Is imparting modern day morals on historic events wrong?

Is imparting modern day morals on historic events wrong?
And by this I don't mean things like medical practices or using god as the explanation for everything because they honestly did not know better, they lacked enough informatiom to infer otherwise.
I'm talking about actions like Slavery or Genocide which were not as "in the grey" or missunderstood as things like medicine. They knew what they were doing. So is it still wrong to judge people who ordered these actions as "bad"? And if so why?

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It isn't, there is one objective morality. It doesn't changes with time, we just got better in understanding it with more experience as civilization.

No we don't. We're sinners in the hands of an angry God and always have been.

It's not terribly useful to "judge" historical figures at all, by any standard, if your goal is to learn about history.

It's also hard not to make judgments about these people, especially when those judgments involve things like economic policies during times of economic crisis or strategic decisions in war. You're taking a very reductive view of what "learning about history" entails.

No, the problem is modern day morals are flawed and memetic, a symptom of democracy where politicians appeal to the bottom 51% and criticism is the standard rather than something constructive you reserve for actual problems.

Liberals will scold you for doing nothing in the trolley problem then scold you for pulling the lever because it resulted in a death. They have no undertstanding of the complexities of the world.

On the plus side we have shed spooky morals like "buttsex is bad", which is great, I guess, however they have also created more spooks like using accusations of sexism, racism and homophobia as punctuation.

No, it's idiotic and ends up just being used to downplay anything significant the figure did.

Who cares about Andrew Jackson's effects on foreign policy, border expansion, and economics? He was MEAN to INDIANS which by today's standards is bad so we should shun and ignore him.

Who cares about Caesar's wars on Gaul, his popularity as a hero, him being a symptom of Rome's post-Punic economic woes, and his transition of the Republic to an empire? He was a POPULIST who did what COMMONERS wanted instead of what RICH PEOPLE wanted which is bad and so we should shun and ignore him.

History is about understanding WHY things occurred and WHAT lead to them, not ranking historical figures on some nebulous and entirely subjective chart of how many good boy points they earned.

>On the plus side we have shed spooky morals like "buttsex is bad", which is great, I guess,
Kill yourself, my dude

Not in the current year, my boy.

Look, fuckhead, a majority of people deciding that 2 and 2 is 5 doesn't make 2 and 2 make 5.
A majority of Supreme Court Justices deciding that gay marriage is a constitutional right of all Americans doesn't make anal sex moral, nor does it make homosexuality something that an entire population should engage in to the point of not having children.
All that is happening is the imposition of the morality of a minority group of sexual deviants
on the population of the world at large.
Faggots refuse to admit that they're destroying the public sphere.

>there is one objective morality
>this is what cuckservatives truly believe

>le epick stefan molyneaux macro
>attached to a post that isn't an argument

>Faggots refuse to admit that they're destroying the public sphere.
>destroying the public sphere.
how so?

How is anal sex amoral?
How is homosexuality harmful?
Who said anyone was going to engaging in homosexuality to the point of not having children?
Even gays want kids

Look up Historical empathy. It covers this topic pretty well

>How is anal sex amoral?

I don't have to make an argument, I'm making a counterpoint against a non-argument.
>how so?
How is it not? The average person is afraid to speak out on topics like gender theory because of the possibility of having their career destroyed by people pushing the LGBTQ agenda in the media and in political structures.
The burden of proof is on to show why "buttsex is bad" is just spooky thinking.
>How is homosexuality harmful?
It's harmful to the children who are abused by pedophiles, who can hide in plain sight much more easily in societies where homosexuality is normalized. It's detrimental to population growth. It's at odds with traditional forms of Western morality and most major Western religions, which means that it's a threat to the heritage of Western civilization (not to be confused with Greco-Roman civilization).
>Who said anyone was going to engaging in homosexuality to the point of not having children?
Anti-natalists, for one.
>Even gays want kids
If that were true, they wouldn't be gay. Adoption and conception are not the same and do not result in identical relations between 'parent' and 'child.'

>Look, fuckhead, a majority of people deciding that 2 and 2 is 5 doesn't make 2 and 2 make 5.
>a majority deciding the symbol "5" now stands for four would not make it so
But that's how language works.

It's how everything else works.

Most of anal sex is heterosexual one, faggot.

You are not just wrong objectively on almost every point but we are so diffrent in the way we think that not a single one of your conclusions even makes sense to me

Does that make it moral?

> If that were true, they wouldn't be gay.
They have no choice. It is like being choose to not be retarded, autistic or being from /pol/.

> heterosexuality is amoral
wow, just wow

>How is it not?
>The burden of proof is on
not arguments, also there's a containment board for people like (you)

>You are not just wrong objectively on almost every point
How about a couple citations? I'd love to stop believing that most pedophiles are attracted to members of their own sex, but I've seen statistics that lead me to think that it's the case.
Are anti-natalists now natalists?
Are adopted children inheritors of their adopted parents' genes, or the genes of their biological parents?

> It's detrimental to population growth.
Because, gays would fuck each other for children if you hate homosex? Obviously isn't really going happen, no matter how much you hate homosex.

>They have no choice.
How so? A lesbian can choose to tough it out and get knocked up by a man without any intermediaries.
>not arguments
So that user doesn't have to support any of his claims?
sodomy*

>homo=pedos
>breeding as much as possible is a good approach to building society
>you should maintain idea without question because they have been held prior
>dudes fucking dudes is new

This aside - my real question is - am I amoral if I involve my gf in sodomy occasionally?

>Obviously isn't really going happen, no matter how much you hate homosex.
That isn't a reason to oppose homosexuality, that's more of a reason to oppose its widespread acceptance: it reduces the likelihood even further.

I can't really give you a source because you can't really have an argument against a negative claim.
It's like asking me to prove that napoleon didn't eat babies

>=
Hmm. I don't think I said that.
>possible
I think a more accurate word would be 'necessary,' but you're not reading for content, are you?
>>you should maintain idea without question because they have been held prior
When there are no better alternatives or when an old idea is also a true one, why bother discarding them?
>>dudes fucking dudes is new
No idea where you got this from. The widespread legalization of gay marriage across the Western world is a recent development.

Most gays aren't pedophiles, so it is irrelevant here.

>am I amoral if I involve my gf in sodomy occasionally?
Yes, you are.
>you can't really have an argument against a negative claim.
Why not? I don't think this is an excuse. There's no reason I should just take you at your word.
>It's like asking me to prove that napoleon didn't eat babies
No it isn't. And even if it were, you could very well put some effort into showing why the proposition ought to be rejected. A lot has been written about Napoleon, there are primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. sources; a lot of literature to consult and from which you could draw if you were serious about showing that it's at least odd to think that Napoleon ate babies.

> it reduces the likelihood even further
It doesn't reduce anything. Just marginalizes ones that already homosexual into full deviants that are harmful in real way instead of memetic one.

>Most gays aren't pedophiles
The point was about the ability of pedophiles to blend in. If pedophiles tend to abuse members of their own sex, how is it irrelevant?

>Just marginalizes ones that already homosexual into full deviants that are harmful in real way instead of memetic one.
They're already harmful in a real way, though. Homosexuality is a disease of the body politic and a threat to the traditions and customs that bind civilization together.

>I think a more accurate word would be 'necessary,' but you're not reading for content, are you?
Right, because we should just mindlessly breed like animals?
>When there are no better alternatives or when an old idea is also a true one, why bother discarding them?
You still havent proved that those ideas were 'true' or 'better'. This whole appeal to tradition is a fallacy anyway. I could say modern medicine is taking us away from our ancestral tradition of dying of the plague and that would be righfully called out as a retarded argument against medicine.
>No idea where you got this from. The widespread legalization of gay marriage across the Western world is a recent development.
Something being a new phenomenon doesnt mean its automatically bad.

> lesbian can choose to tough it out
Yes, but why would they? They aren't interested in heterosexual sex. Are you stand for prostitution or what? Money is only one reason to tough it up and participate in a sex that you aren't actually enjoy.

>am I amoral if I involve my gf in sodomy occasionally?
>Yes, you are.

But its consensual... we're not hurting anyone. Plus, I'm having just a swell time.

So how is this amoral?

> ability of pedophiles to blend in.
Gays are minority, most pedophiles blend in the crowd of heterosexual majority.

Homosexuality is a disease of the body politic and a threat to the traditions and customs that bind civilization together.

Talk about being a drama queen holy shit

>Right, because we should just mindlessly breed like animals?
We should breed sustainably. It's a biological and moral imperative.
>Right, because we should just mindlessly breed like animals?
Again, the burden of proof is on the poster who said that "buttsex is bad" amounts to nothing more than spooky thinking. I'm just not willing to take that point for granted, and nobody seems to actually want to offer an argument in favor of it.
>So how is this amoral?
The purpose of sex is procreation. Sex that does not result in procreation is immoral. Fortunately, Jesus Christ died for our sins and there is the possibility of redemption for every sinner.
>most pedophiles blend in the crowd of heterosexual majority.
Pedophiles are a minority, too. That doesn't mean we should encourage the growth of the pedophile population.

Talk about non-arguments.

>Why not?
Because you haven't proved it to begin with. You expect me to take your arguement seriously without anything to back it up.
>And even if it were, you could very well put some effort into showing why the proposition ought to be rejected. A lot has been written about Napoleon, there are primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. sources; a lot of literature to consult and from which you could draw if you were serious about showing that it's at least odd to think that Napoleon ate babies.
Then all you have to do is say "that doesn't prove nuffen" and you would think you would have won. If you wanted you could go the extra mile and say it's all a conspiracy and the French are hiding it.

It's very wrong.
It's like applying modern context to historic events. I personally can't go a day without my cellphone. But if I lived in a different time, I'd be perfectly happy without a cellphone.

When you read about a historical event, you have to understand the context of the poeple living in that era, that they were content without the many technologies we have, and some things we're content with they were not content with.

If the context of my life, for example, could be translated into the context of 1000 years ago, it'd be about a guy who isn't very ambitious; he works as a fisherman, but he takes off more time than whats socially acceptable, so he can read books and indulge himself in degenerative behaviors such as ogling women and eating too much food. I am a fisherman in real life, but I don't take off more time than I'm supposed to; I'm on unemployment, but unemployment wouldn't exist back then, so I have to replace it with a context that fits the same narrative as my life. I don't read books either; and I think this would be on par with someone going on the computer, or maybe someone who spends too much time on walks looking at women (as opposed to pornography). I can't translate literal ideas, because then a computer geek living in 1016 wouldn't make sense.

> threat to the traditions and customs
Literally harmful in a most memetic way possible. Lazy heterosexual people should just man up and make five children and care about them, instead of shit posting about fertility rates or blaming a gays. Literally nothing stops them from sticking penises into pussies. They doesn't even have being homo, as an excuse. Blacks in fucking Africa could do it and you aren't even in fucking shit hole. Of course they for some autistic reason prefer to spent their time to whine about scary homos, but not on sex up all of fertility rates or something. Truly pathetic.

> Sex that does not result in procreation is immoral.
It isn't. Sex is pretty pleasant by itself and God wouldn't create humans to have a pleasure from something amoral.

Bloody hope he dosnt lads.

Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
>Literally harmful in a most memetic way possible.
"Memetic?" What do you even mean?
>Lazy heterosexual people
lmao as if the faggots who don't bear and raise children aren't the lazy ones.
>Literally nothing stops them from sticking penises into pussies.
Except for things like consent, incentive, and economic condition, attraction, etc.
>Blacks in fucking Africa could do it and you aren't even in fucking shit hole.
What does this have to do with my claim that sustainable breeding strategies are preferable to unsustainable ones?
>Of course they for some autistic reason prefer to spent their time to whine about scary homos, but not on sex up all of fertility rates or something. Truly pathetic.
Why should fertility rates increase in societies that accept homsexuality as a norm?

>Sex is pretty pleasant by itself and God wouldn't create humans to have a pleasure from something amoral.
That's actually the opposite of how it works. Worldly pleasures are exactly what the Devil uses to tempt mortals into sin. But anyone with a brain who reads your post knows that.

>We should breed sustainably. It's a biological and moral imperative.
I think we can handle ~5% of the population being homo without causing a major catastrophe.
>Again, the burden of proof is on the poster who said that "buttsex is bad" amounts to nothing more than spooky thinking. I'm just not willing to take that point for granted, and nobody seems to actually want to offer an argument in favor of it.
Because nobody but you in this thread sees buttsex as something 'wrong'. It is hard to argue against your mindset because nobody understands the concern.
>The purpose of sex is procreation. Sex that does not result in procreation is immoral. Fortunately, Jesus Christ died for our sins and there is the possibility of redemption for every sinner.
This is not an argument. You cant impose religious morals on a secular state.
>Pedophiles are a minority, too. That doesn't mean we should encourage the growth of the pedophile population.
What are you even trying to argue here???

> Devil uses to tempt mortals into sin
Devil was defeated by Jesus Christ, he has no power over humans anymore. If you disrespect the Jesus sacrifice, there is nothing for me to say for people like you, who willingly sided with Devil himself.

>I think we can handle ~5% of the population being homo without causing a major catastrophe.
It would be easier if they weren't allowed to be homosexuals openly. Why do you want to make it harder for civilization to survive?
>Because nobody but you in this thread sees buttsex as something 'wrong'.
But they ought to see a reason to explain why it's right if they think that it is.
>It is hard to argue against your mindset because nobody understands the concern.
You're telling me that nobody ITT makes a distinction between right and wrong behavior? So I'm right anyway, you're just a bunch of amoral fucks who we'd be better off throwing into a camp somewhere.
>This is not an argument. You cant impose religious morals on a secular state.
A secular state can't impose secular values on a religious mind or group of minds.
>What are you even trying to argue here???
That homosexuality ought not be normalized.
>Devil was defeated by Jesus Christ, he has no power over humans anymore.
lmao

> What do you even mean?
Traditions and customs are literally memes.
> lmao as if the faggots aren't the lazy ones.
Homosexualism is the mental disability. You can't blame disabled persons for being incapable. Many heterosexual persons are healthy as still childless by their own will, while being fertile. They are truly lazy ones here.
> consent, incentive, and economic condition, attraction, etc.
Pathetic excuses. This shit doesn't stop blacks in Africa. Why is should stop the people of the west?
> sustainable breeding strategies are preferable to unsustainable ones?
Homosexuals impact on the breeding strategies is neglectable. They impact it no more that any other disabled or incapable persons. It is heterosexuals, their choices and preferences that impact it. Not a truly tragic, rare anomaly that is a homosexualism.
> Why should fertility rates increase in societies that accept homosexuality as a norm?
Legal homosexual pairs can rise adopted children, the more possibility for adoptions means the more children can be brought into the world sustainably.

>lmao
Jesus himself went into Hell and kicked devil ass, read the Bible.

I want to put my penis inside women's butt's though. I don't know why, it's just awesome.

> Why do you want to make it harder for civilization to survive?
Because, now you have ~5% persons who is okay with civilization being destroyed. On top of already existed problems and threats. Why do you need a more internal enemies? Too make things harder?

>It would be easier if they weren't allowed to be homosexuals openly. Why do you want to make it harder for civilization to survive?
Because they are not an existential threat to civilization? Only a lunatic would believe otherwise.
>But they ought to see a reason to explain why it's right if they think that it is.
Its a mostly harmless avenue of pleasure between people, why is it wrong?
>You're telling me that nobody ITT makes a distinction between right and wrong behavior? So I'm right anyway, you're just a bunch of amoral fucks who we'd be better off throwing into a camp somewhere.
*tips crucifix*
>A secular state can't impose secular values on a religious mind or group of minds.
But it can and it is already doing it. Dont like it? You can go form your own state free of degeneracy somewhere in Guyana, careful with the snooping congressmen and the cyanide though.

>Traditions and customs are literally memes.
So what? This doesn't look like an argument.
>Many heterosexual persons are healthy as still childless by their own will, while being fertile. They are truly lazy ones here.
Perhaps they are, but homosexuals structure their lifestyle around the rejection of the possibility of conception because of their mental illness. I don't see what 'laziness' has to do with it anyway, a person might want children but not be able to have them because he has no partner and he can't support them.
>Pathetic excuses. This shit doesn't stop blacks in Africa. Why is should stop the people of the west?
It doesn't stop blacks in the West, either. Whites want their children to live good lives, unlike blacks, who use their children as bargaining chips with the welfare state.
>Homosexuals impact on the breeding strategies is neglectable.
In a society where being gay means being executed, having children can be a nice form of cover.
> They impact it no more that any other disabled or incapable persons.
If they're fertile, then they are impacting it.
>It is heterosexuals, their choices and preferences that impact it.
Homosexuals are making choices based on their preferences. Removing yourself from the gene pool is what it is no matter who you're attracted to.
>Legal homosexual pairs can rise adopted children, the more possibility for adoptions means the more children can be brought into the world sustainably.
Those people could raise their own children and do the world a favor by producing a life, rather than funneling resources that could go toward maintaining a family into someone else's family for them. There's nothing inherently wrong with adoption, but it's shameful to elevate it to the same level as biological parenthood. Not to mention that a world where Africans don't receive as much food aid as they do and have as many children as they do would be a better one.

>Jesus himself went into Hell and kicked devil ass, read the Bible.
And the Devil continues to tempt us. Go to Mass.
So you're telling me all gays are potential terrorists?
>Because they are not an existential threat to civilization? Only a lunatic would believe otherwise.
[citation needed]
>Its a mostly harmless avenue of pleasure between people, why is it wrong?
Don't ask me why it's wrong, tell me why it's right.
>*tips crucifix*
:^)
>But it can and it is already doing it. Dont like it? You can go form your own state free of degeneracy somewhere in Guyana, careful with the snooping congressmen and the cyanide though.
But I live in a country where I'm supposed to be able to practice my religion as I please. My government is violating my civil rights if what you're saying, that I should leave the country if my government is acting as it is, is true. The great American tradition isn't homosexuality, it's religious fervor.

Since when religious morals trump secular morals and law in a secular state? Monastic states died a long time ago..

>OP asks a question about historical relativity
>thread devolves into a bunch of faggots arguing over the morality of gay sex

Welcome to Veeky Forums

>Kill yourself
But then who would satisfy your mother sexually?
>The burden of proof is on to show why "buttsex is bad" is just spooky thinking.
Occam's razor.

If I were to assume things are immoral without evidence then countless inane things could be called immoral, skipping stones, juggling, poker, squats, etcetera... All logical arguments stem from evidence. I have not found any evidence that proves 2 consenting adults engaging in anal sex is immoral so there is no reason to assume so.

> homosexuals structure their lifestyle around the rejection of the possibility of conception
There are no legal means for homosexual person, that wants to structure lifestyle around possibility of conception to do that. What are you suggest if homosexual want to do this? Arranged marriages of some kind? Society hates an idea of them too.
> Having children can be a nice form of cover.
Why not just made children mandatory to have if you are already murder people to sustaining birth rates? Much more direct solution for problem, but heterofags doesn't want to take that responsibility as if 10 cover children are more than 500000 from now forced to form by law new heterosexual pairs.
> If they're fertile, then they are impacting it.
The one and only real impact is from heterosexual people. Battling homosexuality is light arranging a books by alphabetic order, when your entire house in on fire. The real problem comes from heterofags.
> Homosexuals are making choices based on their preferences
They aren't even a majority. And their participation opportunity in breeding is fucking hard. Meanwhile the heterosexual who could just participate in sex without any problems are just too lazy for a fucks.
> do the world a favor by producing a life
Why do you need even more homosexuals? It is a moral thing to let heterosexuals reproduce instead.

> Devil continues to tempt us.
Being Christian means being under Protection of Jesus Christ himself. Devil got no power over you.

> So you're telling me all gays are potential terrorists?
If society doesn't accept people, people become naturally opposed to it. Terrorism, revolution or a subtle behind the scene machinations, methods can be pretty different, from case to case. There enough enemies as it is. No need for even more.

t. Socrates

a u t i s m :)

Looking at their other articles the writers of this article seem a little biased and even then this doesn't prove anything about how homosexuality is amoral or how pedophilia can hide better in homosexual spaces

Yes. Morality isn't one objective truth, its a culmination of thousands of years of thought and general acceptance.

Besides it serves no purpose to the actual understanding of history. Painting things that happened as good guys and bad guys does nothing but muddle your education and create bias.

anal sex =/= heterosexuality
literally genocide you and your entire people

Most of anal sex users are heterosexuals

...

*we just got worse at understanding it

FIFY

Morals do not go on events.

Its like duck taping a dildo to your face.

A bad move.

Shit happens and many different people have many different opinions the change as time passes.

Keep that shit separated. Events on one side and reactions on the other.

There are countless events that were once approved or disapproved only to have the public opinion flip flop like mad.

Once you go far back enough that people are notably not modern(when doing the morals+events combo), everyone turns into assholes.

Age of consent lower than what is the modern age?
=Everyone is a pedo
Slavery?
Was near global 300-400 years ago
Homos?
As the faggots bitching in this thread can attest people still cant pull their head out of their ass about that one. Also the democracy inventing Greeks were also Olympic level butt stuffers.

Branding bits and pieces good or bad is kinda dumb, public opinion will flip flop again within the century.

Just look at the United states.

At first they were all "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" and then they flipped to "fuck the foreigners they are stealing our jobs and ruining the economy" and then back again.

I think they are on Round 3 of "fuck the foreigners", who knows how long that will last this time?