I find this scenario extremely far-fetched, and giving entirely too much credit to techno-hubris. I suppose it is technically possible, but if we ever got to that technological point, eight billion starving peasants vastly outnumber 200 capitalists, and blood will flow.
I don’t think that is possible. A tiny number of owners of capital depend on people to buy the products that their capital, in conjunction with paid labor, makes possible. If everyone is starving, they will starve, too.
Here, read this from Lincoln’s first inaugural address. Does this sound like someone launching a war to end slavery?
No objection to the permanence of slavery being made express and irrevocable in the Constitution!
The character of the war changed AFTER Jan. 1, 1863, when the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect. After that, Union soldiers were still fighting to preserve the union, but it was understood that victory in the war now would also necessitate freeing the slaves. And a lot of northerners...
Wow. Just … wow.
Try to wrap your head around this. As Bilby already said. Maybe repetition will make it sink in.
Not giving a fuck about SLAVES is not the same thing as not giving a fuck about SLAVERY.
The southern plantation aristocracy cared very deeply about SLAVERY — i.e., about KEEPING...
The majority of people north and south did not give a fuck about the slaves and most of them agreed that blacks were mentally and morally inferior to whites. And of course, people back then were mostly Christians. So, do the math.
The fact that there was a tiny minority of Christian...
I’ve never said otherwise. Because it’s obviously true that a tiny minority of northern abolitions were Christians proves nothing. Most Christians supported slavery or didn’t care one way or another, which destroys your whole argument.
That they are unconvincing to you, is of little moment to me.
Except you have not responded to many, including many of my own, that demolish your arguments.
No it isn’t. There are people and forces behind the Union victory, including, as mentioned, Lincoln, who was obviously not a hammer or...
I will amend a bit what I wrote in post 101 above. Some Northern liberal Christians were certainly vociferous in opposing slavery and advocating its abolition, so it’s really not correct to say Christianity had “nothing” to do with it.
:rofl:
Yeah, prove it.
So — LOL! — the slaves were addicted to their own slavery, like heroin addicts, and so the bible advocated “slave slavery regions” for those addicted to their own slavery? Honestly, dude, enough with making a fool of yourself!
This has already been explained to you, and you have duly ignored the explanation. It is because of the force of arms of the Union and the political sagacity of Lincoln. Christianity had nothing to do with it. Nor did democracy, because slavery was abolished by the institutions of a Republic...
Oops, how surprising. Yes, another vapid attempt to demonstrate that morals come from the bible’s Santa in the Sky, who as legend has it committed worldwide genocide via rain.
Also, his alleged “hole” is not “question begging.”
Morality come from evolution. Social species evolve traits like...
Having lost all his other arguments, and having abdicated the field by refusing to respond to the challenges and refutations presented to him, I now sense … a lame attempt to “prove” that there is an objective morality, and that this morality can only be underwritten by the biblical Santa in the...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.