[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m still waiting for you to address this: If they were truly against slavery WHY did they own slaves themselves? Most of them did.[/quote]
For the economics of it.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
One thing is clear: They didn’t work tireless to end slavery.
[/quote]
I’m sure they accomplished more than you would’ve.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I never said the government is “founded on the Christian religion.” I said it’s founded on the concepts of God-given unalienable rights and natural law.
[/quote]
So did the black slave in the box also have god given inalienable rights?
[/quote]
What does that change?[/quote]
I’m just curious how that works. If all men have unalienable rights as written in the constitution, how does that work for the slave?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I never said the government is “founded on the Christian religion.” I said it’s founded on the concepts of God-given unalienable rights and natural law.
[/quote]
So did the black slave in the box also have god given inalienable rights?
[/quote]
Do you believe they had inalienable rights?
[/quote]
No rights are granted by society. They can also be taken away by society.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I never said the government is “founded on the Christian religion.” I said it’s founded on the concepts of God-given unalienable rights and natural law.
[/quote]
So did the black slave in the box also have god given inalienable rights?
[/quote]
Do you believe they had inalienable rights?
[/quote]
No rights are granted by society. They can also be taken away by society.
[/quote]
Then why are you asking if slaves have inalienable rights? Even today you claim they don’t.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I never said the government is “founded on the Christian religion.” I said it’s founded on the concepts of God-given unalienable rights and natural law.
[/quote]
So did the black slave in the box also have god given inalienable rights?
[/quote]
What does that change?[/quote]
I’m just curious how that works. If all men have unalienable rights as written in the constitution, how does that work for the slave? [/quote]
They’re not rightfully recognized…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m still waiting for you to address this: If they were truly against slavery WHY did they own slaves themselves? Most of them did.[/quote]
For the economics of it.
[/quote]
Really? You’re defending why they PERSONALLY had slaves on the basis of it being economical?
Oh by the way I sleep with prostitutes because it’s cheaper than dating. Oh by the way I’m against prostitution.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m still waiting for you to address this: If they were truly against slavery WHY did they own slaves themselves? Most of them did.[/quote]
For the economics of it.
[/quote]
Really? You’re defending why they PERSONALLY had slaves on the basis of it being economical?
Oh by the way I sleep with prostitutes because it’s cheaper than dating. Oh by the way I’m against prostitution.[/quote]
You asked why they had slaves…
Your zealotry is showing, again.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I never said the government is “founded on the Christian religion.” I said it’s founded on the concepts of God-given unalienable rights and natural law.
[/quote]
So did the black slave in the box also have god given inalienable rights?
[/quote]
Do you believe they had inalienable rights?
[/quote]
No rights are granted by society. They can also be taken away by society.
[/quote]
Then why are you asking if slaves have inalienable rights? Even today you claim they don’t.
[/quote]
Well I’m asking how it works for those who believe they have inalienable rights. How did the founding fathers decide everyone has inalienable rights handed down from god when they still allowed people to be enslaved? I don’t get it.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I never said the government is “founded on the Christian religion.” I said it’s founded on the concepts of God-given unalienable rights and natural law.
[/quote]
So did the black slave in the box also have god given inalienable rights?
[/quote]
Do you believe they had inalienable rights?
[/quote]
No rights are granted by society. They can also be taken away by society.
[/quote]
Then why are you asking if slaves have inalienable rights? Even today you claim they don’t.
[/quote]
Well I’m asking how it works for those who believe they have inalienable rights. How did the founding fathers decide everyone has inalienable rights handed down from god when they still allowed people to be enslaved? I don’t get it.[/quote]
By not living up to the higher ideal. But it’s a damn good thing they did believe in inalienable rights, which would continue to create a tension between ideal and practice. Had they not believed in it…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m still waiting for you to address this: If they were truly against slavery WHY did they own slaves themselves? Most of them did.[/quote]
For the economics of it.
[/quote]
Really? You’re defending why they PERSONALLY had slaves on the basis of it being economical?
Oh by the way I sleep with prostitutes because it’s cheaper than dating. Oh by the way I’m against prostitution.[/quote]
You asked why they had slaves…
Your zealotry is showing, again.
[/quote]
A little mistranslation here.
If they were truly against slavery, they would not have owned slaves personally. How could they possibly be anti-slavery when they favoured personal economic gain over personally enslaving another human being?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m still waiting for you to address this: If they were truly against slavery WHY did they own slaves themselves? Most of them did.[/quote]
For the economics of it.
[/quote]
Really? You’re defending why they PERSONALLY had slaves on the basis of it being economical?
Oh by the way I sleep with prostitutes because it’s cheaper than dating. Oh by the way I’m against prostitution.[/quote]
You asked why they had slaves…
Your zealotry is showing, again.
[/quote]
A little mistranslation here.
If they were truly against slavery, they would not have owned slaves personally in favor of personal economic gain.
[/quote]
Why wouldn’t they? Your caricature of humanity is silly. Humanity is quite capable of not living up to it’s own ideals, living in tension with them, as they continue to practice…a practice.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m still waiting for you to address this: If they were truly against slavery WHY did they own slaves themselves? Most of them did.[/quote]
For the economics of it.
[/quote]
Really? You’re defending why they PERSONALLY had slaves on the basis of it being economical?
Oh by the way I sleep with prostitutes because it’s cheaper than dating. Oh by the way I’m against prostitution.[/quote]
You asked why they had slaves…
Your zealotry is showing, again.
[/quote]
A little mistranslation here.
If they were truly against slavery, they would not have owned slaves personally in favor of personal economic gain.
[/quote]
Humanity is quite capable of not living up to it’s own ideals, living in tension with them, as they continue to practice…a practice.
[/quote]
I agree.
But We’re talking about a horrible atrocity, not something basic or trivial.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m still waiting for you to address this: If they were truly against slavery WHY did they own slaves themselves? Most of them did.[/quote]
For the economics of it.
[/quote]
Really? You’re defending why they PERSONALLY had slaves on the basis of it being economical?
Oh by the way I sleep with prostitutes because it’s cheaper than dating. Oh by the way I’m against prostitution.[/quote]
You asked why they had slaves…
Your zealotry is showing, again.
[/quote]
A little mistranslation here.
If they were truly against slavery, they would not have owned slaves personally in favor of personal economic gain.
[/quote]
Humanity is quite capable of not living up to it’s own ideals, living in tension with them, as they continue to practice…a practice.
[/quote]
I agree.
But We’re talking about a horrible atrocity, not something basic or trivial. [/quote]
I’m sorry, but didn’t you say that rights are dependent on the whim of a society? That society didn’t give slaves rights, so no atrocity could’ve been committed. It wasn’t until society changed it’s mind that slavery was an atrocity. And, it will only remain an atrocity today so long as it decides it should be.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m still waiting for you to address this: If they were truly against slavery WHY did they own slaves themselves? Most of them did.[/quote]
For the economics of it.
[/quote]
Really? You’re defending why they PERSONALLY had slaves on the basis of it being economical?
Oh by the way I sleep with prostitutes because it’s cheaper than dating. Oh by the way I’m against prostitution.[/quote]
You asked why they had slaves…
Your zealotry is showing, again.
[/quote]
A little mistranslation here.
If they were truly against slavery, they would not have owned slaves personally in favor of personal economic gain.
[/quote]
Humanity is quite capable of not living up to it’s own ideals, living in tension with them, as they continue to practice…a practice.
[/quote]
I agree.
But We’re talking about a horrible atrocity, not something basic or trivial. [/quote]
I’m sorry, but didn’t you say that rights are dependent on the whim of a society? That society didn’t give slaves rights, so no atrocity could’ve been committed. It wasn’t until society changed it’s mind that slavery was an atrocity. And, it will only remain an atrocity today so long as it decides it should be.
[/quote]
???
Just because that specific society does not give certain people the right to freedom doesn’t make it any less an atrocity.
So say Sloth a pro-lifer at your church gets his gf pregnant. He decides to get an abortion because he doesn’t feel he’s ready to raise a child.
Would you categorize him as a pro-lifer based on the fact that he says he is, or would you classify him as pro-choice based on his actions?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m still waiting for you to address this: If they were truly against slavery WHY did they own slaves themselves? Most of them did.[/quote]
For the economics of it.
[/quote]
Really? You’re defending why they PERSONALLY had slaves on the basis of it being economical?
Oh by the way I sleep with prostitutes because it’s cheaper than dating. Oh by the way I’m against prostitution.[/quote]
You asked why they had slaves…
Your zealotry is showing, again.
[/quote]
A little mistranslation here.
If they were truly against slavery, they would not have owned slaves personally in favor of personal economic gain.
[/quote]
Humanity is quite capable of not living up to it’s own ideals, living in tension with them, as they continue to practice…a practice.
[/quote]
I agree.
But We’re talking about a horrible atrocity, not something basic or trivial. [/quote]
I’m sorry, but didn’t you say that rights are dependent on the whim of a society? That society didn’t give slaves rights, so no atrocity could’ve been committed. It wasn’t until society changed it’s mind that slavery was an atrocity. And, it will only remain an atrocity today so long as it decides it should be.
[/quote]
???
Just because that specific society does not give certain people the right to freedom doesn’t make it any less an atrocity.
[/quote]
You’re falling off your earlier statement. You said slaves don’t have inalienable rights. So if they don’t have rights, no atrocity.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So say Sloth a pro-lifer at your church gets his gf pregnant. He decides to get an abortion because he doesn’t feel he’s ready to raise a child.
Would you categorize him as a pro-lifer based on the fact that he says he is, or would you classify him as pro-choice based on his actions?[/quote]
A hypocrite. He’s a pro-lifer who failed to live up to his ideals.
I gotta go will finish this up later.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m still waiting for you to address this: If they were truly against slavery WHY did they own slaves themselves? Most of them did.[/quote]
For the economics of it.
[/quote]
Really? You’re defending why they PERSONALLY had slaves on the basis of it being economical?
Oh by the way I sleep with prostitutes because it’s cheaper than dating. Oh by the way I’m against prostitution.[/quote]
You asked why they had slaves…
Your zealotry is showing, again.
[/quote]
A little mistranslation here.
If they were truly against slavery, they would not have owned slaves personally in favor of personal economic gain.
[/quote]
Humanity is quite capable of not living up to it’s own ideals, living in tension with them, as they continue to practice…a practice.
[/quote]
I agree.
But We’re talking about a horrible atrocity, not something basic or trivial. [/quote]
I’m sorry, but didn’t you say that rights are dependent on the whim of a society? That society didn’t give slaves rights, so no atrocity could’ve been committed. It wasn’t until society changed it’s mind that slavery was an atrocity. And, it will only remain an atrocity today so long as it decides it should be.
[/quote]
???
Just because that specific society does not give certain people the right to freedom doesn’t make it any less an atrocity.
[/quote]
You’re falling off your earlier statement. You said slaves don’t have inalienable rights. So if they don’t have rights, no atrocity.
[/quote]
No.
Rights and Freedoms are granted by society but that doesn’t change whether something is moral or not.