PragerU admits USA is a Racist Country

[Huehuecoyotl]

Is this the way DKjaigen usually debates things? Because I'm not seeing a great deal of point trying to educate someone that won't learn, or debate with someone that won't listen.

Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because if not, there’s absolutely no point.

[Muzjhath]

Ah the magna carta a blueprint for a constitutional monarchy created by warmongers. The english bill was created by a dutch king that suppressed the catholics and especially the Irish and Jon Locke owned stock in slave trading companies. By your own standards this is a nightmare and makes every single person in America flawed.
Perhaps you should look at what our predecessors did right instead of wrong.

Perhaps the American wokist should stop dragging western history and by extension western humanism through the mud. We are quickly becoming the laughingstock of the world.

If no one looked at what predecessors did wrong, we'd never improve.

[Shadowferal]

If no one looked at what predecessors did wrong, we'd never improve.

And we'd all be "Primary."

[DKjaigen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam



Again, we know you don't bother to learn any history because you don't think you can learn from it, but one would imagine that since you're not a student of history you might refrain from commenting on it.

You're a living, breathing Prager-U video right now.

Rose tinted glasses at its finest.

[Edge-]

Rose tinted glasses at its finest.

Do you deny that history? Because it sure seems your disapproval of history is more that it's inconvenient to your world views and that you prefer your own custom world history that conforms to your view of the world.

I.e. a fan-fiction.

No wonder you're stanning for Prager-U, that's their bread and butter.

[PC2]

And we'd all be "Primary."

Nope you have that backwards. If you think the future must be a continuation of historical patterns then you're literally saying we can't improve over past trends.

Also you should post about the topic instead of randomly posting about other people and derailing the thread.

[Elegiac]

Nope you have that backwards. If you think the future must be a continuation of historical patterns then you're literally saying we can't improve over past trends.

Fortunately no one is saying that, so you can cut it out with that dumb strawman. Lol.

[Calfredd]

Also you should post about the topic instead of randomly posting about other people and derailing the thread.

Then you probably shouldn't have posted this as your posts themselves derail the threads.

[DKjaigen]

The founders aren't the basis of my morals, actually. They shouldn't be the basis of anyone's morals, actually.

So where do your morals come from?

[PC2]

Fortunately no one is saying that, so you can cut it out with that dumb strawman. Lol.

Great then there is no disagreement.

Again, if people don't want to talk about the topic they should send DMs or start a new thread instead of derailing every thread.

[Endus]

So where do your morals come from?

If your morals "come from somewhere", then you don't actually have a moral sense in the first place. You adopt someone else's maxims so you can fake it.

Like Amos in The Expanse, but at least Amos recognizes he's emotionally damaged and needs that guidance. And that normal people don't need it, because an inherent sense of morality is normal human brain function.

It should surprise me how many people straight-up admit that they cannot comprehend what a moral code is, while trying to attack others for having morals. It should. But it doesn't, any more.

It's like the Penn Gillette gag; people always ask him, as an atheist, what's keeping him from raping and killing all he wants? And his answer is simple; he already rapes and kills as much as he wants. That amount is "zero", because he has an internal sense of morality, and that asking the question says way more about the asker than it could ever say about him.

[Edge-]

So where do your morals come from?

That's immaterial to this discussion, because nobody should be getting the entirety of their moral foundation from a small group of flawed people. Especially a small group of flawed people that owned slaves, viewed them sub-human (3/5ths of a person, yeah boi!), raped them, abused them, and engaged in quite a bit of other behavior that we can look at today and go, "Yeah, that's morally gross and indefensible."

[DKjaigen]

That's immaterial to this discussion, because nobody should be getting the entirety of their moral foundation from a small group of flawed people. Especially a small group of flawed people that owned slaves, viewed them sub-human (3/5ths of a person, yeah boi!), raped them, abused them, and engaged in quite a bit of other behavior that we can look at today and go, "Yeah, that's morally gross and indefensible."

In the past their where lines of thought and philosophers that shaped your morals that you have. And i want to know which people did so, Otherwise i cannot trust that your argument comes from a good source.

[Edge-]

And i want to know which people did so

And I want a unicorn. To quote a great philosopher -



The "source" of my arguments (which is like...me) should matter far, far less than the content of my arguments.

[DKjaigen]

If your morals "come from somewhere", then you don't actually have a moral sense in the first place. You adopt someone else's maxims so you can fake it.

Like Amos in The Expanse, but at least Amos recognizes he's emotionally damaged and needs that guidance. And that normal people don't need it, because an inherent sense of morality is normal human brain function.

It should surprise me how many people straight-up admit that they cannot comprehend what a moral code is, while trying to attack others for having morals. It should. But it doesn't, any more.

It's like the Penn Gillette gag; people always ask him, as an atheist, what's keeping him from raping and killing all he wants? And his answer is simple; he already rapes and kills as much as he wants. That amount is "zero", because he has an internal sense of morality, and that asking the question says way more about the asker than it could ever say about him.

Owning slaves made certain empires of the past extremly powerful. I doubt that you could convince them to give up the slave trade

- - - Updated - - -

And I want a unicorn. To quote a great philosopher -


The "source" of my arguments (which is like...me) should matter far, far less than the content of my arguments.

When a nazi says something to me about morals i have every right to be sceptical . His reasoning comes from a very dark place indeed. And as you said yourself your morals are a dirty pig. Why should i treat somebody seriously if he admits that? and i gave you the chance to change my mind but you didnt

[Calfredd]

When a nazi says something to me about morals i have every right to be sceptical . His reasoning comes from a very dark place indeed. And as you said yourself your morals are a dirty pig. Why should i treat somebody seriously if he admits that? and i gave you the chance to change my mind but you didnt

All you've said so far is that everyone's morals are dirty pigs so it's fine to worship the Founding Fathers because their dirty morals helped shape the West! And other such nonsense.

[Elegiac]

In the past their where lines of thought and philosophers that shaped your morals that you have. And i want to know which people did so, Otherwise i cannot trust that your argument comes from a good source.

I.e. you can't address the argument itself and want to try and deflect by attacking the source. Lol.

Especially when your own moral arguments are so questionable:

Owning slaves made certain empires of the past extremly powerful. I doubt that you could convince them to give up the slave trade

Hint: Might is not right.

[Edge-]

And as you said yourself your morals are a dirty pig.

No, that was a reference to the founders. Whom I specifically said I don't use as the basis for my morality.

[Elegiac]

No, that was a reference to the founders. Whom I specifically said I don't use as the basis for my morality.

It does posit an interesting question: can people who behave badly or believe problematic shit contribute valuable insights for the formation of a moral code? The answer is "absolutely, yes" because Hannah Arendt both existed and yet was also a Zionist and a massive bigot towards Eastern European Jews (to use one example).

Basically the moral equivalent of this:



Which puts the Founders into a hell of a lot more perspective considering their conspicuous lack of good points and equally as conspicuous abundance of bad behavior.

[Endus]

Owning slaves made certain empires of the past extremly powerful. I doubt that you could convince them to give up the slave trade

I see you've shifted from "moral" and "humanist" to just "power".

You're saying the quiet part out loud.

Edit: I'll also note you've conveniently avoided actually offering up a single humanist principle you think was actually originated by the Founding Fathers. It should've been a simple ask, if you really believed this shit.