What, you want my milkshake? Here.
Šta je bilo? Hoćeš moj milkšejk? Izvoli.
“It’s 1819. As the United States Congress prepares to make Missouri the 24th state in the Union, Representative James Tallmage Jr. delivers a speech. He says slavery is morally wrong, calling it an ‘abomination’ and a ‘monstrous scourge.’ He insists that ‘the extension of the evil must now be prevented,’ and that slavery shouldn’t be allowed in Missouri, or any new state.”
„Godina je 1819. Dok se Kongres SAD-a priprema da učini Misuri 24. državom u Uniji, predstavnik Džejms Tolmadž je održao govor. On tvrdi da je ropstvo moralno pogrešno, nazivajući ga ‘gnusnim’ i ‘monstruoznim bičem’. On instistira da se ‘širenje zla sada mora zaustaviti’ i da se ropstvo ne sme proširiti na Misuri ili bilo koju novu državu.”
Obviously.
Očigledno.
“Representative Tyler disagrees. He believes it is a state’s right to choose whether or not to allow slavery. He doesn’t think the federal government can prohibit slavery in any newly added states.”
„Predstavnik Tajler se ne slaže. On veruje da svaka država ima pravo da bira da li je ropstvo dozvoljeno i da federalna vlada ne može da zabrani ropstvo bilo kojoj novoj državi članici.”
Whaaaaat?
Molim?
“Senator Thomas proposes what he sees as a compromise: Missouri will join the union along with another state, Maine. Slavery will be allowed in Missouri and prohibited in Maine. He also suggests drawing a line through territories yet to become states: slavery will be prohibited north of the line, and allowed south of it.”
„Senator Tomas predlaže svoju verziju kompromisa: Misuri će se priključiti uniji zajedno sa još jednom državom, Mejnom. Ropstvo će biti dozvoljeno u Misuriju, a zabranjeno u Mejnu. On je za postojanje granice između teritorija koje još nisu postale države: sa tim da će ropstvo biti zabranjeno severno, a dozvoljeno južno od nje.”
And this is where <i>I</i> have to draw the line.
Ovde ja moram da podvučem crtu.
That’s better. Now, senators, congressmen, this Missouri compromise you are proposing is fundamentally flawed— flawed is putting it mildly. The compromise is based on the middle ground fallacy. By saying that half of the new territories should allow slavery while half prohibit it, you position the two viewpoints, pro-slavery and anti-slavery, as equally valid. But if one view is wrong, while the other is right, a compromise between them is still wrong. And one side is definitely wrong here: the pro-slavery side.
Tako je bolje. Sada, senatori, kongresmeni, ovaj kompromis za Misuri koji predlažete je, blago rečeno, u srži pogrešan. On je baziran na grešci nazvanoj zlatna sredina. Tvrdeći da bi pola novih teritorija trebalo da dozvoli ropstvo, a druga polovina zabrani, ti razmatraš dve tačke gledišta, za i protiv ropstva, kao jednako opravdane. Ali ako je jedna tačka gledišta pogrešna, dok je druga tačna, kompromis između njih je i dalje pogrešan. A jedna strana ovde definitivno nije u pravu: ona koja podržava ropstvo.
The whole reason this government exists, the whole reason states exist at all, is to serve the people. That should include all people.
Čitava poenta postojanja vlade kao i poenta postojanja države je da služi ljudima. I to bi trebalo da uključuje sve ljude.
Now, I know there are those among you who would argue otherwise, even among those in favor of ending slavery. In response to your many contorted arguments, all of them wrong, I offer this reminder: the idea that slavery is morally indefensible is not new to you. The founders of your country knew it and many even acknowledged it publicly, even those of them who enslaved other people themselves.
Ja znam da među vama postoje oni koji se ne slažu sa tim, čak i među onima koji su za obustavu ropstva. Kao odgovor na vaše mnoge izopačene argumente, koji su svi pogrešni, podsećam vas: ideja da se ropstvo ne može moralno opravdati nije vam nova. Osnivači vaše države su to znali, a dosta njih je to i javno priznalo, čak i oni koji su posedovali robove.
It’s clear that the errors and delusions on this subject go far beyond the middle ground fallacy, but I call your attention to this particular fallacy because it can have dire consequences in many situations. Failure to recognize the fact that a compromise between two positions, one of which is morally indefensible, is also morally indefensible, has helped to perpetuate countless injustices large and small. Even well-intentioned people— which rest assured, I don’t mistake you for— fall prey to this fallacy, because you humans tend to view compromise as a virtue unto itself.
Jasno je da greške i obmane koje okružuju ovu tematiku prevazilaze zlatnu sredinu, ali ja vas upućujem na baš ovaj tip logičke greške jer on može imati zastrašujuće posledice u mnogim situacijama. Nemogućnost prepoznavanja činjenice da kompromis između dve strane od kojih je jedna moralno neodbranjiva, takođe je moralno neodbranjivo i pomoglo je da se ovekoveče brojne neprevde, kako velike, tako i male. Čak i ljudi sa dobrim namerama- za koje, verujte mi, vas uopšte ne smatram- lako podležu ovom tipu logičke greške, jer vi ljudi posmatrate kompromis kao dobru stvar.
“It’s March 1861. Seven states have seceded from the Union since Abraham Lincoln was elected president. As Lincoln takes office with four more states threatening to leave, he promises not to interfere with slavery in states where it exists, but to prohibit its expansion into new territories and states.”
„Mart je 1861. godine. Sedam država je napustilo Uniju od kako je Abraham Linkoln izabran za predsednika. Posle njegovog dolaska na vlast još četiri države su pretile napuštanjem, a on je obećao da se neće mešati u pitanje ropstva u državama gde ono već postoji, ali će zabraniti njegovo širenje na nove teritorije i države.”
“It’s April 1861, and a Civil War has broken out over slavery.”
„April je 1861. godine i izbio je Građanski rat oko pitanja ropstva.”
Some things can't be resolved with a compromise.
Neki problemi se ne mogu rešiti kompromisom.