4 ms·

Sigh… My gripe with modern politicians is that their definition of "equality" is only for the adults of our nation state. Men old enough to drive three ton SU

Sigh… My gripe with modern politicians is that their definition of "equality" is only for the adults of our nation state. Men old enough to drive three ton SUVs, fight wars, and father children are denied the right to vote. Hell, in one famous democracy they cannot even buy a beer. You and I are John Locke.

cies 5y ago
> Men old enough to drive three ton SUVs, fight wars, and father children are denied the right to vote. No idea what you're trying to say here dear thowaway. > You and I are John Locke. And here neither.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  Really? No idea, none, nada, completely in the dark? OK then: the OP was belittling the ethics of John Locke because he failed to measure up to the posters 21st century western values. [Its a popular modern past-time]. Hell, slavery was so embedded that slaves thought it was normal. [Much like we treat work today]. Saudi Arabia only came around to the consensus that owning people was bad in 1961. Your great grandparents didn't think women should vote. So I was pointing out that there are still many edge-cases in the OPs/our own society - from where he/she judges, that are a similar [but, yes, not identical] blind spot. On which he/she is completely silent. Why EXACTLY, should high-school students not vote? [But, I suspect you actually did work all this out yourself]
  - cies 5y ago
    > Hell, slavery was so embedded that slaves thought it was normal. There was Jesus teachings right? And many others who were frowning upon it. This "it was embedded" is merely a way to retroactively make it sound not as bad as it is. Condoning slavery in Locke's time was also bad. And, ihmo, especially looks bad on "mr equality" himself. > Why EXACTLY, should high-school students not vote? I totally agree. But highscholers at least will someday vote + have parents and hence get included. Slaves on the other hand get 100% exploited. Still I dont get your references.
    - throwaway210222 5y ago
      > This "it was embedded" is merely a way to retroactively make it sound not as bad as it is? No, why on earth would you think that of me? Don't be a dick. Its just a historical fact. Wierd and awful as it may seem to us. Which is why Mr Locke could not see it. Here is a crutch to help you get there: 1. we currently - and rightly - hate racial discrimination in apparently all its forms, but 2. we (via our governments) think it is perfectly ok to make some visitors to our countries get expensive restrictive visas, whilst others are welcomed with open arms 3. compare and contract the international border experience of citizens of EU, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, with ANY African country 4. hell, there are job adverts demanding 'a passport that can travel'. Now ask yourself how much sleep most of the Western progressives lose over this. They just cannot see it. Later generations might. Should they smugly dismiss us?
      - cies 5y ago
        Racial discrimination is not something comparable to discrimination based on passport. If you fail to see that, that's going to make this discussion really difficult. > No, why on earth would you think that of me? Don't be a dick. Because it see it all the time. People want to save historical figures with this bullshit. Like it said: Jesus was known, he (amongst many others) taught slavery is evil. Locke was more into his liberal economic wankery than actual ethics. Though he claims to be into ethics as well, hence I call him a fraud. Go ahead and defend him: I will not.
        throwaway210222 5y ago
        > Because it see it all the time. In that case, I refer you to the guidelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) regarding good faith. Please leave your personal trials and tribulations at home. But I think we have gone as far as we can. Have a lovely day.
    - meetups323 5y ago
      Your entire argument seems predicated on the idea that "people like Jesus knew slavery was bad, so John Locke should have too". This is a false premise. Jesus actively encouraged slavery. https://pathofthebeagle.com/2011/10/20/what-did-jesus-say-about-slavery/ https://pathofthebeagle.com/2011/10/20/what-did-jesus-say-ab...
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > OK then: the OP was belittling the ethics of John Locke because he failed to measure up to the posters 21st century western values. Slavery was recognized as odious by many earlier than, or contemporary with, Locke; its not a 21st century moral novelty.

cies 5y ago

> Men old enough to drive three ton SUVs, fight wars, and father children are denied the right to vote. No idea what you're trying to say here dear thowaway. > You and I are John Locke. And here neither.

throwaway210222 5y ago
Really? No idea, none, nada, completely in the dark? OK then: the OP was belittling the ethics of John Locke because he failed to measure up to the posters 21st century western values. [Its a popular modern past-time]. Hell, slavery was so embedded that slaves thought it was normal. [Much like we treat work today]. Saudi Arabia only came around to the consensus that owning people was bad in 1961. Your great grandparents didn't think women should vote. So I was pointing out that there are still many edge-cases in the OPs/our own society - from where he/she judges, that are a similar [but, yes, not identical] blind spot. On which he/she is completely silent. Why EXACTLY, should high-school students not vote? [But, I suspect you actually did work all this out yourself]
- cies 5y ago
  > Hell, slavery was so embedded that slaves thought it was normal. There was Jesus teachings right? And many others who were frowning upon it. This "it was embedded" is merely a way to retroactively make it sound not as bad as it is. Condoning slavery in Locke's time was also bad. And, ihmo, especially looks bad on "mr equality" himself. > Why EXACTLY, should high-school students not vote? I totally agree. But highscholers at least will someday vote + have parents and hence get included. Slaves on the other hand get 100% exploited. Still I dont get your references.
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    > This "it was embedded" is merely a way to retroactively make it sound not as bad as it is? No, why on earth would you think that of me? Don't be a dick. Its just a historical fact. Wierd and awful as it may seem to us. Which is why Mr Locke could not see it. Here is a crutch to help you get there: 1. we currently - and rightly - hate racial discrimination in apparently all its forms, but 2. we (via our governments) think it is perfectly ok to make some visitors to our countries get expensive restrictive visas, whilst others are welcomed with open arms 3. compare and contract the international border experience of citizens of EU, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, with ANY African country 4. hell, there are job adverts demanding 'a passport that can travel'. Now ask yourself how much sleep most of the Western progressives lose over this. They just cannot see it. Later generations might. Should they smugly dismiss us?
    - cies 5y ago
      Racial discrimination is not something comparable to discrimination based on passport. If you fail to see that, that's going to make this discussion really difficult. > No, why on earth would you think that of me? Don't be a dick. Because it see it all the time. People want to save historical figures with this bullshit. Like it said: Jesus was known, he (amongst many others) taught slavery is evil. Locke was more into his liberal economic wankery than actual ethics. Though he claims to be into ethics as well, hence I call him a fraud. Go ahead and defend him: I will not.
      - throwaway210222 5y ago
        > Because it see it all the time. In that case, I refer you to the guidelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) regarding good faith. Please leave your personal trials and tribulations at home. But I think we have gone as far as we can. Have a lovely day.
  - meetups323 5y ago
    Your entire argument seems predicated on the idea that "people like Jesus knew slavery was bad, so John Locke should have too". This is a false premise. Jesus actively encouraged slavery. https://pathofthebeagle.com/2011/10/20/what-did-jesus-say-about-slavery/ https://pathofthebeagle.com/2011/10/20/what-did-jesus-say-ab...
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > OK then: the OP was belittling the ethics of John Locke because he failed to measure up to the posters 21st century western values. Slavery was recognized as odious by many earlier than, or contemporary with, Locke; its not a 21st century moral novelty.