Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Bloody kansas Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/bloody_kansas#8030 Post contents: <i>"While slavery CAN be de-humanizing, it is not necessarily so."</i> This fails to address my argument. There are three choices: In dealing with <i>persona est sui juris non alterius juris</i>, one must 1. either attack the predicate and deny that each person is sui juris, and would be thus alterius juris, and thus argue as do all child-killers; or 2. one must attack the subject and deny that someone is a person (and would be thus an <i>Untermensch</i>), and thus argue as some child-killers; or 3. one must agree that each and every person is sui juris, and thus slavery (by definition always a violation of <i>persona est sui juris</i>) is always dehumanizing -- as is child-killing. Of course only the 3rd choice is correct. <i>"One can be both a slave and have happiness".</i> This also ignores my argument. If a person were not sui juris, then he would not be <i>entitled</i> by his nature as a person to any happiness whatsoever -- at most he must settle for crumbs from the table. To compare slavery to stealing underwear means either that one needs a course either in ethics or in analogy. The woeful performance of Gringo Kinder on the analogy section of the SAT provides no comfort. He who argues on behalf of slavery (or child-killing) as morally just and natural needs to tell us if he'd approve of his <i>own</i> just and natural enslavement to another -- either of his free will or by coercion. The Golden Rule and the categorical imperative trump again. Sent at: 2008 07 09