5 ms·

what they ended up like, or how they got there? because I’d rather note and correct the trend /before/ we start torturing and killing people in public display.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
otterley 5y ago
The two eras and their initial conditions aren’t even comparable. We have strong state constitutions and the procedural rule of law now. We use science instead of religion to explain mysterious phenomena. Those aren’t being torn down any time soon over spite. We’re simply not going to end someone’s life over a differing opinion; our entire system of government would have to change first. Your argument is basically a “slippery slope” argument, and this is a good example of why these types of arguments are so weak and problematic.
- emerged 5y ago
  Oh ok. I was thinking patterns have occurred throughout history and that we could learn to identify those patterns to avoid repeating history. But good point, no two times in history are completely identical so we shouldn’t bother.
  - otterley 5y ago
    Of course we can learn from history. But deep and thoughtful analysis is important. The time to freak out would be when there’s a serious threat to our constitutions or laws that would enable criminal punishment for holding controversial opinions. And we just don’t see that on the horizon yet.
    - emerged 5y ago
      The seeds have been sowed into the youth through media, technology and educational systems for years now. Do you think it stops there?
      - otterley 5y ago
        Until we see otherwise, yes.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    What we shouldn’t bother with is making facile and insipid comparisons that disservices both modernity and history.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  > We’re simply not going to end someone’s life over a differing opinion Unless that opinion is about who owns a specific piece of land.
  - otterley 5y ago
    Can you elaborate? Are you talking about national territorial disputes (i.e., war), or a dispute over where two domestic neighbors’ land boundaries lie? In any event, this feels like an attempt to win an argument by stretching it to cover something out of scope.
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      I wasn’t really attempting to win the argument. Just wanted to point out that while we believe we are above such things, given the right motivations humans will happily kill each other over a belief.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

otterley 5y ago

The two eras and their initial conditions aren’t even comparable. We have strong state constitutions and the procedural rule of law now. We use science instead of religion to explain mysterious phenomena. Those aren’t being torn down any time soon over spite. We’re simply not going to end someone’s life over a differing opinion; our entire system of government would have to change first. Your argument is basically a “slippery slope” argument, and this is a good example of why these types of arguments are so weak and problematic.

emerged 5y ago
Oh ok. I was thinking patterns have occurred throughout history and that we could learn to identify those patterns to avoid repeating history. But good point, no two times in history are completely identical so we shouldn’t bother.
- otterley 5y ago
  Of course we can learn from history. But deep and thoughtful analysis is important. The time to freak out would be when there’s a serious threat to our constitutions or laws that would enable criminal punishment for holding controversial opinions. And we just don’t see that on the horizon yet.
  - emerged 5y ago
    The seeds have been sowed into the youth through media, technology and educational systems for years now. Do you think it stops there?
    - otterley 5y ago
      Until we see otherwise, yes.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  What we shouldn’t bother with is making facile and insipid comparisons that disservices both modernity and history.
Aeolun 5y ago
> We’re simply not going to end someone’s life over a differing opinion Unless that opinion is about who owns a specific piece of land.
- otterley 5y ago
  Can you elaborate? Are you talking about national territorial disputes (i.e., war), or a dispute over where two domestic neighbors’ land boundaries lie? In any event, this feels like an attempt to win an argument by stretching it to cover something out of scope.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    I wasn’t really attempting to win the argument. Just wanted to point out that while we believe we are above such things, given the right motivations humans will happily kill each other over a belief.