If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free [W:1235:1274]*****************

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

No matter how hard you try to rewrite history, the truth remains in place. Slavery, for much, if not most, of man's existence was considered moral.

I'm not objecting to your opinion, in fact I concur, but the way it was won't change.

I forget whose diary I once read long ago, a Union officer who had led guerrilla outfit which had liberated a plantation, and told all the slaves they were freed. They chose not to leave the plantation, citing this was their home, this was where the were comfortable and secure. When I read that I was stunned, to say the least. Later, as I read of similar actions, those that were liberated from various repressions and suppressions of individuality and personal freedoms, this reaction was more common than I had expected throughout history. I have no doubt modern psychologists and sociologists could arrive with all sorts of explanations, but it would all be speculation by modern standards without honest empathy.

Justifications for slavery are simply unacceptable. Period.

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Not everyone owned slaves, but those who did never shared your modern vision of right and wrong.

And you know this because.................?

 

[Rucker61]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Justifications for slavery are simply unacceptable. Period.

Yet every country of the time practiced it in some form. How would you expect some British colonists to be any different?

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Yet every country of the time practiced it in some form. How would you expect some British colonists to be any different?

I did not realize every country practiced slavery in the 1600's and 1700's . Could you please provide evidence of that?

 

[Rucker61]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

I did not realize every country practiced slavery in the 1600's and 1700's . Could you please provide evidence of that?

I've already asked where it wasn't practiced of you, yesterday. Can you answer that?

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

I've already asked where it wasn't practiced of you, yesterday. Can you answer that?

What statement of claimed fact did I make that you want me to defend?

The statement of claimed fact that I want you to defend is as follows

Quote Originally Posted by Rucker61 View Post
Yet every country of the time practiced it in some form. How would you expect some British colonists to be any different?

Does your statement refer to having slavery in the nation or just people from the nation engaging the trade?

Does you statement refer to slavery having existed at any time in the history of the country or just in the 1600's and 1700's and first half of the 1800's when it was here in the USA?

Lets say you claim that ancient Rome practiced slavery. So what does that have to do with American practitioners of it over a thousand years later?

 

[Rucker61]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

What statement of claimed fact did I make that you want me to defend?

Oooh, trick question. You made this statement: "Any excuse for supporting slavery at any time in our nation is excuse making and rationalization of the unforgivable." I don't know for sure that it's a "statement of claimed fact". Presuming that you consider it as such, and as it was made prior to the statement you are challenging me on, the priority of defense lies with you.

As part of that defense, I am insisting that you list the countries/empires where it was not practiced in some form in 1787 so that we can understand who those civilized countries/empires were in comparison to a former British colony in North America.

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Oooh, trick question. You made this statement: "Any excuse for supporting slavery at any time in our nation is excuse making and rationalization of the unforgivable." I don't know for sure that it's a "statement of claimed fact". Presuming that you consider it as such, and as it was made prior to the statement you are challenging me on, the priority of defense lies with you.

As part of that defense, I am insisting that you list the countries/empires where it was not practiced in some form in 1787 so that we can understand who those civilized countries/empires were in comparison to a former British colony in North America.

The defense of what lies with me?

Again - when you say "practiced" are you saying that slavery existed in the countries or just that some people from that country engaged in parts of the slave trade? I do not want to wast time coming up with a list of nations that did not have slavery in their nation in 1787 only to have you move the goal posts and come back and tell me that there were people from those countries in other parts of the world engaging in the slave trade.

We know that around the world there were antislavery organizations so we know that their was enlightened opinion opposed to slavery. In 1688 Quakers in America took a public position signing petitions against slavery.

We know that in 1777 the state of Vermont took steps to outlaw slavery.

We know that there were anti-slavers at the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787 and the notes of Madison reflect that they were there. While they compromised and gave in to the southern slavers, they never the less existed and help a different view.

We have the history of Benjamin Franklin who at one time was a slave owner but turned against it and made arguments against it before we were ever the USA.

And of course we have the statement of our Founders in the 1776 Declaration that all men are created equal and have equal rights which goes against the very idea of slavery - even though many obviously lied about this belief and practiced slavery themselves... but the statement at least demonstrates some manner of sentiment against the practice from an intellectual perspective.

So the idea that everyone simply agreed with and accepted slavery in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted is not true.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Justifications for slavery are simply unacceptable. Period.

Explanations for slavery are essential for understanding who we are and how far we've come, how much further we need to go.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

The defense of what lies with me?

"Any excuse for supporting slavery at any time in our nation is excuse making and rationalization of the unforgivable."

Again - when you say "practiced" are you saying that slavery existed in the countries or just that some people from that country engaged in parts of the slave trade?

Any "support (your term) of slavery" at all, which could include officials turning a blind eye to the practice.

I do not want to wast time coming up with a list of nations that did not have slavery in their nation in 1787 only to have you move the goal posts and come back and tell me that there were people from those countries in other parts of the world engaging in the slave trade.

If those countries had colonies where slavery was officially or unofficially supported, they don't belong on the list then, do they?

 

[OldFatGuy]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

And you know this because.................?

Because it is obvious. Calm down, step away from the issue on a personal basis and you'll see the differences.

Most people couldn't afford to own a slave. It was the provenance of the wealthy of the times, during whatever era. Here no different. How mankind, human kind views morality changes over time and between cultures. Spartan women told their men to "come home victorious or come home on your shield." It was immoral not to kill, or die. Today, we know better, hopefully.

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

"Any excuse for supporting slavery at any time in our nation is excuse making and rationalization of the unforgivable."



Any "support (your term) of slavery" at all, which could include officials turning a blind eye to the practice.



If those countries had colonies where slavery was officially or unofficially supported, they don't belong on the list then, do they?

You miss the point. Pretending that everybody agreed with and accepted slavery or the slave trade is simply not true. Societies around the world had rejected slavery and even in societies which had it as a practice or trade there were people who were enlightened and opposed it and I gave you examples.

People who defend the practice today come down on the side of what was unenlightened and what was opposed by others who opposed the practice. And that is indefensible.

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Because it is obvious. Calm down, step away from the issue on a personal basis and you'll see the differences.

Most people couldn't afford to own a slave. It was the provenance of the wealthy of the times, during whatever era. Here no different. How mankind, human kind views morality changes over time and between cultures. Spartan women told their men to "come home victorious or come home on your shield." It was immoral not to kill, or die. Today, we know better, hopefully.

See your point. But I want you to see mine. There were people in colonial America and while we were in our early years as a nation that opposed slavery and argued that it was wrong. These enlightened minds prove that it was NOT TRUE that everybody simply accepted it.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

You miss the point. Pretending that everybody agreed with and accepted slavery or the slave trade is simply not true. Societies around the world had rejected slavery and even in societies which had it as a practice or trade there were people who were enlightened and opposed it and I gave you examples.

People who defend the practice today come down on the side of what was unenlightened and what was opposed by others who opposed the practice. And that is indefensible.

I understand that abolitionists existed. I don't know of entire societies that rejected it sufficiently to make abolitionism governmental policy and practice in 1787. There are and always have been elements society opposed to drinking, with all of the trouble it's caused through the ages. Are prohibitionists "enlightened", and should civilized society reject the consumption of alcohol in all forms in order to protect their citizens from the corrupting influence of demon rum?

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

I understand that abolitionists existed. I don't know of entire societies that rejected it sufficiently to make abolitionism governmental policy and practice in 1787. There are and always have been elements society opposed to drinking, with all of the trouble it's caused through the ages. Are prohibitionists "enlightened", and should civilized society reject the consumption of alcohol in all forms in order to protect their citizens from the corrupting influence of demon rum?

You are invoking the Fallacy of False Equivalency.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

You are invoking the Fallacy of False Equivalency.

You simply refuse to back up your claims.

 

[BretJ]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Slavery started here long before a majority ever spoke out either way about the practice.

So was it evil at that period of time to enslave Africans? They were not being deprived of any rights were they?

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

You simply refuse to back up your claims.

I already have provided evidence that at the time the USA turned a blind eye to slavery, there were people within and without our nation who recognized slavery as an evil and opposed it.

if you need more evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Effecting_the_Abolition_of_the_Slave_Trade

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

So was it evil at that period of time to enslave Africans? They were not being deprived of any rights were they?

Why is that your standard? Is it not enough to treat another human being as property and subject them to all manner of cruelty and abuse and exploitation regardless of what is recognized or not recognized as a right?

 

[BretJ]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Why is that your standard? Is it not enough to treat another human being as property and subject them to all manner of cruelty and abuse and exploitation regardless of what is recognized or not recognized as a right?

Cake...you can't have it and eat it too. You assert that rights are based on majority rules and that there are no universals. Yet you claim that enslaved Africans were somehow being deprived of rights not given to them by the government of the majority. Unless given to them by the government, Africans had no right to be treated fairly, without abuse or exploitation. Unless of course there are some level of universal/God given/Unalienable/ human rights. Petard...hoisted...

 

[OldFatGuy]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

See your point. But I want you to see mine. There were people in colonial America and while we were in our early years as a nation that opposed slavery and argued that it was wrong. These enlightened minds prove that it was NOT TRUE that everybody simply accepted it.

Understood. There have always been those who did not accept slavery. However their reasoning was not always based on morality, good or bad per se. Per example, when Chaka Zulu rejected slavery, a common practice in the region, it was because he viewed it as an impingement of warrior dignity and self reliance as a warrior. This reason was was given as the cause of why the Scythians took no captives from those they battled, killing them instead, from the few tales we have from others who feared the Scythians.

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Cake...you can't have it and eat it too. You assert that rights are based on majority rules and that there are no universals. Yet you claim that enslaved Africans were somehow being deprived of rights not given to them by the government of the majority. Unless given to them by the government, Africans had no right to be treated fairly, without abuse or exploitation. Unless of course there are some level of universal/God given/Unalienable/ human rights. Petard...hoisted...

I explained how rights come into being. I have also discussed that no human should own another human as property as human beings are not things like tables and chairs.

Slaves did not have rights so they had no rights to violate. But the wrong done to them was not a violation of their rights but the condition they were kept in as property and then the abuse and exploitation that accompanied that.

You are the one inventing the idea that the slaves were wronged because there rights were violated. It would do well if you did not assume that your argument is my argument.

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Understood. There have always been those who did not accept slavery. However their reasoning was not always based on morality, good or bad per se. Per example, when Chaka Zulu rejected slavery, a common practice in the region, it was because he viewed it as an impingement of warrior dignity and self reliance as a warrior. This reason was was given as the cause of why the Scythians took no captives from those they battled, killing them instead, from the few tales we have from others who feared the Scythians.

Thank you for that information. I was not aware of it.

 

[Gina]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Moderator's Warning:

Good gracious! The topic is NOT slavery. You all were warned to get back on-topic at post #1235: Moderator's Warning: I suggest posts focus on the topic, and the arguments, of THIS thread going forward. The baiting and flaming needs to end, as well as the posts that are not dealing with discussing the topic but rather each other The topic of the thread is: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free Get back to discussing that. This is a ZERO tolerance warning. Any further discussion of slavery will be met with points and thread ban.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Thank you for that information. I was not aware of it.

Feudalism, founded by Charlemagne as a form for controlling heirship (rights of chivalry) and suborning Barons and other warlords to his fealty, was also a form of slavery for the serfs. Charlemagne who had himself declared Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, did so by forcibly bringing the Pope to confirm his coronation. Serfdom was considered a natural order of divine rule. At its worst among the last holdouts, the Tsars of Russia, leading to the conditions for the Revolution. The issues were personal dignity and economic growth as Russia moved from its agrarian base toward industrialization.

Many of us Americans forget, our ancestors were often serfs, peasants, forced into cities by industrialization, forced into criminality by the lack of living wages and an industrial extension of a form of slavery, and then sent to the Americas as punishment for living. And the same for the bastard sons & daughters of the nobility not ensconced in priesthoods and nunneries. Read Frankenstein, by 18 year old Mary Shelley. Mary's horror story continues to resonate today, mostly for the fear of man playing god. Yet Mary, at 18 had already given birth twice, having both children die in infancy by her first husband, as a common law wife of her lover Pyrce, and simultaneous lover of Lord Byron. Both of whom had left a trail of abandoned children across Europe as the jet setters, glitterati of their generation. Dr. Frankenstein had abandoned his creation, as so many men had abandoned their offspring just like these two men of her life. Another form of slavery for the women of Europe and their in and out of wedlock children, which Mary was railing against with a superficial plot of her novel and its monumental themes. Slavery wasn't just about the formal institution sanctified in the Bible, it was also about cultural practices, given different forms and names, and never justified, but rationalized, with morality out of the picture. We owe it to ourselves to understand the explanations of how we became what we are today. Those explanations, once we understand them, can allow us to reject their basis, and make us better humanists than those who lived by these practices. So easy with hindsight if we open our eyes to that hindsight. This still doesn't mean we can reject them on the basis of morality, just a rejection of their morality as different from our own, whether present for them or not as part of their reasoning. We evolve, not just physically, but in all ways, we hope. At least until another Hitler, Stalin or Mao (all of whom condoned the use of slave labor) appears and rises to leadership as we've seen in the not so distant past. And don't think that they have not been present and are not present, in the killing fields of Cambodia to the endless genocides of the Congo, to the continuing genocides along the Amazon and the poorest nations like Guatemala and Peru.

History teaches us the way of war is the way of men, and slavery has been a spoil of war for the winners. At least until we Americans said no more, and only after fighting the bloodiest first modern war to date, partly over the continuance of slavery in this nation. Yet if we look deeply at our nation, we still have our slaves.