4 ms·

> [Considers status of the Atlantic slave trade, position of women in society, etc., in 1776] > Um, no. Just no. It was the Englightenment that made the end o

by javert 11y ago

> [Considers status of the Atlantic slave trade, position of women in society, etc., in 1776] > Um, no. Just no. It was the Englightenment that made the end of slavery inevitable. For instance, it is written into the US Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and have rights. That made it inevitable that the US would eventually outlaw slavery in its territory (i.e., as soon as it would be possible for the majority of the country to force the minority---and they did, at massive expensive of lives and material). And it's not like the idea that all men are created equal was originated by the US Founding Fathers---it wasn't. It was part of the cultural mileiu at the time. It was a recent discovery. The United States was not responsible for the Enlightenment; it was a product of the Enlightenment. So, your comment is incredibly ignorant and couldn't be more wrong. You are trashing the very time period that ended slavery. Ignore history and you will be doomed to repeat it. (The Germans and the Russians did just that---creating new forms of slavery.) I'm not interested in arguing the rest of your points. The evidence is out there if you care to look and think. edit: So, I think I was too harsh on you, dragonwriter. I don't want you to think I'm a giant dickbag. Going to Hitler AND Stalin that quick is kind of crazy. I still think what I said, I just think I was being too aggressive. Also, if people in Plato's time thought every subsequent generation was worse, they were probably right---at some point, the populace was so degraded that they actually would listen and seriously consider that old bastard (Plato). I'm half-joking here, of course. He did delimit all the important philosophical questions---he just got them all wrong.

eurleif 11y ago
Your claim was that western civilization peaked in ~1776. Peaking implies it hasn't improved since then. But those egalitarian values are significantly more well-applied today than they were then. Isn't a world where egalitarianism is applied better than one where it is merely known?
- javert 11y ago
  I am not an egalitarian. I am for equal rights. Egalitarianism is the belief that all people should be equal in all things. It leads to socialism, which leads (eventually) to Venezuela (for example) as people cannibalize one another.
  - eurleif 11y ago
    That's not, necessarily, what egalitarianism means. But regardless of words, why do you think a world where equal rights actually exist (or have more actual existence) isn't better one where the idea of equal rights is merely known?
    - javert 11y ago
      Americans had far more rights in 1788, as long as they weren't slaves [1]. And in 1788, people from anywhere in the world could escape to America (as it should still be). [1] Many Americans were against slavery in 1776, but it would have meant losing the Southern colonies and thus losing the Revolutionary War. edit: I picked 1788 because that's the year the US Constitution was adopted.
      - rodgerd 11y ago
        > Americans had far more rights in 1788, as long as they weren't slaves [1]. Or women. The omission does say a lot about you.
        javert 11y ago
        What rights did women not have in 1788 that you would want them to have? They couldn't vote, but voting isn't a right. They could own property, for example. Once married, they became basically legally merged with their husband, but I'm not sure what it would mean to share a household in 1788 and not have joint ownership of things. update: In fact, they would have been covered by all of the bill of rights, including 9 and 10, which we are not covered by today and which are really the most important ones. So I think I was probably right in my original statement, even including women. I mean, I'm not an expert on femininity in the 18th century, though. update2: And you want to know what my omission says about me? It says that I think of people as people, rather than dividing them up by gender. I am not a feminist---I believe in equal rights for all people, not priviliges and special treatment for women.
        11y ago

by javert 11y ago

eurleif 11y ago

Your claim was that western civilization peaked in ~1776. Peaking implies it hasn't improved since then. But those egalitarian values are significantly more well-applied today than they were then. Isn't a world where egalitarianism is applied better than one where it is merely known?

javert 11y ago
I am not an egalitarian. I am for equal rights. Egalitarianism is the belief that all people should be equal in all things. It leads to socialism, which leads (eventually) to Venezuela (for example) as people cannibalize one another.
- eurleif 11y ago
  That's not, necessarily, what egalitarianism means. But regardless of words, why do you think a world where equal rights actually exist (or have more actual existence) isn't better one where the idea of equal rights is merely known?
  - javert 11y ago
    Americans had far more rights in 1788, as long as they weren't slaves [1]. And in 1788, people from anywhere in the world could escape to America (as it should still be). [1] Many Americans were against slavery in 1776, but it would have meant losing the Southern colonies and thus losing the Revolutionary War. edit: I picked 1788 because that's the year the US Constitution was adopted.
    - rodgerd 11y ago
      > Americans had far more rights in 1788, as long as they weren't slaves [1]. Or women. The omission does say a lot about you.
      - javert 11y ago
        What rights did women not have in 1788 that you would want them to have? They couldn't vote, but voting isn't a right. They could own property, for example. Once married, they became basically legally merged with their husband, but I'm not sure what it would mean to share a household in 1788 and not have joint ownership of things. update: In fact, they would have been covered by all of the bill of rights, including 9 and 10, which we are not covered by today and which are really the most important ones. So I think I was probably right in my original statement, even including women. I mean, I'm not an expert on femininity in the 18th century, though. update2: And you want to know what my omission says about me? It says that I think of people as people, rather than dividing them up by gender. I am not a feminist---I believe in equal rights for all people, not priviliges and special treatment for women.
        11y ago