2 ms·

> 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 emb

by 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
> There was Jesus teachings right? Jesus didn't teach anything directly against slavery, which is why Christianity took a long time to generally oppose slavery. Now, you can argue that's because Jesus generally wasn’t a political reformer and directed commentary to how to live in the world with its defects, leaving how to fix the defects implicit. And that may be true and a valid response to claims that Jesus was pro-slavery, but doesn't rescue your pointing to him as an anti-slavery advocate.

by cies 5y ago

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

> There was Jesus teachings right? Jesus didn't teach anything directly against slavery, which is why Christianity took a long time to generally oppose slavery. Now, you can argue that's because Jesus generally wasn’t a political reformer and directed commentary to how to live in the world with its defects, leaving how to fix the defects implicit. And that may be true and a valid response to claims that Jesus was pro-slavery, but doesn't rescue your pointing to him as an anti-slavery advocate.