Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Many people were aware of the injustice of slavery even in the 1780s.

I am aware of that and also what Jefferson said in public about slavery. But I believe his statements were a politicians statements and I do not believe he actually believed that based on how he lived his life and the fact he refused to free his slaves even on his death bed.

My point was the why of your condemnation not whether or not he should have been condemned. Saying he owned slaves therefore he should be condemned is too simple, and as I've said is out of context for his time.

I think the true Jefferson was actually a strong proponent of slavery and only refuted it for political purpose. Granted this is just my opinion, but in my opinion it makes him far worse than a slave owner, given that in his time slavery was a common and accepted practice. I feel he had the insight and intelligence to realize just how evil it was (a rare thing in his day when most people were illiterate) and yet he still went on with the practice even while denouncing it for votes.

Jim

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I agree with an English court ruling that necessity does not equate to morality. People can do horrible things out of desperation, that doesn't make the acts moral.

So the survivors of the Donner Party were immoral because they didn't starve to death? [X(]

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Many people were aware of the injustice of slavery even in the 1780s.

I am aware of that and also what Jefferson said in public about slavery. But I believe his statements were a politicians statements and I do not believe he actually believed that based on how he lived his life and the fact he refused to free his slaves even on his death bed.

My point was the why of your condemnation not whether or not he should have been condemned. Saying he owned slaves therefore he should be condemned is too simple, and as I've said is out of context for his time.

I think the true Jefferson was actually a strong proponent of slavery and only refuted it for political purpose. Granted this is just my opinion, but in my opinion it makes him far worse than a slave owner, given that in his time slavery was a common and accepted practice. I feel he had the insight and intelligence to realize just how evil it was (a rare thing in his day when most people were illiterate) and yet he still went on with the practice even while denouncing it for votes.

Jim

Why do you think that I am "condemning" Jefferson for merely pointing out that he had slaves and that he was a fallible human being like many of the rest of us? Should I live a lie and pretend he wasn't?

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I agree with an English court ruling that necessity does not equate to morality. People can do horrible things out of desperation, that doesn't make the acts moral.

So the survivors of the Donner Party were immoral because they didn't starve to death? [X(]

If they murdered each other to practice cannibalism, then, yes, they committed immoral deeds. If they ate people who were already dead then maybe it wasn't immoral.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I agree with an English court ruling that necessity does not equate to morality. People can do horrible things out of desperation, that doesn't make the acts moral.

So the survivors of the Donner Party were immoral because they didn't starve to death? [X(]

If they murdered each other to practice cannibalism, then, yes, they committed immoral deeds. If they ate people who were already dead then maybe it wasn't immoral.

So survival is immoral, according to you?

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




So the survivors of the Donner Party were immoral because they didn't starve to death? [X(]

If they murdered each other to practice cannibalism, then, yes, they committed immoral deeds. If they ate people who were already dead then maybe it wasn't immoral.

So survival is immoral, according to you?

Personal survival is just personal survival. It's neither moral nor immoral. Murder, however, is immoral. And not just according to me, according to many common law courts, apparently.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress




If they murdered each other to practice cannibalism, then, yes, they committed immoral deeds. If they ate people who were already dead then maybe it wasn't immoral.

So survival is immoral, according to you?

Personal survival is just personal survival. It's neither moral nor immoral.

No. According to you, survival is immoral if, to survive, you have to kill someone in your party. So, to be moral, starving people must starve to death...according to you.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




So survival is immoral, according to you?

Personal survival is just personal survival. It's neither moral nor immoral.

No. According to you, survival is immoral if, to survive, you have to kill someone in your party. So, to be moral, starving people must starve to death...according to you.

So if the two of us were stranded on a desert Island and I kill you against your will to survive, would that be moral? I guess I should appreciate the sentiment. Thanks for contributing to my well being. [:D]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I always like to go back to the Donner Party when this subject comes up: Times can get so bad that you'll not only kill your neighbors, you'll eat them, too.

Our present moral codes are the product of the circumstances we live in: Extreme luxurious plenty. Change those circumstances and those codes would go out the window. Suppose the Earth were hit by a large asteroid. And as a result, it would only support 7 million people, instead of 7 billion. How could the present codes remain in place under those conditions? Don't you think there would be massive genocide (not to mention cannibalism) under those circumstances? Those fortunate enough to be held as slaves would regard themselves as blessed.

Back in ancient times slavery was seen as a good thing - by the slaves! To understand that, you have to understand how one became a slave: Your city was sacked and you had the choice of death or slavery. And you don't have to go that far back to find most people living very close to the edge of existence - with death around every corner. Today's moral codes would be laughable to them.

Absolutely.

Full disclosure: Anyone named Curtis from Houston will be at the top of my 'shoot and eat' list after the great asteroid. Nothing personal.

Go get a snack. We need the additional marbling.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress



Personal survival is just personal survival. It's neither moral nor immoral.

No. According to you, survival is immoral if, to survive, you have to kill someone in your party. So, to be moral, starving people must starve to death...according to you.

So if the two of us were stranded on a desert Island and I kill you against your will to survive, would that be moral? I guess I should appreciate the sentiment. Thanks for contributing to my well being. [:D]

How could it be otherwise? Again, do you think your only moral path is starving to death?

This comes back to my original point: Morality is determined by the circumstances. That's why today's morality can't be applied to past (or future) eras.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Absolutely.

Full disclosure: Anyone named Curtis from Houston will be at the top of my 'shoot and eat' list after the great asteroid. Nothing personal.

Go get a snack. We need the additional marbling.

I believe I'm already fully marbled.

[Chickenboy]

Knock it off. You're making me drool.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




No. According to you, survival is immoral if, to survive, you have to kill someone in your party. So, to be moral, starving people must starve to death...according to you.

So if the two of us were stranded on a desert Island and I kill you against your will to survive, would that be moral? I guess I should appreciate the sentiment. Thanks for contributing to my well being. [:D]

How could it be otherwise? Again, do you think your only moral path is starving to death?

This comes back to my original point: Morality is determined by the circumstances. That's why today's morality can't be applied to past (or future) eras.

Interesting. What about a beggar who breaks into your house because he's starving. Would you call the police or let him take what he wants?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Knock it off. You're making me drool.

Is is unusual for you to drool?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress




So if the two of us were stranded on a desert Island and I kill you against your will to survive, would that be moral? I guess I should appreciate the sentiment. Thanks for contributing to my well being. [:D]

How could it be otherwise? Again, do you think your only moral path is starving to death?

This comes back to my original point: Morality is determined by the circumstances. That's why today's morality can't be applied to past (or future) eras.

Interesting. What about a beggar who breaks into your house because he's starving. Would you call the police or let him take what he wants?

I assume you're referring to Chickenboy. I'd blow him away. But, from his perspective, what he did was perfectly moral. And I couldn't gainsay him. If the circumstances are at a certain point, the only guiding principle is the Law of the Jungle.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




How could it be otherwise? Again, do you think your only moral path is starving to death?

This comes back to my original point: Morality is determined by the circumstances. That's why today's morality can't be applied to past (or future) eras.

Interesting. What about a beggar who breaks into your house because he's starving. Would you call the police or let him take what he wants?

I assume you're referring to Chickenboy. I'd blow him away. But, from his perspective, what he did was perfectly moral. And I couldn't gainsay him. If the circumstances are at a certain point, the only guiding principle is the Law of the Jungle.

Why would you shoot him if he was doing a moral act? Wouldn't it be immoral of you to impede his survival if (presumably) all he wants is to come into your house and get some food but not harm you or your family?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Knock it off. You're making me drool.

Is is unusual for you to drool?

No. I think my mouth breathing causes it. I can't explain why my knuckle-dragging would, but I suppose that's possible. [&:]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress




Interesting. What about a beggar who breaks into your house because he's starving. Would you call the police or let him take what he wants?

I assume you're referring to Chickenboy. I'd blow him away. But, from his perspective, what he did was perfectly moral. And I couldn't gainsay him. If the circumstances are at a certain point, the only guiding principle is the Law of the Jungle.

Why would you shoot him if he was doing a moral act? Wouldn't it be immoral of you to impede his survival if (presumably) all he wants is to come into your house and get some food but not harm you or your family?

No. We would each be morally pursuing our own survival. This, of course, assumes that we are in some circumstance similar to the Donner Party.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




I assume you're referring to Chickenboy. I'd blow him away. But, from his perspective, what he did was perfectly moral. And I couldn't gainsay him. If the circumstances are at a certain point, the only guiding principle is the Law of the Jungle.

Why would you shoot him if he was doing a moral act? Wouldn't it be immoral of you to impede his survival if (presumably) all he wants is to come into your house and get some food but not harm you or your family?

No. We would each be morally pursuing our own survival. This, of course, assumes that we are in some circumstance similar to the Donner Party.

But suppose he's simply there to get a little of your food and not harm you, then it wouldn't be a matter of survival for you, only him.

Second point, how does the "Donner party" example apply to the morality of the past. I mean it's not like the plantation owners were about to starve and needed slaves to feed them. They presumably could have worked the soil themselves on small farms like the majority of their peers. It wasn't a matter of brute survival in most cases was it?

[Orm]

So did the Donner Party members kill anyone in order to eat that corpse? I always thought they might have eaten the already dead. Makes a difference.