Slavery

[Iwannaplato]

You can demonstrate that the Christian God is the true God and that Christian morality is the objectively true morality to Jews, Hindus and Muslims???

And potentially PETA members, because they have a foundation for morality according to IC.

[Impenitent]

PETA morality... it is the highest good if the animal is prepared deliciously...

(People Eating Tasty Animals)

-Imp

[FlashDangerpants]

YOu said you had an obligation to do to it,

No, I said I could do it for Theists. I made no promise to do it for you. No Deists, no Atheists, No Humanists...they don't have the foundation.[

So, you don't consider deists theists. Fine. So, Henry has no foundation for morality. Noted. And Wizard then also has no foundation for morals.

So, you are saying you feel no obligation to demonstrate to non-theists why they should be Christian or follow Christian morals?
Is that correct? The Christian Abolitionists approached everyone they could, including secular people.

It would seem that he is accidentally confessing that his argument lacks actual logical force, and is therefore only persuasive to those who already believe it.

[phyllo]

George Dillman would approve

McDojo religion

[Iwannaplato]

It would seem that he is accidentally confessing that his argument lacks actual logical force, and is therefore only persuasive to those who already believe it.

Well, if it turns out that Wizard is a Christian theist - I found his God explanation not 100% clear - then IC would be obligated, according to himself, to demonstrate that Wizard should follow his (Ic's) knowledge of what Christian morals are. IC considers slavery immoral and that the Bible demonstrates this. Wizard is pro-'benign' slavery. And obviously Christians have thought (many at least) that slavery was ok at different times in history. (yes, I understand: to me also the Bible is not at all clearly anti-slavery, but I am just trying to get clarity on what he believes. That argument can be had some other time).

I found it odd that he was speaking of Henry as an ally. Henry is a deist and while conservative this means that he has no foundation for morals. IC and Wizard were also supporting each other regarding their critique of secular people, but Wizard is either secular himself (secular and conservative) and pro-slavery, or a theist and pro-slavery. If the former he has no foundation for morals. If the latter, IC has, according to himself an obligation to try to change his stance on slavery.

My humble goal is just to get some stances.

He clearly thinks that Henry has no foundation for morals because Henry is a deist.

I think it is interesting that he thinks PETA members have a foundation for morals - especially given they tend to be left of center and secular.

My hope is to have a collection of clear statements of his positions and perhaps behavior in relation to people here by category.

[Wizard22]

How about instead of he said that, he said this, he said that, you should go ahead and ask IC or I questions directly instead of trying to play us off one another? Quite frankly, I don't have any issues with IC's world view or his logical consistency. He is correct though. Human morals and Morality in general, must be based upon Theistic foundations, otherwise you must appeal to fallacious terms and premises. Secularists do not have any strong Axioms upon which they can base their/your morality.

To Secularists, there is not much difference (if any) between Man and Animal. Man is an animal, behaves as an animal, and is expected to be and remain an animal forever. There is no 'upgrading'. There is no real 'evolution' or change to it. There is no idealization. There is no ethic. There is no real culture. Secularism cannot even explain how, why, or where Culture derives. What is it? Why do people believe as they do? Why is one society this way, and another that way? Secularists have no answers. And they/you certainly have no basis for "Muh liberal western lefty culture is the best and should spread LGBTQMAP+ around the world!"

Liberalism means to be Liberated ...FROM TRADITION! From the culture and morality of your people, your society, your tribe, your race. So obvious, Liberalism is opposed to Conservatism ...Tradition is what is Conserved or Preserved.


I'm Agnostic, for the most part, which means that I can accept IC's Christian morality and moral claims without any problems. He can be correct. He usually is, especially against this lot on PN forum (as if that's a difficult feat).

[Iwannaplato]

double post

[Iwannaplato]

How about instead of he said that, he said this, he said that, you should go ahead and ask IC or I questions directly instead of trying to play us off one another? Quite frankly, I don't have any issues with IC's world view or his logical consistency. He is correct though. Human morals and Morality in general, must be based upon Theistic foundations, otherwise you must appeal to fallacious terms and premises. Secularists do not have any strong Axioms upon which they can base their/your morality.

Sure, you've said you believe in theist foundations. However you as a non-theist do not have a foundation for your ethical beliefs according to IC.

I'm Agnostic, for the most part, which means that I can accept IC's Christian morality and moral claims without any problems.

You are a non-theist.

But great if he thinks you have a foundation to have morals, then why has he not confronted your support for slavery? He has said he has an obligation to demonstrate to theists (because they have a foundation for morals) to be Christian and believe in his ethics. He has said that the Bible unquestionably comes out against slavery. And yet, silence on that issue in relation to that.

Me, as a non-Christian theist, opted to challenge your position on slavery.

I am just working with the stands he has taken.

[Wizard22]

To Secularists, there is not much difference (if any) between Man and Animal.

Au contraire. They specifically separated themselves from the posited Divine and the beasts.

There is no Divinity in Secularism; there is no real separation between Man and Beast except Man's vanity and belief of self-importance.

To Theists, it's very simple. God separates Man from Animal, and specifically, Jesus Christ's Sacrifice for the Sin (animal impulses) of Men.

[Iwannaplato]

To Secularists, there is not much difference (if any) between Man and Animal.

Au contraire. They specifically separated themselves from the posited Divine and the beasts.

There is no Divinity in Secularism;

I said posited.

Now, to all that you ignored.

If you are someone who has a foundation for morals, in IC's estimation, then he is obligated to demonstrate to you, for example, that slavery is immoral.

If you're a non-theist, then you have no foundation for morals according to him. As an agnostic you are a non-theist.
But lets say you are someone he considers has a foundation for morals, then he has an obligation, according to him to demonstrate you should follow Christian values. He says the Bible is clearly anti-slavery. I don't understand his silence in relation to you.

And, yes, I have asked him this question direclty

[Wizard22]

Due to the Antebellum South and immense cruelty wrought against American Negroes by the worst of the rednecks and hillbillies, the Master-Slave Dichotomy is Pejorative and cannot be offered a reasoned defense.

Instead consider a different analogy: Lord and Subject, as this forum is situated underneath the British Monarch. It is very much the same dichotomy though. The Subject, of the Crown, is not truly 'free'. His or her Will can be 'domineered' by the Crown, should circumstances arise for its necessity. And the British people, the Subjects, would not resist too strongly. How is this not the same as the Master and Slave? How is not the Will of the subordinate, the same thing and function?

EDIT: How is it different between God and Man??

Next let's compare Parent and Child... is this a similar relationship? Previously argued that you "don't prefer" to use such labels, because of how they Dehumanize the Subordinates, Subjects, and Inferiors. But that is the premise, the crux of the matter, isn't it? In Nature, there are Dominant leaders and heads of groups, Alpha males in mammalian species for example, then there are all the subordinate and "inferior" males. By inferior, I specifically mean, lower in social Hierarchies.

Let's use this Politically-Correct language, to avoid the hurt feelings of the "lowers of social hierarchy" then. In Western Parlance, these are the aggrieved, the "victims", the Liberals, the Leftists, who have all but taken over Western political power and culture. Cultural Marxism. Their "morality", their ethics, is premised on revenge fantasies. They want to usurp the Evil White Male oppressor classes, re-implement Slavery, and "get back" at the decades and centuries of their oppression.

What say you on the matter, IWP, where do you truly stand in all this???

[Iwannaplato]

Due to the Antebellum South and immense cruelty wrought against American Negroes by the worst of the rednecks and hillbillies, the Master-Slave Dichotomy is Pejorative and cannot be offered a reasoned defense.

I understood already that you were critical of the terrible slave-owners, but you did come to the defense of benign slave-owners and said their slaves had dignity. It certainly seemed like you were ok with slavery as long as the owners were not overly violent - a position that fits with many passages in the Bible, but not IC's anti-slavery position.

Formal slavery, I no longer believe, is an impediment to a Freer populace. Because there's never going to be large societies of Free Men. Free Men are always a very small minority of civilizations and history.

This is the crux of the matter though. "Slavery" isn't really bad until strawmen are used on its worst, most immoral examples. People don't complain when a 'Good' Master takes good care of his slaves, empowers them, rises them up in class, in ways that Neo-Liberalism cannot. People ignore the 'good' examples and focus only on the bad.

In Postmodernity, Western Civilization doesn't want private Citizens owning slaves, although it was commonplace for centuries and millenniums, because that over-empowers private citizenry to compete directly against the State or Church.

It sounds like you have changed your mind from when you said this or you have mixed feelings or you are inconsistent.

[Wizard22]

You're being evasive now. I asked where you stand in this.

My position is consistent. It's not uncommon among the Aristocracy, that prestigious house slaves were elevated above the Plebian and sometimes willingly Freed from their bondage by their masters. You completely ignore "Good" Slavery. And "Good Slavery" works, in effect, the same as Meritocracy, or Fealty within a Monarchy. So their actions are the same, although the Legality might be different.

At this point in history, it would be beneficial for a decrease in Western State power (Leftism), back into the hands of private citizens and a centralized Church (like Catholicism). The State polity has become far too power, and therefore, corrupt. Nobody can deny this anymore.

[Iwannaplato]

You're being evasive now. I asked where you stand in this.

Because you did not respond to most of my post. And you have also it seems changed your position on Slavery.

My position is consistent. It's not uncommon among the Aristocracy, that prestigious house slaves were elevated above the Plebian and sometimes willingly Freed from their bondage by their masters. You completely ignore "Good" Slavery. And "Good Slavery" works, in effect, the same as Meritocracy, or Fealty within a Monarchy. So their actions are the same, although the Legality might be different.

I am well aware of this the complexity of Slavery. But your position a couple of posts up and your position in those quotes do not match. Nor with the one I put below. We can find out if IC goes along with this.

You:

Examine the lifestyle of a Master, and his or her Slave.

What is wrong about it? What is wrong about being Superior, Lording over an Inferior? Do humans have moral quandaries of a human housing and owning a domesticated Canine or Feline? Do you have a problem with being Master over a dog or cat? How about children? Is a parent, not a Master over his or her own children? So what's the difference, of the Master-Slave dynamic, than or compared to, owning a pet or "having" a child? Let's begin with the obvious, there is a difference of status and reputation. A Slave is a Servant. The Servant is supposed to put the Master's desires and needs, before his/her own.

I've taken stands on slavery here. Stands that IC and I seem to share.

[Iwannaplato]

double