After months of insisting that we “never” know your position, now you admit that we do.
Of course you are afraid to engage, that’s been clear for ages. The fact that you won’t answer a couple of simple easy questions makes me wonder what your afraid of.
After months of insisting that we “never” know your position, now you admit that we do.
What I actually said, of course, was just the opposite of what he interpreted...
You know my position
(or who knows? Maybe you don't.).
It is for this reason that I have no interest in engaging you. You simply seem entirely inept in reading a liberal's words (or at least mine) and interpret them aright. In fact, you often read what I said to be the complete and total opposite of what I actually said, as in this case. Hint: It's not always enough to read 1/3 of what someone says. Context and content matters in my words, as with the Bible and all written communication.
I've been quite clear that I think that chattel slavery... the owning of another person against their will... to be a moral wrong. I've not been ambiguous on this, nor have I been inconsistent. Thus, my answers to your questions are Yes, Yes, Yes.
With the caveat: I DO recognize that it's not fair to judge earlier civilizations or people by modern morals, as values change, context changes. Having said that, I've been clear that it's wrong to "own" another human being against their will and deny them basic human dignity and liberty that such slavery entails and we well recognize it today.
Thus, to clarify, it is and always has been wrong to own or oppress or rape or kill another human being. Always. But, I also recognize that not all things have been clear to all people throughout history... that the notion of human liberty has evolved and values change from civilization to civilization.
I think it's wrong and always wrong because it's an affront to basic human rights. It's not wrong because there is a line in a sacred text or Magic Rule Book that says it's wrong (or conversely, that it's sometimes "right" because the same MRB says it's acceptable sometimes.)
So, again, not interested in engaging. But given that at least some fundamentalist types (you included, I believe) have said that it's NOT always wrong, that God might sometimes command us to enslave people and thus, it wouldn't be wrong (whereas I don't think God commands us to do wrong, and slavery is wrong. I don't think God would command slavery and it be okay any more than God would command forced marriage/rape, because it's wrong)... but your side is slippery and vague about this, so I'd like to see you clarify your position and answer your own question.
Dan doesn’t fool me. He doesn’t want to engage because our conclusions which are based upon his own words are uncomfortable to him as the reality and consequences of his positions and beliefs have thus been exposed for what they truly are.
I think there’s an element of him wanting to be as ambiguous as possible and to avoid taking a specific position. Just look at his answer above. He just can’t quite 100% commit to saying that slavery is wrong under every and all circumstances. He wants to, but also wants to have the out.
He’s kind of like Rosie O’Donnel in her Twitter jihad against Dana Loesch, she spews all sorts of vile filth over social media, but blocks the targets and those who disagree because she’s cowardly.
9 comments:
You know my position (or who knows? Maybe you don't.). I have no interest in engaging you.
I am interested in seeing if you will answer your own question.
After months of insisting that we “never” know your position, now you admit that we do.
Of course you are afraid to engage, that’s been clear for ages. The fact that you won’t answer a couple of simple easy questions makes me wonder what your afraid of.
3 simple direct variations on a question you’ve written volumes on, basically yes/no questions, yet nothing. Interesting.
Of course, I’ll answer it when the time is right.
Craig INTERPRETED my words thusly...
After months of insisting that we “never” know your position, now you admit that we do.
What I actually said, of course, was just the opposite of what he interpreted...
You know my position
(or who knows? Maybe you don't.).
It is for this reason that I have no interest in engaging you. You simply seem entirely inept in reading a liberal's words (or at least mine) and interpret them aright. In fact, you often read what I said to be the complete and total opposite of what I actually said, as in this case. Hint: It's not always enough to read 1/3 of what someone says. Context and content matters in my words, as with the Bible and all written communication.
I've been quite clear that I think that chattel slavery... the owning of another person against their will... to be a moral wrong. I've not been ambiguous on this, nor have I been inconsistent. Thus, my answers to your questions are Yes, Yes, Yes.
With the caveat: I DO recognize that it's not fair to judge earlier civilizations or people by modern morals, as values change, context changes. Having said that, I've been clear that it's wrong to "own" another human being against their will and deny them basic human dignity and liberty that such slavery entails and we well recognize it today.
Thus, to clarify, it is and always has been wrong to own or oppress or rape or kill another human being. Always. But, I also recognize that not all things have been clear to all people throughout history... that the notion of human liberty has evolved and values change from civilization to civilization.
I think it's wrong and always wrong because it's an affront to basic human rights. It's not wrong because there is a line in a sacred text or Magic Rule Book that says it's wrong (or conversely, that it's sometimes "right" because the same MRB says it's acceptable sometimes.)
So, again, not interested in engaging. But given that at least some fundamentalist types (you included, I believe) have said that it's NOT always wrong, that God might sometimes command us to enslave people and thus, it wouldn't be wrong (whereas I don't think God commands us to do wrong, and slavery is wrong. I don't think God would command slavery and it be okay any more than God would command forced marriage/rape, because it's wrong)... but your side is slippery and vague about this, so I'd like to see you clarify your position and answer your own question.
Interesting way of not engaging.
Certainly quite a lot of blather and personal attacks, to answer some simple yes/no questions.
It seems as if your answered are
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes (with some qualifications and excuses)
So, the next question is, why?
What is it that gives humans the “right” not to be enslaved?
Or
Is there something specific about humans that gives them that standing?
I have to note the irony of you choosing to blatantly misrepresent me in your attempt to claim I don’t “understand” your points.
But mice try.
Maybe you’ll get enough courage to simply and accurately represent your own views.
Dan doesn’t fool me. He doesn’t want to engage because our conclusions which are based upon his own words are uncomfortable to him as the reality and consequences of his positions and beliefs have thus been exposed for what they truly are.
I think there’s an element of him wanting to be as ambiguous as possible and to avoid taking a specific position. Just look at his answer above. He just can’t quite 100% commit to saying that slavery is wrong under every and all circumstances. He wants to, but also wants to have the out.
He’s kind of like Rosie O’Donnel in her Twitter jihad against Dana Loesch, she spews all sorts of vile filth over social media, but blocks the targets and those who disagree because she’s cowardly.
Post a Comment