Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3924)	4/29/2010 2:15:56 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

"You included an argument that the religious based anti-slavery movement wasn't so important as the institution was dying for economic reasons. There isn't much merit for that argument and if you're dropping it thats wise." No. YOU culled that "argument" out of a long essay I posted concerning our central discussion. Long essays often include tangential material that you seem to be overly fascinated by. Again, I disagree profoundly that "there isn't much merit for that argument". You are simply wrong. Economics WAS a MAJOR factor in the ending of slave trading. Many factors combined to bring slavery to an end in spite of steadfast Christian resistance which was at long last broken in a bloody civil war. “Despite the brutality and inhumanity involved, the morality of the slave trade and slavery did not begin to be questioned by substantial numbers of Europeans and people of European descent until the end of the eighteenth century. With the enslaved people themselves this was a different matter, of course, and there had been many rebellions and revolts, as well as other smaller scale, more frequent acts of resistance, since the sixteenth century. Although white abolitionists were important in the various campaigns that eventually resulted in the abolition of the slave trade and slavery during the nineteenth century, the role of people of African descent cannot be underestimated. Equiano's narrative (1789), for instance, was an anti-slavery bestseller, and its account of the horrors involved furthered the campaign of those who sought to end the slave trade and slavery.” amazon.co.uk "Eventually, slave action was to make the entire slave trade untenable, as the cost of keeping slaves under control became greater than any potential commercial benefit. As famous revolts inspired further revolts and protests, in an age where international communication allowed slaves to hear rumours of other rebellions, a snowball effect was feared by rulers." (Vexen Crabtree) “The slaves themselves had begun to play an obvious and undeniable role in the debate about their own future. This proved to be the turning point in the story of British abolition.” amazon.co.uk "The economic costs of keeping, shipping and securing slaves were astronomical. Slave revolts, facilitated by the human will to survive, and organized by powerful leaders some of whom were also underground Voodoo leaders, were uncontrollable and random expenses. The increasing success and strength of such revolts made keeping large populations of slaves under control economically unviable. "1776, Adam Smith's study in economics The Wealth of Nations concluded that slavery was uneconomic due to the costs involved in keeping slaves under control" Everette, Susanne "The History of Slavery" "This remarkable story raises a simple but crucial question: why did the British turn against slavery and the slave trade? Part of the reason is undoubtedly the rise of compassionate humanitarianism, particularly amongst an increasingly leisured middle class. Scholars also point to the influence of Nonconformist religion, on the one hand, and Evangelical Protestantism, on the other. But of greater significance was a shift in economic thought. In the British case slavery flourished because West Indian planters were effectively subsidised by the British taxpayer. By the late 1820s, when many Britons began to see the benefits of a world economy untrammelled by restrictions and controls, such privileges seemed outmoded and frankly unwarranted. Indeed, it is probably true to say that the British slave system was 'not so much rendered unprofitable, but by-passed by the changing economic and social order in Britain'."" Dr. John Oldfield bbc.co.uk

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3924)	4/29/2010 2:32:34 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

"A bogus argument but no more bogus than the argument that slavery was " preached and commanded in GOD'S WORD"." No. It is NOT BOGUS IN ANY WAY. Throughout the centuries slavery required (OBVIOUSLY) a MORAL JUSTIFICATION. This justification came from religion and was used by Christians and Islamists throughout the centuries to morally justify their domination of the slave trade. Surely it is as obvious to you as it is to everybody else that "Christian Europe" and "Christian America" did not engage in this heinous activity with the idea that it was knowingly evil and wrong? Of course not. They justified it. This is, of course, obvious and beyond debate but it appears that you are unaware that they did not consider it moral. Obviously, it is not Christian to knowingly act in sin, is it? What were the justifications again? * Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way". * Exodus 21:2-6 NLT "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever". * Exodus 21:7-11 NLT "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment". * Exodus 21:20-21 NAB "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." * Ephesians 6:5 NLT "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ". * 1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them". * Luke 12:47-48 NLT "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given". Now, is it true that you were not aware that, 1). Slavery was a moral issue, and 2). The moral justification used by Christians throughout the centuries when they championed slavery came from the guide book of Christian morality know as the bible?? Is there anything "bogus" about these facts??

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3924)	4/29/2010 2:40:15 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

"I have a hard time believing you're that ignorant. Its that man has a fallen nature and does things he knows are wrong." I have a hard time believing that you are that ignorant, as well. My, "I don't know what you mean" ensued from the following interchange: "Slave owners were immoral and inhuman regardless of religion or lack of religion." <<Thank you. Its that fallenness thing>> Using the Christian dogma of "fallenness"(LOL) as a response to my sentence was a non-sequitur. If slavery was a moral activity then slave owners would have been moral in engaging such activity regardless of your dogma of "fallenness".

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3924)	4/29/2010 2:51:22 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

"Yes he can" No, he can't. Freethinkers of today have centuries of written history and debate to draw upon including much of Greek thought which was preserved. The Greeks had no such advantages. Just as modern ideas of automobile efficiency cannot be compared to Henry Ford's concepts. A person of today would be expected to know that (for example) lead pollution is bad. Henry Ford would not be expected to know that. A rational and literate person of today has centuries of moral thought by scores of brilliant philosophers and humanists to inform his opinions and his values. So it is unlikely that a freethinker of today would engage in slavery without knowing he was a bastard.