This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
Thebestoftherest wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:54 pm
I don't just because something was right at the time doesn't mean we can't judge them, because in doing so we learn from our failings and actually become better people.
The question is how do you judge them and what exactly do you consider a failing? One man's vice is another man's virtue so how can one be sure they are not simply replacing one vice with another?
Then if you judge someone, what exactly are you judging them on? If you only look at what someone did wrong Ghandi becomes a tyrant and if you only look at what someone did right, Genghis Khan becomes a paragon of virtue. So if someone says 'we should honor this person, but not that person' my response is 'why exactly? What makes this person good and that person bad?'
Dragon Ball Fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:27 pm
I think the point originally being gotten at was that you cannot judge people from hundreds of years ago by today's standards. And if you say that there was abolitionist views even in Washington's time, was "slavery is bad" the majority opinion then? If not, wile the institution was still wrong, you can't say the individuals within it were pure evil.
It also applies to the other side. Just because someone was anti-slavery doesn't make them the good guys either. When I took American history in college we read some examples of abolitionist literature leading up to the civil war and most of it talked more about social stratification and the dangers of a slave owning elite class. There was an opinion that slavery was evil because it was allowing wealthy whites to dominate poor whites, never mind about the blacks. Lincoln once gave a speech about how slavery was bad because it was allowing otherwise productive land to go unused.
Didn't Lincoln only have those regressive views before he befriended that person of color I forget the name of?
Dragon Ball Fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:27 pm
I think the point originally being gotten at was that you cannot judge people from hundreds of years ago by today's standards. And if you say that there was abolitionist views even in Washington's time, was "slavery is bad" the majority opinion then? If not, wile the institution was still wrong, you can't say the individuals within it were pure evil.
It also applies to the other side. Just because someone was anti-slavery doesn't make them the good guys either. When I took American history in college we read some examples of abolitionist literature leading up to the civil war and most of it talked more about social stratification and the dangers of a slave owning elite class. There was an opinion that slavery was evil because it was allowing wealthy whites to dominate poor whites, never mind about the blacks. Lincoln once gave a speech about how slavery was bad because it was allowing otherwise productive land to go unused.
Didn't Lincoln only have those regressive views before he befriended that person of color I forget the name of?
Plus despite his title of Honest Abe, could he have lie.
The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.
This:
The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn't ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, "Here's your square hole"?
The way society is organized at the moment, we have no choice but to blame men for bad behavior. If we allowed men to act like unrestrained horny animals, all hell would break loose. All I'm saying is that society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness.
And this:
If Biden is elected, there's a good chance you will be dead within the year.
Republicans will be hunted.
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
Dragon Ball Fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:27 pm
I think the point originally being gotten at was that you cannot judge people from hundreds of years ago by today's standards. And if you say that there was abolitionist views even in Washington's time, was "slavery is bad" the majority opinion then? If not, wile the institution was still wrong, you can't say the individuals within it were pure evil.
It also applies to the other side. Just because someone was anti-slavery doesn't make them the good guys either. When I took American history in college we read some examples of abolitionist literature leading up to the civil war and most of it talked more about social stratification and the dangers of a slave owning elite class. There was an opinion that slavery was evil because it was allowing wealthy whites to dominate poor whites, never mind about the blacks. Lincoln once gave a speech about how slavery was bad because it was allowing otherwise productive land to go unused.
Didn't Lincoln only have those regressive views before he befriended that person of color I forget the name of?
Dragon Ball Fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:27 pm
I think the point originally being gotten at was that you cannot judge people from hundreds of years ago by today's standards. And if you say that there was abolitionist views even in Washington's time, was "slavery is bad" the majority opinion then? If not, wile the institution was still wrong, you can't say the individuals within it were pure evil.
It also applies to the other side. Just because someone was anti-slavery doesn't make them the good guys either. When I took American history in college we read some examples of abolitionist literature leading up to the civil war and most of it talked more about social stratification and the dangers of a slave owning elite class. There was an opinion that slavery was evil because it was allowing wealthy whites to dominate poor whites, never mind about the blacks. Lincoln once gave a speech about how slavery was bad because it was allowing otherwise productive land to go unused.
Didn't Lincoln only have those regressive views before he befriended that person of color I forget the name of?
