I do think slavery is wrong.
~Max
I find it . . . interesting . . . that Max justifies his understanding by the pre-existing laws of the land. And his go-to resource is the US Constitution. He also supports following the law of the land as his preferred mode, up until the law is changed, although he seems to ignore elements of when the law is changed UNLESS it meets his expectations. So some constitutional amendments are valid, and some are not. Laws passed by Congress are NOT unless they adhere to his specific reading of the Constitution which is . . . head scratching, because the Constitution gives Congress the power to write laws and our body of government to enforce them, as well as creating a High Court of the land.
So basically, you feel that the Constitution is the law, except where it disagrees with you. And of course, if the existing law of the land has Seniority and morality doesn’t apply, why aren’t you instead studying the law and customs of the Native American Nations (dozens) because, frankly, the US is by my understanding of your POV, nothing more than an illegal occupying force.
Yes, I’m making an absurd point, by you’re making an absurd argument Max.
And since we’ve already brought Belkar into it, I’ll lean in - Max, you are the embodiment of Lawful Evil.
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve.
He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland or social rank. He is loath to break laws and promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly from those who oppose him on moral grounds.
From here, although most definitions agree.
It’s almost funny going down the list of traits and characteristics and watching Max hit about 80-90% of them.
I recognize this only to the extent that it is morally unacceptable to remain a part of such a society.
~Max
So, if you were living in Vermont in 1858, you would have left and went to where?
Very often people do not have this choice. What then?
Alternately, some people think opposing slavery is more important than following the law. Do you believe those people are less moral than you?
Yeah, I kind of do understand that. Not in every case, but it seems to me there was room for reasonable people to conclude the right thing to do is report the Jews hiding under the house.
~Max
This is horrifying
Yep. I’m starting to think he might be trolling.
I didn’t mean to imply they are. But the important thing here is that the claim that Black people sink can be countered with facts. As far as I can tell, the only forms of racism Atamasama would hesitate to ban are those which can be directly countered with facts. And the new clarification on the hate speech rule does say, if there is a debatable criticism of a minority group, it won’t be modded as hate speech.
So it seems straightforward to say whether or not all other forms of racism are banned.
~Max
Should be obvious, but I’d like to point out that this type of moral system makes genocide and other atrocities more likely, easier to accomplish, and easier to get away with.
You are probably correct, and it probably would have lead to a worse and less moral outcome.
~Max
If you agree that your moral system would lead to a morally worse outcome, doesn’t that indicate that your system is profoundly flawed?
I take it back. You’re not a racist, you’re a monster.
Sure, but this is a topic that might merit brief discussion of both the facts and the (racist) cultural origins of the myth. Someone who persisted with “just asking questions” about it as though it’s a bona fide issue for scientific debate would surely come under suspicion as having racist motivation. If this kept coming up I suspect it would probably be squelched under the “scientific racism” topic ban.
Whereas the reasons for East Africans being overrepresented among distance runners does not (so far as I’m aware) carry any such racist baggage, and would certainly be worthy of extensive discussion.
That’s not the trade off. There’s a difference between saving a life and telling a fugitive they can’t stay in my barn, or even turning them in. I also have zero care about the “property” rights of a slave owner. The counterweight is my duty to follow the law, including the liabilities for me & mine if I break it.
~Max
I agree.
~Max
No, I don’t see it like that. You might, Martin_Hyde might, but I don’t.
I recognize the historical right of conquest, at least through WWII.
Interesting. I don’t know what Belkar is but I wonder what the other options entail. The first paragraph I quoted, which I disagree with, would seem to put me in Chaotic Evil as I previously understood the categories.
~Max
You have a duty to obey traffic laws, too. And traffic laws are based on good and just concerns about safety and efficiency of driving, whereas slave laws were based on the evil and unjust principle that the property rights of slave owners were more important than the right of a slave to his own person.
Morality isn’t about WOULD. It is about SHOULD. If the British had won and hung the rebels, in your opinion, would that have been a moral good?
And yes, they declared independence. Which is illegal to do. Why is stealing a sandwich (an illegal act) wrong, but declaring independence (an illegal act) right? What if you declare independence, steal the sandwich, and toss it in Boston Bay?
But people are talking about him, so he’s got that.