Is slavery still evil if a slave race had been conditioned long

File: breathewitch.png (56KB, 298x268px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 298x268px

No sir, not evil in the least. Coincidentally, I'll take 20.

As long as every member of the slave is offered at their coming-of-age the choice to not be a slave anymore. If they're really conditioned to derive pleasure from being slaves, the numbers that quit wouldn't affect the slave population.

Yes, because the game would be run by fetish fueled fucktards like you.

>>48602814
Yes, and now you have the responsibility of UNconditioning them."It's not slavery if they like being slaves!" is not an argument that holds up.

>>48602987
>Its not torture if they like being tortured
>Its not rape if they like it
>Its not wrong if they enjoy it

Reminder that a lawful good character wouldn't oppose slavery unless it's particularly exploitative.

Do you hear the catgirls sing?
Singing the song of angry women
It is the music of a people who will not be maids again!

>>48602814
The brainwashing of an entire species makes it Doubly Evil, Dr Retardo.

Also, sage.

>>48602814
Slavery is not, in and of itself, an evil act. What matters is how you treat your slaves. If you exploit them and torture them, then that would be evil.

However if you compensate them and treat them well, that wouldn't be evil at all.

>>48602814
You can't argue that voluntary slavery is evil without arguing that modern heterosexual relationships are evil.
Modern heterosexual relationships are evil.

>>48603080
only in a place were slavery is common law.

>>48603099
When the beating of your heart echoes the swishing of the broom, there is a life ahead while you clean this room!

>>48602814
Not a boy, not hetero, and totally cute manga.

Shame on you.

>>48603462
Is it still slavery if you compenate them? I thought the whole point of slaves was workers you don't have to pay.

Unless you're talking about non monetary compensation, I guess.

File: 1467307336489.jpg (63KB, 1280x720px)

63KB, 1280x720px

>>48603602
>Unless you're talking about non monetary compensation, I guess.
Love and affection?

>>48603499
>>>Tumblr

Hillary voter spotted.

>>48602814
>are the Draka evil?
YES

File: 136[1].gif (3MB, 400x225px)

3MB, 400x225px

>>48603768
>MODERN heterosexual relationships
>Implying there's anything wrong with the "patriarchy"
>Implying tumblr

You'll have to switch to a different set of meaningless buzzwords, friend. Here, let me help you
>>>/r9k/

>>48603791
The Draka are my magical realm - aside from immortal redheaded psions.

>>48603260
Oh definitely. Super evil, I don't think anyone could serously argue it isn't.

But you've been born centuries after the fact. Is it evil for you to buy conditioned slaves? After all, not buying them free them, or un-condition them. Even if the slavery market collapsed overnight, they'd still want to be slaves.

File: 17e836acf9141bda7ef5c7c130e6cd60[1].jpg (596KB, 681x900px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 681x900px

>>48602814
Are they treated as slaves by their master? Are they treated as slaves by the legal system? Can they just walk out of the door without any punishment?

File: 5c4d541f82eb332bac613dc9a31af56c[1].jpg (405KB, 737x1200px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 737x1200px

>>48603861
Do they want to be slaves or do they want to serve?

>>48602814
Personally I'd feel more comfortable if I gave them a small salary along with their food and board, and got to call them "servants." But that's just me.

>>48602814
Why would anyone hire a worker, who isn't a member of this race and actually demands a pay for his work?

>>48602814
Expoltation is explotation, even to willing slaves. If your defenition of evil incorporates explotation, then willing slavery is wrong.

>>48603602
Even a wage is exploitative, because you are generating profit off of someone else's work, because you hold a position of power over them in most cases.

>>48603602
Giving gifts and rewards (feasts, holidays, small amounts of spending money,) to slaves who performed well was very common. It served as a useful incentive to get them to work harder, plus it was seen as simply a nice thing to do.

In many societies, slaves (especially house slaves or slave-tutors) were treated more like prized servants and sometimes even family members than as actual slaves.

Hell, there were even stories about some Roman and Arab slave owners who made sure that their slaves ate better and better beds and such than they did. This was because there were huge social stigmas about someone who bought or owned a slave but lacked the ability to take care of them.

Again, slavery itself isn't necessarily evil, what matters is how you treat your slave. If you beat and torture and mistreat your slave, that's what would be evil.

>>48603080
>>48603508
That's wrong dummy.

Roman style Slavery was Ok, most of the time. Except the slave taking in the first place.
American South Slavery was pretty much horrible at every step of the way.

>>48602814
Yes. You can serve while being free person.

File: 1445504356615.png (66KB, 426x389px)

66KB, 426x389px

>>48603918
The phrase is 'room and board.' Board is the food.

>>48603965
Slavery IS evil, for it means forced obedience. Its like saying taxes are not evil, since you receive public services for them.

Slave has NO choice but to obey. THAT is what makes slavery wrong.

>>48604059
I admit my idiocy. Apologies.

>>48602814
So dogs?
Because we did that to dogs.

>>48603965
This, there were records of some slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation that didn't want to leave their masters. Some forms of slavery weren't actually that bad desu.

>>48604095
No, slavery is just neutral.

Chattel slavery without the opportunity for manumission could be evil, but that was far from the only kind of slavery out there.

For example, taking people as slaves with a chance to gain small payment for their services and even be able to purchase their freedom is undoubtedly better than simply killing them, which was typically the other option for defeated soldiers.

>>48602814

Yes.

Your stupid pseudo-philosophical bullshit killed our game, Steven. Fuck you.

>>48604045
that's because American slavery grew out of the tribal practices of the ivory coast which were essentially a mild form of ethnic cleansing.

>>48602814
Yes, it's wrong, because stop subjecting other players to your sick fetish, you braindead mongrel.

>>48602987
>It's not slavery if they're brainwashed into liking it
FTFY

>>48603602
>The subjugation of another thinking being isn't evil
Top kek

>>48604212
I see your point.

Lets say its about as wrong as killing someone?

>HEY GUYS WHAT IF YELLOW MENTALITY

doesnt make for good games, plebs can't discuss this kind of thing without exploding

>>48603846
your magical realm is apartheid?

File: Hippie fucking scumbags.jpg (216KB, 802x615px)

216KB, 802x615px

>>48604095
>Its like saying taxes are not evil

>>48602814
>Is slavery evil if...

Yes. Slavery is always evil because it involves imposing your will on another sapient being. And it's doubly evil if they've been brainwashed into liking it and you take advantage of that fact. And it's triply evil if you have to invent new lines of thinking to justify your own moral bankruptcy.

Slavery is always evil all the time. No exceptions.

>>48604178
Well, yeah, it was generally better than subsistence farming. Not to mention that it was the only life many of those people had ever known. Home is still home, you know?

>>48603999
So would LG oppose low-pay live-long contract of employment with heavy penalty for whoever would break said contract ?

>>48604883
Yes.

>>48604045
Roman slavery was egalitarian : didn't matter if you were white, black, yellow or blue, who you worshipped and whom your parents were. Anyone could become a slave, even roman citizens.
American South slavery was fondamentally "white dudes dominate black dudes"

>>48604710
Personal freedom is a relatively new concept in human history. Mind you, prior to liberalism developing in Europe and then the Americas, it was assumed, and supported by the Catholic church, that monarchs had divine rule and authority over their subjects. Many rulers and thinkers of the time were alarmed by liberalism as a concept, thinking it would lead to moral debauchery. We only see ownership of an individual as evil because we have lived several hundred years without it.

And why is imposing your will on another sapient evil by default? Why is sapience put on this pedestal? Criminals are sapient and we impose our will on them. Children and the elderly are certainly sapient and we do much the same for what we see as their benefit, so it certainly isn't inviolable.

>>48604417
Probably much less wrong than killing someone, provided you treat them well and offer them the ability to buy themselves out of bondage at a future date.

>>48604927
IIRC, it depends on whether or not your mother was a slave was how Chattel slavery was conducted. Which is kind of weird, when you think about it, women had pretty shit rights back then. I guess the case of the darker looking son was far more common then we give it credit for.

>Be a paladin.
>My companions and I travel to a new land on our quest to spread good and defeat evil.
>Learn that this country runs entirely on slave labor.
>Absolutely diabolical.
>My companions and I make it our mission to liberate all the slaves.
>We storm the castle of a prominent slave owner and slay him.
>We go to the slave houses and free them of their chains, telling them that their master is dead and they are free.
>The slaves start crying.
>They don't want to leave.
>One of the slaves calms down suddenly and decides we must be their new masters.
>We now have 40+ slaves following us.
>Every time we order them to be free they start screaming and panicking.
>If we continue freeing other slaves we'll just wind up with an army of slaves following us.

What do we do, fellow adventurers?

>>48604417
Someone gives you two choices.

On the one hand, you're going to be a slave for 20 years, be given food, housing, and clothing and in exchange be expected to cook meals for a family, teach their children and help other slaves with keeping the house clean. After twenty years you'll not only will you have earned your freedom, you'll have a small amount of money to start a new life with.

Or, your other choice is to have someone cut off your head with a sword.

Which one do you think is worse?

>>48604927
>forgetting that American blacks owned slaves too
>forgetting that the first American slave owner was black

>>48605039
Bring the slaves to the nearest civilized area and give them the free choice to either settle down as freemen or sell themselves back into slavery. Explain to the local authorities that their master had died and encouraged your party to bring them somewhere safe.

When you're done adventuring in the country, encourage your allies in the surrounding countries to introduce new, more efficient means of farming and construction that would render slavery redundant.

Yes. Slavery has nothing to do with will, but with Choice. If somone chooses to serve willingly it's not slavery. (this might be arguable, is a unpaid servant automatically a slave?)
Slavery is evil, because it robs people of a choice. And that is the only thing evil about slavery.
Do not mix up the evil of slavery with the evil in mistreating servants or waging war for more slaves. A Master treating their slaves well doesn't make Slavery good or less evil, but it makes the Master a better person.

>>48602814
>still
Slavery wasn't evil to begin with. Don't confuse accidents (e.g. whips and chains) with essence.

>>48603020
t. BDSM

>>48605045
>it's okay that American slavery featured a whole lot of inhumane treatment because those damn DARKIES did it too!

File: 1435651947984.png (418KB, 760x675px)

418KB, 760x675px

>>48605168
>someone who signs an agreement, promising to be a slave, isn't actually a slave.

>>48603815

Whoever you're implying is enslaved, you need to fuck off either to /r9k/, which you were kind enough to link, or tumblr.

>>48604927
In the annals of history, American slavery was very much an exception. The slavery practiced by the Norse, the Romans, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Native Americans, various African tribes, and pretty much every other group in the history of the world did not resemble the slavery practiced by the American South.

>>48604928
>Personal freedom is a relatively new concept in human history
It's entirely possible that the concept of personal freedom has developed much earlier in a fantasy setting, and in fact in most published settings this is considered the default.
>Why is sapience put on this pedestal?
Because non-sapient beings, such as animals, cannot impose their free will in any serious capacity. It is still evil to abuse or mistreat them, however, because they are still sentient. They still have thoughts and feelings, just not to the same degree as a sapient being does.
>Criminals are sapient and we impose our will on them.
We do that because they have proven themselves to be a danger to other sapient or sentient beings, and thus cannot be trusted with their own free will. Again, it's evil to mistreat or abuse these individuals, as they themselves are sapient. It's also evil to brand people criminals because they violated a law that itself was unjust.
>Children and the elderly are certainly sapient and we do much the same for what we see as their benefit
Children are not developed enough to make their own decisions. They lack the experience, education, or other factors to make informed decisions. The elderly are likewise impaired in their decision making capability, either through mental issues or plain senility.

>>48603963

Fuck off and learn to spell, commie scum.

>>48605193
Damn son, you moved those goalposts halfway across the globe

>>48605208
>Someone who does something under duress totally wants it to happen guys!

Stop.

>>48605263
I'm not the one you were talking to.

>>48604665
Naw, bio-tech matriarchies with female pederasty (no term for it yet, I know that's not the actual terminology that should be used) with expansionist warfare and psychotic warriors are my fetish.

Apartheid was just a vehicle for it.

>>48605305
>no term for it yet
/ss/?

>>48602814
>slavery
>evil
>anything at all
>evil or good
When will they understand that the notions of good and evil depend on the setting?

>>48604710
But what if this sapient being is effectively incapable of looking after itself, and they enjoy a much higher quality of life under the heel of your people? A"good" person would almost be under obligation to subjugate them.

Slavery is forced labor. To force someone to do something against their will is wrong. If they choose to labor it is not wrong but engineering a situation where they feel they must labor is wrong. You have taken away the choice while creating the illusion it is still there. Creating a culture of subservience is a more cunning and diabolical evil than brute force.

File: hey kid.jpg (234KB, 848x480px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 848x480px

>>48605404
Did someone just say...?

>>48605556
First, there's that "inventing new ways of thinking about something" that proves you're a degenerate scumbag.

Second, no, a good person is under no obligation to subjugate anyone, as that in itself can be easily considered evil. They have an obligation to try steer them away from that mindset. "Try" being a keyword there. You can't help people who don't want help, and forcing help upon them is evil itself.

>>48605449
Slavery is a horrible institution that degrades everyone involved, slave and master, and corrupts every society that allows it.

Even if you consider good and evil totally subjective then it's still a terrible idea.

>>48605249
>It's entirely possible that the concept of personal freedom has developed much earlier in a fantasy setting, and in fact in most published settings this is considered the default.

Mostly because they are taking the squeaky clean route of not trying to offend anyone. This is why I generally dislike fantasy settings and systems, outside of the standard Tolkien tropes, they're so boring and visibly artificial.

>Because non-sapient beings, such as animals, cannot impose their free will in any serious capacity.

Invasive species say otherwise and topography upended by native wildlife say otherwise. While you can argue that it isn't necessarily 'free will,' they are still left to their own, albeit instinctual, devices. And if sapience really does impact the environment more seriously, then simply letting the sapient act in accordance to their whims is inherently dangerous.

>We do that because they have proven themselves to be a danger to other sapient or sentient beings, and thus cannot be trusted with their own free will.
>Children are not developed enough to make their own decisions.
>The elderly are likewise impaired in their decision making capability, either through mental issues or plain senility.

Which makes it clear that free will isn't inviolable if we already have exceptions for utility. If we can deprive certain groups of their individual freedom for societal benefit, why not do the same for the law-abiding citizen, adult and sane? Some people are simply better at physical tasks, while others are better organizers or better at thinking in ways that benefit research. How is it wrong to slot these people into positions where they are much more efficient? The efficient worker is generally more prosperous, and being good at a tasks is intrinsically satisfying. So it's also beneficial to that individual.

Yes, I am well aware that I am playing the devil's advocate for creepy as fuck collectivism.

>>48605208
Can I become a little girl by signing an agreement?

>>48605040

Hell, if I were given the choice between that first option and living life as I am now, I'd choose the first.

>stable employment
>needs taken care of
>job is cooking, teaching, and cleaning, easy stuff
>get paid for life after employment

Fuck yeah.

>Slavery is forced labor. To force someone to do something against their will is wrong.
No numbers since I don't want to single out this post in particular, but I find it *ridiculous* how many people in this thread try to argue that slavery is wrong and end up making an argument that pretty much THE ENTIRE FUCKING CONCEPT OF LAW is wrong.

For instance, this argument has just implied that fines, community service, and prison are all wrong, because they involve forcing people do things against their will (pay money, do work, sit in prison). What acceptable punishments are we left with? Whipping and other direct forms of pain application, perhaps?

>>48605729
>Whipping and other direct forms of pain application
I sure hope that you aren't doing these against their will.

>>48605716
>"employer" decides to stop paying you because fuck it he can alter the contract as much as he wants
>if you object or attempt to leave his service, you are penalized further

What now fuccboi?

>>48605786
Free will is a child's delusion, a rejection of objective reality based on personal feelings. Embrace the machine, feel joy in the grinding cogs, for it is a good pain.

>>48605701
>creepy as fuck collectivism
What's so creepy about it? Apart from the fact that you are not used to it.

>>48605729
>I find it *ridiculous* how many people in this thread try to argue that slavery is wrong and end up making an argument that pretty much THE ENTIRE FUCKING CONCEPT OF LAW is wrong.
I guess some people are just Chaotic-aligned. It happens.

>>48605729
We commit lesser wrongs to prevent greater ones. A criminal has violated some social contract and wronged society so they must be wronged in respone so they may know they cannot act without consequence.

>>48605786
Sure I am, but that's *me* doing something against his will. I'm not forcing *him* to do anything in particular.

File: 1450179119403.png (357KB, 397x402px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 397x402px

>>48602814
>blinkling maid boy
>boy
This is where all those hours of yurishit come into play.
http://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/oneeloli_manga_123

>>48602814
Yes, duh. If someone likes working in a service job, that person does not need to be compelled to keep working, and thus the institution of slavery is unneccessary.

>>48605863
>http://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/oneeloli_manga_123
Thanks mang, that's the good shit.

>>48603260
>The brainwashing of an entire species makes it Doubly Evil
Wouldn't that make religion evil?

File: fishingpole.png (90KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x501px

>>48605957
This is /pol/bait.

File: zeep.jpg (18KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 210x240px

>>48605729
Eek-barba durkle, someone's getting laid in college

>>48605992
>muh /pol/ boogymen.

And he's right you know, cults and organized religions got down what oppressive governments the world over have been paying to research for decades.

And the best part is, it's all consensual.

>>48605729
Prison is wrong, you know. Minor offenders should repay damage to victims/society as appropriate. Major offenders should be put down.

>>48602814
I dont think it's evil. Just another means of production. Provided you treat the folk in question humanely then it'sall good,man. Better than working for peanuts in a hovel and hoping you can survive the winter

>>48605957
euphoric.gif

>>48606075
Sure, prison might well be wrong. What I'm objecting to is the broad-spectrum implication that prison is wrong _and_ fines are wrong _and_ community service is wrong etc etc.

>>48606035
Religion isn't oppressive, humans have a natural religiosity about them and societies tend towards chaotic morality once they lose it. We wouldn't have been able to conquer most of the known world without the expansive energy of Christianity behind us.

>>48605240
It hurts me to see the way the Left has warped the history of American slavery into a cudgel with which it attempts to beat the South into submission.
It wasn't half as bad as you were told. Just like the "genocide" of the natives, it is hyped up into some inescapable ancestral sin which certain people want to use to control modern behaviour.

>>48605820
>What's so creepy about it? Apart from the fact that you are not used to it.

Because this sort of shit doesn't work, as demonstrated by all the communisms. You can't properly micromanage anything much larger than a family unit. Trying to do so on a national scale will get you insane, counterproductive results.

>>48606153
I don't know man, have you ever seen people that convert or become born again? It's always when they're at a low point in their life or when they are having a mid-life crisis. Prime time if you want to set this desperate person aside and provide them what they might want in exchange for undying loyalty and belief of their every word. Which is pretty much how cults operate without the isolation (true isolation 'move you to a compound in the midwest at least, you still have to isolate yourself in a room full of true believers for at hour at a time though) from family and opposing viewpoints of others, with the exception of the lovely Scientologists and Jehovah Witnesses who purposely isolate their flock from the outside.

It isn't oppressive, quite the opposite, but it certainly is perturbing on a deep level.

>>48605690
This may just be the dumbest post on 4chan.

>>48605800
Still better than decapitation.

>>48606228
Nitpick: the micromanage limit appears to be the Dunbar number of ~150 people, which is a bit larger than a family, but yeah, still insane at the national scale.

(Nitpick to the nitpick: Some sheiks and sultans and the like with twenty wives might have families larger than 150.)

>>48606283
Name one instance of good slavery which fits my highly specific definition of the institution, the criteria of which I will not tell you about until you violate one of them.

>>48606228
The metrics for properly analyzing and managing people are becoming more precise every year. If we had a cluster of computers to organize that shit for us, it'll very much be a possible reality. And as technology advances, at some point the individual has too much potential for destruction to simply be left unattended.

>>48606108
>I dont think it's evil.

It's not just having a worker, dude. It's ownership. The slave cannot ever leave. They cannot change jobs. They cannot own real property and, commonly, even chattels. They cannot marry. Their children are property of the owner, not the parent. They can be dealt with or neglected, starved or beaten, or merely destroyed upon whims, as simply as I can throw away or repurpose a shirt.

When instances of the above happen, it is by the master's orders/permission.

And if you make all that go away bc "they're treated well," then it isn't really slavery.

A moral analysis of slavery is context dependant. It's origin in the Middle East was as an alternative to extermination after warring for scarce resources. In that context, it was a mercy.

But African tribes enslaving smaller ones for sale to Turks and Portugese? How is that NOT evil?

>ANOTHER edgy slavery apologist dark enlightement fedora thread
we really needed one more of these OP. good job!

>>48606335
>I get to arbitrarily decide how and when you're wrong using "secret" criteria
>and I'm an expert on ethics

Fuck yourself.

>>48606367
Historically, the majority of slaves could own property, often including other slaves.

>>48606334

>Nitpick: the micromanage limit appears to be the Dunbar number of ~150 people, which is a bit larger than a family, but yeah, still insane at the national scale.

The mini-socialisms of the African tribes doesn't seem particularly productive.

>(Nitpick to the nitpick: Some sheiks and sultans and the like with twenty wives might have families larger than 150.)

These are outliers and should not be counted.

>>48606344
>The metrics for properly analyzing and managing people are becoming more precise every year. If we had a cluster of computers to organize that shit for us, it'll very much be a possible reality. And as technology advances, at some point the individual has too much potential for destruction to simply be left unattended.

I'm fair sure that's what the Soviets thought, too. In 1930.

>>48605800

>make sure the contract cannot be altered by either party after it's signed
>have a requirement that it gets notarized

Problem solved.

>>48606182
>genocide wasn't that bad
man I love it when people complain about historical revisionism and then just start piling it on themselves

>>48606153
>religion isn't oppressive
>religion inspired global conquest
Pick one

>>48606452
No, they just several thousand angry and ignorant factory workers behind them. Hard to argue with a mob.

File: nothowitworks.jpg (20KB, 500x500px)

20KB, 500x500px

ITT:
>the only form of slavery im familiar with is heritable chattel slavery as implemented in the southern states involving whips and chains. im 12 and what is history outside modern america?
vs
>watch me split enough hairs and stretch analogies until i can argue that slavery is good without dying of embarassment!

>>48606370
Still providing better discussion than most of /tg/ these days.

>>48606487
Well, he's right. Genocide can't have been that bad; look how few fucks everyone gives about the Allies genociding half of Europe after WW2.

>>48606153
Slavery isn't oppressive, humans have a natural dependence about them and societies tend towards chaotic morality once they lose it. We wouldn't have been able to conquer most of the known world without the expansive energy of slavery behind us.

>>48606519

The Soviets actually did try to use computers and stuff to organize shit. They still failed. You can argue that our advanced computers allow us to micromanage everything better than their primitive census tabulators could.

But it doesn't seem to be working that way. Our technology at the moment seems to be moving towards optimized decentralization, rather than micromanagement. Lack of central planning is not a bad thing.

>>48603910
Point.
Still, brainwashing is bad. [b]Creating[/b] a servant race could make a room for debate, since creating an AI to serve is not considered bad.

>>48606552
>Allies genocided half of Europe after WW2
and speaking of historical revisionism

>>48603963

Hierarchy and "exploitation" are responsible for virtually all advancement since hunter-gathering. Illiterate commie scum like you should fuck off.

>>48604095
Forced obedience is the basis of human civilization. Law comes from the threat of violence, "the state of nature is a state of war" without the enforcement of civilization. Slavery in most of its forms is an economic trap and ethically repugnant, but not intrinsically because it's about using force to restrict behavior.

>>48606571
>But it doesn't seem to be working that way. Our technology at the moment seems to be moving towards optimized decentralization, rather than micromanagement. Lack of central planning is not a bad thing.

Never thought of it that way.

>>48606574
I'm reminded of the Androsynth from Star Control. I'm sure it wouldn't come back to bite us in the ass. Unless we collectively made them all sadists who get off on the servitude, but then you'd need to invest in a shitton of mops.

>>48604397
Allowing your actions to be controlled by another person isn't subjugation if it's willing, it's just delegation.

>>48605863
Of all the places I'd thought I'd find adorable yuri, a thread arguing that slavery can be good was least among them. Thank you for that anon.

>>48606582
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_%281944%E2%80%9350%29
"You have German blood, get out of Czechoslovakia, off to Germany with you. You look Polish, off to Poland with you." Millions of people removed based on ethnicity (not just Germans), hundreds of thousands dead along the way. What the fuck is this if not genocide?

>>48605623
>To force someone to do something against their will is wrong

You can't really make a statement like this without going full anarchist. Civilization is based off of coercion at various levels of removal from personal violence.

>>48606487
The problem is that the genocide was mostly unintentional. Not to say that we DIDN'T deliberately kill the natives violently - but most of the death was due to European diseases, which we had no idea we were spreading. Germ theory wasn't even a thing yet.

Ok what if through evolution a slave race developed on its own. Larger more aggressive species protect them and feed them and they keep them happy with a clean house in return.

>>48606666
Satan, those figures don't seem to be anywhere near half of Europe.

>>48606666
>What the fuck is this if not genocide?

Ethnic cleansing. Genocide is the deliberate mass murder of an entire ethnicity. It's right there, in the name. Also, formally defined by international law (as it had to be, for criminal prosecutions).

>>48606726
Right. I meant in the geographic sense, not the population sense.

>>48606717
>genocide was mostly unintentional

Then it wasn't genocide. You can't commit murder by accident. You can't genocide by mistake. It requires specific intent.

>>48606666
'sup hyper-Satan
because
1 - the vast majority of them survived
2 - a very large number were recently settled by the Nazis during the late 30's and 40's after Germany annexed the Sudetenland and hlaf of Poland
3 - there was still a German, Polish, etc. homeland for all of these people
compared to shit like the Trail of Tears or what the US did in the West it's nothing. The natives were reduced to less than 1% of their original population, entire languages and cultures were wiped out, and most of the ones that did survive were relocated across the continent to a desert none of their people had ever seen

There's always population exchanges after a major war, and the shit that happened after WW2 had more to do with general Soviet incompetence than a calculated aim to destroy the existence of the German and Polish people

>>48606737
>Genocide is the deliberate mass murder of an entire ethnicity.

I think you forgot an "attempted" in there. I think it's a pretty fucking important "attempted" that it's still genocide even if some of the ethnics survive.

>>48606717
>>48606759
you do know that smallpox blankets were a thing, right? The use of disease in warfare has been around for centuries, lack of germ theory notwithstanding. The Mongols would catapult plagued corpses into cities they were besieging

It was generally British and pretty much always American policy to treat the natives as non-humans and simply kill them or push them west if they resisted white settlement

>>48606396
That was bait and you fell for it.

>>48606759
That's the point I'm making.
It's a deliberate warping of history by applying the wrong words to events. We called a disease wiping out the majority of the European population the black plague because that's what it was - a plague. Just because it was introduced by foreigners doesn't mean they were trying to genocide Europeans.
But when European settlers brought diseases to America that lead to a plague decimating native populations, they have pretended that it was a deliberate attempt to wipe out the people (muh small pox blankets).

The double-speak has gotten so bad that it's falling in on itself. Fascism, rape, racist, misogyny, genocide - all these words have been so consistently misused that they no longer hold any meaning. I have to stop and decipher what someone, as an individual, thinks the definition of these words are now because for all I know they could be calling constitutional government "fascism" and gassy bowels "fart rape".

>>48606852
Small pox blankets WERE NOT A THING.
This has been debunked. Ward Churchill literally made it up.

File: Taking my loli and leaving.png (559KB, 673x1000px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 673x1000px

>>48605404
>>48605635

No, it'd be /ll/. Pedarasty was the term for gay shota - it doesn't have a feminine varient.

File: 1470092692175.jpg (109KB, 947x491px)

109KB, 947x491px

>>48605255
>>48606616
I'll never understand why some people enjoy licking boots

>>48605863
>http://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/oneeloli_manga_123
Thank you. I love this manga.

>>48606896
>But when European settlers brought diseases to America that lead to a plague decimating native populations, they have pretended that it was a deliberate attempt to wipe out the people (muh small pox blankets).
except small pox blankets were real and there's records of them being used

>The double-speak has gotten so bad that it's falling in on itself. Fascism, rape, racist, misogyny, genocide - all these words have been so consistently misused that they no longer hold any meaning. I have to stop and decipher what someone, as an individual, thinks the definition of these words are now because for all I know they could be calling constitutional government "fascism" and gassy bowels "fart rape".
OK great, there's retards on the far-left that overuse these terms to score cheap political points. But that doesn't mean that they are meaningless and it doesn't excuse retards on the far-right from claiming that the natives weren't genocided, there's really no such thing as rape, etc. We aren't on tumblr or /pol/, you don't have to attack tumblr definitions of genocide.

File: Boss of Bosses2.jpg (723KB, 837x1232px)

723KB, 837x1232px

>>48606969
Same reason some people like their boots being licked.

Nothing is good or evil since moral facts do not exist, when will this board realize this?

File: 1421105791866.png (200KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 600x451px

>>48606969
I happen to be an expert on this. Also, chuuni as fuck.
Sometimes I fantasize about powerful kingdoms and empires and shit. But rarely do I imagine myself as the emperor, instead I tend to imagine myself as his right hand man.
Being the servant rather than the master gives you the right balance between power and security. You're out of the limelight but your decisions still matter. On many affairs you have the final word, but there's always someone wiser who watches over you. You support your master, but at the same time he watches over you. It's comforting in a way.
That horrible feel when you will never, EVER tell Napoleon to just cut his losses after Borodino and await a new chance to crush the Russians.

>>48606978
Small pox blankets were a fabrication by Ward Churchill, who told numerous variations of the even. He was found guilty of seven counts of research misconduct by the University of Chicago and he was dismissed.
Sadly this did not stop the lie from becoming embedded in popular myth.
I'm not pretending rape isn't real, but I'm using it as a more visible and contemporary example of the way language can be misapplied to escalate a situation without merit.

>>48607030
I'm pretty sure that if I tie you into a chair and start carving pieces off of you and making you eat them because you've annoyed me you would think of me as very much an evil person - and so would everyone else.

Except the people who think you're an idiot, who will think I'm a bro-tiert sis.

>>48605228

It sounds like he's making a ball and chain marriage joke, friendo.

>>48607082
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt#Biological_warfare_involving_smallpox

shit happened, deal with it

>>48606969
It's not the bootlicking itself, it's the structure of civilization. Short of populating society with my clones or a hivemind or something like that, maintaining a peaceful orderly advanced society appears to require me to lick some boots, and I am fine with that.

This is not a justification for all bootlicking in general, only a note that boot-free societies tend to a) suck and b) soon result in reestablishment of boot by worse bootwearers.

>>48607046

Oh, man, this. This so much.

File: 1293840136462.jpg (63KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 720x720px

>>48602814
I actually had this idea of how alignments and good vs evil could work.

Lawful God for example doesn't need to have a single definition filled with laws of things you can and can't do or guidelines for various situations.
What I'm saying is, now I know this needs to be heavily moderated (not like they aren't already), but what if alignments are based on what the character thinks it is?

For example, again using Lawful Good, one paladin might think that such a race in the OP should pursue their needs for a master. It is literally what they are born to do and in the end it is in their benefit, as well as their masters' benefit for such a servant. In this case he would let them live and do what they please.
However, another lawful good paladin might think that such a race is the face of evil itself. It goes against his beliefs that all races are born free, a servitor race would completely go against his religion. In his eyes it would be lawful good to either purge or change the behavior of the servitors.

As for a chaotic evil BBEG, he might think that a group of people is the perfect thing for him. He doesn't care whether paladins think they are a naturally good or evil peoples, the BBEG just sees an opportunity to exploit this nature and persuade masses of them to serve him.
A different CE BBEG might think different though. What if the majority of paladins were just as the first? The servitor race would probably be accepted into society by a large margin. The BBEG might see most of them as enemies since they figure that "servitude" means a comfortable bed, good food, and nice clothes. To this BBEG, a servitor race should be seen as nothing more than pets or slaves, not something you'd treat as family.

or maybe im just really tired and should go to bed

File: 1468968640507.jpg (41KB, 500x667px)

41KB, 500x667px

>>48605863
YOU

You, friend. You are the best person in this thread.

>>48606886
I thought it was just somebody who had done a 180 with their viewpoint and suddenly started arguing against their previous position

>>48603602
>>48603767
not the guy you are quoting but non monetary compensation would/could just be feeding and housing them. They are still your slaves but you aren't treating them like shit.

Is this still evil? I don't know, I think it's "uncool brah" but I don't really think at that point that it is "evil".

>>48606991
Can I get a source on that please?

File: 1367913977403.png (500KB, 916x984px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 916x984px

>>48605863
>http://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/oneeloli_manga_123
nigga thats the kawaiiest shit i ever read desu
>that art between stories

>>48607859
Itou Hachi and Takemiya Jin

Because the best porn isn't that which gives you a boner in your trousers

It's that which gives you a boner in your heart

No, slavery is not wrong even if the person doesn't enjoy it, but if they enjoy it it makes it less wrong.

The truth of the matter is modern day 21st century idealists will never understand why slavery is actually saving human lives and keeping society intact back in times when the lack of technology meant that those people's personal freedoms were worthless anyway, and they were more useful to both themselves and others as slaves, and happier that way too.

>>48608336
*tips katana respectfully in your direction* heh...those fools.......slavery isn't wrong indeed...just like rape or mass murder...but they'll never understand us brother *licks blood off blade and turns into a wolf* wanna yiff?

>>48608396

Listen, I know you will never be intellectually honest, but you know what I say is true.

>Pre-modern society without excess of food
>Homeless and destitute are made into slaves
>They are given food, lodging, and forced to work
>No longer a drain on society and no longer in threat of dying due to basic needs

It's literally a win win. The slaves upset at being enslaved is merely their individuality overriding the collectivism of the state, which is understandable, but in terms of the collective it is better for all involved.

>>48602814
>Is slavery still evil if a slave race had been conditioned long ago to desire and enjoy complete servitude to others?

I shouldn't think so. If not being in servitude causes them significant psychological stress, it would be more evil not to keep them as slaves. Of course, is it really even slavery if it's what they want?

>>48606969
Because firm, hierarchical systems are strong systems, and everyone is clear where they stand. Not everyone is equal, so it doesn't make sense to have everyone on the same rung in society, but that doesn't make their place any less important. The pyramid can't stand without the foundation.

>>48606574
That's a very debatable point. Right now, it's not, but holy shit if we ever manage to build an AI that can at the very least fake the appearance of consciousness (and it's more of a when than a ever), there's going to be blood on the streets.

>>48606852
Even if they were, they came long after most native populations had died.

>>48608597
So, slavery is wrong when it's not the homeless and destitute? Though you could argue that after you force people out of their homes and lands, they are indeed homeless and destitute.

>>48610424
Not that Anon, but that wasn't what he was arguing. I believe he was just giving a modern example.

>>48608779
I think the main ethical problem with this proposal is the fact that they were "conditioned" (what the specifics of that are are up to debate) rather than always being like this.

File: yui-nyan.gif (1MB, 500x281px)

1MB, 500x281px

>>48605863
>tags
>moé up the butt

>>48610738
So what? The present state of things is always a product of the past. Nothing too interesting there.

File: fa0069afb067837d33f87e3b0988d3fe.jpg (2MB, 8800x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 8800x1080px

I'd like a horny shortstack meido

File: dean23.jpg (19KB, 264x319px)

19KB, 264x319px

>>48602814
It would be evil if their master was exploitative and didn't care for them properly (not providing adequate food, unduly harsh punishment, violating their contract, poor shelter for no other reason than the owner doesn't care, etc.).

Otherwise the relationship would be neutral, or possibly good since the master is fulfilling a role which benefits the 'slave race' psychologically.

It's kind of like how owning a dog isn't inherently evil, but abusing it or failing to provide for it adequately is. Though the slave race's rights would be more heavily enforced since their sapience would be without question.

>>48609046
Place of a one of a million rock-haulers is less important than of the architect.

>>48608597
You know what's not better for the collective?

The massive and inevitable slave revolt. They /will/ resent you for enslaving them, they /will/ obtain arms, and they /will/ rise up in revolt, which regardless of if they succeed or not will result in the loss of thousands of lives at least, as well as untold property and infrastructure damage.

>>48602814
It's evil if the slave can't or is heavily implied not to have a choice.

If they just want to serve you by choice, then sure. it is evil to compel them to be slaves, though.

I guess you need some sort of safe word or something, I don't know.

>>48602814
According to Aristotle, no. A natural slave will find the most fulfillment in the role of a slave, and a natural master in the role of the master.

I do not follow Aristotelian philosophy in real life, but I do use parts of it in my fantasy settings.

>>48604928
In almost all places, Serfs still had some inalienable rights.

>>48608597
>enslaving people instead of just paying them with food and lodging
>you are obliged to feed and shelter them even if they slack off and work poorly, no good incentives
>it's not your business what happens to them if they break your agreement and you stop paying

Your shit only works neatly in small, family-like communities. Otherwise, slaves are only things to be exploited to the fullest, without any stops or conpunctions.
Moreover, it just corrupts and forms codependencies, which are mutual constant manipulations.

I wouldn't like to have on my hands a whole race which tries its damndest to ingratiate themselves to my people and then get them indolent and lazy, so that the slaves would become indispensable, but oh-so-cloyingly sweet and nice to have around... There would be only a short time till the slaves surreptitiously try to dictate their masters their will via various cues or maybe even by nagging.
That's just impending shitfest, through and through.

>>48602814
It's not slavery if someone volunteers to follow you around and do what you tell them. It's slavery if you force them to do something against their will.

If they can't walk away if somehow they change their mind, then yes, it's evil.

>>48603080
Good meme

Slavery, under any context, is not good. Thus, a lawful good character is by definition anti-slavery.

>>48605863
>http://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/oneeloli_manga_123
I don't know if I can handle this level of cute.

If they love it so much they can do it as a fucking job and stop hurting the fucking labor market. Fucking yarn-slappers taking our jobs.

>>48602814
>Is slavery still evil if a slave race had been conditioned long ago to desire and enjoy complete servitude to others?
Yes. Arguably, it's even more evil.

>>48605177
>Slavery wasn't evil to begin with.
Slavery is inherently evil.

If you enslave an undead, do the double evils cancel each other out?

>>48613966
What about using defeated forces as combat slaves? I can't think of any moral arguments against that for people that made themselves your enemies.

>>48614035
Undead aren't sentient. It's no different than oxen or something, provided you didn't raise them yourself.

>>48614069
So it's okay to adopt?

>>48614092
I mean, no one's really against adoption, are they. It's obviously better to make your own, provided you're of the majority racial group of your nation of residence, but some people have poor genetics, etc.

>>48602814
What kind of slavery are we talking? Arab and African work-a-slave-to-death slavery? Or average you-are-a-servant-and-I-will-provide-for-you Greco-Roman slavery? Or perhaps the you-are-an-asset-and-not-free-to-go-but-you-will-be-provided-for-because-you're-worth-a-lot-of-money European and north American style slavery?
I mean, slavery in itself is not an inherently evil thing, you give a slave everything he needs to continue work at peak performance, food, shelter, medical assistance, some entertainment and some education. Having a slave perform badly or even die because of neglect is hella expensive, and you want to keep them at least moderately happy so they won't stage a coup or flee.
So yeah, if you are a good slavemaster, then I see no problem with it.

>>48602814
No it isn't hermione.
Shut the fuck up about the elves.

>>48615491
>slavery in itself is not inherently evil

Nigga wat

Completely stripping one of freedom , preventing them from having say in how they live their life, keeping them from their dreams, even if compensated, is evil.

If I took a gun, held it to your head, and made you do work you hated, but gave you shitty housing and food you don't like in return, how is that not evil?

>>48607778

It's an edit of Ichigo Mashimaro manga.

>>48602814
I remember in one comic a genetically engineered slave race having one mutant or anomaly who heckled the system of servitude and managed to get them species wide vote on what to do. All but one voted to maintain servitude.

>>48615702
As noted previously in the thread, most slaves could own property. Pretty sure that's a say in how they live their own life. So by your reasoning, I guess most slaves weren't slaves?

You're attacking the worst forms of slavery and you're right that those are evil, but the guy you're responding to is also right that slavery isn't inherently evil.

>>48602814
The slavery of species that are not your own is always 100% acceptable.

>>48605193
>HURRRRRR STRAWMAN HE'LL NEVER NOTICE
Kill yourself.

>>48615702

There's a lot of people in our modern "free" society that do work they hate so they can barely afford shitty housing and food. If they were slaves at least they wouldn't have the stress of worrying about losing their jobs and their homes.

>>48615702
Usury slavery (every human on earth today) is worse than chattel slavery by so many orders of magnitude that to even invoke them in the same sentence is to slander the evil of usury.

>>48615702
>Anglo propaganda
You do realize that there are other types besides the African "we're going to snatch you up and force you to work" type, right?
Look into ancient greek slavery, which is closest to the scenario OP framed, low-skilled workers became slaves to aristocrats by their own choosing, work was of course expected of them, like it is nowadays from an employee, but they received proper housing, clothing and food and were allowed to do most things freely, outside of going into politics or voting.
The only reason why American slavery was so bad is because the demand for slaves was so high, that the African kangs who sold the slaves literally sent armies into the heart of Africa to snatch up every person they found. The slaves didn't want to be slaves, as opposed to OP's scenario.

>>48603861
Yes, it is absolutely evil.
At least pay them, fuck.

>>48615815
Oy Vey, Anti-semite.

as long as they can leave whenever they like, go nuts

>>48608188
Is it wrong that I get actual boners from reading the cutesy flirting in yuri, but when the characters actually fuck I go flaccid?

>>48605556
If a sapient being is incapable of watching over itself, why the fuck would you trust it handling any sort of task?

>>48616415
I dunno, ask the people who brought them over from Africa.

>>48616444
Shit dude, how do you handle all that edge?

>>48616453
If you take enough slashing damage, your resistance eventually increases.

>>48616415
Holy hell, I finally understand fluffy threads in /b/

>>48602814
>blinkling maid boy
>boy
>ohboyherewegoagain.png

>>48602814
>slave race had been conditioned long ago to desire and enjoy complete servitude to others?
That is impossible all creatures strive for independace, success and personal freedums.

>>48616685
USA USA USA

File: America.jpg (101KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 375x523px

>>48616685
God Bless AMERICA, filthy arabs fuck off.

>>48611375
This, it's barely slavery if a slave WANTS to serve a master, at that point is it more evil to deny them their own choice and free right to serve?

>>48616216
Are you suggesting they're not slaves if they're paid, or that slavery isn't evil if you pay them?

>>48602814
You can't just draw a girl and say it's a boy.

File: 07.jpg (515KB, 1200x1765px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1200x1765px

>>48616870
Is this nigga serious?

>>48605957
Nah, heresy is pretty common in all faiths during all periods. Heck, most of the time the majority of the believers will be heretics to some degree.

Brainwashing is explicitly about removing such heresy by means of close and constant indoctrination.

>>48605045
>nonwhite person does something
>well, I suppose we, the wise and good and enlightened white human beings should embrace it.
Toppest argument.

>>48603965
Books that noted how many lashes slaves had recieved that day were also common.

>Again, slavery itself isn't necessarily evil, what matters is how you treat your slave.
It's not evil to break families appart if you make the children work for twelve hours a day, expose them to sexual abuse and refuse them education and gainful employment for the rest of their lives.

>>48606182
>Just like the "genocide" of the natives
If white people would go from 100% of the population to 3%, that would certainly be considered genocide in the US. Good thing that nonwhites aren't people.

>>48602814
It's evil if they are mistreated. Neutral if not.

Definitely not good though.

>>48616870
Sure you can. What you can't do is post a canon girl and claim it's a boy, or post a canon lesbian and say she's a homosexual male. That's just dumb.

>>48613966
[Citation needed]

>>48603957
That's what makes it so evil. Now no one has a job unless their willing to do work the slave race doesn't do well like fighting wars.

>>48617173
Yes, and I really like how they blame me, a simple white taxpayer for the things that others did hundreds of years ago. It's like saying every German currently alive is Hitler and is responsible for WW 2.

I've never killed anyone, much less a Native American. I've never owned any slaves. Blaming me for the shit that never actually happened to you personally isn't going to make me guilty of it.

>>48617452
>It's like saying every German currently alive is Hitler and is responsible for WW 2.
It's ironic because it seems like a lot of German people actually believe that, or at least behave like they do. Germans became a strange people after losing two world wars.

>>48602814
slavery inhibits the development of labor saving devices and will retard a civilization's growth.

>>48606626

(You) mean masochists

>>48617477
The cotton gin increased the demand for slaves.

>>48617476
>It's ironic because it seems like a lot of German people actually believe that, or at least behave like they do. Germans became a strange people after losing two world wars.
It's not so strange when you consider that the Allied occupation after the war had a mission instruction of "Beat it into the Germans, yes including the civilians, that they're all to blame and they're all gonna get fucked now and they all gotta apologize."

>>48617548

Inhibits isn't the same as completely halts, additionally things like the steam shovel would not be useful or cost effective in a slave holding society

>>48617476
>Yes, and I really like how they blame me, a simple white taxpayer for the things that others did hundreds of years ago.

Have you tried going back to where you came from yet? You're a migrant living on land your people cleared by genocide after all.

>>48615786
Well, but they don't have to. They can fucking leave.

Slaves can't, because they will get beaten and raped and whatever, even in your Greco-Roman lalaland. Which wasn't, incidentally, nearly as nice as you think.

>>48602814
>conditioned

I don't know why, but this is really uncomfortable. The idea that you shape a entire people to your needs to the point where they cease to want anything but the fulfill the need. Even more uncomfortable when you consider the practical implications of the conditioning. Generations of people broken down and selectively bred to serve. The entire machinery almost defeats the purpose, which makes it even more horrible since that implies slaves aren't even needed and it's done for another purpose than a docile workforce

>>48617564
It's cute when people are completely blind to the benefits Germany is reaping from their cheapass "neva forget"-policy. Japan's "yes, we totally surrendered because of your big, strong manly atomic bomb"-legend ain't got shit on it.

>>48617452
Moving the goalposts so hard the Earth itself was left shuddering.

>>48617635
The machine would eventually get tuned on the rest of the population. It demonstrated that it works well enough and there's a lot of asocial elements around in need of being made productive anway.

>>48603528
Will you serve the cakes you hold so that the nyanners may advance?

File: 621.jpg (31KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x375px

What if the slave keepers are a genuinely superior race, I don't mean /pol/ bullshit but a mathematically, factually, undeniably superior race to the slaves.

I'm talking the difference between dogs and humanity type of gulf.

I'd argue that its perfectly OK, I mean humans are put in charge of their children's lives because at young ages most, if not all, children are physically and mentally incapable of making decisions that benefit themselves.

Even pets, though capable of autonomy in a fashion, are better managed by us, the Superior Species, but would you, as a human, consent to the rule of a species that makes us appear as dogs in comparison?

>>48617692
Depends on what they made me do, what they made me give up, and what they would give me.

>>48617744

They give you the alien D.

>>48617692
Are you a sapient and sentient being that has free will? Yes? Then t would suck to be a slave.

Every race that has owned slaves have thought themselves to be mentlaly and phsycially superior to their slaves, and in some cases they were. It still sucks to be a slave.

And yes, qualified both because animals aren't sapient, sentient though they might be, and enslaving a dog is not the same as enslaving a human.

>>48615707
>Edit

Dammit. Thanks.

>>48617796

Sapience is a non real argument, dogs are mammals like us and have the same or analogous emotional and psychological benchmarks

Thats part of what makes them so ideal to be our pets

In this analogy the Superior Species is on a second level of thought that dwarfs ours in much the same way as dog to man, If anything they could simply make the argument that they're /super/ sentient and sapient and that your simplistic thoughts are no more than instinctual responses to stimuli

>>48617829
Learn the difference between sapience and sentience. A dog does not wonder 'what if'.

>>48617692
So the superior alien species will build me a house of my own, put it next to theirs so I can live with them, feed me, play with me, give me toys, handle my healthcare, teach me algebra (I figure that's about the relative level of teaching a dog "sit"), and basically let me live in the lap of luxury without having to work a day again in my life, other than occasionally go on sightseeing trips with them?

WHERE DO I SIGN!?

>>48617796
>And yes, qualified both because animals aren't sapient
Given that sapience is conveniently defined by "they're not human", that's really not saying much at all. They have a theory of mind, feelings, moods, personalities, interpersonal communication, even fucking education. What the fuck more do you need?

File: 43564245772534.jpg (110KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 500x365px

>>48617842

They're not robots, they'll run before you throw the ball. Its what makes the game of 'pretending to throw the ball and than not throwing the ball' so entertaining.

Dogs will cry if you leave them, be happy if you return, mourn if you die. You're telling me that dogs don't wonder 'what if' as if its categorical fact when the only way you could know that is if you are in fact a dog.

Are you a dog?

>>48617842
You've been talking to dogs lately? The fuck you would know?

>>48617692
We don't use dogs for anything, other than as pets and in food-procurment. So I'd imagine that the superior race wouldn't have any use beyond that for their lessers.

>I'd argue that its perfectly OK, I mean humans are put in charge of their children's lives because at young ages most, if not all, children are physically and mentally incapable of making decisions that benefit themselves.
It's mainly because they're physically incapable of taking care of themselves for years.

>Even pets, though capable of autonomy in a fashion, are better managed by us, the Superior Species
As a species, dogs and housecats do just fine on their own. They stick with us because they're pack animals in the first place.

>>48617881
>We don't use dogs for anything, other than as pets and in food-procurment

The fuck we don't, Dogs and the domestication of animals in general are a huge cornerstone of humanity as a whole

>>48617864
>>48617866
Oh, so now we're talking about the enslavement of every domesticated animal=the enslavement of humans?

Really? Are you some kind of PETA worshiping morons? Do you honestly think there is any similarity between human capability in the abstraction of thought and animal thought processes?

Please, do explain how all animal life is sacred, intelligent, and as capable and understanding as humans are.

Your theories are only theories and have yet to be proven as anything more than base instinctive behaviors taken advantage of by humans. Claiming animals are as intellectually capable as humans are is disingenuous and ultimately foolish.

>>48617881
>As a species, dogs and housecats do just fine on their own. They stick with us because they're pack animals in the first place.

Humans are social animals as well, And just because they can 'survive' as animals alone doesn't necessarily mean they're better off, many domestic dogs are so different to regular dogs they're incapable of autonomous survival now days anyhow.

The point being, are they or are they not better off being assimilated into a higher order of structure and meaning

>>48617902
>Claiming animals are as intellectually capable as humans are is disingenuous and ultimately foolish.
Literally no one is claiming that, so chill out.

>>48617902
I never claimed they were as intellectually capable I said they were analogous, which is absolutely true. They respond to many of the same stimuli in the same way. Hit them they hate it, they shy away and fear or get mad and fight, pet them, they like it, humans like it as well although admittedly they get weirded out if strangers do it.

The point is humans are animals in comparison to The Superior Species inherent in this theoretical scenario, I'm just using the relationship of dogs and humans to highlight the sheer difference.

File: StalloNO.gif (1MB, 400x307px)

1MB, 400x307px

>>48617881
>We don't use dogs for anything, other than as pets and in food-procurment.
Are you the dumb?

>>48617913
Then why bother arguing the definition of sentience and sapience if you are not? Because that's what the words mean, you colossal idiot. They exist to differentiate animal thought processes and human (or other) thought processes.

Goddamn rules lawyers.

File: all-seeing-why.jpg (89KB, 600x1200px)

89KB, 600x1200px

I wish people would stop pretending that there's only one kind of slavery. "Slavery" is a vaguely-defined word, and there many things that fit even the strictest definitions of the word that are quite different from what a lot of people (especially Americans) think when they hear the word.

Chattel slavery, under which slaves may be bought and sold and are considered property, is not the only type of slavery, and even then there is more than one type of chattel slavery, some more restricted than others.

Americans practiced nearly unrestricted chattel slavery; slaves were not people in the slightest and had few rights. In the middle there is Roman slavery, where slaves had highly restricted freedoms but were considered people -- it would be preferable in ancient Rome to be a slave of a rich, kind master than to be a dirt-poor plebeian freeman. On the far restricted end there is Hebrew slavery; there are many laws in the Torah protecting the rights of slaves.

For example, the Torah forbids holding a slave for more than seven years, and you were required to provide them with a portion of your wealth when you freed them as a sort of freeman's starter pack. Unless, that is, the slave decides that he or she doesn't want to leave, in which case you pierce their ear against the doorframe of your house, and they are your slave for life.

As this demonstrates, under the right cultural circumstances, slaves choosing to stay with a kind and loving master is absolutely not an impossibility. Now, if an American were transported back in time and ended up a slave, you can be pretty sure they wouldn't want to go through with the slave-for-life ritual no matter how kind their master was, but some cultures don't value personal freedom so highly.

>>48617881
>We don't use dogs for anything, other than as pets and in food-procurment
So what are police dogs, service dogs, drug patrol dogs, search-and-rescue dogs, medical alert dogs, sled dogs and guard dogs?

>>48617947

Because the difference or at least a difference like it is the fuel for the discussion, specifically that of the difference between our comparatively dull human sapience and The Superior Species Super Intelligence

>>48617954

Absolutely this, I mean in fictionland there is literally infinite possibilities that make the moralistic considerations meaningless and black and white moral labels essentially moot

Also DnD is a pox and needs to be cast into the flames before we can move on as a board.

File: 1468016725747.jpg (667KB, 1600x1200px)

667KB, 1600x1200px

>>48616870
>This nigga

>>48617954
>in which case you pierce their ear against the doorframe of your house
This seems like one of those things where the DM was rolling on a big table of random bullshit, like wild magic but for legal ceremonies.

>>48604397
>believing that you are not subjugated to the will of abstract state and it's rulers
>not fighting against it or actively forcing others to being subjects of state
>slavery is inherently bad
Blind much, or hypocrite much?

p.s. taxation is a theft

>>48617964
And to have that discussion you need to accept that sapience=/=sentience, otherwise we're dogs and it doesn't matter..

>>48618008

Ultimately all forms of civilization seem like that when you look at them hard enough.

>>48611401
When your lord can sentence you to death on his whim, any rights you have became illusionary declarations.

>>48618013

You're splitting hairs over the definitions of one or two words when the question, the initial question is 'Is slavery to a superior intelligence morally right'

You've already said 'nah' but your reason was 'Because humans are too smart' which would imply that beings, any beings, of a certain intellect, are... what, morally wrong to enslave? Immune to being slaves? I'm just wondering if the 'too smart' line moves up based on the intelligence of the enslavers or if its a static, arbitrary point based entirely on your own prejudices.

>>48618013
>linguistic prescriptivism

>>48617904
>many domestic dogs are so different to regular dogs they're incapable of autonomous survival now days anyhow.

>The point being, are they or are they not better off being assimilated into a higher order of structure and meaning

I dunno man, being bred into a cripple whose life is pain and suffering to the delight of your master seems like a terrible deal.

>>48617961
>So what are police dogs, service dogs, drug patrol dogs, search-and-rescue dogs, medical alert dogs, sled dogs and guard dogs?

Other than guard dogs, the absolute minority?

>>48618084

Humans didn't set out with the intention to create 'cripple' dogs, Indeed most of what are 'cripples' now days (many many many generations, literally and in dog years) were bred for specific jobs and purposes.

Besides, Nature does the very same thing on a slower time scale but it does, lots of animals mutate, being born too large to procure enough resources and dying, being born with random mutations that only hinder and ultimately kill them.

>>48611982
Only if it they are also anti-Robin-Hood, Slavery is (in general) considered Lawfully Evil, while Robin Hood(ism) is pretty much the definition of Chaotically good. As they are both equally distant from Lawfully Good in the eyes of a Paladin they are both equally wrong.

>>48618055
It's not about a certain level of intellect, it's about a certain level of self awareness beyond the levels defined by sentience. The fact that a superintelligent alien can enslave humans does not make humans less sapient. The fact that animals are sentient does not make them sapient. Is it slaver if you have no thought process that allows you to chose freedom over slavery? A dog can understand freedom and slavery only when those things are defined for them. A human can eventually come to the realization of the difference regardless of brainwashing or indoctrination, or Stockholm Syndrome would be incurable.

>>48618084
On the other hand, being bred WITH a cripple whose life is pain and suffering to the delight of your master seems like a terrific deal. YWN gently stroke the amputee girl's hair gently as you easily hold her body against yours, her missing mass making it a simple matter to grip her with one arm while the other strokes, watching her smile return in the moments you share together when there is nothing but the two of you, not the slavers nor the pain of her missing limbs, just the gentle pleasures of a gentle smile and gentler fingers

>>48618094
>We don't use X for anything other than A
>>What about B, C, D, and E?
>They don't count

>>48618118
Humans may have sapience, but they don't have glooglax. Without it, their tiny monkey brains can't be called a truly functioning intelligence.
This is why we are justified in keeping them as pets.

>>48618118
Does realizing the difference make it any less moral or amoral though? Could you even understand the control methods of a species as far above you? I hate to sound like a conspiracy nutjob but what if the society we live in right now is literally a form of control over our individual lives shaped not by us but by some higher echelon of intelligence over which we have no control or even comprehension.

I mean what if you are, at this moment, playing into the hands of a controller, consciously or not, if you could not even conceptualize how they achieved it. Is it than moral, if you think that what you're doing is your very own will, even if its shaped by a third party?

>>48618105
Human breeding practices are less kind than Evolution though. Evolution generally is okay with species changing in order to not suffer and die prematurely while pet breeders thinks that sort of change is worse than Hilter.

>>48618128
Yes, they made a Reliant Robin fly on Top Gear. Clearly the majority of Reliant Robins are experimental spacecrafts.

>>48618151

You're anthropomorphizing evolution, its not kind, its merely a statistical process, a more convoluted set of dice. It probably seems horribly cruel to those who wind up with cancer or horrible genetic malfunctions.

At least pet breeders can be considered to be 'kind' or 'unkind', The guided approach works extremely well even if it does not fit into the laws of the jungle very neatly.

>>48618142
Except the human knows it has the capacity to be more than a pet. The dog does not.

Your entire argument revolves around the idea that humans would have to become less intellectually capable than they currently are to be mindlessly obedient slaves, via 'scale of intellect' argument. We are self aware and we are capable of understanding the concept of freedom and the idea of choice from an abstract viewpoint even when it is denied us. Animals cannot.

If someome genuinely wants to be a slave isn't denying them what they want solely for the sake of your own sense of right and wrong views also immoral?

>>48618174
/s

Evolution kills a lot of shit, but it generally doesn't actively prevent species from changing into more fit forms the way breeders do.

Was this clear enough for you?

>>48618173
Wow, you sure got me there bucko, oh wait, you said literally none of that until someone called you out. Have you been contacted by any football teams yet? I'm sure your ability to shift those goalposts would really be a great boon.

>>48618193
Congrats, you just discovered that morality is subjective

>>48618182

Once again you're speaking for a third party who you absolutely cannot know the thought processes of. You /assume/ an animal can't conceptualize freedom, yet monkeys are totally capable of recognizing unfair pay for work and than becoming emotionally compromised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

>>48602814
Yes, because conditioning a being into accepting an inferior role without question is an evil act, and benefiting from this is an act of permissiveness towards evil; which perpetuates evil itself.

Permissiveness in ethics is the death-knell of the common good.

>>48618111
Ehh. A paladin is a lot more likely to team up with a chaotic good character than the lawful evil one, you know? He also doesn't have "detect chaos" or "smite chaotic". Any paladin is good first, and lawful second.

>>48618200
>Wow, you sure got me there bucko, oh wait, you said literally none of that until someone called you out.

I expected folks to be /out/ enough to have noticed what the majority of dogs are used for upfront, yes. Mea culpa.

File: ulric.jpg (134KB, 760x596px)

134KB, 760x596px

>>48618232

>>48618199

More or less fit is absolutely subjective.

Corgis are cute, they fit perfectly into the world of pets, even if occasionally their spines are apt to fail they still have a huge bred in advantage over a hideous monster dog in their world

Their world of course by no means encompasses that that exists outside of a house of course and when humanity dies it will be a terrible shock for small dogs and big dogs.

Ironically evolution often encounters similar pitfalls, one species will evolve UV resistant skin, niciating membranes to keep sand out of its eyes, thermally efficient feet to avoid burns. Than along comes the ice age and that species is snuffed out in the blink of a century

>>48618244
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis

File: neotony is a hell of a drug.jpg (186KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 960x720px

inb4 real science has no place in fantasy, but...
Domestication works because a lot of the behaviours you're trying to select for (sociability, lack of aggression, deference to authority) are examples of juvenile traits and therefore controlled by a handful of genes that regulate the timing of the organism's maturation. Tweak them the right way and you get offspring that have all of the behaviours you're looking for, with quite a few other added bonuses from youth (increased or longer lasting brain plasticity which leads to more learning and higher intelligence, physical traits deemed youthful and attractive).
Take these cute domesticated foxes as an example. 50 years, a blink in evolutionary history, and you've got a whole new subspecies with radically different behaviour and markedly different physiology than wild foxes. And this is using solely selective breeding with shit-tier Soviet biological understanding which was at least decades behind the West. Applying it humans (or dwarves or whatever other fantasy humanoid race with a workable lifespan) would be more difficult for sure, but still practical in the long run.

What if you could pull it off so the conditioning is purely through the use of soft power and personal choice (under the realistic cultural and economic limits of personal choice in any society)? Say something like the government measuring individual behaviour in a population and offering a monetary reward if the most docile agree to breed with each other (or give up DNA for artificial insemination or whatever fantasy equivalent you want). The next generation are likewise followed, their behaviour studied, and are given the same offer of money if they continue the breeding program.

If in 50 generations you have a sub-population that's been reduced to a completely non-aggressive and subservient state, basically viewing everyone else as a trusted parent until proven otherwise, is that evil? Was any step along the way evil?

>>48618212
>unfair pay for work
>not desiring better food than what it is given
That's running off of basic instinct of desire for better food. You're not proving they understand that they're enslaved and forced to perform tricks for scientific study, which is the entire point of saying is it okay to enslave these creatures. They don't even know they're enslaved or what freedom might mean for them. You're claiming that they understand work for pay when all they really understand is "that monkey got sweeter food than I did".

>>48618302
You, I like you.

>>48618302
>implying we're not perfectly aware of how the government manipulates us

>>48618302
>be the only one to have the first brand new pet in thousands of years
>don't sell it

Invisible Hand can't touch this.

>>48602814
Depends on the moral framework used to define good and evil, as all moral questions do.

>>48618302
correct me if I'm wrong, but that is literally what eugenics is, is it not? I'm not saying eugenics are evil by default, but the idea that you are breeding subhumans when you can breed better humans is a bit evil

>>48618212
As soon as you can actually proove the money understand the concept of currence, the abstract value placed on service and currency, and that it actually understands that one value of currency is different than another value of currency, you haven't proved anything more than "that smells better than this so I don't want this".

>>48611069
But the guy who draws the plans isn't the one building it from the ground up in the end. Sure, they need his work to even begin construction, but if he could build it himself, why would he lay a plan for others to do it?

>>48618360
Yep.

>>48618401
A worker is dime a dozen
A good architect is not

>>48604710
>Slavery is always evil because it involves imposing your will on another sapient being.
>the will to power is evil

>>48618377
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih9M2d-KaMA

>>48618360

Whoa, your rationale is the idea that 'you can breed better humans', but that's equally evil by the metrics since either way creates an underclass unless every human can be subject to the same enhancements at the same time which categorically is impossible with the methods proposed.

>>48618423
The architects value isn't in question. But if you think for a second you're building his masterpiece without the dime a dozen scrubs moving the materials, you're in for a big surprise. In the end, the shlubs at the bottom are still directly responsible for turning dream into reality, even if it is for pennies a day.

>>48606421
A group can't be productive without the means to do so. Compared to larger groups that live with no tech and shitty soil, they're actually efficient. Don't try to compare groups that clearly aren't on equal footing on any other parameter.

>>48618484
Though said shlubs would have no job if it wasn't for the architect

>>48618459
that's the problem. Once you have bred a better human all others become sub-human. Of course if the selective breeding continues for long enough everyone will be better humans sooner or later.
Also, there are always persons who will be better than the rest, I mean it would be understandable to breed more better humans in hope that humanity as a whole would benefit

>>48618429
>implying that the values of currency is understood as opposed to the desire to enjoy something for something else given that is enjoyable

Still not proving they understand the abstract concepts involved, anon.

Economists like the experiment as given because they can push their agenda on it without actually proving anything like abstract intelligence, only proving that trading one "nice thing" for another "nice thing" exists. It's a behaviorists favorite ruse.

>>48618509
Crops need raising. Roads need paving. And other architects are going to need workers for building. One guy's vision has a price same as every other guy's.

The top can't sit at the top without the guy under him holding up the chair. It doesn't matter what the lower tier does for a living, so long as they're getting paid. Even the architect is likely going to be answering to someone else at the end of the day.

>>48618548
You generally hire architects, so yes

>>48618360
that really depends on your definition of "sub"humans
assuming the process is the same as in domesticated animals, you lower aggression, increase social behaviour, and likely raise intelligence. That honestly sounds like an improved human subspecies rather than a Doctor Moreau unthinking man-beast.

The main drawback to them would be that they're far more trusting and gullible which could be exploited for sure, but they're still sentient creatures and just because they're conditioned to be less aggressive and passive doesn't mean they'll sit back and handle abuse or unthinkingly take actions that are clearly harmful to themselves or others they care about.

To put things in context, in many respect humans are domesticated great apes, only via natural selection rather than selective breeding. As weird as it sounds, behaviour-wise we're very close to young chimps and we clearly display a lot of juvenile traits (larger head to body ratio, less body hair, less developed jaws and brow ridges, etc.). And of course the key trait, higher intelligence because our brains keep learning for longer

>>48618459
What's wrong with hierarchy? The best will always be above the worst. Seems it is just more rational to eliminate the worst and increase the best simultaneously. There is no reason to pretend that what is inferior is equal.

>>48618519
I can see the longterm good in the hypothetical sense, that said you'd be creating lots of short term friction and if you exclusively used the 'ethical' practices outlined in the first place, you would essentially be hobbled since those who didn't meet your requirements would still be breeding with one and other, essentially creating a Time Machine style disparity and setting yourself up for a lot of war, bloodshed and resentment.

>>48618607

The problem is the moment you start ze cleansing that pushes you into evil territory, murdering based on genetic merit, even if founded in science, is still essentially evil.

And if you don't murder, castrate or otherwise genocide the 'inferior' what you wind up with is >>48618610

>>48618635
>>48618610

Stop saying essentially you fucking faggot

>>48618610
that's why the real eugenics castrated people considered undesirable, something that is very much lawful evil

File: 1469648567391.png (125KB, 462x410px)

125KB, 462x410px

I'm amazed this thread is still going so strong.

>>48618698
Can i get one with breasts?

File: MonsoonI4.png (563KB, 933x769px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 933x769px

>this entire thread
Free will is a myth. Religion is a joke. We are all pawns of something even greater: memes, the DNA of the soul.

>>48618734
this, none of them look especially arousing

>>48618574
>assuming the process is the same as in domesticated animals, you lower aggression, increase social behaviour, and likely raise intelligence. That honestly sounds like an improved human subspecies rather than a Doctor Moreau unthinking man-beast.
>The main drawback to them would be that they're far more trusting and gullible which could be exploited for sure

So you're proposing we improve the stock of Republican voters? Nothing evil about that.

>>48604921
>Paladins stuck behind a desk casting Detect Evil on contracts

>>48618736
But many of us aren't Anglo and Meme-theory is basically a Nihonjinron of the English language.

>>48606768
>Trail of Tears
>Anything to do with Native American population loss
It was all over-the-horizon epidemics, mang, completely unpreventable. Trail of Tears wasn't even that bad, they even got to bring their slaves.

>>48618810
well theoretically the increase in learning and intelligence will offset that, but point well made

>>48618823
I'd say it's less tied to the english language than you implied, and that being Anglo doesn't matter at all. Meme theory is more or less identical to genetics in function, with an expansion in the meme pool being necessary for introspection.

As for the slavery thing, it's fine as long as you don't treat the people in question like shit. I'd happliy become a slave if it meant I could get the fuck out of this goddamned squalor I live in.

>>48607119
That's worse than saying nukes caused most of the deaths in WWII.

>>48618823
Memes are older than language.

>>48618896
>Meme theory is more or less identical to genetics in function
You mean it's using the language of genetics to borrow the appearance of SCIENCE?

Genes can be broken down into four bases, the behaviour and interactions of which can be described based on their atomic nature.

Memes? No such thing.

>>48618903
>Small pox blankets never happened
>OK they happened but this one event was not the main cause
nice goalpost moving. No one said they were the main cause, they're just saying there was an active policy of genocide against the Indians and this was just one example of it among hundreds

File: e77d842e125912a373d4f157eb4fc2fb.png (739KB, 1327x629px)

739KB, 1327x629px

Needs more meido

>>48619078
You know Memetics is an actual science, right? Like, there are a whole ton of research papers and journals specifically about the spread of ideas, which are becoming more and more relevant as extremism becomes more prevelant in the modern world.

>>48602987
Mad late on this, but that was not his argument. He was asking if it was still EVIL if slavery is

1)enjoyed by all parties involved, but
2)this is because they were conditioned from birth to enjoy it

the crux of the matter would probably be whether or not one would choose slavery if not assimilated into such a society from birth.

>>48617844
>>48617692
Dogs have it pretty good, actually, yeah.

Plus, I suspect the aliens would have the technology to change my mind about it anyway, whether that involved disintegration or reprogramming.

>>48602965
The thread ended here.

File: 1462091269357.jpg (165KB, 1002x960px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1002x960px

>>48604045
>Roman slavery was fucking horrific you imbecile.