what they ended up like, or how they got there? because I’d rather note and correct the trend /before/ we start torturing and killing people in public display.
The two eras and their initial conditions aren’t even comparable. We have strong state constitutions and the procedural rule of law now. We use science instead of religion to explain mysterious phenomena. Those aren’t being torn down any time soon over spite. We’re simply not going to end someone’s life over a differing opinion; our entire system of government would have to change first.
Your argument is basically a “slippery slope” argument, and this is a good example of why these types of arguments are so weak and problematic.
Of course we can learn from history. But deep and thoughtful analysis is important. The time to freak out would be when there’s a serious threat to our constitutions or laws that would enable criminal punishment for holding controversial opinions. And we just don’t see that on the horizon yet.
Can you elaborate? Are you talking about national territorial disputes (i.e., war), or a dispute over where two domestic neighbors’ land boundaries lie? In any event, this feels like an attempt to win an argument by stretching it to cover something out of scope.
I wasn’t really attempting to win the argument. Just wanted to point out that while we believe we are above such things, given the right motivations humans will happily kill each other over a belief.
