pop morality

[Drich]

Clearly, Pepsi has far greater moral clarity and resolve of conscience than Coke.

Ha! Get it? Has anyone made that joke yet in 48 pages of responses? POP morality?!

...

Like... soda... pop....
...

I'll let myself out

Ahh, no. No one has made that "joke."


...For a good reason.

[Drich]

again it is not morality. It's righteousness.

Morality defines and judges actions. In that each action has a 'moral value.'

God's righteousness is not about actions having a right or wrong value, but it is what God has to say about a given or specific situation.

God defines right and wrong, not our deeds or actions.

Before you imagination runs away on you. know what God said is we must obey his full law from the time we can comprehend it till we die, or we must seek atonement. If we seek atonement, then it is no longer by the law that we are judged.

So... when God said that the slave owners could use the virgins as "breeding fodder" or whatever it is you said, this was a righteous commandment?

yes.

Again Righteousness is not assigned by evaluating action and judging it good or bad. It is following the command of God.

[SofaKingHigh]

So... when God said that the slave owners could use the virgins as "breeding fodder" or whatever it is you said, this was a righteous commandment?

yes.

Again Righteousness is not assigned by evaluating action and judging it good or bad. It is following the command of God.

Spoken like the true sheep you are.

As I've said before, remove the Bible, replace with the Q'uran and you're blowing yourself to shit in the hope of 72 bodies of breeding fodder.

[robvalue]

It's not, of course. It's following the word of men who presume to speak for God.

What a thoroughly dangerous idea. And it has nothing to do with the morality of caring about anyone but yourself. It's about licking boots for rewards and fuck everyone else.

If this is the case you present, is it any wonder we want nothing to do with it?

[Drich]

Open your friggen eyes!
What happened to the American slaves right after they were freed? Did they all move away from the plantations, goto collage and all become doctors and lawyers?  No..

Yes, yes, "open my eyes"....the mating call of the loon....

Many slaves went back to africa,

....nope, but that's a nice story.  

This is like shooting fish in a barrel
You guys are sooo stupid. (intentionally ignorant/avoid opportunities to learn the truth) It's truly frighting.
It's like you check your brains at the door, so you all can hold on to your revised/propaganda version of history.
I bet you did/don't want to know that Lincoln would have kept slavery alive if it meant the end of the civil war did you?

Ask yourself when have I, EVER made a statement I can not fully back? Why in your mind would this be Any different?

Have you Ever heard of Liberia, Africa?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Liberia

After the emancipation Lincoln tried to ship all the freed slaves to central America to start an American colony, but that plan was rejected by the black leaders of that time. Because neither the slaves one or two generations removed from Africa had any 'roots' there nor did the slaves who were several generations born in America. Then their was a push to revitalize an old Thomas Jefferson plan to colonize Africa with freed slaves. This had great appeal to those who themselves were brought to America or those being persecuted by whites/The KKK.

So again, Many Slaves did indeed go back to africa, enough to start a Nation!!!

Those who stayed saw themselves as Americans and wanted to live here despite whatever persecution they were threatened by.

Many more had to stay where they were because they did not want to leave their lives, their homes.

They were no longer property where they lived, in their homes.  An improvement.

A rose by any other name sport... Do you know what that means?
They lived in the same house/shacks, they work the same fields, they lived by the same rules, they were often paid the same. A piece a paper does not make a man 'free.' Nor does it enslave a man. Freedom is a state of mind. You can be 'free' in chains, and you can live as if you are in chains with the freedom to do what you want.

For these men with their freedom they returned to their chains. (this is parallels the central message of this thread, in that with atonement you can live as if you are free from God's law, or you can bind/chain yourself back to some form of His law. That is why their are so many different denominations)

[/quote]
Slaves don't get paid, there's no need. Just like you don't pay a horse.[/quote] Jefferson paid his slaves.. Or are you saying jefferson did not own slaves? Matter of fact many slave owners paid their slaves, in addition to providing the minimum, so does that mean if any money is exchanged for work these people were not slaves?
Of course they were still slaves. Why? because Jefferson's will superseded their own will for their lives. Jefferson did not compensate them with a fair wage in relation to the work they did. Their compensation came in the way of housing, food, cloths, relative safety and medical (such as it was.)
Jefferson, used small amounts of money as bonuses or rewards for completing tasks early or even as moral boosts.

Again, this money (like today) was not fair or proportionate to the work load these people had to do, but money has indeed been exchanged between owner and slave.

You'd be amazed at what you did not know of slavery, if you would just turn the tv off once and a while and read something that contains truth and history in it.

 So, very few slaves changed their lives but many moved back to africa......?  If you're going to peddle fantasy, you could at least pick a story and stick with it.  

So stupid... and yet you think you are the one who is right. Let me ask you this. If you could be SOOOOO Wrong about documented history, how much more wrong do you think you are about other things you have not researched like God, morality, and the like? If you completely rely on pop culture to inform you, how do you know you have not been duped by propaganda? (your beliefs on slavery shows you have been duped)

Again if I were ever this wrong about one of my core beliefs it would make me question EVERYTHING I thought I knew. But that's just me it seems. I'm sure you will ignore what I've shown you here and inside a week forget it in favor of whatever brand of propaganda cool aid you like to drink.

Education is not a universal fix we pretend it is today. Again not all are equal. Not all can be educated to a profitable level. For those who can't and have only known their vocation their whole life, then that is all they will ever be good for.

It isn't, and we aren't...and?  Labor can be paid an acceptable wage, we call it a minimum wage here in the states, some of us are working to improve it.  

Oh, my glob..
...And you don't understand basic economics.
So lets say we move all manufacturing for all the products we now 'outsource' and pay everyone a federally mandated minimum wage that allows them to live off only what they make at this job..

What do you think will happen to the price of the manufactured product?

Right now lets say some poor guy in china slaves away putting iphones together for 5 dollars a week. Now manufacturing gets moved here and the minimum wage is 15.00 per hour.. that is 600.00 dollars a week. that is a increase 120x s what they are paying now in manufacturing cost just in labor. Just looking at the labor increase do you think apple is just going to absorb a 120x s manufacturing increase? or will those savings get passed on to you the consumer? Now replace the apple brand with absolutely everything else you have ever bought or will buy, can you afford a product that costs 120x what it costs now? No you say?? So what is the federal government to do??? raise the minimum wage??? what do you think will happen to the product costs then?

Can you see why slavery is the glue that holds all economy of all societies together?

so ask yourself again is this always 'bad thing?' Again what of the slaves completely dependent on that 5 dollars a week, how will they survive?

What would you do/How will you or they live without it?

Your grandfather sounds like a great man, you must be what's left.  

What's left is someone who has not only seen the need of men like my grandfather, but continues to see men like my grandfather out working in conditions they would not have to if people like you simply opened your eyes.

Yes they will still be and work as slaves, but they would not have to work as chattel and die in their fields.

Regardless of whether or not all men have wanted to be free, we have abolished slavery and continue the work to eliminate substandard wages and working conditions.  Admittedly, there are holdouts like yourself who do neither and may even argue for the necessity of slavery or substandard wages or conditions.   Excuse the complicity of yourself and your god some other way, there's nothing for you here.

And that's why slaves still today work themselves to death, or work in jobs and places that cut their lives short. so you and people like you can pretend to be better men than your grandfathers.

Is it worth it? is your self righteousness/The right you take from your position, to look down at me worth the lives of the men women and children who work in the shadows to provide you with you way of life?

For me the answer is no. EVEN If it means I get labeled 'evil' by those who live by the rules of pop culture. To me that does not sound like an unfair cost.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Is it worth it? For me the answer is no. EVEN If it means I get labeled 'evil' by those who live by the rules of pop culture. To me that does not sound like an unfair cost.

... said Osama bin Laden, right before he launched the attacks against the Great Satan.

[Drich]

Sure. The Inca empire, for instance, did not practice slavery, but had a system of indentured servitude (such as the Israelites practiced among themselves) for when people committed crimes or went into debt, by which a person could work their way out of that condition. It was not something that required heritable, chattel slavery to exist, and Jehovah could certainly have prohibited it.

The Incas were the WORST people you could EVER have mentioned. You do know they sacrificed over 4000 slaves "indentured servants" in one ceremony in 1527? do you really think all 4000 slaves.. I mean "servants" wanted their still beating hearts cut out of their chests and heads cut off?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_Empire

Which bring me to ask, what to you is a slave? to me an 'indentured servant' does not have to die (one of the worst ways possible) when the man he is indentured to dies.

compared to those monsters slavery in America during the 18th century would be better.

Darius the Great was also known for establishing a wage system for his slave-workers, and allowing them to work their way out of slavery; the Persians had various degrees of servitude to which a person could belong, and also buy their way gradually out of it. Soldiers typically started as "100%" slaves, and as they rose in rank were granted additional rights as freemen.

you are aware this same sort of thing happened in 17th century america as well right?
the term for this was "Manumission" it was common for slave owners to even set their older slaves free here in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission

Point being, their was still slavery in this society just like their was in each of the examples you listed above. I was asking for examples of societies NOT Built or currently maintain on slave labor. I am not saying non exist (although I have researched and can not find one that has ever existed) I am saying they can not last. Their whole economic structure is doomed to fail or convert over to slave laborers.

(Edit to Add: I skipped the part about the beatings because, honestly, I'm not sure to what you're referring with that question/passage.)

what you originally responded to was not about slavery it was about whether it was right or wrong to beat a slave. My observation being in that time in that culture it was "the only option."

Most slave owners in the old South were not abusive toward their slaves; that doesn't make it okay, if they're not "monsters". The living conditions of those slaves is also irrelevant to the question being discussed, here. Incidentally, I read George Washington's writings on the subject, when I was a history minor, and his objection to slavery wasn't that it was immoral or wrong for the servants, but that it was not the best idea, economically-- it did not allow for flexibility of labor pools, if the plantation owner wanted to change crops, for instance. His advice on treating slaves "well" specifically centered around the fact that abused slaves will not produce as much labor output.

Indeed.

Incidentally, the argument you are making here (I hope without realizing it's what you're doing) is exactly the argument that was made by Southerners as they objected to the Abolition movement: they claimed that there was not another realistic option, and that the economy could not function without the practice of slavery. They were wrong, and so are you.

No, they weren't. slavery continued, and continues still. The same crops were still planted much by the same people for the same terms for decades after. the only thing that changed in the south was the consolidation of the plantations, until that model was no longer sustainable and corporate America began to mechanize and turn family plantations into companies, who paid very low wages and provided the same housing and minimal existance the plantation owners did, but often added a 'company store' that often time put its works into a life debt to the company Just like slavery did.

It is/was the same game, just played a different way. That is the point I am making about 'modern morallity' it just changes the rules or how a evil is marketed and you all line up and buy whatever it being sold to you without question.

If we did not have slavery, then why the need for unions? and even as late as the 1940 and 50s these companies operated this way in the southern/non union states. They provide a shot gun shack, a minimal food credit, and wage then give you all the credit you want at the company store hoping you will sell your soul to them for your basic needs.

In my home town it was orange grooves/plantation owners who did this into the 1980s...

Now everything is outsourced to other countries and the only thing different is you do not have to look at it going on here in your back yard. I guess because it has moved it means it no longer happens.

That's not a justification for a slavery system, but an indictment of the fact that there was no social "safety net", as we call it in modern society. Again, it doesn't mean that a transcendent God, such as you claim to worship, couldn't have come up with something better (or closer to our modern outlook) by commanding the Israelites to behave differently from their neighbors/contemporaries. Whether or not I, a mere human being, can come up with something better is irrelevant. The fact that the God of the Bible cannot do better than human beings of their time is the entire conversation.

Not a safety net, but how society ALL Society works. Or Again show me one society not founded on or currently held aloft by slavery.

I have never suggested that God would "supply everything".

holy crap dude.. You have to keep in mind I was not originally talking to you. I was responding to something virus or rhythm said and you jumped in. My arguments are based off what i originally said, I was correcting your position to reflect the original answer I gave.

Slavery was not the only economic option they had, and it's not our only economic option. It's simply what powerful humans do to elevate themselves over the weaker/helpless humans and nations around them (including your modern versions of slavery, which is why we weren't moved by that argument). It's the kind of thing a transcendent moral being might be able to stop; it's certainly not something that would be endorsed by said being. Again, as I said before, it's what we would expect to find in a book written by humans, not a book dictated by the creator of the universe.

Again show me ONE Example of a soceity not built on or currently supported by slavery.

I don't think you endorse chattel slavery; I do think you're justifying it for no reason other than your emotional attachment to the idol you worship, called the Bible. You're a Bible idolator, and so to you the fact that the Bible endorses it means you simply must defend it, regardless of what it says in there, rather than simply admitting it was written by a barbaric people in a barbaric time, and is not actually the "Word of the Eternal Creator of the Universe".

whatever helps you get to sleep at night..
In truth I do not believe in chattel slavery because we live in a time where we have the societal support to manage without it. this was not always the case.

Your misrepresentation of the role of slavery in building civilizations would take an entire sociology course to dissect, so I'm going to leave it alone. A better way to put it, as succinctly as I am able, is to say that slavery is a sickness born of the rise of large cities/states (and with it, a Power Class), but no more "necessary" to the construction of those empires than it's "necessary" for us to have slavery in order to build the Interstate Highway System. Simply put, it's not.

"If you can not explain something simply, you do not understand it well enough."
~Einstein
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes...83803.html

But that's the thing isn't it... While the founding Father may have coined the term "all men are created equal." Not All human beings were to be considered "men" were they?

Matter of fact it was not till after world war two, in an attempt to rectify the damage hitler caused by trying to promote the Aryan race as being above all others, did the term 'All men were created equal." Mean what it means today.

A purely logical person would look at the data of the various races and see that physical attributes, and infirmities are not consistent across all races. some races are susceptible to disease that others are not. While some races across the board can not properly digest the same foods as others have no issue with. Some have a natural and high proclivity towards intellectual aspirations while others are naturally more physical and more easily develop their bodies. None of this means one race should dominate another, nor does it mean one is better. It just means not all men are equal. we all have different strengths and weaknesses. While their always exceptions to the rules we can indeed classify or group these strengths and weaknesses (in a general way) according to race.

Are we back to the Hitler thing again? Seriously? As for the rest of your reply, I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot pole.

Bock, Bock, booock...

Now then If God did indeed write the bible, would he not write or inspire the TRUTH to be written, despite one communities proclivity towards the propaganda it uses to hold itself together?? Would not God be obligated to side with the truth that has held and forged humanity for the last 4 to 5 thousand years, and the truth that allowed us to develop to this point (the last several decades) where we can teach our children the lie about all men being created equal?

So then, if God's book represents a 5000+ year old truth, and your 50 year old belief that 'all men are created equal' can not even stand up to a logical, non filter look at humanity through the lens of all mighty 'science.' Then why oh, why do you assume that God's book reflect your propaganda?

It is a hard or some may even consider offensive truth, but truth none the less.

Ask yourself does your world view contain any non emotionally charged, hard or offensive truths? Do they not exist? or has your world view simply "scrubbed" them? If your world view is scrubbed of all hard or offensive truths ask yourself does your world view indeed still represent the truth?

I don't have a clue what you're talking about, at this point. I'm not the one trying to turn science into a religion, or a moral lawgiver like your imaginary friend. As I pointed out before, science is a method, and it cannot "give its approval" or be almighty. I think you're projecting some serious emotional issues onto us, and your attempt to bait me just won't work because there's nothing there... the fact that you tried, though, tells me even more of what we all already knew about you.

All your above drivel aside, it's really very simple: our moral code today is not perfect. It's far from it. We have the biggest wealth and power gap in the history of the world, we have (as you pointed out) conditions for 2/3rds of the workers of the world which are almost indistinguishable from real slavery, we have many vestiges of xenophobia which manifest in our laws and social attitudes and need to be improved.

You speak of the recent improvements in the broadening of "all are created equal" as if it's a bad thing that it's newly-expanded. I say that's its greatest strength...

When is disillusion strength? We are not willing to tap our strengths and come to a full understanding of who we are and how we were built, just because we don't want to hurt anyone's 'feelings.' we want to tell our kids they can do whatever they want, and nothing is impossible, just follow your dreams... Which is all bunk. Ever watch American Idol? Out of the 10's of thousands if not millions of kids who parents would not tell them the truth, how many of them absolutely humiliated themselves on national TV that should have never even auditioned?

Can you see the connection I am making here? 99% of the kids who humiliated themselves did so because they were told they could do anything, despite an obvious limitation that anyone who head them sing could spot if they were just honest with them. Clearly that is not what happened though is it. why? because despite the fact they were not physically able to sing well enough to make the final cut, we lie to ourselves about our own limitations. Rather than seeking out the things we could have a natural advantage in, and helping our children develop along those lines showing them their strengths and their weakness so they can better navigate life, we waist our most important years chasing after crap that will never pan out.

Ever wonder why countries like china are absolutely kicking our teeth in academically? Because they understand their strengths and weaknesses. the shore up their weaknesses and feed and work out their strengths, rather than chase foolish ideologies.

we constantly broaden that umbrella to contain more types of person, whereas it was radical at the time for the Founders to say that "all rich, white men are equal", so to speak. Our morality improves. That's what makes the idea of your Biblical transcendent morality argument so laughable... we've managed, in the 239 years this country has been around, to radically improve (sometimes painfully, and always too slowly) over the moral conditions written down by your Bronze Age tribal sheepherder-warrior people's priests in the name of God.

And it's still improving. Your tu quoque arguments hold no weight because of this reason.

again, nothing as improved except the marketing around the things you call evil. You are apart of the evil and don't seem to know or care. that's marketing/propaganda sport, not your 'morals evolving.'

[The Grand Nudger]

And that's why slaves still today work themselves to death, or work in jobs and places that cut their lives short. so you and people like you can pretend to be better men than your grandfathers.

-and yet here I remain in opposition to slavery, sub standard wages, and substandard working conditions...whilst you defend them and claim their necessity (regardless of how idiotically you've defined them).  I don't really know whether or not I'm a better man than my grandfather (or yours)........but I know enough about you to make a comparison.  

Is it worth it? is your self righteousness/The right you take from your position, to look down at me worth the lives of the men women and children who work in the shadows to provide you with you way of life?

I take my right to look down upon you from your own comments, nothing else.  You can no more competently defend yourself in this regard than you can defend your god, and so, instead, you babble ceaselessly about the flaws of others...real or imagined.....just as you do for god.

For me the answer is no. EVEN If it means I get labeled 'evil' by those who live by the rules of pop culture. To me that does not sound like an unfair cost.

For you the answer is that it's necessary, and that many depend upon it, that god allows it, and that all moral systems are insufficient and irrelevant to it.  Or had you forgotten? I have to ask, are you now attempting to paint yourself as being compassionate, or in opposition to those things which you've spent page after page defending? Do you think anyone will buy it, after all of that?

[robvalue]

The only difference between a "nice" person following the word of God and someone like a member of ISIS is which particular God / voice in their head it is, and which interpretation they follow. None of this has anything to do with thinking for yourself about what is a decent way to behave. Of course, "nice" people don't follow the word of God at all, they just claim to while ignoring almost all of it.

[Drich]

The only difference between a "nice" person following the word of God and someone like a member of ISIS is which particular God / voice in their head it is, and which interpretation they follow. None of this has anything to do with thinking for yourself about what is a decent way to behave. Of course, "nice" people don't follow the word of God at all, they just claim to while ignoring almost all of it.

You do understand that your cliche'd answers have been undermine by the OP right?

You do understand the point I am making?

That "nice people" is a meaningless term unless you have a fixed standard to compare them to?

Maybe if you do not understand what I mean you could ask a question, or explain how you feel your version of 'nice people' are better than the 'nice people' someone in ISIS would identify.

"Nice, Good, Moral" all subjective terms that hold no real meaning outside of the societies that define them.

And if you understand these points, then why return to an argument that makes you look foolish?