@Rgal
My boy you left me, but not the comment section. Guess I'll be able to have some more fun lol.
what does "Also the idea of such thing, like Official229 said, is a bit of a social norm of the time, and like you know with most other cultures, people didn't really care much about their women, so I think his statement can still validate somethings" even mean? What's the subject? What's the object? How people in any cultures not caring about their women validates anything whatsoever?
I think the biggest issue with your position on such a topic, is that you're hard pressed in assuming that the only measurement for what's good or not is purely based on morality, and ethics. This is entirely incorrect. The biggest issue with this is that it presumes that ones must look at another with equal value. This again is incorrect. Slavery is a prime example that you were looked at as a lesser being, and at worse were looked at as not even a human, but merely as cattle. Now granted you haven't outright said all of this, but given that you question the validity of not caring about women, im assuming anything that isnt "moral" is not a good answer.
What you're trying to do is foolish simply because of the fact that your, and the people in past values are different. So trying to imposed that they were "evil" is asinine, because given their values back then it wasn't evil. Sure you can harp all you want about why given out moral standards now its evil, and I wouldn't stop you. It is only when you claim that they were knowingly doing act of evil that I have a problem with.
Now to really answer the statement that I quoted. What comes with not caring about women? Many thing if you wanna be blunt about it. Sexual pleasure? Labor? Housekeeping? Given the prevalent amount of brothels, it can even be argued that they were an important part of the economy. Another big one is culture, and how a certain culture has differing views on males, and females, and the roles that both have. There are many things that come with not "caring" about women. Whether you accept or not does not change the validity of such things. Below I'll get to the reason as to why your position is not only asinine, but is naïve.
I mean, I could just imagine that you were trying to make the same bullshit argument this whole debate started about — that "you cannot call bad people bad because INCOHERENTMUMBLING" —
Thats the thing it isnt a bullshit argument. What bullshit is the assumption that you're valid in imposing your differing values on a society that differed from you. Are you therefore evil for eating meat if 500 years from now eating meat is considered immoral? Are you evil for running if 500 years from now running is sought at as an evil act? Whether the acts be small or big, are you therefore evil if 500 years from now your actions that you genuinely believed were good, are now evil?
but I'd like to believe I am better than that.
Bingo. This is why you're naïve. You aren't valid in imposing your beliefs on anyone, despite contonisuly arguing for your position. You
THINK your position is just, but this in no way whether it be political or scientific does not give you any qualifications to judge. Therefore your argument holds no weight. You aren't even better than that, because you haven't proven why you should be looked at as such. Your argument is asinine, and your position is naïve. It speaks of someone that wants to be just without understanding the qualifications to make such assessments. So I ask of you, under what basis makes your assessment of them valid?
But in case that is what you were trying to say, just know that social norms of any time can be bad and you totally can call people who use "norms" as an excuse to do bad things bad.
Of course you can. You would just have to argue that said actions committed are evil to the person that's doing it. The problem arises when you assume that every "use" of this is like this. As some are not genuine it is also as common that some are genuine.
People who lived back then sure did, and now some of those norms aren't norms anymore.
You would have to prove that given their values back then, that they were doing evil acts. It does nothing for your argument to simply assume given the differing values that you have. Either thoroughly asses the imposed question, or stop commenting. People here seemingly arent picking up on how blatant your statements are, im not one of them.
Saying "you cannot call someone evil if «the society» doesn't call things they do evil" is the same as saying that we cannot, right now, call out evil people for doing evil things just because nobody called them out for doing evil things yet, or because not many people started listening yet.
No the fuck it isnt the same. A society will not perceive what we see as evil, if their values do not see it as evil. Likewise if we know of someone who is committing an evil act they will be properly reprimanded. You keep on assuming that said society is evil without explaining why it should be seen as such.
Not gonna be to pompous with this reply, because your responses are not new to me. Most people who type such thing are people who are oddly sensitive to topics such as morality. Its asinine, and is often ridiculed so I dont think I need to jab at you to much.
