Replies

I'd say anyone who justifies rape, pillage and murder of 600,000+ in the name of "morality" is "shameful". No one is arguing for slavery, and your conflation of what people are saying with what you assume they're saying is the only thing "fictional" about this discussion. (Well, that and "putting chains around the necks of the fellow men" - as that was much more a visage of the northern slave capture, shipment and trade than slavery as it ever existed in the south - and telling southerners they "sold other human beings" - when that too was particularly an area of the north's expertise).

Most here are simply arguing the essential principle of federated republics echoed through our founders - that the central behemoth, the states and the people all must live under the strict rule of law, for better or worse, because the rule of man is ultimately always worse.. You don't do the discussion any justice by conflating the timeless principles of separated powers and self-determination with the institution of slavery (that was a national and global problem at that time).

If states want to secede from the union because some states want to control the others, they retain the right to do so as their union of "mutual benefit" has been voided. Let those who take the moral high ground let the world to see, while those who do not accept the moral, political and economic scorn of the world while their evils die a slow, natural death. (Hint, the principles hold, and no one dies that way.) But any perceived moral authority flies right out the window when you start an unnecessary war.

Instead, once we permitted centralization, it grew by it's nature, and sovereignty shrunk. Though you could shout from the rooftops if you lived in state X that state Y was evil, while handling things a better way, now we're just an alphabet soup and we're all under the behemoth's thumb. The same principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" you claim were violated by some states (though arguably all) with slavery, now we all violate them together tenfold with no escape hatch. Compare the 4 million slaves built up over centuries with the "convenience" slaughtering of 50 million+ infants in mere decades since Row v Wade.

There is no manumission from slavery under tyranny. I'd say be careful what you wish for, and try really hard to grasp the principles of the discussion before you burst out with emotion again.

You're an idiot, Mr. "Row v wade". And your basis for morality is antithetical to our republic.

Wait, what just happened? Did you really just stew on a post for nearly two weeks only to come up with a couple attempts at insults? Let's see what you came up with after all that work:

You're an idiot, Mr. "Row v wade".

It's Roe v. Wade, genius. And calling someone "Mr. X" means they champion X, not the opposite...as in "Way to go, Mr. Shmuck".

And your basis for morality is antithetical to our republic.

Fascinating. For a "basis of morality" to be antithetical to something, that something would have to express a competing basis of morality, no? Instead you chose "our republic" (i.e. a form of government).

Not sure how/why you chose to equate those two, but (playing along) what exactly is the "basis of morality" of our republic? Is it just our republic, or all republics (like the People's Republic of China) that "my" basis of morality is antithetical to? Here I thought you were mixing apples and oranges with that sentence, but please elaborate, Mr. Philosophy. That post was deep.