Seamaster said:
Ah. Ok. So Dr Watson hasn't read it.
Has anybody actually read it?
Dr. Watson said:
Could someone explain to me how we are more selfish than generations that viewed other humans as personal property (not just slaves but wives and children and servants)? Or those who viewed workers as disposable cogs? Or viewed those of other cultures or religions as less than human and worthy of extermination?
Dr. Watson said:
Could someone explain to me how we are more selfish than generations that viewed other humans as personal property (not just slaves but wives and children and servants)? Or those who viewed workers as disposable cogs? Or viewed those of other cultures or religions as less than human and worthy of extermination?
So pretty much the whole population of the country is enslaved? The population of the country is 41 million lolAgLiving06 said:
Interestingly, had someone come today to give an update on their fight to stop slavery in Uganda. He mentioned a number of 35-40 million people in slavery right now.
canadiaggie said:So pretty much the whole population of the country is enslaved? The population of the country is 41 million lolAgLiving06 said:
Interestingly, had someone come today to give an update on their fight to stop slavery in Uganda. He mentioned a number of 35-40 million people in slavery right now.
Quote:
A United Nations agency warns 40.3 million people across the globe were subject to some form of modern slavery in 2016. Among them, about 28.7 million or 71% were women or girls forced into sex, marriage or labor.
Ah gotcha. That makes more sense.AgLiving06 said:canadiaggie said:So pretty much the whole population of the country is enslaved? The population of the country is 41 million lolAgLiving06 said:
Interestingly, had someone come today to give an update on their fight to stop slavery in Uganda. He mentioned a number of 35-40 million people in slavery right now.
No..Sorry I wasn't clear.
He's specifically working on Uganda, however, across the world, there are 35-40 million people in slavery.
Per the UN: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/19/report-there-40-million-slaves-worldwide-most-women-and-girls-report-40-million-slaves-worldwide-mos/680632001/Quote:
A United Nations agency warns 40.3 million people across the globe were subject to some form of modern slavery in 2016. Among them, about 28.7 million or 71% were women or girls forced into sex, marriage or labor.
AGC said:Dr. Watson said:
Could someone explain to me how we are more selfish than generations that viewed other humans as personal property (not just slaves but wives and children and servants)? Or those who viewed workers as disposable cogs? Or viewed those of other cultures or religions as less than human and worthy of extermination?
I've read it in its entirety. Your question makes no sense. You regularly refuse to recognize there are distinct ways of thinking / philosophies (pre-modern, modern, post-modern) that directly impact how we view our world and our ability to shape it. Ironically, your answer is the perfect response for someone who is, per his worldview, the only arbiter of truth; further, it's a complete indication of how that view fails as well. It rejects any notion of empathy and understanding.
Dr. Watson said:AGC said:Dr. Watson said:
Could someone explain to me how we are more selfish than generations that viewed other humans as personal property (not just slaves but wives and children and servants)? Or those who viewed workers as disposable cogs? Or viewed those of other cultures or religions as less than human and worthy of extermination?
I've read it in its entirety. Your question makes no sense. You regularly refuse to recognize there are distinct ways of thinking / philosophies (pre-modern, modern, post-modern) that directly impact how we view our world and our ability to shape it. Ironically, your answer is the perfect response for someone who is, per his worldview, the only arbiter of truth; further, it's a complete indication of how that view fails as well. It rejects any notion of empathy and understanding.
It makes perfect sense. His argument is that Christians need to retreat from the world again because of the selfishness and immorality of a modern society that is "persecuting" Christians. For him, the great fall is in a consumerist market and liberal civil rights. Apparently, there was no need for Christians to retreat from America in 1860. Or in 1950. Or in 1688. But there is now. I don't see that I've claimed to be the "arbiter of truth." I have noticed those claims pop up any time I ask a question certain people don't want to think too deeply about.
AgLiving06 said:
Interestingly, had someone come today to give an update on their fight to stop slavery in Uganda. He mentioned a number of 35-40 million people in slavery right now.
Seamaster said:
Has anybody here read it?
I just listened to the first four chapters. He hits the nail on the head about where we're at culturally speaking and how we got here.
AGC said:Dr. Watson said:AGC said:Dr. Watson said:
Could someone explain to me how we are more selfish than generations that viewed other humans as personal property (not just slaves but wives and children and servants)? Or those who viewed workers as disposable cogs? Or viewed those of other cultures or religions as less than human and worthy of extermination?
I've read it in its entirety. Your question makes no sense. You regularly refuse to recognize there are distinct ways of thinking / philosophies (pre-modern, modern, post-modern) that directly impact how we view our world and our ability to shape it. Ironically, your answer is the perfect response for someone who is, per his worldview, the only arbiter of truth; further, it's a complete indication of how that view fails as well. It rejects any notion of empathy and understanding.
It makes perfect sense. His argument is that Christians need to retreat from the world again because of the selfishness and immorality of a modern society that is "persecuting" Christians. For him, the great fall is in a consumerist market and liberal civil rights. Apparently, there was no need for Christians to retreat from America in 1860. Or in 1950. Or in 1688. But there is now. I don't see that I've claimed to be the "arbiter of truth." I have noticed those claims pop up any time I ask a question certain people don't want to think too deeply about.
That's not his argument.
Your post-modern beliefs are what make you an arbiter; it's a claim inherent to what you believe and how you think. And you have yet to respond and discuss the idea that pre-modern, modern, and post-modern people view morality in entirely different ways and to grapple with how that plays out in applying ones beliefs.
Dr. Watson said:AGC said:Dr. Watson said:AGC said:Dr. Watson said:
Could someone explain to me how we are more selfish than generations that viewed other humans as personal property (not just slaves but wives and children and servants)? Or those who viewed workers as disposable cogs? Or viewed those of other cultures or religions as less than human and worthy of extermination?
I've read it in its entirety. Your question makes no sense. You regularly refuse to recognize there are distinct ways of thinking / philosophies (pre-modern, modern, post-modern) that directly impact how we view our world and our ability to shape it. Ironically, your answer is the perfect response for someone who is, per his worldview, the only arbiter of truth; further, it's a complete indication of how that view fails as well. It rejects any notion of empathy and understanding.
It makes perfect sense. His argument is that Christians need to retreat from the world again because of the selfishness and immorality of a modern society that is "persecuting" Christians. For him, the great fall is in a consumerist market and liberal civil rights. Apparently, there was no need for Christians to retreat from America in 1860. Or in 1950. Or in 1688. But there is now. I don't see that I've claimed to be the "arbiter of truth." I have noticed those claims pop up any time I ask a question certain people don't want to think too deeply about.
That's not his argument.
Your post-modern beliefs are what make you an arbiter; it's a claim inherent to what you believe and how you think. And you have yet to respond and discuss the idea that pre-modern, modern, and post-modern people view morality in entirely different ways and to grapple with how that plays out in applying ones beliefs.
Why would I discuss an idea that has no merit? You're calling me "postmodern" without defining that term. That might work for Jordan Peterson when lecturing a bunch of people who have never substantively dealt with what structuralism and poststructalism are (better terms, by the way, for getting at what is meant than modern and postmodern), but it doesn't work here. You're obfuscating to avoid the question, which does go right at the heart of his logic.
AGC said:Dr. Watson said:AGC said:Dr. Watson said:AGC said:Dr. Watson said:
Could someone explain to me how we are more selfish than generations that viewed other humans as personal property (not just slaves but wives and children and servants)? Or those who viewed workers as disposable cogs? Or viewed those of other cultures or religions as less than human and worthy of extermination?
I've read it in its entirety. Your question makes no sense. You regularly refuse to recognize there are distinct ways of thinking / philosophies (pre-modern, modern, post-modern) that directly impact how we view our world and our ability to shape it. Ironically, your answer is the perfect response for someone who is, per his worldview, the only arbiter of truth; further, it's a complete indication of how that view fails as well. It rejects any notion of empathy and understanding.
It makes perfect sense. His argument is that Christians need to retreat from the world again because of the selfishness and immorality of a modern society that is "persecuting" Christians. For him, the great fall is in a consumerist market and liberal civil rights. Apparently, there was no need for Christians to retreat from America in 1860. Or in 1950. Or in 1688. But there is now. I don't see that I've claimed to be the "arbiter of truth." I have noticed those claims pop up any time I ask a question certain people don't want to think too deeply about.
That's not his argument.
Your post-modern beliefs are what make you an arbiter; it's a claim inherent to what you believe and how you think. And you have yet to respond and discuss the idea that pre-modern, modern, and post-modern people view morality in entirely different ways and to grapple with how that plays out in applying ones beliefs.
Why would I discuss an idea that has no merit? You're calling me "postmodern" without defining that term. That might work for Jordan Peterson when lecturing a bunch of people who have never substantively dealt with what structuralism and poststructalism are (better terms, by the way, for getting at what is meant than modern and postmodern), but it doesn't work here. You're obfuscating to avoid the question, which does go right at the heart of his logic.
Actually they aren't better terms in this case (in my mind, you clearly disagree and that's ok). I'm not obfuscating nearly as much as the guy arguing that I'm not calling him the right thing when addressing his argument (who, by the way, isn't really responding to mine).
You're relying on as hominem attacks to engage the philosophical ideas underpinning his writing. It's somewhat shallow and relies on your own personal understanding of truth and morality rather than some objective standard (which you don't have), nor does it engage with how those people viewed the world and heir ability to change it. Hence I think post modern is an accurate summation of your view.
Dr. Watson said:AGC said:Dr. Watson said:AGC said:Dr. Watson said:AGC said:Dr. Watson said:
Could someone explain to me how we are more selfish than generations that viewed other humans as personal property (not just slaves but wives and children and servants)? Or those who viewed workers as disposable cogs? Or viewed those of other cultures or religions as less than human and worthy of extermination?
I've read it in its entirety. Your question makes no sense. You regularly refuse to recognize there are distinct ways of thinking / philosophies (pre-modern, modern, post-modern) that directly impact how we view our world and our ability to shape it. Ironically, your answer is the perfect response for someone who is, per his worldview, the only arbiter of truth; further, it's a complete indication of how that view fails as well. It rejects any notion of empathy and understanding.
It makes perfect sense. His argument is that Christians need to retreat from the world again because of the selfishness and immorality of a modern society that is "persecuting" Christians. For him, the great fall is in a consumerist market and liberal civil rights. Apparently, there was no need for Christians to retreat from America in 1860. Or in 1950. Or in 1688. But there is now. I don't see that I've claimed to be the "arbiter of truth." I have noticed those claims pop up any time I ask a question certain people don't want to think too deeply about.
That's not his argument.
Your post-modern beliefs are what make you an arbiter; it's a claim inherent to what you believe and how you think. And you have yet to respond and discuss the idea that pre-modern, modern, and post-modern people view morality in entirely different ways and to grapple with how that plays out in applying ones beliefs.
Why would I discuss an idea that has no merit? You're calling me "postmodern" without defining that term. That might work for Jordan Peterson when lecturing a bunch of people who have never substantively dealt with what structuralism and poststructalism are (better terms, by the way, for getting at what is meant than modern and postmodern), but it doesn't work here. You're obfuscating to avoid the question, which does go right at the heart of his logic.
Actually they aren't better terms in this case (in my mind, you clearly disagree and that's ok). I'm not obfuscating nearly as much as the guy arguing that I'm not calling him the right thing when addressing his argument (who, by the way, isn't really responding to mine).
You're relying on as hominem attacks to engage the philosophical ideas underpinning his writing. It's somewhat shallow and relies on your own personal understanding of truth and morality rather than some objective standard (which you don't have), nor does it engage with how those people viewed the world and heir ability to change it. Hence I think post modern is an accurate summation of your view.
Postmodern isn't an accurate summation of my views. I'm making a point about the author's subjective judgment on morality and attitudes in society. You have yet to address the substance of my point and instead are trying to belittle my arguments by labeling them something you believe is bad without understanding the term.
I'm asking you to address my point and not use bad labels. You're making it all about me.AGC said:Dr. Watson said:AGC said:Dr. Watson said:AGC said:Dr. Watson said:AGC said:Dr. Watson said:
Could someone explain to me how we are more selfish than generations that viewed other humans as personal property (not just slaves but wives and children and servants)? Or those who viewed workers as disposable cogs? Or viewed those of other cultures or religions as less than human and worthy of extermination?
I've read it in its entirety. Your question makes no sense. You regularly refuse to recognize there are distinct ways of thinking / philosophies (pre-modern, modern, post-modern) that directly impact how we view our world and our ability to shape it. Ironically, your answer is the perfect response for someone who is, per his worldview, the only arbiter of truth; further, it's a complete indication of how that view fails as well. It rejects any notion of empathy and understanding.
It makes perfect sense. His argument is that Christians need to retreat from the world again because of the selfishness and immorality of a modern society that is "persecuting" Christians. For him, the great fall is in a consumerist market and liberal civil rights. Apparently, there was no need for Christians to retreat from America in 1860. Or in 1950. Or in 1688. But there is now. I don't see that I've claimed to be the "arbiter of truth." I have noticed those claims pop up any time I ask a question certain people don't want to think too deeply about.
That's not his argument.
Your post-modern beliefs are what make you an arbiter; it's a claim inherent to what you believe and how you think. And you have yet to respond and discuss the idea that pre-modern, modern, and post-modern people view morality in entirely different ways and to grapple with how that plays out in applying ones beliefs.
Why would I discuss an idea that has no merit? You're calling me "postmodern" without defining that term. That might work for Jordan Peterson when lecturing a bunch of people who have never substantively dealt with what structuralism and poststructalism are (better terms, by the way, for getting at what is meant than modern and postmodern), but it doesn't work here. You're obfuscating to avoid the question, which does go right at the heart of his logic.
Actually they aren't better terms in this case (in my mind, you clearly disagree and that's ok). I'm not obfuscating nearly as much as the guy arguing that I'm not calling him the right thing when addressing his argument (who, by the way, isn't really responding to mine).
You're relying on as hominem attacks to engage the philosophical ideas underpinning his writing. It's somewhat shallow and relies on your own personal understanding of truth and morality rather than some objective standard (which you don't have), nor does it engage with how those people viewed the world and heir ability to change it. Hence I think post modern is an accurate summation of your view.
Postmodern isn't an accurate summation of my views. I'm making a point about the author's subjective judgment on morality and attitudes in society. You have yet to address the substance of my point and instead are trying to belittle my arguments by labeling them something you believe is bad without understanding the term.
No single label is a perfect summation of anyone's views. It's an impossible burden. I understand exactly what I'm saying and that it's not just in reference to you but also those you're criticizing via your ad hominem attacks (they were not post modern and would viewit very differently). You seem to think it's all about you (no surprise there though).
