By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Slavery: For or against?

 

Slavery: For or against?

Yes, as long as the slaves are non-citizens. 15 7.98%
 
Yes, it'd make the world a better place. 14 7.45%
 
No, but I wouldn't enfor... 12 6.38%
 
No, it's completely unacceptable. 147 78.19%
 
Total:188

Slavery has no place in a modern society. 

The only people who condone slavery are those who seem to think they will be the masters. 



Around the Network

I'm 100% percent against human slavery, but in the future I will not agianst Android or Robot slavery.

lol



ArcticGabe said:

I'm 100% percent against human slavery, but in the future I will not agianst Android or Robot slavery.

lol

Have you not watched movies such as Irobot? What can go wrong? xD



TheLivingShadow said:
twesterm said:
TheLivingShadow said:
twesterm said:

I've seen a lot of incredibly stupid questions on these forums but this one is probably one of the dumber ones I've seen.


I understand the sentiment, but please, if you are going to be completely ignorant about the topic and what has been written as explanation for what would otherwise be a very weird topic, then just refrain from giving offensive remarks where they don't need to be. You come off as one of the dumber posters I've met otherwise.


You asking if it's alright to force someone to work for no pay...that's pretty much the definition of a stupid question.

I'm not asking if it's alright to do that.

I'm asking the opinion that you, VgChartz users, hold on the topic.

And from some of the comments here and in the other slavery topic to which I already posted the link before, as well as from the "yes" answers in the poll (though I concede most of them might be just jokes and I understand that people think this is a stupid question because they don't want to think about it), there is some people who actually believe that slavery would do society better in the end. That was the purpose of the topic, to get the idea how many of these people actually think that way and what was their justification for that.

So again, if you're gonna make offensive remarks, at least make sure what you say holds true or else you look elitist and ignorant.

I'm gonna edit the opening post to better clarify the intentions of the topic. Apparently too many people just proceed to "WTF" instantly.

I have no idea what you're talking about.



HappySqurriel said:
Homer_Simpson said:
HappySqurriel said:

I personally don't have a problem with indentured servitude as long as the terms are fair and reasonable


um, by its very nature slavery is neither fair nor reasonable...thats kinda the point...

frankly if you support slavery you are morally bankrupt.

cultural relativism on things like this goes from sensible to downright dangerous and insane, thats why the concept should only go so far imo.

historically, slavery may have been important, but frankly so were a number of wars and genocides, that does not in any way make them good things, I would hope in future generations that such things are seen for what they are, vile mistakes of our species.

Do you even know what indentured servitude is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

An indentured servant was typically a young unskilled laborer who came to America under contract to work for an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their ocean transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of their indenture.[1] They included men and women; most were under age 21, and most became helpers on farms or house servants. They were not paid wages.

Certainly, there was abuse to the system and indentured servants were mistreated but the same could be said about wives at that point in time. If the rights of indentured servants were recognised, and laws against their abuse were created, I don't see anything unethical about indentured servitude.


if you dont see anything unethical about it, you have no ethics whatsoever



Around the Network

........................

Does this include consensual sex slavery or something? Why would anyone possibly agree with this? This is like asking if you're for or against human sacrifices (well sorta).



 

 

Slaves, obey your human masters in everything, not only when being watched, as currying favor, but in simplicity of heart, fearing the Lord.   (Colossians 3:22 NAB)

Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord.   (Colossians 3:18 NAB)

 By words no servant can be trained; for he understands what is said, but obeys not.   (Proverbs 29:19 NAB)

If a man pampers his servant from childhood, he will turn out to be stubborn.   (Proverbs 29:21 NAB)

  If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.   (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.   (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.   (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)



People who support Slavery, also support the  illicit sex trade enforced slavery of women and children being forced to work in brothels. People who support Child molestation and the rape and abuse of women are just as bad as the perpetrators of those abhorrent crimes. 

Most prostitutes are not working  because it is their choice. Most of them are sex trade slaves and they must pay back huge debts to their pimps/masters. 



TheLivingShadow said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
TheLivingShadow said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
TheLivingShadow said:
Chairman-Mao said:

No, because its cheaper to just pay workers than it is to pay people to keep the slaves in check (make sure they don't try to revolt). 


What if it weren't then? What if in the future there were this cheap technology/pill that controls/drugs a person into doing what you want, and you didn't need someone to keep them in check? Would you then embrace slavery?

More generally, is your position against slavery a purely economical one, or do you also think it's ethically wrong?


thats alot of iffing, and is highly logical. i'll go furthur then that. (watch closely)

lets say world war 3 happens nobody wins and every economic power fail's, but the gov is still very much intact with limited resources,and the one thing they have is an experimental chip that can reprogram minds, and all they have to do is activate it to take over the minds of every living being left on earth! its on some kind of wireless frequency that re-wires brain waves, and with one tiny tap of a butten ur a slave.

now stop with the hypotheticals unless you really want to test me? pills lol? that so 1960's! how old are you anyway? 890

Logical methods are the best way to approach situations. Besides, since slavery isn't exactly commonplace, hypotheticals are the only thing we can rely on for discussion purposes. Furthermore, I do not believe my example is not "too hypothetical" or otherwise worded that way.

As for your situation:

1. Such a chip is impossible. It's very easy to prove that.

2. What's the point? No question is asked in your situation.

3. I'll assume your question is: If I were in the position of power, would I press the button? The answer is: No. People who would answer Yes have mental issues.


i disagree. how is the manipulation of brain waves not possible when subliminal messages have been used in the past?maniputaltion of the brain can be based on wht you see, and whos to say the gov. dosen't have that tech? don't be blind and dismiss anything!

didin't need to ask a question with a hypothetical when its an example!

and to ur 3 of my 3. people with power are unpredictable and never should be underestimated. if companies had it there way they'd have you blindly work for no pay and if a pill, nanites, or the manipulation of brain waves was perfected or a logical way to get it done it would happen. leave nothing to chance kid.

hypnosis


1. Ok first off I agree hypnosis works sometimes and I agree a chip to control one person or a limited group of people could concievably work. You said your chip "controlled every single living being on the face of Earth" or something along the lines. That's clearly impossible.

2. If there's no question, what's the point? Ok listen to this: "Not having breakfast." What's the point of that statement for discussion purposes? What I mean is, what were you trying to say in the first place!

3. You're right, and I know that. Again though, the person (or group of people who make that decision) has mental issues. They want extreme power at the cost of killing the conciousness of the people. Almost sounds like a JRPG story by now hahaha

Oh by the way, I'm 18. What does that matter anyway?


age matters not, and you have great points and i must agree your right. the thing is that i was only making a hypothetical situation because you did and for no other reason.

i thought of the most insane hypothetical and used it. there was no reall point to the hypothetical other then to make you think, and i succeeded i think?

i only said anything about age in the beginning (890) was the idea of the pill which would work, but for how long? i could only assume you where talking long term manipulation, and the continued use of said pills until when ever. the kid part had nothing to do with age it was nothing more then a endding of a sentence. its something i always do.

i think we found commen ground.



Homer_Simpson said:
HappySqurriel said:
Homer_Simpson said:
HappySqurriel said:

I personally don't have a problem with indentured servitude as long as the terms are fair and reasonable


um, by its very nature slavery is neither fair nor reasonable...thats kinda the point...

frankly if you support slavery you are morally bankrupt.

cultural relativism on things like this goes from sensible to downright dangerous and insane, thats why the concept should only go so far imo.

historically, slavery may have been important, but frankly so were a number of wars and genocides, that does not in any way make them good things, I would hope in future generations that such things are seen for what they are, vile mistakes of our species.

Do you even know what indentured servitude is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

An indentured servant was typically a young unskilled laborer who came to America under contract to work for an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their ocean transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of their indenture.[1] They included men and women; most were under age 21, and most became helpers on farms or house servants. They were not paid wages.

Certainly, there was abuse to the system and indentured servants were mistreated but the same could be said about wives at that point in time. If the rights of indentured servants were recognised, and laws against their abuse were created, I don't see anything unethical about indentured servitude.


if you dont see anything unethical about it, you have no ethics whatsoever


So, in other words, you can't explain what you think is wrong with it?

Why would it be wrong for a poor but intelligent individual to agree to an unpaid work term (where necessities are paid for) in exchange for their education being paid for? How is this significantly different from building up massive debts and being indentured to the individual/organization who financed your debt for a much longer term? Is paying off student debt when a person is 60 any worse than someone working "for free" for a few years post graduation?

In fact, the only significant difference between indentured servitude and any other debt obligation is that the person you owe the debt to is obligated to ensure that your basic needs are met.