What is slavery / how do we define slavery?

You'd be treated differently, yes, but ultimately a slave's a slave.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

We'll have to agree to disagree there, I guess. Don't get me wrong—I think being blissfully ignorant of being mind-raped would be horrible, but I'd rather be that than a slave.

Not true. Again, death is not something you necessarily need to be afraid of. It should be avoided, yes, but if death were the greatest thing to fear, there would never be soldiers.

No. I could choose to put a gun to a woman's head and force her to give fellatio, but I don't. All of human society is based upon the fact that everyone doesn't do all the possible things they COULD do, so that point is moot.

And as I've been saying, this totally depends. If you believe that death is a preferable solution (whether for yourself and others), then it makes sense to take it. To do anything else would be cowardly or slothful (by "slothful", I mean any form of inaction where action was necessary).

No such thing. If you're a slave then that means you are restricted, period. There's no such thing as being a slave and being allowed to do anything you want. For example, if I tell you that you are my slave, and you can do anything you want except ONE specific thing (which impedes upon your rights), it doesn't matter how many hundreds of thousands of other things you accomplish in your life or if I never had to stop you from doing that one thing. Even if you never tugged on the leash, it's still there.

And personally, I would consider this to be wishful thinking at best. Cowardice (not saying you are a coward, but just using this emotion for argument's sake) could just as easily be a motivation for your refusal to die. The thing about opportunity is that it's something you have to jump on, and it sometimes involves ambiguity. If you see, for a brief moment, the chance that sacrificing yourself could lead to something good, you can't worry about "ambiguity". It might lead to something, it might not. But sitting around and wondering can close that window for good.

Again, the goal is to avoid death, but bravery stems from engaging in actions in which death is likely. While a dead soldier can't fight, that soldier could have saved others, or his death could rally morale. There are a number of reasons why death can be considered "fighting". Hell, there's even the term "fighting from beyond the grave" to exemplify that ideal. So no, I can't agree with that.

Well, in the case of a Roman slave accountant, he could realistically look forward to becoming an obscenely rich freedman in the not-so-long term. Basically, whether the slave is skilled and whether the slave will be ultimately freed make the whole deal very different.

edited 8th Mar '11 2:55:11 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

@SH Sure, there's a difference but that's because you're dealing with two different cultures, thus two different perspectives.

Also, with the Euro American version of slavery, there's a racial attribute added on and that's one of the main reasons why most Western people view slavery as being so horrible.

Enslaving people because they're believed to be racially inferior is different from the sort of slavery that took place in the ancient world. That was a part of their culture—from a modern perspective, it was a very unfortunate part. Luckily, things have changed.

@Beholderess Do you honestly think that policemen deserve to be enslaved? Jailers? Guards? People in the military?

Who—on the right side of the law—goes around enslaving people? There's no need for institutionalized slavery in the modern world and anyone who thinks so deserves to be shot fatally.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

Perhaps, but it is still a different option. As with death, you cannot perform other additional actions, whereas with life, you have all kinds of possibilities, at least depending on the situation. It's the finality that separates it.

Also something that would indeed need to be taken into account when value assessing.

I agree with you here, but I still draw attention to life, especially in the case of the African slaves, as many of them managed to kill their masters. If it's them or me, I'm taking them. Keeping them alive so I could stage a martyr's death would be odd in this case, to say the least.

I'm pretty sure she was only referring to the idea of enslavement as a means of justice.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

@Anonym Whose justice? There is no justice another human degrading another through slavery.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

Someone's, apparently.

I don't like demanding JUSTICE though, I was pointing out Beholderess' intent with her statement.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

@Anonym I know, but I'm still disgusted by the idea.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

That's because you believe in the State, and you think that the State can rightfully deprive someone of rights for arbitrary reasons. If you considered, say, the War on Drugs or the late national security hysteria to be an overt assault on civil liberty you'd consider the participants oppressors deserving of punishment.

Since they take away people's freedom unjustly, taking their freedom away in return does seem fair.

edited 8th Mar '11 4:56:31 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

1. I personally don't believe in punishment period, so moot point.
2. Even if I did, slavery is a gross overreaction. Yes the War on Drugs is stupid and maybe even evil, but all we need is to stop it. We don't need to get revenge for it, and certainly not by such an extreme means as slavery.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

@SH I hope you're not responding to me.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

Because if people do not care about rights of other people, why should the same rights of they own deserve consideration? It's a two-way street.

Technically it wasn't me who made this comparison, although I did agree on general principle.

Most of them - no. Those who abuse their power in a way that infringes upon other people's rights - well, it would be only fair.

Exactly. I should have been more specific in indicating which parts of post I agree with. Please accept my apologies for confusion.

There are many things this one deserves to be shot fatally for

@KCK

For the record - I also think that ideally, murderers should be killed  ^*

, and property crimes punished with fine, not incarceration, because thief did not take away anyone's freedom, only property.

edited 8th Mar '11 9:06:33 PM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

@Beholderess I don't believe that "eye for an eye" is the type of thinking laws should be based on, I'm sorry.

The problem with that punishment is that a fine may not actually stop a thief from stealing, but putting a thief in jail will—at least while they're incarcerated.

edited 8th Mar '11 9:27:15 PM by KCK

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

I would explain why I consider "an eye for eye" the most fair type of punishment, but that would probably be off-topic here.

And yes, I am honestly afraid of basing punishments on results and crime prevention. Because by this logic, if punishing an innocent of inflicting Disproportionate Retribution is useful, there is no reason no to do it.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

@ Black Humor: Why should the politicians and the pigs violate our rights and walk away scot-free? Brutal vengeance is entirely appropriate. Following/Enforcing an unjust law is evil. Just "following orders" or "it's the law" aren't valid excuses.

Those who violate the rights of the people should lose all their rights and be exposed, defenseless, to the wrath of their victims.

We SHOULD take vengeance for every violation of our rights. Violations of rights by those in authority are the most serious offense imaginable. I'd say it deserves the worst punishment at hand.

edited 9th Mar '11 3:58:17 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Because they're rights?

After all, that's why we're mad. If we thought people could just take rights away, there'd be no problem with any of the stuff the government does.

If you're hurting people to make things fair something is wrong. Unfair is just a concept, but pain really does hurt.

See, I agree with the second two lines, but what's wrong with them walking away scot-free? Why hurt them? Get your rights back, and then leave them alone, and the world will be better overall.

No there isn't, because deterrence is based far more on how often criminals get caught rather than how bad the punishment is after they are. If you go around punishing innocent people, no guilty people will feel it, so nothing will happen.

Besides that, since the point of all this is to protect innocent people from criminals, hurting innocent people yourself is losing sight of the goal.

edited 9th Mar '11 5:07:06 AM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Vengeance is a good thing. They violated your rights for a long time and without retaliation. They SHOULD pay. The victims deserve compensation, and the most efficient way to give compensation to the victims is to hand them their oppressors and say "they're yours. They're not people anymore. Do with them what you wish."

You don't ask for a small-time crook to walk away scot free, and you DO ask for law enforcement and politicians, who have violated lotsa more rights, to walk away unharmed. Why is that?

edited 9th Mar '11 5:06:44 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I would like small-time crooks to walk away scot-free. I would like big-time crooks to walk away scot-free.

The only problem with that in practice is that crooks tend to go out and hurt people again if you do that. So it's important to keep them away from people, but there's really no point in hurting them.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

It is the rights these very people did not deem important enough to care about. Well, if they think they can ignore other people's rights, let them be on the receiving end. Otherwise they are given license to disregard other people rights yet somehow keep they own - effectively making then the only ones who have rights.

Well, fairness is a very important concept for this one. And again, it really did hurt for the people they've harmed - should it just be brushed aside?

I'm afraid I'm not comfortable with punishment as a means

edited 9th Mar '11 5:11:56 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Then the pigs and the politicians SHOULD be kept where they can't hurt anyone else anymore, right?

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

@BH: But they're rights. As in, you have the right to them. Punishing people for taking them by taking them is missing the point of rights.

And it doesn't matter what they did to the people they harmed. Hurting them also does nothing useful for that either way.

@SH: Sure.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Hmm, so if you are absolutely, perfectly sure that people will not repeat whatever crime they've committed, they should get away with it? Everyone is allowed to rape or murder if they only do it once?

edited 9th Mar '11 5:21:47 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Hm, though I agree with you that "punishment" is wrong, I don't think referring to the law works. Instead, I posit three reasons:

1. An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.
2. In punishment, one actually hurts themselves, by going through with the punishing. Reasons for this range from acting upon anger as a deciding emotion, to what is lost over the course of the punishing.
3. No person truly can measure how much is lost between people, who should be punished and how much, when to punish, and so on. There is far too much here for any one person to claim that they can know justice. Even if pursuing it is good, there is still this undeniable fact that there is no way an "equal" punishment can be known and doled out.

I'd disagree, here. Fairness is just as real as pain is.

We come back into agreement though, as because there is so much to defining it, we cannot decide what is fair. We might be able to in theory, but not in real life.

We ask because we are not thinking straight. Our minds are clouded with emotion, and we lose our way.

You're still essentially arguing the same thing. You want them to be punished, and want them taken down, even if something better is possible. If equal deterrent can happen, and no one takes advantage, and said deterrent involves zero punishment, would you call it acceptable?

"Because they hurt me" sounds like a good reason to hurt back, but if you examine it closely you find nothing to support such. It's ultimately just a preference.

No, but I don't see how such will prevent your average criminal.

Many, many, many criminals are repeat offenders, and are never bettered by punishment. Even in knowledge of the death penalty, a criminal doesn't care. They are either more concerned with what it is that they *want*, or they are happy making the gamble that they won't get caught. Worse yet, a criminal who thinks they will get caught and punished will go to great lengths not to get caught, even hurting others, or commit even greater crimes because hey, nowhere to run now.

In fact, I was actually like that when I was younger. It doesn't matter what the punishment was. It could be loss of something, pain, being made to sit out, work, writing lines, humiliation. I didn't care. I always smiled at it, in a disturbing sociopathic kind of arrogant way. I always twisted them into a deluded source of pleasure.

What changed me was realizing that what I was doing was wrong. See, everyone does what they think is right. A person might think that taking from others is right and justified, and so on. But taking away that justification -thus showing them not only how deluded and scarred they are, but also how much torment they responsible for- reveals they should change their ways.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

No. Again, I am reluctant to see punishment in terms of deterrent or other types of utility. To me, people should be punished not to prevent more crimes, but because they've committed a crime - and only because of that. Plus, an eye for eye is the only type of punishment I do not see as arbitrary.

But that is probably getting off-topic. My apologies to everyone for the derail (bows)

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Well, if we let them murder once that's a problem itself. Which is why we have a justice system that is a little punitive; it needs to be a bad idea to murder the first time as well as all the others.

However, excessive pain is bad. Jail alone works well enough as a punishment to deter people, and it's ultimately just moving all the murderers and rapists and so on to the same building without any real extra punishment.

But if you knew for certain someone who murdered once would not ever do it again, I see no reason not to let them go.

EDIT:

No it's not. If I give you $20 and I give SH $50, and I don't tell either of you, you won't care about it. But if I punch you in the chest and I punch him in the nuts, you both will certainly care about it.

But all punishment is arbitrary; there's no reason inherently to punish people for anything. If we met in a jungle far from civilization, you could kill me and not be punished at all.

Why is eye for an eye any less arbitrary than any punishment? Because it's symmetrical? Liking symmetry is as arbitrary as anything else.

edited 9th Mar '11 2:07:54 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1