|
Post by mikemonger on May 11, 2024 16:22:23 GMT
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. Now you're just making assertions based on what you want to believe. OR: You're rolling combat, bombing, and atrocities into one number. In which case the German number jumps to almost 20 million.
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 11, 2024 16:24:24 GMT
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? No it's absolutely nothing like saying that since France directly controlled its own slave trade and made huge amounts of profit from slave labor in its colonies while New England neither traded or benefitted from slave labor used in other parts of the country, and that, my friend, was a simply pathetic attempt...lol Drop the France thing dude. You're wrong and just making yourself look stupid now.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on May 11, 2024 16:27:29 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.
A lot of countries ended slavery eventually. It's not like France led the way.
That kinda doesn't back up your argument.
Your entire thread is a waste. Which cultural practices did Christianity end?
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on May 11, 2024 16:34:12 GMT
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? No it's absolutely nothing like saying that since France directly controlled its own slave trade and made huge amounts of profit from slave labor in its colonies while New England neither traded or benefitted from slave labor used in other parts of the country, and that, my friend, was a simply pathetic attempt...lol Drop the France thing dude. You're wrong and just making yourself look stupid now. This is just historical ignorance. New England benefitted hugely from slavery. Particularly from the "Triangular Trade". Ships loaded with products from slave labor like tobacco and rum were sent to Europe. Europe then sent things to Africa. And Africa sent slaves to America. And the slaves made products in the South that were sent to New England where they made rum and tobacco to send to Europe, repeating the process. And no, I'm not wrong in citing the historical fact that France abolished slavery in 1315.
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on May 11, 2024 16:35:26 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.
A lot of countries ended slavery eventually. It's not like France led the way.
That kinda doesn't back up your argument.
Your entire thread is a waste. Which cultural practices did Christianity end?
"eventually". That's a key word. It's a historical fact that France was the first to do so. They did indeed lead the way.
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 11, 2024 16:41:01 GMT
No it's absolutely nothing like saying that since France directly controlled its own slave trade and made huge amounts of profit from slave labor in its colonies while New England neither traded or benefitted from slave labor used in other parts of the country, and that, my friend, was a simply pathetic attempt...lol Drop the France thing dude. You're wrong and just making yourself look stupid now. This is just historical ignorance. New England benefitted hugely from slavery. Particularly from the "Triangular Trade". Ships loaded with products from slave labor like tobacco and rum were sent to Europe. Europe then sent things to Africa. And Africa sent slaves to America. And the slaves made products in the South that were sent to New England where they made rum and tobacco to send to Europe, repeating the process. And no, I'm not wrong in citing the historical fact that France abolished slavery in 1315. Historical ignorance is thinking abolitionism is being one of the world's biggest slave traders and making extensive use of slave labor in your colonies...lol
|
|
|
Post by cat on May 11, 2024 16:42:06 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. Singer is not arguing for infanticide, but the logical conclusion based on Western Morality. He was notorious for these. He was not laying down Leftist law, but forcing his students to argue against him. We would not kill an infant with sever deformities or illnesses, but we have no problem mercy killing a puppy or calf born like that. Most people don't argue for infanticide by that name. His personality traits preclude people who are born with disabilities, and he argues euthanasia spares them the indignities of a life of pain they can't possibly live in an able-bodied or able-minded way as he sees it. I don't think he's morally repugnant, but rather pulling on the wrong strings. His argument comes from a place of compassion for preempting suffering as he sees it, whereas I would argue once you're born, it's too late to take into consideration an abortion that might cease suffering as he sees it before it starts.
I think once a person is born, they gotta play out the whole way like a jukebox. Just because babies with disabilities don't perceive things the way he does doesn't mean they can't perceive or feel at all.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on May 11, 2024 17:07:17 GMT
Singer is not arguing for infanticide, but the logical conclusion based on Western Morality. He was notorious for these. He was not laying down Leftist law, but forcing his students to argue against him. We would not kill an infant with sever deformities or illnesses, but we have no problem mercy killing a puppy or calf born like that. Most people don't argue for infanticide by that name. His personality traits preclude people who are born with disabilities, and he argues euthanasia spares them the indignities of a life of pain they can't possibly live in an able-bodied or able-minded way as he sees it. I don't think he's morally repugnant, but rather pulling on the wrong strings. His argument comes from a place of compassion for preempting suffering as he sees it, whereas I would argue once you're born, it's too late to take into consideration an abortion that might cease suffering as he sees it before it starts.
I think once a person is born, they gotta play out the whole way like a jukebox. Just because babies with disabilities don't perceive things the way he does doesn't mean they can't perceive or feel at all.
And they perhaps can feel immense suffering because we insist on keeping them alive. Which is the selfish choice?
|
|
|
Post by cat on May 11, 2024 17:12:32 GMT
Most people don't argue for infanticide by that name. His personality traits preclude people who are born with disabilities, and he argues euthanasia spares them the indignities of a life of pain they can't possibly live in an able-bodied or able-minded way as he sees it. I don't think he's morally repugnant, but rather pulling on the wrong strings. His argument comes from a place of compassion for preempting suffering as he sees it, whereas I would argue once you're born, it's too late to take into consideration an abortion that might cease suffering as he sees it before it starts.
I think once a person is born, they gotta play out the whole way like a jukebox. Just because babies with disabilities don't perceive things the way he does doesn't mean they can't perceive or feel at all.
And they perhaps can feel immense suffering because we insist on keeping them alive. Which is the selfish choice? I would say the choice of whoever want to kill them so as to liberate themselves from the burden.
By the time they're born that ship has sailed.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on May 11, 2024 17:15:58 GMT
A lot of countries ended slavery eventually. It's not like France led the way. That kinda doesn't back up your argument. Your entire thread is a waste. Which cultural practices did Christianity end?
"eventually". That's a key word. It's a historical fact that France was the first to do so. They did indeed lead the way. Links? That isn't what my internet said.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on May 11, 2024 17:19:17 GMT
And they perhaps can feel immense suffering because we insist on keeping them alive. Which is the selfish choice? I would say the choice of whoever want to kill them so as to liberate themselves from the burden.
By the time they're born that ship has sailed.
You can liberate yourself by giving up the baby. That doesn’t solve the suffering infant’s condition.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on May 11, 2024 17:30:34 GMT
I'm still pissed that they ended dancing naked in the woods around a bonfire.
|
|
|
Post by cat on May 11, 2024 17:33:47 GMT
I would say the choice of whoever want to kill them so as to liberate themselves from the burden.
By the time they're born that ship has sailed.
You can liberate yourself by giving up the baby. That doesn’t solve the suffering infant’s condition. Doesn't it violate an oath about allowing harm to come to a patient, though?
|
|
|
Post by theBROKEdontrump on May 11, 2024 17:47:15 GMT
No, actually, I said beauty pageants exist to remind white women under 40 that they are still the global standard of beauty. So exactly what I said. Minority beauty pageant winners aren't Black/Hispanic/Asian enough because of white people. Don't try and spin it, that is what you are saying. No. I'm saying that the winners of the beauty pageants that are created for white women who happen to be not white usually possess one or more of the four characteristics I mentioned on the other thread...usually prompting a comment like "oh, she's pretty, but she doesn't look XXXX." or "she's XXXX...she doesn't represent the average person from xxxx."
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on May 11, 2024 17:47:57 GMT
You can liberate yourself by giving up the baby. That doesn’t solve the suffering infant’s condition. Doesn't it violate an oath about allowing harm to come to a patient, though? That’s from a human rulebook written many millennia after human parents have had to make such horrible decisions without the benefit of medical help or Western philosophy. Have you seen The Immigrants? It’s based on a true story of Swedish settlers in the Dakotas in the 19th century. A little girl eats something that is causing her stomach to rip apart. There is no hope of saving her life and no way stop her slow, agonizing death, so her father smothers her with a pillow. Did he make the wrong moral choice?
|
|