because you repress your anxiety beneath your contempt for god’s great spinning world.
Do you know how, Glenn, how Dan is completely immersed in and plays American roots music? But Dan has long ago given up the white washed juvenile myth that only white peoples created it.
It’s one thing to join in and excel at something we can only acknowledge as mutually created by a host of orher peoples living, barely together, in these lands. That’s honest and integral and healthy and spiritual.
It’s another to try to think of oneself as some kind of divinely favored purity. That’s fake. It’s corrupt. And therefore, to practice such a fake identity is thuggishly brutalizing. To oneself. And to innocent others.
We can debate it, Glenn. But you have to show up with some actual courage and character. The courage to face Dan and me in discussion. And the character to listen like a Christian: with love for people at the center of your worldview.
I understand your need to shut down, Glenn, and monologue ad hominem. You despair of having thoughtful content to defend yourself because your theology went on the attack against our god-imaging intellect centuries ago. Killed off Aquinas. Your legacy long ago stripped itself of thought and buried itself in a dead trunk of dead 17th century doctrine:
It leaves you empty. And angry. And brutalizing. You can’t find the meaning of life except in long deceased rules.
btw, Glenn, Mary wasn’t impregnated by Joseph, her husband.
Glenn (et al) you are welcome to comment ON TOPIC on this post. But if you want to talk with Feodor, just be an adult and talk with him at your blog. Your off topic (and emotionally fragile and irrational and unsupported) comments will be deleted here.
Because you fellas don't engage in actual adult dialog with Feodor on your blogs, I do give him some leeway to make comments to you all that are off topic here. (SOME leeway, not total. Some of his comments get deleted.)
Do you want to talk about anything having to do with the topic?
For what it's worth, Feodor, I happen to like bagpipe music. In moderation.
Whose bagpipe music, Dan? Greek? Roman? Asturias? Syrian? Hittite?
Even bagpipes aren’t the sole possession of white adjacent people.
The reason the Scots families of Mellon and Carnegie and Buick and Pinkerton - and William Kelly of Pittsburgh who invented a cheap process to make steel stronger (at the same time as Bessemer in England) - all started out in the American 19th century frontier west was because Scots weren’t accepted well on the Anglo East Coast: they weren’t White enough.
So, Scots weren’t White enough yet and bagpipes are known across the ancient classical world and medieval Europe.
Which is great history, but it’s a history of miscegenation, enforced poverty by colonialism, and the fluid permutations of early White denial becoming acceptance over time.
All realities that Glenn cannot accept.
"What does it prove that there are nations where slavery exists, in your mind? That SOME people think slavery is acceptable to do unto others? Do you imagine they think it's moral or do you think they don't care about the morality of it all? (I suspect the latter.)"
The point being made was that slavery isn't as universally seen as immoral as you insist it is. We've cited the stats regarding how many nations tolerate it to one degree or another. You evidently suggest those stats are meaningless with regard to your assertion. And if they don't care about "morality" as we (generally, as you and I don't agree on it) think of it, that's neither here nor there except to mitigate your position that slavery is widely regarded as "a great evil".
"Do you think the existence of slavery is proof that slavery is considered moral by more than, say, 1% of the world? If so, PROVE IT."
Given I've provided stats already which indicates the prevalence of slavery worldwide, you now want to move the goal posts to demanding I prove how many regard it as moral. But given that prevalence, it's enough to say that so many don't regard it as immoral. That should be enough for you, but you can't deal with having another sacred cow exposed as false.
In any case, I once again present the facts (as I always do). This first link discusses how many countries exist where slavery is legal, or have no laws prohibiting it:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/slavery-not-a-crime-in-half-the-countries-of-world-new-research/
This next link provides info on how many countries exist with some form of slavery being practiced:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-still-have-slavery
Now take either of those links and pretend you can insist upon some percentage which you can't prove, suggesting how many find it moral or immoral. I'm not in any way obliged to continue proving whatever new demand you have once your original position has been proven false. Unfortunately, slavery is too widely accepted in today's world, regardless of how great an evil Dan Trabue insists it must be regarded.
"If you're just noting the reality that some tiny fraction of a minority of the world is okay with slavery, that only proves my point:"
Clearly, with just my two links above, they belie the assertion that it is only a "tiny fraction of a minority of the world" who is OK with slavery. And as there's no way you can discount the very real possibility (given the sin nature of mankind) that there exist a far larger percentage who would have slaves of their own if they could...including some who are themselves slaves...that ""tiny fraction of a minority of the world who is OK with slavery" is far larger than you need to believe.
"As to my reasoning/source: In every organized major religion and philosophy, there is the notion of the Golden Rule. In the rational notion of the Golden Rule, if YOU would not want to be enslaved... if you would not want your children or family to be enslaved, then you would not do that unto others. I just see no support for the notion that anything like a majority of the world supports slavery."
That is not evidence of anything but a strong desire that it be true. You would not accept that from me as support for a claim. But then again, there was no claim made that a majority of the world's population support slavery, but that slavery is more widespread than ever and thus to say that it is widely considered "a great evil" is just your personal desire that it be true. Again, having had that claim blown out of the water, you now move the goal posts. I don't need to follow along.
"There are roughly half the nations of the world where slavery has not been criminalized, but that doesn't mean it's accepted. How many people do YOU know who'd be okay with being enslaved? Maybe 1% of your friends and acquaintances? Maybe .001% of people you know?"
I addressed this before knowing you tried to run with this. But it relies on focusing on only those nations which haven't legally prohibited slavery. But OK. Are you suggesting that there would be this many without such prohibitions if the people rose up to have it outlawed? They're certainly OK enough with it to allow it to remain legal. And the fact that one wouldn't want to be murdered doesn't mean that same one would murder if that same one felt the need or desire. And you seem to believe without any support whatsoever that because one is enslaved, one wouldn't enslave if one was in a position to do so.
Thus, you're doing what you do...pushing your subjectivity as valid, while demanding I be nothing short of objective with mountains of evidence in support. Hardly an example of either the Golden Rule or embracing grace.
"To be clear: You, yourself, are not willing to say that slavery or forced marriages are ALWAYS a great and disgusting evil in every situation?"
To be truly, factually and honestly clear: You, yourself, are keen to conflate Biblical narratives with antebellum slavery and what you falsely regard as forced marriages in ancient Israel with current forms of forced marriages, as for example, what we seen in islam. Until you pick and stick with one or the other, I'm not willing to say anything.
"You think, do you not, that it's POSSIBLE (and, indeed, a reality) that God HAS commanded people to enslave others and to put children to death by the sword and, for that reason, you don't think that slavery or slaughtering children is itself, immoral, it just depends on if your "god" is commanding you to do it?"
First of all, you're again conflating what is described in English as "slavery" in Scripture is the same thing as that we had in the antebellum south. It isn't and isn't even close. It's been explained to you clearly, exhaustively and comprehensively and you delete or otherwise reject it as if it was never explained at all. With that dishonest disparity exposed yet again, what God commands is never immoral because He commanded it be done to serve HIS purpose and Will. Until you're honest to accept the very distinct and important difference between obeying God's commands, versus acting on your own volition to enslave or murder, I see no reason to AGAIN respond to this many times answered question. Asking it repeatedly won't change the truth you don't want to accept.
"Here, Marshal: Read Jim Stone's first response to this question and tell me where he's mistaken."
I read well beyond what you posted in your comment and Stone is mistaken from the moment he removes religion from the question. He does so purposely, and I think with benevolent intention, but the result is as has been rendered obvious from the moment you began questioning God's Will: it's consensus opinion, not objective morality, he's defending. If I'm not a Christian but an atheist, there is no morality, but only the subjective opinion regarding behaviors regardless of how many others agree. Yet, on issues like slavery (your favorite) or abortion (you dodge it), it's still a matter of opinion whether either is "a great evil" (so very true of abortion and far, far more so than slavery...wherein people get to live).
But as a Christian, I don't have to choose based on personal subjective opinion. God's already made the case. He's already determined what is or isn't moral. Thus, my position on morality is totally objective.
"Marshal, are you guessing that you think in your head that your particular moral opinions about, for instance, slavery, rape, opposition to gay folks marrying, killing children deliberately during war time... are objectively proven?"
I've made no such claim as you're trying to portray it. Each of those things you've listed have been presented in a specific way so as to provide you with the liberty you need to believe what you want apart from the Will of God. I'm not going to address them as a group in any way. Suffice it to say that I've objectively proven all my positions thus far, and you simply reject my proofs because you can't counter them except by obfuscation and corruptions.
"OR, are you willing to admit that you can't objectively prove (ie, prove to be a fact given observable, measurable data that ALL people can see as facts, as opposed to subjective human opinions and vulgar human traditions) your personal human opinions about these moral issues?"
All I can say is that it seems impossible to prove in any way that which is true to those who find that which is true to be inconvenient. My "personal opinions" are no less than reflections of that which is true, until someone like you can prove the contrary. You don't even try with anything more than far less tangible and far less provable subjective opinions of your own.
Marshal:
The point being made was that slavery isn't as universally seen as immoral as you insist it is.
Two things:
1. YOU have not proven that slavery is not fairly universally found to be appalling.
2. When I and philosophers refer to something being universally held to be wrong or that a point is universally valid, we're not saying all people in the universe. We're saying generally all cultures and philosophies. In this case, every major world religion affirms the Golden Rule and that precludes slavery and fairly universally, all peoples are opposed to slavery - they do NOT want to be enslaved, they do NOT want their loves ones enslaved.
3. Thus, now that I've clarified, do you suspect that, generally speaking, there is some large component of the modern world that accepts slavery as a moral option? If so, where is the proof?
Given I've provided stats already which indicates the prevalence of slavery worldwide, you now want to move the goal posts to demanding I prove how many regard it as moral.
No goal post moving. That you misunderstood the point being made does not mean I'm moving goalposts. But regardless, I've now clarified. Answer the question or move on. Do you suspect that something more than 1% of the world supports the notion of slavery?
And yes, I know there are many nations where slavery has not been outlawed. IF I was asking you: How many nations have not outlawed slavery? THAT would be an answer. That isn't the question I'm asking.
I'm asking if you have any proof that slavery is considered a moral option in anything like more than 1% of humanity?
they belie the assertion that it is only a "tiny fraction of a minority of the world" who is OK with slavery.
This is another example of an unproven claim. These sources point to the roughly 50 million enslaved people in the world today. Out of a population of 8 billion, that's ~.6% (POINT six percent).
I'm having a difficult time finding reliable numbers, but there were also millions of people enslaved in the 1800s and centuries before that. BUT, that's out of global population of 1 billion (in 1800) and less before then. And given that slavery was largely legalized in most of the world (as opposed to merely not criminalized), there was certainly more overt acceptance of slavery in centuries past. Just read what the Southern Baptists had to say about it back in the day!
With the enlightenment, we've gotten better as a people. What used to be accepted as a moral option (slaughtering babies in war time, as you support in certain conditions, for instance... or slavery) just is no longer considered an acceptable option, by and large. And that is true universally - in generally all places and peoples.
So again, do you have ANY proof that slavery is widely accepted and not just an outlier of something like 1% or less?
as there's no way you can discount the very real possibility (given the sin nature of mankind) that there exist a far larger percentage who would have slaves of their own if they could
It's possible. It's possible you could evacuate your bowels and float away. But is there any EVIDENCE of it? I don't care about your theories. I mean, how many people do YOU know who'd want to OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING?
Maybe I'm just living in a moral paradise, but I know of not one person who would want that.
that ""tiny fraction of a minority of the world who is OK with slavery" is far larger than you need to believe.
Give me a number? An entire 1%, do you guess? TWO percent? What are YOUR personal guesses on this and do you have any data to support them?
IF you have only wholly unsupported hunches, well, say that and move on.
Marshal:
That is not evidence of anything but a strong desire that it be true.
No. It is an observable fact that the faith teachings of nearly every - and certainly every MAJOR world religion and philosophy - endorses a Do Unto Others belief system. It has nothing to do with my desires, it's about what these traditions do and do not teach.
Do you acknowledge the data that shows that every single major world religion and philosophy endorse a Golden Rule, as a measurable, observable fact?
But then again, there was no claim made that a majority of the world's population support slavery, but that slavery is more widespread than ever and thus to say that it is widely considered "a great evil" is just your personal desire that it be true.
Here is what you and Craig seem incontinent to understand (deliberate misuse of word, there): NONE of us can objectively prove a moral system. That's just the reality of it all. Whether you admit it or not, it's the reality. IF you could objectively prove your moral hunches, you would. You don't precisely because you can't.
Don't bother claiming you can without providing objective proof. That, too, would be another of your endless unsupported claims and hunches.
So, GIVEN that none of us can prove objectively our moral systems, THEN it behooves us to find moral common ground and that is something we CAN achieve.
We can make rational appeals to Golden Rule messages and find common ground systematically, step by step by saying, "Do YOU want to be enslaved? No, right? THEN, why would you find it acceptable to enslave others?" and move to a morally reasoned position using that God-given moral common sense that is within humanity, as Christians affirm. AND where we're speaking of agnostic/atheistic philosophies, then we can affirm that there is that within humanity that longs for human rights. It's hard to impossible to deny it's there and common to humanity, even if we can't objectively prove it. It's universally valid, as the philosopher noted.
So, GIVEN these realities and rational conclusions, THAT is why it is important to note that human rights and opposition to slavery are nearly universal with a small fraction of outliers and we can make reasoned appeals to the outliers to push for change.
Given your complete inability to objectively prove your moral hunches, why do you think this is not a rational approach to moral common ground - especially about something as evil as slavery? Or do you agree with me and you're just pushing back to be pushing back, even when the point is rationally valid and morally imperative?
Do you agree we should be fighting to end slavery everywhere as it is always a great evil, even if you can't prove it objectively?
Marshal:
Are you suggesting that there would be this many without such prohibitions if the people rose up to have it outlawed? They're certainly OK enough with it to allow it to remain legal.
In many of the places where slavery is not criminalized and is even tolerated, they don't have the right to self-determination, to vote, to create their own laws by We, the People. So, just as with in Jesus' day, where he didn't call for the people to rise up and end slavery there and then (in Rome, where 10-20% of the population may have been slaves of one form or the other), still, today, many places are not at a place of recognizing human rights and self-determination/democracy.
I say that, EVEN THOUGH, we can't objectively prove that not having self-determination is objectively moral and right, we should promote that in other nations. Do you, even though you can't objectively prove the morality of your opinions about human rights?
Marshal:
You haven't standing to regard him as a pervert for simply acting on his normal male compulsions.
Good God in heaven have mercy on your poor soul.
ABUSING women, ASSAULTING women,raping women, dominating women, controlling women, manipulating women, being a lecher... NONE of these are "normal male compulsions." It certainly wasn't for my conservative men in my family (the best of them, anyway).
Deleted.
You'll not post such salacious, vulgar commentary here. Especially as it's not the point of the post and because, once again, you're making an unsupported and vulgar claim.
And as a reminder: I can't objectively prove rape (sexual assault, etc) is a great evil any more than you can, but it is rightly and rationally recognized as an evil and I'M not the one defending the pervert lecher that all morally rational people RECOGNIZE in his own words the deviancy and sickness in his mistreatment of women. YOU are the one making the rationally outlier claim. You can only do that here if you objectively prove it and you can't.
Marshal:
Stone is mistaken from the moment he removes religion from the question.
An unsupported opinion. PROVE IT. WHERE is your support for this pulled-out-of-your-ass hunch?
Marsha:
He does so purposely, and I think with benevolent intention...
An unsupported opinion. PROVE IT. WHERE is your support for this pulled-out-of-your-ass hunch?
Marshal...
but the result is as has been rendered obvious from the moment you began questioning God's Will: it's consensus opinion, not objective morality, he's defending.
1. I've never once questioned God's will. This is an abject lie and a stupidly false claim (and yet, ANOTHER unsupported opinion, unsupported once again, because it's a stupidly false claim).
ANYONE can see in my words that I've never questioned God's will. I HAVE questioned YOUR HUNCHES about God's will, but then, I don't conflate you with God.
You DO recognize that disagreeing with Marshal is not equal to disagreeing with God?
2. YES, it is consensus opinion. It's moral reasoning. Why? Because YOU nor I can PROVE objectively our hunches about morality and God's will. YOU are entirely impotent, flaccid, incapable, abundantly with no ability to objectively prove your hunches coincide with morality or God's will. AND as long as you are not willing to condemn slavery as always wrong or your pervert king AS a pervert deviant, you don't have a lot of credibility for normal, morally rational people.
And no, neither he nor I are attempting to defend that we can objectively prove moral opinions because we are being abundantly clear that no one CAN objectively prove our moral opinions. We aren't flying up to the moon using wings that sprout out of our backs and a little propeller that rises out of our heads either. NO ONE is claiming to do impossible things. What of it? YOU are not objectively proving your moral opinions because you can't.
Do you recognize your own impotence on that front?
And do you see how you're making a series of unsupported claims with no objective proof for them and you're acting as if the claims themselves are objective proof. Your arms are too short to box with God, son. Get over yourself. Humble thyself.
Good God, have mercy.
"1. YOU have not proven that slavery is not fairly universally found to be appalling."
I don't have to. YOU haven't proven that slavery is fairly universally found to be appalling. "Universally" specifically refers to the entire universe, but is commonly intended to refer to this world, specifically this world's population or the entirety of any group. For the purpose of this discussion, it must refer to the world, wherein we find half the nations don't even have laws against it, and another 50% or so have slavery in some form in a rather significant amount (and I would say one slave is significant enough for my tastes). But this doesn't suggest how many of the entire populations of these nations find no problem with the practice so long as they are not themselves enslaved. In our country, there was a significant enough percentage that a war was fought to end it. Which of any of these nations had such a war which took the lives of such a great percentage of its people to eradicate it? Clearly there's a tolerance of it, a willful ignorance or dismissal of the subject and/or possibly a real preference for it on the possibility that "I too can one day have slaves to serve me".
These are all far more reasonable conclusions based on the available data. You've provided nothing like it to suppose your hunch is true, but only your desire that it be so. I have the same desire but the data suggests the opposite. That's just the way it is.
So when you make a claim, such as "most of the world finds slavery to be a great evil", and slavery exists in a very real way in almost three quarters of the world's nations, more than your fervent desire is required to support such a claim.
And as you dared to bring up the religions of the world, I don't think I need to remind you how many Christians alone owned slaves throughout human history, so that was an incredibly weak attempt to support your fervent desire as more than just that.
"2. When I and philosophers refer to something being universally held to be wrong or that a point is universally valid, we're not saying all people in the universe. We're saying generally all cultures and philosophies. In this case, every major world religion affirms the Golden Rule and that precludes slavery and fairly universally, all peoples are opposed to slavery - they do NOT want to be enslaved, they do NOT want their loves ones enslaved."
I addressed both of these in point 1 before reading point 2. That's like unconscious multi-tasking on my part.
I unintentionally omitted something relevant to your point #2. Here it is:
Despite what you and some alleged philosophers are saying, "Universally is an adverb that describes a situation in which something applies to all people or things, without exception."
(https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/unanimously-vs-universally) The best you could say is that in your opinion, you believe most people in the world oppose slavery as immoral. That would still be difficult for you to support based on the data cited by Craig and I being so much in conflict with either, but at least this latter alternative could give you some wiggle room.
"3. Thus, now that I've clarified, do you suspect that, generally speaking, there is some large component of the modern world that accepts slavery as a moral option? If so, where is the proof?"
I made no such claim one way or the other. I simply recognize the facts Craig also cited with regard to how prevalent slavery remains throughout the world. That data suggest a "large component" in my mind. Perhaps you might want to define "large component" or describe how large it must be for you to admit your fervent desire doesn't match reality.
"Given I've provided stats already which indicates the prevalence of slavery worldwide, you now want to move the goal posts to demanding I prove how many regard it as moral."
"No goal post moving. That you misunderstood the point being made does not mean I'm moving goalposts. But regardless, I've now clarified. Answer the question or move on. Do you suspect that something more than 1% of the world supports the notion of slavery?"
You can't straight up lie and then tell me I need to brush it off. Your original challenge did not speak of polling people on their opinion of the morality of slavery. Yet at the same time, the data we cited suggests it's likely far more than a mere 1%, unless you insist on only counting those who have slaves...which requires a different position of the goal posts as well. So yes. Based on the available data regarding just how many nations don't even have laws prohibiting slavery (again, around 90-95), as well as how many nations in total have some form of slavery existing within their borders, I more than merely suspect more that 1% of the world supports slavery to one degree or another. Good gosh, just you pro-aborts believe people are property if they are in the womb!
"And yes, I know there are many nations where slavery has not been outlawed. IF I was asking you: How many nations have not outlawed slavery? THAT would be an answer. That isn't the question I'm asking."
Citing those nations, in addition to the rest of the three quarters of nations where slavery exists stands as HARD DATA to refute the unsupported opinion the percentage is only around 1%.
"I'm asking if you have any proof that slavery is considered a moral option in anything like more than 1% of humanity?"
I have more proof that it's more than 1% than your total absence of proof that it's no more than 1%. But I don't know how many of the people of the estimated 167 countries where slavery exists think of it in moral terms at all. Perhaps every freakin' slave owner anguishes over their evil. How would I know? And again, if all of these countries continue to have some form of slavery practiced, no honest person would begin to suppose that ONLY those who actually enslave people are the ONLY people who don't have a problem with it.
The goofiest part of all this is your demand that the issue be regarded exactly as you regard it. It's not enough to simply oppose it for whatever reasons we find most compelling. We have to agree with Dan Trabue that it's a "GREAT EVIL" or somehow there's something wrong with any who don't. I'm not even sure it's a greater evil than your reasons for going on and on about it being a "GREAT EVIL".
"This is another example of an unproven claim. These sources point to the roughly 50 million enslaved people in the world today. Out of a population of 8 billion, that's ~.6% (POINT six percent)."
No. It's NOT "another example of an 'unproven claim'". It's a refutation of YOUR unproven claim that slavery is universally abhorred. It demonstrates that's not the case. And even if we stick with your desperate hope based on an estimation of how many slaves there are in the world, it requires focusing only on those who actually own the slaves, not on how many would if they could or just those who don't freakin' care about those who are enslaved. You want to believe that 99% of the world is unequivocally opposed to it. But then, that's a pretty significant majority of the world doing nothing about it. Clearly there aren't nearly as many who are allegedly adamantly opposed to it as a "GREAT EVIL" like you.
"With the enlightenment, we've gotten better as a people. What used to be accepted as a moral option (slaughtering babies in war time, as you support in certain conditions, for instance... or slavery) just is no longer considered an acceptable option, by and large. And that is true universally - in generally all places and peoples."
Where's your evidence for this unsupported claim? I watch the news. That alone belies your claim we're better as people.
And you compound your failure by lying about what I support. Straight up lying about me. Not a surprise.
"So again, do you have ANY proof that slavery is widely accepted and not just an outlier of something like 1% or less?"
I gave it already. You've done nothing to rebut the proof I gave. 167 nations, Dan, with around 90-95 who don't even have laws prohibiting it. But you want to only focus on the slavers themselves and pretend no one else accepts the practice.
More later. I'm sure these recent comments will be deleted because it exposes your failure to support your position and your lack of integrity in admitting your challenges have been fully met. That's how you roll.
1. You haven't answered the questions asked.
Where's your evidence for this unsupported claim? I watch the news. That alone belies your claim we're better as people.
2. As a matter of historical record, people have ALWAYS said "things used to be more moral/better in the 'good old days...'" It doesn't make sense that this is rationally valid or supported.
While "moral" is a subjective measure, what we can say as a point of fact that more people have access to human rights, fewer groups (women, minorities, LGBTQ folk, the disabled, children, workers) are denied basic rights as in the past and more of these groups have more access to liberty, self-determination and basic protections than in the past. More people as a percentage of the global population are getting an education and have basic notions like housing, education, right to life, right to self-determination afforded them.
Fewer people - as a percentage of the population are enslaved.
Workers have more rights and protections.
Environmental rules/considerations are more regularly enforced (either by law or just cultural recognition or both) than in the past and this is more important because with a much larger population, protection of the common wealth and environment are more important.
I can point to all sorts of measures that show human rights, environmental protections, workers' rights, children's rights, women's rights, the rights and needs of those with disabilities, etc are more widespread than in the past. Wars are less vicious and devastating than in the past. We had two wars in the last century with over 100 million people killed. And prior to that, there is a long history of extremely vicious and deadly wars with millions of people being killed.
That hasn't happened since WWII, except maybe the Second Congo War. Generally speaking, we no longer accept as a moral option the notion of widespread slaughter. That's huge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
I will do some research and create a separate post where I'll make the rather obvious case that the world is more moral now than in any point in the past. But I have to ask:
In what sense do you think the world is less moral? By what rational measure? That fewer people agree with your particular flavor of religious fundamentalism?
I'm guessing you're thinking of "sex" reasons - that people have a more libertine view of sexual matters, but that would only be one little measure of morality and, I'd suggest, not the best one as it remains unproven by you that "sex is bad" when done in ways that you, personally, don't approve of.
Dan:
"So again, do you have ANY proof that slavery is widely accepted and not just an outlier of something like 1% or less?"
Marshal:
I gave it already. You've done nothing to rebut the proof I gave. 167 nations, Dan, with around 90-95 who don't even have laws prohibiting it. But you want to only focus on the slavers themselves and pretend no one else accepts the practice.
That is not an answer to the question asked.
Make yourself clear:
HOW many people do you think support slavery, as a percentage of the population?
HOW large does that measure need to be for you personally to hold the subjective opinion that there is widespread support for slavery?
Why does your personal hunch on those percentages (which you probably won't even be able to state) make it true that there is "widespread" support for slavery?
If you're unable to even give a percentage, then based on what would we consider your support for "widespread support" of slavery a serious claim?
Other questions for you to ignore:
WHEN was the world "most moral" in your opinion, Marshal, if we're less moral now than in the past?
Based upon what measure?
I should clarify, lest I sound too rosy about humanity:
We are flawed, imperfect humans, prone to not always being our better selves. We DO rape, murder, hate, assault and abuse others, at our worst.
If you look at the murder rate in the US, for instance, it rises and falls. We kill each other today only slightly less than we did in 1700.
We sometimes act badly, the outliers in our group, especially. But, we can be taught and improve.
Overt racism just isn't accepted in the last 40-50 years as was true for most of our history.
Women DO have rights. Slavery HAS been criminalized and just isn't accepted as an option in nearly all portions of society. Etc.
Imperfect, but improving.
Dan
"But is there any EVIDENCE of it? I don't care about your theories. I mean, how many people do YOU know who'd want to OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING?"
I don't need to know a single person in favor of slavery to reasonably suppose that such people exist, given the historical record. Again, you wish to presume that we can only count those who actually own slaves in order to make your case that things are improved. You pay no attention to the feelings of others on the subject simply because they don't have slaves of their own. It's as if you're saying that there are those who own slaves now and 100% of those who don't are vociferously opposed to the practice, simply because it serves you to think so. But what evidence do you have of any kind to take this stance (even if not accurately identified by me as such)? None. You simply want me to prove that any percentage of pro-slavery people exist, while you provide nothing to indicate your numbers cover the entirety of those who do not care, might want slaves of their own, or simply think slavery is morally acceptable.
"Maybe I'm just living in a moral paradise, but I know of not one person who would want that."
That's funny.
"that ""tiny fraction of a minority of the world who is OK with slavery" is far larger than you need to believe."
"Give me a number? An entire 1%, do you guess? TWO percent? What are YOUR personal guesses on this and do you have any data to support them?"
A number is not necessary, proved by the fact you've provided none of your own to support your claim that most of the world finds slavery to be a "Great Evil!" What I've provided thus far is far better support for my contention that it isn't as universally abhorred as you want to believe it is and submit that it is without any evidence of your own, or any which confronts the reality of how many countries continue to have slavery and how many slaves there are now compared to how many there's been in the past.
I won't be badgered to provide any more evidence for my objections to your unsupported claims. If you make a claim I regard as suspect, it's up to you to first provide evidence in support. It's not up to me to provide evidence to debunk it unless I do so on my own volition. This is in line with your own demands that I must support any claim I make or even any you think I'm making.
"IF you have only wholly unsupported hunches, well, say that and move on."
I'm questioning you're wholly unsupported hunches you've stated as if fact.
"2. As a matter of historical record, people have ALWAYS said "things used to be more moral/better in the 'good old days...'" It doesn't make sense that this is rationally valid or supported."
As I said, I watch the news. I see it daily. A "better" people doesn't support the annihilation of Israel or ignore the savagery of those who attack them as if there's a legit excuse for it. A "better" people doesn't insist the right to murder people in utero is unalienable, especially in the face of easily accessible proof of their humanity. A "better" people doesn't support open borders or those who refuse to protect them. A "better" people doesn't pretend that those of one sex actually are or can become those of the other. A "better" people doesn't alter civil law to reduce crime stats or to allow people to steal more stuff. A "better" people doesn't pretend our long abolished slavery justifies taking what doesn't belong to them in any way. A "better" people doesn't routinely and openly lie about their political opponents (as you and your political party does). This is among the shortest of short lists of examples demonstrating that which wasn't common just a generation ago.
"While "moral" is a subjective measure, what we can say as a point of fact that more people have access to human rights, fewer groups (women, minorities, LGBTQ folk, the disabled, children, workers) are denied basic rights as in the past and more of these groups have more access to liberty, self-determination and basic protections than in the past. More people as a percentage of the global population are getting an education and have basic notions like housing, education, right to life, right to self-determination afforded them."
This is a mix of nonsense which includes far too many things which are NOT manifestations of "better" or "moral" even under subjective measures. First of all, LGBTQ "folk" are people who hadn't been denied anything their behaviors didn't invite. You want to pretend they're no different than the rest of us, but again and as always, it's like pretending thieves are not different than the rest of us as should be treated no differently despite their behavior. At the same time, both thieves and your cherished group have always been afforded the same rights as the rest of society. Now they have more than they deserve because of attitudes and assertions which belie the "better" or "moral" label you give them
Then you speak of what some have "afforded" to them. What do you mean by this? More taking from those who have to give to those who haven't by force of law and/or taxation? That's not "better". That's stealing. If you mean people are "afforded" by virtue of sound economic policies which result in more opportunities which, if by availing themselves, can now possess what in previous years was much harder or impossible, those types of policies had provided in that way in the past (See Calvin Coolidge), so it's not a matter of "better" when what had worked was discarded in order to take from those who have to give to those who haven't by force of law and/or taxation.
"Fewer people - as a percentage of the population are enslaved."
This is no "better" than exploiting that which doesn't at all mitigate the far larger than ever population of slaves. You've got 167 nations where slavery exists and the nations where it doesn't grows in population and you think that justifies pretending we're a "better" world because the growth of one population overshadows the growth of the slave population. You think that means "better" or "more moral". It's a sham and a willful one if you insist on standing on that absurdity.
"Workers have more rights and protections."
Some at the unjust expense of those who provided the jobs. But this is too vague as it not only ignores the differences in labor laws worldwide (as you didn't think to speak to where this is allegedly true) as well as those where slavery or slave-like conditions deny rights of any kind to workers. UPS and the UAW just won labor contracts which increase pay to an extraordinary level. That causes increased prices to consumers and/or lower profits and job offerings for employers. That's not "better" except for those who will in all likelihood have more income to waste so that they'll whine about "rights" and "protections" again come contract time.
"I can point to all sorts of measures that show human rights, environmental protections, workers' rights, children's rights, women's rights, the rights and needs of those with disabilities, etc are more widespread than in the past."
Again, are you talking about the US or the world? It's a weak claim regarding the US, and it's weaker still as regards the world. In any case, I can point to all sorts of measures which belie your Pollyanna fantasies.
"Wars are less vicious and devastating than in the past."
While recent conflicts have been more isolated, the viciousness has become as bad as at any other time in human history, if not worse. Oct 7, '23 alone should be proof enough. The savagery of roaming bands in S. Africa against white land owners is another. The routine actions of muslims against any who disagree with them is yet another. The claims against Putin's military in Ukraine more so. This is an especially absurd assertion and unsupported at the same time.
"In what sense do you think the world is less moral? By what rational measure? That fewer people agree with your particular flavor of religious fundamentalism?"
Given you regard morality as wholly a matter of personal opinion as opposed to an objective fact of any kind, it's a fallacious question. But I gave examples above. I can't wait for your post. I'm sure it will be hilarious in its pretentious attempt to make your case and rife with omissions about the real world.
"I'm guessing you're thinking of "sex" reasons - that people have a more libertine view of sexual matters, but that would only be one little measure of morality and, I'd suggest, not the best one as it remains unproven by you that "sex is bad" when done in ways that you, personally, don't approve of."
We can add this to your incredibly long list of absurd "guesses". But to suppose that human sexual behavior is just "one little" measure of morality indicts your intelligence far more than your usual banter always does. Sexual behavior is responsible for all manner of human suffering and hasn't improved, mostly because of "libertine views" of those on your side of the divide. You've simply ignored and dismissed the consequences of what you've enabled, supported, celebrated and defended.
"HOW many people do you think support slavery, as a percentage of the population?"
I have no idea. But the question is a deflection from your responsibility to support your contention of the universal rejection of slavery. By providing data regarding the 167 nations where slavery exists, and the obvious logic that tolerance or support is limited only to those who own slaves, I've shown your position is erroneous.
"HOW large does that measure need to be for you personally to hold the subjective opinion that there is widespread support for slavery?"
Don't know and it doesn't matter given I've never made any claim that there is "widespread support" for slavery. I've not even come close to such a suggestion.
"Why does your personal hunch on those percentages (which you probably won't even be able to state) make it true that there is "widespread" support for slavery?"
I have no "personal hunch" regarding what those percentages may be beyond providing a more logical and data-supported objection to your claim of universal opposition to slavery. And given I've never suggested any "widespread support" for slavery, I'm not in any way obliged to answer a claim you put in my mouth.
"If you're unable to even give a percentage, then based on what would we consider your support for "widespread support" of slavery a serious claim?"
What "support" for "widespread support" of slavery did I ever express? Copy/paste this support for widespread support for slavery you claim I've made, along with the date and time I made it, or apologize for lying about what you said I claimed. Don't just delete this challenge, don't ignore it. Demonstrate what "embracing grace" looks like and comply or apologize for the lie. I know you won't, but...
Marshal:
What "support" for "widespread support" of slavery did I ever express?
EARLY on in this post, YOU stated, and I quote:
As to Craig and myself, with regard to slavery,
we've both cited statistics as to how many nations of the world where
slavery still exists.
Are you prepared to produce any poll which addresses the opinions of most people of the world, or are you going to make an argument based on your personal opinion as to how many think what?
You are/have been making the case that slavery is not universally reviled/viewed as immoral.
That was a carry over from other conversations. But in all of this, YOU have been the one making the case that my view that slavery is generally universally recognized (ie, IN ALL PEOPLES AND PLACES - in ALL PEOPLE GROUPS, if you prefer) as wrong and a great evil. Just as slavery is generally universally regarded as evil.
Because we're dealing with humanity and there are always outliers, when I am speaking of universally, I'm speaking of in all peoples and places - as I've made clear. Not that there are not some outlier humans.
I've further stated that I've seen no evidence that there is widespread moral support for slavery (or rape). YOU are the one who keeps pushing up against what I'm clearly stating.
So, if you want to clarify and say something like, "I, Marshal, DO NOT think that there is widespread support for actions like slavery and rape... certainly not in large percentages. Those willing to engage in such behaviors are outliers and a small fraction. I (Marshall) PERSONALLY don't know of any humans who'd think that slavery is a moral option (well, unless "god" commands it, THEN it's moral, because morality is slippery like that!) and I, Marshal, have no data that even something like 5-10% of humanity think slavery is moral... I'm just saying it's not 100% accepted."
...if you want to clarify your position, then do so. But the tone of your comments (as well as your complete refusal to clarify what percentage you're guessing think slavery is moral) makes it sound like you're thinking, in your own head and without support, that there IS widespread support for slavery.
By all means, take a stand. Be specific. Clarify.
But you can't keep HINTING that you think there is a larger number of slavery supporters - and here, we're talking about your various claims like THIS one, where YOU said:
"that ""tiny fraction of a minority of the world who is OK with slavery" is far larger than you need to believe."
Which suggests that you don't think it's a tiny percentage, at least not as low as 1%, that it is, according to your guess "far larger."
THAT language from you and your refusal to be clear when pressed are why it sounds like you think there is widespread support for slavery.
Marshal:
What "support" for "widespread support" of slavery did I ever express?
also Marshal:
"that ""tiny fraction of a minority of the world who is OK with slavery" is far larger than you need to believe."
To be clear, I'm not saying the number is 1%. I'm saying we don't know. AND, I'm also saying what I've consistently been saying: That in today's world, there is no serious evidence that there is widespread support for slavery. YOU are the one pushing back against what I've actually been saying. Is it the case that you have misunderstood what I'm saying? Or are you just arguing to be arguing when you're not willing to even GUESS at how large the support for slavery is? Or are you actually thinking that half of humanity supports slavery but you know you can't support it so you're being vague and weaselly?
You tell me.
Let me address this a bit more:
At any given point in history, there are some people who lack moral reasoning capability to greater or lesser degrees. Either through developmental delays or mental illness (ie, sociopaths/malignant narcissists like your pervert king), that segment is not in a place to have a significant opinion on issues like slavery.
Additionally, ~8% of the world lives in extreme, significant, debilitating poverty. While I would never say they don't have opinions about moral issues (of course), the impact of poverty on their lives where they're daily, regularly struggling just to survive may leave no room to form significant opinions about slavery - especially if they're not being impacted by it directly.
Additionally, some portion of the world does not live in nations where they've learned to exercise their freedom and rights. That becomes a barrier to (not impossible, but a barrier) to holding significant moral opinions about slavery.
So, given these large percentages of the population who have varying degrees of wherewithal to form moral opinions about slavery, I'm not really talking of those folks. (And I'm wary of saying any of that because, of course, many folks with developmental delays, living in extreme poverty, living in cultures without a notion of human rights/liberty can and do still have moral opinions on such issues... I'm just noting the reality that moral issues like slavery may not be at the top of some people's list of moral concerns for reasons beyond their capacity to deal with at a given time).
But for those with the time and wherewithal, slavery is generally universally reviled.
Just for clarity's sake. And, of course, this should be obvious - that I'm not including in that 1% a count of people not in a position to deal with these concerns.
I'd further note that this debilitating poverty and lack of wherewithal is oftentimes a form of slavery itself, denying people the liberty to be able to concern themselves with such problems.
Tyrants have long recognized this. Consider the children of Israel enslaved in Egypt, where when they were considering trying to leave, Pharoah increased their labor so as to tamp down that free will. Or at least try to.
Here's an example of one of the many times where you did not answer the question being put to you:
"Marshal, are you guessing that you think in your head that your particular moral opinions about, for instance, slavery, rape, opposition to gay folks marrying, killing children deliberately during war time... are objectively proven?"
I've made no such claim as you're trying to portray it.
Each of those things you've listed have been presented in a specific way
so as to provide you with the liberty you need to believe what you want
apart from the Will of God.
I'm not going to address them as a group in any way.
Suffice it to say that I've objectively proven all my positions thus far
Answer this question or quit and go away.
I'm NOT asking you if you've made claims about the objective morality of slavery (is it ALWAYS wrong/evil?), of gay folks getting married, rape, deliberately killing children in war time.
I'm asking you, simply, directly, reasonably:
"Marshal, are you guessing that you think in your head that your particular moral opinions about, for instance, slavery, rape, opposition to gay folks marrying, killing children deliberately during war time... are objectively proven?"
Answer the question or move on.
Another non-answered question. (HINT: Putting words after my question doesn't mean you're answering the question):
I asked:
"2. As a matter of historical record, people have ALWAYS said "things used to be more moral/better in the 'good old days...'" It doesn't make sense that this is rationally valid or supported."
You responded:
As I said, I watch the news. I see it daily.
I did not ASK you if you watch the "news" (whatever you think "news" is, since you don't trust actual journalists). I did not ASK you if you watch it daily.
Marshal continued:
A "better" people doesn't support the annihilation of Israel or ignore the savagery of those who attack them as if there's a legit excuse for it.
Pointing out one isolated group of actions is not proof that the world is more or less moral. No one is arguing that bad things didn't happen in the past and that they don't happen today.
I'm stating that, whereas in the past, slavery was just accepted as a reality, today it's largely criminalized or at least, not directly legalized. I'm stating that it is no longer the case today as it was in the "good ol' days" where "god" commanded it, that slavery is a given that it's an option.
I'm stating that, whereas in the past in most cultures, women didn't have the right to self-determination, now largely they do... at least in the free world where the gov't is not run by religious extremists.
I'm stating that our wars are not as bloody and that we have actual rules in places to have "more moral" wars to prevent/lessen things like the deliberate slaughter of innocents, including children.
And on and on. In many observable, measurable ways, things are more moral today - at least insofar as is measured by respect for human rights.
Do you disagree?
Do you have some other measure of "morality" that you can prove objectively should be used rather than a basic respect for human rights?
More questions for you to either directly answer or move on if you continue to not answer them.
I'll remind you: You could also be arguing that you AREN'T saying the world is worse, you're just saying it's not getting any better. Feel free to stake out that position if that's what you think.
BUT:
I don't think you think that. I think you think it is getting worse and significantly worse. That's a common theme in humanity to always think things used to be better. Liberals even think that today, when asked in opinion surveys. They just don't think it as consistently or extremely as conservatives do, in those same surveys.
More directly UN-answered questions:
You had said:
as there's no way you can discount the very real possibility (given the sin nature of mankind) that there exist a far larger percentage who would have slaves of their own if they could
I asked:
"But is there any EVIDENCE of it? I don't care about your theories. I mean, how many people do YOU know who'd want to OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING?"
Marshal:
I don't need to know a single person in favor of slavery to reasonably suppose that such people exist, given the historical record.
I didn't ASK if people existed who were okay with slavery. I asked if you had any evidence of widespread support for slavery. I even gave you the option of defining widespread for yourself.
Unanswered questions are nothing but a waste of time.
AND that's another example of you vaguely hinting at more widespread support for slavery as a moral option (ie, "as there's no way you can discount the very real possibility... that there exist a far larger percentage who would have slaves of their own if they could")
Is it the case that YOU really wish you could enslave people and this is an example of you projecting on the rest of humanity your own vile wishes? I mean, you're not even willing to say that slavery - one person owning another human being to force them to work or have sex) is always a great evil, so...
I had asked:
"In what sense do you think the world is less moral?
By what rational measure?
That fewer people agree with your particular flavor of religious fundamentalism?"
You opted NOT to answer, saying instead:
Given you regard morality as wholly a matter of personal opinion as opposed to an objective fact of any kind, it's a fallacious question.
To be clear, what I've said that we don't have an objectively provable way to PROVE morality, what is and isn't moral. YOU DO NOT have that. No one does. If you did, you would share the proof and people would be excited. But you can't prove it.
Which is to clarify that I'm NOT saying that morality is "wholly a matter of personal opinion," THAT would be an actual false claim, as opposed to the many times you've (falsely) accused me of "lying about" you. I'm just saying we can't prove objectively whether, for instance, driving a polluting car that contributes to making people and the planet sick is a sin in the eyes of God or that owning another human being always being wrong, etc.
The distinction is that I'm allowing that there may often be an objectively factual moral position... it's just that we have no court to appeal to in order to objectively prove it.
So, no, I'm not saying it's just a matter of personal opinion.
So, MORE questions for you to answer or move on:
"In what sense do you think the world is less moral?
By what rational measure?
That fewer people agree with your particular flavor of religious fundamentalism?"
Or set aside ALL the unanswered questions and vague nothings of your comments. Do you have ANYTHING to say on the topic of the post?
Can you accurately describe the topic(s) of the post?
I'll help you:
1. None of us can objectively prove our moral opinions, not on slavery or rape or deliberately running a sword through babies and children. Do you agree with that reality? (Don't bother saying you don't agree with reality unless you can objectively prove your alternative "reality." Irrational, unsupported claims will be deleted.)
2. Nonetheless, EACH of those actions are easily recognized as bad/awful/evil and fairly universally so on the basis of respect for human rights.
Do you agree with that observable reality (that slavery, rape, killing babies are fairly universally recognized as evil/bad)?
3. And not only are these easily recognized as wrong, they are SO wrong that it is important for reasonable, moral people to take action to try to stop/prevent them from happening.
Agreed?
4. And given that you can't objectively prove they're morally wrong (no one can), we should STILL push for stopping them, EVEN THOUGH you can't objectively prove they're wrong.
Agreed?
If you can agree, then what are you disagreeing about?
Since my last allowed comment on April 23, 2024 at 1:22 PM, you've posted eight comments. Given I just spent time responding on another post, it'll take some time to get through all eight.
April 23, 2024 at 4:28 PM
"You are/have been making the case that slavery is not universally reviled/viewed as immoral."
We've more than merely "made the case". We've confirmed it's a fact. How can there be 167 nations where slavery exists, with 90+ not even having laws prohibiting it, and still you'll pretend slavery is "universally reviled/viewed as immoral"? Clearly you don't understand what "universally" means even after I provided it's definition.
"That was a carry over from other conversations. But in all of this, YOU have been the one making the case that my view that slavery is generally universally recognized (ie, IN ALL PEOPLES AND PLACES - in ALL PEOPLE GROUPS, if you prefer) as wrong and a great evil. Just as slavery is generally universally regarded as evil."
No. The case is made. 167 nations where slavery exists proves it is not universally regarded as evil. Period. And keep in mind, you're speaking from a position which affirms the "right" of a pregnant woman to off her own child in utero. I can slaughter a pig or chicken for dinner because I own it. A pregnant woman who barbarically offs her own child clearly regards it as "hers" as if the child is property. So it's far less universally regarded as evil than you pretend it to be.
"Because we're dealing with humanity and there are always outliers, when I am speaking of universally, I'm speaking of in all peoples and places - as I've made clear. Not that there are not some outlier humans."
But that's what "universally" means. ALL people in ALL places all over the world. And 167 nations does not suggest "outliers". Women aborting their own children does not suggest "outliers". Those who enable such women does not suggest "outliers". Pretending as one of those enablers you give a flying rat's ass about humanity is laughable.
"I've further stated that I've seen no evidence that there is widespread moral support for slavery (or rape). YOU are the one who keeps pushing up against what I'm clearly stating."
Now you're moving the goalposts again. In two ways. We're not talking about rape. That's a totally different issue than slavery even when they overlap. And we weren't talking about "widespread moral support". So now you have to lie and pretend we have been in order to avoid the reality that your premise is false.
"So, if you want to clarify and say something like, "I, Marshal, DO NOT think that there is widespread support for actions like slavery and rape... certainly not in large percentages. Those willing to engage in such behaviors are outliers and a small fraction. I (Marshall) PERSONALLY don't know of any humans who'd think that slavery is a moral option (well, unless "god" commands it, THEN it's moral, because morality is slippery like that!) and I, Marshal, have no data that even something like 5-10% of humanity think slavery is moral... I'm just saying it's not 100% accepted.""
So if you want to clarify you misspoke (I don't believe you did, but I'll accept it as true though it isn't) and say something like, "I, Dan, spoke foolishly in saying there's universal condemnation for slavery when the facts demonstrate otherwise. Also, it's even more foolish to insist that only those who own slaves regard it as acceptable as if those who don't own slaves are automatically opposed simply because they don't, when it's very likely some percentage would if they could."
In the meantime, I've no need to clarify anything as I've been quite clear and you've simply been perverting my position as it suits you to do so.
"...if you want to clarify your position, then do so. But the tone of your comments (as well as your complete refusal to clarify what percentage you're guessing think slavery is moral) makes it sound like you're thinking, in your own head and without support, that there IS widespread support for slavery."
This is abject and dishonest projection. I said what I mean and there's no rational or justifiable reason to impose your meaning upon it. It doesn't "sound" like I'm promoting the notion of "widespread support for slavery" at all simply because I proved your "universal" invention totally false. So false, given how a simply Google search could disabuse one of the notion, as to be an intentional lie. I won't go that far. It's more likely you're just so incredibly intellectually lazy, given to emotional assertions without adult though beforehand.
"By all means, take a stand. Be specific. Clarify."
Already done. And HONEST appraisal of my words is all that is needed to understand my position.
"But you can't keep HINTING that you think there is a larger number of slavery supporters - and here, we're talking about your various claims like THIS one, where YOU said:
"that ""tiny fraction of a minority of the world who is OK with slavery" is far larger than you need to believe.""
Doesn't sound like a freaking "hint" to any honest adult. I've done my job. I've proven your "universal" fantasy to be totally false. Now you move the goal posts and demand I "prove" just how many support it. That's not my job given your wildly subjective claim put forth as an unsupported fact. And "various claims"?? I've made no claim save that your claim of universal condemnation of slavery is not even close to true. Game over. You lost.
"Which suggests that you don't think it's a tiny percentage, at least not as low as 1%, that it is, according to your guess "far larger.""
Doesn't matter, except that it's a logical assumption, which is all I ever said it was. YOU put a percentage on it based only on how many people are enslaved and how many people own them. That is no where near sufficient in determining what percentage of the world is cool with the practice. Not even close.
"THAT language from you and your refusal to be clear when pressed are why it sounds like you think there is widespread support for slavery."
I can't help your deranged insistence that it be so. Nothing in my words could possibly be inferred by any honest person of even average intelligence. You clearly fail in both categories. All I've done here, and absolutely beyond any rebuttal, is shred your foolish claim that slavery is "universally" condemned all over the world. Instead of being a man and admitting you spoke foolishly, you could just have easily said...and improved perceptions of your character..."OK, so there's more slavery than I thought. But I'd like to think that most people object to it." and that would be fine because I'd like to believe it, too. I just don't know that it's true or that there's any worldwide polling upon which we can rely.
April 23, 2024 at 4:44 PM
"To be clear, I'm not saying the number is 1%. I'm saying we don't know."
And yet you were cocksure that slavery is "universally" regarded as a "Great Evil!!" To say you've contradicted yourself is just too obvious.
"AND, I'm also saying what I've consistently been saying: That in today's world, there is no serious evidence that there is widespread support for slavery."
Hardly relevant to the issue, which is your claim there's "universal" agreement that slavery is a "Great Evil!!"
"YOU are the one pushing back against what I've actually been saying."
The only claim against which I've pushed back in any way is your claim that slavery is universally regarded as a "Great Evil!!" Craig and I have proven that's not the case.
"Is it the case that you have misunderstood what I'm saying?"
Not in the least. I've neither misunderstood your initial claim, nor have I misunderstood your alterations of that claim when it was proven to be false. I also don't misunderstand why you move the goal posts.
"Or are you just arguing to be arguing when you're not willing to even GUESS at how large the support for slavery is?"
I've no reason to estimate who or how many support slavery. I do know it's some percentage of the 167 nations where slavery still exists, and that's not counting all the abortion proponents and enablers who believe a person in utero is owned by the woman in whose uterus the person resides. Why you chose to move the goal posts from "universal" condemnation to what percentage supports is also crystal clear and about which I have no need to argue.
"Or are you actually thinking that half of humanity supports slavery but you know you can't support it so you're being vague and weaselly?"
I'm not thinking at all about how many support it. You seem to need to believe I am. That's your problem provoked by being proven wrong about "universal" condemnation.
"You tell me."
I'll tell you again that you would have served yourself better to simply have acknowledged you were wrong to make an unsupported blanket statement regarding slavery being "universally" rejected, and that your continued belaboring of altered claims I've never made worsens you situation.
"Let me address this a bit more:"
This ought to be fun.
"At any given point in history, there are some people who lack moral reasoning capability to greater or lesser degrees."
How would you know when you claim we can't know morality? You reject Scripture as the ultimate source of moral knowledge, so any talk from you about who is or isn't moral, who can or can't reason morally, is absurd.
"Either through developmental delays or mental illness (ie, sociopaths/malignant narcissists like your pervert king), that segment is not in a place to have a significant opinion on issues like slavery."
First, I have no king but the King of Kings. You have no standing to determine who is a pervert given both your equivocation regarding the source of morality and your support, enabling and defense of actual perversions.
Second, given 167 nations where slavery exists, and more so those 90+ nations which have no laws prohibiting slavery, not to mention the entirety of the Democratic Party and similar political parties around the world and their support of abortion, that is also untrue.
"Additionally, ~8% of the world lives in extreme, significant, debilitating poverty. While I would never say they don't have opinions about moral issues (of course), the impact of poverty on their lives where they're daily, regularly struggling just to survive may leave no room to form significant opinions about slavery - especially if they're not being impacted by it directly."
While their attentions might be drawn to more immediate personal issues, to suppose that means there's no way they might have an opinion on other issues is a claim you need to support to be considered by me as worth a damn. You're exploiting them just to defend against a claim you so desperately needed me to make, yet didn't.
"Additionally, some portion of the world does not live in nations where they've learned to exercise their freedom and rights. That becomes a barrier to (not impossible, but a barrier) to holding significant moral opinions about slavery."
More crap you're just making up. Worthless waste of my time to have responded at all to it.
"So, given these large percentages of the population who have varying degrees of wherewithal to form moral opinions about slavery, I'm not really talking of those folks. (And I'm wary of saying any of that because, of course, many folks with developmental delays, living in extreme poverty, living in cultures without a notion of human rights/liberty can and do still have moral opinions on such issues... I'm just noting the reality that moral issues like slavery may not be at the top of some people's list of moral concerns for reasons beyond their capacity to deal with at a given time)."
Your parenthetical is more worth a response than what began this paragraph, but it's another foolish subjective opinion based on nothing but your desire that it be so. It's irrelevant whether or not anyone spends much time thinking about any number of moral concerns. It doesn't make your case for you. It's just another laughably desperate attempt to avoid manning up and admitting what started all this was a foolish, baseless claim to make you feel morally superior. Your foolishly unsupported claim was totally debunked with facts and now you're indulging in greater foolishness by pursuing irrelevant and also unsupported subjective claims to avoid conceding your loss.
"But for those with the time and wherewithal, slavery is generally universally reviled."
"Generally" and "universally" is a contradiction in terms. Pick one and go with it. You can't go with the latter because that's been debunked, but go with it if you want to. But going with the former requires supporting evidence as well, such as a worldwide survey on the subject.
Don't get me wrong. I hope it's true the majority of the world's population opposes slavery. There's just no way to know how many...what percentage...there may be. As such, I won't offer a guess as to what percentage supports or opposes. Given the nature of man, I don't want to ever find out. I'll just merrily go about my life supposing it's your 1%, knowing it's likely far more than that.
"Just for clarity's sake. And, of course, this should be obvious - that I'm not including in that 1% a count of people not in a position to deal with these concerns."
Don't care. It's still a stupid claim to make because you have no basis for it other than your fervent desire that it be so.
"I'd further note that this debilitating poverty and lack of wherewithal is oftentimes a form of slavery itself, denying people the liberty to be able to concern themselves with such problems."
Keep trying. You're only hurting your case.
"Tyrants have long recognized this. Consider the children of Israel enslaved in Egypt, where when they were considering trying to leave, Pharoah increased their labor so as to tamp down that free will. Or at least try to."
Still not helping. If the final six comments continue to belabor this subject, I think I'm just going to bow out rather than endure your lame attempts to posture as "winning".
April 23, 2024 at 4:50 PM
"Answer this question or quit and go away."
I did, quite directly in fact, when I said "Suffice it to say that I've objectively proven all my positions thus far.
How much more direct must I be?
"I'm NOT asking you if you've made claims about the objective morality of slavery (is it ALWAYS wrong/evil?), of gay folks getting married, rape, deliberately killing children in war time.
I'm asking you, simply, directly, reasonably:
"Marshal, are you guessing that you think in your head that your particular moral opinions about, for instance, slavery, rape, opposition to gay folks marrying, killing children deliberately during war time... are objectively proven?""
Once again, "Suffice it to say that I've objectively proven all my positions thus far". How much more direct must I be?
"Answer the question or move on."
Answered twice now in my typical direct manner and I'll move on when it suits me to do so.
April 23, 2024 at 4:58 PM"
"I asked:
"2. As a matter of historical record, people have ALWAYS said "things used to be more moral/better in the 'good old days...'" It doesn't make sense that this is rationally valid or supported.""
Uh...that's not a question. It's a statement.
"You responded:"
...anyway, despite it not being a question...
"As I said, I watch the news. I see it daily."
Before I go further, a couple of notable things:
1. You moved the goal posts while I was dealing with your initial comment that things are better now than in the past. Now the goal post is either "better/more moral" or "more moral". If you're treating those two as synonyms now, say so. I'll assume it until you do. I believe it works either way in saying how wrong you are.
"I did not ASK you if you watch the "news" (whatever you think "news" is, since you don't trust actual journalists). I did not ASK you if you watch it daily."
I do trust actual journalists. That's why I avoid NPR, MSNBC, CNN, the NYT, WaPo and liars like those.
"A "better" people doesn't support the annihilation of Israel or ignore the savagery of those who attack them as if there's a legit excuse for it."
"Pointing out one isolated group of actions is not proof that the world is more or less moral. No one is arguing that bad things didn't happen in the past and that they don't happen today."
I'm more than prepared to provide dozens of examples. Are you requesting that I do? I've been thinking of responding in a post of my own at my own blog and there you can embarrass yourself by rationalizing away every one of them.
"I'm stating that, whereas in the past, slavery was just accepted as a reality, today it's largely criminalized or at least, not directly legalized."
In a world with only 195 nations, 167 tolerate slavery and 90+ of them have no laws prohibiting it. Let's see...195 minus 167 comes to about...yes...28 countries which ostensibly outlaw slavery.
Again...not helping your case at all.
"I'm stating that it is no longer the case today as it was in the "good ol' days" where "god" commanded it, that slavery is a given that it's an option."
You don't have to revert to perverting Scripture again. You can find ways to be snarky which aren't a direct insult to God.
"I'm stating that, whereas in the past in most cultures, women didn't have the right to self-determination, now largely they do... at least in the free world where the gov't is not run by religious extremists."
Funny you should mention that. I just read an article by a woman arguing a repeal of the 19th might not be a bad idea. In the comments, there were as many women agreeing as were outraged at the notion.
"I'm stating that our wars are not as bloody and that we have actual rules in places to have "more moral" wars to prevent/lessen things like the deliberate slaughter of innocents, including children."
I haven't fought in a military engagement, either, but from all I can gather, they're just as bloody and how bloody it got means nothing to the dead. What's more, there hasn't been any intentional targeting of innocents for quite some time. You're confusing events like Hiroshima to give you liberty to suggest that was the case. As we see in Gaza, the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned to the impending attack as well. That's not targeting innocents. The only people deliberately slaughtering innocents are muslims and commies...and cartel members and other criminals. In short, there's nothing which has changed in war except the ability to make more pinpoint assaults on specific targets in populated areas. But direct contact with the enemy is just as fun as it ever was. What a foolish fantasy you put forth as fact.
"And on and on. In many observable, measurable ways, things are more moral today - at least insofar as is measured by respect for human rights.
Do you disagree?"
We'd have to get into specifics to generate an appropriate response. But given you support immoral behaviors and call it "human rights", I would, for now, disagree in general.
"Do you have some other measure of "morality" that you can prove objectively should be used rather than a basic respect for human rights?"
So now we've moved from "things are better" then "things are better/more moral" to legislation? Your goal posts are clearly on wheels. My understanding of morality is objective as it's based on the only source for what is or isn't moral. I didn't make it up and I disagree it's in any way difficult to discern even reading it in the skimming manner you modern progressives do.
"More questions for you to either directly answer or move on if you continue to not answer them."
Delete me if you lack the courage to engage. I'm not obliged to agree with your warped views you assert without evidence.
I will say, that man is no more moral than he ever was. "Things are better" only insofar as our technical abilities have improved. Mankind is just a corrupt as ever, but has far better toys.
April 23, 2024 at 5:00 PM
"I'll remind you: You could also be arguing that you AREN'T saying the world is worse, you're just saying it's not getting any better. Feel free to stake out that position if that's what you think.
BUT:
I don't think you think that. I think you think it is getting worse and significantly worse. That's a common theme in humanity to always think things used to be better. Liberals even think that today, when asked in opinion surveys. They just don't think it as consistently or extremely as conservatives do, in those same surveys."
Oh, no doubt things are getting much worse. Again, I could provide literally dozens of examples in support of that premise. The only question is how many dozens. I'm sure I'd wear out long before we could answer that question. Here's the fun part: Most of what's wrong in the world is the result of the modern progressive. I could say you're kind is totally responsible, but there are many cases where good men did nothing, so even right-wingers can be blamed in many cases. I don't need to assign blame to prove the point. It's just a matter if whether I choose to do it here or at my blog. If you insist, I can easily provide a compelling short list if I give a crap about you insisting.
April 23, 2024 at 5:17 PM
"I asked:
"But is there any EVIDENCE of it? I don't care about your theories. I mean, how many people do YOU know who'd want to OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING?"
Marshal:"
"I don't need to know a single person in favor of slavery to reasonably suppose that such people exist, given the historical record."
"I didn't ASK if people existed who were okay with slavery. I asked if you had any evidence of widespread support for slavery. I even gave you the option of defining widespread for yourself."
Again, Dan. I haven't argued or claimed there's "widespread support" for slavery. That's something you've been trying to stuff in my mouth as if I have. That is, you're lying intentionally. But my response stands because the logic of it is so freaking plain. To suppose that only those who have slaves constitute the total population of those who support slavery is childishly foolish. Think of it this way: there have been studies regarding jihadists versus those who don't fight but support it and the latter group is exponentially larger than the actual scumbags who murder Jews and Christians and disagreeing muslims. Why would not the same dynamic play out with regard to slavery? It doesn't mean it's as huge a number of those who dig jihad but don't fight themselves. But to pretend that it isn't enough to more than double (at least) the number of actual slave owners is pure stupidity. How many are there? I don't care. Where's my evidence? Where's your which limits that population in any way? You have none and have never thought beyond your Pollyanna fantasies about human nature.
"Unanswered questions are nothing but a waste of time."
Not as much as the low quality of questions you pose, most of which are to misdirect from you having been proven wrong. There's no "good faith, adult" discourse where you're running the show.
"AND that's another example of you vaguely hinting at more widespread support for slavery as a moral option (ie, "as there's no way you can discount the very real possibility... that there exist a far larger percentage who would have slaves of their own if they could")"
At best, you can only say my position is there's more support for it than merely the number of those who actually own slaves. You're lying purposely to insist it can mean I'm promoting anything akin to "widespread support". Stop lying. It doesn't make your erroneous position any truer.
"Is it the case that YOU really wish you could enslave people and this is an example of you projecting on the rest of humanity your own vile wishes?"
You clearly need to believe this is so, so, knock yourself out. I mean that literally. Find a hammer. What an ass to even suggest such a thing!
"I mean, you're not even willing to say that slavery - one person owning another human being to force them to work or have sex) is always a great evil, so..."
It's not a matter of "willingness". It's a matter of not bowing to your demand that I regard any behavior in the same manner and to the same degree as you do. I'm not at all impressed by someone who supports and defends abortion dictating to me anything about how to regard immoral behaviors. You haven't the standing to make such demands. What's more, so long as you continue to tie to Scripture the same meaning of slavery you're pushing to posture as moral, your definition is suspect and I won't answer to your purposeful ambiguities.
I think I have three or four comments left to offer responses you can't handle. Later.
Marshal:
I haven't argued or claimed there's "widespread support" for slavery.
Great. I'm glad to hear it. So you agree with me that there's NOT wide spread support for slavery? That by and large, it is viewed as vulgar and immoral?
If that's the case, then why are you pushing back when I say there is no widespread support for slavery? That, instead, there is widespread recognition of the evil of slavery (rape, child abuse, etc)? Is it because I say it's nearly universally viewed as evil?
As to your incessant complaints about your misunderstanding of what I meant by universal, I've now explained it and am using the "near universal" or "generally universal" language instead. MEANING that there is NOT widespread support for slavery, that it is generally opposed.
NOW do you understand?
Are you still pushing back, guessing in your head (even though you can't objectively prove it as with all the other things you obviously can't objectively prove, given your silence/inability to do so so far), thinking, "Support for slavery is NOT widespread, but neither is it nearly universally reviled in nearly all cultures..."? If so, then give a number.
"It's NOT widely supported, BUT, it's also not universally opposed... It is, I think based on nothing much, only 49% supported..."
WHAT is your guess that is somewhere between "widely opposed" and "but not universally opposed..."? It's a reasonable question.
IF you have no guess, then say so. Say, "I do NOT have any way of knowing if the number opposed to it is 49% or 99%... but I'm guessing it's closer to 49%..."
If you have literally NO IDEA, then don't say it's not generally universally opposed, because, by your own testimony, YOU HAVE NO IDEA.
Post a Comment