Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[bankshot1]

Josh disapproves of our founding fathers morals.

You wish to cancel my right to have and express opinions and you think your passing moral judgment on me for those opinions is somehow superior.

Hahahahaha!

I don't hate you, either.

Josh I don't wish to cancel you, you are a source of unintentional comedy, and I wish to laugh at your opinions and your obliviousness and misplaced sense of moral superiority to our founding fathers.

Thanks for the laughs.

I look forward to your thoughts on the ethical short comings of the 10 Commandments and the complicity of the Hebrews in spreading dangerous political theory. 

[Holly Martins]

I don't think you two have to peck at each other in order to have a debate about historical context and moral relativity. 

[josh]

Josh disapproves of our founding fathers morals.

You wish to cancel my right to have and express opinions and you think your passing moral judgment on me for those opinions is somehow superior.

Hahahahaha!

I don't hate you, either.

Josh I don't wish to cancel you, you are a source of unintentional comedy, and I wish to laugh at your opinions and your obliviousness and misplaced sense of moral superiority to our founding fathers.

Thanks for the laughs.

I look forward to your thoughts on the ethical short comings of the 10 Commandments and the complicity of the Hebrews in spreading dangerous political theory.

Which ten commandments did you have in mind, Banks?!

While I count 613 commandments, I'm perfectly willing to accept 10 from you.

[josh]

I don't think you two have to peck at each other in order to have a debate about historical context and moral relativity.

I think Banks and Napoleon both have to attack and mock to have anything close to meaningful discussion at all, most of the time.

[LarryBnDC]

I don't think you two have to peck at each other in order to have a debate about historical context and moral relativity.

Unfortunately it’s asymmetrical...

[bankshot1]

I don't think you two have to peck at each other in order to have a debate about historical context and moral relativity.

I think Banks and Napoleon both have to attack and mock to have anything close to meaningful discussion at all, most of the time.

Josh I can't speak for Nap, but I gave you a serious response to your feeling of disappointment to our founding father's morality, which you conveniently ignored. 


It must be a tremendous gift to be able to look back about 250 years and so easily condemn the actions of well-intentioned patriots in their less than perfect efforts to fashion a revolutionary new form of government by and for the people, within the construct of the morality of the day, and one that had a structure and flexibility to evolve while it remained true to principles.

Josh put on your big-boy pants and accept criticism, and then thank god for the gift of the ability to look well into the past and having 20-200 hindsight.

LMAOx

[REDSTATEWARD]

America 2021 courtesy Biden,Pelosi, and Schumer.
2022 can’t come fast enough.

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/07/gun-violence-fourth-of-july-weekend

And, gee, this report was from the lefists

As the article notes when you click on it, "This article is more than 7 years old". In case the 2014 in the url won't clear. I look forward to the contortions you will twist yourself into to avoid admitting you screwed up.

And yes, the election of 2022, giving the Democrats bigger house majority and a clear senate majority that will finally allow progress on gun control cannot get here fast enough.

Lie, deny, and obfuscate.

Most likely, this time around he will simply not address it at all.

I will simply point out that Chicago is now worse than it has ever been under democrat leadership.
And we have a Biden/Pelosi/Schumer that could give a shit.

[josh]

I don't think you two have to peck at each other in order to have a debate about historical context and moral relativity.

I think Banks and Napoleon both have to attack and mock to have anything close to meaningful discussion at all, most of the time.

Josh I can't speak for Nap, but I gave you a serious response to your feeling of disappointment to our founding father's morality, which you conveniently ignored. 


It must be a tremendous gift to be able to look back about 250 years and so easily condemn the actions of well-intentioned patriots in their less than perfect efforts to fashion a revolutionary new form of government by and for the people, within the construct of the morality of the day, and one that had a structure and flexibility to evolve while it remained true to principles.

Josh put on your big-boy pants and accept criticism, and then thank god for the gift of the ability to look well into the past and having 20-200 hindsight.

LMAOx

If that's what passes for a serious critique in your head, then there is not much to be said in response.

I accept it in the spirit in which you now claim it was intended, but the closing line about my "self-righteousness and hubris" kind of detracts from your own self-righteousness and mockery.

Looking back 250 years is one way of looking at it, Banks. 232 for the Constitution.

But you act as if the issues of slavery were unknown at the time, when they were not. Slavery was known to be wrong in 1777 and 1787 and all the years in the middle. I don't need to look back. I can look at the writings of the time (and have done so on multiple occasions). I have read the debates in the Continental Congress and the discussions around it.

James Madison figured that cutting off the importation of slaves after 20 years was a big win over the extant form of governance, without more than a nod to the practice, itself, and its place in their society.

So, put on any kind of pants you want, but know that Jefferson's sleeping with his young slave (aka rape) was challenged for its propriety at the time. It's not hindsight, but the view of the 18th century.

I get that their views and practices were okay and you want to excuse it because it was way back then and therefore must be okay.

It wasn't okay then. It wasn't okay when SCOTUS passed the Dred Scott decision which came directly out of the Founding Fathers' morality.

And you can mock me from now to doomsday for believing that. But it's not "self-righteousness." It's just not bogus relative morality, either. It's historical perspective.

Here's the key --> unlike Ham, I don't think I am morally superior to them. Or him. I just don't think they were morally superior to me, for all that they were vastly more capable in lots of ways than I am.

[josh]

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/folic-acid-added-bread-help-prevent-death-disability-in-babies

Should the US do something akin to this?

Or is this too "nanny state" for you?

[bankshot1]

I don't think you two have to peck at each other in order to have a debate about historical context and moral relativity.

I think Banks and Napoleon both have to attack and mock to have anything close to meaningful discussion at all, most of the time.

Josh I can't speak for Nap, but I gave you a serious response to your feeling of disappointment to our founding father's morality, which you conveniently ignored. 


It must be a tremendous gift to be able to look back about 250 years and so easily condemn the actions of well-intentioned patriots in their less than perfect efforts to fashion a revolutionary new form of government by and for the people, within the construct of the morality of the day, and one that had a structure and flexibility to evolve while it remained true to principles.

Josh put on your big-boy pants and accept criticism, and then thank god for the gift of the ability to look well into the past and having 20-200 hindsight.

LMAOx

If that's what passes for a serious critique in your head, then there is not much to be said in response.

I accept it in the spirit in which you now claim it was intended, but the closing line about my "self-righteousness and hubris" kind of detracts from your own self-righteousness and mockery.

Looking back 250 years is one way of looking at it, Banks. 232 for the Constitution.

But you act as if the issues of slavery were unknown at the time, when they were not. Slavery was known to be wrong in 1777 and 1787 and all the years in the middle. I don't need to look back. I can look at the writings of the time (and have done so on multiple occasions). I have read the debates in the Continental Congress and the discussions around it.

James Madison figured that cutting off the importation of slaves after 20 years was a big win over the extant form of governance, without more than a nod to the practice, itself, and its place in their society.

So, put on any kind of pants you want, but know that Jefferson's sleeping with his young slave (aka rape) was challenged for its propriety at the time. It's not hindsight, but the view of the 18th century.

I get that their views and practices were okay and you want to excuse it because it was way back then and therefore must be okay.

It wasn't okay then. It wasn't okay when SCOTUS passed the Dred Scott decision which came directly out of the Founding Fathers' morality.

And you can mock me from now to doomsday for believing that. But it's not "self-righteousness." It's just not bogus relative morality, either. It's historical perspective.

Here's the key --> unlike Ham, I don't think I am morally superior to them. Or him. I just don't think they were morally superior to me, for all that they were vastly more capable in lots of ways than I am.

Josh

If that's what passes for a serious rebuttal, then there is not much to be said in response, other than:

Analyzing and understanding events of the time, using relevant societal morality and political practicality in forging a new country among entities with conflicting agendas was the point of my criticism of your-self righteous bleatings about the failures in our founding father morality.

[Holly Martins]

I withdraw my phrase "peck at each other. "  Banks is clearly the pecker in this chat.   (sorry,  couldn't resist)

I found Josh's reply neither self-righteous or bleating.   He expanded his critique for you,  Banks,  with some context of the moral views at that period.   He presents the FFs as a mixed bag,  which is hardly news to anyone who's studied history.   That he declines to engage in hagiography seems sensible.

[bankshot1]

I withdraw my phrase "peck at each other. "  Banks is clearly the pecker in this chat.   (sorry,  couldn't resist)

I found Josh's reply neither self-righteous or bleating.   He expanded his critique for you,  Banks,  with some context of the moral views at that period.   He presents the FFs as a mixed bag,  which is hardly news to anyone who's studied history.   That he declines to engage in hagiography seems sensible.

I found Josh's response mostly lacking and irrelevant and did not address my points, but rather sluffed them off, with his statements that I thought slavery was not known then (clearly not true) or the implication I approved of it (also not true).

But you act as if the issues of slavery were unknown at the time, when they were not. Slavery was known to be wrong in 1777 and 1787 and all the years in the middle.

and his irrelevant point of Tom Jefferson's jungle fever.

My point was about the efforts and trade-offs to create a new country under a revolutionary form of government from entities with conflicting agendas.

But Josh was offended by the political realities and societal constructs of the 1700s and the morality of our founding fathers in achieving their goal, albeit imperfectly..

But I'm glad you were satisfied by so little Bart.


"pecker"

that was funny.

[Hamilton Samuels]

No questions in your posts, Napoleon.

Lots of statements. One "command," which I heeded, but to which you did not reply.

"Name one..." is not a question. And I named one, anyway. Here, I will name another: the Slovak Republic. I can name a bunch more.

Here's a question for you:

What do you think the answer to your instruction to me is? I confess that other than Sealand, I have no idea what you might be thinking of.

Guess you don't know much about the Holocaust, if you're naming Slovak Republic.

Sealand was established by the Brits during WW2, and it has plenty of sea, but no land.

But that's besides the point. The great nation if the USA was established by much the same means as all great nations throughout history,,,; by weaponry and mobilizing one population against another. What separates America, though, is it's essential mission statement.

Sealand was my guess beforeyou claimed I had not answered your "question. Sealand is not a country, but it is the sort of bullshit I expected from you, which is why I named it.

And I know my history, Napoleon. You want to re-write history to have the Slovak Republic exist in WWII, but it did not. No such country, then.

Once again, you try to have it both ways - you are not responsible for things done by the US before you were born, but the Slovak Republic is responsible for other governments on the same land that they are ruling democratically.

You are too fucking funny and so deep in denial as to be absurd.

And no matter how much you want to pretend it was not so, the Founding Fathers chose to make this country exclude Natives, Blacks, and Women from "all men."

I don't hate them, but while I admire their intellect I do not admire their morals.

You do.

No surprises.

I understand their morals within the context of the era in which they lived. You ignore that context and condemn them in order to serve a modern dogma and to grind a political ax.

[josh]

I withdraw my phrase "peck at each other. "  Banks is clearly the pecker in this chat.   (sorry,  couldn't resist)

I found Josh's reply neither self-righteous or bleating.   He expanded his critique for you,  Banks,  with some context of the moral views at that period.   He presents the FFs as a mixed bag,  which is hardly news to anyone who's studied history.   That he declines to engage in hagiography seems sensible.

I found Josh's response mostly lacking and irrelevant and did not address my points, but rather sluffed them off, with his statements that I thought slavery was not known then (clearly not true) or the implication I approved of it (also not true).

But you act as if the issues of slavery were unknown at the time, when they were not. Slavery was known to be wrong in 1777 and 1787 and all the years in the middle.

and his irrelevant point of Tom Jefferson's jungle fever.

I didn't say you didn't know slavery was known, just that you seemed to think that I was judging from 21st century morality, which you did and do.

And 6 children is hardly "jungle fever."

Nor is it even slightly irrelevant!

I question the Founding Fathers' morality. Jefferson's treatment of his slaves is quite relevant.

But you've decided to go whole hog on ignoring that their morality was questionable in your ardent desire to engage in purposeless attacks.

Have at it. I'm done with you for the time being - your attempt at "the ends justify the means" and "they were busy" are duly noted.

[Hamilton Samuels]

I withdraw my phrase "peck at each other. "  Banks is clearly the pecker in this chat.   (sorry,  couldn't resist)

I found Josh's reply neither self-righteous or bleating.   He expanded his critique for you,  Banks,  with some context of the moral views at that period.   He presents the FFs as a mixed bag,  which is hardly news to anyone who's studied history.   That he declines to engage in hagiography seems sensible.

I found Josh's response mostly lacking and irrelevant and did not address my points, but rather sluffed them off, with his statements that I thought slavery was not known then (clearly not true) or the implication I approved of it (also not true).

But you act as if the issues of slavery were unknown at the time, when they were not. Slavery was known to be wrong in 1777 and 1787 and all the years in the middle.

and his irrelevant point of Tom Jefferson's jungle fever.

I didn't say you didn't know slavery was known, just that you seemed to think that I was judging from 21st century morality, which you did and do.

And 6 children is hardly "jungle fever."

Nor is it even slightly irrelevant!

I question the Founding Fathers' morality. Jefferson's treatment of his slaves is quite relevant.

But you've decided to go whole hog on ignoring that their morality was questionable in your ardent desire to engage in purposeless attacks.

Have at it. I'm done with you for the time being - your attempt at "the ends justify the means" and "they were busy" are duly noted.

Read it and learn: https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-the-founding-fathers-deserve-to-stand-20200707-de6fmb5j5nbrvpnk2vksl4b264-story.html