was an aberration in british history. if we were all telling our kids legends about prime ministers from the 17th-18th century, and passing around folklore about cherry trees, and swearing allegiances and inculcating our children with the 'legend' of our forefathers... maybe you'd have a fucking point. now make one.Jay wrote:
They were western European at the time. Citizens of the crown and everything. Amazing.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
uuuuh. most western-european people at that time didn't own slaves. hardly like it was a norm.
So where is the line drawn? At some point you have to say "okay, these people should have known better, especially when there were other people calling them out on their shit"Jay wrote:
Different times. You can't retroactively turn someone into a monster based on present morals.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
gotta love those slave owning men of character.Jay wrote:
Because when his father asked him about the chopped down tree he said 'I can not tell a lie, I did it'. Total myth passed down by the Charlie Brown cartoons, but it's supposed to show him as a man of character.
"i cannot lie! but i can keep thousands in lifelong slavery working to make me rich, whilst being paid nothing. i am a good man!"
-slavery
-nazis
-etc.
Revolutionary France abolished slavery in 1794, but it was restored by Napoleon in the French colonies more than a decade later after his subversion of the French Revolution. Haiti achieved independence from France in 1804 and brought an end to slavery in its territory, establishing the second republic in the western hemisphere. Britain banned the importation of African slaves in its colonies in 1807, and the United States followed in 1808. Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the French colonies abolished it 15 years later, and slavery in the United States was abolished in 1865, after the American Civil War, with the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Spearhead wrote:
So where is the line drawn? At some point you have to say "okay, these people should have known better, especially when there were other people calling them out on their shit"Jay wrote:
Different times. You can't retroactively turn someone into a monster based on present morals.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
gotta love those slave owning men of character.
"i cannot lie! but i can keep thousands in lifelong slavery working to make me rich, whilst being paid nothing. i am a good man!"
-slavery
-nazis
-etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The timeline between these events is essentially within about two lifetimes. An equivalent timeline would be if our country was founded in 1929, and the Civil War ended this year. How much has fundamentally changed about our country since 1929? Aside from FDR and his bullshit, not a whole lot. The Civil Rights Act wasn't passed until 1964, less than 50 years ago. It takes a lot of time to change the status quo, in many cases it takes generations. Asking people to go against the flow and send themselves into poverty by releasing their slaves is asking a bit much, no? Game theory applies.
Last edited by Jay (2013-07-28 09:38:44)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Oh, and for even more perspective, the people who were preaching abolition were evangelical Christians, the type that go on crusades constantly. The type you personally bitch about and wouldn't listen to a word they said.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
people who abolished slavery in england were not evangelic christians. why would i care who pushed for the reform in america? all i am saying is that you have hagiographed your founding fathers into mythical nationhood figures when really they were just a compromised bunch of land- and slave- owners that wanted to be able to do good business in peace, without royal fiat. hardly fucking heroes. i am glad i live in a country that is very self-deprecating about stupid ideological things like 'patriotism' or 'national legend'.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-28 10:00:28)
george washington would have been "in poverty' if he didn't have his slaves? oh my little fucking heart breaks for him. hahahaha poverty-stricken without slavery. what about all the other lawyers and merchants that did business without trading in human flesh? i guess it really is an either/or thing. either have slaves or be destitute and broke. yeah, "game theory" really applies. LOL. game theory. you put some pretentious shit in your posts. i bet george washington was thinking about logical double-binds and game theory.Jay wrote:
Revolutionary France abolished slavery in 1794, but it was restored by Napoleon in the French colonies more than a decade later after his subversion of the French Revolution. Haiti achieved independence from France in 1804 and brought an end to slavery in its territory, establishing the second republic in the western hemisphere. Britain banned the importation of African slaves in its colonies in 1807, and the United States followed in 1808. Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the French colonies abolished it 15 years later, and slavery in the United States was abolished in 1865, after the American Civil War, with the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Spearhead wrote:
So where is the line drawn? At some point you have to say "okay, these people should have known better, especially when there were other people calling them out on their shit"Jay wrote:
Different times. You can't retroactively turn someone into a monster based on present morals.
-slavery
-nazis
-etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The timeline between these events is essentially within about two lifetimes. An equivalent timeline would be if our country was founded in 1929, and the Civil War ended this year. How much has fundamentally changed about our country since 1929? Aside from FDR and his bullshit, not a whole lot. The Civil Rights Act wasn't passed until 1964, less than 50 years ago. It takes a lot of time to change the status quo, in many cases it takes generations. Asking people to go against the flow and send themselves into poverty by releasing their slaves is asking a bit much, no? Game theory applies.
I'd say our country has changed dramatically since 1929. In some ways more than others, of course. I see where you are coming from -- but the same could be said for any other historical atrocity. Every time people are faced with an immoral system of oppression and injustice, standing up against the status quo results in death, not just poverty. This is basically where the moral teachings of Jesus Christ come into play (no, I'm not religious). I don't think you can argue that these assaults on human dignity can be excused just by saying "it was a different time". Perhaps in the stone age, where killing the nearest tribe was more often than not a legitimate act of self-defense. But in a society of laws, especially when the rights of the individual are front and center? No. By ignoring the people that stood up and fought against these systems, and paid with their lives, you are subscribing to the mindset that allowed these systems to develop in the first place.
The fact that the Founding Fathers were also slave owners and signed a deal with the devil and allowed slavery to continue in the south when writing the constitution is one of the most fascinating political events of that day and age. We can see how, no matter how hard the country tried to ignore the issue of slavery for many decades, it eventually came back with a vengeance. It's not something we should just write off as primitive. It led directly to where we are now.
The fact that the Founding Fathers were also slave owners and signed a deal with the devil and allowed slavery to continue in the south when writing the constitution is one of the most fascinating political events of that day and age. We can see how, no matter how hard the country tried to ignore the issue of slavery for many decades, it eventually came back with a vengeance. It's not something we should just write off as primitive. It led directly to where we are now.
the founding fathers knew slavery was wrong. they were compromised. the hagiography and elevating to 'noble' and 'heroic' civic status came long after death. just like all historical hagiography. jefferson had a fucking mistress. these people weren't dumb, just because it was a few hundred years ago. western morality had taught that slave owning was reprehensible and venal since at least the ancient greek helots. the fucking bible tells a moral story about slavery and the fate of the pharoahs, for christ's sake. human compassion wasn't invented in 1876. christ. why is it so hard to just admit that teaching schoolkids how heroic a bunch of businessmen were is kind of ideologically-slated and misrepresenting the historical fact. you can't excuse someone who calculatedly made money from slavery. especially ones that had intimate sexual relations with their slaves, i.e. knew they were human beings with feelings and equal dignity/status.
lol just prattle on about 1960's game theory instead. did you just read that wiki this morning or something? the fuck does game theory have to do with being a moral hypocrit. "all men are created equal". it's just a contradictory sentence. sounds noble, but is patently compromised by the reality. no 'game theory'. just history papering over the uncomfortable cracks.
lol just prattle on about 1960's game theory instead. did you just read that wiki this morning or something? the fuck does game theory have to do with being a moral hypocrit. "all men are created equal". it's just a contradictory sentence. sounds noble, but is patently compromised by the reality. no 'game theory'. just history papering over the uncomfortable cracks.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-28 10:09:36)
american media
dat debate was... kinda spirited.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
lol i actually laughed out loud at the "spirited debate" thing when i saw it the first time around.
lol. I love how you say this with some kind of smug satisfaction, as it if it news to us that the evangelical movement is some kind of eye opening surprise. As if we are intellectually shallow 12 year olds who spend our time on r/atheism. Jay, this might come as quite a shock, but did you know the GOP was originally a northern party, and the democrat was based in the south? No shit, of course you already knew that, because I don't think you're a fucking high school drop out. If you're going to bother typing such long responses, you could at the very least avoid treating people you disagree with like trash.Jay wrote:
Oh, and for even more perspective, the people who were preaching abolition were evangelical Christians, the type that go on crusades constantly. The type you personally bitch about and wouldn't listen to a word they said.
So, NO SHIT the evangelical movement existed in the 19th century. DUR, thanks for that, such an eye opener. So by your fucking twisted logic, 21st century right wing, rural, conservative, southern movement = 19th century urban, northern, intellectual radicals. The fact that you make this claim either means you are the intellectual troll of the century, or you are just talking out of your ass. "Hey, did you know people were more religious back in the day? Wouldn't want to be like the christian right, would you?" Yes, we know those atheists in the south were such enlightened humanists. LOL
News flash Jay -- if anyone today is closest to the Confederate south, it is the evangelical christian right, based in the south with a strong southern base and a strong southern system of propaganda -- the very same systems which kept the confederacy and slavery in place. Please, explain to us, how slavery continued to exist if all these southern Christians were so outspoken against slavery. Oh, that's right, they weren't. They actually used it justify it. Go read a fuckin book.
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-07-28 13:59:38)
jay is reading a book. it's on game-theory. it applies to everything! george washington: game theorist.
You really are an idiot. You took what I said completely out of context. I was just saying that it was the evangelicals that were pushing for abolition. If evangelicals then were as annoying as they are today, they would be just as easy to dismiss as an annoyance. That was my point.Spearhead wrote:
lol. I love how you say this with some kind of smug satisfaction, as it if it news to us that the evangelical movement is some kind of eye opening surprise. As if we are intellectually shallow 12 year olds who spend our time on r/atheism. Jay, this might come as quite a shock, but did you know the GOP was originally a northern party, and the democrat was based in the south? No shit, of course you already knew that, because I don't think you're a fucking high school drop out. If you're going to bother typing such long responses, you could at the very least avoid treating people you disagree with like trash.Jay wrote:
Oh, and for even more perspective, the people who were preaching abolition were evangelical Christians, the type that go on crusades constantly. The type you personally bitch about and wouldn't listen to a word they said.
So, NO SHIT the evangelical movement existed in the 19th century. DUR, thanks for that, such an eye opener. So by your fucking twisted logic, 21st century right wing, rural, conservative, southern movement = 19th century urban, northern, intellectual radicals. The fact that you make this claim either means you are the intellectual troll of the century, or you are just talking out of your ass. "Hey, did you know people were more religious back in the day? Wouldn't want to be like the christian right, would you?" Yes, we know those atheists in the south were such enlightened humanists. LOL
News flash Jay -- if anyone today is closest to the Confederate south, it is the evangelical christian right, based in the south with a strong southern base and a strong southern system of propaganda -- the very same systems which kept the confederacy and slavery in place. Please, explain to us, how slavery continued to exist if all these southern Christians were so outspoken against slavery. Oh, that's right, they weren't. They actually used it justify it. Go read a fuckin book.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Uzique The Lesser wrote:
jay is reading a book. it's on game-theory. it applies to everything! george washington: game theorist.
Add that to your goodreads to-read list. You need help.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
oh come on, jay. stop being so butthurt or prideful. mentioning game theory to explain washington's slave ownership is pseud's corner gold-standard.
i don't need friends here on bf2s. jesus christ. that's like 3 posts in a day now you've made some asinine high-school remark about 'being liked'. are you that insecure? i am not here for your approval or friendship. you are, frankly, second-rate. game theory and george washington. jesus h. christ...
i don't need friends here on bf2s. jesus christ. that's like 3 posts in a day now you've made some asinine high-school remark about 'being liked'. are you that insecure? i am not here for your approval or friendship. you are, frankly, second-rate. game theory and george washington. jesus h. christ...
Game theory works. If you are a slave owner, your income is based on slave labor, and your peers are all dependent as well, would you cut your own throat to free your slaves? If you free your slaves and are then forced to pay for labor, you're at a severe disadvantage compared to your peers. It would be equivalent to Walmart voluntarily allowing their labor force to organize and demand higher wages. If they did so, and their direct competition failed to do the same, they would quickly lose all of their market share that was built on low wages and low prices. Now if there was a law passed that forced them all to free their slaves at the same time (or for all companies in a market to organize their labor at the same time) then they would all theoretically be more willing to comply. They'd fight it, yes, and they did, but abolition wouldn't have happened any other way. Very rarely is someone willing to cut their own throat to help others.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
there were a lot of enlightenment thinkers who thought slavery was wrong. Not everyone who believed in Human rights and dignity were Jesus freaksJay wrote:
You really are an idiot. You took what I said completely out of context. I was just saying that it was the evangelicals that were pushing for abolition. If evangelicals then were as annoying as they are today, they would be just as easy to dismiss as an annoyance. That was my point.Spearhead wrote:
lol. I love how you say this with some kind of smug satisfaction, as it if it news to us that the evangelical movement is some kind of eye opening surprise. As if we are intellectually shallow 12 year olds who spend our time on r/atheism. Jay, this might come as quite a shock, but did you know the GOP was originally a northern party, and the democrat was based in the south? No shit, of course you already knew that, because I don't think you're a fucking high school drop out. If you're going to bother typing such long responses, you could at the very least avoid treating people you disagree with like trash.Jay wrote:
Oh, and for even more perspective, the people who were preaching abolition were evangelical Christians, the type that go on crusades constantly. The type you personally bitch about and wouldn't listen to a word they said.
So, NO SHIT the evangelical movement existed in the 19th century. DUR, thanks for that, such an eye opener. So by your fucking twisted logic, 21st century right wing, rural, conservative, southern movement = 19th century urban, northern, intellectual radicals. The fact that you make this claim either means you are the intellectual troll of the century, or you are just talking out of your ass. "Hey, did you know people were more religious back in the day? Wouldn't want to be like the christian right, would you?" Yes, we know those atheists in the south were such enlightened humanists. LOL
News flash Jay -- if anyone today is closest to the Confederate south, it is the evangelical christian right, based in the south with a strong southern base and a strong southern system of propaganda -- the very same systems which kept the confederacy and slavery in place. Please, explain to us, how slavery continued to exist if all these southern Christians were so outspoken against slavery. Oh, that's right, they weren't. They actually used it justify it. Go read a fuckin book.
Last edited by Macbeth (2013-07-28 15:14:54)
that is not game-theory. you are just giving all forms of decision-making and rationalised self-interest an anachronistic term. that is not game-theory. game theory is based on the analytical and systematized study of logic, at a fairly comprehensive level. being able to act cynically or opportunistically is not being familiar with 'game theory'. jesus christ. was diogenes a game-theorist? you're just trying to pseudo-intellectualize a commonsense point that isn't telling anyone anything (that washington obviously had social and political tact, or a strategy, or had the basic nous to make political predictions) with some stupid term. 'game theory'. it's not fucking game theory! not even the wikipedia-level surface glance at game-theory applies to this dumbfuck scenario.Jay wrote:
Game theory works. If you are a slave owner, your income is based on slave labor, and your peers are all dependent as well, would you cut your own throat to free your slaves? If you free your slaves and are then forced to pay for labor, you're at a severe disadvantage compared to your peers. It would be equivalent to Walmart voluntarily allowing their labor force to organize and demand higher wages. If they did so, and their direct competition failed to do the same, they would quickly lose all of their market share that was built on low wages and low prices. Now if there was a law passed that forced them all to free their slaves at the same time (or for all companies in a market to organize their labor at the same time) then they would all theoretically be more willing to comply. They'd fight it, yes, and they did, but abolition wouldn't have happened any other way. Very rarely is someone willing to cut their own throat to help others.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-28 15:19:43)
Of course, it wasn't universal by any means. Washington freed his slaves on his deathbed, and Jefferson would've done the same if he wasn't completely bankrupt and forced to sell every asset he had upon his death.Macbeth wrote:
there were a lot of enlightenment thinkers who thought slavery was wrong. Not everyone who believed in Human rights and dignity were Jesus freaksJay wrote:
You really are an idiot. You took what I said completely out of context. I was just saying that it was the evangelicals that were pushing for abolition. If evangelicals then were as annoying as they are today, they would be just as easy to dismiss as an annoyance. That was my point.Spearhead wrote:
lol. I love how you say this with some kind of smug satisfaction, as it if it news to us that the evangelical movement is some kind of eye opening surprise. As if we are intellectually shallow 12 year olds who spend our time on r/atheism. Jay, this might come as quite a shock, but did you know the GOP was originally a northern party, and the democrat was based in the south? No shit, of course you already knew that, because I don't think you're a fucking high school drop out. If you're going to bother typing such long responses, you could at the very least avoid treating people you disagree with like trash.
So, NO SHIT the evangelical movement existed in the 19th century. DUR, thanks for that, such an eye opener. So by your fucking twisted logic, 21st century right wing, rural, conservative, southern movement = 19th century urban, northern, intellectual radicals. The fact that you make this claim either means you are the intellectual troll of the century, or you are just talking out of your ass. "Hey, did you know people were more religious back in the day? Wouldn't want to be like the christian right, would you?" Yes, we know those atheists in the south were such enlightened humanists. LOL
News flash Jay -- if anyone today is closest to the Confederate south, it is the evangelical christian right, based in the south with a strong southern base and a strong southern system of propaganda -- the very same systems which kept the confederacy and slavery in place. Please, explain to us, how slavery continued to exist if all these southern Christians were so outspoken against slavery. Oh, that's right, they weren't. They actually used it justify it. Go read a fuckin book.
Were they all flawed people? Of course. Does it hurt anything to use the cherry tree story with little kids? Nah. I just hate it when the socialists point out that many of the nation's founders were slave owners as if it should somehow give them carte blanche to rip up the constitution and install their government of choice. Incredibly weak argument and logic.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I really don't care what your opinion is.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
that is not game-theory. you are just giving all forms of decision-making and rationalised self-interest an anachronistic term. that is not game-theory. game theory is based on the analytical and systematized study of logic, at a fairly comprehensive level. being able to act cynically or opportunistically is not being familiar with 'game theory'. jesus christ. was diogenes a game-theorist? you're just trying to pseudo-intellectualize a commonsense point that isn't telling anyone anything (that washington obviously had social and political tact, or a strategy, or had the basic nous to make political predictions) with some stupid term. 'game theory'. it's not fucking game theory! not even the wikipedia-level surface glance at game-theory applies to this dumbfuck scenario.Jay wrote:
Game theory works. If you are a slave owner, your income is based on slave labor, and your peers are all dependent as well, would you cut your own throat to free your slaves? If you free your slaves and are then forced to pay for labor, you're at a severe disadvantage compared to your peers. It would be equivalent to Walmart voluntarily allowing their labor force to organize and demand higher wages. If they did so, and their direct competition failed to do the same, they would quickly lose all of their market share that was built on low wages and low prices. Now if there was a law passed that forced them all to free their slaves at the same time (or for all companies in a market to organize their labor at the same time) then they would all theoretically be more willing to comply. They'd fight it, yes, and they did, but abolition wouldn't have happened any other way. Very rarely is someone willing to cut their own throat to help others.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
how kind of washington to free his slaves on his death-bed! what a generous and enlightened fellow of the great capital-e Enlightenment! i'm really surprised he didn't ask that they all be killed and buried with him in a tomb.
hahaha anyone that finds the cherry tree myth-making a little suspect is now a "socialist" that wants to "install his own government". A+. jay you are a total gomp.
hahaha anyone that finds the cherry tree myth-making a little suspect is now a "socialist" that wants to "install his own government". A+. jay you are a total gomp.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-28 15:28:40)
at what point in that post am i forwarding a personal opinion? it's fine, jay, everyone rolls their eyes and sees you are trying too hard when you try to get theoretical or learned. name-dropping 'game-theory' to talk about george washington. what mathematical proof did he utilize in his decision-tree for slavery? pray tell.Jay wrote:
I really don't care what your opinion is.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
that is not game-theory. you are just giving all forms of decision-making and rationalised self-interest an anachronistic term. that is not game-theory. game theory is based on the analytical and systematized study of logic, at a fairly comprehensive level. being able to act cynically or opportunistically is not being familiar with 'game theory'. jesus christ. was diogenes a game-theorist? you're just trying to pseudo-intellectualize a commonsense point that isn't telling anyone anything (that washington obviously had social and political tact, or a strategy, or had the basic nous to make political predictions) with some stupid term. 'game theory'. it's not fucking game theory! not even the wikipedia-level surface glance at game-theory applies to this dumbfuck scenario.Jay wrote:
Game theory works. If you are a slave owner, your income is based on slave labor, and your peers are all dependent as well, would you cut your own throat to free your slaves? If you free your slaves and are then forced to pay for labor, you're at a severe disadvantage compared to your peers. It would be equivalent to Walmart voluntarily allowing their labor force to organize and demand higher wages. If they did so, and their direct competition failed to do the same, they would quickly lose all of their market share that was built on low wages and low prices. Now if there was a law passed that forced them all to free their slaves at the same time (or for all companies in a market to organize their labor at the same time) then they would all theoretically be more willing to comply. They'd fight it, yes, and they did, but abolition wouldn't have happened any other way. Very rarely is someone willing to cut their own throat to help others.
We should abolish the federal system and adopt an unitary government.