NationStates Jolt Archive

An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold.
Is this what you have in mind?

http://www.williammaltese.com/Slaves.jpg

You mean I couldn't get millions of slaves to make me a pyramid?

Nope. Not enough room...

But then you'ld be discriminating against those smart enough to gather large collections.

Maybe allowance levels based on your determined IQ?
If that were the case, then one would possibly fear being determined as a borderline slave owner or idiot?

I wonder if MTAE would propose a daily IQ level to determine who would be a slave or an idiot on any given day?

No, they wouldn't have any trouble. It would be cheaper than paying their workers minimum wage, and would thus be more profitable. Do you think slaves are going to cost more than $360 dollars per week?

Well, there is the issue of food, clothing and housing.

Then, if you want nice, healthy, and strong slaves, decent medical care.

Then you will need to hire people to keep your slaves in line. This could get very pricey.

Then you will need to pay for, and upkeep, security systems.

So, yeah. It wouldn't be to profitable in the end.

Instead of "slavery", perhaps we could refer to it as a "work program" where the people aren't so much "owned" as "exchanging labor for assisted living". Sorry, I got quotation happy.

In other words, provide living quarters, clothing, grub and essentials in exchange for all the work you want to have done without paying goverment regulated wages. The idea could even be stretched to represent a non-profit charitable outfit that helps the indigent, mentally challenged, disabled, and criminal people develop work ethics and a sense of responsibility. Tax deduction? It would have to depend on the type of criminal of course to determine whether or not criminals would work in such a program.

Ah, I've been hoping such a topic would come up. I need a slave. Any volunteers? :)

Is this what you have in mind?

http://www.williammaltese.com/Slaves.jpg
It's what I have in mind! :eek:

Prove to the authorities that I made you orally pleasure a rhinocerous.
Yeah, who is going to believe an idiot slave?

Why is this thread still going after 18 pages?

You seem to have confused poor people with stupid people. You find stupid people sprinkled throughout all socioeconomic brackets. 3% is huge when it comes to economics, especially when you consider the economics of scale with a country like the USA. 3% of the USA is 9 million people. Also, something else you missed, all of the money in business is in poor people. Poor people pay more, buy more and are the easiest victims of their circumstances. Take a tour past the poor suburb in your city (if it is anything like Australia) and you will see Big TVs souped up cars, and branded clothing. All of it is bought on credit, but that doesn't matter. The most profitable resorts are budget resorts. When a business is making their marketing pitch they aim for middle-lower class consumers, you know, the majority. Foor stupid people the effect is magnified, because they are SO easy to sell shit to. TO easy, even. I feel guilty sometimes, they just take the shit.
Do you honestly mean to suggest some people are so stupid that they cannot learn from past (and surrounding) mistakes and try and improve their lot?

This then lead to the idea that the poor are entirely responsible for whatever misfortunes befell them simply for being poor in the first place.
Just as bad as the modern myth that all the rich are evil, greedy scum...

Why is this thread still going after 18 pages?

I wondered the same thing myself. I suspect that posts like the one I'm presently in the middle of typing are the reason why.

Yeah, who is going to believe an idiot slave?
True. :D Idiot slave, go and pleasure a horde of elephants this minute! Do it well, and I'll give you a Scooby snack. :)

I agree with the poster, because if you split intelligence within demographic, most slaves will be white.

That would rule.

:headbang:
Did King George put you up to this MTAE?

I had a feeling you'd started this thread, and Indeed I was correct. In response to your idea, Mwa hahhahah hehehe *snort* hoooo! Fool.

With all the unintelligent, and underpriviliged in society being conscripted into slavery, who would be left to fight your glorious nation's wars? The Rich? The Politicians? Would you send your slaves out to fight? Chances are, they'd turn their weapons on their oppressors, not 'The Enemy'.

It's my honest belief that MTAE is trying to egg on all the terrorists out there. Keep it up friend, if your views ever become policy, your nation would crumble.

I'll give you some credit though. You are a riot!

Pure Metal
this is why i want a clone.

and there's a good reason why it'd have to be my slave, because it would have no soul

What?!? It's a well known fact that the clone gets the soul of it's progenitor. So you would be her/his slave.(a joke)

Honestly, the only difference between you and yer clone would be that it began from slightly aged DNA. Both (or Neither) would have a soul.


New Naliitr:

But if they become enslaved they will survive! They will have food and shelter! Without slavery they would have NONE of that!

Maybe in your country. God bless Canada!

I could simply refuse to do so, and you could not punish me for such an act. However, if I refused to do work properly, you could report me to the authorities and I would be forced to work. However, ridiculous orders need not be obeyed.
Oh, so you are going to have a whole bunch of Idiot Inspectors going around insuring that the idiots do their chores?

I agree with the poster, because if you split intelligence within demographic, most slaves will be white.

That would rule.
Prove it.

Nguyen The Equalizer

I agree with the poster, because if you split intelligence within demographic, most slaves will be white.

That would rule.

Excuse me?!? Proof?
Racist much?!?!:eek:

Excuse me?!? Proof?
Racist much?!?!:eek:
It's not racist. But it assumes whites are the majority all over in the US.

Well, that he is jubilant over most slaves being white would be racist I guess...

Assumes

Assumes
Yes, and now time to provide proof for the assumption, no?

I'm all ears.

I'm all ears.
The onus is on you. :)

Prove it.

Ok.

America's population (2000 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf)) was 281 million. 211 million white folk. If intelligence depends on hard wiring, then most slaves will be white.

I just think it would be quite ironic. Don't you agree?

It's up to you to prove your assumption. Not me.

It's up to you to prove your assumption. Not me.
You made the assumption idiot.

Ok.

America's population (2000 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf)) was 281 million. 211 million white folk. If intelligence depends on hard wiring, then most slaves will be white.

I just think it would be quite ironic. Don't you agree?
Depends on who the majority of idiots is, no? :) Well, with the upcoming change in your demographics whites will soon be but a bare majority. And I don't think the OP actually cares if most slaves are white, or not. I think he just wants the institution of slavery back.

Thank you.

Ironic? no not really.

Thank you.

Ironic? no not really.
Given your nation's history, it would be.

You made the assumption idiot.


Depends on who the majority of idiots is, no? :) Well, with the upcoming change in your demographics whites will soon be but a bare majority. And I don't think the OP actually cares if most slaves are white, or not. I think he just wants the institution of slavery back.

No, I think you're wrong on two counts - if I may be so bold.

The majority selected of any arbitrary test will be the majority you begin with. Certainly with something as arbitrary as 'intelligence'.

Also, I think the OP would care if most slaves were white.

Slavery in Canada? I think not.

And for the record I made no assumption, idiot.

I was asking Nguyen to prove his point. And he did to some extent.

The majority selected of any arbitrary test will be the majority you begin with. Certainly with something as arbitrary as 'intelligence'.
Assuming ceteris paribus. That is to say, assuming whites have exactly the same general intelligence levels as non-whites.

Also, I think the OP would care if most slaves were white.
Why?

And for the record I made no assumption, idiot.

I was asking Nguyen to prove his point. And he did to some extent.
Um, then why ask me to prove his point for him?

Why?
He types very caucasionally.

Are you stupid? Really. What kind of logic is there behind your statements? I use British spelling for some words and I live in America, therefore I am a troll, QED? That's a non sequitur. Go read a book on logic before you speak again, please.
It is illogical to assume that one can become logical by reading a book on logic. :p

He types very caucasionally.
Lol. Still, I don't think this would make a difference to him - until he states otherwise.

If you go by traditional IQ tests and demographics and that everyone "below average" is a slave, it then depends on whether you mean the majority of slaves would be white or the majority of a given demographic.

By the majority of slaves, most would be white just by raw numbers (assuming no intentional rigging)
By the percentage of a given demographic, there would be a greater number of black slaves than non-slaves, roughly equal numbers for hispanics and whites, and less asian slaves than non-slaves.

By the majority of slaves, most would be white just by raw numbers (assuming no intentional rigging)
By the percentage of a given demographic, there would be a greater number of black slaves than non-slaves, roughly equal numbers for hispanics and whites, and less asian slaves than non-slaves.
Exactly. And if you conduct it in such a way that it's whites and non-whites (rather than further distinctions in latter category), the majority wouldn't even be white (in the future, that is).

Um, then why ask me to prove his point for him?

Oops! I misread your post for his. But you asked me to prove his assumption(apparently).

Oops! I misread your post for his. But you asked me to prove his assumption(apparently).
Yes, I apologize for the confusion. I think we both mistook each other for Nguyen.

lol. Friends?:cool:

Heheheee, this is great. You are fumbling bigtime MTAE. Keep projecting, I'll prepare the cosy spot under the bridge for you.
P.S. Do you really regenerate?

I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. Your logic has more holes in it than a poor man's shirt. Are you suggesting that there are no immigrants to the US exist who learned British English in school? I'm willing to bet that there's over a million people like me.
:p

Assuming ceteris paribus. That is to say, assuming whites have exactly the same general intelligence levels as non-whites.


Until a heavily peer-reviewed study comes along, stating "Black folk are dumber than white folk. A study in Genetic Malapropism", I'll wager that whites have exactly the same general intelligence levels as non-whites. Seems that way to me.

It's just a hunch that the OP wouldn't be happy with the inevitable outcome to his exercise.

And you both mistook my comments?

:p

Until a heavily peer-reviewed study comes along, stating "Black folk are dumber than white folk. A study in Genetic Malapropism", I'll wager that whites have exactly the same general intelligence levels as non-whites. Seems that way to me.
Begin with Arthur Jensen. He is one of the more serious individuals involved in IQ research.

It's just a hunch that the OP wouldn't be happy with the inevitable outcome to his exercise.
I doubt that the OP is that stupid as to fail to realize it.

We mistook each other's for yours.

I on the other hand would bet that there is a definite difference in between races' intelligence levels (and other skills too). Race is Race. We are equal but different.


A Rottweiler is stronger than a poodle.
A Pointer is a better hunter...
A Weiner dog best at... being... short...
Etc..
Etc..

(Before the Flames. Not Racist, Realist.)

We mistook each other's for yours.

I on the other hand would bet that there is a definite difference in between races' intelligence levels (and other skills too). Race is Race. We are equal but different.

Me too. I don't think the assumption he made takes such differences into account.

Fine. All slaves will be given a camera to wear on their person that records everything their master says. Thus, it will be impossible for a slave to be treated improperly without the owner being apprehended.
Brilliant. Absolutely frickin' brilliant. :rolleyes:

Unless the Slave's Brilliant owner was a hacker!! Then he could do what he wants!!:D

No, because that action will be recorded and the master would be punished accordingly. There will be back-ups of the cameras on governmental servers.
Oh, another brilliant idea. So now the government will be able to keep tabs on all of the slave owners. Why not just install monitors in every room just like the ones in the book 1984?

Oh, another brilliant idea. So now the government will be able to keep tabs on all of the slave owners. Why not just install monitors in every room just like the ones in the book 1984?
Don't give him ideas. ;)

Don't give him ideas. ;)
No......keep giving him ideas. His internal database is reaching critical mass and it is only a matter of time before it explodes. :D

But Arthur Jenson is not without critics. His model is a quest for the unified theory of intelligence - which is what we've always wanted. Who's definitions should we use? Gardner's? Sternberg's? Who knows? Too many variables. 100,000 years of diaspora has created different needs. Who's methods? Intelligence is a chimera. It's what you want it to be, task by task.

I don't know. Are Chinese kids better at Rubik's cubes than Russians?

But Arthur Jenson is not without critics. His model is a quest for the unified theory of intelligence - which is what we've always wanted. Who's definitions should we use? Gardner's? Sternberg's? Who knows? Too many variables. 100,000 years of diaspora has created different needs. Who's methods? Intelligence is a chimera. It's what you want it to be, task by task.
Jensen is pretty well respected (understatement). But you are right - there are so many good books on the matter, that it's hard to know who is right. So far I am leaning towards Jensen though.

You've never read up on what happens in a slave economy, I take it. Secondly, you will essentially be living in fear of the slaves. Not that I think you're serious of course, but for the sake of argument....

I thought it was quite apparent that slavery was not an economically viable system (not to mention just plain stupid).

Hey, I don't want to be responsible for someone else if I don't have to be - work for me, and I'll pay you wages, and you can leave when the work is done - I don't need you living in my house, and I don't need to keep you and feed you and clothe you.

Slavery is just plain stupid.

You are aware that I am in favour of harsh punishments to deter crime, right? Or did you not read my crime thread? In it, I stated that theives should get their hands chopped off -- a similar thing should happen to a master who intentionally smashes state property.
Let's see if I got this right. You propose that idiots should be slaves and they will be protected by the Slave Protection Act. As part of the SPA, the slave is required to wear a audio/visual device that records the slave owners actions, and the files are kept on a government server. The audio/visual device is State property and if the owner destroys it then the State has the right to chop off the slave owners hands. So in actuality, everyone is in servitude to the government. Perhaps if I qualified to be a slave owner, I would decline....it would make my life so much simpler and a whole lot more enjoyable.

I thought it was quite apparent that slavery was not an economically viable system (not to mention just plain stupid).

Hey, I don't want to be responsible for someone else if I don't have to be - work for me, and I'll pay you wages, and you can leave when the work is done - I don't need you living in my house, and I don't need to keep you and feed you and clothe you.

Slavery is just plain stupid.
This must be the second time in a month that I totally agree with you. :D

This must be the second time in a month that I totally agree with you. :D

Canuck, I think the problem here is that Means likes being mean.

If I want to do something heinous, like genocide, it's not out of hate, or a desire to be mean. Slavery, IMHO, is just being mean. There isn't any way to calculate a positive economic or social gain out of it, which is why I think it's a bad idea.

If you're going to do something horrific to people, there has to be a better reason than just "I hate them" or "I love to make people suffer".

Take war for example. If you're going to drop bombs and blow things up, you need a better reason than "we love the smell of napalm in the morning".

Where you and I differ is that you don't think that there are very many justifiable reasons for mayhem and violence at any level (probably very, very few for you). I tend to merely make the calculation without consideration of who will get upset, or who will misinterpret my reasoning.

And I think that's what upsets you about me - that I don't care about the human factor. So, there's a narrow band of existence upon which we can agree!

And I think that's what upsets you about me - that I don't care about the human factor.!
Marry me! :eek:

(if you're hot...)

If someone is willing to buy a slave to do work in their household, then they will be willing to pay that same slave to do that work.

An excellent point, unless the total cost of ownership (please forgive the somewhat unfortunate terminology) of buying and maintaining a slave would be less than the TCO of paying and maintaining an employee. There already exists an odd sort of middle-ground in this scenario: rich people paying illegal immigrants to do the menial jobs they don't feel like doing. The immigrants aren't slaves, per se, but they don't get all the benefits of full employment since they can't work legally, get paid much less than they would if they could be, are pretty much stuck putting up with the one "master" since they'll never truly make/save enough to slip off the economic leash, and they are coerced or intimidated into working longer hours at more physical tasks for the privilege of under the table employment. Most live in single-room poverty and squallor, not unlike the slave shacks of colonial slavery, and the women are often raped regularly. There are "good massahs" and "bad massahs" just like in colonial times, of course, and all of this comes with the added benefit for the masters of not having to sell a stupid, lazy or otherwise incompetant slave: employees can be fired and sent packing at a moments notice.

Other than the issue of the treatment of illegal immigrants, I think the system as it exists is fine. There are plenty of stupid people in the world who are employed, functioning members of society. They get to drive cars, drink alcohol, have kids and are free to make life difficult for everyone they can. Those who are too stupid to act as functional members of society (and it obviously doesn't take much) and starve, freeze and die on the street are really just leftovers. We have so many programs in place to help people who would otherwise be dead as part of natural selection continue to live and remain a burden that I can't see any benefit in allowing those who are still too stupid to make it yet another chance.

Oh, another brilliant idea. So now the government will be able to keep tabs on all of the slave owners. Why not just install monitors in every room just like the ones in the book 1984?

I contemplated such a possibility, but, in the end, it seems to be a dead end. Who would wade through all the files? Who would foot the bill? If there were a way to implement such a plan in a cost-effective manner and ensure that it was utilized to its maximum capacity, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, the state of our modern technology does not admit this possibility.

Canuck, I think the problem here is that Means likes being mean.
I have to agree with you there.

If I want to do something heinous, like genocide, it's not out of hate, or a desire to be mean. Slavery, IMHO, is just being mean. There isn't any way to calculate a positive economic or social gain out of it, which is why I think it's a bad idea.

If you're going to do something horrific to people, there has to be a better reason than just "I hate them" or "I love to make people suffer".

Take war for example. If you're going to drop bombs and blow things up, you need a better reason than "we love the smell of napalm in the morning".

Where you and I differ is that you don't think that there are very many justifiable reasons for mayhem and violence at any level (probably very, very few for you). I tend to merely make the calculation without consideration of who will get upset, or who will misinterpret my reasoning.
What can I say......I am a pacifist. I believe God's will is peace and goodwill, not bombs and bullets. There is way too much hate, anger, violence, greed, and ego in this world. I victimized myself and people around me with those qualities. The more I distance myself from then, the better my life is. That is a fact.

So within, so without. All a matter of perspective.

And I think that's what upsets you about me - that I don't care about the human factor. So, there's a narrow band of existence upon which we can agree!
Better a narrow band then none at all!! :)

Slavery, IMHO, is just being mean. There isn't any way to calculate a positive economic or social gain out of it, which is why I think it's a bad idea.

There is an obvious way to calculate a positive economic adjustment. If labour is much cheaper, the cost of producing various products goes down, the cost of those products go down, everybody's (real) wages increase, there is increased consumer spending in luxury items, more jobs are created, etc. There is also a simple way to assess the social gain. In one fell swoop, we would practically do away with poverty and decrease unemployment. The idiots who would formerly live a miserable hand-to-mouth existence, live in squalor, eat beans, etc., would now be able to live a much more substantial life. They would have 3 square meals a day, a comfortable bed to sleep in, a nice house, a stable job, no need to worry about their financial situation, etc. It's a win-win situation for the rich, the stupid, and the economy.

...when citing historical trends, I do so in regards to Britian,

Last I heard, you guys got a copy of the memo that Farnhamia cited. ;)

its actually more expensive to keep a slave healthy and fit than it is to pay someone minimum wage. There's just no incentive.

that being said, even if i could save 100 dollars an hour in terms of economic cost, the cost of slaveholding to my soul would be immeasurable.

It's just a hunch that the OP wouldn't be happy with the inevitable outcome to his exercise.

Why? Do you think I'm racist? I'm not. I'm certainly not advocating that all blacks or latinos or Asians be sold into slavery; that would be grossly discriminatory and based solely on arbitrary characteristics. I am for equal-opportunity slavery -- or, rather, genetic-opportunity slavery. I only have the best interests of the stupid and the economy at heart. I believe that all parties would benefit from such a programme, including the morons. They would not be forced to be unable to adequately feed their families and the like because they are sub-standard intellectually. They would be able to live without worries at very little cost to themselves. They would basically be given an easy job instead of being left to starve; that's a noble goal. Any way you cut it, they are going to be slaves. Currently, they are "free" to do whatever they wish, but their freedom is nonetheless slavery. Their potential is restricted by their cognitive capacities, which are lacking. There are many things they cannot achieve due to their lack of intelligence. They are slaves to the system and to themselves. This plan would broaden their horizons and reduce the extent to which they are slaves.

the cost of slaveholding to my soul would be immeasurable.

How so? Wouldn't you be happy to know that you will treat your slave gently and kindly instead of allowing them to work for some cruel master?

Why? Do you think I'm racist? I'm not. I'm certainly not advocating that all blacks or latinos or Asians be sold into slavery; that would be grossly discriminatory and based solely on arbitrary characteristics. I am for equal-opportunity slavery -- or, rather, genetic-opportunity slavery. I only have the best interests of the stupid and the economy at heart. I believe that all parties would benefit from such a programme, including the morons. They would not be forced to be unable to adequately feed their families and the like because they are sub-standard intellectually. They would be able to live without worries at very little cost to themselves. They would basically be given an easy job instead of being left to starve; that's a noble goal. Any way you cut it, they are going to be slaves. Currently, they are "free" to do whatever they wish, but their freedom is nonetheless slavery. Their potential is restricted by their cognitive capacities, which are lacking. There are many things they cannot achieve due to their lack of intelligence. They are slaves to the system and to themselves. This plan would broaden their horizons and reduce the extent to which they are slaves.

Just one question:

Do you mean stupid like "Dee Dee Dee!" or like poor? Because I wonder what you mean...

I am for equal-opportunity slavery -- or, rather, genetic-opportunity slavery.
:D I should quote this.

Should we even let these wretches breed? In fact, with advanced genetics we'll be able to engineer perfect slaves! Let's rid of the current vermin, and put our minds to the future then. :) Brave New World, on we come!

:D I should quote this.

Should we even let these wretches breed? In fact, with advanced genetics we'll be able to engineer perfect slaves! Let's rid of the current vermin, and put our minds to the future then. :)

Didn't you see his other thread? He actually wants to pay women to be surrogate mothers of genetically enginered babies tailored to the government's standard of health of intelligence because it will be good for the economy.

<snip>

There is now a shrine in my home dedicated to you. Do you prefer live or burnt offerings?

Didn't you see his other thread? He actually wants to pay women to be surrogate mothers of genetically enginered babies tailored to the government's standard of health of intelligence because it will be good for the economy.
Why, it's genius! :eek: I cannot believe I am missing out on his great intellect. :( I feel deprived now.

(I'll admit, I have a secret fetish for BNW. :p)

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.


Means do you drink or smoke pot ?


If you dont please start :D

I mean that in a very good hearted way...you are starting to scare me...and people think I am conservative...

BTW ...thats why we have Mexicans .:D

BACK OFF PC POLICE !

I am armed and dangerouse ... I'll call you names and write letters .

:D I should quote this.

Should we even let these wretches breed? In fact, with advanced genetics we'll be able to engineer perfect slaves! Let's rid of the current vermin, and put our minds to the future then. :) Brave New World, on we come!

Please remove all concepts of free thought, religion, individualism, or equality. Anyone with any of these things will be, as you say,"U83R PWN3D".

Please remove all concepts of free thought, religion, individualism, or equality. Anyone with any of these things will be, as you say,"U83R PWN3D".
Good, yes, and purge the world of those awful freethinkers! Enough of their doubleplusunpatriotic doubleplusuncleverness.

Should we even let these wretches breed? In fact, with advanced genetics we'll be able to engineer perfect slaves!

I proposed something along those lines in the following thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503448

Yes, it would be excellent if we were able to genetically engineer slaves to fit the duties which they are expected to perform -- we would cut down on waste and increase productivity with such a measure. Have you seen the movie GATTACA, by any chance? We should create a genetic underclass similar to that in the movie to perfrom jobs which require little or no skill.

I proposed something along those lines in the following thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503448

Yes, it would be excellent if we were able to genetically engineer slaves to fit the duties which they are expected to perform -- we would cut down on waste and increase productivity with such a measure. Have you seen the movie GATTACA, by any chance? We should create a genetic underclass similar to that in the movie to perfrom jobs which require little or no skill.

So you want to breed people specifically to be slaves, with no chance for any sort of advancement or freedoms in their lives? That's horrible.

Throwing in my two cents before this becomes a flame fest...

God damnit I'm agreeing with MTAE again!

I certainly have to agree that the mentally and physically disabled should be enslaved, as long as they are treated fairly while enslaved. If they are treated fairly, and by that I mean about as much as Roman slaves were, then it would be quite the improvement for them. They would have a place to sleep, food to eat, they'd survive! If they weren't enslaved, they wouldn't have any of that, and would end up dead. Enslaving those who are slaves to themselves is a great idea.

I really think you should retract this statement. I assure you that although I am not currently owned by anyone, that I am not likely to die soon. Have I faced a lot of adversity? Yes, I had dealt with more crap in my life by the time I was your age then you are likely to see even if you should live to be 100. And right now, I do have a place to sleep, food to eat, I am close to getting my degree, hell, I even have a new relationship. And you know what? I did it all by my crippled self. Imagine that.

I proposed something along those lines in the following thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503448

Yes, it would be excellent if we were able to genetically engineer slaves to fit the duties which they are expected to perform -- we would cut down on waste and increase productivity with such a measure. Have you seen the movie GATTACA, by any chance? We should create a genetic underclass similar to that in the movie to perfrom jobs which require little or no skill.
It is our duty to bring into reality the utopia set out in Brave New World. Death to all freethinkers! :eek:

I sometimes flirt with the idea of the creation of a slave class, and a ruling elite a la BNW. In my imagination though. I like freedom too much in reality to do it.

BTW, no, I haven't seen it.

So you want to breed people specifically to be slaves, with no chance for any sort of advancement or freedoms in their lives? That's horrible.
Read Brave New World. Especially the Epsilon Minus Semi-morons. It's Plato's Republic taken literally, and to new extents. Very good book. The slave class is actually made to enjoy its slavery - it's not even aware of it to an extent. The ruling Alpha Double Plus elite, on the other hand, possesses significant deals of individualism.

If MTAE's plan is carried out, and stupid people have to become slaves, can I buy him? :D

If MTAE's plan is carried out, and stupid people have to become slaves, can I buy him? :D

Heh, I believe a couple of others have already asked so I guess there will have to be an auction. ;)


You know that MTAE just wants to own slaves himself. That is what this is all about.

Read Brave New World. Especially the Epsilon Minus Semi-morons. It's Plato's Republic taken literally, and to new extents. Very good book. The slave class is actually made to enjoy its slavery - it's not even aware of it to an extent. The ruling Alpha Double Plus elite, on the other hand, possesses significant deals of individualism.

I'll have to read that when I get a chance. I'll add it to my list.

I proposed something along those lines in the following thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503448

Yes, it would be excellent if we were able to genetically engineer slaves to fit the duties which they are expected to perform -- we would cut down on waste and increase productivity with such a measure. Have you seen the movie GATTACA, by any chance? We should create a genetic underclass similar to that in the movie to perfrom jobs which require little or no skill.

So this is where you get all your ideas from sci fi movies? Are you just stupid to see the whole dystopian thing?

I'll have to read that when I get a chance. I'll add it to my list.
It should make you realize exactly what MTAE means when he says the creation of a slave class. It's also much more imaginative reading in some ways than 1984, given its time.

So this is where you get all your ideas from sci fi movies? Are you just stupid to see the whole dystopian thing?
To some people a dystopia is a utopia. Huxley wasn't purely writing sci-fi when he wrote BNW - it was his prolegomenon of how the future would be.

I proposed something along those lines in the following thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503448

Yes, it would be excellent if we were able to genetically engineer slaves to fit the duties which they are expected to perform -- we would cut down on waste and increase productivity with such a measure. Have you seen the movie GATTACA, by any chance? We should create a genetic underclass similar to that in the movie to perfrom jobs which require little or no skill.
Robots are cooler and more fun, not to mention less morally dubious.

It should make you realize exactly what MTAE means when he says the creation of a slave class. It's also much more imaginative reading in some ways than 1984, given its time.

Then I'll read it eventually. I have a long list of books I want read. But I'm interested now in how that would work.

Then I'll read it eventually. I have a long list of books I want read. But I'm interested now in how that would work.
Right, then I'll make one final recommendation - get Brave New World and BNW Revisited together. In the latter Huxley leaves the fiction aside, and justifies his thinking.

Right, then I'll make one final recommendation - get Brave New World and BNW Revisited together. In the latter Huxley leaves the fiction aside, and justifies his thinking.

All right. I'll look into that. (I wish I had more time. Taking six college-level courses in my junior year of high school takes up most of my time.)

All right. I'll look into that. (I wish I had more time. Taking six college-level courses in my junior year of high school takes up most of my time.)
Yeah, tell me about it. :confused: I'm at university now, doing Economics (major) and Creative Writing - it barely leaves me much time for anything else. So much reading, so little time!

Allow me to pose a hypothetical question. Let's say that my plan was carried out, and in 100 years, we establish a society with the following characteristics:


The slave underclass is blissfully ignorant of their lack of freedom due to their sub-par intelligence and early indoctrination.
The intelligent people are extremely happy to be living in such a carefree society where they can enjoy life without having to work too hard.
Technology is progressing at astonishing rates, making life increasingly easier.
The economy is booming.


Now, if we were able to attain such a society via strict adherence to my plan, do you believe it would have been worthwhile? At the cost of perhaps one generation or two of slight discomfort, we would have created a utopia on Earth and everybody would be happy. Isn't that the way we should be? What's the point of society if not to ensure happiness for all its members? And if we are able to accomplish the goals of civilized society, what should we be prepared to sacrifice in order to achieve it?

Yeah, tell me about it. :confused: I'm at university now, doing Economics (major) and Creative Writing - it barely leaves me much time for anything else. So much reading, so little time!

Exactly. I'm trying to get a head start, and plus the honors classes have usually never been challenging enough. I need AP and Dual-Enrollement.:)

But, yes, I have a long list of books that I really need to read, but I have to find time in between schoolwork and writing my story. But the list has been building since middle school, and I keep adding books to the list.

Disgusting.

The stupid would not make good slaves. They simply could not understand the needs of the intellectuals.

Now, if we were able to attain such a society via strict adherence to my plan, do you believe it would have been worthwhile?

No, no, no and no. Next question? Maybe you should make a thread, "Rape should be legal," or "Kill all the Muslims!" or something.

Yes! Success!

At the cost of perhaps one generation or two of slight discomfort, we would have created a utopia on Earth and everybody would be happy.

LOL SLIGHT DISCOMFORT! Like the Holocaust. That was slightly uncomfortable!

Isn't that the way we should be?

Unfree, UnAmerican? No. Get out of here, you fucking traitorous freedom-hating piece of shit.

Disgusting.
It's the logical consequence of the ever-more powerful State. :)

Exactly. I'm trying to get a head start, and plus the honors classes have usually never been challenging enough. I need AP and Dual-Enrollement.:)

But, yes, I have a long list of books that I really need to read, but I have to find time in between schoolwork and writing my story. But the list has been building since middle school, and I keep adding books to the list.
Haha, I think I have somewhere around 3000 books on my Amazon wishlist. :p 'Tis a true blessing, that wishlist. I'd be set back a good $120 000 if I had to buy everything on it (which I will). I wonder how many hours I'd be set back. :D

Allow me to pose a hypothetical question. Let's say that my plan was carried out, and in 100 years, we establish a society with the following characteristics:


The slave underclass is blissfully ignorant of their lack of freedom due to their sub-par intelligence and early indoctrination.
The intelligent people are extremely happy to be living in such a carefree society where they can enjoy life without having to work too hard.
Technology is progressing at astonishing rates, making life increasingly easier.
The economy is booming.


Now, if we were able to attain such a society via strict adherence to my plan, do you believe it would have been worthwhile? At the cost of perhaps one generation or two of slight discomfort, we would have created a utopia on Earth and everybody would be happy. Isn't that the way we should be? What's the point of society if not to ensure happiness for all its members? And if we are able to accomplish the goals of civilized society, what should we be prepared to sacrifice in order to achieve it?
It's all right if they're ignorant, since they're happy?

Take this scenario. Ebil muslimz of dooms invade the USA and fire their gigantic mind control ray. This instantly brainwashes everyone in the USA that Islam is the best religion, Sharia law is good, etc, etc. Everyone converts to Islam and is happy. Would you say this was an acceptable scenario?

Would you say this was an acceptable scenario?

As long as the society was able to successfully perpetuate itself and it didn't collapse after several generations, yes.

Okay, while I understand the point you're making towards slavery, it is not fair to judge people on the concept of brainpower. Just because you think you are smart enough that you wouldn't be enslaved, that doesn't mean you wouldn't be. Personally, I think an overall wage would be fair to everyone- ie:
a job where you work for someone else, all workers in that company must have the same wage, no matter what the job. This includes corperate sellouts. ALL workers work for the same amount. if the company gains money, its divided by the ENTIRE buisness. Not the top people. However, I have NO clue how to impose this law, because I am REALLY new to this site.

It's all right if they're ignorant, since they're happy?
He is a collectivist, so of course from his perspective this is all right.

Allow me to pose a hypothetical question. Let's say that my plan was carried out, and in 100 years, we establish a society with the following characteristics:


The slave underclass is blissfully ignorant of their lack of freedom due to their sub-par intelligence and early indoctrination.
The intelligent people are extremely happy to be living in such a carefree society where they can enjoy life without having to work too hard.
Technology is progressing at astonishing rates, making life increasingly easier.
The economy is booming.


Now, if we were able to attain such a society via strict adherence to my plan, do you believe it would have been worthwhile? At the cost of perhaps one generation or two of slight discomfort, we would have created a utopia on Earth and everybody would be happy. Isn't that the way we should be? What's the point of society if not to ensure happiness for all its members? And if we are able to accomplish the goals of civilized society, what should we be prepared to sacrifice in order to achieve it?

MTAE, you've just described the "developed" parts of the present world.

Do you disagree?

Haha, I think I have somewhere around 3000 books on my Amazon wishlist. :p 'Tis a true blessing, that wishlist. I'd be set back a good $120 000 if I had to buy everything on it (which I will). I wonder how many hours I'd be set back. :D

:D I'm not even sure how many books I'm trying to find time to read. A fairly large number, though, I'm sure.

But I really need to go now, so that I can get plenty of rest for the PSAT tomorrow.:)

Anybody out there ready to restart a Abolitionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism) movement if slavery is brought back. I'll be the first person in the line to get rid it. When Israel was in Egypt's land
Let my people go
Oppressed so hard they could not stand
Let my people go


Go down, Moses, way down in Egypt's land
Tell old Pharaoh, Let my people go


So Moses went to Egypt's land
Let my people go
To make old Pharaoh understand
Let my people go
Thus spake the Lord, bold Moses said,
Let my people go,
If not, I'll strike your first born dead
Let my people go

Now, if we were able to attain such a society via strict adherence to my plan, do you believe it would have been worthwhile?

Absolutely not. Brainwashed slaves are still slaves; they are merely well-trained ones. The fact that they are not even aware of their loss of freedom only makes their slavery more profound and degrading; not only are their actions controlled by another, but their very thoughts are.

Even if you could move to that allegedly utopian state immediately, I would still fiercely oppose the plan you are proposing as an egregious atrocity and a crime against human rights and human dignity.

They'll prolly just flee to Canada... just maybe...

They'll prolly just flee to Canada... just maybe...
Where do you think they'll all come from? :)

He is a collectivist, so of course from his perspective this is all right.

Nonsense; lots of "collectivists" don't think that way.

Nonsense; lots of "collectivists" don't think that way.
This particular one does though.

I proposed something along those lines in the following thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503448

Yes, it would be excellent if we were able to genetically engineer slaves to fit the duties which they are expected to perform -- we would cut down on waste and increase productivity with such a measure. Have you seen the movie GATTACA, by any chance? We should create a genetic underclass similar to that in the movie to perfrom jobs which require little or no skill.
You are one sick puppy.

What about Crucifixion? How do we feel about that?

How do you want me to feel? It's painful, but you're guaranteed to die. You are convicted of a crime. You die for it. The suffering will give you time to make reparations between yourself and whichever you God you choose to worship.

Looks like the OP is offering himself up for slavery, since viewing his other posts he is obviously of low intelligence (if only he knew it himself). But who would want a slave of such low intelligence? You'd have to watch him all day to make sure he did a good job, and if that were the case, you might as well do it yourself and do it better.

Not happy with their roles as pseudo-scientists, pseudo-doctors and pseudo-psychiatrists, some members of the Christian right have decided to branch off into pseudo-sociologyhttp://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/11826/_Gay_Curer_Psychologist_Claims_Africans_Better_Off_As_Slaves (http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/11826/_Gay_Curer_Psychologist_Claims_Africans_Better_Off_As_Slaves)

i would be hugely infavour of forcing hard slave labour for the uber-criminals, such as child molesters, mass murders, rapists and terrorists.

I think the best questions to be asked are
1. What if your mother was made to be a slave?
2. Your sister?
3. What if you were deemed just stupid enough to be a slave?
3.a. Would you regret the system or still be in full favor of it?

To clarify for people who may be just stupid enough to be a slave, In these questions there are no debates as to weather or not they qualify as slaves. The system has decided and they are now slaves. Use your imagination about how this happened, but it has happened.
Now for the capstone question
4. Are you happy?
I will not go itnto the many religous ramifications of such an idea, just know that it was tried before and abolished for so many reasons. Youd be completely undermining the capatialist system to reintroduce slavery. The thought is almost treason.:sniper:

Even if you could move to that allegedly utopian state immediately, I would still fiercely oppose the plan you are proposing as an egregious atrocity and a crime against human rights and human dignity.

Why would you fiercely oppose a plan in which all members of society are perfectly happy and content? Do you prefer a world with depression and chaos? I certainly hope not. Why do you want to take away someone's happiness just because you think he/she should be happy given the circumstances? Why do you care how someone achieves happiness as long as that method does not hurt anybody else in the process? Why are you attempting to quash the realization of a society in which everybody is completely happy, which is the natural evolution of a society in which just some people are happy? Why is it all about you and not about society as a whole?

As long as people are happy, that means that their "human rights" have not been offended. If they do not feel humiliated, their human dignity has not been offended. Such things as you describe are relative terms to gauge the harshness of a particular punishment; this carries no weight if something is a blessing instead of a punishment. If slaves are completely indoctrinated, they will think working for a master is something to yearn for, not something to shy away from; they'll like it. And it's none of your business to tell them what they can and cannot like.

And compulsory slavery would put untold thousands of social workers out of work, thus having a considerably negative effect on the economy.

social workers? In what sense? Those delightfully ineffectual and mediocre people who are classified as "social workers"?

I think the best questions to be asked are
1. What if your mother was made to be a slave?
2. Your sister?
3. What if you were deemed just stupid enough to be a slave?
3.a. Would you regret the system or still be in full favor of it?

To clarify for people who may be just stupid enough to be a slave, In these questions there are no debates as to weather or not they qualify as slaves. The system has decided and they are now slaves. Use your imagination about how this happened, but it has happened.
Now for the capstone question
4. Are you happy?
I will not go itnto the many religous ramifications of such an idea, just know that it was tried before and abolished for so many reasons. Youd be completely undermining the capatialist system to reintroduce slavery. The thought is almost treason.:sniper:

Slavery, given that it was in no small part responsible for the development of capitalism, is not an anathema to capitalism. Indeed, the consistent, reliable output of an enslaved body of workers would constitute an axiom upon which economic development, and universal enrichment, could occur.

And it's none of your business to tell them what they can and cannot like.
And it is none of your business to decide who and who would not qualify as slaves.

I know a few people who would probably fit into the parameters that you define, and I truly believe that they would force feed you with your own testicles rather than be your or anyone elses slave. :eek:

And it is none of your business to decide who and who would not qualify as slaves.

I know a few people who would probably fit into the parameters that you define, and I truly believe that they would force feed you with your own testicles rather than be your or anyone elses slave. :eek:

Then they get shot. It really is quite simple....

Why would you fiercely oppose a plan in which all members of society are perfectly happy and content? Do you prefer a world with depression and chaos? I certainly hope not. Why do you want to take away someone's happiness just because you think he/she should be happy given the circumstances? Why do you care how someone achieves happiness as long as that method does not hurt anybody else in the process? Why are you attempting to quash the realization of a society in which everybody is completely happy, which is the natural evolution of a society in which just some people are happy? Why is it all about you and not about society as a whole?

As long as people are happy, that means that their "human rights" have not been offended. If they do not feel humiliated, their human dignity has not been offended. Such things as you describe are relative terms to gauge the harshness of a particular punishment; this carries no weight if something is a blessing instead of a punishment. If slaves are completely indoctrinated, they will think working for a master is something to yearn for, not something to shy away from; they'll like it. And it's none of your business to tell them what they can and cannot like.
So... train people to feel happy only when they are humiliated and then they will be happy? Like you'd train a dog?


What the fuck don't you get about this that you cannot understand why it is wrong? Or do you understand why it is wrong and just don't care? Or do you want to just stop doing work and have slaves do it for you? Which, when you think about it, would completely throw this society upside down ever few generations. The intelligent would become stupid from lack of work and the stupid would become more intelligent and become the masters. Though, probably, since only like intelligences would be mating with each other, intelligent society as a whole would slowly de-evolve. What then? In a few thousand years, we'll all fail the test and become slaves to no one but we'll be too stupid to know the difference. Great.

Then they get shot. It really is quite simple....
Another sick puppy. :eek:

Then they get shot. It really is quite simple....

We're shooting the people who don't want to be slaves now?

Is this still here? Bad thread, lay down and die.

We're shooting the people who don't want to be slaves now?
It appears that way. :eek:

Is this still here? Bad thread, lay down and die.
Perhaps you are right. Let it die. It ain't going to happen anyways. Just a bunch of rhetorical nonsense.

So... train people to feel happy only when they are humiliated and then they will be happy? Like you'd train a dog?


What the fuck don't you get about this that you cannot understand why it is wrong? Or do you understand why it is wrong and just don't care? Or do you want to just stop doing work and have slaves do it for you? Which, when you think about it, would completely throw this society upside down ever few generations. The intelligent would become stupid from lack of work and the stupid would become more intelligent and become the masters. Though, probably, since only like intelligences would be mating with each other, intelligent society as a whole would slowly de-evolve. What then? In a few thousand years, we'll all fail the test and become slaves to no one but we'll be too stupid to know the difference. Great.
I recommend to you too to read Brave New World. The Alpha and Beta ruling elites do actually work, they occupy all the top ranks in society. The C class carries out most of the routine work, but nothing too hard. In addition, as pre-natal genetic engineering and conditioning is used, their intelligence is maintained at a high level - whereas the slave classes (Delta and Epsilon) are practically manufactured to be dumb, and either content or even unaware of their existence. All classes receive Soma to remain placated. Genetic engineering therefore could invalidate your entire thesis. This book takes Plato's Republic literally, and expands it to whole new horizons, that Plato could've never thought of in his metaphorical work (he was creating an analogy between the community and the human psychology/morality - Huxley was crafting what he thought would be the dystopian future to come).

This is not to say I am for such a society - the complete opposite. However, that it may work is not out of the question. The society outlined in 1984 looks positively primitive compared to it - more akin to Nazism or Stalinism than anything the high-tech future holds.

I recommend to you too to read Brave New World. The Alpha and Beta ruling elites do actually work, they occupy all the top ranks in society. The C class carries out most of the routine work, but nothing too hard. In addition, as pre-natal genetic engineering and conditioning is used, their intelligence is maintained at a high level - whereas the slave classes (Delta and Epsilon) are practically manufactured to be dumb, and either content or even unaware of their existence. All classes receive Soma to remain placated. Genetic engineering therefore could invalidate your entire thesis. This book takes Plato's Republic literally, and expands it to whole new horizons, that Plato could've never thought of in his metaphorical work (he was creating an analogy between the community and the human psychology/morality - Huxley was crafting what he thought would be the dystopian future to come).

This is not to say I am for such a society - the complete opposite. However, that it may work is not out of the question. The society outlined in 1984 looks positively primitive compared to it - more akin to Nazism or Stalinism than anything the high-tech future holds.
Possible but not within our reach. I like literature as much as the next person, probably a lot more, but we don't have Soma. Also, I don't really understand: you say yourself that Huxley was against such a future, why use it in even a devil's advocate defense?

I've been trying to read Doors of Perception for about 6 years now, I keep losing it or it gets stolen. Once I'm finished with it though, I'm going to read Brave New World.

Possible but not within our reach. I like literature as much as the next person, probably a lot more, but we don't have Soma. Also, I don't really understand: you say yourself that Huxley was against such a future, why use it in even a devil's advocate defense?
Because it's possible. What he outlined is extremely realisable. If you can, buy the latest issue of the BBC Focus. It has a good article on genetic evolution, and how close we are to near-immortality (it isn't even science fiction anymore). I am not saying that this will happen within the century; it may take longer. But the stage at which we can actually do what the OP suggests is drawing nearer (assuming ceteris paribus). I myself am against such a future - this doesn't mean we should ignore the possibility of it happening. It's a threat.

I've been trying to read Doors of Perception for about 6 years now, I keep losing it or it gets stolen. Once I'm finished with it though, I'm going to read Brave New World.
You won't regret it. Like I recommended to another poster, make sure you get it with Brave New World Revisited. The latter contains explanations by Huxley for his dystopia turning out the way it does in the novel.

I'm going to read Brave New World.

save your time
.

save your time
.
Do explain why he should "save" his time? :rolleyes:

Why would you fiercely oppose a plan in which all members of society are perfectly happy and content?

If all memebers of society were perfectly happy and content jumping off a bridge or drinking the Kool-Aid, I'd oppose it. At least for myself and my family.

...the realization of a society in which everybody is completely happy, which is the natural evolution of a society in which just some people are happy?

Not sure where you got that idea, but society isn't necessarily about bringing happiness to it's constituents, though it might help some people with that. Society is what happens when groups of people interact, and there doesn't necessarily have to be anything happy about it (e.g. a bully extorting money from the other members of the society). In truth, the bully scenario is actually the natural evolution of pretty much all societies. To build and maintain anything else takes a lot of work and conscious effort and sacrifice on the part of the members.

As long as people are happy, that means that their "human rights" have not been offended.

No, all that means is that they're happy about having their rights abridged. A happy slave is still a slave, and has no more human rights than another slave who's unhappy about it.

If they do not feel humiliated, their human dignity has not been offended.

This reminds me of a time, long, long ago, when my brothers and I were talking with our little cousin. One of my brothers called her ugly, then when she got upset he said, "No, I meant you're pretty ugly." This made her happy because she latched onto the word "pretty" and was too young to understand the association in context. We kept calling her "pretty ugly" for most of the day and she was absolutely ecstatic. All the while we were laughing at her and sharing the "private" joke, until she went in and proudly told our aunt how pretty ugly she was. We got so totally busted. I think her human dignity was offended even before she realized what we were talking about, because that was pretty much the entire intent of the joke.

If slaves are completely indoctrinated, they will think working for a master is something to yearn for, not something to shy away from; they'll like it.

Until one of them starts to question why some people are obviously slaves and other people obviously aren't. The difference would be impossible to hide, and there's very little chance that at some point one of them isn't going to contemplate the apparent inequity, even if they're all as dumb as a box of hair.

If all memebers of society were perfectly happy and content jumping off a bridge or drinking the Kool-Aid, I'd oppose it. At least for myself and my family.

Why would you oppose it? If they are not making you or your family uncomfortable, don't they have the right to do whatever they wish? Why should you care how another human being derives happiness as long as it doesn't conflict with your own well-being?

Not sure where you got that idea, but society isn't necessarily about bringing happiness to it's constituents, though it might help some people with that.

What other purpose should there be? Let me phrase it in a different way. If everybody is happy and the society is capable of perpetuating itself, how can it be improved? The answer is that it can't. The only point of society is to bring happiness to its people -- not to make the affluent or to keep them safe, as these two things are a sub-set of happiness. The perfect society is one in which all of its citizens are happy; you can make it no better. It doesn't matter how they're happy as long as they are.

I think her human dignity was offended even before she realized what we were talking about, because that was pretty much the entire intent of the joke.

There is no objective standard to determine whose dignity has been offended -- who is there to judge something such as this? The only person who is fit to determine whether somebody's rights have been abridged is that very same person. You can't tell me that my human dignity has been offended if I don't feel that way myself -- I am the only one who can say whether or not that is the case, not you, Bob, or Sue.

Until one of them starts to question why some people are obviously slaves and other people obviously aren't.

No, they will be heavily indoctrinated from a very early age that society is perfect the way it is. They will not even think to question the status quo. Have you heard of American soldiers who were tortured for years in Vietnamese prison camps and when they were rescued, they completely and totally believed that communism was right and they didn't want to leave? I'm talking about something on a par with that -- thorough brainwashing that leaves the subject with a sempiternal feeling that they are happy to be slaves and that they should unquestioningly accept their lot in life.

Why would you fiercely oppose a plan in which all members of society are perfectly happy and content? Do you prefer a world with depression and chaos? I certainly hope not. Why do you want to take away someone's happiness just because you think he/she should be happy given the circumstances? Why do you care how someone achieves happiness as long as that method does not hurt anybody else in the process? Why are you attempting to quash the realization of a society in which everybody is completely happy, which is the natural evolution of a society in which just some people are happy? Why is it all about you and not about society as a whole?

Because the so-called "happiness" you speak of is useless and illusory.

Genuine happiness requires freedom and dignity. The only "happiness" you will give them is the pleasure of drugs (literal or metaphorical.)

As long as people are happy, that means that their "human rights" have not been offended.

Sorry, no. It merely means that you have brainwashed them into not noticing.

Consider that for a second. You are violating them. You are degrading them. You are abusing them. But you have broken their will, enslaved their mind, so much that they don't even notice.

And you are trying to pass that for a good thing. Disgusting.

If they do not feel humiliated, their human dignity has not been offended.

No. Again, all it means is that they are ignorant of it.

Is it acceptable to take pictures of someone changing, as long as they don't notice? Of course not. You are violating their privacy - even if they are ignorant of it. They have a preference - the preference not to have their privacy violated - and you have ignored it.

The violation here is, if anything, even more profound. The people you abuse are not ignorant of the act itself; they are, rather, ignorant of their own preferences, because you have enslaved their minds. You have not made them like their slavery. You have merely made them ignorant of not liking it - or have drugged them to the point that their lives are full of too much empty pleasure to notice. You have broken them, and that is why they are "happy" - not because they are genuinely being treated well.

You have stolen from them perhaps the most important goods there are - their freedom, their dignity, their capacity for a genuine existence and a truly good life - and "compensated" them with a brainwashed, drugged existence so that they will not notice the theft. Whatever you think, that does not make it right.

Such things as you describe are relative terms to gauge the harshness of a particular punishment; this carries no weight if something is a blessing instead of a punishment.

No, it is a punishment. It is a punishment, and no amount of deluding those punished will alter that character.

If slaves are completely indoctrinated, they will think working for a master is something to yearn for, not something to shy away from; they'll like it.

The fact that you see this as a good thing, and not as a sick perversion, should astonish me, but from your past remarks, it doesn't.

You are probably one of those people who reads Brave New World and misses its point.

And it's none of your business to tell them what they can and cannot like.

No, but it is entirely my business when you are trying to indoctrinate them into "liking" something.

*scratches head*

Okay, here goes:

I advocate the enslavement of those who demonstrate a keen interest in the advocacy of slavery. You know, to encourage a sense of EMPATHY - walk a mile in their shoes, so to speak. Of course, they'd be quietly emancipated after a few months of slowly going bugshit - but hopefully by then they'd be cured of their arrogant, over-weaning sense of entitlement and presumed superiority.

Dickhead.

...Dobbsworld, you win the thread. Here is your prize:
Position as advisor to my lordship.

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.


"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

:sniper:

Because the so-called "happiness" you speak of is useless and illusory. Genuine happiness requires freedom and dignity. The only "happiness" you will give them is the pleasure of drugs (literal or metaphorical.)

On the contrary -- there is only one type of happiness. We feel "emotions" based on chemical reactions which occur in our brain. We interpret various chemical signals as "sadness," "happiness," "anger," etc. While they may not be quantified objectively, none of these emotions are "illusory" or "useless." The thing which makes us sentient is the fact that we feel emotions, no matter how pointless they may be. There is nothing wrong with the happiness derived from drugs, and if we are able to do "drugs" to feel happiness while helping society in the process, it is a win-win proposition.

Sorry, no. It merely means that you have brainwashed them into not noticing.

Are you prepared to sacrfice the stupid upon the altar of freedom? Are you willing to subject them to a harsh life, full of pain? Do you want them to feel despair at their own inability to process information as well as the more intelligent members of society, and helplessness at their inability to change their fate? Do you want them to suffer based on their shortcomings? I do not. I want to bring them joy, even if the only way to achieve this goal is by brainwashing them to feel positive emotions.

Means:

What makes you suppose you'll be in any sort of position to determine who is or isn't to be enslaved? Further, why do you assume that you won't be found wanting by whatever scale is applied to the general population?

On the contrary -- there is only one type of happiness. We feel "emotions" based on chemical reactions which occur in our brain.

Yes - and different chemical reactions lead to different emotions.

Obviously.

Are you prepared to sacrfice the stupid upon the altar of freedom?

It is no sacrifice.

Are you willing to subject them to a harsh life, full of pain?

As opposed to enslaving them? Yes.

But I do not think a free life need be "full of pain."

Do you want them to feel despair at their own inability to process information as well as the more intelligent members of society,

The "stupid" people I know don't seem to feel much "despair" over that fact - no more than I feel "despair" over not being able to run like a marathon runner.

If anyone is being callous here, it is you - so blinded by your own arrogance that you are unwilling to permit them the dignity of dealing with their lives on their own, without your unwanted "help."

and helplessness at their inability to change their fate?

What "inability"?

Do you want them to suffer based on their shortcomings?

Not when those "shortcomings" are invented by you or by society's inequities.

I do not. I want to bring them joy, even if the only way to achieve this goal is by brainwashing them to feel positive emotions.

I want them to be free - the only state in which they can actually experience real joy.

What makes you suppose you'll be in any sort of position to determine who is or isn't to be enslaved? Further, why do you assume that you won't be found wanting by whatever scale is applied to the general population?

I will not be in any sort of position to determine the categorization, true. I am simply expounding upon a proposal to classify people as slaves based on intelligence. If such a scale were applied, I would not be found wanting, as I have taken a couple of IQ tests which have placed me in the top 1% of the population.

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

Is this guy serious? tell me I am not seing this.

If such a scale were applied, I would not be found wanting, as I have taken a couple of IQ tests which have placed me in the top 1% of the population.

You are of course assuming that such a scale would be utterly unbiased. I suspect there would be all manner of abuse involved.

Yes - and different chemical reactions lead to different emotions.

And what is the difference between drug-induced happiness and "real" happiness? They are simply different manifestations of the same emotion -- neither is better than the other. Obviously.

But I do not think a free life need be "full of pain."

Not for all of them, no. However, for some, lack of intelligence will condemn them to a horrible job with no way out, crippling poverty, etc. Some will be happy; others will not. I want them all to be happy.

If anyone is being callous here, it is you - so blinded by your own arrogance that you are unwilling to permit them the dignity of dealing with their lives on their own, without your unwanted "help."

If they are unwilling to be blessed with a life replete with happiness, a care-free life in which they need not worry about anything, then they are quite irrational.

What "inability"?

Intelligence is 75% heritable. The other 25% is usually dictated by the environment, and usually at a very early age. By the time you're 16, say, there's very little you can do to become more intelligent.

I want them to be free - the only state in which they can actually experience real joy.

Who's to say what is "real" joy and what's not? Any type of joy is based on our brain's most fundamental definitions -- I simply seek to alter that definition to allow for a broader interpretation via brainwashing.

You are of course assuming that such a scale would be utterly unbiased. I suspect there would be all manner of abuse involved.

IQ tests are actually extremely accurate -- there is very little capacity for them to be abused as they are created by professionals in the field and must pass peer-review before they are implemented. Of course, if there was a mass conspiracy, it would be a different story, but that is hardly likely.

And what is the difference between drug-induced happiness and "real" happiness? They are simply different manifestations of the same emotion -- neither is better than the other. Obviously.

No. They are different emotions. Not because one is caused by a drug, and the other is not; simply because they are different.

Genuine happiness does not preclude pain. It merely precludes futility and alienation.

Not for all of them, no. However, for some, lack of intelligence will condemn them to a horrible job with no way out, crippling poverty, etc. Some will be happy; others will not. I want them all to be happy.

Abolish capitalism, then. Don't enslave them.

If they are unwilling to be blessed with a life replete with happiness, a care-free life in which they need not worry about anything, then they are quite irrational.

No, they are not irrational. You merely think they are, because you are blind; you do not understand human dignity.

Intelligence is 75% heritable. The other 25% is usually dictated by the environment, and usually at a very early age. By the time you're 16, say, there's very little you can do to become more intelligent.

Luckily, there is more to life than intelligence.

Who's to say what is "real" joy and what's not? Any type of joy is based on our brain's most fundamental definitions -- I simply seek to alter that definition to allow for a broader interpretation via brainwashing.

"Brainwashing" does not alter anything fundamental; human nature is human nature.

If you wanted to truly make them love their slavery, you would have to genetically engineer them. But if you can do that, you might as well just make them smarter.

Genuine happiness does not preclude pain. It merely precludes futility and alienation.

Again, how can you claim what is "genuine" happiness and what isn't. I can say that drug-induced euphoria is actually an advanced form of happiness with equal ease. However, there is no way to back up my assertions; similarly, you cannot back up what you assume with facts. There are different types of happiness, but none is more real than the other. They are equal, yet separate if you wish to use that term.

Abolish capitalism, then. Don't enslave them.

Somehow, I think people would rather be happy as slaves rather than starve to death because of a terrible non-capitalist system. I don't recall people going across the Berlin Wall and into the Soviet Union.

No, they are not irrational. You merely think they are, because you are blind; you do not understand human dignity.

You are the one who is blinded by such high and mighty concepts such as "human dignity" without realizing that they are just an impediment on the road to progress. Such terms sound lofty in theory, but they are just a dead weight around the neck of civilization. The only dignity a person should have is their own; they should be the only ones in a position to decide whether or not their dignity has been offended. Nobody else.

"Brainwashing" does not alter anything fundamental; human nature is human nature.

Human nature can be changed through extensive employment of propaganda -- this has been proven many times in places such as re-education camps. With refined techniques, it can work even better. I am talking about such measures as in 1984 -- the mindset of the main character was irrevocably changed because of his re-education. He wouldn't stand a chance if that policy had been used upon him from a very young age.

If you wanted to truly make them love their slavery, you would have to genetically engineer them. But if you can do that, you might as well just make them smarter.

True, but there needs to be a slave underclass that performs the most degrading jobs while liking it. Would you rather a janitor who loathes his job, but have no other option if he/she wishes to survive, or one who is brainwashed into loving his/her job and wanting to do it? The correct choice, to me, is obvious.

Again, how can you claim what is "genuine" happiness and what isn't. I can say that drug-induced euphoria is actually an advanced form of happiness with equal ease. However, there is no way to back up my assertions; similarly, you cannot back up what you assume with facts. There are different types of happiness, but none is more real than the other. They are equal, yet separate if you wish to use that term.



Somehow, I think people would rather be happy as slaves rather than starve to death because of a terrible non-capitalist system. I don't recall people going across the Berlin Wall and into the Soviet Union.



You are the one who is blinded by such high and mighty concepts such as "human dignity" without realizing that they are just an impediment on the road to progress. Such terms sound lofty in theory, but they are just a dead weight around the neck of civilization. The only dignity a person should have is their own; they should be the only ones in a position to decide whether or not their dignity has been offended. Nobody else.



Human nature can be changed through extensive employment of propaganda -- this has been proven many times in places such as re-education camps. With refined techniques, it can work even better. I am talking about such measures as in 1984 -- the mindset of the main character was irrevocably changed because of his re-education. He wouldn't stand a chance if that policy had been used upon him from a very young age.



True, but there needs to be a slave underclass that performs the most degrading jobs while liking it. Would you rather a janitor who loathes his job, but have no other option if he/she wishes to survive, or one who is brainwashed into loving his/her job and wanting to do it? The correct choice, to me, is obvious.
Do you have any morals?

Why do people keep replying to this guy. don't bother even listening to him, not of his "Ideas" are realistic and he knows it. It's sad that people keep replying.

IQ tests are actually extremely accurate -- there is very little capacity for them to be abused as they are created by professionals in the field and must pass peer-review before they are implemented.

If you really were as intelligent as you think you are you would have understood the simple point the poster was making.

By the way, you haven't hooked me up with those 16% mutual funds you think everyone should be investing in so we can all live as millionaires.

Why would you oppose it?

Because we'd be DY-ING. As in death. As in the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism. Since you at least have the capacty to read (though you don't appear to exercise it very well) and type words which seem to be comprehensible to one who understands English, then at this point I'd have to say that if you don't understand why I would be in opposition to myself or the members of my family dying, then there's no point in continuing a conversation along those lines.

If they are not making you or your family uncomfortable, don't they have the right to do whatever they wish? Why should you care how another human being derives happiness as long as it doesn't conflict with your own well-being?

They ARE making me uncomfortable, that's the point. I'm not opposed to them killing themselves, because I believe that if that's what they want to do then they're fucking idiots and the world is probably better off without them anyhow. Except that I don't want my kids following their piss-poor example. That's about it. And don't forget that those killing themselves are members of somebody's family, just hopefully not mine, 'cause I'd rather not have to deal with it. But, see, we're not talking about everyone EXCEPT me, we're talking about forcing stupid people into mandatory slavery throughout society as a whole, which just might include me.

If everybody is happy and the society is capable of perpetuating itself, how can it be improved? The answer is that it can't.

No. The answer is, you could put ME in charge and let me do whatever the fuck I want at the expense of everyone else, thereby negating any need I have to compromise what I want with what might be best for society. As is inherent in your initial argument for slavery, society doesn't exist for the end of bringing happiness to all or even any of its constituents. It exists because the constituents believe that they are better served by acting in concert with one another rather than alone.

The only point of society is to bring happiness to its people...The perfect society is one in which all of its citizens are happy

This is an erroneous assumption. The point of society is interaction and survival, perhaps not even for all members of the society, which is actually what you're advocating.

There is no objective standard to determine whose dignity has been offended -- who is there to judge something such as this? The only person who is fit to determine whether somebody's rights have been abridged is that very same person. You can't tell me that my human dignity has been offended if I don't feel that way myself -- I am the only one who can say whether or not that is the case, not you, Bob, or Sue.

If I'm making fun of you, and you're too fucking stupid to get it, and everyone else does and is laughing at you, whatever dignity you might feel you have is an illusion. You don't have any dignity or respect in the eyes of those who are laughing at your expense, you're just too dumb to realize it. As far as abridging rights, if I lock you up, but you're perfectly happy in the cage with no real options, your rights have been abridged. Objectively. Just because you don't care about it doesn't make it not so.

No, they will be heavily indoctrinated from a very early age that society is perfect the way it is. They will not even think to question the status quo.

Right. 'Cause that worked out SO well for Australopithecus, right? Or the sea creatures who left their ocean environs for the unknowns of dry land? Or the monarchical ancient peoples who suffered a democratic epiphany? Or the slaves of colonial times? It's just not a component of human thought to ever try something completely different, right? The fact that slavery was a fact of everyday life for pretty much everyone everywhere in the world at one time and that it is almost unheard of now is further evidence of your fallacy. Someone had to "spontaneously" think that it was not OK for it to become that way today.

Have you heard of American soldiers who were tortured for years in Vietnamese prison camps and when they were rescued, they completely and totally believed that communism was right and they didn't want to leave?

Have you ever BEEN tortured? It isn't quite the resort vacation you might be thinking. The prisoners who "totally believed" had been conditioned with a Pavlovian response to say those things. What was left of their rational minds did not believe such nonsense, but they would ignore that part because any sign that they might be listening to it would have been met with excruciating, prolonged physical agony during their internment.

In the end, I think several of the things you assume in your example simply aren't true. People do think, whether they've been conditioned against it or not. Perceptions do change. Society isn't here to make people happy, it's here to help them get things they might want that would be otherwise unobtainable if we didn't work together. Dignity is an objective thing, because we call it delusion when you have it in spite of the facts.

Nice try, and well articulated sentiments, but it simply doesn't hold water when compared with the reality of human existence.

Why do people keep replying to this guy. don't bother even listening to him, not of his "Ideas" are realistic and he knows it. It's sad that people keep replying.

I have gladly debated with people who have brought up much better points than you. If you are unwilling to make a valid contribution to this topic, please don't post at all. It's sad that people keep spamming.

That is probably the most valid response to all of your trolling neo-nazi logic.

IQ tests are actually extremely accurate

This is absolute bullshit. I can score any number I like on any IQ test I like, within the range of scores allowed for the test. The test is utterly incapable of measuring my capacity to do so, which capacity is a far greater measure of intelligence than being able to perform well on the test. In fact, if your IQ is actually high enough, it can't be measured by the test. Their "accuracy" is based solely on the users ability to interpret the questions and provide the answer sought by those who devised the test. Sorry, you're not as smart as you think you are if that's your only basis for comparison. As for our basis for comparison:

"Your theories are the worst kind of polpular tripe, your methods are sloppy and your conclusions are highly questionable."

Because we'd be DY-ING.

If your family wants to kill themselves, who are you to oppose their choice? Who are you to control their destinies? Every individual should do as he/she sees fit as long as it doesn't negatively impact somebody else physically.

Except that I don't want my kids following their piss-poor example.

Well, your children would not really have any choice. If they were intelligent, they would be completely free. If they were not, they would be treated as slaves, and they would happily accept their lot in life. You wouldn't have any choice whatsoever in the matter. I don't really see how the suicidal example which you gave relates to slavery -- one is an act of free will while the other is mandated by society.

[Society] exists because the constituents believe that they are better served by acting in concert with one another rather than alone.

When two people co-operate, it forms a mutually beneficial relationship. When more and more people join, it is deemed "society." What is the goal of society? Well, obviously, it exists because everybody's interests are better served together with everyone else than by themselves. However, what are "everyone's interests"? What is the lowest common denominator which everyone has in common? The answer is that they wish to derive pleasure from whatever relationships they form and whatever they do. We are logical beings whose sole aim is to maximize our pleasure, and soceity facilitates our desires. That's why it exists.

This is an erroneous assumption. The point of society is interaction and survival, perhaps not even for all members of the society, which is actually what you're advocating.

Does interaction bring happiness? Does survival bring happiness? Think bigger -- you've identified many separate goals of society, but they all fit under one even bigger and more general heading -- "pleasure."

As far as abridging rights, if I lock you up, but you're perfectly happy in the cage with no real options, your rights have been abridged. Objectively. Just because you don't care about it doesn't make it not so.

If I wanted to get out of the cage but was not allowed to do so, then my rights would have been abridged. However, if I was perfectly content with staying in the cage and did not harbour any thoughts about escaping, then my rights would not have been abridged, regardless of the fact that I could not leave even if I wanted to. Sure, I'd have less rights, but I voluntarily ceded them by wanting to stay in the cage. The moment I wanted to leave would be the moment I would lose some rights -- prior to that point, none of the rights which I lost had the slightest impact upon me.

The fact that slavery was a fact of everyday life for pretty much everyone everywhere in the world at one time and that it is almost unheard of now is further evidence of your fallacy.

Ah, but were those slaves forced to work against their will? Most assuredly so. They were not indoctrinated to such a degree that they loved doing the work that they did. They loathed the fact that they were owned by another human being and did everything in their power to free themselves from their oppressors.

People do think, whether they've been conditioned against it or not.

I'm fairly certain that prolonged indoctrination from a very early age will force people into blind obedience. I may be wrong about this, but experiments should be carried out to test the effectiveness of such a measure. Vietnamese prison camps, for example, have shown extremely promising results. I have no reason to doubt that younger minds are less impressionable. Also, the slaves would not know how life was like prior slavery, and would not question the moral right to slavery. They would never even think to question the system, especially if they were stupid any more than a caveman would be sad that he didn't have a TV. Life without slavery would be unheard of to a slave.

Society isn't here to make people happy, it's here to help them get things they might want that would be otherwise unobtainable if we didn't work together.

Don't you want something because it makes you happy? Why else would you want it?

This is absolute bullshit. I can score any number I like on any IQ test I like, within the range of scores allowed for the test.

I am not referring to those IQ tests which you'll find on the internet, but real IQ tests which are designed by professionals that test your reasoning and rationing ability. Have you ever sat down and taken one of those? Anyone who has will tell you that their score has not changed practically at all, no matter how many times they took the test.

That is probably the most valid response to all of your trolling neo-nazi logic.

How is my logic even tangentially related to that of the Nazis? I desire to increase the quality of life for society, not dominate people and subject them to a horrid existence based on their ethnicity.

I am not referring to those IQ tests which you'll find on the internet, but real IQ tests which are designed by professionals that test your reasoning and rationing ability.

As far as I know, I've never been tested on my ability to ration. Would that be like budgeting in Home Ec?

Do you have any morals?

I find it execrable that the stupid have a much lower quality of life than the clerisy and I wish to remedy that problem. I do not find this in the least bit nihilistic.

I find it execrable that the stupid have a much lower quality of life than the clerisy and I wish to remedy that problem. I do not find this in the least bit nihilistic.

The problem is that you have no comprehension of "quality of life."

This lack of comprehension can be directly attributed to your incapability to respect others as beings with dignity, which is indeed a moral failure.

Again, how can you claim what is "genuine" happiness and what isn't. I can say that drug-induced euphoria is actually an advanced form of happiness with equal ease. However, there is no way to back up my assertions; similarly, you cannot back up what you assume with facts. There are different types of happiness, but none is more real than the other. They are equal, yet separate if you wish to use that term.

No, one is superior to the other. They are not equal.

Have you ever been happy? I am not at the moment, but I have been. I have no trouble distinguishing it from mere pleasure, and I have no doubt as to which is to be preferred, if there is a conflict.

x2Somehow, I think people would rather be happy as slaves rather than starve to death because of a terrible non-capitalist system. I don't recall people going across the Berlin Wall and into the Soviet Union.

That is not the alternative I was advancing; it is merely one of many.

You are the one who is blinded by such high and mighty concepts such as "human dignity"

Human dignity is not "high and mighty." It defines the way most of us act towards our friends and acquaintances; it is an essential aspect of human life.

without realizing that they are just an impediment on the road to progress.

This is the essence of moral depravity - the willingness to see others as mere means to your preferred ends (alleged "progress), and to sacrifice their dignity when it suits your convenience.

The only dignity a person should have is their own; they should be the only ones in a position to decide whether or not their dignity has been offended. Nobody else.

Absolutely; this is the essence of "dignity," treating others as free and equal rational beings whose autonomy should not be violated and whose welfare has value.

The autonomy you seek to offer them, however, is the "autonomy" of a drug addict. The slave who is brainwashed into contentment must have a broken will; she must be incapable of recognizing her own desires as worthy of notice, lest she lose that contentment and seek her freedom. That is not autonomy. That is instilled subservience; mental slavery. She is not "in a position to decide whether or not their dignity has been offended"; you have done your best to make her incapable of deciding anything.

Human nature can be changed through extensive employment of propaganda -- this has been proven many times in places such as re-education camps.

No, it cannot be changed. It can only be suppressed.

With refined techniques, it can work even better. I am talking about such measures as in 1984 -- the mindset of the main character was irrevocably changed because of his re-education. He wouldn't stand a chance if that policy had been used upon him from a very young age.

And were the citizens in 1984 happy?

True, but there needs to be a slave underclass that performs the most degrading jobs while liking it. Would you rather a janitor who loathes his job, but have no other option if he/she wishes to survive, or one who is brainwashed into loving his/her job and wanting to do it? The correct choice, to me, is obvious.

The correct choice, to me, is obvious as well: neither.

In a sense that is how society works right now the more smarter people make more money ,thus being able getting service from the less smarter.that is how businesses works a smart boss hires a less intellectual person.Also that is how crediter's can bind low class people in to their web.because the people being to start with wasn't smart enough to think of a way out,so they turned to credit. Then smart people (credit consultents) bail them out.
To get to another point there is still slavery in the world today people wanting to come to america and other country's.Basicly they are blinded by there desire for freedom that they'll do anything to get here which isnt a smart move because now they are traped into the web of slavery.

In a sense that is how society works right now the more smarter people make more money ,thus being able getting service from the less smarter.that is how businesses works a smart boss hires a less intellectual person.Also that is how crediter's can bind low class people in to their web.because the people being to start with wasn't smart enough to think of a way out,so they turned to credit. Then smart people (credit consultents) bail them out.
To get to another point there is still slavery in the world today people wanting to come to america and other country's.Basicly they are blinded by there desire for freedom that they'll do anything to get here which isnt a smart move because now they are traped into the web of slavery.

In a sense that is how society works right now the more smarter people make more money ,thus being able getting service from the less smarter.that is how businesses works a smart boss hires a less intellectual person.Also that is how crediter's can bind low class people in to their web.because the people being to start with wasn't smart enough to think of a way out,so they turned to credit. Then smart people (credit consultents) bail them out.
To get to another point there is still slavery in the world today people wanting to come to america and other country's.Basicly they are blinded by there desire for freedom that they'll do anything to get here which isnt a smart move because now they are traped into the web of slavery.

In a sense that is how society works right now the more smarter people make more money ,thus being able getting service from the less smarter.that is how businesses works a smart boss hires a less intellectual person.Also that is how crediter's can bind low class people in to their web.because the people being to start with wasn't smart enough to think of a way out,so they turned to credit. Then smart people (credit consultents) bail them out.
To get to another point there is still slavery in the world today people wanting to come to america and other country's.Basicly they are blinded by there desire for freedom that they'll do anything to get here which isnt a smart move because now they are traped into the web of slavery.

In a sense that is how society works right now the more smarter people make more money ,thus being able getting service from the less smarter.that is how businesses works a smart boss hires a less intellectual person.Also that is how crediter's can bind low class people in to their web.because the people being to start with wasn't smart enough to think of a way out,so they turned to credit. Then smart people (credit consultents) bail them out.
To get to another point there is still slavery in the world today people wanting to come to america and other country's.Basicly they are blinded by there desire for freedom that they'll do anything to get here which isnt a smart move because now they are traped into the web of slavery.

In a sense that is how society works right now the more smarter people make more money ,thus being able getting service from the less smarter.that is how businesses works a smart boss hires a less intellectual person.Also that is how crediter's can bind low class people in to their web.because the people being to start with wasn't smart enough to think of a way out,so they turned to credit. Then smart people (credit consultents) bail them out.
To get to another point there is still slavery in the world today people wanting to come to america and other country's.Basicly they are blinded by there desire for freedom that they'll do anything to get here which isnt a smart move because now they are traped into the web of slavery.

In a sense that is how society works right now the more smarter people make more money ,thus being able getting service from the less smarter.that is how businesses works a smart boss hires a less intellectual person.Also that is how crediter's can bind low class people in to their web.because the people being to start with wasn't smart enough to think of a way out,so they turned to credit. Then smart people (credit consultents) bail them out.
To get to another point there is still slavery in the world today people wanting to come to america and other country's.Basicly they are blinded by there desire for freedom that they'll do anything to get here which isnt a smart move because now they are traped into the web of slavery.

In a sense that is how society works right now the more smarter people make more money ,thus being able getting service from the less smarter.that is how businesses works a smart boss hires a less intellectual person.Also that is how crediter's can bind low class people in to their web.because the people being to start with wasn't smart enough to think of a way out,so they turned to credit. Then smart people (credit consultents) bail them out.
To get to another point there is still slavery in the world today people wanting to come to america and other country's.Basicly they are blinded by there desire for freedom that they'll do anything to get here which isnt a smart move because now they are traped into the web of slavery.

*snip*
People today really are wrapped in cotton wool. :confused:

Apologies if I'm being repetitive - I must admit, I didn't read all of the thread

Why do you assume that a slave owner would treat those stupid people better than an employer? Required by law, yes. But fact is... people will only buy slaves if it pays off. So the formerly unemployed won't suddenly be employed: If no one cared to pay them minimum wages before, surely no one will want to buy them first and then have the costs of feeding them and providing a place to life etc. The ones that were employed before - either what they're given costs as much as what they were paid before, then there's no improvement for the slaves. If the newly provided goods are more valuable than what they earned before, they would be better off economically, but that won't happen: if there were demand for well-paid stupid labor, than the wages would rise due to the forces of the market even without slavery.

Well i dont think you should force someone into slavery, as much of a paradox as it is, optional slavery?
Maybe if you're bankrupt/homeless you could sell yourself to slavery, earn enough money to get back on your feet and buy your freedom? i suppose a minimum wage would be inappropriate, but maybe slaves earn X amount each month, anything else is a bonus from their master...
The only trouble i can think of, is if slaves replace people who are employed, it might cause a lot of unemployment
Slaves would get some basic rights... at least more than they did before the emancipation proclaimation (sp?)
Maybe even, people couldnt own slaves, but the government could?
But everyone would get the right to become a slave, not just the black/stupid/poor (note: not that they're synonymous:rolleyes:)

I have no trouble distinguishing it from mere pleasure, and I have no doubt as to which is to be preferred, if there is a conflict.

People derive pleasure from certain acts based on their up-bringing. Is there something inherently "fun" in a first person shooter? Of course not. Do many people enjoy playing a such game? Indubitably. Why? Because of the contrantly re-inforced notion that such a game is fun, combined with the suspense and such that is intrinsic in the game. Some people enjoy doing work. Why? Because they know that their work serves the greater good. Volunteers, for example, do a service to mankind without expecting payment in return. We must force upon the slaves the mind-set of the volunteer so that they will be happy with their job. If this isn't the "superior" happiness which can only be attained through other means, so be it. It's better than starving to death or being employed in a function that is degrading, monotonous, and loathsome.

The autonomy you seek to offer them, however, is the "autonomy" of a drug addict. The slave who is brainwashed into contentment must have a broken will; she must be incapable of recognizing her own desires as worthy of notice, lest she lose that contentment and seek her freedom. That is not autonomy. That is instilled subservience; mental slavery. She is not "in a position to decide whether or not their dignity has been offended"; you have done your best to make her incapable of deciding anything.

That's the entire point. The slave will be incapable of deciding what really in her best interest because she think that being a slave is in her best interest. Thus, she will zealously perform the work of a slave without considering other "better" possibilities the same way a caveman will kill a fish and eat it raw without considering grilling it, allowing a dash of spices, putting in some sauce, etc. She will be ignorant of the possibilites open to the intelligent and that ignorance will be bliss. Whether or not her human dignity has been offended is a moot point: she certainly doesn't think so because she lacks the capacity to make that decision. And she is the only one in a position to decide whether her status is somehow degrading.

And were the citizens in 1984 happy?

I have not gotten around to reading that novel, but, from what I heard, the main character was quite content living in that society after he had been brainwashed. However, it seems that the government of that society did not put enough resources into making people happy and instead opted to make them subservient.

People derive pleasure from certain acts based on their up-bringing. Is there something inherently "fun" in a first person shooter? Of course not. Do many people enjoy playing a such game? Indubitably. Why? Because of the contrantly re-inforced notion that such a game is fun, combined with the suspense and such that is intrinsic in the game. Some people enjoy doing work. Why? Because they know that their work serves the greater good. Volunteers, for example, do a service to mankind without expecting payment in return. We must force upon the slaves the mind-set of the volunteer so that they will be happy with their job. If this isn't the "superior" happiness which can only be attained through other means, so be it. It's better than starving to death or being employed in a function that is degrading, monotonous, and loathsome.

Sorry, no. Some activities are enjoyable naturally. Slavery is not; you must get a person to suppress her natural instincts in order to accept being a slave. You must enslave her mind and break her will.

The human mind is never a tabula rasa. We have a genetic nature.

That's the entire point. The slave will be incapable of deciding what really in her best interest because she think that being a slave is in her best interest. Thus, she will zealously perform the work of a slave without considering other "better" possibilities the same way a caveman will kill a fish and eat it raw without considering grilling it, allowing a dash of spices, putting in some sauce, etc. She will be ignorant of the possibilites open to the intelligent and that ignorance will be bliss. Whether or not her human dignity has been offended is a moot point: she certainly doesn't think so because she lacks the capacity to make that decision. And she is the only one in a position to decide whether her status is somehow degrading.

You don't get it, do you?

It's true that I'm the only one with the moral right to decide what degrades me. This is part of granting me genuine autonomy. But as a precondition, I must be capable of making decisions; I must have an intact will, a mind that is free and capable of expressing its desires.

Your slave is not capable of that. You have denied her this capacity. You have no idea whether she would resist her degradation were she mentally free, because you have not given her this capability.

If she has a free mind, and accedes to your slavery, that is different - it is her choice. In this case, however, it is not her choice - you have not permitted her to choose either way.

Her chains are mental, but they are still chains.

I have not gotten around to reading that novel, but, from what I heard, the main character was quite content living in that society after he had been brainwashed.

He was content. He was not happy. And he was only content because his capacity to seek and value happiness had been stolen from him in the Ministry of Love.

However, it seems that the government of that society did not put enough resources into making people happy and instead opted to make them subservient.

That is exactly the option you are advocating.

Sorry, no. Some activities are enjoyable naturally. Slavery is not; you must get a person to suppress her natural instincts in order to accept being a slave. You must enslave her mind and break her will.

The human mind is never a tabula rasa. We have a genetic nature.



You don't get it, do you?

It's true that I'm the only one with the moral right to decide what degrades me. This is part of granting me genuine autonomy. But as a precondition, I must be capable of making decisions; I must have an intact will, a mind that is free and capable of expressing its desires.

Your slave is not capable of that. You have denied her this capacity. You have no idea whether she would resist her degradation were she mentally free, because you have not given her this capability.

If she has a free mind, and accedes to your slavery, that is different - it is her choice. In this case, however, it is not her choice - you have not permitted her to choose either way.

Her chains are mental, but they are still chains.



He was content. He was not happy. And he was only content because his capacity to seek and value happiness had been stolen from him in the Ministry of Love.



That is exactly the option you are advocating.


....Winston was not happy in Oceania. He hated it. He hated Big Brother perpetually watching him. He hated having to always be afraid. He hated not being able to experiance true love, without living in fear of being discovered.

Most of all, he hated all those who followed with every word the Government spoke. He hated them for their foolishness, their herd-like mentality of following always, but mostly: Because even though they were being oppressed and decieved, the people thought it was best for them.

(And yes, the comparison between MeansToAnEnd, and the American people following the PATRIOT ACT, or the Military Commissions Act, or the Torture Bill, was what I was getting at...)

If your family wants to kill themselves, who are you to oppose their choice? Who are you to control their destinies?

I am the head of their household, that's who I am. Their welfare is my responsibility, and if they are too ignorant to understand how to do what is best for them then it is my job to make sure that it gets done, regardless of what they think they want. The age-old problem with teenagers is that they simply cannot understand this, having never been responsible for the life of another themselves, and so they adopt your view, that they should be able to do what they want, because it doesn't affect anyone else. What they don't realize is, it does.

...and they would happily accept their lot in life.

You keep making that assumption. It is patently false. Once again, people think. There is nothing you can do to stop them. Brainwashing may work for a while, but sometime, somewhere, someone is going to ask the question, "What makes them better than me?" The entire history of oppressed peoples of every culture that we have a record of is my evidence. In 100% of cases, there has come a time when they decided that enough was enough, regardless of how long their entire culture had been enslaved.

I don't really see how the suicidal example which you gave relates to slavery -- one is an act of free will while the other is mandated by society.

That's because you're either not paying attention or you really don't want to see how it relates, and so are ignoring it. The issue was happiness in society, and, again, if all of society would be happy killing themselves then I wouldn't be happy with myself or my family following suit.

What is the goal of society? Well, obviously, it exists because everybody's interests are better served together with everyone else than by themselves.

Very true. Do you really know what those interests are? Apparently not...

However, what are "everyone's interests"? What is the lowest common denominator which everyone has in common? The answer is that they wish to derive pleasure from whatever relationships they form and whatever they do. We are logical beings whose sole aim is to maximize our pleasure, and soceity facilitates our desires. That's why it exists.

Another erroneous assumption, bred from a lifetime of general physical comfort and having all of your basic needs provided for you the entire time by someone else. A society could consist of only 2 people, or of many, as in your assertion. The entire goal of forming a society is to further a particular set of goals that could not be achieved, or achieved with greater difficulty, by a single person. The answer to your question about a lowest common denominator is food, water, shelter and breathable air. These are things that you may take for granted, and so assume that happiness is the reason we're all pretending to cooperate, but that simply isn't the case. Whether we desire to maximize our pleasure or not, if your belly is empty, the immediate source of that which would give you pleasure is pretty obvious. The entire goal of our existence is not to derive pleasure, but to avoid death. Pleasure is incidental and certainly not required.

Does interaction bring happiness? Does survival bring happiness? Think bigger -- you've identified many separate goals of society, but they all fit under one even bigger and more general heading -- "pleasure."

Personally, I'd call it "survival" rather than "pleasure," because the ability to survive logically precedes the ability to feel pleasure, considering pleasure really doesn't help much when you're dead.

If I wanted to get out of the cage but was not allowed to do so, then my rights would have been abridged. However, if I was perfectly content with staying in the cage and did not harbour any thoughts about escaping, then my rights would not have been abridged...Sure, I'd have less rights,...

You just contradicted yourself. Which is it? Are your rights abridged or not? It doesn't matter how you feel about the abridgement. And the impact of the abridged rights has no bearing on whether or not they've been abridged. If your car doesn't work, and you choose not to try and drive it, the car still doesn't fucking work, no matter how you feel about it, no matter how little it affects your life, it. doesn't. work. It is not the case that it works until you decide to try and drive it, and then suddenly stops working.

Ah, but were those slaves forced to work against their will? Most assuredly so. They were not indoctrinated to such a degree that they loved doing the work that they did. They loathed the fact that they were owned by another human being and did everything in their power to free themselves from their oppressors...I'm fairly certain that prolonged indoctrination from a very early age will force people into blind obedience. I may be wrong about this, but experiments should be carried out to test the effectiveness of such a measure...etc, etc.

Yes, you are wrong. Again, the "studies" have been conducted, and history proves this assertion wrong. Oppressed peoples who have been slaves for generations, such that slavery is all they have known and all their fathers have known and all their grandfathers have known, have always and in every case eventually risen up and thrown off the shackles of slavery.

Don't you want something because it makes you happy? Why else would you want it?

Because it helps me to survive and provide the elements of survivability for my family. Beyond that, because it makes the members of my family happy so they can delay for just a bit longer the inevitable need to grow up and turn their eye to the issues of survival for themselves and thier families. Fun is fun, but most of us have to work for a living.

I find it execrable that the stupid have a much lower quality of life than the clerisy and I wish to remedy that problem. I do not find this in the least bit nihilistic.
Take the European example, then.
I have not gotten around to reading that novel, but, from what I heard, the main character was quite content living in that society after he had been brainwashed.
Buy it and read it. It will enlighten you, mildly.

How is my logic even tangentially related to that of the Nazis? I desire to increase the quality of life for society, not dominate people and subject them to a horrid existence based on their ethnicity.
Yet you would invade other countries and steal their resources just because you can.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11750570&postcount=199

Naw....that wouldn't be domination?

And you wouldn't subject Muslims to a horrid existence based on their ethnicity?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11751023&postcount=247

And no, you don't feel superior to Muslims?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11750305&postcount=146

And Hitler never used slave labour?

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-worldconspiracies-restitution-issues-wwii-slave-labor-other.html

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

Sieg Heil!!

I am not referring to those IQ tests which you'll find on the internet, but real IQ tests which are designed by professionals that test your reasoning and rationing ability. Have you ever sat down and taken one of those? Anyone who has will tell you that their score has not changed practically at all, no matter how many times they took the test.

Yes. I've had several, along with other ancillary tests administered by both neurologists and psychiatrists that were designed to help them understand what was going on in my head. And my score was, then as now, whatever I wanted it to be at the time. And yes, they can be fooled. By a 4-year-old. At least, that's how old I was when I got reprimanded by the researchers for diddling with their machines by grinding my teeth or thinking really hard about the number 7. There really isn't much difference between those tests and the ones found on the Internet. Just a bunch of questions, and if you understand them then you score well. If not, you don't, but that doesn't necessarily indicate a low IQ or an inability to think or reason, just an inability to think or reason in the manner which the test-developer intended.

I find it execrable that the stupid have a much lower quality of life than the clerisy and I wish to remedy that problem. I do not find this in the least bit nihilistic.
ni·hil·ism (n-lzm, n-)
n.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

But beyond that, the idea that people can be trained to appreciate slavery because they are "stupid" is ridiculous. Its a bad idea. Its a dumb idea. Its a stupid idea. I really don't know how to say it any more simply. You may enjoy arguing the finer points of a dumb idea but it is a waste of time.

/thread

I have news for you: we're all owned by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

Paris Hilton. :)

I thought it was Bush! :mad:

Anyways, slavery is wrong. No human being should be owned by another except on onlline games, and MTAE is an arse. Thread over, PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE DAMN TROLL!

I thought it was Bush! :mad:

Anyways, slavery is wrong. No human being should be owned by another except on onlline games, and MTAE is an arse. Thread over, PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE DAMN TROLL!

Pancake, there is only one way to end a thread. And this is how it goes:

[/'THREAD']

Pancake, there is only one way to end a thread. And this is how it goes:

[/'THREAD']
You actually bumped the thread by typing [/thread] :eek:

It was dying quite nicely until then.

You don't get it, do you?

No, you're the one who doesn't get it. Why do we have laws protecting "human dignity"? Is it because there is some objective moral standard of what does and does not negatively impact human dignity? Of course not -- different countries have different laws. It's merely a form of pragmatism -- since most people don't want to be robbed, we make robbery illegal. Since most people don't want to be slaves, we make slavery illegal and make it an affront on human dignity. Is this an absolute classification? No, most assuredly not. Some people may be conditioned to like it. Does it matter if their will was broken in an effort to force them to like it? No, definitely not. The means by which a person begins to like some things and dislike others is irrelevant -- only what that person likes or dislikes is at question. And if someone likes slavery, regardless of being brainwashed, that person should be a slave to fulfill their happiness. What you call "mental chains" are actually "mental liberators" -- they allow a person to view degrading treatment as fun. Is it still degrading treatment? Maybe to you, but not to them. You cannot take someone's pleasure away simply because you view them as unable to make a decision regarding what brings them pleasure. Also, since the goal of society is to maximize pleasure, we should endeavor to bring pleasure to all members of society through whichever means possible. If you don't like it, tough.

A 40 year man old may condition a 10 year old girl into being his sex slave, are you ok with that as long as she sees being degraded as fun?

A 40 year man old may condition a 10 year old girl into being his sex slave, are you ok with that as long as she sees being degraded as fun?

*Waits for MTAE's response*

This one will make a good quote. ;)

You actually bumped the thread by typing [/thread] :eek:

It was dying quite nicely until then.

Pancake bumped it too.

Did I just silence MTAE?

Whoa. I have done what was previously thought impossible! :)

Did I just silence MTAE?

Whoa. I have done what was previously thought impossible! :)

Hey! I did that

Hey! I did that

Oh really? When?

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.
Enough yakking. Back to the quarry. And 20 lashes.

Oh really? When?

I made the question to him all you said was you were waiting for his response because it would made a good quote.

I made the question to him all you said was you were waiting for his response because it would made a good quote.

But my comment turned him away from your question which I knew he was about to answer.

A 40 year man old may condition a 10 year old girl into being his sex slave, are you ok with that as long as she sees being degraded as fun?

Sure. Why not? As long as the relationship is mutually beneficial to both parties involved, it is not up to us to question the moral fibre of either of the participants. You should not be able to interfere with the happiness of two people because you are squemish.

Sure. Why not? As long as the relationship is mutually beneficial to both parties involved, it is not up to us to question the moral fibre of either of the participants. You should not be able to interfere with the happiness of two people because you are squemish.

I told you. Pure gold. :)

Sure. Why not? As long as the relationship is mutually beneficial to both parties involved, it is not up to us to question the moral fibre of either of the participants. You should not be able to interfere with the happiness of two people because you are squemish.

So basicly, you have never attended a science class before. 10 year olds are unable to consent as they don't have sexual hormones, meaning any claim that a 10 year old wanted the man molest him/her is a lie.

Not to mention the huge psychological factors involved.

Sure. Why not? As long as the relationship is mutually beneficial to both parties involved, it is not up to us to question the moral fibre of either of the participants. You should not be able to interfere with the happiness of two people because you are squemish.


That's just plain sickening. How is being used sexually by a 40-year-old man beneficial for a 10-year-old girl?

You need some serious fuckin' help.

Sure. Why not? As long as the relationship is mutually beneficial to both parties involved, it is not up to us to question the moral fibre of either of the participants. You should not be able to interfere with the happiness of two people because you are squemish.
MeansToAnEnd, this topic is off-limits on these boards. We consider it "promoting illegal activity". Do not bring it up again, lest ye be deleted.

The rest of you, drop it. Now.

MeansToAnEnd, this topic is off-limits on these boards.

Are you talking about the entire topic or my just answer to the current question? I'm sorry that I replied to that, but since someone claimed to have "silenced" me because I refused to answer an inappropriate question, I felt I had to respond.

If MTAE advocates slavery for the mentally deficient, I have one question. Why would you want a mentally deficient slave?

For manual labor, I guess. Intelligent slaves are more likely to rebel. You wouldn't use a slave for tasks that require actual thought, slaves are ill-motivated to give such and you would get crappy work.

It's the logical consequence of the ever-more powerful State. :)

An effective and responsive state has no need for forced labor.

The duce?? big brother slaves??

The vast majority of 'stipud people' end up working almost like slaves anyways.

Also, you must remember the slippery slope of Slavery; For example, Pres Bush could declare that all Atheists are 'stupid' and 'should be enslaved'

Finally, Remember the Matrix.

Is this thread alive for its comedy value ?

Is this thread alive for its comedy value ?

I can't see anything else keeping it on life support, can you?

I can't see anything else keeping it on life support, can you?

Republicans?

Republicans?

Hence the comedic value.

I'd say, let the morally impaired become slaves.

I'd say, let the morally impaired become slaves.

Agreed. :D

I actually agree with the slavery idea. It seems to be interesting.

Then you are stupid. Which would make you a slave in the proposed system.

[QUOTE=New Naliitr;11834717]

I certainly have to agree that the mentally and physically disabled should be enslaved, as long as they are treated fairly while enslaved. QUOTE]

My wife is registered disabled. Should I sell her into slavery??
Probably not, because most people (like me) would want to buy a fit slave capable of doing all the jobs I don't want to do (cleaning out the leaves from my guttering springs to mind);)

I dub this thread to have uber-longevity powers!

I dub this thread to have uber-longevity powers!

Anything with MTAE attached to it is something everyone feels dutybound to respond to.

Further comic value aside, I think it has been established that reverting to traditional versions of slavery is economically and morally unfeasible.

Finally, Remember the Matrix.

Thus, I propose discussing who today, and by what definition, is actually a slave.

It was argued in the original thread that the weak-minded are slaves to their inate incapacities. That's still a little too vague for me.

I might argue that the working poor are slaves to the economic system that keeps them poor. I might argue that young students are slaves to a propoganda system beyond their comprehension which systematically erodes their intelligence, creativity, individualism, compassion, and virtually every other positive trait.

I might further argue that every tax-paying american is a slave to a terrorist junta that illegally embezzles the money into Federal Reserve Bank profits and war-profiteers' (like the Carlyle group as owners of United Defense) investments.

And, oh, I could go on. Next, please.

Anything with MTAE attached to it is something everyone feels dutybound to respond to.

Yes, but by keeping this one alive we're preventing MTAE from coming up with new threads to entertain us.

I've been trying not to participate in this thread but just couldn't resist any longer...Damn you MTAE, for being a troll we can't help but hate!

I think one of the best arguments against slavery is that it stiffles creativity and advancement.
Look at the Incas (or was it the Mayas? I always get those two confused). They had invented the wheel, but did they use it?
nope. No need. Had enough slaves to drag things around.
The Egyptians: They invented a simple battery. Uses? entertainment for the upper class. Why no serious application? No need. Had enough slaves to drag things around.
The Romans: slowly improved things over 500 years. But the key word here is 'slowly'. There wasn't much need to push progress along as they had enough...yadda yadda yadda.

Come to the 2nd millenia and things are going along pretty slowly. Then we have the Black Death. Millions dead. No-one left to do the work needed.
What happens?
There's an explosion of creativity and scientific and technological advances - filling the gaps as it were, because Europe simply did not have the manpower to cope anymore.
Brutal truth: Bubonic Plague was one of the best things to happen to Europe, as it gave them the impetus to create and invent.

With slaves there's no need to make life easier for yourself.

I'd say, let the morally impaired become slaves.

then how does one determine who is morally impaired? are we talking abou just actions or views?

One problem I see with this idea is that truly stupid people would make poor slaves. Imagine hiring the Three Stooges to wash your dishes. :eek: Usually, anyone smart enough to do household chores without supervision will have the odd notion that they should be allowed to make their own decisions.

then how does one determine who is morally impaired? are we talking abou just actions or views?

He was being facetious, as advocating slavery implies a moral impairment.

One problem I see with this idea is that truly stupid people would make poor slaves. Imagine hiring the Three Stooges to wash your dishes. :eek: Usually, anyone smart enough to do household chores without supervision will have the odd notion that they should be allowed to make their own decisions.

I wouldn't want some strange people in my house anyway. I guess slaves are just not for me. :)

Let my people go!!!
- Old guy with a beard and a stick

Calling you stupid would be an insult to stupid people!
- A fish called Wanda

Question: Why don't we rather do what Lewis Black suggests?
There's one way to make sure we never have another dark day: harness the power of idiots!

:D

He's an idiot. Comes from upbringing. His parents are probably idiots too. Lorraine, if you ever have a kid that acts that way I'll disown you.

He's an idiot. Comes from upbringing. His parents are probably idiots too. Lorraine, if you ever have a kid that acts that way I'll disown you.

Back to the Future? Didn't think anyone watched that anymore. :)

Back to the Future? Didn't think anyone watched that anymore. :)

Great movie. Classic :D

I own the trilogy on DVD, nice sunday morning entertainment :)

Great movie. Classic :D

I own the trilogy on DVD, nice sunday morning entertainment :)

I have the boxed set as well. Goes with the Star Wars trilogy (origional) and Lord of the Rings trilogy. :)

An effective and responsive state has no need for forced labor.
But if it's already using its powers to make society "better" or "happier" or however you define it, and it comes to the same conclusions as MTAE (ie that totalitarianism is the beast way to achieve this), it easily could lead to just this kind of result. :)

Just adding something in.

Slavery is immoral, unjust, oppresive and wrong, and you should never abuse someone because of their intelligence.

MTAE, you are really a racist aren't you. You give humanity a bad name.

So you know what? I sincerely hope that at some point in your life you learn to be a good human being. Or else, life is going to be a terror for you.

Racism is going out of style, and I'd like to say that I feel you should start to view the world in a bit more of a humanistic way. Not the way of an 18th century slave driver who wants to save a few bucks by oppressing another human being.

Just adding something in.


And so begin the irrelevant comments...

dude i totally agree 100%. Social Darwinism. Those who are inferior deserve to fail. Hoenstly i didn't read what you wrote cuz i am too lazy trying to control my own slaves. I say go to war, take over people enslave them, they don't cooperate kill them.

dude i totally agree 100%. Social Darwinism. Those who are inferior deserve to fail. Hoenstly i didn't read what you wrote cuz i am too lazy trying to control my own slaves. I say go to war, take over people enslave them, they don't cooperate kill them.
The lazy are a priori inferior. Let's enslave them too. ;) Now lick my boot you miserable wretch.

On a completely unrelated note: To understand my matrix reference, I suggest you watch 'The second rennassience' of the Animatrix.

I am vehemently oppossed to slavery, as I believe that know individual should own anything, let alone another person. Stop feeding the troll!

I am vehemently oppossed to slavery, as I believe that know individual should own anything, let alone another person. Stop feeding the troll!

Psst, whos better advice to follow than your own?

No. No human should be 'owned' by another. Except online, but that's a different matter.

Indeed. But why?

Perhaps if we pwned the slaves instead of owning them?

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

Wow you are dumb...you dont know anything, ANYTHING about economies, history, slavery, class systems, OR esspecaily...the history of the Roman Empire....for shame...