It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
CharlesGrey:
avatar
MajicMan: I also know the USA is a young country, but it abolished slavery well before other contemporary nations and even nations that have been around for centuries.
Spain 1811
England 1833
France 1848

United States 1862

NOW in fairness, abolishing slavery and actually stopping it are two different things, so the years may be off and actual enforcement of the law may be questionable. ie In 1920 we banned alcohol but alcohol didn't go away and virtually no one stopped drinking. :P And also three countries is not that many, but you said "other" nations not some other and not a few other.
Post edited October 04, 2017 by tinyE
Surprise!
avatar
Klumpen0815: Surprise!
Sigh. Not funny.

I'm just sad and tired of it. The last thing we needed is separatism playing victim after all the bs they've been doing.
avatar
Nerevar.220: Just inform yourselves about how separatism claims Spain oppresses them, and how they act themselves. How this vote this past Sunday got approved. How they think an independent Cataluña would fare.
Unfortunately -- for you and your fellow loyalists -- your jackass of a PM has totally eclipsed the imperfections of the separatists.

If I was in your shoes, I'd be far more concerned about how Spain is going to fare if you don't quickly find a competent replacement.
avatar
MajicMan: I also know the USA is a young country, but it abolished slavery well before other contemporary nations and even nations that have been around for centuries.
avatar
tinyE: Spain 1811
England 1833
France 1848

United States 1862

NOW in fairness, abolishing slavery and actually stopping it are two different things, so the years may be off and actual enforcement of the law may be questionable. ie In 1920 we banned alcohol but alcohol didn't go away and virtually no one stopped drinking. :P And also three countries is not that many, but you said "other" nations not some other and not a few other.
Your dates are only for some aspects. I also said 1865 for USA as that is actual practice and not 1863 when Abe Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation.

Spain - Amidst great opposition from the Cuban and Puerto Rican planters, Segismundo Moret drafts a "Law of Free Wombs" that frees the children of slaves, the slaves older than 65 years and the slaves serving in the Spanish Army, beginning in 1872.

It is far more convoluted for most countries than the USA, but at the end of the day, nobody runs around the UK, Spain, France, China, Japan, Russia, etc., etc. crying about it every second of every day like they do in America.
avatar
htown1980: Do you know why the referendum is illegal? It is illegal because the Spanish Constitution states that Spain cannot be broken up. So under the Spanish Constitution it would never be legal for any part of Spain to leave. Does that seem right that a part of a country cannot, in any circumstances whatsoever, declare independence?
avatar
hmcpretender: Do you imply that if a law doesn't seem right to you, you have the right to break it? Because then I start pirating games today...
There is always the option to change constitution. You just need the proper majority. If you don't have that, deal with it. It's called democracy for a reason.
No, if the law is immoral it should not be followed. That's hardly a controversial statement. See for example Immanuel Kant, Johne Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Aquinas, etc, etc, etc.

Surely you wouldn't have been one of those people goose-stepping along with the others and saying "hey the laws, the law, we gotta put those guys in those camps" in the late 30s would you? You would have broken the law in those circumstances wouldn't you?

I appreciate that they are very different scenarios, but it is important to recognise (particularly given the history of your country) that the law shouldn't be blindly followed.

How do the Catalans, democratically speaking, change the Spanish constitution?
avatar
Nerevar.220: Just inform yourselves about how separatism claims Spain oppresses them, and how they act themselves. How this vote this past Sunday got approved. How they think an independent Cataluña would fare.
avatar
richlind33: Unfortunately -- for you and your fellow loyalists -- your jackass of a PM has totally eclipsed the imperfections of the separatists.

If I was in your shoes, I'd be far more concerned about how Spain is going to fare if you don't quickly find a competent replacement.
I see you completely ignored my advice. Anyway, as I've said above I'm too tired to discuss about it, and the next days and even weeks are just going to get worse. I'm off this.
avatar
Klumpen0815: Surprise!
avatar
Nerevar.220: Sigh. Not funny.
Well, it's a little funny.
avatar
htown1980: I appreciate that they are very different scenarios, but it is important to recognise (particularly given the history of your country) that the law shouldn't be blindly followed.
This. Laws are overrated, especially given how they're constantly changing throughout human history, and depending on the country/ state you live in. They're not some universal, infallible truth, and what's lawful isn't always what's the morally correct or logical thing to do. People need to start thinking for themselves, and take responsibility for their actions, instead of relying on others to tell them what they're supposed to do ( and what not to do ).
avatar
richlind33: Unfortunately -- for you and your fellow loyalists -- your jackass of a PM has totally eclipsed the imperfections of the separatists.

If I was in your shoes, I'd be far more concerned about how Spain is going to fare if you don't quickly find a competent replacement.
avatar
Nerevar.220: I see you completely ignored my advice. Anyway, as I've said above I'm too tired to discuss about it, and the next days and even weeks are just going to get worse. I'm off this.
If your PM hadn't behaved so poorly, there'd be no need for you to be defensive and huffy.
avatar
MajicMan: I also know the USA is a young country, but it abolished slavery well before other contemporary nations and even nations that have been around for centuries.
lol no, in fact the US was one of the last Western countries to abolish slavery (iirc only Brazil and the Spanish colony of Cuba had it longer).
One of the reasons the illegal Anglo immigrants that had infiltrated Texas rebelled against Mexican rule was that they wanted to keep their black slaves - at a time when Mexico had already abolished slavery...
avatar
tinyE: and I am the most left wing person in here.
You're not left-wing, you're just a whiny US liberal.
Real left-wingers are in favour of the proletarian revolution, fighting US imperialism etc.
Post edited October 04, 2017 by morolf
avatar
htown1980: I appreciate that they are very different scenarios, but it is important to recognise (particularly given the history of your country) that the law shouldn't be blindly followed.
avatar
CharlesGrey: This. Laws are overrated, especially given how they're constantly changing throughout human history, and depending on the country/ state you live in. They're not some universal, infallible truth, and what's lawful isn't always what's the morally correct or logical thing to do. People need to start thinking for themselves, and take responsibility for their actions, instead of relying on others to tell them what they're supposed to do ( and what not to do ).
I could not agree with you more, and I am a lawyer... :)
avatar
htown1980: No, if the law is immoral it should not be followed. That's hardly a controversial statement. See for example Immanuel Kant, Johne Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Aquinas, etc, etc, etc.

Surely you wouldn't have been one of those people goose-stepping along with the others and saying "hey the laws, the law, we gotta put those guys in those camps" in the late 30s would you? You would have broken the law in those circumstances wouldn't you?
Morale is very thin ice as it is highly dependant on ones individual believes. For some people having sex before marriage is immoral, for me it's definitely not. Law on the other hand is a social consenus, at least a momentarily one. Im not self-righteouss enough to put my personal beliefs over those of the society as long as it's not an emergency situation. While the situation of the Catalonians might not have been the best, it was hardly a life or death matter. At least I haven't heard of any "camps" they were put in, if that was what you were implying...
Breaking the law because, well... "i know better and my cause is more just", does more harm than it helps even if you are right about it.
Post edited October 05, 2017 by hmcpretender
avatar
htown1980: No, if the law is immoral it should not be followed. That's hardly a controversial statement. See for example Immanuel Kant, Johne Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Aquinas, etc, etc, etc.

Surely you wouldn't have been one of those people goose-stepping along with the others and saying "hey the laws, the law, we gotta put those guys in those camps" in the late 30s would you? You would have broken the law in those circumstances wouldn't you?
avatar
hmcpretender: Morale is very thin ice as it is highly dependant on ones individual believes. For some people having sex before marriage is immoral, for me it's definitely not. Law on the other hand is a social consenus, at least a momentarily one. Im not self-righteouss enough to put my personal beliefs over those of the society as long as it's not an emergency situation. While the situation of the Catalonians might not have been the best, it was hardly a life or death matter. At least I haven't heard of any "camps" they were put in, if that was what you were implying...
Breaking the law because, well... "i know better and my cause is more just", does more harm than it helps even if you are right about it.
Law is a very poor substitute for ethics, as it requires conformity rather than excellence.
avatar
htown1980: No, if the law is immoral it should not be followed. That's hardly a controversial statement. See for example Immanuel Kant, Johne Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Aquinas, etc, etc, etc.

Surely you wouldn't have been one of those people goose-stepping along with the others and saying "hey the laws, the law, we gotta put those guys in those camps" in the late 30s would you? You would have broken the law in those circumstances wouldn't you?
avatar
hmcpretender: Morale is very thin ice as it is highly dependant on ones individual believes. For some people having sex before marriage is immoral, for me it's definitely not. Law on the other hand is a social consenus, at least a momentarily one. Im not self-righteouss enough to put my personal beliefs over those of the society as long as it's not an emergency situation. While the situation of the Catalonians might not have been the best, it was hardly a life or death matter. At least I haven't heard of any "camps" they were put in, if that was what you were implying...
Breaking the law because, well... "i know better and my cause is more just", does more harm than it helps even if you are right about it.
I've never found it difficult to determine when I am acting morally or immorally. No sex before marriage is a religious concept. I think you will find that most philosophers, even religious ones, would say that religion plays no role in determining morality.

If no one had challenged the apartheid in South Africa, nothing would have changed. If no one had challenged segregation in the USA, nothing would have changed.

I would say that these are two very good examples where refusing to break an immoral law, merely because it is the law, without giving any consideration to whether the law is moral or otherwise does more harm than good.