Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why would you want a system of right and wrong? Why would you start with something an then construct? It's an inherently bad idea.

If you cannot ascribe to a system of right and wrong, good and bad, ACIN can't debate with you and you cannot make judgements about his posts. In particular, if ACIN says he is "better" than Washington you can't dissagree with him because you lack a criteria of comparison.

I.e., you cannot say whether ACIN or Washinton have done more "good" or "bad" things because you have no "good" or "bad" to measure them by...

...and thus ACIN wins by default.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If you cannot ascribe to a system of right and wrong, good and bad, ACIN can't debate with you and you cannot make judgements about his posts. In particular, if ACIN says he is "better" than Washington you can't dissagree with him because you lack a criteria of comparison.

I.e., you cannot say whether ACIN or Washinton have done more "good" or "bad" things because you have no "good" or "bad" to measure them by...

...and thus ACIN wins by default.

Why needs a system in order to make judgements? Do you have a system for telling whether a book or a piece of music is any good? Can you tell?

And more to the point, why act like "right" and "wrong" are some special end stage of judgement? All they are is a clumsy generalization. Do you have a system for deciding whether someone is callous, vacuous, nice, hateful, creepy, etc? We understand those things perfectly well. Attempts to awkwardly squash them into one category or another should be avoided.