1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfSee, you are looking at it backwards and with this hopeful view that if things were more explicitly elaborated upon they would prevent a greater amount of negativity instead of presenting a greater collection of loopholes.
Low wages are morally justifiable. No wages, only food, and maybe shelter too, are also justifiable. Long hours, justifiable. Back breaking work, justifiable. These are all take-or-leave-it propositions. But owning another human being as property, as chattel, as a tradable commodity like livestock?. Using the danger that a person may starve in order to turn them into property? That's moral darkness.
You also act like there would be some public service announcement and CNN broadcast that could go out to the people to create a consensus.
These are laws meant to bind a people for over a thousand years until the arrival of the Messiah. They have to be memorized and, even then, they are subject to all manner of potential warping at the hands of people.
You also do not present us with evidence that this whole system was greatly abused and it needed reformation. We also have no idea how even prevalent this was -- it could have lasted for but a coupel of generations and then resulted in general irrelevance.
Originally posted by @philokaliaI don't see how any of this stuff you have typed can be seen as a moral justification for one human being owning another as his or her property like an animal.
LOL, the average person cannot write and there's no artificial concept of "freedom" and "liberty" because it is taken for granted.
See, FMF, this is what you get when you do not study philosophy. You think that "rights" and "dignity" can only exist within the confines of contracts.
Instead of imagining that [i]if they are not stated, they are with ...[text shortened]... rights.
You don't know liberty until you know American libertarianism -- and then reject it.
Originally posted by @philokaliaThanks for your thoughts about these matters.
This is why I wish you participated in the "debates" forum. We would have already been over all of this and our debate would be a few steps ahead.
But you don't.
Why?
Because I am sure someone like Marauder stepped on your toes and you finished a bit sore or some such.
I shouldn't say these things, degrading to your person as they are, but ...[text shortened]... it would be inappropriate for me to not give you a hard time about your inappropriate behavior.
Originally posted by @fmfThat is a very postmodern judgment.
I don't see how any of this stuff you have typed can be seen as a moral justification for one human being owning another as his or her property like an animal.
We know that the nature of language changes dramatically. Do you speak Hebrew and understand the terms with which this was discussed?
No, you jus tlamely apply your current year understanding of language (which is probably rubbish anyways) to the past.
I shouldn't say it is rubbish but the way that you understand "rights" and "liberty" is lame enough, I can hardly imagine it as some deep understanding.
Originally posted by @philokaliaDark times in the history of the human condition, assuming the mythology is true.
It's also interesting to think about it in terms of the Jews having been slaves in Egypt.
Originally posted by @fmfThat's not a response.
Thanks for your thoughts about these matters.
But that's OK.
I understand you don't like discussing things at length but rather prefer needling, needling, and more needling.
Originally posted by @philokaliaI don't see any moral content here.
See, you are looking at it backwards and with this hopeful view that if things were more explicitly elaborated upon they would prevent a greater amount of negativity instead of presenting a greater collection of loopholes.
You also act like there would be some public service announcement and CNN broadcast that could go out to the people to create a c ...[text shortened]... - it could have lasted for but a coupel of generations and then resulted in general irrelevance.
Originally posted by @philokaliaWhy would I want to discuss which forums I post on with you?
I understand you don't like discussing things at length but rather prefer needling, needling, and more needling.
Originally posted by @fmfRead Finklestein's "Unearthing the Bible." It was very popular among atheists and the like because it attacked the Biblical record.
Dark times in the history of the human condition, assuming the mythology is true.
It generally affirmed almost all of it but sought to push the timeline back incredibly, and it seemed to have succeeded at that until 2009 when it was discovered that Jerusalem had 20 meter high walls back in the 12th or 11th century BC, which totally changed the totality of the breakthrough story written by Israel Finklestein.
But that's OK.
It is a great book in the sense that it systematically affirms the Biblical narratives as archeologically accurate and true.
Originally posted by @philokaliaI might well have owned slaves back in the day and been proud of it.
That is a very postmodern judgment.
Originally posted by @fmfYou'd think a guy who has posted over 40,000 times on these forums (an early estimate you gave us) that he'd like to spend a smidgion of those thousands of hours explaining something about why he posts where he posts.
Why would I want to discuss which forums I post on with you?
You know, being forthcoming and such.
Originally posted by @philokaliaOh, OK. But, anyway, the story of the Jews having been slaves in Egypt is a story illustrating dark times in the history of the human condition.
Read Finklestein's "Unearthing the Bible." It was very popular among atheists and the like because it attacked the Biblical record.
It generally affirmed almost all of it but sought to push the timeline back incredibly, and it seemed to have succeeded at that until 2009 when it was discovered that Jerusalem had 20 meter high walls back in the 12th or ...[text shortened]... nse that it systematically affirms the Biblical narratives as archeologically accurate and true.
Originally posted by @philokaliaWhat has which forums I post on - or which forums I have posted on over the last 10+ years - got to do with you?
You'd think a guy who has posted over 40,000 times on these forums (an early estimate you gave us) that he'd like to spend a smidgion of those thousands of hours explaining something about why he posts where he posts. You know, being forthcoming and such.