http://turmeric.freeshell.org/storytext/american_holocaust.html

American Holocaust

Once upon a time people were butchered like cattle, slaughtered, entire families split apart, parents having to choose which of their children would die, and all that other crap you hear about happening to Jews in WWII. Except it happened in the United States, and it the Jews were on the winning side.

There were also young people trying to 'hide' from the invader so they wouldn't be killed, people caught between selling out a little bit just to survive, people being tortured, killed, dumped in mass graves, people transported in inhuman conditions to places where they would die, theft of fortunes that were stolen by the oppressors, vicious ideology that classed these humans as 'inferior', the attempt to wipe out an entire people, an entire way of life, as inherently wrong, in order to make way for a superior successor, a new 'super-country' full of superior people. This was not Nazi Germany, it was the United States of America.

"Manifest Destiny" could have been taken right out of Mein Kampf, Hitler's dream of a 'third reich' bears great resemblance to the theorists of the 'sea to shining sea' "pioneers" in the US. However, 'manifest destiny' is taught to every American school child as a wonderful thing that brought the US a wonderful lifestyle full of wonderful things. AS opposed to Nazi holocausts, which are taught to every school child as the epitomy of evil on this planet.

American media plays along too. In movies and books and whatnot, the 'ultimate evil' is played by Nazis... never by blue coated US army soldiers raping girls before murdering them and their parents and grandparents. American books, magazines, newspapers, plays, etc, and interviews with the authors of these, are obsessed with the holocaust and how evil the nazis were.... but the same tone is never taken with the genocidal maniacs responsible for the American Holocaust, people like Amherst, or General Sherman, or Thomas Jefferson, or Andrew Jackson.

What this all proves more than anything is that people in general do not believe in ideas of 'right' and 'wrong'. Otherwise there would be at the very least some emotional justice in the hearts of the American public. Rather, when these subjects are brought up in an American audience, they fail to realize, or flat out deny, the similarity between their rationale and that of Nazi germany.

AN American who becomes angry at mention of Native American genocide will say one of several 'come backs'... first is the 'its too late' philosophy, as in 'it happened so long ago we cant do anything about it now.' or 'what do you want me to do its not my fault' or 'i didnt get anything out of it leave me alone'. Aside from being a bald faced lie, this just goes to show the hypocritical attitude of an American. Imagine if a German said 'WWII was a long time ago, we can't do anything about it now' when some indignant American wanted them to, I dont know, apologize for their company using slave labor during WWII, like volkswagen and other companies recently were involved in.

The second response might be 'well they were primitive and we had to civilize everyone'. This is straight out of nazi eugenics literature, inane rantings from Hitler or whoever about how the Slavs and lesser races needed to be wiped away so that the German state could prosper. In fact, any philosophy that justifies murder in the name of progress is no different from nazism, in fact it is exactly what makes nazism so evil... Nazis were not evil beause they killed Jews, they were evil because they killed at all to enforce their will. They didn't just kill Jews, they killed homosexuals, gypsies, communists, pacifists, slavs, poles, lithuanians, latvians, estonians, czechs, partisans, french, brits, spanish anti-fascists, everyone. And your average American 'we needed to civilize the country' philosophy is not one whit nor iota different than nazi philosophy, except for one thing: the Nazis lost, while the Americans won.

The third American response is to make a joke, such as 'Indians were a bunch of drunks' or 'Indians are sore losers' or 'Indians just run a bunch of casinos' or whatever. This is a beautiful strategy, let me call it the 'verbal abuse strategy'. Honed to a fine point this skill is developed in American schools because it is good preparation for .. well, I dont know why exactly. But after a while most Americans learn to make horrific references that immediately dehumanize and destroy any semblance of conversation.... an amazingly non-violent strategy that works remarkably well when supporting oppression. The equivalent nazi strategy is to make jokes about Jews, including references to noses, money grubbing, etc etc etc, all the stereotypes that were used so marvelously by the German propaganda ministry in the 30s and 40s to generate public support for the murder of Germany Jewish people.

All of these strategies boil down to one thing: Americans in general have no absolute prinicples nor sense of right and wrong, driven largely by their complete lack of respect for human life and human dignity. If American stood up for these things, then they would stand up for them even when it appeared to benefit them to ignore what was happening. Much like Germans who could make life much easier for themselves and their families by ignoring what the Nazis were doing, the average American has adopted this hypocritical moral relativist philosophy.

Strangely enough it just so happens that quite a few American people like to talk about how 'right and wrong' are absolutes and moral and cultural relativism are the enemies of right. IT also turns out that this philosophy is most likely to come from a Holocaust Apologist, someone who will make up some reasoning why it was OK for the US to murder Indians, but why it was wrong for the Nazis to do the same thing to the Jews. This just goes to prove that not only are Americans completely devoid of notions of 'right and wrong', they are also completely capable of telling themselves absolute lies about it. That is, America loves the 'idea' of right but when it comes down to the nitty gritty of doing 'right', Americans are extremely good at coming up with excuses and justifications for just about damned anything that they do.

I think you make a very compelling argument.

I would only disagree on your generalization of Americans, but I imagine you mean to say this is a strong trend in America: that much is undeniable.

As Howard Zinn says, those who have won through oppression write our history books from their own cultural perspective. We should expect to see a certain degree of denial stem from this fact, as long power drives the patriotic sentiment.

The French, who have a very subtle and noble sense of patriotism, are guilty of the same denial when it comes to their colonial history. The atrocities of the Algerian war are not taught in French high schools.
I remember my teacher was very good at pointing out the wrongs of colonialism, but the curriculum he was given to teach did not include the culmination of colonial history: independance struggles. What a strange ommission: yet there is little wonder at why it is so.

It becomes alarming when mere denial is replaced by pride for those same events that spelled genocide and atrocities to so many people. America's case is an example of such pride.

Until we can look our past in the eye, we will make poor world leaders at best.

M.

Criminal, whoever wrote that piece of garbage is completely ignorant of the issues. There were numerous tribes and some were more savage than others, and some were friendly. But generally speaking, a better analogy is the Muslim versus Western world today. Savagery and civilization simply cannot co-exist; one or the other eventually dominates. I fully support manifest destiny and Western civilization since it is a far superior choice than savagery. The last thing I want is to worry about some cannibalistic savage hiding in the bushes when I walk around the block at night. :p

Originally posted by Snouter
I fully support manifest destiny and Western civilization since it is a far superior choice than savagery.

The flaw in your rationale lies here.

There is nothing that indicates that humanity has to choose between Western civ and 'savagery' (a nebulous concept I would love for you to define in detail).

In fact we live in a day and age in which so many cultural choices are available to us that there is arguably more choice than there has ever been in Western recorded history. With this consideration in mind, posing the issue in terms of a choice between Western civ and savagery is lunacy.

You claim that your definition of civilization cannot live side by side with what you perceive as lesser civilizations, because one must dominate (and I presume you mean eradicate) the other. With a Western civilization full of Snouters, no doubt this would be true. In fact, there is no reason why Western civilization could not coexist harmoniously with indigenous peoples living their lifestyle. No reason except the refusal to make the necessary changes to Western ways that would allow this cohabitation.

M.

While you are right about Menifest Destiny ,I would ask who are "The Jews"?

Some Jews maby,but all or most as such a satment suggets?

And I have said Hitler butchered more than 6 million and murder is murder and one life is as precious as 6 million.

But can't you see the differecne between the murder of an individual and wiping out an entire race of people?

Well it is true that criticisms of Manifest Destiny usually fail to consider the fact that Indians were not one group, nor were all Indians "innocent" all of the time.

This is not to be dismissive of atrocities, but it is often ignored that much of the displacement and physical loss endured by many Indian tribes were in conflict, which naturally can cause displacement and death. We shouldn't be surprised by the results.

I will patiently wait for critics of Manifest Destiny to write their damning tract against the extinction of the Picts for moral consistency. Or does "time heal all wounds"?

Originally posted by themistocles
I will patiently wait for critics of Manifest Destiny to write their damning tract against the extinction of the Picts for moral consistency. Or does "time heal all wounds"?

Or against the Aztecs for their brutal behavior against the Anasazi and other tribes.

Or against the Maori and their brutal behavior against the Moriori.

Or against the Bantu as they obliterated the Khosians.

I'm no particular fan of Manifest Destiny as a doctrine. But to single out Manifest Destiny as something singular (as the author of this seems to) is complete nonsense.

Originally posted by Ironweed


Or against the Aztecs for their brutal behavior against the Anasazi and other tribes.

Or against the Maori and their brutal behavior against the Moriori.

Or against the Bantu as they obliterated the Khosians.

I'm no particular fan of Manifest Destiny as a doctrine. But to single out Manifest Destiny as something singular (as the author of this seems to) is complete nonsense.

True. But it is natural for the United States to be subject of greater scrutiny. They are the most influential nation and culture on earth.

M.

Comparing Jews to Indians is ridicoulous.

Originally posted by Malcolm Wright
True. But it is natural for the United States to be subject of greater scrutiny. They are the most influential nation and culture on earth.


For one, if something is morally right or wrong, it doesn't matter who does it.

Secondly, the United States wasn't the most influential nation and culture then, whereas the current United States seems to hold the Native Americans in collective religious veneration. It seems there are apples and there are oranges in this instance.

Originally posted by Snouter
Criminal, whoever wrote that piece of garbage is completely ignorant of the issues. There were numerous tribes and some were more savage than others, and some were friendly. But generally speaking, a better analogy is the Muslim versus Western world today. Savagery and civilization simply cannot co-exist; one or the other eventually dominates. I fully support manifest destiny and Western civilization since it is a far superior choice than savagery. The last thing I want is to worry about some cannibalistic savage hiding in the bushes when I walk around the block at night. :p
The Cherokees were definately NOT savages. They were a civilized people who practiced agraculture, raised animals and developed an alphabet and had a written language. Yet President Jackson forced these people to leave their homeland at gunpoint. Over a forced march one third of their population died. They died of cold and starvation.

Basically, I would say that the native americans were adapt people well equipt for surviving in their land. You may be interested to know that among the many native peoples there was a high degree of civilization. For instance, the Miami Circle, an artifact found in the city of Miami has been compared to Stonehenge and shows possible links to Phonecian or Egyptian civilization. You may also be interested to know that there were peoples who boult large cities. The city of Cahokia Illinois was one such place where massive mounds exist. Other large cities are found in Arizona and New Mexico. Also consider the great city of Mesa Verde.

Not all indians were barbaric. You may note that some tribes in California lived peaceful lives in harmony with their natural surroundings. Some islanders on the channel islands, among others never knew war until the arival of the white man.

...and a penchant for slavery.

Originally posted by Malcolm Wright


True. But it is natural for the United States to be subject of greater scrutiny. They are the most influential nation and culture on earth.

M.

Rather, you think that vilifying Whites gives you the moral high ground. And you deeply resent that we make you wear trousers.

Criminal's affected loathing for his own heritage is unremarkable today. That's basically the attitude that is taught in the public boob hatcheries, K-12. I don't know if he's sincere, nor do I really care; but when it comes to hatemongering, you'll have to admit he's got me beat by a mile.

You'll note they didn't teach him to spell; but he's got the White-hatred down pat, and that's the important thing.

Originally posted by jack_boot

Criminal's affected loathing for his own heritage is unremarkable today. That's basically the attitude that is taught in the public boob hatcheries, K-12. I don't know if he's sincere, nor do I really care; but when it comes to hatemongering, you'll have to admit he's got me beat by a mile.
Loathing for my own heritage you say?

I am a white dude decended from settlers from the Mayflower. I am not ashamed of anything my friend. I would say that Native American culture is no better than Anglo-American, Spanish, French, Chinese, German or any other culture.

I merely am saying that I value human life of all kinds.

I do not believe in punishing peoples for mistakes made by previous generations of their own people. Nor do I believe that all members of a nation or group should be responsible for the crimes committed by their own leaders. This applies to Germans, White Southerners, White South Africans, Americans, Spanish, French, Irish, Scandanavians, Arabs, Italians or anybody else.

We need to remember that all people are first of all human beings. We all bleed the same color of blood. We all have the same basic needs in life: To eat, drink, sleep, work, love and care for our children. Nobody is any different in God's eyes.

Originally posted by jack_boot


Rather, you think that vilifying Whites gives you the moral high ground. And you deeply resent that we make you wear trousers.


WTF? Are you feeling ok?
If you feel vile, it certainly has nothing to do with anything I've said, or any of my intentions.

As for the comment about wearing trousers, I think you're doing a good job of convincing everyone you are a substance abuser, or naturally imbalanced.

M.

Originally posted by Criminal

The Cherokees were definately NOT savages. They were a civilized people who practiced agraculture, raised animals and developed an alphabet and had a written language. Yet President Jackson forced these people to leave their homeland at gunpoint. Over a forced march one third of their population died. They died of cold and starvation.


Well then, where is your article condemning the Cherokees for their assistance to the Confederacy and their ownership of slaves? Are you outraged? Does such a fact make what happened to the Indians 'crap' because they perpetrated such acts themselves against others?

Originally posted by Criminal
Once upon a time people were butchered like cattle, slaughtered, entire families split apart, parents having to choose which of their children would die, and all that other crap you hear about happening to Jews in WWII. Except it happened in the United States, and it the Jews were on the winning side.


Originally posted by Malcolm Wright
I think you make a very compelling argument.


ROFL

Originally posted by Criminal

The Cherokees were definately NOT savages. They were a civilized people who practiced agraculture, raised animals and developed an alphabet and had a written language. Yet President Jackson forced these people to leave their homeland at gunpoint. Over a forced march one third of their population died. They died of cold and starvation.

Basically, I would say that the native americans were adapt people well equipt for surviving in their land. You may be interested to know that among the many native peoples there was a high degree of civilization. For instance, the Miami Circle, an artifact found in the city of Miami has been compared to Stonehenge and shows possible links to Phonecian or Egyptian civilization. You may also be interested to know that there were peoples who boult large cities. The city of Cahokia Illinois was one such place where massive mounds exist. Other large cities are found in Arizona and New Mexico. Also consider the great city of Mesa Verde.

Not all indians were barbaric. You may note that some tribes in California lived peaceful lives in harmony with their natural surroundings. Some islanders on the channel islands, among others never knew war until the arival of the white man.
:nice:

Originally posted by Criminal

Loathing for my own heritage you say?

I am a white dude decended from settlers from the Mayflower. I am not ashamed of anything my friend. I would say that Native American culture is no better than Anglo-American, Spanish, French, Chinese, German or any other culture.

I merely am saying that I value human life of all kinds.

I do not believe in punishing peoples for mistakes made by previous generations of their own people. Nor do I believe that all members of a nation or group should be responsible for the crimes committed by their own leaders. This applies to Germans, White Southerners, White South Africans, Americans, Spanish, French, Irish, Scandanavians, Arabs, Italians or anybody else.

We need to remember that all people are first of all human beings. We all bleed the same color of blood. We all have the same basic needs in life: To eat, drink, sleep, work, love and care for our children. Nobody is any different in God's eyes.

Bravo.:nice:
Originally posted by Sulla the Dictator


Well then, where is your article condemning the Cherokees for their assistance to the Confederacy and their ownership of slaves? Are you outraged? Does such a fact make what happened to the Indians 'crap' because they perpetrated such acts themselves against others?

Some tribes did support the Confederacy and did own slaves [and in the modern day, I've met a couple of Native Americans who sadly have racist attiudes about Blacks ].

I don't know if the Cherokee was one of those tribes or not,I also don't know if all Cherokee in all areas particpated in slavery or not.

Eve if so,does that excuse what was done them as a reult of Manifest Destiny?

Originally posted by Truth Teller
Some tribes did support the Confederacy and did own slaves [and in the modern day, I've met a couple of Native Americans who sadly have racist attiudes about Blacks ].

I don't know if the Cherokee was one of those tribes or not,I also don't know if all Cherokee in all areas particpated in slavery or not.

Eve if so,does that excuse what was done them as a reult of Manifest Destiny?

In this context,

Once upon a time people were butchered like cattle, slaughtered, entire families split apart, parents having to choose which of their children would die, and all that other crap you hear about happening to Jews in WWII. Except it happened in the United States, and it the Jews were on the winning side.


The sins of Pro-Confederate, slave holding Indians deserves an indictment which outweighs the suffering others were said to recieve. I'm surprised that you find the above statement to be acceptable, let alone worthy of applause.

Comparing Manifest Destiny with the Holocaust is ridiculous. Not to mention the Jew-baiting.

No, no, no, no, no, Sulla. The jew-baiting is the only good part.

You always get that wrong.

Criminal: Americans are nothing but a bunch of murderous, amoral *******s! But I, Criminal, am morally pure!

Truth Teller: Bravo!

Criminal: Also, cop-killers are cool!

Boot: **** you, punk. You are in serious need of physical correction.

Oh yes, the (sob) Holocaust, where supposedly 6 million Jews were (Whaaaa) slaughtered. Let's look more closely at that claim that is the centerpiece of this Holocaust myth, that gave legitimacy to the Jews invasion of Palestine.

I got interested in this subject years ago. When West Germany agreed to
compensate victims of the holocaust, survivors started coming out of the
woodwork. I asked the German Information Center for the number of surviving
Jews who made claims for restitution, or "Wiedergutmaching". They sent me
a pamphlet called FOCUS ON, dated May 1985. The number was 4,393,365.
This number represents a bare minimum, since the head of a household
survivor makes one claim, for his entire family. No record could be found for
the number of dependents that also survived.


The ADL put out an anthology called THE HOLOCAUST AND GENOCIDE for
the purpose of teaching holocaust to NJ HS students. A large table called
"Estimated Number of Jews Killed in the Final Solution". It gives the
"Estimated pre-final solution population", 1938 for each nation in Europe, and
next to it is another column called "Estimated Jewish Population Annihilated".
The difference of course is trhe number of survivors. In Eastern Europe and
the USSR, the survivors number 2,522,000. (East Germany did not offer
restitution to survivors in Eastern Europe, as W. Germany did.)
By adding this number to the survivors in the West, a sum of the survivors is
6,915,365. How many Jews were there in the areas occupied by the Natzi's
before the war? The ADL lists 8,861,800. Subtracting, we get 1,946,435 as the
maximum number of Jews who died of all causes in occupied territory from
1938 to 1945.

Originally posted by Sulla the Dictator


In this context,

Once upon a time people were butchered like cattle, slaughtered, entire families split apart, parents having to choose which of their children would die, and all that other crap you hear about happening to Jews in WWII. Except it happened in the United States, and it the Jews were on the winning side.



I thought that was insensitive,but I know Crim didn't mean for it be so.

I asked him to explain what he meant by "the Jews" and he hasn't yet.

Personally, I have a problem when people say "The [fill in the blank]",it implies that most,maybe even all of a particular walk of life are invovled in something when they may not be.

I'm still waiting for Crim's side of the story,but I know he's an ok guy and not an anti-Semite.

There have been a few issues where I felt he didn't get it [and he probably has felt the same about me a couple of times] ,but I know his heart's in the right place and that's good enough for me.


The sins of Pro-Confederate, slave holding Indians deserves an indictment which outweighs the suffering others were said to recieve.



I'm not so sure about that.

While it was evil to own slaves and to support the Confederacy,that does not justifies mistreating the people.



I'm surprised that you find the above statement to be acceptable, let alone worthy of applause.


Two wrongs do not make a right.


Comparing Manifest Destiny with the Holocaust is ridiculous.



I disagree.

Genocide is genocide [be it physical or psychologcial].



Not to mention the Jew-baiting.



I re-read Crim's post,I with the exception of one remark ,I do not see it as even potentially Jew-baiting.

I agreed with the post,I saw nothing wrong with it.

I am still confused by the "Jews were on the winning side" remark though.

Crim,could you explain?

>>>While it was evil to own slaves and to support the Confederacy,that does not justifies mistreating the people.

Prove that it is evil to own slaves and to support the Confederacy.

Originally posted by Ed Toner
Subtracting, we get 1,946,435 as the
maximum number of Jews who died of all causes in occupied territory from
1938 to 1945.

Agreed. But there's an awful lot pf people who do not wish to know this.

But then there was only one holocaust, with a capital H, since Stalin's millions don't count as a holocaust, just a little internal housekeeping. Or Pol Pot's (etc, etc). The chosen people are the only ones allowed to be victims.

Originally posted by FaDe
>>>While it was evil to own slaves and to support the Confederacy,that does not justifies mistreating the people.

Prove that it is evil to own slaves and to support the Confederacy.

It isn't necessary for us to help you learn basic morality. Your parents should have done that.

If you cannot understand that slavery is a morally repulsive institution, then you are not prepared to discuss serious issues. If, as I think, you REJECT the idea that slavery is immoral, then you're little more than one of those laughable Goths who pretend to be vampires and who hang out in coffee houses.

Either way, your request doesn't deserve a response.

Emphasis on Confederacy, Sulla. Why was it evil to support the Confederacy? Because the Confederate States were all slavery-legal states?

There were slavery-legal states still in the Union at the time. The issues for the secessionists were states rights, a fundamentally different interpretation of the role of the central government, and rejection of Northern economic and political domination.

Evil?

Originally posted by jack_boot
Emphasis on Confederacy, Sulla. Why was it evil to support the Confederacy? Because the Confederate States were all slavery-legal states?


He DIDN'T put emphasis on the Confederacy. He mentioned BOTH. One, as I pointed out, is more repulsive than the other.

Am I to take from YOUR omission that you recognize slavery as a vile and immoral practice for a 19th century Western nation to indulge in?


There were slavery-legal states still in the Union at the time.


Not many.


The issues for the secessionists were states rights


To own slaves.

a fundamentally different interpretation of the role of the central government


...On the right to control slave ownership. :rolleyes:


and rejection of Northern economic and political domination.


...Because the South couldn't win a particular election? LOL



Evil?

I didn't say the Confederacy was evil. Now why are you avoiding the ACTUAL issue I was addressing Fade about?

Is slavery morally reprehensible, Jack_boot?

Check the Bible for Slavery. Plenty of hits, but I can't find any criticism or condemnation of the practice.

Originally posted by Ed Toner
Check the Bible for Slavery. Plenty of hits, but I can't find any criticism or condemnation of the practice.

LOL I don't care what the bible says or doesn't say. Though its good to see you're almost a PARODY of a racist.

Sulla - Ha Ha yer awrse. It's a legitimate point.

>>>It isn't necessary for us to help you learn basic morality. Your parents should have done that.

We are still waiting for you to tell us the "true morality" and prove it to us all.

>>>If you cannot understand that slavery is a morally repulsive institution

There is no such thing as objective morality.

>>>then you are not prepared to discuss serious issues.

Nice opinion you have there. Does God exist too?

>>>If, as I think, you REJECT the idea that slavery is immoral, then you're little more than one of those laughable Goths who pretend to be vampires and who hang out in coffee houses. Either way, your request doesn't deserve a response.

Its often necessary to attack the person when one does not have an argument. Regardless, prove to us the true morality.

I REJECT the idea that American slavery is immoral. Why should one feel guilt about it? Why not pride instead?

Do you agree?

"Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happens--that some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right."

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

Originally posted by FaDe
>>>It isn't necessary for us to help you learn basic morality. Your parents should have done that.

We are still waiting for you to tell us the "true morality" and prove it to us all.


Values, Fade, are the foundation for real intellect. That you desire to indulge in endless sophistry and relativism results only in you being stunted in that regard. :p


>>>If you cannot understand that slavery is a morally repulsive institution

There is no such thing as objective morality.


Even if such a thing were true, morality DOES exist. If not ONE morality, then many. Which means that YOU, Fade the Butcher, must either find slavery acceptable or reprehensible on moral grounds, either within a grander morality or your own personal one.

Why don't you state your position?


>>>then you are not prepared to discuss serious issues.

Nice opinion you have there.


Its nice because its on point. I'm glad you agree. :p


Does God exist too?


Nope.



I REJECT the idea that American slavery is immoral.


Why?


Why should one feel guilt about it? Why not pride instead?


Why would you feel pride at forcing someone else to do YOUR labor at the point of a gun or the end of a lash?


Do you agree?


No. I do not agree that treating men as animals or machines is something to be proud of.

I don't think eating children is something to be proud of either. I think that might be the NEXT question you ask in your new ideology of Storybook Ogre.

I wonder what the patricians of Rome would think of Sulla and his denigration of slave owners. :p

As a matter of fact I do condemn slavery. I don't think it's a matter of aculturation; the notion bothers me in the guts.

The issue was a point of contention in the Southern secession but not the focus of it. Nor was the Northern aggression a crusade to free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was, in fact, a diplomatic maneuver, meant to forestall the formal recognition of the CSA by the major European powers, and it worked. Of course you realize the Proclamation pertained only to the Confederate territory, and not the Federal, as Lincoln had other political butts to kiss in those Union states still holding slaves. Such is your high moral ground, Sulla, concerning slavery - a molehill of expediency.

That being said, though opposed to slavery, I would not go to war to force a man to desist, providing my own people were not being misused. I would not, for example, intervene militarily to prevent the Hutu from buying or selling the Tutsi, or eating the pygmy, as they are wont to do these days. That is their business, and not mine.

As for the Biblical justification of slavery, or even Aristotle's, I say that though we may be given stewardship over the earth and all creatures on it by divine sanction, or though we may take such stewardship by the strength of our own device, that does not mean we are free to use nature and living things as we will. Rather, such stewardship means exactly the opposite, and that we are responsible for the well being of all creation under our dominion.

Long live the Aryan Race.

>>>Values, Fade, are the foundation for real intellect.

Where did you hear this nonsense? How are values the "foundation" for a "real intellect" Sulla? Values enable us to choose goals, to discriminate amongst courses of action. Intellect enables us to choose means, to discriminate amongst paths to ends. One does not necessarily have to have a particular goal or a particular value to have an intellectual capacity.

>>>That you desire to indulge in endless sophistry and relativism results only in you being stunted in that regard.

When you do not have an argument, simply attack the arguer. Lets see if you can guess which logical fallacy this is. Perhaps you should work more on your "real intellect" before replying to this post. :p

GG, you lose.

>>>Even if such a thing were true, morality DOES exist.

Prove it.

>>>If not ONE morality, then many.

If not one God, then many. :p

>>>Which means that YOU, Fade the Butcher, must either find slavery acceptable or reprehensible on moral grounds, either within a grander morality or your own personal one.

Once again, you have not demonstrated that "morality" is an inate faculty.

>>>Why don't you state your position?

I have stated my position on many occassions. Morality is an illusion. There is no "true morality" anywhere. There is no objective morality either. It is created by human beings, especially by mediocre individuals who simply need to feel better about their own pitiful condition. Existence is amoral. Does a corpse have this "morality" or yours? Does a rock have a "moral" purpose? Do fish ponder the meaning of good and evil? :p

>>>Its nice because its on point. I'm glad you agree.

Who gave you the authority to decide what are and what are not the serious issues?

>>>Nope.

That's good to hear. At least you are one-foot out of make-believe worlds. :p

>>>Why?

See above.

>>>Why would you feel pride at forcing someone else to do YOUR labor at the point of a gun or the end of a lash?

It would leave me free to do other things. :p

>>>No. I do not agree that treating men as animals or machines is something to be proud of.

Men are animals, the mediocre in particular. :p

>>>I don't think eating children is something to be proud of either.

I don't think eating children is something to be proud of either. That does not mean there is anything "moral" or "immoral" about it. I might not like it when a Hurricane hits my neighbourhood. This does not mean "God" sent it himself.

>>>I think that might be the NEXT question you ask in your new ideology of Storybook Ogre.

More pointless rhetoric. Once again, and I have asked you this question several times now and you have avoided the question, what is the true morality Sulla?

Don't cite the dictionary. We can find God in there too. :p

I think that might be the NEXT question you ask in your new ideology of Storybook Ogre.

Originally posted by Sulla the Dictator


LOL I don't care what the bible says or doesn't say. Though its good to see you're almost a PARODY of a racist.

LOL.

So, Fade, now that your ideology du jour is amoralist, other than brute force which the amoralist does not have a monopoly on, what justifies anyone giving two seconds of attention to the opinions or arguments of anyone who's opinions or arguments are based in nothing more than pseudo-solipsist nihilism? There will be a lack of answers to questions beginning in "why"....

>>>So, Fade, now that your ideology du jour is amoralist, other than brute force which the amoralist does not have a monopoly on, what justifies anyone giving two seconds of attention to the opinions or arguments of anyone who's opinions or arguments are based in nothing more than pseudo-solipsist nihilism? There will be a lack of answers to questions beginning in "why"

Perhaps you can tell me just why the "why" and the "opinions" and the "arguments" and the "justification" are even necessary in the first place. What is the point of discussion for the sake of discussion? What is the point in discussion when a decision has already been made, when it is more than obvious no one will change their minds? Boredom, perhaps, then again, I suppose it will be hard for such a supporter of parliamentarianism to understand this. Perhaps your "why" and "opinions" and "arguments" and "justifications" and "reasons" are at bottom nothing but cant aimed at bamboozling the other party into subordinating his interests to your own.

Originally posted by jack_boot
Criminal: Americans are nothing but a bunch of murderous, amoral *******s! But I, Criminal, am morally pure!

Truth Teller: Bravo!

Criminal: Also, cop-killers are cool!

Boot: **** you, punk. You are in serious need of physical correction.

LOL Jack you have me so analyzed!:D

Originally posted by FaDe
[i]Perhaps you can tell me just why the "why" and the "opinions" and the "arguments" and the "justification" are even necessary in the first place. What is the point of discussion for the sake of discussion? What is the point in discussion when a decision has already been made, when it is more than obvious no one will change their minds? Boredom, perhaps, then again, I suppose it will be hard for such a supporter of parliamentarianism to understand this. Perhaps your "why" and "opinions" and "arguments" and "justifications" and "reasons" are at bottom nothing but cant aimed at bamboozling the other party into subordinating his interests to your own.

Well, if life were relegated to merely speaking on a bulletin board, such justifications would be easy to dismiss, but in the real world, decisions have to be made and actions taken for anybody, individual or a group, to function and exist. That any justification or reason as to why those actions and beliefs exists underscores the myth and bankruptcy of amoralism as a fact.

>>>Well, if life were relegated to merely speaking on a bulletin board, such justifications would be easy to dismiss, but in the real world, decisions have to be made and actions taken for anybody, individual or a group, to function and exist.

Yes, in the real world decisions are made. Decisions are also made on bulletin boards and in the midst of our everyday lives. LOL have you watched the Democratic debates? What is the ulterior motive, the purpose behind all the "arguments" and "whys" and "justifications" and "reasons" given by the candidates? Do these debates arrive at any truth? Is that even their aim? No, by and large nothing is given but canting, misrepresentations, deception, and lies. The purpose is to bamboozle the public, the goal, to acquire power for oneself at the expense of others.

>>>That any justification or reason as to why those actions and beliefs exists underscores the myth and bankruptcy of amoralism as a fact.

I don't see how this follows. The idea that "rational men" arrive in parliaments to arrive at "truth" through debate by applying the "light of reason" to public problems is the real myth here. "Morality" is the real tartuffery - not amoralism. Morality is merely a tool, like religion, used to slander one's opponents and control others to acquire power for oneself.

Originally posted by FaDe
Intellect enables us to choose means, to discriminate amongst paths to ends. One does not necessarily have to have a particular goal or a particular value to have an intellectual capacity.


LOL So you're arguing in defense of worthless intellect? Is this your impassioned defense for being Alabama's resident sophist? Congrats on being the worthless Southern belle with a bizarre knowledge for Neitzsche but an empty worldview. :p


>>>That you desire to indulge in endless sophistry and relativism results only in you being stunted in that regard.

When you do not have an argument, simply attack the arguer.


I'm not having an argument. I'm pointing out your flaws, so that you may fix them.


Lets see if you can guess which logical fallacy this is.


Don't bore me. Get rid of that crutch, Fade.


>>>Even if such a thing were true, morality DOES exist.

Prove it.


I don't need to, actually. I don't need to prove to you that I'm a human being typing on a keyboard, rather than an alien from Pluto. That you decide to be ridiculous and question that fact simply shows you can't be taken seriously.


>>>If not ONE morality, then many.

If not one God, then many. :p


You're mocking yourself, since I was operating off of your implication that morality was relative. But since you're ALL OVER THE PLACE ideologically, it seems you've changed your position yet again.



Once again, you have not demonstrated that "morality" is an inate faculty.'


Do you know what morality is Fade?


>>>Why don't you state your position?

I have stated my position on many occassions. Morality is an illusion. There is no "true morality" anywhere.


Fine. Then it wouldn't be immoral for someone to remove the skin of your children and force you to eat it?


There is no objective morality either. It is created by human beings, especially by mediocre individuals who simply need to feel better about their own pitiful condition. Existence is amoral. Does a corpse have this "morality" or yours? Does a rock have a "moral" purpose? Do fish ponder the meaning of good and evil?


Oh, I'm more than willing to agree that you have all the moral fortitude of a rock, or a fish, or any other simple geological thing or biological organism in the wilderness. :p

However, morality and virtue and values come with civilization. You, being an angry fellow who DESIRES to be a rutting beast, naturally wouldn't feel comfortable in civilized circles.



>>>Its nice because its on point. I'm glad you agree.

Who gave you the authority to decide what are and what are not the serious issues?


Well, in the context of THIS discussion, the fact that I have been consistant on my positions and view points from the first post I made on the DoD board to this one, and the fact that you change ideologies like Liz Taylor changes husbands. :p



>>>Nope.

That's good to hear. At least you are one-foot out of make-believe worlds. :p


Its good to hear you've gotten off your bigot fad, since you're rejecting 50% of the virtues of Western Civilization in your anti-morals kick. :p



>>>Why?

See above.


I reject it.


>>>Why would you feel pride at forcing someone else to do YOUR labor at the point of a gun or the end of a lash?

It would leave me free to do other things.


So there is no moral imperative which should shield YOU from becoming a slave?


>>>No. I do not agree that treating men as animals or machines is something to be proud of.

Men are animals, the mediocre in particular.


Men are animals in the same way men are atoms. The same way a mountain is dirt. The same way the ocean is a wave.

You have no perspective. :p


>>>I don't think eating children is something to be proud of either.

I don't think eating children is something to be proud of either. That does not mean there is anything "moral" or "immoral" about it. I might not like it when a Hurricane hits my neighbourhood. This does not mean "God" sent it himself.


Do you know what morality is?


>>>I think that might be the NEXT question you ask in your new ideology of Storybook Ogre.

More pointless rhetoric. Once again, and I have asked you this question several times now and you have avoided the question, what is the true morality Sulla?


Why don't you first define what YOU think the word morality means.

>>>LOL So you're arguing in defense of worthless intellect?

No, I am disputing your notion that values are the foundation of intellect. We possess intellect even in the absence of values. They are NOT one in the same. One might not come to value the taste of spaghetti until late in life. Does it follow that one's intellect up until one's later years has been baseless? No, that is an absurdity.

>>>Is this your impassioned defense for being Alabama's resident sophist? Congrats on being the worthless Southern belle with a bizarre knowledge for Neitzsche but an empty worldview.

"When you do not have an argument, simply attack the arguer. Lets see if you can guess which logical fallacy this is. Perhaps you should work more on your "real intellect" before replying to this post.

GG, you lose."

-- FadeTheButcher

>>>I'm not having an argument. I'm pointing out your flaws, so that you may fix them.

Is that right? Is there a "true morality" Sulla? Are you agreeing with me that such a thing does not exist? If that is not the case, are you simply disputing my position and contradicting yourself?

ar·gu·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärgy-mnt)
n.

1. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
2. A quarrel; a dispute.
3. Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention: “sheath'd their swords for lack of argument” (Shakespeare).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=argument

>>>Don't bore me. Get rid of that crutch, Fade.

You never really have been a fan of logical arguments. See above. :p

>>>I don't need to, actually. I don't need to prove to you that I'm a human being typing on a keyboard, rather than an alien from Pluto. That you decide to be ridiculous and question that fact simply shows you can't be taken seriously.

LOL, pwnd.

>>>You're mocking yourself, since I was operating off of your implication that morality was relative. But since you're ALL OVER THE PLACE ideologically, it seems you've changed your position yet again.

Is there one morality Sulla? I have suggested morality is an illusion. You replied and stated you were not making an argument. An argument is a dispute. Are you agreeing with my position or are you simply contradicting yourself?

>>>Do you know what morality is Fade?

I have yet to see proof morality even exists.

>>>Fine. Then it wouldn't be immoral for someone to remove the skin of your children and force you to eat it?

Existence is amoral. The action described above would be just that, an action.

>>>Oh, I'm more than willing to agree that you have all the moral fortitude of a rock, or a fish, or any other simple geological thing or biological organism in the wilderness.

You have yet to establish the existence of morality. :p

>>>However, morality and virtue and values come with civilization. You, being an angry fellow who DESIRES to be a rutting beast, naturally wouldn't feel comfortable in civilized circles.

One does not have to be "civilized" to have values, much less to believe in the illusion of morality, much less to have virtues. Your second sentance looks even more absurd in this light.

>>>Well, in the context of THIS discussion, the fact that I have been consistant on my positions and view points from the first post I made on the DoD board to this one, and the fact that you change ideologies like Liz Taylor changes husbands.

Being consistently wrong, in itself, does not confer authority upon anyone. :p

>>>Its good to hear you've gotten off your bigot fad, since you're rejecting 50% of the virtues of Western Civilization in your anti-morals kick

What makes you suppose that civilizations have virtues? What makes you suppose there is even a thing that can be called the virtues of Western Civilization in the first place? Do you suppose we have the same "virtues" today that were popularly held to be "virtues" in the Middle Ages?

>>>So there is no moral imperative which should shield YOU from becoming a slave?

There is no moral imperative to do anything any more than there is an imperative from Jesus Christ, from Allah, or Budda.

>>>Men are animals in the same way men are atoms. The same way a moutain is dirt. The same way the ocean is a wave. You have no perspective.

I thought I was a relativist. :(

>>>Do you know what morality is?

A word that describes something that does not exist. God is another similar concept.

>>>Why don't you first define what YOU think the word morality means.

What distinguishes that which does not exist? What is "morality" popularly held to be? A system of values that distinguishes between good and evil - a popular superstition.