'Ask a Slave' Makes Depressingly Stupid Tourist Questions Hilarious

[Harshaw]

I used logic to arrive at my morality. If everyone sees it differently, they suspended logic. Of course, they may have started with a faulty premise as well.

All you're doing here is declaring your own moral premises and (presumably) extending them through "logic," though you haven't actually done that.

Logic doesn't exist without a premise to work from. The moral premise has to come from somewhere, and if everyone else agrees on a different moral premise, by what authority do YOU say it's "faulty"?

I think your continual dodge of that question says quite a bit.

 

[Thorgasm]

All you're doing here is declaring your own moral premises and (presumably) extending them through "logic," though you haven't actually done that.

Logic doesn't exist without a premise to work from. The moral premise has to come from somewhere, and if everyone else agrees on a different moral premise, by what authority do YOU say it's "faulty"?

I think your continual dodge of that question says quite a bit.

Nobody has "authority" to say it's faulty. It's all subjective and doesn't lend itself to empirical data.

You want to know why I think it's wrong to steal? Because if I steal from someone, they may feel the response is to kill me, hurt me, or steal from me. Logically, that is a perjorative action. Is that what you are looking for?

 

[Harshaw]

Nobody has "authority" to say it's faulty. It's all subjective and doesn't lend itself to empirical data.

You want to know why I think it's wrong to steal? Because if I steal from someone, they may feel the response is to kill me, hurt me, or steal from me. Logically, that is a perjorative action. Is that what you are looking for?

No, that's not what I'm looking for. I want to know what makes you right about it.

You said:

"Everyone else was doing it" is no excuse when it comes to morality.

But unless there's a source for morality other than what "everyone" agrees is moral, then yes, it's not only an "excuse," it IS morality.

 

[NoC_T]

The founders are lionized as paragons of morality of their time. If we compare governments around the world, at the same time, and how their citiziens were treated (of course, every country had slaves), we see a considerable difference. Most of the world had God-Kings, Kings, Emperors, Warlords and other totalitarian regimes without votes. It annoys me when people give the founders crap about slavery and other things while ignoring the rest of the world at that time. Dropping context makes a stupid argument - the only places to go after that are absolutism and nihilism.


/rant off (will not clicky on video)

This.

It's as ridiculous as Islamophobes calling Muhammad a paedophile.

 

[Thorgasm]

No, that's not what I'm looking for. I want to know what makes you right about it.

Logic says that slavery is wrong.

You said:



But unless there's a source for morality other than what "everyone" agrees is moral, then yes, it's not only an "excuse," it IS morality.

If everyone agrees the sun orbits the earth they are still wrong. Being wrong in a large group doesn't make it right.

 

[Harshaw]

Logic says that slavery is wrong.

No, it doesn't. Logic doesn't give you ANY "right" or "wrong." It makes no value judgments whatsoever. It's only your own premise which gets you there.

If everyone agrees the sun orbits the earth they are still wrong. Being wrong in a large group doesn't make it right.

Morality isn't science. There is no moral "fact" other than what most people agree upon. Unless you'd like to cite a source other than what most people agree on?

You haven't yet, so you probably aren't going to, and we both know that you understand the point and have conceded it by continually dodging it.

 

[Thorgasm]

No, it doesn't. Logic doesn't give you ANY "right" or "wrong." It makes no value judgments whatsoever. It's only your own premise which gets you there.

You can logically reason why slavery is wrong. Okay, maybe you can't, but I can. :lol:

Morality isn't science. There is no moral "fact" other than what most people agree upon. Unless you'd like to cite a source other than what most people agree on?

You haven't yet, so you probably aren't going to, and we both know that you understand the point and have conceded it by continually dodging it.

Just because everyone else says that something is "right" doesn't convince me that it is "right".

 

[Fisher]

Morality is a hypothetical construct, this is true. Although, you can use logic to arrive at morals instead of following the herd.

If one believes that pollution is killing the planet and that the pollution is caused by humans, couldn't one logically reach the conclusion that in order to save the planet, we must kill off half the humans and claim it to be a moral act?

 

[TiredOfLife]

If one believes that pollution is killing the planet and that the pollution is caused by humans, couldn't one logically reach the conclusion that in order to save the planet, we must kill off half the humans and claim it to be a moral act?

Half? Well, that's a decent start.

 

[Harshaw]

You can logically reason why slavery is wrong. Okay, maybe you can't, but I can. :lol:

Only if you start from a particular moral premise that you haven't given a source for.

Just because everyone else says that something is "right" doesn't convince me that it is "right".

Who cares what it convinces YOU of? Morality is what most people agree is moral. If you don't agree, that is YOUR problem. You're the one who's out of moral step. There is no right or wrong other than what most people agree on.

Unless, of course, you can point to something else that determines it, which you obviously cannot do. So, too bad for you, morality is what most people agree it is, no matter how wrong YOU think it is.

No desire at all to go around this merry-go-round again, but as I said, we both know you understand and have conceded the point. Toodles.

 

[Thorgasm]

If one believes that pollution is killing the planet and that the pollution is caused by humans, couldn't one logically reach the conclusion that in order to save the planet, we must kill off half the humans and claim it to be a moral act?

That's a bit simplistic. The moral dilemma is deciding which humans to kill off.

 

[Fisher]

That's a bit simplistic. The moral dilemma is deciding which humans to kill off.

It doesn't matter which ones to kill off if that is your morality, just as long as it is not you.

 

[Thorgasm]

Only if you start from a particular moral premise that you haven't given a source for.

You haven't given a source for your stance either. Does it magically appear once you get a large enough group together?

Who cares what it convinces YOU of? Morality is what most people agree is moral. If you don't agree, that is YOUR problem. You're the one who's out of moral step. There is no right or wrong other than what most people agree on.

Unless, of course, you can point to something else that determines it, which you obviously cannot do. So, too bad for you, morality is what most people agree it is, no matter how wrong YOU think it is.

No desire at all to go around this merry-go-round again, but as I said, we both know you understand and have conceded the point. Toodles.

So you think it comes from Jerry Falwell? :lol:

 

[Thorgasm]

It doesn't matter which ones to kill off if that is your morality, just as long as it is not you.

Logically, it does matter which ones you kill off. Logically, you should kill off the biggest polluters. Of course, those people are the same ones that are curing disease, increasing farming yields, and developing technologies that are beneficial to mankind and even the planet. It's not so simple.

 

[Fisher]

Logically, it does matter which ones you kill off. Logically, you should kill off the biggest polluters. Of course, those people are the same ones that are curing disease, increasing farming yields, and developing technologies that are beneficial to mankind and even the planet. It's not so simple.

depends on your logic. Killing off the consumers is better than killing off their suppliers by one economic logic.

There is no universal objective morality. everybody has their own.

 

[Thorgasm]

depends on your logic. Killing off the consumers is better than killing off their suppliers by one economic logic.

There is no universal objective morality. everybody has their own.

Without demand, supply ain't shit.

But yes, ultimately, everyone has their own morality. Except for Harshaw, he checks the polls for his. :lol:

 

[Harshaw]

You haven't given a source for your stance either. Does it magically appear once you get a large enough group together?

Weirdly, it was I who asked you what the source for morality is, other than what everyone agrees is moral.

To the extent I've said anything, I've said there can be no other source.

If you have a different one, lay it out. But you haven't done that.

So you think it comes from Jerry Falwell? :lol:

I think it comes from where I said it comes from, and while you do not accept that, you have refused to say where else it COULD come from. So you may as well cite Jerry Falwell yourself.

It's not I who is apparently claiming a source for morality other than what most people agree is moral, it's you. It's up to you say where it comes from, not I.

But you apparently can't do that.

It's interesting that you bring up Jerry Falwell, because you want to ascribe to me some kind of religious source for morality, but I never made any such claim. It's you who are apparently looking to some higher source outside of the opinions of humanity to declare those opinions morally wrong if you don't agree with them. So, really, it's you who are looking to some kind of universal rulemaker. I am not.

You can't have it both ways. You can't believe that morality comes from what people agree is moral, and at the same time say those people are wrong. If you want to make a case that they're wrong, then you need a higher authority. But you don't want to cite one. You want there to be a universal morality, but can't give a source for it, I suppose because that would mean you, not I, would have to get religious or spiritual.

Bottom line -- morality is entirely a human construct. That which most people agree is moral is what's moral. Your personal opinion of it is irrelevant. If you disagree, it's you who are wrong.

Of course, you won't accept that, but you also won't accept that there's source for morality other than people, so you're going to have to live with your internal contradiction, I guess. Not my problem, really.

 

[Thorgasm]

Weirdly, it was I who asked you what the source for morality is, other than what everyone agrees is moral.

To the extent I've said anything, I've said there can be no other source.

If you have a different one, lay it out. But you haven't done that.

It comes from your own personal life experience and what you have been exposed to.

I think it comes from where I said it comes from, and while you do not accept that, you have refused to say where else it COULD come from. So you may as well cite Jerry Falwell yourself.

It's not I who is apparently claiming a source for morality other than what most people agree is moral, it's you. It's up to you say where it comes from, not I.

But you apparently can't do that.

It's interesting that you bring up Jerry Falwell, because you want to ascribe to me some kind of religious source for morality, but I never made any such claim. It's you who are apparently looking to some higher source outside of the opinions of humanity to declare those opinions morally wrong if you don't agree with them. So, really, it's you who are looking to some kind of universal rulemaker. I am not.

You can't have it both ways. You can't believe that morality comes from what people agree is moral, and at the same time say those people are wrong. If you want to make a case that they're wrong, then you need a higher authority. But you don't want to cite one. You want there to be a universal morality, but can't give a source for it, I suppose because that would mean you, not I, would have to get religious or spiritual.

Bottom line -- morality is entirely a human construct. That which most people agree is moral is what's moral. Your personal opinion of it is irrelevant. If you disagree, it's you who are wrong.

Of course, you won't accept that, but you also won't accept that there's source for morality other than people, so you're going to have to live with your internal contradiction, I guess. Not my problem, really.

I brought up Falwell as a subtle reference to his Moral Majority. It wasn't religion I was referencing, but the majority that you cling to. Where does the majority get their source? I asked you already and you ignored it. Does it magically appear once a group reaches a certain size?

BTW, I thought you said, "Toodles." :lol:

 

[Harshaw]

It comes from your own personal life experience and what you have been exposed to.

Oh, wait; I thought that didn't count when it came to hanging the Founders on moral grounds.

Indeed, that was your entire thesis for being in this thread in the first place.

I brought up Falwell as a subtle reference to his Moral Majority. It wasn't religion I was referencing, but the majority that you cling to.

I never "clung" to the "Moral Majority." That's childish and stupid.

Where does the majority get their source? I asked you already and you ignored it. Does it magically appear once a group reaches a certain size?

What the majority agrees on as moral IS the source. There's no "morality" if everyone makes up their own. That would mean murder and slavery are indeed moral as long as you, personally, think they are, by your own sensibilities and "logic." And that's asinine.

BTW, I thought you said, "Toodles." :lol:

:shrug: I changed my mind. So, touche', but that's the only (very, very minor) point you've scored here.

 

[Thorgasm]

Oh, wait; I thought that didn't count when it came to hanging the Founders on moral grounds.

Indeed, that was your entire thesis for being in this thread in the first place.

They were hypocrites who suspended logic to rationalize that black folks weren't "men".

I never "clung" to the "Moral Majority." That's childish and stupid.

You've been clinging to the majority this whole thread. That is what I was highlighting.

What the majority agrees on as moral IS the source. There's no "morality" if everyone makes up their own. That would mean murder and slavery are indeed moral as long as you, personally, think they are, by your own sensibilities and "logic." And that's asinine.

Murder and slavery are not logically moral.

:shrug: I changed my mind. So, touche', but that's the only (very, very minor) point you've scored here.

That's immoral. :2razz:

 

[Harshaw]

They were hypocrites who suspended logic to rationalize that black folks weren't "men".

No, they were living by their personal experiences and what they were exposed to, which is what you said:

It comes from your own personal life experience and what you have been exposed to.

:shrug:

You've been clinging to the majority this whole thread. That is what I was highlighting.

Not the "Moral Majority."

Murder and slavery are not logically moral.

This again? "Logic" isn't morality. That you keep repeating it over and over and over won't make it so.

I guess you can keep sticking your finger into the same light socket as much as you want, but it's always going to have the same result.

And you can continue to be stubborn, but that's all it really is. I don't think many are going to have a problem seeing it.

 

[Thorgasm]

No, they were living by their personal experiences and what they were exposed to, which is what you said:



:shrug:

Yes, but they suspended logic and made up a fairy tale that black people were cattle, not people.

Not the "Moral Majority."

I'm glad you finally got it.

This again? "Logic" isn't morality. That you keep repeating it over and over and over won't make it so.

I guess you can keep sticking your finger into the same light socket as much as you want, but it's always going to have the same result.

And you can continue to be stubborn, but that's all it really is. I don't think many are going to have a problem seeing it.

Slavery is illogical. I'm sorry I can't say otherwise.

 

[Harshaw]

Yes, but they suspended logic and made up a fairy tale that black people were cattle, not people.

They didn't "suspend" anything. They went by their experiences and what they were "exposed to." (And it wasn't even all of them; many were abolitionist.)

I'm glad you finally got it.

:roll:

Slavery is illogical. I'm sorry I can't say otherwise.

See, these juvenile cheap shots are exactly that. You try to make it seem like I'm defending slavery, when I'm not.


But let's play it your way:

Start with NOTHING. That is, NOTHING. Any premise requires general agreement for it to be a given, and you've already dismissed general agreement. So, you start with NOTHING.

Now, use pure logic and prove that slavery is wrong. Go step-by-step.

 

[Gathomas88]

oh, man. she is hilarious.

:lol:

I didn't know that TPD was into historical reenactments. :shock:

:lamo

More seriously, however; it stands to reason that "slave reenactor" probably wasn't the best career choice for an overtly opinionated black woman who pretty clearly has a chip on her shoulder about the whole issue. Some of the questions shown on the video might've been a bit on the cringe-worthy side, but it's hard to deny that a lot of her responses were more than a little uncalled for as well.

 

[DiAnna]

oh, man. she is hilarious.

:lol:

:lamo

That was awesome, lol! Be sure to watch both of the clips, too! :thumbs:


EDIT: :shock: I just read the rest of the thread. Some of you could suck the fun out of an apple dumpling.