DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,390
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Jan 16, 2024 22:21:47 GMT
This thread reminds me of two arguments I used to make regularly.
The first being that we have not evolved since the days of the Romans. We are still the same homo sapiens. And in many ways have regressed as opposed to evolving.
The second being that the value of human life decreases exponentially with distance. As it always has and always will.
The distances are just getting smaller as the world get smaller. Which gives a corresponding and misleading impression that human life is more "valued" than it was 2,000 years ago.
But it's not. And never will be.
Queshank
I don't think I agree. In Roman time, a father could legally sell his kids as slaves or kill them "if they angered him", no questions asked. In Napoleon the first's time, a father could decide to put his son in jail for up to three months "if he misbehaved" and the gendarmes would take him there, no questions asked. Well, today in occident, not only can a father do neither of those things, but he could be jailed for maltreatment or neglect of his child. I don't know about you but I call that progress. |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Jan 17, 2024 19:40:13 GMT
This thread reminds me of two arguments I used to make regularly.
The first being that we have not evolved since the days of the Romans. We are still the same homo sapiens. And in many ways have regressed as opposed to evolving.
The second being that the value of human life decreases exponentially with distance. As it always has and always will.
The distances are just getting smaller as the world get smaller. Which gives a corresponding and misleading impression that human life is more "valued" than it was 2,000 years ago. But it's not. And never will be.
Queshank
I don't think I agree. In Roman time, a father could legally sell his kids as slaves or kill them "if they angered him", no questions asked. In Napoleon the first's time, a father could decide to put his son in jail for up to three months "if he misbehaved" and the gendarmes would take him there, no questions asked. Well, today in occident, not only can a father do neither of those things, but he could be jailed for maltreatment or neglect of his child. I don't know about you but I call that progress. Oh I'm certainly not arguing that! However ... that seems to be the case today as there are more kids in slavery today than at any time in world history. Modern slavery occurs in almost every country in the world, and cuts across ethnic, cultural and religious lines. More than half (52 per cent) of all forced labour and a quarter of all forced marriages can be found in upper-middle income or high-income countries.
But to keep things specifically in examples I used to argue ...
Roman concrete is superior to ours for example.
Adoption was widely accepted and practiced. And there were certainly no prejudices against it as adopted children regularly became senators and even in the imperial days, emperors. They truly had no problem with diversity even religious diversity.
We still talk today with admiration about this guy's philosophical creed. Regardless what you think of the religion ... the historical Jesus taught what he taught 2000 years ago. The NFL gets more popular even as the evidence for brain damage that destroys lives in participants mounts. Is it better than gladiator arenas because there's less visible blood? Because when they kill their families ... it's on page 6 because they haven't been relevant for 20 years? I think about that sometimes. (Even OJ is claiming he has the damage...)
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 17, 2024 23:52:18 GMT
The second being that the value of human life decreases exponentially with distance. As it always has and always will. Depends what you mean by "value". If you mean that people love those closest and hate those furthest away, that's definitely not true. Israeli and Palestinians definitely hate each other much more than they hate, say, Laotians. |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Jan 18, 2024 0:06:08 GMT
The second being that the value of human life decreases exponentially with distance. As it always has and always will. Depends what you mean by "value". If you mean that people love those closest and hate those furthest away, that's definitely not true. Israeli and Palestinians definitely hate each other much more than they hate, say, Laotians.
And yet Israelis and Palestinians notice and feel more strongly about the deaths of Palestinians and Israelis more than they do Loatians.
My point is simply that nobody in Israel even notices that people in Loatia have died. It doesn't affect their lives.
But I do think the "value" of human life is a little bit distorted when we're looking through the lens of war. Which is what Israel and Palestinians have been at for quite some time.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 21, 2024 20:29:28 GMT
Depends what you mean by "value". If you mean that people love those closest and hate those furthest away, that's definitely not true. Israeli and Palestinians definitely hate each other much more than they hate, say, Laotians. And yet Israelis and Palestinians notice and feel more strongly about the deaths of Palestinians and Israelis more than they do Loatians. My point is simply that nobody in Israel even notices that people in Loatia have died. It doesn't affect their lives. But I do think the "value" of human life is a little bit distorted when we're looking through the lens of war. Which is what Israel and Palestinians have been at for quite some time.
Queshank
Ah okay, yes, that makes sense. People do not necessarily love the people closest to them, but they do tend to think they are more important, both for good and evil. |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,390
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Jan 21, 2024 23:18:13 GMT
I don't think I agree. In Roman time, a father could legally sell his kids as slaves or kill them "if they angered him", no questions asked. In Napoleon the first's time, a father could decide to put his son in jail for up to three months "if he misbehaved" and the gendarmes would take him there, no questions asked. Well, today in occident, not only can a father do neither of those things, but he could be jailed for maltreatment or neglect of his child. I don't know about you but I call that progress. Oh I'm certainly not arguing that! However ... that seems to be the case today as there are more kids in slavery today than at any time in world history. ... You can thank modern religion for a large part of it. It's the Vatican that decreed that though the pre-Columbian people were men (even though they hadn't heard of Christ) and as such shouldn't be taken as slaves, the black people from Africa weren't and therefore were OK to be turned into slaves. They did that in the Valladolid debate in 1537, opening the door to more than three centuries of slavery. |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Jan 22, 2024 19:48:59 GMT
Oh I'm certainly not arguing that! However ... that seems to be the case today as there are more kids in slavery today than at any time in world history. ... You can thank modern religion for a large part of it. It's the Vatican that decreed that though the pre-Columbian people were men (even though they hadn't heard of Christ) and as such shouldn't be taken as slaves, the black people from Africa weren't and therefore were OK to be turned into slaves. They did that in the Valladolid debate in 1537, opening the door to more than three centuries of slavery. I don't think the Reformation era "universal" church is representative of "modern religion." I have to assume you simply mispoke due to your Louisiania upbringing with that 
I also don't think 1537 was the year that opened the door to slavery ...
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Jan 22, 2024 19:51:18 GMT
And yet Israelis and Palestinians notice and feel more strongly about the deaths of Palestinians and Israelis more than they do Loatians. My point is simply that nobody in Israel even notices that people in Loatia have died. It doesn't affect their lives. But I do think the "value" of human life is a little bit distorted when we're looking through the lens of war. Which is what Israel and Palestinians have been at for quite some time.
Queshank
Ah okay, yes, that makes sense. People do not necessarily love the people closest to them, but they do tend to think they are more important, both for good and evil.
I think you're right and "importance" is a better word than value. I'm gonna use that going forward to be clearer.
I started thinking in these terms after the tsunami in 2004 Indonesia. 100,000+ people dead. In a blink. My god. The heartbreak. And yet, I'm able to function normally. It's like it's not even real. In comparison to the death of a family member.
That's the context in which I've been trying to think on this subject for awhile now. Nobody ever wants to talk about it tho  EDIT: Good grief why is a simple : ( so dramatic?
Queshank
|
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,390
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Jan 22, 2024 22:20:55 GMT
You can thank modern religion for a large part of it. It's the Vatican that decreed that though the pre-Columbian people were men (even though they hadn't heard of Christ) and as such shouldn't be taken as slaves, the black people from Africa weren't and therefore were OK to be turned into slaves. They did that in the Valladolid debate in 1537, opening the door to more than three centuries of slavery. I don't think the Reformation era "universal" church is representative of "modern religion." I have to assume you simply mispoke due to your Louisiania upbringing with that Your white trash upbringing is showing... Valladolid is what started the wholesale smuggling of African slaves to the Americas for the centuries that followed, idiot. You're either deliberately ignorant, or simply ignorant. If you weren't so stupid you would have noticed that it wasn't what I said at all, but you are, so... Valladolid didn't invent slavery anymore than say, Hitler invented the massive killing of Jews, but the two are very significant in their respective areas. Also I notice how unspecific you are with your "objections", white trash, as if you were worried that your "precision" might come back and bit you in the ass... Well, maybe you're right to being worried, chicken little, after all you're way out of your domain here, which means anything but current events... |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,390
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Jan 22, 2024 22:27:20 GMT
Ah okay, yes, that makes sense. People do not necessarily love the people closest to them, but they do tend to think they are more important, both for good and evil.
I think you're right and "importance" is a better word than value. I'm gonna use that going forward to be clearer.
I started thinking in these terms after the tsunami in 2004 Indonesia. 100,000+ people dead. In a blink. My god. The heartbreak. And yet, I'm able to function normally. It's like it's not even real. In comparison to the death of a family member.
That's the context in which I've been trying to think on this subject for awhile now. Nobody ever wants to talk about it tho EDIT: Good grief why is a simple : ( so dramatic?
Queshank
Wow, you're making real strides in modern psychology here!!! It's like I am witnessing an historical moment. I'll bet you're so impressed with yourself that you can hardly contain your bladder... although, is it from contentment or just from being old... That's a hard call. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 23, 2024 13:49:27 GMT
Oh I'm certainly not arguing that! However ... that seems to be the case today as there are more kids in slavery today than at any time in world history. ... You can thank modern religion for a large part of it. It's the Vatican that decreed that though the pre-Columbian people were men (even though they hadn't heard of Christ) and as such shouldn't be taken as slaves, the black people from Africa weren't and therefore were OK to be turned into slaves. They did that in the Valladolid debate in 1537, opening the door to more than three centuries of slavery. You can thank “modern religion” (and nobody else, really) for shifting the world to make slavery unacceptable. |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,390
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Jan 24, 2024 0:58:16 GMT
You can thank modern religion for a large part of it. It's the Vatican that decreed that though the pre-Columbian people were men (even though they hadn't heard of Christ) and as such shouldn't be taken as slaves, the black people from Africa weren't and therefore were OK to be turned into slaves. They did that in the Valladolid debate in 1537, opening the door to more than three centuries of slavery. You can thank “modern religion” (and nobody else, really) for shifting the world to make slavery unacceptable. What do you base that on? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 24, 2024 12:49:01 GMT
You can thank “modern religion” (and nobody else, really) for shifting the world to make slavery unacceptable. What do you base that on? The facts of history. While “race based slavery” was a fairly recent development in the world, slavery in general was pretty well ubiquitous. It was Christians, more specifically Protestant Christians that initiated the suppression of slavery (most notably William Wilberforce). To be fair, there were Catholic voices that spoke up against mistreatment of slaves and even going back to the early church, slavery was condemned, but those moves always seemed to be overwhelmed by political and economic interests in society. |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,390
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Jan 25, 2024 13:00:25 GMT
What do you base that on? The facts of history. While “race based slavery” was a fairly recent development in the world, slavery in general was pretty well ubiquitous. It was Christians, more specifically Protestant Christians that initiated the suppression of slavery (most notably William Wilberforce). To be fair, there were Catholic voices that spoke up against mistreatment of slaves and even going back to the early church, slavery was condemned, but those moves always seemed to be overwhelmed by political and economic interests in society. I think it's a little unfair to claim WW as a Christian because he did something that you like when the general response when someone points out something bad a Christian did is that it wasn't a "true" Christian or that he wasn't behaving like a Christian should. With that kind of reasoning you can never lose. I mean you're not going to say that Spartacus was a pre-Christian, are you? Or that Liberia was founded by Christians? What I mean is that you need a little more, a lot more actually, than a handful of people to honestly say that Christians are the ones who brought slavery to and end, when in fact there is still slavery in the world today, a great deal of it actually. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 25, 2024 13:58:36 GMT
The facts of history. While “race based slavery” was a fairly recent development in the world, slavery in general was pretty well ubiquitous. It was Christians, more specifically Protestant Christians that initiated the suppression of slavery (most notably William Wilberforce). To be fair, there were Catholic voices that spoke up against mistreatment of slaves and even going back to the early church, slavery was condemned, but those moves always seemed to be overwhelmed by political and economic interests in society. I think it's a little unfair to claim WW as a Christian because he did something that you like when the general response when someone points out something bad a Christian did is that it wasn't a "true" Christian or that he wasn't behaving like a Christian should. With that kind of reasoning you can never lose. I mean you're not going to say that Spartacus was a pre-Christian, are you? Or that Liberia was founded by Christians? What I mean is that you need a little more, a lot more actually, than a handful of people to honestly say that Christians are the ones who brought slavery to and end, when in fact there is still slavery in the world today, a great deal of it actually. I didn’t say “brought slavery to an end.” And it would be helpful to read William Wilberforce’s own words before you dismiss whether or not he was motivated by his own Christianity. Not that Wilberforce was by any means the only one. And there’s no evidence that Spartacus was attempting to end the institution of slavery (Hollywood scripts notwithstanding). The historical facts are pretty clear—you have to stretch pretty hard to deny it. |
|
