God Condoned Chattel Slavery

Originally posted by @philokalia
No, you already know how that is done, as I explained why it existed above. APPLY WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN.

The analogy about gangrene - as it might apply to slavery - is such an obvious dud, it is little other than evasion.

Originally posted by @fmf
There is no "axe" being wielded. I am no more wielding an "axe" than you are by firing off words like "idiot", and "retarded", and "stupid".

Stop being obtuse.

That is far more frustrating than using harsh language. You are impeding the very nature of discussion.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Stop being obtuse.

I am being very straightforward and candid.

Originally posted by @philokalia
If you lived in a neolithic tribe and you sat down and explained that maybe we shouldn't have a standing policy to kill the other tribes hunters on sight because there's definitely a better way to proceed... you'll get laughed at, and if you're tribe is stupid enough to listen to you, they'll eventually be wiped out of the gene pool.

We are talking about slavery. I don't have a moral objection to killing in self-defence in any period of history.

Originally posted by @fmf
I may well have been a slave owner in the C18th and may well have believed - sincerely, as a Christian - that the economic benefits of being a slave owner made my behaviour morally sound and was, to boot, divinely endorsed. But that context, in terms of slavery, was one of moral darkness. Slavery persists to this day. There may be economic and financial excuses for it. It's morally depraved nevertheless.

Cart before the horse. Again.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Cart before the horse. Again.

If you think your well-thumbed 'cart before the horse' word-string works here, you may not be understanding the conversation.

Originally posted by @fmf
If you think your well-thumbed 'cart before the horse' word-string works here, you may not be understanding the conversation.

Did you give my offer any consideration?

Originally posted by @fmf
The analogy about gangrene - as it might apply to slavery - is such an obvious dud, it is little other than evasion.

The act of surgery is ugly;
The act of killing in defense of your tribe is ugly;

The act of slavery is less ugly than both of these, but was a necessary institution in a time when labor was incredibly plentiful but resources were extremely limited, and is also very ugly to us, but was very natural to them.

Figure it out.

Originally posted by @fmf
I am being very straightforward and candid.

"Straightforward & Candid" would be telling me very bluntly why you think I am wrong. Not askign me to spell things out more.

You use this tactic because you want to frustrate people but we all know this is just a garbage move.

Originally posted by @philokalia
The act of surgery is ugly;
The act of killing in defense of your tribe is ugly

We are not discussing the morality of killing in self-defence. This is a red herring. We are discussing perspectives on the morality of slavery.

Originally posted by @philokalia
The act of slavery is less ugly than both of these, but was a necessary institution in a time when labor was incredibly plentiful but resources were extremely limited, and is also very ugly to us, but was very natural to them.

Your economic justifications for slavery are not moral justifications.

Originally posted by @philokalia
"Straightforward & Candid" would be telling me very bluntly why you think I am wrong. Not askign me to spell things out more.

You use this tactic because you want to frustrate people but we all know this is just a garbage move.

I think I have been clearer and more on-topic than you.

I have a moral prism on one hand. And, on the other, I have historical understanding. They work in harness and there is no reason for them to be one in the same or to seek to create the same analysis.

The historical understanding informs me that what was considered to be morally sound changed according to each era. The moral prism informs me of what the moral deficit was at any given time and what progress needed to be made.

I think it's an error - and unnecessary - for one's historical understanding to create multiple, ever-shifting moral prisms. The story of the human condition has been one of moving away [not always smoothly or consistently] from moral darkness.

Originally posted by @fmf
If you think your well-thumbed 'cart before the horse' word-string works here, you may not be understanding the conversation.

If you think that I'm not following the conversation, then you may be falling back on a "word-string" that hasn't exactly served you very well in the past. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of a lot of your stock 'word salad' which attempts to confuse cause and effect. I keep telling you that you need some 'new tricks', but you never listen. Whether you think that the old tricks are serving you well, or that you've just gotten lazy, is for others to judge.

Originally posted by @fmf
I think I have been clearer and more on-topic than you.

I have a moral prism on one hand. And, on the other, I have historical understanding. They work in harness and there is no reason for them to be one in the same or to seek to create the same analysis.

The historical understanding informs me that what was considered to be morally sound changed accor ...[text shortened]... condition has been one of moving away [not always smoothly or consistently] from moral darkness.

<<The story of the human condition has been one of moving away [not always smoothly or consistently] from moral darkness.[/b]>>

In some areas, that’s true - definitely not in all areas. And in some areas, the movement has been toward moral darkness.

Originally posted by @suzianne
If you think that I'm not following the conversation, then you may be falling back on a "word-string" that hasn't exactly served you very well in the past. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of a lot of your stock 'word salad' which attempts to confuse cause and effect. I keep telling you that you need some 'new tricks', but you never listen. Whether y ...[text shortened]... at the old tricks are serving you well, or that you've just gotten lazy, is for others to judge.

<<Whether you think that the old tricks are serving you well, or that you've just gotten lazy, is for others to judge.>>

I think it’s a little of both.