It does have to affect the individual though.
Given your posts over the past 6 weeks?
then what is, a more perfect union?
lynchingâs effect the lynched more than the community
You havenât answered my question yet.
what question did you ask
Itâs a community activity. Witch burnings, captive sacrifice and lynching serve the same communal service. In this case, what happens in the community most certainly affects the individuals involved, from the direct to the observer. There are always degrees in difference.
so you think the lynching victim and the community are impacted equally, one dies so they all die in essence.
It strengthens bonds. From the lynchings in the south to head hunting in the phillipines, they all fulfill the roles of cohesion and power structure consolidation.
The power of these activities affect an individual in a strictly somatic sense, but by no means does that mean community sacrifice is rendered purely metaphysical.
that is bold new ground for a communist. now you argue that racism and persecution are good for social cohesiveness.
now Jim crow was for social cohesion it was therefore good. Really???
I recommend an essay called: Grief and a Headhunterâs rage, by Renato Rosaldo. Itâs available for free on google.
The tl;dr: the ilingot practiced ritual raiding and decapitation to express grief for loss. They abandoned this practice once the tribe converted to Christianity, changing their relationship from violence as an outlet to prayer and celebration of God.
in your example you now advocate for the trail of tears. You really are on a streak here.
perhaps we should kill 4 billion so 3 billion can remain.
Itâs not a ânewâ analysis, nor is ritual murder âgoodâ. Remember, this is practiced by racists, religious zealots and tribal people; its nearly universal among mankind.
The symbol of the sacrifice is prominent in Christianity, with a Roman execution device representing the religion itself.
Acknowledging this practice is not tantamount to condoning it.
if pedophilia and incest were common would that make them good?
I am by no means saying that your type of apologism does not exist, I am simply saying it is meaningless as it accepts all things are ok and there is no good or bad,
for you murder is ok, massacre is ok, plague and germ warfare are ok, but what end do you pursue chairman Mao.
Wow, I think youâre misunderstanding my position. Thatâs ok though.
1 Like
your position is to avoid a position, I suggest you read on Liberty by Mill, it is a great explanation that allows for your relativism.
While your essay may explain tribal culture would you compare enlightened thinkers to tribes?
No. I wouldnât. Though many cultured, educated, and âenlightenedâ can be swept up in the same amoral bloodlust as the most isolated tribe in the Amazon.
Recognizing this tendency is not celebratory, rather itâs the first step in any social architects toolkit to implementing change.
1 Like
And you are able to speak authoritatively about Satan based on what exactly?
no apply your theory to the development of the US Constitution as it relates back to English common law.
Thatâs too narrow of a scope. Before and after the Constitution was ratified, there were government payments for the scalps of Indian men, women and children.
How do you rectify this obvious contradiction? During the French and Indian war, maybe, but after the bill of rights?
