"Although he himself was a slaveowner, he believed that slavery was an evil that should not be permitted to spread . In 1784 the provision banning slavery was narrowly defeated. Had one representative (John Beatty of New Jersey), sick and confined to his lodging, been present, the vote would have been different. "Thus," Jefferson later reflected, "we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful moment.""
so he must have found a way to dellude himself.
either that or his statement was simply politics as usual and he had no
such belief that slavery was evil...i know...perish the thought of a lying politician.
its a philosophical topic with no final answer. i believe that nobody knowingly does evil, and if they ever do, they are delluded into thinking it is for a greater good and that evil "must be done", so ultimately it is an act of good.
Originally posted by PVS
but you're not seeing the pointthe point is this: nobody knowingly does evil.
'evil' is pretty objective in the face of history, but to the individual it is subjective. in nazi germany, they thought that the ends justified the means.
so, they thought that however brutal they were, they were ultimately doing good. obviously they were being evil, but they didnt KNOW it. you and i cannot fathom the idea of murdering innocents and feeling good about it, so we call them evil, the same as you nor i could ever imagine owning another human being.so back to the point which started all this: slavery was neither fair nor kind.
a slave who is not beaten is still a slave. people argue that they were treated kindly by not being beaten. thats like saying i'm a kind person for not beating you. how is not beating someone an act of kindness?
True. I completely recognize that point. However, my point is not about whether people are evil or not, but that they can't be blamed because of their ignorance. If it is brought to a personal level, then all the objectivity is lost. However, I agree with what you said here, at least in a manner of speaking.
well then i must go back to my original points again:
-slaves were in no way treated kid nor fair.
the act of not beating someone is not kind nor fair,
just less evil than an abusive slave owner...which i'm stickin to
-the people at the time were not aware of the evil they were commiting due to social conditioning. so, they would honestly believe that since they didnt beat and mutilate and starve their slaves, they were fair and kind people. perhaps they were mostly good people indeed, but they still committed evil in the action of owning slaves, and those slaves were trated cruelly and unkindly just by being in the state of slavery...by being owned...by being forced to be subserviant to a "master race". same as i've said before.
-anyone TODAY (and on this thread) who would subscribe to the idea
that slaves were treated fairly and do not see the tragic irony in that
statement are worthy of pity...which i still adhere to
Originally posted by Darth L. Dipsit
True. I completely recognize that point. However, my point is not about whether people are evil or not,
i never said they WERE evil, just that they unknowingly commited evil and victimised slaves simply by enslaving them. most of the points visciously argued against me here are based on such assumptions. i never made that point.
observe my original point which caused such a fuss:
Originally posted by PVS
ok, lets not even get into "well treated slaves". as much as i would like to tear that disgusting oxymoron apart, wrong forum.
and i stick to that. its an oxymoron. they were perhaps "not physically abused" slaves...i guess...but what the hell does that matter?
Originally posted by PVS
well then i must go back to my original points again:-slaves were in no way treated kid nor fair.
the act of not beating someone is not kind nor fair,
just less evil than an abusive slave owner...which i'm stickin to-the people at the time were not aware of the evil they were commiting due to social conditioning. so, they would honestly believe that since they didnt beat and mutilate and starve their slaves, they were fair and kind people. perhaps they were mostly good people indeed, but they still committed evil in the action of owning slaves, and those slaves were trated cruelly and unkindly just by being in the state of slavery...by being owned...by being forced to be subserviant to a "master race". same as i've said before.
-anyone TODAY (and on this thread) who would subscribe to the idea
that slaves were treated fairly and do not see the tragic irony in that
statement are worthy of pity...which i still adhere to
This is all true, though I have one discrepancy: the original argument. My perception was that your original argument was that all slaveowners were bad people. With that, I disagree - what you have said about the slaves and the idea of slavery, however, I think, is true.
Originally posted by PVS
and yes, it DOES automatically make them prejudicial bigots to be slavemasters. to own another human being is to believe that you are better than them, above them, more human than them..
other than that, the idea that i called them "evil" is just the result of irrational overly presumptious posters who like to put words in my mouth to help them 'win' their arguement. as a result, others read those repeated assumptions and mistakenly accept them as my position in the debate.
In that case, I have no further qualms on this issue. I am glad that could be resolved civilly. Thank you for hearing me, sir. As to Janus and Jabar, they're really good guys - honestly, I don't think they meant to put words into your mouth and it's a shame if it felt like they did. However, it is good that such a peaceful resolution was made, and I am glad that you were so patient with me.
Sorry to take up your time, sir.
What you're REALLY not going to like, PVS, is that there's also a phenomenon known as willing slaves ... today. Well, there are unwilling slaves too, albiet not in America ... or at least we don't CALL them slaves. We call them "employees." And the lowest class of slaves we call "inmates," the majority of whom are poor African Americans who couldn't afford expensive lawyers to defend them. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
But I digress.
The point is that there is, in fact, a subculture of people who were born legally free but have chosen to consider themselves the property of others, regardless of whether it's legally recognized as such. It's an interesting and complicated thing, but without going too deeply into a discussion of human nature in general, at the very least one thing is made clear by that phenomenon, at least to me:
There were probably always -- throughout history -- slaves who didn't object to their status. Not because that made them somehow morally superior (or vice-versa) but simply because some people have more dominant natures, while some have more submissive natures. And some have VERY dominant natures, while others have VERY submissives natures.
Of course, there were always those who did object, too, and even those who finally rose up and cast off their chains, or at least attempted to -- something we'd all like to imagine, as we sit in the air-conditioned comfort of our homes, that we'd have been able to do as well. Yet very few of us would have had the nerve.
And then of course how individuals were treated in any given instance would have made a lot of difference, too. I know you want to argue that there's no such thing as a well-treated slave, but that's kind of a silly stance to take. How else would you differentiate between a well-fed, clean servant with access to creature comforts and someone who's whipped and fed moldy scraps?
But what it comes down to is that human nature isn't so black and white as you think it is, and people come in all kinds of flavors ... including a few that would positively blow your mind, my friend. You can denounce people who like things you don't think they should like if you wish, but you can't will them into nonexistence just because you don't like the fact that they do exist.
And none of that has anything to do with believing that forced slavery is a positive thing. I don't believe it is and never said otherwise. And after all, that's one of many reasons I despise my current government and the corporate masters who own its people. If you don't think the power they wield today is a form of forced slavery, then you don't know what slavery really amounts to.
I would just like to say a few things, firstly, PVS please change that Aviator because that clown is freaking me out.
Secondly, PVS you're right, slaves in any way, shape or form are being treated unjustly just by being slaves.
On original topic, I think that the story played out pretty well, it was from the innocent fear of a nine year old slave that sprouted darkness. Anakin's slide to the Dark Side could not have been more dramatic and indeed tragic as it was.
From wanting to help people, to wanting to stop them from dying, to wanting to control their fates, to wanting to control everything is Anakin's life story.
And as for building the Pod from scrap, that has already been explained by someone else but I'll just say it again so we can stop talking about Nazis, Tom Jefferson and Romans. It was to show that Anakin has abilities beyond normal conception.
That's it.
And PVS, I wasn't joking about that clown, I hate clowns, they give me nightmares, and that creepy mutant freak thing is reminding me of this movie I watched one time when I was 6, I'll never forget it. 🙁 😘 🙁 😘
the only thing that i thought was weird was that, for being a slave and supposedly not liking it, Anakin and his little slave pals said 'Yippie' quite a bit. i am not saying that little slave children are not allowed to be happy, but i would think they had more time to think of better words to describe their happiness, other than 'yippie.'
maybe its because the poor little slave boys don't get many happy moments(although the movie showed a bunch). who knows. that just kinda bothered me. lame i know!