Who determines the Maxim: the moral Law?

[cnm]

No. That is a great example of moral relativity.

The Founders? Agreed.

 

[Taz]

How so?

In that it does not address the subject at all. You are arguing a different point.

For any given thing there will be an absolute highest standard... even moral laws.

You mentioned God's moral Law, I replied with what god's moral standards actually are. You just want to live in a fantasy world.

Moral law like objective truth is discovered. This idea has been around for hundreds of years. Our country was founded on it.

Our country is totally FUCKED UP! And there's no such thing as objective moral law, who gets to decide, you?

The moral law is what we ought to do, not what we do do.

But who decides what the moral law is?

 

[Taz]

Part of the reason our country is "totally FUCKED UP" is subjective morality believing retards such as yourself that indoctrinate kids into that way of thinking.

Don't forget the subjective morality that considers the slaughter of other people's school kids to be a reasonable price to pay for easy access to handguns and military style semi-automatics.

Easy access? No. Liberty and freedom? Yes. Gun accidents and violence are a cost of liberty and freedom just as automobile accidents and deaths are a cost of transportation.

And since no one who supports 2nd Amendment rights condones murder of any kind, your argument is disingenuous.

No, he’s right, since nobody who supports the 2nd wants to ever do any about gun control, it can be said that school shooting are the price 2nd supporters are willing to pay.

 

[Taz]

Morality is subjective, as you might think something like gay sex is immoral, but others don't see it that way, and nature has too many examples of homosexuality and transgendering to mention. But I'm sure that you still think that you're on the moral high ground on this matter.

Standards are not subjective. They exist for a reason. Standards are absolute, not relative. When society normalizes its deviance from those standards, predictable surprises will occur. That is how you can know that an absolute standard does exist. Outcomes.

Two of nature's standards are homosexuality and transgendering, and have useful outcome, to use your phrase. So why are you against them?

No. That would be two exceptions of nature.

I'm not against them. I don't believe we should define the rule for the exception.

There's no exceptions in nature, everything is a standard. Anyways, exception to what, nature's laws? Or nature itself?

Statistics says otherwise, Taz.

So does nature which has selected male and female pairs for procreation. As a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.

Not true, plenty of animals are only raised by their mothers while the father goes looking for other mates. And I’m not just talking about black folks, I’m talking about real animals, deer, bears...

 

[ding]

No. Virtue is decided by outcomes.

No. Outcomes determine how valid were the community norms. The community decides the norms.

No. Outcomes change the norms.

 

[ding]

Standards are not subjective. They exist for a reason. Standards are absolute, not relative. When society normalizes its deviance from those standards, predictable surprises will occur. That is how you can know that an absolute standard does exist. Outcomes.

Two of nature's standards are homosexuality and transgendering, and have useful outcome, to use your phrase. So why are you against them?

No. That would be two exceptions of nature.

I'm not against them. I don't believe we should define the rule for the exception.

There's no exceptions in nature, everything is a standard. Anyways, exception to what, nature's laws? Or nature itself?

Statistics says otherwise, Taz.

So does nature which has selected male and female pairs for procreation. As a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.

Not true, plenty of animals aren’t only raised by their mothers while the father goes looking for other mates. And I’m not just talking about black folks, I’m talking about real animals, deer, bears...

First of all we aren't plenty of animals. We are human beings. Secondly it is true that as a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.

 

[ding]

Easy access? No.

Yes.

First of all there is no such thing as easy access. You literally have to go through a background check where many people fail to obtain access to guns. Secondly no one who supports 2nd Amendment rights condones murder of any kind, so your easy access argument is disingenuous when you imply that they have no morals because they allow easy access.

Your logic is so flawed that your ability to reason comes into question.

 

[Taz]

Two of nature's standards are homosexuality and transgendering, and have useful outcome, to use your phrase. So why are you against them?

No. That would be two exceptions of nature.

I'm not against them. I don't believe we should define the rule for the exception.

There's no exceptions in nature, everything is a standard. Anyways, exception to what, nature's laws? Or nature itself?

Statistics says otherwise, Taz.

So does nature which has selected male and female pairs for procreation. As a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.

Not true, plenty of animals aren’t only raised by their mothers while the father goes looking for other mates. And I’m not just talking about black folks, I’m talking about real animals, deer, bears...

First of all we aren't plenty of animals. We are human beings. Secondly it is true that as a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.

Nature calls it that single parents are the norm. Very rarely do mates stay together for life. We're probably part of the exceptions.

 

[ding]

No. That is a great example of moral relativity.

The Founders? Agreed.

No. The Founders did not agree that slavery was moral. Quite the opposite actually. Is there anything that you have ever been right about?

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

Daniel Webster
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
March 7, 1850
(In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."

Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."

Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.

“Corner Stone” Speech
Alexander H. Stephens
Savannah, Georgia
March 21, 1861

“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "

So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

 

[ding]

No. That would be two exceptions of nature.

I'm not against them. I don't believe we should define the rule for the exception.

There's no exceptions in nature, everything is a standard. Anyways, exception to what, nature's laws? Or nature itself?

Statistics says otherwise, Taz.

So does nature which has selected male and female pairs for procreation. As a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.

Not true, plenty of animals aren’t only raised by their mothers while the father goes looking for other mates. And I’m not just talking about black folks, I’m talking about real animals, deer, bears...

First of all we aren't plenty of animals. We are human beings. Secondly it is true that as a rule, children are best served by having male and female role models in their lives.

Nature calls it that single parents are the norm. Very rarely do mates stay together for life. We're probably part of the exceptions.

You can't cross species to justify what a specific species does. Only a moron would argue that as rule it is not in the best interest of a child to have a male and a female role model FOR HUMAN BEINGS.

That or someone who is selfishly practicing the exception and needs to rationalize that they are serving their child's best interest. Which one are you?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Morality is about the survival of mainstream society.
Wise people determine that some behaviors are bad for mainstream society.
Amoral people self-destruct and amoral societies self-destruct.
For instance, it everyone stole instead of worked, that society would starve.

 

[cnm]

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

That's why people as property was codified in the Constitution, because they wanted to end it. Very moral. They traded the idea of people as assets to get votes. How moral can one be?

 

[ding]

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

That's why people as property was codified in the Constitution, because they wanted to end it.

Can you show me where slavery was codified in the Constitution?

 

[ding]

Frederick Douglas believed that the 3/5th clause is an anti-slavery clause. Not a pro-slavery clause. Frederick Douglas believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document.

(1860) Frederick Douglass, “the Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?” | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

What Did Frederick Douglass Believe About the U.S. Constitution? | The Classroom | Synonym

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...onstitution_did_not_condone_slavery/page/full

And so did others.

In May of 1854, following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, a number of anti-slavery Democrats along with some anti-slavery members from other parties, including the Whigs, Free-Soilers, and Emancipationists formed a new party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights. The name of the new party? The Republican Party. It was named the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles.

History of the United States Republican Party - Wikipedia

Republican Party founded - Mar 20, 1854 - HISTORY.com

Republican Party - The Republican Party In The New Millennium

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Republican Party | PBS

"The Democratic Party had become the dominant political party in America in the 1820s, [30] and in May 1854, in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats, several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party – the Republican Party. [31] It was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. In an 1865 publication documenting the history of black voting rights, Philadelphia attorney John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.”

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]

 

[cnm]

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

You're talking about the importation of slaves, Shirley, not the trade in them.

 

[ding]

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

You're talking about the importation of slaves, Shirley, not the trade in them.

You'd have to read the whole post to understand the point I made.

Parsing posts is something a Cultural Marxist would do. Are you a Cultural Marxist?

 

[cnm]

Can you show me where slavery was codified in the Constitution?

See that word 'owner', which codifies people as property?

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which requires a "person held to service or labour" who flees to another state to be returned to the owner in the state from which that person escaped.​

 

[cnm]

You'd have to read the whole post to understand the point I made.

I understand revisionism when I see it. And deflecting to importation to avoid sale and barter.

 

[ding]

You'd have to read the whole post to understand the point I made.

I understand revisionism when I see it. And deflecting to importation to avoid sale and barter.

There is no revisionism other than yours.

1. The founders did intend for slavery to perish.
2. I have provided two credible witnesses who stated that.
3. The actions of the founders confirm it.

Where is the revisionism?

 

[ding]

Can you show me where slavery was codified in the Constitution?

See that word 'owner', which codifies people as property?

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which requires a "person held to service or labour" who flees to another state to be returned to the owner in the state from which that person escaped.​

Right. No mention of slavery which was intentional.

Couple that with the language to abolish the importation of slaves, plus them actually abolishing it at the earliest date, plus the laws which forbid expansion of slavery, plus credible witnesses who said they intended for slavery to perish, plus Frederick Douglass telling you that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document and it all adds up to you are an idiot.