Until the development of technology, slavery was the base of all civilizations. The first tribe that enslaved its defeated enemies as labor created the excess resources needed to start civilization. Slavery remained necessary until about Jefferson's time. In fact the idea of human rights was a product of Jefferson and his contemporaries.
.

Nothing wrong in exchanging views. Some people are interested in learning and thats a good thing. But purely political discussions designed to convince others are a waste of time. Politics is the end game, not the first game.

although the forum goals are to promote the ideas of AR and Objectivism, it's just accepting newcomers. That is why you see lots of conservtive posting and criticism of conservatism. It is by far the best site to bring these like minds together. IMO. and I am always right. :)

I concur

"given much I have seen in the Gulch" sorry, but this is vague. Can you be more specific?

I am willing to continue friendship with people I disagree with, even wildly, if they have a compelling basis for their beliefs that I have not presented adequate evidence to reverse. If they are logical, thoughtful and open-minded, they are redeemable...generally. However, the dumb ones, simply steeped in political-religion are not valuable. When identified, these can be politely dispensed with or ignored.

I dont believe in political correctness, which is what I would say drives the issues of what is "proper". Any of the things that you say you ascribe to that are not proper, I would say are none of anyone's business but yours. When it comes to slavery, however, there are real issues of human rights of other people that Jefferson violated just so he could get cheap labor.
I dont let him off the hook for that.

I think you are letting Jefferson off the hook somewhat. He had no problem having sex and children with one or more of them. He could have officially freed them, and offered them the pay that a "free man" would get, and the ability to work at his plantation and be "protected". But he wanted the cheap labor.

I adopted her view of life back then and have found
no reason to leave. . I test my anchoring regularly
and have added branches which she did not envision,
yet I am still there. . it's only natural for a human bean. -- j
.

Very true. But, it is always possible for acquaintances to turn into friends.

Judging people in general is very difficult, and probably none of my business anyway. I can judge how they interact with me. For example, Hillary is likely to take more of my money and my freedoms, so I would judge her to be bad (for me at least). I would try to avoid her and certainly NOT call her a friend.

I do think that Jefferson thought all men to be created equal, except when it would cost him money. Given that, slavery wasnt so bad.

Its interesting that you say "he was trapped between his principles and the practical realities of his time". I could say the same thing. I dont think slavery is a good thing, but I do need some help around the house, and it would take care of some some of my "practical realities" to have a slave or two. Isnt that the same argument the bums use to get freebie welfare

“the core of my life is stuck on AR and her view of rationality. . can't help it” Sounds like the “I was just brought up to believe in X” fallacy David Kelley discusses in his book “The Art of Reasoning.” Am I wrong?

I would find it difficult to maintain a friendship with one whose irrational views are contrary and inimical to my own. For instance, I could in no way respect a person sold on Obamacare or one OK with open borders whereby our national security may be threatened by unvetted entrants, viz., terrorists. And am definitely not OK with Muslims, as some purportedly maintain, insisting that shariac (sic) dictums supersede our traditional values, however broad their presence may be or how limited their scope. And how about those that have no problems whatsoever with people subsisting solely on welfare having the right to vote? What about the concept of welfare itself? No skin in the game whatsoever, just reaching into your pocket book and voting in droves for even more largesse, one generation after another. Is this what Ayn Rand and our founding fathers had in mind?
On the other hand, I have no problem maintaining friendship with one at sea regarding objective truth—some are at least willing to listen and ultimately may come around to a rational viewpoint after earnest, patient and persevering discourse. But the Tooheyites and their camp followers? Shun them.

I try to be considerate and gentle, like the way I work
with people here in the gulch ... but the core of my life
is stuck on AR and her view of rationality. . can't help it;;;
she "got me" when I was 15. -- j
.

Yes, I agree. There are many who prey on others who purport to be friends but are not. The person I referenced was never a friend. And, I have moved on, although it does rankle a bit that I was taken in; but not for long.

Certainly Rand did drove a lot of people away. Which is not generally a good technique to grow the philosophy.

if objectivism drives a friend away, so be it. -- j
.

Hello, ewv,
I think that the error which you point out: failing to recognize the levels of knowledge and general understanding between now and the past is quite common. It is akin, in my mind, to blaming Aristoteles for not knowing nuclear physics, when his greatness is more evident BECAUSE he did not know nuclear physics.
Best.
Maritimus

There are friends and there are acquaintances. True friends are few, acquaintances many.

Fascinating, isn't it? They were all human, good horse traders, and canny farmers, even those with degrees.

Herb, you are very astute and know your history. :)
Regards,
O.A.

And everywhere else. I do not understand your point.

Friends are always won and lost over time. This is a normal progression of our lives.

As for slave ownership...it was acceptable at the time and I don't think our nation would have thrived as it did, without it.

I drive vehicles that use fossil fuels, but am told that is not proper. I own multiple semiautomatic firearms, but am told that is not proper. I spanked my children, but am told that is not proper. I hold strong beliefs against same-sex marriage, but am told that is not proper.

All of these and, yes, slavery, come under the same heading of what is "right or wrong" for today. Because of this, I hold no enmity against those who, ages ago, practiced living in ways that are considered improper in this day and age.

I also support Columbus Day over Indigenous Peoples Day (what a mouthful).

OK. I have read all the comments so far, and nobody has really defined the word "friend". Come on ... this forum is a place where we expect logical thinking. How can you discuss a word without previously having defined it?

I think you are totally correct. I brought it up to show that even great men can go into foolish emotional pitfalls.