Thread:High Prince Imrahil/@comment-26210095-20160718114659/@comment-26295802-20160719005543

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: High Prince Imrahil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: High Prince Imrahil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: High Prince Imrahil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

High Prince Imrahil wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: Of the people of the nation, but not of the actions that nation took which shaped what it did - and thus how it should be viewed. If you kill someone (illegally), but think killing is wrong - yet were trying to kill them - you're no less a murderer. That depends on how you define a nation. A nation is still made up of people, whether they have power and make decisions or not. It's made up of people, but in this case they didn't call the shots. If they don't make decisions, the nation itself as a country doesn't represent them. In this case too, it doesn't. And while that battle-flag to you may represent mundane heroism, it is no excuse for what their leadership stood for. "mudane heroism"? I'll ignore that...

You forget that The Confederacy was, in fact, a representative government. Now granted "representative" is a relative term since only white males could vote, but it was certainly not a monarchy, and leadership wasn't perminent. And yet most of these representatives were racist morons. You could've said the same about America... or Britain... our literally any country before it abolished slavery. The only difference is that The CSA didn't have time to abolish slavery because certain someones decided to raze the South to the ground And because they didn't change, they're racist. How is that even an argument? It's a fact. Had England mysteriously become nonexistent in the 1600s after having a period of genocide, and someone was flying their flag then I'd feel exactly the same. That's idiotic. At that point you're hating civilizations just for not lasting longer then others. I'm disliking something for what it is. I also dislike pretty much all of the civilisations at that time, and if someone tries to say they don't stand for something which they do, then that's their problem. However, the Roman Empire is another good example. I dislike them, rather obviously, and if you say you support them and won't admit they were morally questionable then that's rather questionable in itself. Sure, I'm subjecting them to modern standards, but why shouldn't I? Are modern civilisations not better than those? I have admitted The South was morally questionable. Multiple times. Are you listening?

As far as the latter questions go, I believe that's the cue to end this debate. Whether or not to subject ancient civilizations to modern standards of ethics and morality is far more a philosophical dilemma then a historical one, and given our varying views on the source of morality and theology, I seriously doubt we'll get much further.