John Locke, the intellectual father of America.
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
John Locke, the great political theorist who influenced the writers of the American Constitution, said that Africans were just a little smarter than apes (Bernal 203). The general explanation for African enslavement was âEuropeans argued that in taking Africans out of their native continent, they were ârescuingâ them from a âprimitiveâ and âbarbaricâ existenceâ
Read more at Suite101: How Did Race Become Popular:http://www.suite101.com/content/the-sean-bell-case-a53509#ixzz1B9xDNs5Z
Read more at Suite101: How Did Race Become Popular:http://www.suite101.com/content/the-sean-bell-case-a53509#ixzz1B9xDNs5Z
Okay, let me guess...you are trying to make a point.
Just exactly would that be?
That our country was founded at a time when slavery was accepted?
Yes, at that time slavery was accepted.
Many other things were also accepted, that have since either proved to be false, or revised to modern times.
So we accept the intellectual development of men like Locke and Jefferson were ahead of their time in many ways, and also believe that as intellectuals these men would be the first to wish upon future generations a more evolved life and thinking than they had achieved. They rejected the status quo...that's what intellectuals generally do, as they prefer a constant refinement of ideas in their search for ultimate truth.
For if not, they would not be intellectuals at all, but primitives who wish for nothing more than their offspring to remain nothing but followers without a brain.
Just exactly would that be?
That our country was founded at a time when slavery was accepted?
Yes, at that time slavery was accepted.
Many other things were also accepted, that have since either proved to be false, or revised to modern times.
So we accept the intellectual development of men like Locke and Jefferson were ahead of their time in many ways, and also believe that as intellectuals these men would be the first to wish upon future generations a more evolved life and thinking than they had achieved. They rejected the status quo...that's what intellectuals generally do, as they prefer a constant refinement of ideas in their search for ultimate truth.
For if not, they would not be intellectuals at all, but primitives who wish for nothing more than their offspring to remain nothing but followers without a brain.
Ahhh, so you are validating the ideas and thoughts of a man who celebrated slavery and thought slavery was a blessing upon otherwise primitive Africans...
So when you celebrate his intellectual musings you are celebrating the same thought processes which led him to those conclusions.
That's fine, you admire pro slavery intellectuals... no need to be defensive... Many liberals are highly racist, you are hardly unique in that regard... Kind of like when you came out in support of a David Duke speech...
So when you celebrate his intellectual musings you are celebrating the same thought processes which led him to those conclusions.
That's fine, you admire pro slavery intellectuals... no need to be defensive... Many liberals are highly racist, you are hardly unique in that regard... Kind of like when you came out in support of a David Duke speech...
True.
The conventional wisdom of medicine at that time would be practiced today? How about conventional wisdom towards women and children, etc.
Progressives bring change into the present and future, regressives are stuck in the past...in so many ways.
The conventional wisdom of medicine at that time would be practiced today? How about conventional wisdom towards women and children, etc.
Progressives bring change into the present and future, regressives are stuck in the past...in so many ways.
"Progressive" is a misnomer, as many changes they seek are actually regressive. They seek to change everything, including things which aren't "broken" or dysfunctional. The label "progressive" is inaccurate because they seek to revert to systems and methods which have already been in practice previously and have been shown to be less effective or ineffective when compared to current methods. Many times they also refuse to revert back to methods which were more effective than current ones.
While they do have some admirable ideas and goals (decriminalization of drugs, being less involved or uninvolved in foreign entanglements, etc) they seem to be incapable of understanding the concept of "if it's not broken, don't fix it". They also tend to want to refuse to acknowledge any facts which don't reinforce their world view and support their egalitarian, equality obsessed values. They seek to create not equal opportunity, but equal outcomes. They comprise the current PC orthodoxy, and have replaced the church as the primary distributor of ignorance in the modern world.
While they do have some admirable ideas and goals (decriminalization of drugs, being less involved or uninvolved in foreign entanglements, etc) they seem to be incapable of understanding the concept of "if it's not broken, don't fix it". They also tend to want to refuse to acknowledge any facts which don't reinforce their world view and support their egalitarian, equality obsessed values. They seek to create not equal opportunity, but equal outcomes. They comprise the current PC orthodoxy, and have replaced the church as the primary distributor of ignorance in the modern world.
Interesting...I see intellectual growth in you.
We look back in history and find it hard to understand slavery and even medical procedures like you say.
If Progressives bring change to the future then you agree the line of progression would provide the Fetus its proper right to life liberty and happiness, just like we gave Negroâs over time.
Oh, we've given then far more than the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We've enacted racial preferences which discriminate against whites in their favor, not to mention elaborate welfare schemes. However, I think your choice of terms ("negro") is a bit less than respectful.
No, I would not agree with your logic below at all.
I don't see a time when an evolved society gives rights to something that has no independent life over the rights of an independent person, i.e. a woman and their right to choose what they do with their own body.
I have argued before and hold to the argument, that up until the time that a fetus could be harvested from a woman with a relative certainty that it could live independent of that woman, that the right to terminate the pregnancy belongs to the woman, not the state.
If at the time the fetus could be harvested, if the woman doesn't want to carry the child, the state decided to take possession, and full responsibility...both legally, financially, spiritually, etc. for that fetus until the age of maturity (say 18 to 21 years of age) and the cost of this care and protection of the extracted fetus is then extracted from those who favor doing so.
Meaning, that those who would demand the fetus become dependent on the extraction from a woman by an outside agency that harvested the unwanted fetus...should pay for it.
Now if you are asking me if abortion is a sin against God...for clearly it is not a sin against man in my opinion...that is up to God to decide.
Until such time that modern science establishes when in fact a fetus could be harvested...the choice belongs to the woman to terminate pregnancy, just as it is her right to determine whether or not to get pregnant in the first place.
Life as we know it, does not scientifically begin at conception. Life develops from the potential of achieving the status of a human being after a certain period of time. Before that time is up, the woman has the right to choose...and for the religious, God does not deny anyone the right to sin...for if God could do so, God would have done so long ago.
Free will to get pregnant, free will to terminate up to a certain point, but no free will to avoid the consequence that God may reward or punish with.
I don't see a time when an evolved society gives rights to something that has no independent life over the rights of an independent person, i.e. a woman and their right to choose what they do with their own body.
I have argued before and hold to the argument, that up until the time that a fetus could be harvested from a woman with a relative certainty that it could live independent of that woman, that the right to terminate the pregnancy belongs to the woman, not the state.
If at the time the fetus could be harvested, if the woman doesn't want to carry the child, the state decided to take possession, and full responsibility...both legally, financially, spiritually, etc. for that fetus until the age of maturity (say 18 to 21 years of age) and the cost of this care and protection of the extracted fetus is then extracted from those who favor doing so.
Meaning, that those who would demand the fetus become dependent on the extraction from a woman by an outside agency that harvested the unwanted fetus...should pay for it.
Now if you are asking me if abortion is a sin against God...for clearly it is not a sin against man in my opinion...that is up to God to decide.
Until such time that modern science establishes when in fact a fetus could be harvested...the choice belongs to the woman to terminate pregnancy, just as it is her right to determine whether or not to get pregnant in the first place.
Life as we know it, does not scientifically begin at conception. Life develops from the potential of achieving the status of a human being after a certain period of time. Before that time is up, the woman has the right to choose...and for the religious, God does not deny anyone the right to sin...for if God could do so, God would have done so long ago.
Free will to get pregnant, free will to terminate up to a certain point, but no free will to avoid the consequence that God may reward or punish with.