[Morality Games]

No, you were the one attempting to engage in moral relativism by suggesting there was some benevolent motivation for your "historical lesson" about slavery.

It can't be moral relativsm if I think there are certain standards that apply at any time, which I obviously do on basis of the content of my post -- a moral relatavist would say that reasons, acts, and outcomes are all relative, whereas I am suggesting that the outcome would always have to be something which contributes positively to human experience in the long run (or, if no outcome is good, then the least negative) in order for the act to be considered moral.

Look, you're the one that dumped their purse out on the table, and is having trouble defending your statements. I do not wish to engage in the debate about historical slavery, or how you think it may be justifiable. I am specifically talking about the erosion of my own liberties, and how that applies to these discussions.

So far I haven't had to defend my statements. I've had to defend that I have not said what you are accusing me of saying, and I certainly am not struggling, as it is painfully obvious from actually reading my post that I have not said what you are accusing me of saying.

And I think any act is justified if better alternatives are impossible to accomplish under the present conditions, which again is quite clear from the content of my post.

The problem with that attituse is that people with my philosophy know that if Goerge Washington was in their shoes, he would probably be raising an army by this point, so I do not consider myself unreasonable. I seek for my government to honor ratified documents, nothing more.

Where exactly is the root of your morality anyway? If is the Constitution, then doesn't that mean any legally made alteration is acceptable? If it is some concept of human nature, then shouldn't you be talking about that more than the Constitution?