Quote Originally Posted by gugi View Post
Really? I thought I pointed it - it's written in the original US Constitution, and it was discussed at length at the adoption, as I do not doubt you are well aware. Here it is verbatim with emphasis:

And the lengths to which for example a big-name founding fathers went to defend his right to use his slaves even in the states where it was illegal with the argument that he's there only for the job - those are also well documented.


Well the above mentioned text was repealed after a bloody war in which the side that won happened to be on the progressive (read it as advancing, i.e. moving forward, hate to say it but it seems I have to) side of history. It's still illegal to own people, it is also illegal to rape them (it wasn't if they were your property, slaves or wife), it is illegal to kill them. Reading of the laws pertaining to slaves is very illuminating about 'abuse' and 'exploitation'.



Nope just I didn't think I have to chew your food either, and you don't strike me as a person who would defend slavery, or say pedophilia (another well established ancient practice, which is fallen out of fashion), so I don't understand what is the argument you are making here?
Instead of looking up at the paragraph I explicitly pointed you to you stated that I am rejecting "ideas merely because of age, and regardless of merit" which I didn't do at all. That is indeed putting words in my mouth.
Why the false assumptions and misleading statements? Chew my food for me? Defend slavery and pedophilia? Must you be so petty? And you did make an argument suggesting arrogance should those of the 18th century expect future generations to adopt 18th century rules. You did not specify what rules. Just because you also mentioned a paragraph from the Constitution as part of your post, it doesn't follow that said paragraph had anything to do with the mentioned rules. Just another example of the false logic you seem fond of using in your arguments.

And I thought the slavery issue in America was resolved over 150 years ago. Why are you letting it bother you today? If that is the only part of the Constitution that bothers you, you have nothing to worry about.

Gugi, I don't expect to change your mind, and you know you won't change mine. I was hoping to have a civil conversation with you where we could at least defend our positions, and agree to disagree. But you seem to me to be more interested in winning arguments rather than debating ideas.