| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2009 08:16:36 PM · #2151 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, usually the caveat "as long as it harms nobody." is added as a reasonable limit. But even with this there are likely other limits. I found very few takers for the Brothers in Love extreme example. Not many thought they should have the right to marry. |
Much like so called Universalists who change their limits constantly over time (ex. slavery, interacial marriages, women's role in society, etc, etc, etc). I forgot who pointed it out earlier but it would seem most everyone is a Relativist. |
You sound like Admiral Stockdale barking random comments from the sidelines in the 1992 Vice Presidential debate. :P
GRIDLOCK! |
Ha. Well what's a yanko to do when he keeps pinning a certain doctor in the corner yet all the doc can do is just bow out to the sound of crickets. ;) |
I'm not even sure what your comment means. Really, I don't get it. |
|
|
|
04/14/2009 08:21:32 PM · #2152 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, that's the argument which is before the courts, legislators, and electorate ... it seems to me all the rest of this is just a smokescreen shielding a desire for theocracy ... |
Well, I agree with your assessment of where we are. This, however, is the legal side of the coin. Certainly moral actions have been illegal and legal actions have been immoral in the past. One doesn't really speak to the other. The legal landscape will be interesting to follow. My suspicion is that Prop 8 will be upheld, but not because of the actual issue but because the current challenge speaks to public reforenda and the state constitution rather than to the actual constitutionality of Gay Marriage in the state of California. I could be wrong though.
Federally the DOMA is unlikely to be overturned for decades at the least. The court may refuse to even speak on the matter. So we will remain a country of patchwork laws.
Message edited by author 2009-04-14 20:22:12. |
|
|
|
04/14/2009 08:39:50 PM · #2153 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Domestic partnership. This was gone over lots and lots and lots earlier. Yes, I'm willing to do completely away with civil "marriage" and replace it with civil union and allow society and government to do whatever they want with it. |
Why is "domestic partnership" OK, but marriage not? Your text-based moral standard says nothing of gay marriage, but specifically forbids interreligious (and probably interracial) marriage. Many churches will not perform such a ceremony even today, yet few Christians would question the validity of a Jewish marriage, and the state doesn't care. Why the different standard?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If my opponent is coming from a Relative position, I'm happy to take on their view if it benefits my case. :) But this isn't a Relative argument necessarily. It could be evidence that everybody considers the theoretical idea of a limit to liberty to be a universal truth (although they don't agree WHERE that limit should stand). |
A vague limit to liberty might be considered a universal truth, but it's not a moral argument. I submit that you don't offer moral explanations from a Universal perspective because they wouldn't hold up.
Originally posted by Shannon:
That very same text clearly encourages the subjugation of women, slave ownership and racial/cultural inequality (albeit to varying degrees), yet takes no stance on gay marriage. Furthermore, the church considered marriage itself to be a private matter for 1500 years after those texts were penned. If the standards are universal and/or absolute, why is it now a given that women should have the right to vote and owning slaves is a major moral no-no? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Before we proceed you are going to have to show me the vote thing in Scripture. I really have no idea where it is mentioned at all but you keep bringing it up. I mentioned slavery in a post above, perhaps while you were typing. |
Look again. I was very careful refer to the subjugation of women in the Bible.... declarations like this: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Throughout the Bible, in both Old and New testaments, women are supposed to submit to men. They are not even allowed to speak or ask questions in church, let alone voice an opinion on legislation over men. I did NOT say the Bible specifically prohibits women from voting, but it's not hard to see why those divine decrees formed the primary argument against suffrage that remains today in some countries based upon the same text. The Muslim requirement that women cover their heads originated from Corinthians! Yet we now allow women to hold positions as CEOs and run for president- a direct violation of Biblical moral standards.
Oh, and your pathetic attempt to feign ignorance over the type of slavery the Bible condones is bogus. It's plainly not referring to "modern contracts that limit the freedom of the worker." Speaking of which, where where do you suppose this falls on the moral spectrum?
Message edited by author 2009-04-14 21:23:42. |
|
|
|
04/14/2009 08:52:35 PM · #2154 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, usually the caveat "as long as it harms nobody." is added as a reasonable limit. But even with this there are likely other limits. I found very few takers for the Brothers in Love extreme example. Not many thought they should have the right to marry. |
Much like so called Universalists who change their limits constantly over time (ex. slavery, interacial marriages, women's role in society, etc, etc, etc). I forgot who pointed it out earlier but it would seem most everyone is a Relativist. |
You sound like Admiral Stockdale barking random comments from the sidelines in the 1992 Vice Presidential debate. :P
GRIDLOCK! |
Ha. Well what's a yanko to do when he keeps pinning a certain doctor in the corner yet all the doc can do is just bow out to the sound of crickets. ;) |
I'm not even sure what your comment means. Really, I don't get it. |
Do I really need to quote the posts you keep ignoring? |
|
|
|
04/14/2009 09:16:29 PM · #2155 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Are you serious with this argument? Yea I mean why stop there? Screw all those handicap parking spots, they could go to us "normal" people. And ramp and elevator regulations? I mean come on, the REST of us can take the stairs. Too bad for them. I like stairs. Stairs have worked for us for years. Why go all EXTREME just for a few people?
It's called progress. And it only seems extreme to people who oppose it.
And with this chromosome thing? What if a person was raised a girl her WHOLE life and then found out she had a Y chromosome? Should she not be allowed to marry the man she loves? Should her dreams be dashed because of a chromosome? Gender is not that simple. And no one is going around testing YOUR chromosomes in order for you to get married. That is an EXTREME violation of personal rights.
So it gets to the core of it. Gender has NOTHING to do with 2 consenting adults loving each other and wanting to enter into a legal contract. Churches can keep them out if they like, but legally it makes no sense.
And you never answered the transsexual portion of the question. I mean so... if a man has a sex change, he still has the chromosomes of a man, but as a vagina, by your definition he can marry a woman? Physically it would be a lesbian relationship. So they can get married even though they both have a vag and can't make children? Doesn't that go against the heart of the Christian arguement?
ETA: And there you have it. "No one has the right to get married but ME and people LIKE ME." And f*ck everyone else! |
Two responses:
The Practical/Legal response: There is a strong precedent for limitation on accomodation. To accomodate every whim is to invite chaos. You mention the Americans with Disabilities Act, but clearly there are limitations to its legal reach. An example is when a blind person sued American Airlines and Southwest because their websites were not compatible with his computer's voice technology. The case was dismissed. This isn't an example of a crazy person coming up with some weird disability (those exist, but probably don't prove much) but a legitimate request that was turned down as being an unreasonable burden when he could simply pick up the phone and call the airline. Bottom line: there is a precedent for limitations of "equality".
The moral response: This was discussed at length early on, but your argument is the Argument from Liberty (keyword to denote this in your post is "consenting"). The flaw in this argument is that for a vast, vast majority of people there is a line which they would consider crossing to be "wrong" even if everybody is "consenting". Where that line lies differs from person to person, but it exists. The argument, however, falls apart if it exists at all. We're simply back to arguing where that line ought to be.
Do note neither of my replies automatically indicate gay marriage should be wrong, but they do counter the argument that they should automatically be right. As I said, we're back to simply arguing what should be right/legal and what should be wrong/illegal (depending on which argument you are having, the moral or legal one). |
Hmm still no response on the transsexual besides that awful unrelated blind person story? It's going the wrong direction. Don't think of the blind person suing. That is not comparable at all to the situation! Think instead of how it would be if the blind person wanted some rights, like web sites with audio, and then there were huge organizations and money spent and rallies so that the blind person COULDN'T do that.
Comparing a law suit to a fight for civil rights is just completely off base.
Again on the issue of transsexuals and hermaphrodites. Genetic testing to get married? Really? What's next pink triangles on our shirts? (I know how much people love Hitler analogies here)
I would answer the brothers marrying question but someone already did quite well. |
|
|
|
04/14/2009 09:23:43 PM · #2156 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW Brennan, the 10% quote on gay people in our country is pretty well an extreme. The best figures we have are closer to 2%. Just trying to get our facts straight. The 10% came primarily from Kinsey and his work has been shown to be methodologically flawed on a number of levels. |
2% are people that are out, identify as gay and happened to be surveyed. That doesn't include all the people that are afraid to be out, are in denial, or haven't realized it yet.
I'd venture to guess it is at least as high as 5-7%, Kinsey or not. Don't kid yourself.
Either way, its still higher than the Jewish population, and no one is trying to take their rights away because they are not worth changing the "status quo". I bring this up often in these debate with NO response. Much like many of my other points. Isn't anyone who isn't Christian a sinner? What makes Christians think they have the monopoly on marriage yet no one is trying to stop atheists, Jews, Muslims, interracial couples etc from marrying. Why? Well perhaps because today, it is still openly acceptable to look at gays as lower class citizens. The other discrimination still exist, they are just more sneaky about it.
The "marry your brother" argument I'm sure was used in the arguments against interracial marriage as well. See how that turned out? The world didn't explode. God didn't come down and smite the mulatto children they produced. Life kept going on and everyone's marriages were no less "sanctified" then they ever were.
Message edited by author 2009-04-14 21:24:24. |
|
|
|
04/14/2009 09:36:55 PM · #2157 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Domestic partnership. This was gone over lots and lots and lots earlier. Yes, I'm willing to do completely away with civil "marriage" and replace it with civil union and allow society and government to do whatever they want with it. |
Why is "domestic partnership" OK, but marriage not? Your text-based moral standard says nothing of gay marriage, but specifically forbids interreligious (and probably interracial) marriage. Many churches will not perform such a ceremony even today, yet few Christians would question the validity of a Jewish marriage, and the state doesn't care. Why the different standard?
|
I got into days and days of myspace blog arguing (which is even MORE lame than this forum arguing) with a evangelical friend of mine about gay marriage and how its wrong. We are in Florida and it was right after amendment 2 passed which also takes away many rights for straight unmarried couples as well (like common law marriage). And at the end of it he said "well I'm ok with civil unions". It just about made my head explode. I was like... you mean to tell me after all this arguing, you are ok with "gay unions" but you voted against gay marriage because they used the word marriage? Otherwise, if it had been called "civil union" you wouldn't have banned it? And he said yea, because he can't pick and chose. He disagreed with one part ("marriage"), based on the bible. If the bill was in 2 parts, he would have voted differently, but since it was in one package, he felt he "HAD" to protect "marriage".
So I countered with... so I can't be an atheist woman and "marry" a man because it's not under the eyes of God? AND HE SAID NO!!! That I should ALSO call that a civil union.
The pure nerve. Let me say this again. CHRISTIANS. You do NOT have a monopoly on the word "marriage"!! Or the word "GOD" or any other words that happen to be in the Bible. If that were true, you'd own ALL the words. Words represent ideas, and the idea of marriage was around LONG before the Bible, just like God, food, children, etc, etc. Whatever word you THINK you own, you don't. God didn't even speak in English.
Message edited by author 2009-04-14 21:39:39. |
|
|
|
04/14/2009 10:22:55 PM · #2158 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
...he felt he "HAD" to protect "marriage." |
Well that makes perfect sense. According to the Bible, it's OK for a man who has married a slave to take a second wife for himself as long as he continues to have sex with the first one, too, but somehow a monogamous gay relationship would spoil the sanctity of marriage. That's like the mafia refusing to recognize the word "family" in the context of adopted children because it would tarnish the honor of the word. :-/ |
|
|
|
04/14/2009 11:12:02 PM · #2159 |
Hey Shannon, don't you find it funny on some level that when we argue with each other we take on the other's position? You accused me of becoming a Relativist (which I have done) yet you do the opposite with your slavery argument. You approach it as a Universalist by assuming we all know slavery is wrong (and always was). (If you deny it, you know I'm just going to ask, "You think slavery is right for certain societies?")
Anyway, I cannot go on. I am not smart enough or have the mental endurance to literally have four conversations at once. Lest you think I'm just running away I will openly tell you you have given me some things to chew over with regards to Universalism (although it doesn't make me a Relativist because I believe there are fatal flaws in that corner as well). Richard's conversation I just don't really understand and escapetooz is just asking ones that have been done to death on this very thread. Actually the transsexual and hemaphrodite questions are new, but I addressed them. Are they men or women? Treat them as such. Most hemaphrodites are only phenotypically ambiguous and are not genetically ambiguous. Your argument relies on forcing me to declare them both male and female, but I could just as easily declare them neither.
I had a good read over the wiki for Moral Relativism and while the wiki for Universalism isn't really fleshed out much, the one for Realtivism is a mess. Too bad.
Who wants to wager how many of the 2200 posts on this thread are mine? Probably 500-700. Geez. |
|
|
|
04/14/2009 11:12:57 PM · #2160 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The pure nerve. Let me say this again. CHRISTIANS. You do NOT have a monopoly on the word "marriage"!! Or the word "GOD" or any other words that happen to be in the Bible. If that were true, you'd own ALL the words. |
The word "dork" isn't in the Bible. That one can be all yours... :P |
|
|
|
04/14/2009 11:47:27 PM · #2161 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You accused me of becoming a Relativist (which I have done) yet you do the opposite with your slavery argument. You approach it as a Universalist by assuming we all know slavery is wrong (and always was). (If you deny it, you know I'm just going to ask, "You think slavery is right for certain societies?") |
Jaw drops. I've been pointing out for most of the day that slavery was NOT always wrong! It was clearly right for certain societies. The Bible practically endorsed it, and Thomas Jefferson, arguably one of the most morally progressive liberal thinkers in history, obviously thought slavery was right in his time, too. Read my original post on the matter and any since then:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...we are subject to social norms that change over time. The idea that people should not be owned as slaves or women should have the right to vote seems like a universal" moral truth today, but both were radical concepts only a few hundred years ago. |
That's a COMPLETELY relativistic position. It's an inescapable fact of history that morality, even "absolute" Biblical standards, is relative and changes over time with society and cultural attitudes. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 12:23:22 AM · #2162 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Geez. |
Misspelling the Lord's name in vain, aren't you ...? ;-) |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 12:38:33 AM · #2163 |
Inherent in every controversial issue of a social-political nature is the assumption that there is an acceptable answer to which most will subscribe as well as an unacceptable answer which most will spurn.
Digging deeper we find that in most issues, the majority opinion is assumed to be correct, even though the majority has most often been wrong throughout HIStory!
Can right really be defined by popularity poll? Can wrong really be defined as being unpopular?
Is Absolute Truth actually safer than letting everyone do that which is right in his or her own eyes?
If The LORD created the only marriage relationship to be between one man & one woman, do humans have the right to brazenly stand in front of the Eternal Sovereign and shamelessly tell Him that He is Wrong?
If God really doesn't exist and there is no standard for right & wrong, then why do the PC Police think that they "have a leg to stand-on" when it comes to me practicing my morality (whatever that may be!
If there is no God & no standard of morality, then why should I have to care what you think about any of my beliefs! Furthermore, THAT would make it none of your business!
Where HAVE I heard THAT before? :}
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 12:43:30 AM · #2164 |
Originally posted by 777STAN:
Inherent in every controversial issue of a social-political nature is the assumption that there is an acceptable answer to which most will subscribe as well as an unacceptable answer which most will spurn.
Digging deeper we find that in most issues, the majority opinion is assumed to be correct, even though the majority has most often been wrong throughout HIStory!
Can right really be defined by popularity poll? Can wrong really be defined as being unpopular?
Is Absolute Truth actually safer than letting everyone do that which is right in his or her own eyes?
If The LORD created the only marriage relationship to be between one man & one woman, do humans have the right to brazenly stand in front of the Eternal Sovereign and shamelessly tell Him that He is Wrong?
If God really doesn't exist and there is no standard for right & wrong, then why do the PC Police think that they "have a leg to stand-on" when it comes to me practicing my morality (whatever that may be!
If there is no God & no standard of morality, then why should I have to care what you think about any of my beliefs! Furthermore, THAT would make it none of your business!
Where HAVE I heard THAT before? :} |
You're assuming that a god would be the only standard for morality, which is a ridiculous assumption. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 01:27:03 AM · #2165 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You accused me of becoming a Relativist (which I have done) yet you do the opposite with your slavery argument. You approach it as a Universalist by assuming we all know slavery is wrong (and always was). (If you deny it, you know I'm just going to ask, "You think slavery is right for certain societies?") |
Jaw drops. I've been pointing out for most of the day that slavery was NOT always wrong! It was clearly right for certain societies. The Bible practically endorsed it, and Thomas Jefferson, arguably one of the most morally progressive liberal thinkers in history, obviously thought slavery was right in his time, too. Read my original post on the matter and any since then: |
Here's the part about Relativism that I just can't swallow. So we both agree that TJ thought slavery was morally acceptable. Do YOU think this is acceptable for the time and place? I'm not asking you if you think slavery is right because we know you do not. I'm asking if TJ's opinion was valid for the time and place? I can't get over that the answer could be "yes". Are you comfortable with saying that? |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:25:07 AM · #2166 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So we both agree that TJ thought slavery was morally acceptable. Do YOU think this is acceptable for the time and place? I'm not asking you if you think slavery is right because we know you do not. I'm asking if TJ's opinion was valid for the time and place? I can't get over that the answer could be "yes". Are you comfortable with saying that? |
The answer WAS yes. I don't happen to agree with it now, but had I lived in Virginia 250 years ago I probably would have thought slavery was perfectly acceptable because that was the social norm at the time. 200 years from now it will seem equally ridiculous that anyone would think banning gay marriage was right in THIS time. We're at a social turning point with homosexuality analogous to the period just before the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage and racial equality became "obvious" basic freedoms. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:32:03 AM · #2167 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You accused me of becoming a Relativist (which I have done) yet you do the opposite with your slavery argument. You approach it as a Universalist by assuming we all know slavery is wrong (and always was). (If you deny it, you know I'm just going to ask, "You think slavery is right for certain societies?") |
Jaw drops. I've been pointing out for most of the day that slavery was NOT always wrong! It was clearly right for certain societies. The Bible practically endorsed it, and Thomas Jefferson, arguably one of the most morally progressive liberal thinkers in history, obviously thought slavery was right in his time, too. Read my original post on the matter and any since then: |
Here's the part about Relativism that I just can't swallow. So we both agree that TJ thought slavery was morally acceptable. Do YOU think this is acceptable for the time and place? I'm not asking you if you think slavery is right because we know you do not. I'm asking if TJ's opinion was valid for the time and place? I can't get over that the answer could be "yes". Are you comfortable with saying that? |
LOL. I can't believe you asked that question. No need to ask about the Universalists of the time because the answer was a RESOUNDING YES! The question you should be asking is how can you call yourself a Universalist yet reject slavery at the same time, shouts the admiral from a distance...
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 11:05:52 AM · #2168 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So we both agree that TJ thought slavery was morally acceptable. Do YOU think this is acceptable for the time and place? I'm not asking you if you think slavery is right because we know you do not. I'm asking if TJ's opinion was valid for the time and place? I can't get over that the answer could be "yes". Are you comfortable with saying that? |
The answer WAS yes. I don't happen to agree with it now, but had I lived in Virginia 250 years ago I probably would have thought slavery was perfectly acceptable because that was the social norm at the time. 200 years from now it will seem equally ridiculous that anyone would think banning gay marriage was right in THIS time. We're at a social turning point with homosexuality analogous to the period just before the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage and racial equality became "obvious" basic freedoms. |
So here's what I don't grasp now. If slavery was a valid position 200 years ago, but isn't now, then what is to say "Gay Marriage is wrong" isn't a valid position at this very moment (although at another time it may not be)? Why ought our society abandon that position? What compels us to do so? We obviously have many, many "gay Thomas Jeffersons" (haha, I mean people who believe gay marriage is wrong) in our society. Why should they not rule the day? It seems an intractable problem. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 11:36:25 AM · #2169 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So here's what I don't grasp now. If slavery was a valid position 200 years ago, but isn't now, then what is to say "Gay Marriage is wrong" isn't a valid position at this very moment (although at another time it may not be)? Why ought our society abandon that position? What compels us to do so? We obviously have many, many "gay Thomas Jeffersons" (haha, I mean people who believe gay marriage is wrong) in our society. Why should they not rule the day? It seems an intractable problem. |
The thing of it is, as far as "Western society" knew back in the day, the blacks/people of color/Africans/whatever were NOT human, basically. So the moral argument for slavery was more or less the equivalent of the moral argument for keeping draft animals. It's only relatively recently, with advances of science and, specifically, genetics, that we "know" all peoples of whatever genetic makeup are members of the same species. So that's what's changed, really. And you can't make the same argument for homosexuality, that it's an open question whether "homosexuals" are entitled to the same rights that "human beings" have under law.
This is clumsily phrased, but that's the real point I think... I'm probably gonna get hammered for this post, but cut me some slack eh?
R.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 12:24:42 PM · #2170 |
| Bear and I are carrying that conversation on in IM. I would like to hear from Shannon to keep a continuity to the conversation. Don't worry, I'm not in attack mode here. I honestly want to know how your position gets over that problem because I don't see how it is possible. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 01:04:48 PM · #2171 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The thing of it is, as far as "Western society" knew back in the day, the blacks/people of color/Africans/whatever were NOT human, basically. So the moral argument for slavery was more or less the equivalent of the moral argument for keeping draft animals. It's only relatively recently, with advances of science and, specifically, genetics, that we "know" all peoples of whatever genetic makeup are members of the same species. |
This is one of the biggest crocks I have ever heard!
Slavery was a southern thing that the northern US did NOT share.
Not human!
That was rationale to justify the abuse of other humans.
How can you look at a black man and not know he's human just like you and me?
It's pigmentation and hereditary characteristics, just like fair skin, blond hair, and blue eyes.
I don't need science and genetics to tell me that.
Bear, I'm stunned.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 01:17:31 PM · #2172 |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 01:20:44 PM · #2173 |
I can certainly relate to the points raised by  Bear_Musicand would add that it is quite conceivable that during the time frame in question the slaves were, in addition to being viewed as chattel, considered of a lower mental capacity and in dire need of protection.
In essence, they became subjugated by a paternalistic and materialistic realm whose primary interest was to protect their investment. The primary issue of consideration in the matter was economics, a factor which is NOT at the forefront in the current discussion.
The only protection the gay community seeks now is from that segment of society that will not let them achieve parity in those domains they consider sacrosanct to the institution of marriage.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 01:30:11 PM · #2174 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The thing of it is, as far as "Western society" knew back in the day, the blacks/people of color/Africans/whatever were NOT human, basically. So the moral argument for slavery was more or less the equivalent of the moral argument for keeping draft animals. It's only relatively recently, with advances of science and, specifically, genetics, that we "know" all peoples of whatever genetic makeup are members of the same species. |
This is one of the biggest crocks I have ever heard!
Slavery was a southern thing that the northern US did NOT share.
Not human!
That was rationale to justify the abuse of other humans.
How can you look at a black man and not know he's human just like you and me?
It's pigmentation and hereditary characteristics, just like fair skin, blond hair, and blue eyes.
I don't need science and genetics to tell me that.
Bear, I'm stunned. |
I think Bear was referencing one of the justifications for slavery in the 17/1800's, certainly not his own opinion. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 01:31:21 PM · #2175 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Bear, I'm stunned. |
You fail to grasp the mind-set of the colonial powers ... it's even written into the US Constitution that African slaves counted as "3/5 of a human" for the purpose of determining population. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 2)
Clearly this had a political purpose, but also clearly indicates the belief in an inherent inequality, despite the "self-evident" truths spoken to in another document ... |
|
