Isekai Walking - Vol. 8 Ch. 70 - Slave Contract

[Maiorem]

I've said 'as long as he remains a slave' when he disobeys or act against his owner, he is no longer a slave. One must differentiate between a 'legal' slave and a mental slave, the first can try to be free or die trying or turn into the latter in which he loses his will completely. Spartacus is a prime example of a 'legal' slave who freed himself, yet not all slaves are like him otherwise there wouldn't be any.

That probably sounded a lot better in your head.

 

[Oniisdonefor]

That probably sounded a lot better in your head.

Sure it does, tell me though what makes a slave? You probably can't say snice you don't explain yourself so I will do it myself by giving an example. Let's say I dominated you by the use of threats and violence etc. and it was legal to do so, you then will do as I see fit thus becoming a slave. ok are with me let's say at some point you were sick of this life and planned to kill me at the first opportunity or to just escaped somehow. ones you act upon this thought you are no longer a slave you might be ether a criminal, a deadman, or a freeman in faraway land.

 

[Maiorem]

Sure it does, tell me though what makes a slave? You probably can't say snice you don't explain yourself so I will do it myself by giving an example. Let's say I dominated you by the use of threats and violence etc. and it was legal to do so, you then will do as I see fit thus becoming a slave. ok are with me let's say at some point you were sick of this life and planned to kill me at the first opportunity or to just escaped somehow. ones you act upon this thought you are no longer a slave you might be ether a criminal, a deadman, or a freeman in faraway land.

Are you retarded?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery

 

[Oniisdonefor]

Are you retarded?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery

Have you read your link? "Jean-Jacques Rousseau contends that in a contract of self-enslavement, there is no mutuality. The slave loses all. The contract negates his interests and his rights. It is entirely to his disadvantage. Since the slave loses his status as a moral agent once the slave contract is enforced, the slave cannot act to enforce anything owed to him by his master".
'Enslavement' is the placement of a person into slavery, and the person is called a slave or an enslaved person, however my point wasn't about Enslavement, I said what makes a slave that is what is a slave rather than how one become a slave.
Ok choosing to be a slave wilingly dosen't change what a slave is, debendeing on the time and place things might differ but generaly a salve is someone without a "Moral agency".

My point is once a man becomes a slave anyhow, he loses his will because all his actions are those which are allowed by his owner or the state, he who can't act on his will cannot have a Moral agency, if he then rebels or is freed, he will regain his Moral agency. not so hard, is it?

On other note you are calling me a retard while missing my point and linking something that aligns with it is very funny.

 

[Maiorem]

Have you read your link? "Jean-Jacques Rousseau contends that in a contract of self-enslavement, there is no mutuality. The slave loses all. The contract negates his interests and his rights. It is entirely to his disadvantage. Since the slave loses his status as a moral agent once the slave contract is enforced, the slave cannot act to enforce anything owed to him by his master".
'Enslavement' is the placement of a person into slavery, and the person is called a slave or an enslaved person, however my point wasn't about Enslavement, I said what makes a slave that is what is a slave rather than how one become a slave.
Ok choosing to be a slave wilingly dosen't change what a slave is, debendeing on the time and place things might differ but generaly a salve is someone without a "Moral agency".

My point is once a man becomes a slave anyhow, he loses his will because all his actions are those which are allowed by his owner or the state, he who can't act on his will cannot have a Moral agency, if he then rebels or is freed, he will regain his Moral agency. not so hard, is it?

On other note you are calling me a retard while missing my point and linking something that aligns with it is very funny.

You're quoting what has been explicitly stated as the contentions of an 18th-century French philosopher. Like, you even completely ignored the last line there:
'Gerard Casey argues that voluntary slavery is possible if the concept of self-ownership is interpreted positively.'

 

[Oniisdonefor]

You're quoting what has been explicitly stated as the contentions of an 18th-century French philosopher

So, you've read what I quoted and yet didn't address it at all,funny.

you even completely ignored the last line there:
'Gerard Casey argues that voluntary slavery is possible if the concept of self-ownership is interpreted positively.'

You've once again missed my point or completely ignored it, whatever this Gerard Casey may say it's clearly beside the point nor did I deny it was possible since it doesn't affect my argument at all.

 

[Maiorem]

So, you've read what I quoted and yet didn't address it at all,funny.

Because there is no need to address the opinions of some outdated philosopher.

You've once again missed my point or completely ignored it, whatever this Gerard Casey may say it's clearly beside the point nor did I deny it was possible since it doesn't affect my argument at all.

I see that the concept of self-ownership is a bit too difficult for your feeble mind to comprehend.

 

[Oniisdonefor]

Because there is no need to address the opinions of some outdated philosopher.

You say outdated as if that somehow destroy his argument yet, you didn't even point what was outdated you just ignore it. I imagine you would rather take some Nobody's' word just because he is the 'latest' whatever that means.

I see that the concept of self-ownership is a bit too difficult for your feeble mind to comprehend.

Let's see "Self-ownership is the concept of property in one's own body, often expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity meaning the exclusive right to control one's own body including one's life." This supposed to dissprove my argment somehow? yes, a slave has control over his body and so do all other animals' dose this somehow gives them moral agency, he can have all the Self-ownership he wants as long as he fellow the will of another he is incapable of making moral choices.
You called me feebel minded and retarded yet you failed to prodoce an argument of your own, projecting much.

 

[Maiorem]

You say outdated as if that somehow destroy his argument yet, you didn't even point what was outdated you just ignore it. I imagine you would rather take some Nobody's' word just because he is the 'latest' whatever that means.

Gerard Casey is Professor Emeritus at University College Dublin in the field of contemporary philosophy. Just because you don't know him doesn't make him a nobody.

Let's see "Self-ownership is the concept of property in one's own body, often expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity meaning the exclusive right to control one's own body including one's life." This supposed to dissprove my argment somehow? yes, a slave has control over his body and so do all other animals' dose this somehow gives them moral agency, he can have all the Self-ownership he wants as long as he fellow the will of another he is incapable of making moral choices.
You called me feebel minded and retarded yet you failed to prodoce an argument of your own, projecting much.

If you would keep reading along the Wikipedia article you pulled this from, you would also find this:

Another view holds that labor is alienable because it can be contracted out, thus alienating it from the self. In this view, the choice of a person to voluntarily sell oneself into slavery is also preserved by the principle of self-ownership.

 

[TestAddress]

That's literally how slavery worked for over 5,000 years before slavery got abolished less than 200 years ago because everyone was horrified at how the Americans were abusing slaves.

You mean Middle East? They sell slaves up to this day, most are collected from Asia and Russia.

 

[Maiorem]

You mean Middle East? They sell slaves up to this day, most are collected from Asia and Russia.

The abolishment of slavery didn't really begin until the transatlantic slave trade because of how badly the slaves were treated by the people involved. The vast majority of slavery in other places and even other times are considerably more humane in comparison.

 

[Oniisdonefor]

Gerard Casey is Professor Emeritus at University College Dublin in the field of contemporary philosophy. Just because you don't know him doesn't make him a nobody.

I noticed your pattern, you seem to ignore anything you can't answer because if you read the two quotes you see no contradiction between them one contends that is bad and the other one say it's possible, I even addressed this irrelevant opinion from this irrelevant person yet, you simply said it's "OUTDATED" without any explanations.

Another view holds that labor is alienable because it can be contracted out, thus alienating it from the self. In this view, the choice of a person to voluntarily sell oneself into slavery is also preserved by the principle of self-ownership.

At this point I'm not sure you even read my post.
So, you maintain that one can sell himself and lose most of his rights while following the will of his Owner in work and any other activity and still be able to make moral choices. I mean if these slaves are free to make any choices are they even called salves?

 

[Maiorem]

I noticed your pattern, you seem to ignore anything you can't answer because if you read the two quotes you see no contradiction between them one contends that is bad and the other one say it's possible,

One opines that "the slave loses all." The other speaks of a positive concept of self-ownership. If you fail to see the contradiction here, your ability to read and reason is clearly deficit.

I even addressed this irrelevant opinion from this irrelevant person yet, you simply said it's "OUTDATED" without any explanations.

Just because something is beyond the limitations of your understanding doesn't make it irrelevant. What I have addressed as being outdated was the 18th-century (FYI, we are living in the 21st century) French philosopher that you quoted previously, so if this person is irrelevant and his opinion is irrelevant, why did you even bring it up in the first place? Or is it that you don't even know what you are talking about?

At this point I'm not sure you even read my post.
So, you maintain that one can sell himself and lose most of his rights while following the will of his Owner in work and any other activity and still be able to make moral choices. I mean if these slaves are free to make any choices are they even called salves?

I am absolutely sure you don't even understand what has been said thus far by anybody, including your own words. Slaves are called slaves because the legal ownership of that person belongs to another, and this has no bearing on their ability to make choices just as it is your prerogative to continue making a fool out of yourself.

 

[Oniisdonefor]

One opines that "the slave loses all." The other speaks of a positive concept of self-ownership. If you fail to see the contradiction here, your ability to read and reason is clearly deficit.

You played yourself, since one maintains that the outcome would be worse for the slave, while the other simply say it could happen (voluntary slavery) with positive thoughts (self-ownership) without mentioning the end result.

Just because something is beyond the limitations of your understanding doesn't make it irrelevant. What I have addressed as being outdated was the 18th-century (FYI, we are living in the 21st century) French philosopher that you quoted previously, so if this person is irrelevant and his opinion is irrelevant, why did you even bring it up in the first place? Or is it that you don't even know what you are talking about?

Look here, someone clearly can't read and reason.

I am absolutely sure you don't even understand what has been said thus far by anybody, including your own words. Slaves are called slaves
because the legal ownership of that person belongs to another, and this has no bearing on their ability to make choices just as it is your prerogative to continue making a fool out of yourself.

A Slave is:

a person who is forced to work for and obey another and is considered to be their property.

a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something.

A person who has the (legal) status of being the property of another, has no personal freedom or rights, and is used as forced labour or as an unpaid servant.

a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.

even though it mghit depend on the time and place genrally, slaves have their rights either severely limited or nonexistent and thus having no freedom to live their lives as they choose, which also makse them unable to make moral choices.
All this confirms the notion that a slave cannot be A moral agent as long as he remians a salve.
And keep up with insults it makse you very intelligent.

 

[Maiorem]

You played yourself, since one maintains that the outcome would be worse for the slave, while the other simply say it could happen (voluntary slavery) with positive thoughts (self-ownership) without mentioning the end result.

LMAO who said anything about positive thoughts, Peter Pan? One thinks a voluntary slave "loses all" while the other explains that, under a positive concept (please don't conflate concept with thought), self-ownership means that a voluntary slave does not, in fact, "lose all" as some might think.

Look here, someone clearly can't read and reason.

Yeah, buddy, that's you.

A Slave is:

Why did you even bother bringing up those definitions when none of them justifies any of your assertions?

even though it mghit depend on the time and place genrally, slaves have their rights either severely limited or nonexistent and thus having no freedom to live their lives as they choose, which also makse them unable to make moral choices.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "voluntary", which means your reading level is below proficient and not at university level.

All this confirms the notion that a slave cannot be A moral agent as long as he remians a salve.
And keep up with insults it makse you very intelligent.

Every person who has sufficient intelligence is a moral agent regardless of their position in life. It makes sense that someone like you cannot be a moral agent.
https://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~schopra/Persons/Cushing.pdf

However, if capacities such as moral autonomy are necessary conditions for personhood, then terrestrial humanism has not been defended; rather, it has been refuted. This is so because terrestrial humanism claims that all humans are persons, but clearly there are many humans who lack most or all of the features just mentioned. The most clear-cut examples are severely retarded humans and very young children. Thus secondary speciesism, if used to justify granting personhood to all humans and no nonhumans, rests on a false generalization: It is not the case that the capacity of moral agency is a necessary feature of all humans. Once we acknowledge this fact, where does it leave us?

 

[Oniisdonefor]

under a positive concept

For whom? The owner or the slave? It clearly insinuates that a person may sell himself with a positive concept of self-ownership i.e. positive thoughts

once the slave contract is enforced, the slave cannot act to enforce anything owed to him by his master

how can he enforce anything with a positive concept. It's not magic.

Why did you even bother bringing up those definitions when none of them justifies any of your assertions?
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "voluntary", which means you reading level is below proficient and not at university level.

The only difference between a voluntary slave and normal slave is the enslavement method as I mentioned before, their slave states is still under the same definitions I mentioned above. can you read my son?

Historically, there are many different types of slavery including chattel, bonded, forced labor and sexual slavery. The key characteristics of slavery are ones generally agreed such as the loss of freedom of movement and legal rights.

Every person who has sufficient intelligence is a moral agent regardless of their position in life. It makes sense that someone like you cannot be a moral agent.

Thats the same as saying that a person's position in life, work and circumstances has no bearing on his intelligence. you, being this retarded is not the fault of your genes only.

However, if capacities such as moral autonomy are necessary conditions for personhood, then terrestrial humanism has not been defended; rather, it has been refuted. This is so because terrestrial humanism claims that all humans are persons, but clearly there are many humans who lack most or all of the features just mentioned. The most clear-cut examples are severely retarded humans and very young children. Thus secondary speciesism, if used to justify granting personhood to all humans and no nonhumans, rests on a false generalization: It is not the case that the capacity of moral agency is a necessary feature of all humans. Once we acknowledge this fact, where does it leave us?

agree, after all a slave's life is that of hardship and misery, it diminishes not only his intelligence but his life force also.

 

[Maiorem]

For whom? The owner or the slave?

That's like asking whether the law is for the government or the people. That's incredibly dumb.

It clearly insinuates that a person may sell himself with a positive concept of self-ownership i.e. positive thoughts

Didn't I already tell you not to conflate concept with thought? The positive concept of self-ownership is not about how one thinks about oneself.

how can he enforce anything with a positive concept. It's not magic.

I want you to try to explain to me what you think "the slave cannot act to enforce anything owed to him by his master" means and how this is somehow relevant to the discussion at hand.

The only difference between a voluntary slave and normal slave is the enslavement method as I mentioned before, their slave states is still under the same definitions I mentioned above. can you read my son?

I can read, but what I have read from you is just so stupid that there is nothing at all to be gained from reading and understanding what you wrote. Again, do you even know what "voluntary" means?

Thats the same as saying that a person's position in life, work and circumstances has no bearing on his intelligence. you, being this retarded is not the fault of your genes only.

A person's circumstances do have bearing on one's intelligence, but you have the relationship between one's intelligence and one's position in life and work backwards. Furthermore, you are unable to argue against the fact that anyone with sufficient intelligence is a moral agent, unless you want to make the very bigoted argument that people become retarded when they are made into slaves.

agree, after all a slave's life is that of hardship and misery, it diminishes not only his intelligence but his life force also.

Your intelligence is clearly diminished, yet you are clearly not a slave.

 

[Oniisdonefor]

That's like asking whether the law is for the government or the people. That's incredibly dumb.

Didn't I already tell you not to conflate concept with thought? The positive concept of self-ownership is not about how one thinks about oneself.

I want you to try to explain to me what you think "the slave cannot act to enforce anything owed to him by his master" means and how this is
somehow relevant to the discussion at hand.

I can read, but what I have read from you is just so stupid that there is nothing at all to be gained from reading and understanding what you wrote. Again, do you even know what "voluntary" means?

you are talking about imaginary situation while I'm writing about realistic situation. let's assume that a person chooses to sell himself because of debt or other reasons and that it was totally voluntary. his salve legal status now is the same as other forced(normal)slaves, and this status is depended on the context (time and place). Historically, it is generally accepted that this class of people have little to no rights and are of miserable living conditions compared to other classes. But let's ignore all that of the sake of argument and say that there some sort of rights given to the slave by the owner or government, since he has no power of his own, he cannot enforce these rights, so it remains for the government to enforce them, and yet again the slave dose not partake in any way in the government. so, in this imaginary scenario, the government has no benefit reason to write such rights to the slaves let alone enforce them since the sole significance of slaves is manual labor which is attainable without any need for rights.
if we go back to realty the whole concept of voluntary slavery falls apart in view of history, for what reason can someone go into slavery willingly?

A person's circumstances do have bearing on one's intelligence, but you have the relationship between one's intelligence and one's position in life and work backwards.

No, it's all interconnected, work and occupation, food and environment, social position and circumstance, etc. All of these have a constant effect on health and intelligence.

you are unable to argue against the fact that anyone with sufficient intelligence is a moral agent, unless you want to make the very bigoted argument that people become retarded when they are made into slaves.

Why argue when I agree with the fact that you need sufficient intelligence to be a moral agent? However, you also need to form self-interested judgments, this the slave lacks if he didn't already lack the needed intelligence (which he do)

Your intelligence is clearly diminished, yet you are clearly not a slave.

your ability to insult is as bad as your ability to form an argument.

 

[Maiorem]

you are talking about imaginary situation while I'm writing about realistic situation.

What imaginary situation? Are you somehow confused by the words "in theory" at the beginning of the article into thinking that this wasn't a real situation?

let's assume that a person chooses to sell himself because of debt or other reasons and that it was totally voluntary.

Guess what the definition of "voluntary" is?

his salve legal status now is the same as other forced(normal)slaves, and this status is depended on the context (time and place).

So you talk about legal status being dependent on time and place, yet at the same time you assert that the legal status of a voluntary slave is the same as other forced slaves? What is wrong with you?

Historically, it is generally accepted that this class of people have little to no rights and are of miserable living conditions compared to other classes.

Generally accepted? When over 90% of the world lived in extreme poverty only about 200 years ago?

But let's ignore all that of the sake of argument and say that there some sort of rights given to the slave by the owner or government, since he has no power of his own, he cannot enforce these rights, so it remains for the government to enforce them, and yet again the slave dose not partake in any way in the government.

How do you enforce any of your "human rights" without the government?

so, in this imaginary scenario, the government has no benefit reason to write such rights to the slaves let alone enforce them since the sole significance of slaves is manual labor which is attainable without any need for rights.

What benefit is there to the government for giving any citizen rights, regardless if they are slaves? This kind of argument is retarded as it assumes that all governments would only create rights that are beneficial to themselves, ignoring the fact that dictatorships existed where virtually all citizens become slaves to the government.

if we go back to realty the whole concept of voluntary slavery falls apart in view of history, for what reason can someone go into slavery willingly?

You are clearly speaking from a position of privilege where you don't have to literally struggle for survival and where resources are scarce or very difficult to come by.

No, it's all interconnected, work and occupation, food and environment, social position and circumstance, etc. All of these have a constant effect on health and intelligence.

It your conditions are clearly having a negative effect on your intelligence if you were not already born retarded.

Why argue when I agree with the fact that you need sufficient intelligence to be a moral agent? However, you also need to form self-interested judgments, this the slave lacks if he didn't already lack the needed intelligence (which he do)

Because you argued that slavery makes one lose moral agency. Slavery does not diminish one's intelligence or one's capability of forming any form of judgement.

your ability to insult is as bad as your ability to form an argument.

Your inability to understand the words I said has absolutely no bearing at all on my ability to insult and to argue.

 

[Oniisdonefor]

What imaginary situation? Are you somehow confused by the words "in theory" at the beginning of the article into thinking that this wasn't a real situation?

Yet, my point wasn't based on theory but history. guess who first mention this theory as a proof against my argument.

So you talk about legal status being dependent on time and place, yet at the same time you assert that the legal status of a voluntary slave is the same as other forced slaves? What is wrong with you?

His legal status is the same of that of other slaves which is dependent on time and place for its definition. Was that hard to understand?

Generally accepted? When over 90% of the world lived in extreme poverty only about 200 years ago?

I said compered to other classes, read harder next time. And WTF is that link.

How do you enforce any of your "human rights" without the government?

the government can enforce these rights because it has the power to do so, it follows anyone who has enough power can enforce some of his rights. the slave doesn't have any power so he can't enforce anything given to him which was my point that went over your head.

What benefit is there to the government for giving any citizen rights, regardless if they are slaves? This kind of argument is retarded as it assumes that all governments would only create rights that are beneficial to themselves, ignoring the fact that dictatorships existed where virtually all citizens become slaves to the government.

the government and the people are not different entity. since the first is formed by the second and the latter partake in the first. The first cannot sustain itself without the second and the opposite is true.
so, you are asking what would the people who partake in the government
benefit from giving rights to themselves? tough question.
all of this is unrelated since it was an imaginary scenario that was made to prove the inability of any slave voluntary or not to enforce his rights if given any.

You are clearly speaking from a position of privilege where you don't have to literally struggle for survival and where resources are scarce or very difficult to come by.

and you clearly did not answer the question.

It your conditions are clearly having a negative effect on your intelligence if you were not already born retarded.

huh???what?
I guess you agree but that's a weird way to say 'I'm sorry and you are correct'.

Because you argued that slavery makes one lose moral agency. Slavery does not diminish one's intelligence or one's capability of forming any form of judgement.

Ok one more time, if the slave can act for his own benefit and is free to do as he wishes he can then be a moral agent, but since the slave by definition cannot do this, he is therefore not a moral agent.
and again, being a slave dose diminish a person intelligence and well-being since it's a miserable life, you either say no it doesn't or say being miserable in life doesn't affect your intelligence, now which one is it?

Your inability to understand the words I said has absolutely no bearing at all on my ability to insult and to argue.

see, point proven.