NYC is considering removing statues of Washington and Columbus

I'd be fine with blowing up Columbus and putting up something for whatever "Viking dude" really discovered the continent for plundering. Not that the natives weren't already happily plundering already, but with distinctly inferior weapons.
 
I'd be fine with blowing up Columbus and putting up something for whatever "Viking dude" really discovered the continent for plundering. Not that the natives weren't already happily plundering already, but with distinctly inferior weapons.

Vikings may have been there first, but their exploration didn't lead to a permanent settling and conquest of the land.

That happened due to Columbus, as misguided as he was to where he was actually going.

We take modern maps and cartography in general too much for granted. But again our society takes many things for granted people back then would find near magic. Light switches, flushing toilets, potable water delivered to your house, etc.
 
They didn't know it was wrong as we know it's wrong. All human history except the past 200 years saw it as part of society.
They did. What kind of stupid Bingos are you alleging the Founders were, who didn't understand that enslaving, raping and murdering people were wrong? They can't demand liberty from a King and deny it to others and claim ignorance. That's stupid.
Again, at that point is was still an argument, not established moral viewpoint.
You're a moron. How can they understand taxation without representation to be tyranny in one instance but not the forceful enslavement of others in another? Again. That's stupid.
Yes, because we all know anti-fa and BLM use nothing but unicorn farts and fairy queefs to get their way.

Most Vampires wouldn't degrade themselves siring goblins as their spawn. Zombie goblins would have been a better insult. Try harder.
Why don't you try harder then claiming that the people who wrote on and on about liberty didn't understand the atrocity of slavery.
 
They did. What kind of stupid Bingos are you alleging the Founders were, who didn't understand that enslaving, raping and murdering people were wrong? They can't demand liberty from a King and deny it to others and claim ignorance. That's stupid.

You're a moron. How can they understand taxation without representation to be tyranny in one instance but not the forceful enslavement of others in another? Again. That's stupid.

Why don't you try harder then claiming that the people who wrote on and on about liberty didn't understand the atrocity of slavery.

raping murdering yes, enslaving, no. It was common even amongst the enslaved races themselves.

Because that's the way it was since antiquity. Some saw otherwise, but there wasn't the consensus there is now about it.

Different time, different conditions. Retroactive morality is just as dumb as trying to impose Victorian or Roman morality now.
 
raping murdering yes, enslaving, no. It was common even amongst the enslaved races themselves.
Just because it was common doesn't mean they didn't know it was wrong. If you ever have the chance to visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture and you go down to basement they had pieces of rebuilt slave ships, and look at the displays of tiny handcuffs and restraints that they forged out of metal to restrain children, then you know the Culture that would force such instruments was a deplorable one. You can't pretend you coward. I mean maybe you can, but decent and educated people aren't going to pretend with you.
Because that's the way it was since antiquity. Some saw otherwise, but there wasn't the consensus there is now about it.
Consensus doesn't equate to moral. Do you require consensus on abortion before you judge the morality of it? Your line of reasoning is easily defeated.
Different time, different conditions. Retroactive morality is just as dumb as trying to impose Victorian or Roman morality now.
Morality is also not a property of time. A rape isn't morally OK or even ambiguously moral just because it happened a decade ago. That's also poor reasoning.
 
Anyone who enslaved persons or directly benefited economically from slavery, or who participated in systemic crimes against indigenous peoples or other crimes against humanity

Too funny, Trog! Democrats are such idiot assholes. Find me someone in the 17th, 18th or 19th century who DIDN'T benefit from slavery or crimes against other people?! If you weren't a slave, you were supported by slavery in some fashion. These were ages of conquest, battle, war, taking land---- to the victor went the spoils and the fate of the conquered was enslavement. Without it, there would be no modern world as we know it today.

Slavery was as common then as our use of plastics now--- just imagine if 150 years from now, future people condemn us for using plastic cellphones, plastic TVs, plastic cars, fuel, and natural gas? We use these things because they are all we have and the only way we know for creating and attaining the things we need, much the same as slavery was hundreds of years ago.

I imagine that every county in NY state is named after a conquered and displaced indigenous Indian people. Will New York rename all their counties? All their cities? Their streets? How many billions will they be sending to the Seneca Indians for stealing their land and killing their people?

Will New York City be taking down all of the busts of U.S, presidents involved in wars and other crimes against humanity? Wouldn't that include Biden?

Next up, reparations for all the horses used and enslaved for hundreds of years used for pulling carts, coaches and wagons. SHAME on those people for using horses and not just walking by foot at a time when there was no other way to get around! :smoke:
 
Just because it was common doesn't mean they didn't know it was wrong. If you ever have the chance to visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture and you go down to basement they had pieces of rebuilt slave ships, and look at the displays of tiny handcuffs and restraints that they forged out of metal to restrain children, then you know the Culture that would force such instruments was a deplorable one. You can't pretend you coward. I mean maybe you can, but decent and educated people aren't going to pretend with you.

Consensus doesn't equate to moral. Do you require consensus on abortion before you judge the morality of it? Your line of reasoning is easily defeated.

Morality is also not a property of time. A rape isn't morally OK or even ambiguously moral just because it happened a decade ago. That's also poor reasoning.

Some people thought it was wrong, but it wasn't the consensus. It was brutal, but live back then was far more brutal for most people. and shorter, and far more unbalanced between rich and poor. Hell Europe still had serfs in Eastern Europe at the time, and even after chattel slavery was banned.

When figuring out if someone was doing something wrong at the time they did it, consensus means everything.

Statutory rape as we consider it didn't exist in antiquity, and thus wasn't a crime. it was a function of biology and short lifespans to marry off teens and pre teens to older men.

Forcible Rape has always been a crime, usually punished by the offender getting killed by the relatives of the woman in question.
 
Some people thought it was wrong, but it wasn't the consensus. It was brutal, but live back then was far more brutal for most people. and shorter, and far more unbalanced between rich and poor. Hell Europe still had serfs in Eastern Europe at the time, and even after chattel slavery was banned.
Again consensus is an illegitimate point unless you're going to tell me all your moral believes are derived from consensus. Is that the case?
When figuring out if someone was doing something wrong at the time they did it, consensus means everything.
No. Consensus means something in regards to passing laws. You don't actually wait on consensus for your moral beliefs.
Statutory rape as we consider it didn't exist in antiquity, and thus wasn't a crime. it was a function of biology and short lifespans to marry off teens and pre teens to older men.
Shorter life spans were a product of environment and circumstance not biology. Our biology hasn't changed much since the 1600s. Washington died at 67, longer than average sure but not because of biology but because he was a man of means. If spreading wealth and healthcare had been a goal of that culture average life spans would of improved. Marrying young teen girls was a cultural choice, like slavery. Not a biological imperative.
Forcible Rape has always been a crime, usually punished by the offender getting killed by the relatives of the woman in question.
Wrong. It didn't become illegal to forceably rape your wife until the 1970s.
 

Forum List

Back
Top