Governments for the Quadras

[anndelise]

I really don't like political talks, but this just really got my goat (bolded emphasis mine):

That is not to say that Delta was typically pro-slavery. I think they saw slavery as part of the + - as a tool to keep the existing economic prosperity. Slaves were not included in the +. They "did not count". Pretty much like they did not count for the slave-owner, EII Thomas Jefferson when he wrote about the "self-evident truths".

Even if deltans adopted the cultural perspective that slaves were animals and not human, I sincerely doubt that that would have negated slaves from being included in Ne+Fi. How many Ne+Fi exclude Ne + Fi for animals? Do work horses not have rights and feelings as well? Are dogs just used as tools for hunting or guarding and not as companions nor friends? Cats are only good for catching mice or for fur coats I guess. And we certainly never find Ne+Fi fighting for the rights of endangered species, victims of animal abuse, etc. That Ne+Fi is reserved only for criminals and prisoners since they are 'human' and not 'animals' right?

a friend of mine who was listening to me rant and rave about the 'stupid' comment above said:

NF is going to be primarily concerned with affect regardless of whether it's human or animal ... I mean, it's the F-types that are most likely to be accused of anthropomorphizing (treating animals as if they were human)

I agree.

I sincerely doubt that Ne+Fi nor the delta quadra has changed so dramatically in such a short time (during civil war as it was happening) and all across the globe at the very same time as one country's war.

Unless of course delta wouldn't have been interested nor encouraging, nor even taking action in the underground railroad. After all, supposedly, Ne+Fi would have viewed these 'animals' as unworthy of Ne+Fi. Or maybe these people who care about animal rights, fighting animal cruelty, fighting animal enslavement, etc aren't really Ne+Fi .

[Expat]

anndelise's post is a classical example of straw man argument. She addresses a point I neither made nor implied - her point is all in her misinterpretation of what I said. My arguments obviously went way above her head, and she can only address her emotional and erroneous reading-between-the-lines of what I wrote, rather than what I did write.

And, if my record of past interactions with her is any indication, no clarification that I make now will make any difference; and her reaction will be to stick to her misinterpretations, no matter what I say now.

Still, for the sake of those who might be interested.

My propositions were that in its historical context, the pre-Civil War American South was Delta. I further suggested that Thomas Jefferson's own views of the Republic were Delta.

However, precisely because I know that the first thing that comes to the mind of many people whenever the Old South (although not, bizarrely, Jefferson's and Washington's Virginia) is mentioned is "slavery", I thought I might address the issue head-on when I said

That is not to say that Delta was typically pro-slavery

So, my point was precisely that the Old South's Delta-ness was so despite its slavery-based economy and society - not because of it.

(I have also said, here and elsewhere, that ancient Rome was mainly Gamma, and guess what, it was a slavery-based society. Neither did I mean then that it has slaves because it was Gamma. I also said that medieval Germany, who had slaves as well as serfs, was Delta. The same goes for that. And so on and so forth.)

I then said this:

Slaves were not included in the +. They "did not count". Pretty much like they did not count for the slave-owner, EII Thomas Jefferson when he wrote about the "self-evident truths".

Well, what a surprise. Do I have to teach American folks their own history?

Thomas Jefferson was a slave-owner. He did not even free all of his slaves when he died, unlike Washington (because he could not afford to). Yet he did write the stuff about "all men being created equal" and "life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness". That means that either he was a totally cynical hypocrite - as were, then, most of the other guys who signed their names under those words - or that, somehow, in their minds, slaves "did not count" when making that case for independence. That is painfully obvious.

How does it follow that pointing out the above means that I said or implied that they thought that "slaves were animals" or even that they should not be treated humanely? Simply: it doesn't.

But, if someone - or a whole society - talks, presumably sincerely, about "all men created equal" - while having slaves, then, to use Jefferson's phrase, it is "self-evident" that slaves did not count for that reasoning - and so having no effect on the Delta-ness either way. And that has nothing to do, necessarily, with how well they were treated on a daily basis.

That was all that there was about my point.

Having said that: Jefferson's views on slavery, and blacks (and Native Americans, etc etc) were complex and sometimes contradictory; but he wrote at length about them. He wrote at length about pretty much everything.

I can't make it clearer, so I won't bother clarifying it further to those who are too thick to get it.