Large chunks of the founders were opposed to slavery. John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Gouverneur Morris, Sam Adams and more.
That's cool that those people who were supposedly opposed to slavery were fine with creating a brand new nation which had, in its constitution, "You can't ban slavery for a few decades" and "Places with more slaves get more power" as primary concerns.
Completely unrelated of course to the growing popularity of abolitionism in Great Britain which banned the atlantic slave trade in 1807 and formally banned slavery in 1833, long before that brand new country which supposedly had so much influence from "anti slavery" folks eventually found cause to ban slavery decades later, and only made black people equal members of the country over a century later.
It was a compromise... After the war the choices were to unite or be taken back over by Britain. Being taken back over would mean everybody who died and suffered from the war would be in vain and slavery would continue on in the colonies just like before.
People like Morris tried to get rid of the 3/5 compromise and get rid of the protection of slavery. He was one of the most vocal against slavery. He called out the hypocrisy and wanted to slow the import of slaves by taxing the import. He and others like him tried their hardest, but were at least able to set things up to allow the eventual ban.
I don't get people like you who can never see that while things weren't perfect, moving in a better direction is good. You let perfect be the enemy of good.
The article is quite vague and only provides one tangible reason to choose France (nuclear power). Are there any other good reasons to choose France over other EU countries?
Reliable and cheap abundant electricity, big and strong cohort of STEM graduates, strongest army and arms industry in EU, worldwide influence culturally and diplomatically. More door will open when you to have the French Président by your side than any other EU country.
Honestly, they're both partly right (the GP and GGP, not the techbros doing the dehumanization).
What we need is for there to be no such thing as a "tech person" who has never taken a humanities class in their life. In particular, we need all our tech people to have a solid grasp of ethics and the value of human life and dignity.
On the flip side, we absolutely need our politicians to have a solid grasp of technology, so they can't be hoodwinked into letting the tech sector just do its own thing unregulated as if it's separate from "real life".
Well in the past there were laws banning the selling of cigarettes and alcohol to minors. Selling alcohol to a minor can cause you to lose your liquor license. With much of the online content being free and not involving a physical product it has become significantly harder for a parent to protect their children.
> a: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) : depravity
> b: inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery); the corruption of government officials
> c: a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct the corruption of a text; the corruption of computer files
> d: decay, decomposition; the corruption of a carcass
As far as I can tell the law was passed by the legislature, the police enforced the law, they weren't bribed to not enforce it or to enforce it.
Seems like the whole system worked correctly, legally and without corruption of any kind.
reply