On the Nature of Morality

[Asclepias]

Your perspective if a bit off, however. Slavery was not "embraced in American society".....early America had long previously inherited the practice from elsewhere in the world, more especially in Africa (and the middle east and elsewhere) where slavery had been embraced for thousands of years. The foundation of American, the civil society, clearly laid the foundation for the end of slavery. It is more appropriate to state that America did not embrace slavery so much as grew out of/away from the immoral practice. Thanks be to our Framers, some of whom inherited the immoral practice they set upon to end.

I disagree. Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society. Before the US was officially formed, Black people in the states were either free or indentured servants. There was a social and economic need to make Black people slaves and the equivalent of animals. The social need to do so was to deal with the cognitive dissonance that resulted from the hypocritical stance of christians owning slaves. The economic reasons are obvious as it resulted in the US becoming and economic power. One only needs to look at the 3/5 compromise to see the US embraced the concept of slavery even after debating its merits among the slave owners that created the constitution.

You claim to disagree with my position without actually doing so.

Your understanding of the 3/5th of a man compromise illustrates a COMPLETE lack of understanding of what it actually was, and of what it was trying to accomplish. Wanna debate it? I only ask, because this leftist myth has perpetuated too long in academia and in the media, and it is easy to rebuke.

But hey, at least someone liked your post.

Its pretty simple. You said...

Slavery was not "embraced in American society".

I said.....

Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society.

I have a firm grasp on what the 3/5 compromise meant. I dont know that this is the thread for a debate on it but start one and let me know.

It seems you don't.

Second request: wanna debate? Prove your position and I'll respond.

Stop requesting and start a thread as I instructed. Tag me and I will be there.

 

[Youch]

Your perspective if a bit off, however. Slavery was not "embraced in American society".....early America had long previously inherited the practice from elsewhere in the world, more especially in Africa (and the middle east and elsewhere) where slavery had been embraced for thousands of years. The foundation of American, the civil society, clearly laid the foundation for the end of slavery. It is more appropriate to state that America did not embrace slavery so much as grew out of/away from the immoral practice. Thanks be to our Framers, some of whom inherited the immoral practice they set upon to end.

I disagree. Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society. Before the US was officially formed, Black people in the states were either free or indentured servants. There was a social and economic need to make Black people slaves and the equivalent of animals. The social need to do so was to deal with the cognitive dissonance that resulted from the hypocritical stance of christians owning slaves. The economic reasons are obvious as it resulted in the US becoming and economic power. One only needs to look at the 3/5 compromise to see the US embraced the concept of slavery even after debating its merits among the slave owners that created the constitution.

You claim to disagree with my position without actually doing so.

Your understanding of the 3/5th of a man compromise illustrates a COMPLETE lack of understanding of what it actually was, and of what it was trying to accomplish. Wanna debate it? I only ask, because this leftist myth has perpetuated too long in academia and in the media, and it is easy to rebuke.

But hey, at least someone liked your post.

Its pretty simple. You said...

Slavery was not "embraced in American society".

I said.....

Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society.

I have a firm grasp on what the 3/5 compromise meant. I dont know that this is the thread for a debate on it but start one and let me know.

It seems you don't.

Second request: wanna debate? Prove your position and I'll respond.

Stop requesting and start a thread as I instructed. Tag me and I will be there.

I see, you are afraid.. You have no clue what 3/5th meant. That was obvious from the start. This means all your previous posts with the your maleducated premise is faulty and embarrassing;. I don't need to start a thread to prove a known fact. If you want to challenge history, then you start a thread to disprove a known fact. I'll be there.

I've called you out on YOUR 3/5ths POV. What ya got home boy?

 

[PostmodernProph]

The bible [eg, the ten commandments] is not the source of morality but only a reflection of the morality of ancient jews and christians. The law code of Hammurabi pre-dates the ten commandments Moses gave to his people. ''Thou shalt not kill'' is not a universal inherent precept, as the Mayans practiced human sacrifice.

ironically, thou shall not murder is not IN the code of Hammurabi....
Full text of The code of Hammurabi

 

[RandomVariable]

The bible [eg, the ten commandments] is not the source of morality but only a reflection of the morality of ancient jews and christians. The law code of Hammurabi pre-dates the ten commandments Moses gave to his people. ''Thou shalt not kill'' is not a universal inherent precept, as the Mayans practiced human sacrifice.

ironically, thou shall not murder is not IN the code of Hammurabi....
Full text of The code of Hammurabi

I was a little surprised that when I was asking for something written similar to the Old Testament no one mentioned the code of Hammurabi. Some suggest it is where Moses got his laws. I have a theory on that but I am not going to share as it is much less logical than my take on Rachel's images.

 

[Hollie]

The bible [eg, the ten commandments] is not the source of morality but only a reflection of the morality of ancient jews and christians. The law code of Hammurabi pre-dates the ten commandments Moses gave to his people. ''Thou shalt not kill'' is not a universal inherent precept, as the Mayans practiced human sacrifice.

ironically, thou shall not murder is not IN the code of Hammurabi....
Full text of The code of Hammurabi

As with so much of Christianity, the theology was simply co-opted from earlier religions and traditions.

 

[PostmodernProph]

The bible [eg, the ten commandments] is not the source of morality but only a reflection of the morality of ancient jews and christians. The law code of Hammurabi pre-dates the ten commandments Moses gave to his people. ''Thou shalt not kill'' is not a universal inherent precept, as the Mayans practiced human sacrifice.

ironically, thou shall not murder is not IN the code of Hammurabi....
Full text of The code of Hammurabi

As with so much of Christianity, the theology was simply co-opted from earlier religions and traditions.

such an opinion is contingent upon ignorance of both Christianity and the earlier religions.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Some suggest it is where Moses got his laws.

the only two they have in common would be stealing and false witness........interestingly, the Code of Hammurabi spends more time on what you can do to a wife who moves into the home of another man if her husband is captured in war and is a prisoner than it does with murdering someone.......

 

[Asclepias]

I disagree. Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society. Before the US was officially formed, Black people in the states were either free or indentured servants. There was a social and economic need to make Black people slaves and the equivalent of animals. The social need to do so was to deal with the cognitive dissonance that resulted from the hypocritical stance of christians owning slaves. The economic reasons are obvious as it resulted in the US becoming and economic power. One only needs to look at the 3/5 compromise to see the US embraced the concept of slavery even after debating its merits among the slave owners that created the constitution.

You claim to disagree with my position without actually doing so.

Your understanding of the 3/5th of a man compromise illustrates a COMPLETE lack of understanding of what it actually was, and of what it was trying to accomplish. Wanna debate it? I only ask, because this leftist myth has perpetuated too long in academia and in the media, and it is easy to rebuke.

But hey, at least someone liked your post.

Its pretty simple. You said...

Slavery was not "embraced in American society".

I said.....

Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society.

I have a firm grasp on what the 3/5 compromise meant. I dont know that this is the thread for a debate on it but start one and let me know.

It seems you don't.

Second request: wanna debate? Prove your position and I'll respond.

Stop requesting and start a thread as I instructed. Tag me and I will be there.

I see, you are afraid.. You have no clue what 3/5th meant. That was obvious from the start. This means all your previous posts with the your maleducated premise is faulty and embarrassing;. I don't need to start a thread to prove a known fact. If you want to challenge history, then you start a thread to disprove a known fact. I'll be there.

I've called you out on YOUR 3/5ths POV. What ya got home boy?

I'm not afraid. I dont want to be off topic. Start a thread or are you afraid home boy?

 

[Youch]

You claim to disagree with my position without actually doing so.

Your understanding of the 3/5th of a man compromise illustrates a COMPLETE lack of understanding of what it actually was, and of what it was trying to accomplish. Wanna debate it? I only ask, because this leftist myth has perpetuated too long in academia and in the media, and it is easy to rebuke.

But hey, at least someone liked your post.

Its pretty simple. You said...

Slavery was not "embraced in American society".

I said.....

Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society.

I have a firm grasp on what the 3/5 compromise meant. I dont know that this is the thread for a debate on it but start one and let me know.

It seems you don't.

Second request: wanna debate? Prove your position and I'll respond.

Stop requesting and start a thread as I instructed. Tag me and I will be there.

I see, you are afraid.. You have no clue what 3/5th meant. That was obvious from the start. This means all your previous posts with the your maleducated premise is faulty and embarrassing;. I don't need to start a thread to prove a known fact. If you want to challenge history, then you start a thread to disprove a known fact. I'll be there.

I've called you out on YOUR 3/5ths POV. What ya got home boy?

I'm not afraid. I dont want to be off topic. Start a thread or are you afraid home boy?

You brought up the 3/5th thing, and when called to defend it, you run away?????

Of course. This was predictable.

Perhaps someone else with some knowledge or gonads will wish to debate the 3/5th issue?? Because really, we should ALL be smarter and PAST that nonsense by now, but it seems many libs have not caught up. Let me know.....

 

[Asclepias]

Its pretty simple. You said...

I said.....

I have a firm grasp on what the 3/5 compromise meant. I dont know that this is the thread for a debate on it but start one and let me know.

It seems you don't.

Second request: wanna debate? Prove your position and I'll respond.

Stop requesting and start a thread as I instructed. Tag me and I will be there.

I see, you are afraid.. You have no clue what 3/5th meant. That was obvious from the start. This means all your previous posts with the your maleducated premise is faulty and embarrassing;. I don't need to start a thread to prove a known fact. If you want to challenge history, then you start a thread to disprove a known fact. I'll be there.

I've called you out on YOUR 3/5ths POV. What ya got home boy?

I'm not afraid. I dont want to be off topic. Start a thread or are you afraid home boy?

You brought up the 3/5th thing, and when called to defend it, you run away?????

Of course. This was predictable.

Perhaps someone else with some knowledge or gonads will wish to debate the 3/5th issue?? Because really, we should ALL be smarter and PAST that nonsense by now, but it seems many libs have not caught up. Let me know.....

I brought up the 3/5 things as an example of a lack of morality which is in keeping with the topic. You are afraid to open a new thread on the 3/5ths issue because I will squash you like a little bug. Everyone knows that.

 

[Youch]

It seems you don't.

Second request: wanna debate? Prove your position and I'll respond.

Stop requesting and start a thread as I instructed. Tag me and I will be there.

I see, you are afraid.. You have no clue what 3/5th meant. That was obvious from the start. This means all your previous posts with the your maleducated premise is faulty and embarrassing;. I don't need to start a thread to prove a known fact. If you want to challenge history, then you start a thread to disprove a known fact. I'll be there.

I've called you out on YOUR 3/5ths POV. What ya got home boy?

I'm not afraid. I dont want to be off topic. Start a thread or are you afraid home boy?

You brought up the 3/5th thing, and when called to defend it, you run away?????

Of course. This was predictable.

Perhaps someone else with some knowledge or gonads will wish to debate the 3/5th issue?? Because really, we should ALL be smarter and PAST that nonsense by now, but it seems many libs have not caught up. Let me know.....

I brought up the 3/5 things as an example of a lack of morality which is in keeping with the topic. You are afraid to open a new thread on the 3/5ths issue because I will squash you like a little bug. Everyone knows that.

I understand that you type words.

I understand that you repeat ignorance based on liberal and public education.

I understand that you type words on a topic that you've not researched.

I understand that you have such a small penis that, instead of doing research, you instead pretend to "squash me like a little bug." That is funny to me, as history proves you wrong and facts must make your small penis shrink.

Let's discuss this off topic issue. Ney, I don't think you are worth it. I'll just cite a few links and happily await your erudite response:

The Real History of The 3 5ths Compromise - Stockbridge s Blog
3 5 of a Person - Parableman
The Original Constitution and the Three-Fifths Myth - The American Vision

Let me know if you get it.

 

[amrchaos]

The bible [eg, the ten commandments] is not the source of morality but only a reflection of the morality of ancient jews and christians. The law code of Hammurabi pre-dates the ten commandments Moses gave to his people. ''Thou shalt not kill'' is not a universal inherent precept, as the Mayans practiced human sacrifice.

ironically, thou shall not murder is not IN the code of Hammurabi....
Full text of The code of Hammurabi

No, it is not "Thou shalt not murder..."

But the spirit of that pronouncement and the punishments for different cases is highly elaborated.

I

 

[PostmodernProph]

The bible [eg, the ten commandments] is not the source of morality but only a reflection of the morality of ancient jews and christians. The law code of Hammurabi pre-dates the ten commandments Moses gave to his people. ''Thou shalt not kill'' is not a universal inherent precept, as the Mayans practiced human sacrifice.

ironically, thou shall not murder is not IN the code of Hammurabi....
Full text of The code of Hammurabi

No, it is not "Thou shalt not murder..."

But the spirit of that pronouncement and the punishments for different cases is highly elaborated.

I

in short, the Ten Commandments are nothing like the code of Hammurabi........

 

[Asclepias]

Stop requesting and start a thread as I instructed. Tag me and I will be there.

I see, you are afraid.. You have no clue what 3/5th meant. That was obvious from the start. This means all your previous posts with the your maleducated premise is faulty and embarrassing;. I don't need to start a thread to prove a known fact. If you want to challenge history, then you start a thread to disprove a known fact. I'll be there.

I've called you out on YOUR 3/5ths POV. What ya got home boy?

I'm not afraid. I dont want to be off topic. Start a thread or are you afraid home boy?

You brought up the 3/5th thing, and when called to defend it, you run away?????

Of course. This was predictable.

Perhaps someone else with some knowledge or gonads will wish to debate the 3/5th issue?? Because really, we should ALL be smarter and PAST that nonsense by now, but it seems many libs have not caught up. Let me know.....

I brought up the 3/5 things as an example of a lack of morality which is in keeping with the topic. You are afraid to open a new thread on the 3/5ths issue because I will squash you like a little bug. Everyone knows that.

I understand that you type words.

I understand that you repeat ignorance based on liberal and public education.

I understand that you type words on a topic that you've not researched.

I understand that you have such a small penis that, instead of doing research, you instead pretend to "squash me like a little bug." That is funny to me, as history proves you wrong and facts must make your small penis shrink.

Let's discuss this off topic issue. Ney, I don't think you are worth it. I'll just cite a few links and happily await your erudite response:

The Real History of The 3 5ths Compromise - Stockbridge s Blog
3 5 of a Person - Parableman
The Original Constitution and the Three-Fifths Myth - The American Vision

Let me know if you get it.

Your attempts to engage me are puerile. All you have to do is open another thread on the topic so I can lay waste to your position. What are you afraid of? Let me know when you get confident enough in your position to follow my instructions.