|
Post by Based Chad on May 11, 2024 15:50:46 GMT
No, the first country to ban slavery was France in 1315. What the hell are you babbling about? France made extensive use of slavery in it's Caribbean holdings, as well as the Louisiana territory. France didn't ban slavery until the 19th century, just like the rest of the Christian West. You really should post from the actual facts, instead of what you want to believe is true. No, France the country banned slavery in 1315. I didn't say the colonies did. It was one of those "out of sight, out of mind" things. A big reason that France and Brittain didn't help the Confederacy fight the USA despite being reliant on cotton, was indeed because of the CSA's support of slavery. Otherwise, those big guns would have blown the Union out of the water and the CSA would be a separate nation now. Or they'd have at least undone the blockade which would have given the CSA a much needed economic life raft.
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on May 11, 2024 15:54:25 GMT
Erm....what? There was extensive sex slavery and forced conscription until the Imperial Army of Japan was defeated in WW2. You and I disagree on a lot of things. But I always enjoy it when posters are able to defeat MikeMonger. So, congratulations. That's the thing about nonreligious people when they discuss history. IF you pretend that Judeo-Christian values didn't have an effect on the past, then you fundamentally misunderstand history. They literally had everything to do with it and led to globalism. Sure, you can debate some merits of it. Fine. But The Great Commission was why Christian countries went abroad and modernized other cultures. Nonreligious people want there so desperately to be some human drive to help others (especially different races) without there being a God reason, that they will willfully misinterpret the most basic of facts. In this case, he's pretending that Japan was an enlightened nation compared to Christian ones and ignoring the atrocities of WW2 which are well documented.
|
|
|
Post by cat on May 11, 2024 15:54:43 GMT
I think gladiatorial combat just became UFC and MMA. Maybe boxing. It used to be that I'd never seen a single person ever argue for infanticide. Last year, I found one: Peter Singer. The one person I have ever seen advocate for infanticide. Interesting, but longer than I expected. I don't mind that the article is from September 11, 1999.
I think he's probably aware that what he's advocating the commission from a crime. That's a bit generous of the author, but he's from Australia, not the moon. I don't think he's not getting that it's not legal. I think he's saying it should be. Interesting, but I wouldn't let him near a baby. I've read Singer's "Practical Ethics" (a bit difficult for me), and "Writings on an ethical life" (much easier to read). He doesn't say anything wrong in my opinion. A newborn Homo Sapiens has less personality than a grown pig. Yet we have no problem killing pigs for food (unless we're strong vegetarians or vegans, which I'm not). I had problems understanding his advocacy for "preference utilitarism", which sounded like an attempt to make exceptions for rules. But one thing is true: His lectures in Germany have repeatedly been disturbed, or people have attempted to prevent him from speaking. And that was in the 1980s. So Cancel Culture is nothing new. Can't say I believe in censoring him. It's just an opinion he has. I don't agree with him that babies aren't self-aware, or that they're not persons. I think it's wrong of him to recruit the complexity of animals as basis for saying babies are less important by comparison. There's something about it that pits them in competition with each other that I don't find necessary.
Personally, I like Indigenous concepts of hunting and animal consumption for survival. It doesn't hold vegetarianism or veganism as the alternative, nor does it downplay the role or dignity of an animal. It elevates them by supposing a relationship between the animals and never consumes an animal for food without thanking it for giving its life so that others may live. That's something that would never be done with a newborn person: thanking it for sacrificing its life so it can be consumed for food.
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 11, 2024 15:55:37 GMT
What the hell are you babbling about? France made extensive use of slavery in it's Caribbean holdings, as well as the Louisiana territory. France didn't ban slavery until the 19th century, just like the rest of the Christian West. You really should post from the actual facts, instead of what you want to believe is true. No, France the country banned slavery in 1315. I didn't say the colonies did. It was one of those "out of sight, out of mind" things. A big reason that France and Brittain didn't help the Confederacy fight the USA despite being reliant on cotton, was indeed because of the CSA's support of slavery. Otherwise, those big guns would have blown the Union out of the water and the CSA would be a separate nation now. Or they'd have at least undone the blockade which would have given the CSA a much needed economic life raft. A quick Google search is all you need to get the facts. Enter "France bans slavery". There are all kinds of articles about it. Some about history, some about the modern legacy of slavery in France. See, you simply repeating something over and over doesn't make it true in an era when one can simply type a few words and get a world's full of actual facts. Hints: not only did the French utilize slaves, they were the third biggest slave traders. But i guess trading slaves is "Christian" eh?
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 11, 2024 15:56:57 GMT
Erm....what? There was extensive sex slavery and forced conscription until the Imperial Army of Japan was defeated in WW2. You and I disagree on a lot of things. But I always enjoy it when posters are able to defeat MikeMonger. So, congratulations. So the Japanese were worse than the Germans eh? That's pretty antisemitic of you. Claiming that millions of Jews weren't used as slave labor. Friggen Holocaust denier.
|
|
|
Post by The Millard on May 11, 2024 15:58:52 GMT
The abolitionists were not so because they were pious Christians, in those days you had to use religion to win arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on May 11, 2024 16:00:15 GMT
No, France the country banned slavery in 1315. I didn't say the colonies did. It was one of those "out of sight, out of mind" things. A big reason that France and Brittain didn't help the Confederacy fight the USA despite being reliant on cotton, was indeed because of the CSA's support of slavery. Otherwise, those big guns would have blown the Union out of the water and the CSA would be a separate nation now. Or they'd have at least undone the blockade which would have given the CSA a much needed economic life raft. A quick Google search is all you need to get the facts. Enter "France bans slavery". There are all kinds of articles about it. Some about history, some about the modern legacy of slavery in France. See, you simply repeating something over and over doesn't make it true in an era when one can simply type a few words and get a world's full of actual facts. Hints: not only did the French utilize slaves, they were the third biggest slave traders. But i guess trading slaves is "Christian" eh? Huh? My source is history. Me saying it doesn't make it true. The fact it's a historical fact makes it true: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbolitionismI fully acknowledge that there were Christians who had slaves. This is true. It's not up for debate. Why is it hard for you to admit that Christianity ended slavery? It's almost like you have an agenda to push....
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 11, 2024 16:04:11 GMT
A quick Google search is all you need to get the facts. Enter "France bans slavery". There are all kinds of articles about it. Some about history, some about the modern legacy of slavery in France. See, you simply repeating something over and over doesn't make it true in an era when one can simply type a few words and get a world's full of actual facts. Hints: not only did the French utilize slaves, they were the third biggest slave traders. But i guess trading slaves is "Christian" eh? Huh? My source is history. Me saying it doesn't make it true. The fact it's a historical fact makes it true: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbolitionismI fully acknowledge that there were Christians who had slaves. This is true. It's not up for debate. Why is it hard for you to admit that Christianity ended slavery? It's almost like you have an agenda to push.... So...you think you have a point because France didn't permit slaves on French soil while being one of the world's largest slave traders. In other words, it's Christian to keep the slaves out of immediate site and only use them where people can't see. K. That's some f@cked up Christianity right there, but it takes all kinds. Oh...hint? That's NOT Abolitionism, which means the END of slavery. But whatever. You're desperate at this point. I get it.
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on May 11, 2024 16:09:05 GMT
You and I disagree on a lot of things. But I always enjoy it when posters are able to defeat MikeMonger. So, congratulations. So the Japanese were worse than the Germans eh? That's pretty antisemitic of you. Claiming that millions of Jews weren't used as slave labor. Friggen Holocaust denier. It's not antisemitic to say that the Japanese were worse than the Germans. It's a historical fact. Their "Holocaust" was far worse than the ones the Germans did. While Germany's was certainly more "targeted", the reality is that you'd rather live in a territory occupied by Germany than Japan unless you were a Jew. The sheer brutality and scope of the Japanese is hard to imagine by Western minds. Indeed, they had many indiscriminate massacres and medical "experiments" of their own. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
|
|
|
Post by slowcomingwarbird on May 11, 2024 16:10:08 GMT
Certain ideas that weren't comfortable with Christians were ended which caused an erasure of culture and diversity. Which one do you miss most? 1. Human sacrifice. A staple of the Aztecs and Mayans, people were mercilessly killed to appease the Gods. The Conquistadors destroyed this rich cultural practice for patriarchial reasons.
2. Sati. An Indian tradition, when a man died the woman was put on a pyre and set a fire. For some unknown reason, the British insisted that they stop doing this.
3. Head-hunting. An ancient Celtic and Borneo tradition, taking the heads was supposed to take spiritual power. Christianity got rid of it.
4. Gladiatorial combat. Why not give prisoners a second chance to redeem themselves?
5. Crucifixion. A staple of Roman traditional, Christians got all uppity after a certain person got the cross.
6. Slavery. An African tradition that Europeans adopted, but then Christianity ended it based on the Christian idea of life.
7. Marriage by Abduction. Used to, in parts of the world, if one wanted a bride, you had to abduct her with a posse. Christians replaced this practice with a much more lame thing called "courting" where you talk words and get consent to marry.
8. Infanticide. Practiced in many cultures, and especially by the Aboriginal groups, the intolerant Christians ended this cultural practice and called it "murder".
Both 6 and 7 are not correct, the Bible condones both slavery and arranged child marriages. Christians also burned people at the stake who disagreed with them, which is much like burning people on a pyre against their will. If Christian Nationalism is allowed to take charge you will find out first hand that they intend to do slavery, child marriages, and burn people at the stake. That is what will happen the world over if Donald Trump is allowed to be president again. Most surely Donald Trump would use the military might of the United States to force slavery, child marriages, and burning people at the stake, on all the weaker nations of the world. time.com/6229171/christian-nationalist-forces-terrorized-me-as-a-child/The predominant lesson of the 21st century is that religion is very bad and must be done away with.
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 11, 2024 16:12:34 GMT
So the Japanese were worse than the Germans eh? That's pretty antisemitic of you. Claiming that millions of Jews weren't used as slave labor. Friggen Holocaust denier. It's not antisemitic to say that the Japanese were worse than the Germans. It's a historical fact. Their "Holocaust" was far worse than the ones the Germans did. While Germany's was certainly more "targeted", the reality is that you'd rather live in a territory occupied by Germany than Japan unless you were a Jew. The sheer brutality and scope of the Japanese is hard to imagine by Western minds. Indeed, they had many indiscriminate massacres and medical "experiments" of their own. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTMThe Japanese murdered 3-10 million in war atrocities. The Holocaust clocks in at 12 million plus (everyone concentrates on the 6 million Jews and ignores the 6 million OTHERS that went to the camps...gays, the disabled, Roma, etc) You're doing very badly.
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on May 11, 2024 16:15:27 GMT
Huh? My source is history. Me saying it doesn't make it true. The fact it's a historical fact makes it true: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbolitionismI fully acknowledge that there were Christians who had slaves. This is true. It's not up for debate. Why is it hard for you to admit that Christianity ended slavery? It's almost like you have an agenda to push.... So...you think you have a point because France didn't permit slaves on French soil while being one of the world's largest slave traders. In other words, it's Christian to keep the slaves out of immediate site and only use them where people can't see. K. That's some f@cked up Christianity right there, but it takes all kinds. Oh...hint? That's NOT Abolitionism, which means the END of slavery. But whatever. You're desperate at this point. I get it. So France ending slavery...isn't evidence of France ending slavery? Well, what would constitute evidence? And yeah, in Christian majority France slavery was a lot more unpopular than in pagan colonies France controlled. That kinda backs up my argument.
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 11, 2024 16:17:27 GMT
So...you think you have a point because France didn't permit slaves on French soil while being one of the world's largest slave traders. In other words, it's Christian to keep the slaves out of immediate site and only use them where people can't see. K. That's some f@cked up Christianity right there, but it takes all kinds. Oh...hint? That's NOT Abolitionism, which means the END of slavery. But whatever. You're desperate at this point. I get it. So France ending slavery...isn't evidence of France ending slavery? Well, what would constitute evidence? And yeah, in Christian majority France slavery was a lot more unpopular than in pagan colonies France controlled. That kinda backs up my argument. No. France being one of the world's biggest slave traders and making extensive use of slaves in it's colonial possessions is evidence that France didn't end slavery. I mean...really? You can't grasp that concept? K. So abolitionism means trading slaves and using them overseas. Got it...lol Who gives a crap about it then?
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on May 11, 2024 16:19:03 GMT
It's not antisemitic to say that the Japanese were worse than the Germans. It's a historical fact. Their "Holocaust" was far worse than the ones the Germans did. While Germany's was certainly more "targeted", the reality is that you'd rather live in a territory occupied by Germany than Japan unless you were a Jew. The sheer brutality and scope of the Japanese is hard to imagine by Western minds. Indeed, they had many indiscriminate massacres and medical "experiments" of their own. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTMThe Japanese murdered 3-10 million in war atrocities. The Holocaust clocks in at 12 million plus (everyone concentrates on the 6 million Jews and ignores the 6 million OTHERS that went to the camps...gays, the disabled, Roma, etc) You're doing very badly. No, the Germans were just better at documenting their war crimes. The Japanese killed far more than 10 million in China alone, to speak nothing of Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on May 11, 2024 16:22:21 GMT
So France ending slavery...isn't evidence of France ending slavery? Well, what would constitute evidence? And yeah, in Christian majority France slavery was a lot more unpopular than in pagan colonies France controlled. That kinda backs up my argument. No. France being one of the world's biggest slave traders and making extensive use of slaves in it's colonial possessions is evidence that France didn't end slavery. I mean...really? You can't grasp that concept? K. So abolitionism means trading slaves and using them overseas. Got it...lol Who gives a crap about it then? That's like saying New England didn't outlaw slavery because a part of the country still let it happen. You can't grasp the concept?
|
|