What if Western civilization never got rid of slavery?

[Bill]

It's an interesting question. Slavery has been around through most, or all, of human history. It continues today in some parts of the world. Only in Western civilization did the notion that slavery was immoral and evil arise leading to its legal abolition. What if that didn't happen and slavery existed unabated to today?

I would not give all cred to "western civilization".. If you look @ the history of abolition of slavery & serfdom there have been many contributors as well as opponents..

Another stain would be, IMHO, here & other places abolition of slavery lead to serfdom~ share croppers, jim crow & the like.

I don't actually believe it could have survived until today for various reasons, economic & social..

 

[BidenPresident]

It's an interesting question. Slavery has been around through most, or all, of human history. It continues today in some parts of the world. Only in Western civilization did the notion that slavery was immoral and evil arise leading to its legal abolition. What if that didn't happen and slavery existed unabated to today?

What if the moon was made of cheese?

 

[Bill]

Disagreed since the Party of Lincoln is obviously not the assholes we see today in the Republican Party.

The GOP is dead. The RNC exists, but it's not the same party of Reagan and the Democrats are not the same as FDR and Truman.

There yea have it in one line

 

[BidenPresident]

wow, you really turned that around. you need to print out this page, underline your comment in yellow, and tape it to the fridge for your mom to see when she gets home.

He called you a "cunt." Therefore all liberal policy is a failure.

 

[Bill]

Exactly.

Those who long for the "good old days" always pictures themselves as one of the ruling class. Odds are high that instead they would have been a serf, slave, peon, servant, or some other lowly individual.

LOL, prob very true & sadly willing to die for their prince, king, owner etc

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There yea have it in one line

Unfortunately so.

 

[PoliTalker]

Agreed. What's the plan?

IMO, states and the Feds getting behind more distance learning is the most cost-effective and practical method of raising education levels.

If it was up to me, I'd have year-round schools broken into semesters or quarters with 1 to 2 week breaks in between.

That would require free federal child day care.

Hey!

Not a bad idea...

 

[Bill]

Now they are engaged in a literal attempt to install a dictator that is one of them. Why are so many people willing to help them? It's a mystery.

Sadly I think many of them see this as the natural order & to be led(robbed) by a "strong man" is somehow in their interest.

They feel they are "winners" & don't want any of the "losers" getting any of their "winnings".......

Unfortunately nothing will change their closed minds, except perhaps their death in the walmart parking lot, in the RV over next to the dumpster..

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That would require free federal child day care.

Hey!

Not a bad idea...

Why? The K-12 students would be in class. Families can plan vacations around the breaks throughout the year instead of just summer. Teachers would have more consistent employment.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Cypress,

Not belonging to a church is not the same as rejecting religion altogether or becoming atheist.

The polls I have seen do not show atheism growing in any substantial way. The overwhelming majority of people still have an affinity for the spritual, the metaphysical, the theological. Whether they identify with an organized church or not.

I have no doubt that Christianity and Judaism 200 years from now, should they exist, will look substantially different that they do today. For that matter, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism look extraordinarily different today than they did a thousand years ago.

Evolution occurs in all human institutions: science, religion, economics, culture.

My personal opinon is that most human beings will always have an affinity for the metaphysical or the spirtual. There are questions about the meaning of life and the nature of reality which probably can never be answered with particle accelerators, mass spectrometers, or radio telescopes.

Nothing definitive has been determined, so it is only natural for each person to form their own interpretation of what is known and what is not known. One factor affecting belief is peer pressure. If one is immersed in a group situation where all members of the group have aligned beliefs, that reinforces one's own belief. If no church organization is involved, and one is free to examine their own beliefs without group pressure to continue a particular belief, then it is increasingly likely that divergent beliefs might emerge.

For me, I see science gradually chipping away at the tenets of religion. I see various religions in disagreement with one another, making it really just a game of chance as to which one might be chosen to follow, if one has none to begin with. Those who do have a religion they were brought up with, only have it because their parents made the decision for them. And the parents of the parents before them, and so on.

That being the case, it really comes back again to simply a game of chance as to which family one is born into, and how the parents treat religion as they raise their children. Are the children forced to follow the parents religion? Or are they fully educated about the actual world and the many choices available, and allowed to make their own decisions.

I choose to disbelieve that which is not clearly shown to be the absolute case.

I am constantly fascinated by the newest discoveries of science.

In science I trust.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Why? The K-12 students would be in class. Families can plan vacations around the breaks throughout the year instead of just summer. Teachers would have more consistent employment.

Back in the ancient days of a single-income family, the parents could divide the tasks of income-earning and child care.

Now that capitalism has taken those days away, and two-income families are the standard, that presents a problem for child-raising, and a boon to capitalism.

Government should step in, tax the greatest capitalists enough to correct the problem capitalism created.

We need federal free child care like other successful countries have. Older countries with more experience at these things. Like France.

 

[Cypress]

Hello Cypress,



Nothing definitive has been determined, so it is only natural for each person to form their own interpretation of what is known and what is not known. One factor affecting belief is peer pressure. If one is immersed in a group situation where all members of the group have aligned beliefs, that reinforces one's own belief. If no church organization is involved, and one is free to examine their own beliefs without group pressure to continue a particular belief, then it is increasingly likely that divergent beliefs might emerge.

For me, I see science gradually chipping away at the tenets of religion. I see various religions in disagreement with one another, making it really just a game of chance as to which one might be chosen to follow, if one has none to begin with. Those who do have a religion they were brought up with, only have it because their parents made the decision for them. And the parents of the parents before them, and so on.

That being the case, it really comes back again to simply a game of chance as to which family one is born into, and how the parents treat religion as they raise their children. Are the children forced to follow the parents religion? Or are they fully educated about the actual world and the many choices available, and allowed to make their own decisions.

I choose to disbelieve that which is not clearly shown to be the absolute case.

I am constantly fascinated by the newest discoveries of science.

In science I trust.

I hold inductive logic and the scientific method in the utmost esteem.

I have to disagree somewhat with your statement that you will not believe in anything which cannot be scientifically or empirically demostrated.

I believe in justice, equality, morality, temperance, charity, empathy.

As I am sure you do.

But they cannot be quantified by a particle accelerator, nor can they be explicitly defined for all people everywhere, for all time.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Cypress,

I hold inductive logic and the scientific method in the utmost esteem.

I have to disagree somewhat with your statement that you will not believe in anything which cannot be scientifically or empirically demostrated.

I believe in justice, equality, morality, temperance, charity, empathy.

As I am sure you do.

But they cannot be quantified by a particle accelerator, nor can they be explicitly defined for all people everywhere, for all time.

Small point of order. I did not word it the same way, which leaves open different interpretations of just what I said.

With respect to the unknown, the origin of man, life after death, etc, I go with science.

But that does not mean I lack faith.

My faith is in the goodness of humans to mostly and ultimately prevail over the bad.

It has generally been that way until now, anyway. I'll do my part to see that it continues thusly.

Obviously that is a developing situation which will not likely be determined within the period of a single human life...

 

[Cypress]

Hello Cypress,



Small point of order. I did not word it the same way, which leaves open different interpretations of just what I said.

With respect to the unknown, the origin of man, life after death, etc, I go with science.

But that does not mean I lack faith.

My faith is in the goodness of humans to mostly and ultimately prevail over the bad.

It has generally been that way until now, anyway. I'll do my part to see that it continues thusly.

Obviously that is a developing situation which will not likely be determined within the period of a single human life...

Cool, then we agree that not all of human knowlege and experience can be quantified or empirically demostrated by empirical experimentation or the scientific method.

The human experience is thus a collective of empirical observation, metaphysics, philosophical-thinking, etc.

My point is that it cannot be experimentally proven what a Buddhist, Hindu, or Daoist believe about Nirvana, Brahma, or the Dao are true. I just can't say to their face that I categorically declare their belief unreasonable and foolish.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Cypress,

Cool, then we agree that not all of human knowlege and experience can be quantified or empirically demostrated by empirical experimentation or the scientific method.

The human experience is thus a collective of empirical observation, metaphysics, philosophical-thinking, etc.

My point is that it cannot be experimentally proven what a Buddhist, Hindu, or Daoist believe about Nirvana, Brahma, or the Dao are true. I just can't say to their face that I categorically declare their belief unreasonable and foolish.

No, I would not advise doing that. It is a challenge to hold onto one's own beliefs while still allowing others the right to believe as they wish.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Back in the ancient days of a single-income family, the parents could divide the tasks of income-earning and child care.

Now that capitalism has taken those days away, and two-income families are the standard, that presents a problem for child-raising, and a boon to capitalism.

Government should step in, tax the greatest capitalists enough to correct the problem capitalism created.

We need federal free child care like other successful countries have. Older countries with more experience at these things. Like France.

Back in those days a family of five lived in a 1200 sqft two-bdrm home, detached one car garage and one car. Now Americans are spending themselves so deeply into debt buying big homes, multiple big cars and the latest TV sets. I've had several copilots who graduated all of their training owing more college debt than I paid for my house in 1998. Everyone is doing this voluntarily, not because they are slaves to capitalism.

If We the People increase tax, it should be used to pay off debt, not create more debt. Find better solutions without reaching into people's pockets first.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Weren't the Democrats also religious assholes and slavers?

They only started making "religious" arguments when the abolitionist movement started growing. It's a lot like seeing Dems today try to make Biblical and canonical arguments to defend abortion.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

It's an interesting question. Slavery has been around through most, or all, of human history. It continues today in some parts of the world. Only in Western civilization did the notion that slavery was immoral and evil arise leading to its legal abolition. What if that didn't happen and slavery existed unabated to today?

Civilization and slavery should not even be used in the same sentence! And you should know that!

Slavery only exists today in uncivilized and 3rd world countries! Our Forefathers were White Nationalist Elite Religious and Political Zealots and Slave lords or it would have been outlawed in the original Constitution right out the gate!

End of discussion as far as I am concerned.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I hold inductive logic and the scientific method in the utmost esteem.

I have to disagree somewhat with your statement that you will not believe in anything which cannot be scientifically or empirically demostrated.

I believe in justice, equality, morality, temperance, charity, empathy.

As I am sure you do.

But they cannot be quantified by a particle accelerator, nor can they be explicitly defined for all people everywhere, for all time.

There was a great line in Sagan's "Contact" between the atheist Ellie and Christian philosopher Palmer Joss:

Palmer Joss: [Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God] Did you love your father?

Ellie Arroway: What?

Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him?

Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.

Palmer Joss: Prove it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

They only started making "religious" arguments when the abolitionist movement started growing. It's a lot like seeing Dems today try to make Biblical and canonical arguments to defend abortion.

I've never seen a Democrat use a religious argument to defend abortion. The Bible is flawed in that it can be interpreted in many different ways so using a religious argument for a science, medical and legal matter seems silly.