I don't think you realize just how perfect that top paragraph is in every way you don't intend it to be.
I didn't ignore it. First of all, Lloyd never once mentioned "vanity monuments" so don't lie to me, he only talked about slavery being used to have the production to bring in necessities. This subject isn't nearly as simple as you foolishly think it is and I don't think you can appreciate the subject matter or the moral complexities it involves.
Also yes, if something is common it's going to be viewed as acceptable by more people at the time it was common.
I'm not even going to bother responding to that last chunk. Lloyd didn't refer to a monument being built out of slave labour and I'm not letting you poison the topic like that. Rephrase your point and I'll respond.
You absolutely are mischaracterizing shit, the "Vanity monuments" is a good example.
The ACTUAL topic here is if slavery of the few would be acceptable if it provides necessities for the many, which is the core of Lloyd's argument. Somehow you turned that into some simplified, bozo topic of, "is it moral to have slaves to get a stone-age self-portrait? I say no!" Like, no shit but nobody was arguing that.
why are you atheist? why are you theist?
← View full post
I don't think you realize just how perfect that top paragraph is in every way you don't intend it to be.
I didn't ignore it. First of all, Lloyd never once mentioned "vanity monuments" so don't lie to me, he only talked about slavery being used to have the production to bring in necessities. This subject isn't nearly as simple as you foolishly think it is and I don't think you can appreciate the subject matter or the moral complexities it involves.
Also yes, if something is common it's going to be viewed as acceptable by more people at the time it was common.
I'm not even going to bother responding to that last chunk. Lloyd didn't refer to a monument being built out of slave labour and I'm not letting you poison the topic like that. Rephrase your point and I'll respond.
You absolutely are mischaracterizing shit, the "Vanity monuments" is a good example.
The ACTUAL topic here is if slavery of the few would be acceptable if it provides necessities for the many, which is the core of Lloyd's argument. Somehow you turned that into some simplified, bozo topic of, "is it moral to have slaves to get a stone-age self-portrait? I say no!" Like, no shit but nobody was arguing that.