Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, m7600 said:

@Genava55 That's relativism, not a cold hard fact.

Here's some food for thought: 2 + 2 = 4 no matter the place or time. It's valid for Ancient Rome, for our current time, and for the distant future. In the same way, an unethical action is always an unethical action, no matter the place or time. Ethics is universal because it is predicated upon an imperative which is not hypothetical, but instead categorical. You can claim that 2 + 2 = 5, that does not mean that you are right. An entire group of people, even the entire population of the world, can claim that 2 + 2 = 5. That does not mean that they are right either. Future generations can minimize or even glorify Hitler's actions, that does not mean that they are right.

Moral is not really a fact. There is no physical law making an action right or wrong. This is always a matter of point of view.

Moreover, moral judgement is often driven by emotion as much than reason. If again I take the example of Genghis Khan, he was viewed as a tyrant and a bloody conqueror. The consequences of his conquest on the history of several nations are not small. Nonetheless, he is viewed as a neutral historical figure for most people. It is acceptable to portray him as a protagonist in a video game for example. My point is that when time passes, emotions fade.

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is not a political message and should not be construed as such. This is just a matter of fact that everyone deserves a chance to live. Enjoy your day and stay safe, wherever you are.

Ok people: cool it. I think we can all agree that the #BlackLivesMatter campaign is important, particularly after the events of the past couple of weeks. And yes, it is a pity that the actions of

Posted Images

8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

First Nations tribes are still reeling from 500 years of degradation, ethnic cleansing, and forced poverty.

He is really responsible for this? I don't think so.

8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

/Building/ the statues had an ideological motive. They weren't built by academics intending to represent history fairly and impartially. You've indicated already you understand that. Keeping them up is yet another ideological motive by many who oppose their removal.

The statues are a part of history either. The image of Columbus in US history is not based on his tyranny against the natives. 

If he was revered as an important figure of US history three centuries after his death, this is mostly based on the adventurous explorer imagery.

See Irving biography of Columbus, it had a big impact on public opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Life_and_Voyages_of_Christopher_Columbus

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Genava55 said:

I hope there will be deeper changes in the mentalities and in social protection instead of symbolic (and unsmart) destruction of Columbus, Churchill and other historical figures statues.

I can understand the issue about Confederate monuments (because they were build specifically to insult black people for a big part) but for the other historical figures it is really excessive.

Indeed, toppling statues, renaming things, or rewriting history doesn't solve the problem, nor would protesting on the streets or electing another president. That said, moving art from the streets to museums doesn't hurt either, and it gives the opportunity to erect something more fashionable.

(By the way, George Washington was a slave owner, and the Democrats used to be the party of the Jim Crow laws and the Solid South, whereas the Republicans were the party of liberals and human rights activists.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Moreover, moral judgement is often driven by emotion as much than reason. If again I take the example of Genghis Khan, he was viewed as a tyrant and a bloody conqueror. The consequences of his conquest on the history of several nations are not small. Nonetheless, he is viewed as a neutral historical figure for most people. It is acceptable to portray him as a protagonist in a video game for example. My point is that when time passes, emotions fade.

Indeed, Genghis Khan was exceptionally bloody. Compared to him, Alexander, Caesar, Attila, Timur (Tamerlane), Napoleon, and even Leopold II, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were nice chaps.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Moral is not really a fact. There is no physical law making an action right or wrong. This is always a matter of point of view.

Moreover, moral judgement is often driven by emotion as much than reason. If again I take the example of Genghis Khan, he was viewed as a tyrant and a bloody conqueror. The consequences of his conquest on the history of several nations are not small. Nonetheless, he is viewed as a neutral historical figure for most people. It is acceptable to portray him as a protagonist in a video game for example. My point is that when time passes, emotions fade.

That first sentence is a bold claim.  Simply because there is no physical law does not mean that there are no moral absolutes; even a good number of atheists such as Sam Harris subscribe to the point that a distinction between values and scientific facts is arbitrary and instead use naturalistic principles to derive their moral systems.  Just because points of view differ from one time to the next does not undermine that given the fact that humans are flawed.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

That first sentence is a bold claim.

A bold claim I assume entirely. But I don't think it is as bold as saying moral values are on the same level than mathematical theories.

46 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Simply because there is no physical law does not mean that there are no moral absolutes; even a good number of atheists such as Sam Harris subscribe to the point that a distinction between values and scientific facts is arbitrary and instead use naturalistic principles to derive their moral systems.

It means simply that you cannot test a set of moral values and you cannot replicate it. There is no demonstration on the level of a scientific theory.

Most defenders of moral absolutism are slightly disagreeing with each others on which values are absolute. The same for moral universalism.

For me it is really important to point it out that you cannot hold the entire truth of what is wrong and what is right and everyone should remembers the fact that your opinion on the moral is as much flawed than the human nature.

In my opinion, people having an issue with a statue are simply displaying an excess of ego and confidence about their righteousness and are trying to use a monument as a political symbol in the debate. This is politicization of historical monuments and it shouldn't be taken lightly. I can understand the issue with Confederate monuments because they are politicized from the beginning but for monument like Columbus statue this is not the case. People seeing the world only through their ideological and political lens are really a danger in my opinion.

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

every1 who doesnt hate black ppl already knows this thoes who do im sure wont care for the message.

what is saying "black lives matter" supposed to accomplish?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, vinme said:

every1 who doesnt hate black ppl already knows this thoes who do im sure wont care for the message.

what is saying "black lives matter" supposed to accomplish?

First of all raising awareness. The police cant afford to cover racists practice by police anymore if there is public pressure on the responsible executives. Also it is about fighting for cultural hegemony in that area, which is of major importance to make sure there will be no dominating "white supremacist" culture amongst younger generations and elsewhere in society

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think something that should change in US culture and mentality is their excessive and twisted faith in meritocracy. A lot of people in the US do not understand how socio-economical disadvantages can undermine the destiny of individuals and their community. It is really tiresome to hear US politician labelling their opponent as communist or marxist simply because he/she defends a better social system.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

I think something that should change in US culture and mentality is their excessive and twisted faith in meritocracy.

While I agree with this claim, I believe that there are far worse problems directly related to the issue of this thread: the war of drugs and the rise of private prisons. There's also cause for concern in other countries if these trends spread outside the US.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Trinketos said:

And how are the protests in the USA?

 

They are saying protests are planned for the summer. Geez I barely survived this last round of looting in LA ...

and I was just trying to stay out of the way :blink:

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nation-wide gun control, proper police training, accessable health care, sick leave, maternity and paternity leave, a minimum wage, decent social security, public transport, and, perhaps most importantly, affordable high-quality education are all things most civilized countries have nowadays.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Nation-wide gun control

This one will be difficult, since it could be rejected based on the Second Amendment. But I agree with everything else that you said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Americans are significantly more likely to die:

and presumably they're overrepresented in other causes too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2020 at 2:02 PM, Genava55 said:

In my opinion, people having an issue with a statue are simply displaying an excess of ego and confidence about their righteousness and are trying to use a monument as a political symbol in the debate. This is politicization of historical monuments and it shouldn't be taken lightly. I can understand the issue with Confederate monuments because they are politicized from the beginning but for monument like Columbus statue this is not the case. People seeing the world only through their ideological and political lens are really a danger in my opinion.

Banksy.thumb.png.0312a25796c8675820a0a1df7ad1b029.png

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nescio said:

Banksy.thumb.png.0312a25796c8675820a0a1df7ad1b029.png

If he wants to politicize the statue, let's do it with a democratic poll in Bristol. The city is mainly on the left wing, so nobody should be afraid of a democratic process. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Genava55 said:

If he wants to politicize the statue, let's do it with a democratic poll in Bristol. The city is mainly on the left wing, so nobody should be afraid of a democratic process. 

politicians who allow this were elected ..  so you have your answer...

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JC (naval supremacist) said:

since when the lives of blacks don't matter ?

 

Do you have Netflix? If so, then start with the documentary "13th," about the 13th Amendment and its use to justify criminalizing blackness. After, come back with additional questions if you must.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Do you have Netflix? If so, then start with the documentary "13th," about the 13th Amendment and its use to justify criminalizing blackness. After, come back with additional questions if you must.

Netflix is a joke. Wokeflix.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • feneur locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...