Liar....earlier you said white people invented all instruments and black people stole them.
Dismissed.
The white people improved the gourd with a stick...
The 20th century music you're whining about being stolen was all played on instruments that never existed in Africa.
Let's see your African piano or violin or electric guitar or brass instruments.
Oh my, why didn’t any African societies come up with any of these instruments? Maybe it was because it was an entirely different environment with different crops and animals available from which to produce food and tools, from which the model of society that developed in Europe wasn’t going to happen given the differences in environment and resources available to that part of the world at that time. Maybe.
Can you hear me laughing at seeing that you actually think that?
1. A cannibal in Papua New Guinea eats the roasted remains of a defeated enemy.
2. A soldier kills another in battle.
And this is your big Trump card? Really?
What’s next? Human sacrifices in Mesoamerica? FGM in East Africa? Capital punishment for apostasy is Saudi Arabia? Tell me what crushing moral dilemma you have that you have to wrack and destroy my little liberal brain.
It's pretty funny that you don't understand what's happening.
You have absolutely no idea what the difference between objective and subjective reality are and you think you're winning... lol.
I'm sure you're pro-abortion. Please explain how it's any different for pro-abortion liberals to explain away the immorality of infanticide than it is for pro-slavery people to justify slavery.
You're just as evil as the slave owners but in your little liberal brain you think your own personal morality is pure. Just like some of them did.
Sure, I don’t know the difference between viewing a place, a time or a people in the lens of the cultural values that were commonly accepted and understood at the time versus a constant, unchanging morality and world view. Nope, never heard of it. Not even the words, “subjective” and “objective.” Wow you really nailed me there.
You know the answer to your own question. You’re not ignorant, you’re just obtuse. Aborting a pregnancy in the early stages isn’t killing anyone. You can argue that a zygote is a full person. But most people will disagree.
It's pretty funny that you don't understand what's happening.
You have absolutely no idea what the difference between objective and subjective reality are and you think you're winning... lol.
I'm sure you're pro-abortion. Please explain how it's any different for pro-abortion liberals to explain away the immorality of infanticide than it is for pro-slavery people to justify slavery.
You're just as evil as the slave owners but in your little liberal brain you think your own personal morality is pure. Just like some of them did.
Sure, I don’t know the difference between viewing a place, a time or a people in the lens of the cultural values that were commonly accepted and understood at the time versus a constant, unchanging morality and world view. Nope, never heard of it. Not even the words, “subjective” and “objective.” Wow you really nailed me there.
You know the answer to your own question. You’re not ignorant, you’re just obtuse. Aborting a pregnancy in the early stages isn’t killing anyone. You can argue that a zygote is a full person. But most people will disagree.
Who makes the rules for your "constant, unchanging morality"?
If this objective reality actually existed there wouldn't be 50,000 different religious variants floating around.
How old the does the unborn baby need to be before you can't bring yourself to pretend killing it is perfectly moral?
Sure, I don’t know the difference between viewing a place, a time or a people in the lens of the cultural values that were commonly accepted and understood at the time versus a constant, unchanging morality and world view. Nope, never heard of it. Not even the words, “subjective” and “objective.” Wow you really nailed me there.
You know the answer to your own question. You’re not ignorant, you’re just obtuse. Aborting a pregnancy in the early stages isn’t killing anyone. You can argue that a zygote is a full person. But most people will disagree.
Who makes the rules for your "constant, unchanging morality"?
If this objective reality actually existed there wouldn't be 50,000 different religious variants floating around.
How old the does the unborn baby need to be before you can't bring yourself to pretend killing it is perfectly moral?
Really, you think? Most people figure this out once they realize that physical differences between different humans are so superficial.
Certainly as you approach the third trimester, you’ve likely got a person on your hands. And for that, I support restricting abortion before that, with medical exemptions for severe abnormalities. In general, the physician and the person with the pregnancy are usually good at sorting that out.
Who makes the rules for your "constant, unchanging morality"?
If this objective reality actually existed there wouldn't be 50,000 different religious variants floating around.
How old the does the unborn baby need to be before you can't bring yourself to pretend killing it is perfectly moral?
Really, you think? Most people figure this out once they realize that physical differences between different humans are so superficial.
Certainly as you approach the third trimester, you’ve likely got a person on your hands. And for that, I support restricting abortion before that, with medical exemptions for severe abnormalities. In general, the physician and the person with the pregnancy are usually good at sorting that out.
What do the physical traits of anything have to do with morality?
You explained your own morality regarding abortion but you've entirely missed the point.
Unless of course you think that you personally know what objective morality is and that anyone who disagrees with your hastily reached conclusion is simply immoral.
Like claiming that couldn't make a piano in Africa because they didn't have access to tools or resources...
You’re intentionally and proudly bad at this. I’ll help you out, though.
Ok, agriculture first started where and when?
We have no idea. The current theory is Mesopotamia but that requires the absurd belief that places like Göbekli Tepe were built by hunter gatherers just for fun.
Really, you think? Most people figure this out once they realize that physical differences between different humans are so superficial.
Certainly as you approach the third trimester, you’ve likely got a person on your hands. And for that, I support restricting abortion before that, with medical exemptions for severe abnormalities. In general, the physician and the person with the pregnancy are usually good at sorting that out.
What do the physical traits of anything have to do with morality?
You explained your own morality regarding abortion but you've entirely missed the point.
Unless of course you think that you personally know what objective morality is and that anyone who disagrees with your hastily reached conclusion is simply immoral.
I’m sure you know this but, historically, Human A Group didn’t treat Human B Group as equal humans because Human B Group had skin of a different shade or was associated with a different deity or flag.
“Morality,” as we know it, is a byproduct of our evolution. Humans have to work together to survive. It’s very difficult for a human to survive in the wild completely unaided with other humans or without the technology and knowledge acquired from other humans. We’re not an animal that can just be born, released into the wild and then have a fighting chance of living long enough to repeat the process with the next generation.
A lot of the shortcomings in the treatment and relations between different groups of humans that we’ve gone over today can be boiled to shortsightedness and the failure to recognize the humanity in those other groups or clans.
What do the physical traits of anything have to do with morality?
You explained your own morality regarding abortion but you've entirely missed the point.
Unless of course you think that you personally know what objective morality is and that anyone who disagrees with your hastily reached conclusion is simply immoral.
I’m sure you know this but, historically, Human A Group didn’t treat Human B Group as equal humans because Human B Group had skin of a different shade or was associated with a different deity or flag.
“Morality,” as we know it, is a byproduct of our evolution. Humans have to work together to survive. It’s very difficult for a human to survive in the wild completely unaided with other humans or without the technology and knowledge acquired from other humans. We’re not an animal that can just be born, released into the wild and then have a fighting chance of living long enough to repeat the process with the next generation.
A lot of the shortcomings in the treatment and relations between different groups of humans that we’ve gone over today can be boiled to shortsightedness and the failure to recognize the humanity in those other groups or clans.
Most animals can't be born and released into the wild and succeed... This isn't a uniquely human problem.
Objective morality holds no matter which group of humans is in charge.
You're describing subjective reality and still can't seem to grasp what objective reality means.
What’s most? There are 300,000 species of beetle, for example.
Given enough knowledge, communication and perspective, there’s a set of precepts that most humans tend to agree on. That’s not a god giving commandments as an objective law giver but it is a coalescence around basic principles.
What’s most? There are 300,000 species of beetle, for example.
Given enough knowledge, communication and perspective, there’s a set of precepts that most humans tend to agree on. That’s not a god giving commandments as an objective law giver but it is a coalescence around basic principles.
100% of beetles are helpless when they hatch, for example.
People don't agree on the basic principles despite your assertion to the contrary.
You think infanticide is moral, for example.
You're still describing subjective reality. If the pedophiles rise up and kill everyone that opposes pedophilia suddenly "most humans agree" that pedophilia is a good thing.
What’s most? There are 300,000 species of beetle, for example.
Given enough knowledge, communication and perspective, there’s a set of precepts that most humans tend to agree on. That’s not a god giving commandments as an objective law giver but it is a coalescence around basic principles.
100% of beetles are helpless when they hatch, for example.
People don't agree on the basic principles despite your assertion to the contrary.
You think infanticide is moral, for example.
You're still describing subjective reality. If the pedophiles rise up and kill everyone that opposes pedophilia suddenly "most humans agree" that pedophilia is a good thing.
And yet sufficient numbers of beetles of those species survive to have offspring. Humans require quite a bit more care and cooperation if there are going to be enough to keep the species going.
Who’s talking about infanticide? I’m certainly not and very much against it.
If NAMBLA takes over everything and changes all the rules, the children would still have autonomy that the pedophiles are legally violating. (Feel free to continue down this row if you must, asking me where the children’s autonomy comes from if the people in charge disavow that concept, and if, in the absence of a non-human law giver, if “right and wrong” are so fluid that they depend on the whims of the majority or popular opinion.)
The concept of something like consent is something that we’ve all pretty much agreed on for a long time. How do you think those slave masters who raped their slaves felt about someone raping them? If you have empathy and understanding for someone else’s condition, you’re probably less likely to treat them as subhuman.
We (humans) created these concepts and standards. And most of the cruelty we’ve discussed can be put down to not recognizing the humanity and autonomy in other people.
I understand the fact that morality (on this planet) is something that people created (as a result of the social nature of our species and ability to communicate) and falls under the “subjective” side of the ledger. But that does not mean that what was seen as acceptable in a different time a place was “right” simply because too many people were too dumb to recognize their fellow man as such.
100% of beetles are helpless when they hatch, for example.
People don't agree on the basic principles despite your assertion to the contrary.
You think infanticide is moral, for example.
You're still describing subjective reality. If the pedophiles rise up and kill everyone that opposes pedophilia suddenly "most humans agree" that pedophilia is a good thing.
And yet sufficient numbers of beetles of those species survive to have offspring. Humans require quite a bit more care and cooperation if there are going to be enough to keep the species going.
Who’s talking about infanticide? I’m certainly not and very much against it.
If NAMBLA takes over everything and changes all the rules, the children would still have autonomy that the pedophiles are legally violating. (Feel free to continue down this row if you must, asking me where the children’s autonomy comes from if the people in charge disavow that concept, and if, in the absence of a non-human law giver, if “right and wrong” are so fluid that they depend on the whims of the majority or popular opinion.)
The concept of something like consent is something that we’ve all pretty much agreed on for a long time. How do you think those slave masters who raped their slaves felt about someone raping them? If you have empathy and understanding for someone else’s condition, you’re probably less likely to treat them as subhuman.
We (humans) created these concepts and standards. And most of the cruelty we’ve discussed can be put down to not recognizing the humanity and autonomy in other people.
I understand the fact that morality (on this planet) is something that people created (as a result of the social nature of our species and ability to communicate) and falls under the “subjective” side of the ledger. But that does not mean that what was seen as acceptable in a different time a place was “right” simply because too many people were too dumb to recognize their fellow man as such.
"if “right and wrong” are so fluid that they depend on the whims of the majority or popular opinion."
You cannot say that unless you have absolutely no idea what subjective morality means.
Children do not have autonomy. A 5 year can't decide to go to the store and leave the house on their own.
Here's the FULL Florida curriculum that is falsely being described by leftist trolls and others as pro-slavery. Among other things, it covers the "harsh conditions" of slavery, as well as the "service and sacrifice of African patriots during the Revolutionary Era."
Please point me to the section that you disagree with👇👇👇
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.