Thanks...

#51
#51
California has the most dropouts of any state!!!

And Washington DC has the lowest graduation rate, at 56 percent.

Does that include their new surge of ESL students which would be a more recent phenomena? How about for the 60's, 70's, 80's. Also find us the statistics on caucasians only which was my point.
 
#52
#52
Maybe you misunderstood I was sincere about you and Kat and I think we agree although I may have missed something.

Poverty is ugly and it is poverty and greed that drive institutions like slavery and the other degenerstions we do or should deplore.

"It is easier to build a boy than mend a man."

DD....who are you talking to, brah? We can disagree, I'm good with that.
 
#53
#53
I didn't read anywhere in this thread about this.

I guess I'll drink more coffee then. Either way I don't understand how people can be flippant about a process that would seperate people from their families for generations. Essentially eroding the nuclear family in that community and then wonder why later the results are mixed.

In today's time people are afforded enough opportunities to make good choices sadly in many cases they've had negative reinforcements engrained into their lives and local cultures.
 
#54
#54
I'll say this..I'm not cool with slavery. I wish it never would have happend, but it did. If you were to ask me if a wom an/man would be better in Africa or America these days..I would say without a doubt America.

I was married to an African for 3 years...please forgive if I sound like I know what I'm talking about.
 
#55
#55
I guess I'll drink more coffee then. Either way I don't understand how people can be flippant about a process that would seperate people from their families for generations. Essentially eroding the nuclear family in that community and then wonder why later the results are mixed.

In today's time people are afforded enough opportunities to make good choices sadly in many cases they've had negative reinforcements engrained into their lives and local cultures.

Their own country sold them into slavery, it's not right, but it's a fact.
 
#56
#56
Their own country sold them into slavery, it's not right, but it's a fact.

Insofar as there did not exist in 17th and 18th Century Africa what we today would refer to as countries (in the sense of nation-state), your statement is not a fact. There existed principalities, kingdoms, and tribal fiefdoms. Rival groups would raid other groups, enslaving those they captured and then selling those slaves to the Europeans. This was certainly not a case of any type of "fellow countrymen" selling each other into slavery.

However, one need not even take into account how these individuals ended up on a market, as chattel, in order to still posit that any individual who bought them without immediately setting them free was doing something abysmally wrong.

The only ways to justify slavery is either through some really non-reflective method of ethical egoism, or some incredibly dumb system of consequentialism. In doing so, however, you can justify absolutely any "heinous" act you can think of.

Slavery was/is an abomination. Slavery was/is horrible for those enslaved. While in the throes of slavery, almost any alternative is going to be more appealing.
 
#57
#57
Insofar as there did not exist in 17th and 18th Century Africa what we today would refer to as countries (in the sense of nation-state), your statement is not a fact. There existed principalities, kingdoms, and tribal fiefdoms. Rival groups would raid other groups, enslaving those they captured and then selling those slaves to the Europeans. This was certainly not a case of any type of "fellow countrymen" selling each other into slavery.

However, one need not even take into account how these individuals ended up on a market, as chattel, in order to still posit that any individual who bought them without immediately setting them free was doing something abysmally wrong.

The only ways to justify slavery is either through some really non-reflective method of ethical egoism, or some incredibly dumb system of consequentialism. In doing so, however, you can justify absolutely any "heinous" act you can think of.

Slavery was/is an abomination. Slavery was/is horrible for those enslaved. While in the throes of slavery, almost any alternative is going to be more appealing.

Tribes enslaved other tribes. You can try to justify it anyway you way you want. It was Africans selling other Africans.
 
#58
#58
Tribes enslaved other tribes. You can try to justify it anyway you way you want. It was Africans selling other Africans.

I certainly did not justify it. I think it was an abomination. Just as I think that the Europeans then buying the Africans was an abomination.
 
#59
#59
Tribes enslaved other tribes. You can try to justify it anyway you way you want. It was Africans selling other Africans.

ALSO!!!

2012 ...SLAVERY STILL GOES ON AMONG THE BLACK PEOPLE OVER THERE!!!!!!!..and it has NOTHING to do with the evil white man..they are doing it to their OWN people
 
#60
#60
I certainly did not justify it. I think it was an abomination. Just as I think that the Europeans then buying the Africans was an abomination.

Marrying a 13 year old would be considered an abominaton during these times. It's all about the times you are living in.
 
#62
#62
Marrying a 13 year old would be considered an abominaton during these times. It's all about the times you are living in.

Negative, marrying someone who cannot consent is an abomination in any time and in any place.

Further, if you are going to be a cultural relativist, then the "times you are living in" is not the only consideration. So, you would actually have to limit yourself to saying only things like, "Marrying 13 year-olds is not objectively wrong; it is just frowned upon in this society, and, I being a member of this society, ought to frown upon it in this society as well".

Continue to say everything you can to cleanse any sins from America's, Europe's, and/or Christianity's past, though. I find mental midgets...entertaining.
 
#63
#63
Negative, marrying someone who cannot consent is an abomination in any time and in any place.

Further, if you are going to be a cultural relativist, then the "times you are living in" is not the only consideration. So, you would actually have to limit yourself to saying only things like, "Marrying 13 year-olds is not objectively wrong; it is just frowned upon in this society, and, I being a member of this society, ought to frown upon it in this society as well".

Continue to say everything you can to cleanse any sins from America's, Europe's, and/or Christianity's past, though. I find mental midgets...entertaining.

I don't give a sh!t about christianity. I don't believe their is a god. "Mental Midgets" I find that facinating. Kat, don't judge me.
 
#64
#64
"Marrying 13 year-olds is not objectively wrong; it is just frowned upon in this society, and, I being a member of this society, ought to frown upon it in this society as well".

Being gay is not objectively wrong; it is just frowned upon in this society, and, I being a member of this society, ought to frown upon it in this society as well".


But ita OK for u to frown upon something..but if I do I am called a bigot
 
#65
#65
Atlanta Mayor Reed is really good IMO

Seattle had a pretty great African-American Mayor for two terms. I would say that Seattle is a successful, stable city.

Denver.
Minneapolis.
Dallas.
San Francisco (of course, not sure that SF will be seen as a successful and stable city by most in here)
Milwaukee.
Asheville.
 
#68
#68
Being gay is not objectively wrong; it is just frowned upon in this society, and, I being a member of this society, ought to frown upon it in this society as well".


But ita OK for u to frown upon something..but if I do I am called a bigot

1. I am not a cultural relativist. The example (re: 13 year old girl) was used to demonstrate what cultural relativism says one can and cannot say; not what I believe.

2. If one has relevant, operative reasons for disapproving of something, it is both acceptable and appropriate to disapprove. Correlative to that, though, there is a duty to present these relevant, operative reasons when asked.

Here is an example:

You say: Marrying 13 year old girls is an abomination.
I inquire: Why?
You: They are 13.
I: Yeah, but why is it wrong to marry a 13 year old.
You: They are 13.

Not only does "You" fail to provide a relevant, operative reason; "You" fails to provide any reason, since he simply circles back to his original proposition.

Now, here is another example:
You: Marrying 13 year old girls is an abomination.
I: Why?
You: Well, I think it constitutes rape.
I: Why would you think that?
You: Well, the vast majority of 13 year olds do not yet possess the rational capacity to give consent. And, rape is sexual intercourse without consent.
I: Yeah, you know what, you are right; this could be a case of rape. And, I agree with you that rape is an abomination.

Now, there is still a generalization problem in this example; however, you ought now to get the gist of what relevant, operative reasons are (and, of course, there would have to be a further argument as to why rape is an abomination; this argument includes notions such as autonomy, physical security, the psychology of fear, etc.)
 
#70
#70
ALSO!!!

2012 ...SLAVERY STILL GOES ON AMONG THE BLACK PEOPLE OVER THERE!!!!!!!..and it has NOTHING to do with the evil white man..they are doing it to their OWN people

Thereby, in your unsophisticated mind, making our own history just a tiny bit less morally objectionable.
 

VN Store



Back
Top