No. I believe that slavery was seen as ethically tolerable even though it is not.
Slaves can also have been seen as beneficial for all parties.
People required slaves to do jobs nobody else wanted to do, or couldn't afford to pay people to do. This is important because many farms couldn't have produced enough food to sustain a population if they couldn't own slaves, it would be too expensive otherwise. Also many of the great structures of ancient Rome and the such couldn't have been built if they had to pay the workforce. So while this benefits the people, it does harm the slaves.
Then you could see the slaves as being helped (provided they were sold into slavery willingly). They and their family might not have been able to survive on their own, so selling yourself into slavery gave your family the money to buy more food, and made it so that your owner would have to supply you for the food in exchange for work. While slaves were obviously still getting the butt end of the deal, they still did it willingly with some benefits.
The problem probably came when some people were taken unwillingly into slavery, which may be why America was among the first to illegalize (is that a word?) it.
Conclusion, benefiting a good portion of society could have been seen as moral.
The problem probably came when some people were taken unwillingly into slavery, which may be why America was among the first to illegalize (is that a word?) it.
America was one of the last major countries to make slavery illegal actually. In fact, it might have been -the- last.
America was one of the last major countries to make slavery illegal actually. In fact, it might have been -the- last.
It was also one of the few major countries that actually used slaves in any great scale, like on plantations. England and the other major nations of the time didn't use it on the scale that America did. Some countries used it after America, so depending on your definition of "Major"...
Slaves can also have been seen as beneficial for all parties.
If you are slightly unhinged...
People required slaves to do jobs nobody else wanted to do, or couldn't afford to pay people to do. This is important because many farms couldn't have produced enough food to sustain a population if they couldn't own slaves, it would be too expensive otherwise. Also many of the great structures of ancient Rome and the such couldn't have been built if they had to pay the workforce. So while this benefits the people, it does harm the slaves.
The good thing about slavery...is that it allows free labor? Slavery was used on a major scale in few of the European nations, or really elsewhere, and it was mostly peasant labor. Who where essentially slaves themselves, really. Places like Sparta that DID need to have slaves to feed themselves where completely focused on other things, like warfare in Sparta's case. Saying that Roman structures would not be built without slavery is insane, I have not heard anywhere that slave labor would be used in any noticeable number in any of Rome's great structures. And I like how you separated "Slave" from "People".
Then you could see the slaves as being helped (provided they were sold into slavery willingly). They and their family might not have been able to survive on their own, so selling yourself into slavery gave your family the money to buy more food, and made it so that your owner would have to supply you for the food in exchange for work. While slaves were obviously still getting the butt end of the deal, they still did it willingly with some benefits.
Which rarely happened, and when it did it was a complete last resort, after indentured servitude, and was usually the result of massive dept. The much more likely thing was that one nation would go attack another, and as a war prize, take people as slaves. That is what happened thorough history, even for America who just bought slaves from people who had wars for slaves. This is only beneficial to them if you assume they would have been killed otherwise, which them taking away everything you know and love except your life can hardly be considered beneficial for the slave.
The problem probably came when some people were taken unwillingly into slavery, which may be why America was among the first to illegalize (is that a word?) it.
America legalized it later than most other countries, besides South America, mostly do to both those nations using a massive amount of slave labor for cash crops like cotton and sugar, while Europe didn't use as much. EVERYONE was taking unwillingly into slavery, as I said it was usually a war prize, and the ones who got paid where usually forced into slavery by the governing force for debts.
What does any of this have to do with homosexuality?
Saying being gay or straight is a choice is absurd...
you canot choose what you are, what you like and what you dislike
Precisely... Has anyone here chosen their likes and dislikes? If you could wouldn't you like all sports, all activities, and all foods to never be bored and never dislike anything?
Having said that there are two sexes, not one, male and female.
What does any of this have to do with homosexuality?
We were arguing about morals and the such, and whether slavery was actually considered immoral in the past. It doesn't really fit on this thread, just getting sidetracked.
so, why homosexoality is immoral? i know, the bible {the "old testemente for you} bann it, the action of "wasting spemr for nothing". this is why its wrong by the bible. we cant argue about it. but immoral? what is immoral? and dont give me examples here, i want to know: who can say what is moral and waht not? and as i said befor, a gay couple can be more moral than the biggest priest.
so, why homosexoality is immoral? i know, the bible {the "old testemente for you} bann it, the action of "wasting spemr for nothing". this is why its wrong by the bible. we cant argue about it. but immoral? what is immoral? and dont give me examples here, i want to know: who can say what is moral and waht not? and as i said befor, a gay couple can be more moral than the biggest priest.
unfortunately not even one person who argues against homosexuality was even able to say what is bad or immoral. if you dont have a definition of "bad" or "immoral" of yourself then anything you pretty much say about whats right and wrong just comes from your illogical emotions and fears.
well, so i will say: you cant choose for any one. if he like to fire thing up, you cant change it. you cant decrece it, you can make him fear from fire, or even cut his hands off, but he still will love to fire things up {even if he know that he will suffer from it afterward}. as this, i say its not wrong to be gay, as its not wrong to be a nerd, a stuiped, fat or skinny.
accept yourself dudes. you are what you are. dont be what you think that other peoles think about you, or what you think that they think that is rgiht or wrong.
Yes they did, being gay is a choice. Some people find it okay some people find it akward and wrong. In my opinion that doesn't mean you should put down upon them and discriminate them.
How would you know? Hmm, because you haven't "made the choice"?
Don't make me laugh - how can you call it a choice if you're not someone who has chosen to be gay? I realized and understood and inevitably accepted my sexuality at a fairly young age, however at the time, dealing with coming out, losing my friends, nearly losing my Dad, getting bullied: You think i would have chose to be gay if that's what my pre-teen and early teen years would consist of? No. When i first realized i was gay, i wanted nothing more than to be straight and to fit in to societys little perfect cliches. So if it was a choice: Why didn't i just choose to be straight again?
Ohwait - because it DOES NOT work like that.
Your sexuality hasn't got a switch. You can't turn it on and off. Gay one day, straight the next. It's the same within any sexuality classification: Sometimes you'll like someone you might believe you shouldn't. Like when the really popular guy falls for the nerdy girl. Society thinks it's weird because *most* people believe life follows one boring hell of a path.
We're all made different. Some of us end up being gay. Some of us end up being straight. Some of us end up living life in nothing but a cliche, others break free of societies "norms".
No one chooses who they feel sexually attracted to or who the fall in love with: straight, gay, or transgender. We don't choose to feel happy or sad when we're placed in a situation. We just feel.
And feeling? That's not a crime. That's not immoral.
I don't know what's wrong with the world Feeling awkward about something unnatural like Homosexuality is now considered a mental disorder called Homophobia.
We've already proven to you that Homosexuality is perfectly natural, I wouldn't go as far as classing homophobia as a mental illness, rather I'd class it as self-enforced ignorance and hatred - along the same lines as racism and sexism.
We've already proven to you that Homosexuality is perfectly natural, I wouldn't go as far as classing homophobia as a mental illness, rather I'd class it as self-enforced ignorance and hatred - along the same lines as racism and sexism.
it ain't natural I don't know from where you get this Idea?
I don't know what's wrong with the world Feeling awkward about something unnatural like Homosexuality is now considered a mental disorder called Homophobia.
See, arguments are made by reading the other persons response and actually responding yourself, not by ignoring everything everybody says and repeatedly making ignorant statements. The latter of these two just makes you look like an idiot.
