Politics And Current Events

[CBear3]

oy vey

I thought Freddy was the Jewish major?

I'm proud that most of Mizzou's buildings and colleges are simply named after people who gave a shitload of money with no pretense that it was named in their "honor."

[Freddy Rumsen]

Please then by all means allow our educational system to only expose students to contemporary thinkers and doers who meet this standard, which of course would mean every generation would need to cast down the previous era's writers as things invariable progress and this days moral good is the next moments moral evil.

I don't have any respect for people - including our vaunted founding fathers - who owned other human beings. If you agree or disagree, please let me know.

Educated adults can make distinctions between a man's sins and their positive works using critical thinking skills to do so.

Acknowledging that all men have clay feet makes learning worthwhile.

Martin Luther King was an adulterer, a plagiarist, and an embezzled funds from civil rights groups for his own personal use.

None of that has any effect on the reasons why he deserves our highest praise and respect.

[shafnutz05]

Martin Luther King was an adulterer, a plagiarist, and an embezzled funds from civil rights groups for his own personal use.

None of that has any effect on the reasons why he deserves our highest praise and respect.

This is where I'm at. Slavery is and was obviously abhorrent, but you simply cannot apply what we know now to people that lived in the first half of the 19th century. At that time, owning slaves was looked at no differently than owning a dishwasher today. That is objectively terrible, but at the same time, I cannot not and will not make a blanket statement that John C Calhoun, Thomas Jefferson, etc were horrible people because they were born and lived in a culture that practiced slavery.

As an amateur historian, I'm uncomfortable with the whitewashing of history. I.E, refusing to learn about or acknowledge the lives of a historical figure simply because they practiced what everyone else did during that time period. And the idea of calling it "cultural" or "moral relativism" is equally stupid. Relativism implies that slavery wasn't wrong then. It was.

[columbia]

Please then by all means allow our educational system to only expose students to contemporary thinkers and doers who meet this standard, which of course would mean every generation would need to cast down the previous era's writers as things invariable progress and this days moral good is the next moments moral evil.

I don't have any respect for people - including our vaunted founding fathers - who owned other human beings. If you agree or disagree, please let me know.

Educated adults can make distinctions between a man's sins and their positive works using critical thinking skills to do so.

Acknowledging that all men have clay feet makes learning worthwhile.

Martin Luther King was an adulterer, a plagiarist, and an embezzled funds from civil rights groups for his own personal use.

None of that has any effect on the reasons why he deserves our highest praise and respect.

TIL that adultery = owning other human beings.

Thanks for demonstrating that you are indeed a moral relativist, which clearly subverts both your faith and your profession.
Good luck with that that in the pulpit.

[shafnutz05]

Thanks for demonstrating that you are indeed a moral relativist, which clearly subverts both your faith and your profession.

Good luck with that in that in the pulpit.

Again, I don't think you have any idea what the term "moral relativist" means. Freddy is not arguing that slavery was "right" then and "wrong" now. That's relativism. He is arguing that judging the entire life's work of an 18th century figure because they practiced slavery, which was exceedingly common at that time, is short-sighted and over-simplistic.

[columbia]

Thanks for demonstrating that you are indeed a moral relativist, which clearly subverts both your faith and your profession.

Good luck with that in that in the pulpit.

Again, I don't think you have any idea what the term "moral relativist" means. Freddy is not arguing that slavery was "right" then and "wrong" now. That's relativism. He is arguing that judging the entire life's work of an 18th century figure because they practiced slavery, which was exceedingly common at that time, is short-sighted and over-simplistic.

Because owning other human beings is just a personality facet.

Are you drunk?

[Freddy Rumsen]

Please then by all means allow our educational system to only expose students to contemporary thinkers and doers who meet this standard, which of course would mean every generation would need to cast down the previous era's writers as things invariable progress and this days moral good is the next moments moral evil.

I don't have any respect for people - including our vaunted founding fathers - who owned other human beings. If you agree or disagree, please let me know.

Educated adults can make distinctions between a man's sins and their positive works using critical thinking skills to do so.

Acknowledging that all men have clay feet makes learning worthwhile.

Martin Luther King was an adulterer, a plagiarist, and an embezzled funds from civil rights groups for his own personal use.

None of that has any effect on the reasons why he deserves our highest praise and respect.

TIL that adultery = owning other human beings.

Thanks for demonstrating that you are indeed a moral relativist, which clearly subverts both your faith and your profession.
Good luck with that that in the pulpit.

Quite the opposite actually.

Recogizing the reality that no man is inherently good, not just with the eyeglasses of the arrogance of chronology, allows one to actually learn something from history and apply it to today and the future.

Taking a flamethrower to the past gives poverty to intellectual thought.

[shafnutz05]

Thanks for demonstrating that you are indeed a moral relativist, which clearly subverts both your faith and your profession.

Good luck with that in that in the pulpit.

Again, I don't think you have any idea what the term "moral relativist" means. Freddy is not arguing that slavery was "right" then and "wrong" now. That's relativism. He is arguing that judging the entire life's work of an 18th century figure because they practiced slavery, which was exceedingly common at that time, is short-sighted and over-simplistic.

Because owning other human beings is just a personality facet.

Are you drunk?

I'm honestly not sure what point you are trying to make here. No one claimed that? From a historical perspective, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la la" when learning about the life's work of a historical figure because they owned slaves, is intellectually silly. Everyone here knows that slavery is objectively wrong. Why are you still arguing that point?

[mikey]

What a dumb discussion...we moved on from "the people in the blue ties are as bad as the people with the red ties because of X"...now we disregard our history because we decided to take the very relevant high ground of "ya know, slavery was bad and therefore nothing anyone has done can be recognized"...

Yes, it's a black mark...no question. But you just start an unnecessary historical avalanche by high-horsing a historical discussion several generations after the fact...it's another limp play to stifle conversation for no legitimately relevant reason...

[columbia]

Please then by all means allow our educational system to only expose students to contemporary thinkers and doers who meet this standard, which of course would mean every generation would need to cast down the previous era's writers as things invariable progress and this days moral good is the next moments moral evil.

I don't have any respect for people - including our vaunted founding fathers - who owned other human beings. If you agree or disagree, please let me know.

Educated adults can make distinctions between a man's sins and their positive works using critical thinking skills to do so.

Acknowledging that all men have clay feet makes learning worthwhile.

Martin Luther King was an adulterer, a plagiarist, and an embezzled funds from civil rights groups for his own personal use.

None of that has any effect on the reasons why he deserves our highest praise and respect.

TIL that adultery = owning other human beings.

Thanks for demonstrating that you are indeed a moral relativist, which clearly subverts both your faith and your profession.
Good luck with that that in the pulpit.

Quite the opposite actually.

Recogizing the reality that no man is inherently good, not just with the eyeglasses of the arrogance of chronology, allows one to actually learn something from history and apply it to today and the future.

Taking a flamethrower to the past gives poverty to intellectual thought.

No, but it possibly indicates that you have a less than developed moral core.
if morality - as seemingly defined by you - isn't absolute, then you're out of a job.

[columbia]

Thanks for demonstrating that you are indeed a moral relativist, which clearly subverts both your faith and your profession.

Good luck with that in that in the pulpit.

Again, I don't think you have any idea what the term "moral relativist" means. Freddy is not arguing that slavery was "right" then and "wrong" now. That's relativism. He is arguing that judging the entire life's work of an 18th century figure because they practiced slavery, which was exceedingly common at that time, is short-sighted and over-simplistic.

Because owning other human beings is just a personality facet.

Are you drunk?

I'm honestly not sure what point you are trying to make here. No one claimed that? From a historical perspective, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la la" when learning about the life's work of a historical figure because they owned slaves, is intellectually silly. Everyone here knows that slavery is objectively wrong. Why are you still arguing that point?

So Christian morality isn''s absolute?

[count2infinity]

Dafuq is going on in here?

[Gaucho]

Jefferson's relationship with slavery is a very interesting topic. Bottom line: he knew very well it's not at all like owning a dishwasher. But at the same time, he was of course very much a product of his time.

[shafnutz05]

No, but it possibly indicates that you have a less than developed moral core.
if morality - as seemingly defined by you - isn't absolute, then you're out of a job.

Morality is absolute, IMO. Slavery is morally wrong. But you cannot assess the life of a historical figure that lived in an era in which slavery was considered normal, and dismiss every other thing they did in their life because they owned slaves. It's academically and intellectually lazy.

[columbia]

Dafuq is going on in here?

People pretending that their belief system doesn't say mean they have said it means,

[grunthy]

Thanks for demonstrating that you are indeed a moral relativist, which clearly subverts both your faith and your profession.

Good luck with that in that in the pulpit.

Again, I don't think you have any idea what the term "moral relativist" means. Freddy is not arguing that slavery was "right" then and "wrong" now. That's relativism. He is arguing that judging the entire life's work of an 18th century figure because they practiced slavery, which was exceedingly common at that time, is short-sighted and over-simplistic.

Because owning other human beings is just a personality facet.

Are you drunk?

I'm sure you are...

[shafnutz05]

very much a product of his time.

Precisely.

[columbia]

No, but it possibly indicates that you have a less than developed moral core.
if morality - as seemingly defined by you - isn't absolute, then you're out of a job.

Morality is absolute, IMO. Slavery is morally wrong. But you cannot assess the life of a historical figure that lived in an era in which slavery was considered normal, and dismiss every other thing they did in their life because they owned slaves. It's academically and intellectually lazy.

Yes, it is absolute horror. which means that people like Freddy shouldn't champion John C. Calhoun.

[MR25]

Dafuq is going on in here?

Columbia doing his best EPP impression?

[shafnutz05]

Dafuq is going on in here?

People pretending that their belief system doesn't say mean they have said it means,

Your persona in this thread on the weekends is nothing like what it is during the week. I'm not going to make a 'drunk' comment, but you act completely different on Saturdays, especially. It is readily obvious to everyone. You're nastier, more likely to personally attack people, or (as I've seen repeatedly) question the legitimacy of FR's faith in particular because of something else he believes.

It's puzzling, tbh.

[shafnutz05]

FR is easily one of the most civil posters in this thread (among a few others), and I've never seen him attack anyone directly. Your fixation on going after him, I assume, is a product of his being a Christian pastor. Most of your attacks tend to follow the same pattern:

"You are a phony Christian because you believe x"

[columbia]

Dafuq is going on in here?

People pretending that their belief system doesn't say mean they have said it means,

Your persona in this thread on the weekends is nothing like what it is during the week. I'm not going to make a 'drunk' comment, but you act completely different on Saturdays, especially. It is readily obvious to everyone. You're nastier, more likely to personally attack people, or (as I've seen repeatedly) question the legitimacy of FR's faith in particular because of something else he believes.

It's puzzling, tbh.

What's the factual basis of your disagreement with me?
Can the personal attacks (as if it matters, given that your are mod).

[Algernon]

Lol at calling someone nasty because they object to your beliefs

Fragile people ITT

And lol @ the irony of shaf getting butt hurt and saying people are personally attacking him when he's calling people drunk and nasty


Who needs safe spaces? Remind me

[grunthy]

Lol at calling someone nasty because they object to your beliefs

Fragile people ITT

And lol @ the irony of shaf getting butt hurt and saying people are personally attacking him when he's calling people drunk and nasty


Who needs safe spaces? Remind me

I would assume you. You seem to always get personal in conversations that you aren't a part of.

[Gaucho]

While Jefferson was ... conflicted ... Calhoun was very much a racist POS even by his times' standards. *shrug*