[Grey Wolf]

You guys all know, of course, the basis for 99% of war is not politics, but economics.
The American Revolution was caused by the rich members of American society wanting to build factories and not pay such steep taxes on imported goods, and their British equvalents wanted the American's money and a monopoly on producing goods. Hence, the Americans built up a massive patriotic furvor, and the rest is history.

Next target, the American Civil War. The South needs the slaves, due to the fact their economy is based on cotton, and the plantation owners need the slaves to mantain their profit. The North, meanwhile, is industrial-based, allowing them to think beyond the economics of the situation, allowing them to have morals without touching their profit margin.

Did I mention I'm a cynic? I can also explain the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the 100 Years War, and the French and Indian War in these same reasons.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Snakeseyes
So [the North and South during the Civil war] were both right?

Originally posted by Blue Lion
In their own eyes yes, you don't go to war over things you think are wrong.

Blue, the South may have thought they were in the right, but they weren't. People can debate until the cows come home why the Civil War happened, whether it was about "states' rights" or about slavery. As far as I can figure, the South was primarily fighting for the state's right to let plantation owners own and keep slaves. A huge war was fought and the South lost, thank God. It was another hundred years before African-Americans could become full members of American society with rights equal to everyone else. Even now, racism still exists, so the job of making Blacks equal is arguably incomplete.

But as for the Southerners during the Civil War, whether or not they thought they were in the right, History eventually proved them wrong.

As for you, whether you may or may not think the South was in the right, I'm going to assume that you think the North winning the Civil War was a good thing. Call me a hopeless optimist.

And CP, you may believe that "rights" are just a fabrication to keep the Masses happy, but, trust me, they are anything but.

Lots of people fought and died to give us our rights. Before the Revolutionary War, the American people were living under a monarchy and taxed by a king 3,000 miles away. Our Constitutional rights were won as a result of fighting a brutal and bloody six year war. It was not inevitable, our winning that war. In fact, the outcome was in serious doubt for a long time.

The declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.... No one had ever stated this before in the History of Man, that people had inalienable rights simply because they existed. That is what is so amazing about the Constitution, CP.

Even then, those rights were only guaranteed to white males. Then we had the Civil War to liberate the slaves from oppression, then Suffrage and Women's Lib, then the civil rights movement. Each time, our definition of a person deserving of those inalienable rights has expanded to include more people. Each time, there was lot of resistance and of people got hurt and killed as a result.

Even now, people are putting up a great deal of resistance to gay and lesbian equal rights. God willing, the gays and lebians will succeed, too. They have time on their side.

I don't think this can be dismissed as simple bull****, CP. No one "gave" us our rights. We had to fight for them every single time. To dismiss all that struggle as "bull****" is to ignore all of American history.

CP, just think how bad things would be for you if you had been born in, say, North korea or Iran or Saudi Arabia instead of the USA. You wouldn't have nearly as many rights then.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Blue Lion
That's what I'm trying to tell you, it doesn't matter what I think. If you're asking if I thought the slaves were people, yes. If you're asking if I thought the South was right to go to war, the answer is yes also.

That's a completely contradictory cop-out, Blue. There is no way to believe both those things at once. If you believe that the slaves were people, then the South was wrong. If you believe that the South was right to wage a war to preserve slavery, then you believe that slavery was morally acceptable.

There's no inbetween, BL, and no amount of your posts can change that fact.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


That's a completely contradictory cop-out, Blue. There is no way to believe both those things at once. If you believe that the slaves were people, then the South was wrong. If you believe that the South was right to wage a war to preserve slavery, then you believe that slavery was morally acceptable.

There's no inbetween, BL, and no amount of your posts can change that fact.

You of course know that slavery was an excuse to achieve public support and not the real reason for the war, of course?

[Bobboau]

what we are trying to talk about is not whether something is right or wrong, but what right and wrong is it'self
what he is saying is that the south thought it was right and that with that in mind it was right for them to stand up for what they beleved in, even if they were wrong, wich they were from our perspective, and ours is the only one that maters becase were the only ones talking.
I obviusly think that my point of veiw is right, if I didn't then I wouldn't be thinking in the way that I am,
despite the way I am talking I am quite resolute that I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong,
racists don't think people are people, to me that just seems insane and that kind of stupidity must not be alowed to go on,
becase people I care about will be hurt

the reason we are discusing this in this way is to understand the fundimental structure of morality, so we can better understand it and to prevent such horrors from ocuring ever again

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
You of course know that slavery was an excuse to achieve public support and not the real reason for the war, of course?

INS Proctor: All right, here's your last question.  What was the cause of the Civil War?  

Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes.  Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--

Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.

Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

*Proctor stamps "PASSED" on Apu's test and gives him his US passport*

Apu: Yes! I am an American citizen! Now, which way to the welfare office?!

Proctor (in horror): What?

Apu (amused): I'm kidding, I'm kidding. I work, I work.

-- "Much Apu About Nothing," The Simpsons

[wEvil]

IMO the objective of morality is to ensure the largest number of individuals have the best possible life they can.

The problem I have with the way things are today is that the arrangement by which we live our lives is most assuredly not geared towards this goal in any way, shape, or form - while purporting in fact to support those ideals.

In short, it is either blatantly deceitful or fails miserably at its goals - in either case, a broken system that needs tearing down and re-engineering into a form that does work.

Blue Lion -

you don't have to help, but your refusal to help would give others a reason to do the same thing - in which case you begin getting large scale breakdowns in sociological and moral fibre.

I am glad, however, to hear that you in fact don't act the way described above

[CP5670]

I'm back, but only for a few minutes...

why do we have to do anything then, why not just kill ourselves to keep from being an illogical inconsistancy

Because killing ourselves is just as much of an action an anything else and happens to be contradictory in other ways. This is what I mean when I say that we cannot do truly nothing.

I never clamed it to be rational per se, I claimed it fit into the universal ethical system we all have,
it has a logical reson though,
to protect you're tribe, nation, clan, famely, religon,
from an outside tribe, nation, clan, famely, religon,

Yes, but you cannot really say that the reason is logical without giving an objective. And besides, if it is not so, then what's the use in abiding by it? The first step in combating the disease is to recognize its existence.

my thoughts are afected by the actions of my parents (and other members of my local socal groupe), my actions are afected by my thoughts, and my childerens thoughts will be afected by my actions
also my thoughts and actions areaffected by my genetics wich are also to be sent on to my progeny

I suppose you could say that, but we were talking more about thoughts pertaining to ethical obedience to your instincts. And your thoughts are not affected by genetics all that much, but rather by the surrounding conditions in which you grow up and assimilate information.

so the Nazis won WW2

They almost certainly would have, if it were not for Hitler's stupidity in anything outside politics (including military strategy).

---------

But a lion won't kill all of the pray in its territory. It can understand that that will make him starve in the future. Maybe as we advance and we get "out" of nature, we get more dumb. We like to believe that we rely on our basic insticts to survive, the instict to feed ourselves etc, but we try to satisfy them to the extreme. And as our wealth increases, our needs increase too, at least that's what we are thinking. Of course that only happens in the West World.

Well, yes it will; it has no reason not to kill anything it finds aside from its family members, especially if it is hungry. And, frankly, that is smart given its objectives. Our own needs are meaningless in an absolute sense, since it depends on the objectives we have determined for ourselves. The need to, say, suicide bomb all the heathens is just as meaningful as the need to breathe until further information is given.

So, it is neccesary to set ourselves a set of rules, ethics, laws, morals, I don't care how you call it, that put a stop at that very fast wasting of resources, because if we won't it will take the shape of a snowfall.

I don't know what you are trying to say here; where did the topic of "resources" come up from?

---------

The declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.... No one had ever stated this before in the History of Man, that people had inalienable rights simply because they existed. That is what is so amazing about the Constitution, CP.

I know, but you need to think about whether any of that actually held in reality. Perhaps 250 years ago, it really did, but not any more. You see, this is an idea, a revolutionary idea for its time, but an idea nevertheless, that must be put into practice to be of any use. What is happening is that people do indeed have their "unalienable rights," but not merely because they exist, but rather because if they do not get these rights, they will fight for them in an attempt to get them. In other words, to keep them quiet. And to be frank, how can anyone prove in an absolute sense what rights a person deserves? There is no such thing as a truly universal "unalienable right" if you think about it.

I don't think this can be dismissed as simple bull****, CP. No one "gave" us our rights. We had to fight for them every single time. To dismiss all that struggle as "bull****" is to ignore all of American history.

Yes, but you need to think about why they got these rights. They kept fighting for them, and if the rights were given, they would stay quiet. In other words, they were not given the rights by their antagonists because it was "morally correct," but rather to stop them from fighting. We did fight for them, but of course they were given to us after that to stop our fighting.

CP, just think how bad things would be for you if you had been born in, say, North korea or Iran or Saudi Arabia instead of the USA. You wouldn't have nearly as many rights then.

Sure, at which point I might have fought for some rights. I would either lose and die, or create a ruckus and cause whoever I am fighting to eventually decide that giving me the rights and keeping me quiet is better for them.

---------

you don't have to help, but your refusal to help would give others a reason to do the same thing - in which case you begin getting large scale breakdowns in sociological and moral fibre.

You will start getting that anyway at some point, though; note the "divisions" I talked about earlier. A society that is held together by morals alone is very unstable in that form and must keeping changing quickly to survive intact.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by CP5670
You will start getting that anyway at some point, though; note the "divisions" I talked about earlier. A society that is held together by morals alone is very unstable in that form and must keeping changing quickly to survive intact.

In other words a society that is evolving and adapting to its surroundings like a macro-organism composed of individuals.
 

[CP5670]

Exactly; it can be thought of as a unit in itself, with the individual human being the cellular components.

[wEvil]

But to go back onto the mid-level sentiment:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/26618.html

If you control the means to disseminate content, you can subsequently control the public

This harsh reality terrifies the entertainment industry that will stop at nothing - no matter how ill-conceived - to keep its reign despite a failing business model and changing economic and customer environment. The copyright debate isn't only about profit, it's also about who controls information, and ultimately, people and society.

This is why you should care.

[CP5670]

oh, the entertainment industry. Yes, I probably hate these corporations more than anyone else here. But how is that related to the topic at hand?

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


That's a completely contradictory cop-out, Blue. There is no way to believe both those things at once. If you believe that the slaves were people, then the South was wrong. If you believe that the South was right to wage a war to preserve slavery, then you believe that slavery was morally acceptable.

There's no inbetween, BL, and no amount of your posts can change that fact.

I never said I believed both. If you would have read what I said more carefully, you would have seen I said I thought the South was right to go to war or something they thought was right, even though I didn't agree.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by wEvil

Blue Lion -

you don't have to help, but your refusal to help would give others a reason to do the same thing - in which case you begin getting large scale breakdowns in sociological and moral fibre.

I am glad, however, to hear that you in fact don't act the way described above

I never said I wouldn't help, matter of fact I probably will. I will not however, blame those who do not, because in my opinion, it is not their moral obligation to do so. It is not mine, or yours. If we do so, it is because we want to, not because we have to.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Su-tehp

As for you, whether you may or may not think the South was in the right, I'm going to assume that you think the North winning the Civil War was a good thing. Call me a hopeless optimist.
 

Yes I am glad we're flying the Stars and Stripes and not the Stars and Bars

Blue, the South may have thought they were in the right, but they weren't.

No, they knew they were right, we knew they were wrong. What if they had won? Would that have meant they were right?

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Blue Lion
Yes I am glad we're flying the Stars and Stripes and not the Stars and Bars

Good man.

Originally posted by Blue Lion
No, they knew they were right, we knew they were wrong. What if they had won? Would that have meant they were right?

Ah, the wiles of the judgment of history....

If the South had won, history would have judged that slavery was permissible, at least in some places in the world.

God damn me, but yeah, I think if the South had won, all of us would have grown up thinking that while some people might have hated slavery, others would have thought it morally acceptable. Cripes, even I might have thought it acceptable if the South had won. And that notion scares the crap outta me.

Then again, another controversial and presently unresolved issue that matters a great deal to me is abortion. (If America ever fights another Civil War, it could be about this.) I didn't choose the side I chose simply because of where I lived or who I associated with or how it might affect my interests; I chose the side I chose after careful deliberation and thought. Who's to say that if I had been born in the South during the early 1800s, I would have still fought against slavery or not?

I like to think that I still would have supported the abolitionists if I had been born back then. But there's no way to really tell for sure...

Would the South have been "right" if they had won? They would have their judgment validated by history, sure, but I'm sure that the abolitionists would have continued their efforts to free the slaves even after the Civil War was over. Some causes are just too important to give up, even when they look like they're lost causes.

Even if history makes a judgment as to "right" or "wrong", a large slice of humanity might still disagree with it and work to change it.

That's the funny thing about history: the ending is always in flux. Which is really a good thing, because otherwise Time would stop.

(BTW, if anyone is curious about which side I support in the abortion debate, I'm pro-choice and proud of it. )

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


God damn me, but yeah, I think if the South had won, all of us would have grown up thinking that while some people might have hated slavery, others would have thought it morally acceptable. Cripes, even I might have thought it acceptable if the South had won. And that notion scares the crap outta me.

Exactly, it's all relative, nothing is right because is it, just because the majority thinks so

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Blue Lion
Exactly, it's all relative, nothing is right because is it, just because the majority thinks so

Then it's good that the USA came along and convinced a majority of its people that everyone is entitled to certain inalienable rights, huh?

I'm glad to know that there are some people who are altruistic and generous and giving. The world would be a pretty horrible place otherwise.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


Then it's good that the USA came along and convinced a majority of its people that everyone is entitled to certain inalienable rights, huh?

I'm glad to know that there are some people who are altruistic and generous and giving. The world would be a pretty horrible place otherwise.

It manages to be a pretty horrible place anyway, with or without "uncle sam" here.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


Then it's good that the USA came along and convinced a majority of its people that everyone is entitled to certain inalienable rights, huh?

But are you so sure about that?

It manages to be a pretty horrible place anyway, with or without "uncle sam" here.

Imagine what it could be, and I'm not talking without the US, think how completely terrible it could be, then tell me we're in it that bad.