Azalin Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 it's not even possible to get consensus on the morality of slavery here. Who here has stated anything other than contempt for Slavery?
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 I've already stated my case in this very thread, so no. The natural rights of man are only part of your argument then? What's the other part? What's your argument again?
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) What's your argument again? I believe slavery is morally wrong, as I believe in natural rights and self ownership. That's the entirety of my reasoning. However, I also believe, that because of self ownership, it is perfectly moral for someone to sell themselves into slavery. Now, what's the rest of yours? Edited December 22, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 However, I also believe, that because of self ownership, it is perfectly moral for someone to sell themselves into slavery. What??? That's wacky. Can you give us an example of where this has happened? And that's all to my argument
Keukasmallies Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 What??? That's wacky. Can you give us an example of where this has happened? And that's all to my argument Indentured servitude was/is a step in that direction as was the practice of buying "substitutes" for what was at the time seen as onerous tasks, e.g., military service
B-Man Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Lawsuit Challenges New Orleans's Plan to Remove Confederate Monuments New York Times Reminder of the real reason: The decision spurred in June when Democratic Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who is eyeing a Senate bid, requested the statues be taken out of the public square and placed in a museum.
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 Lawsuit Challenges New Orleans's Plan to Remove Confederate Monuments New York Times Reminder of the real reason: The decision spurred in June when Democratic Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who is eyeing a Senate bid, requested the statues be taken out of the public square and placed in a museum. Conservative Judicial activism!
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 What??? That's wacky. Can you give us an example of where this has happened? And that's all to my argument So the extent of your argument is an appeal to the natural rights of man? Is that fair to say? And an example is indentured servitude.
Deranged Rhino Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 it's simplistic by necessity. it's not even possible to get consensus on the morality of slavery here. people want to game that simple question. how would broadening the scope be useful? That's not true at all. The only one being ambiguous about their stance on slavery is YOU by refusing to comment on your own support of modern slavery while claiming others here are somehow pro slavery. And by not addressing your own conflict on this issue you prove yourself to be intellectually dishonest. It's hilarious.
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 So the extent of your argument is an appeal to the natural rights of man? Is that fair to say? And an example is indentured servitude. Sure And you think indentured servitude should be legal in the USA today?
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 And you think indentured servitude should be legal in the USA today? Yes, if you believe in natural rights and self ownership, then it's the only logically consistent stance.
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 Yes, if you believe in natural rights and self ownership, then it's the only logically consistent stance. No
/dev/null Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Yes, if you believe in natural rights and self ownership, then it's the only logically consistent stance. Asking gatorman to make a logically consistent stance, or to even understand logic, is like asking the band Europe to ignore a final countdown. it's what they can't do
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 Asking gatorman to make a logically consistent stance, or to even understand logic, is like asking the band Europe to ignore a final countdown. it's what they can't do So you agree with him? Or are you just being your usual d-bag self?
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) No Wrong. Natural rights stem from self ownership. If you own yourself, you have the moral right to obligate yourself by entering into contract. If you don't believe this to be true, then you don't believe in self ownership, and therefore cannot believe in natural rights. If that's actually the case, then you'll have to make a different case for your opposition to slavery. Edited December 22, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 Wrong. Natural rights stem from self ownership. If you own yourself, you have the moral right to obligate yourself by entering into contract. If you don't believe this to be true, then you don't believe in self ownership, and therefore cannot believe in natural rights. If that's actually the case, then you'll have to make a different case for your opposition to slavery. Ok, so if, say, I get a 20 year women to sign her life over to me, can I legally beat her, rape her, chain her up? Is that all legal in your world?
Chef Jim Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 What??? That's wacky. Can you give us an example of where this has happened? Drug addiction? Ok, so if, say, I get a 20 year women to sign her life over to me, can I legally beat her, rape her, chain her up? Is that all legal in your world? Huh??
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Ok, so if, say, I get a 20 year women to sign her life over to me, can I legally beat her, rape her, chain her up? Is that all legal in your world? It may be distasteful, however if she voluntarily consented to the terms of the contract without being compelled by force or threat of violence, then it absolutely should be legal, and would not be morally wrong in the framework of natural rights. If a person can be said to own themselves, then they reserve the right to do with themselves as they see fit. Huh?? He's making an appeal to emotion fallacy.
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 It may be distasteful, however if she voluntarily consented to the terms of the contract without being compelled by force or threat of violence, then it absolutely should be legal, and would not be morally wrong in the framework of natural rights. If a person can be said to own themselves, then they reserve the right to do with themselves as they see fit. He's making an appeal to emotion fallacy. Chef? What's your take on this?
Chef Jim Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) He's making an appeal to emotion fallacy. Yes. Slavery does not have to come along with beatings, rape or bondage. Chef? What's your take on this? Simple answer. Some of the libertarian ideas I disagree with 100% Oh and Mods, mark this down. 12/22/2105 at 8:21am PST gator and Chef agreed on something. Edited December 22, 2015 by Chef Jim
Recommended Posts