undefined

points

by throwway1203855 hours ago|

[-]

Another fun fact is that it was impossible to deduce from any of Ben Franklin's experiments what material was transferred and what material remained in place to give rise to "charge" as we think of it. So he picked a convention that we've continued to use even after we learned that his negative charges were the material that gets transferred by friction.

by ck25 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

somewhat more "fun" and impressive (despite useless) are "Franklin Bells" which way before anyone figured out electric motors, was the first example of electricity to mechanical energy

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_bells

of course incredibly crude

(imagine showing a paperclip motor to someone in 1750 https://player.vimeo.com/video/120255518 )

but it must be said, as genius as Franklin was, sadly he bears the original sin of owning slaves EVEN AS AN ABOLITIONIST and didn't free them until after his death (via will) - it's more than a little f-ed up

by liveoneggs1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You can opt out of electricity, various shaped stoves, the USA, and his other stuff to live out your moral superiority.

Also you may freely ignore his change of stance, the laws and norms of the time, etc

by Andrew_nenakhov3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> but it must be said, as genius as Franklin was, sadly ..

Some people can't help themselves from bringing irrelevant facts to the conversation.

by bensmoif2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I don't think it's irrelevant that a brilliant man like Benjamin Franklin may not have been able to achieve as much as he unmistakably did WITHOUT the heavy assistance of forced slave labor in his life, from cradle to grave.

Pretending like these things can be separated is ignorance. Ignoring its brutality does a disservice to our history and that man's legacy

by IncreasePosts32 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

How did anyone manage to do it after slavery was abolished? Did the nature of genius change at that point?

Ben Franklin was one of the greatest minds worldwide of the 18th century. Odds are, even without slavery, he would have contributed just as much as he did with slavery. It's not like he made his money working slaves to the bone in a field and couldn't turn a profit without slavery.

He was a publisher. A few slaves were involved but they were largely incidental to the business. As in, he could have easily paid John and Sam a wage instead of paying to feed and house Peter and George and the business would be entirely unaffected

by WalterBright3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

People are better judged by the mores of their time, not our time.

Besides, without Franklin, there would be no United States, the free-est country in history.

by krapp2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Slavery was immoral during Franklin's time too, Walter. Many, many people of the time understood this. Even Franklin himself, hypocrite though he was, came around to it.

by WalterBright1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I understand that. I also know that half the country thought slavery was ok, and made it clear they would not join the union if it was abolished.

by krapp1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

So what? That doesn't affect the morality of slavery one bit. Subjective and relative moral questions do exist, but slavery isn't one of them.

Likewise, Ben Franklin being a founding father doesn't somehow balance the scales in that regard. The existence of the United States doesn't retroactively make slavery ok.

by WalterBright50 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

What is moral and what isn't changes with the times. For example, blaspheming could get you murdered by the state in medieval times. The colonies had different views of morality, especially religious morality. It was immoral to work on the Sabbath. It was immoral to have sex before marriage.

The Founders saw fit to abolish the nobility, and disassociated religion from government. We've forgotten what an enormous leap both of those were (each of the colonies had an establishment of religion). I've seen endless documentaries on the founding of the country, and there's no mention of either of these.

Half of the colonies did abolish slavery. But, again, if it was demanded of the other half, the Union would never have happened.

Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington all held slaves.

I am certainly not advocating slavery. I'm merely pointing out that people should be judged on the morality of their times, not today's morality. If we judged past people by our modern standards, they would all be condemned.

by wat100003 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Plenty of people at the time thought slavery was evil. Franklin was even one of them, calling it "cancer." He said this while still owning slaves, which is rather peculiar, but people are complicated.

by bensmoif2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

In this century we have a word for that kind of talk by slaveholders who professed some longing for abolition (Franklin. Jefferson, Washington, John Jay) but did not really wanna be inconvenienced: trolling.

by fhdkweig1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Trolls do things for the LOLs. They are motivated by humor. Someone who wants rules for others but breaks those rules personally is better referred to as a hypocrite.

And while he did have a sense of humor (I hear that daylight savings time was just a joke), I don't think that is why he had slaves. He kept them because they were useful to him, and the moment he died they were no longer useful. The slaves owned by others were never useful to him, so they should be freed immediately.

by ck23 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Yeah no, Norway and a few others are the free-est country in history, just because someone declares US is "free" doesn't make it true, we disappear citizens all the time, police can seize your property without cause, government can seize your land for datacenters and women lose more and more rights every year

Again, Franklin knew slavery was wrong, literally campaigned to end it for that reason, yet did it himself for decades in the meanwhile, not a difficult horror to grasp in any time

by WalterBright2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I consider freedom to include the free market. Norway has a mixed economy, due to its extensive regulation.

While it operates as a free-market country, the Norwegian government holds large ownership stakes in strategic industries, including petroleum, hydroelectric power, telecommunications, and banking.

Experts often characterize the Norwegian economy as a blend of private enterprise, state ownership, and social welfare that provides high standards of living.

(Cribbed from google)