FWIS3

SciFiFisher wrote:[
A lot of the dietary restrictions in religion seem to revolve around preventing illness and/or death. i.e. the prohibition against eating pork more than likely arose from the fact that it was associated with several diseases and requires very thorough cooking.

code monkey wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:[
A lot of the dietary restrictions in religion seem to revolve around preventing illness and/or death. i.e. the prohibition against eating pork more than likely arose from the fact that it was associated with several diseases and requires very thorough cooking.

yes, or a consideration of the animal's habits. eg shellfish were seen as scavengers and are off limits.

pumpkinpi wrote:This has got to be one of the best thread derailments ever!

grapes wrote:

pumpkinpi wrote:This has got to be one of the best thread derailments ever!

Or, a perfect example of a nanoaggression

grapes wrote:

pumpkinpi wrote:This has got to be one of the best thread derailments ever!

Or, a perfect example of a nanoaggression

code monkey wrote:yes, or a consideration of the animal's habits. eg shellfish were seen as scavengers and are off limits.

pumpkinpi wrote:This has got to be one of the best thread derailments ever!

code monkey wrote:geonuc, yes, the amendment process is not an easy one and I don't think that it should be. however, the founding fathers clearly meant to enable alteration. in other words, they did not consider the constitution to be carved in stone but to be something that could, and should, change with time. (how's that for mind-reading?) consider the conditions of the times, so many of which we find utterly repugnant now. and how would they have thought about the expectation of privacy when speaking on a cell 'phone?

tarragon, i'm afraid that that does not give me a sense of stability. so many of our social norms have changed that this seems to be a mug's game.

Tarragon wrote:

code monkey wrote:geonuc, yes, the amendment process is not an easy one and I don't think that it should be. however, the founding fathers clearly meant to enable alteration. in other words, they did not consider the constitution to be carved in stone but to be something that could, and should, change with time. (how's that for mind-reading?) consider the conditions of the times, so many of which we find utterly repugnant now. and how would they have thought about the expectation of privacy when speaking on a cell 'phone?

tarragon, i'm afraid that that does not give me a sense of stability. so many of our social norms have changed that this seems to be a mug's game.

To be fair to the Founders, it's a burden they didn't ask for. Some of them anticipated and hoped for changing norms, which is one of the reasons why they kicked the can down the road twenty years by prohibiting any new laws on the issue of slavery. The change in the norm they hoped for may have been public opinion, changing economics, or technological innovation. Unfortunately for the anti-slavery people, technological innovation, in the form of the cotton gin, made slavery worse by reducing the need for slow, skilled slave labor of manual de-seeding and massively increasing the need for unskilled slave labor to feed the hungry, mechanical cotton gins.

Visualizing counter-factuals is always difficult. So, we don't know if things would have been better or worse without what meager stability those rules created. If we hadn't changed the rules, women would still be "represented" in politics by their husbands. One might call that stable, even if one doesn't call it good. But even the Founder's didn't demand that system, they left it up to the states, which have been more eager to change laws to suit the whims of the ruling class (for better or worse).

Edit: Oops! I missed this page and just realized the thread had moved on. Or should I say "pOops!"

Tarragon wrote:Edit: Oops! I missed this page and just realized the thread had moved on. Or should I say "pOops!"

vendic wrote:Of course, a lot of people would have just killed off the slaves as its cheaper and easier than setting them free or feeding them.

SciFiFisher wrote:Plus, you forgot the Sharecropper model. Keep them right on the edge of starvation and they work really hard to put enough food on the table.

vendic wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:Plus, you forgot the Sharecropper model. Keep them right on the edge of starvation and they work really hard to put enough food on the table.

You mean the Corporate America model?

SciFiFisher wrote:
Or tried shipping them back to Africa as a humane effort to repatriate them to their “home land”.

The Republic of Liberia began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed blacks would face better chances for freedom in Africa than in the United States.[8] The country declared its independence on July 26, 1847. The U.S. did not recognize Liberia's independence until during the American Civil War on February 5, 1862. Between January 7, 1822 and the American Civil War, more than 15,000 freed and free-born black Americans, who faced legislated limits in the U.S., and 3,198 Afro-Caribbeans, relocated to the settlement.[9] The black American settlers carried their culture with them to Liberia. The Liberian constitution and flag were modeled after those of the U.S. On January 3, 1848, Joseph Jenkins Roberts, a wealthy, free-born black American from Virginia who settled in Liberia, was elected as Liberia's first president after the people proclaimed independence

SciFiFisher wrote:

vendic wrote:Of course, a lot of people would have just killed off the slaves as its cheaper and easier than setting them free or feeding them.

Or tried shipping them back to Africa as a humane effort to repatriate them to their “home land”.

Plus, you forgot the Sharecropper model. Keep them right on the edge of starvation and they work really hard to put enough food on the table.