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

[Maiorem]

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

Your point was based on complete ignorance of history.

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?

Not all slaves have the same legal status even when during the same time and place, because different types of slaves existed based on different circumstances. According to the Code of Hammurabi, debt slaves only worked for three years, as opposed to other slaves, and even with regards to debt slaves, they have different legal status depending on their relationship to the person who sold them. Of course, this is all too complicated for your simple brain to comprehend.

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

Hey moron, when the vast majority of the people were living in extreme poverty, how many classes do you think there were that would be considered better than those who sold themselves into slavery to the upper class in order to live a life that is significantly better due to having access to better food, clothing, and shelter? I know what I read. How are you this ignorant about Forbes?

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.

LMAO what power do you even think you actually have? You're not some main character with any sort of power that you can imagine. You can't even answer my question: How do you enforce any of your "human rights" without 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.

Are you seriously this retarded to think that all governments are democracies? Not all governments are formed by the people, and not every citizen partakes in the government. While it is true that the government cannot sustain itself without citizens from whom they derive their income via taxation, the opposite is not true at all as humans have existed for the vast majority of human history without any form of systematic government. Furthermore, this hypothetical is logically useless because you are simply arguing from personal incredulity, where just because you are incapable of understanding why governments do not always create laws that are directly beneficial to those in power, it means they would never create any laws that do not benefit them directly.

and you clearly did not answer the question.

You have no idea that I have actually answered your question already. When I spoke of 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, that should already tell you that the reason why anyone would want to voluntarily sell themselves into slavery is to have a better chance at survival or to have access to better resources because these things would have been provided to them by their master. When somebody is in extreme poverty, and resources are scarce, they have an opportunity to have a better life as a slave to a rich man than having to starve to death out in the streets.

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

Ah, I left out the words 'is obvious' in my previous reply. Here's the sentence again in full:

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

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.

That is begging the question. A person is a moral agent as long as they have sufficient intelligence. That is literally the only criterion. It literally does not matter if he is under the law or something else that restricts his options. That's like saying that people who are bound by the law i.e. the citizens cannot be moral agents because they are not allowed to go against the rules imposed upon them by the state.

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?

Has it really never occurred to you that slaves can actually have a significantly better life than someone who is labouring away at other jobs? Or is your idea of slavery just people in a comically perpetual state of being half-dressed and in chains and being forced to do hard labour? And no, being miserable in life doesn't affect one's intelligence. Don't be stupid. You can't blame your miserable environment for how stupid you are either.

see, point proven.

Indeed.

 

[djbubbles]

But slavery is not inherently bad or evil, Absolute and unchecked power is.

the fact you posted this sentence unironically (let alone that you then followed it up with an incoherent essay) revokes your right to have an opinion on the internet. never share your thoughts with anyone again.

 

[Oniisdonefor]

Not all slaves have the same legal status even when during the same time and place, because different types of slaves existed based on different circumstances. According to the Code of Hammurabi, debt slaves only worked for three years, as opposed to other slaves, and even with regards to debt slaves, they have different legal status depending on their relationship to the person who sold them. Of course, this is all too complicated for your simple brain to comprehend.

you don't understand what legal states means. being a debt slave is not different from other slaves in terms of both lost much of their freedom, it is of no importance for my point for how long

Hey moron, when the vast majority of the people were living in extreme poverty, how many classes do you think there were that would be considered better than those who sold themselves into slavery to the upper class in order to live a life that is significantly better due to having access to better food, clothing, and shelter? I know what I read. How are you this ignorant about Forbes?

Well, the freeman class ware better of generally than the enslaved class in terms of living condition

LMAO what power do you even think you actually have? You're not some main character with any sort of power that you can imagine. You can't even answer my question: How do you enforce any of your "human rights" without the government?

I wasn't talking about me, and I did answer the question. You enforce rights (not human rights but rather just your rights) thorough power and power here is not limited to physical strength, it could be wealth, or relations etc.

Are you seriously this retarded to think that all governments are democracies? Not all governments are formed by the people, and not every citizen partakes in the government. While it is true that the government cannot sustain itself without citizens from whom they derive their income via taxation, the opposite is not true at all as humans have existed for the vast majority of human history without any form of systematic government. Furthermore, this hypothetical is logically useless because you are simply arguing from personal incredulity, where just because you are incapable of understanding why governments do not always create laws that are directly beneficial to those in power, it means they would never create any laws that do not benefit them directly.

huh? Who said anything about democracies?
what are you on about. ever since humans settled in cities, they formed some sort of government (something simple not systematic) to manage their affairs.
you mention this

income via taxation

and yet fail to understand that if it gives rights to those who partake in the government or those who do not it is all for a reason which is for benefit of the government itself and if it was a good one (not morally good but just good) for the benefit of its people because one helps the other to grow.

When somebody is in extreme poverty, and resources are scarce, they have an opportunity to have a better life as a slave to a rich man than having to starve to death out in the streets.

and if there is no other way to end his poverty. he then would rather be a slave than die. how is his so different from forced slaves who are given the chose of death or enslavement? are they too voluntary?

Ah, I left out the words 'is obvious' in my previous reply. Here's the sentence again in full:

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

Nah, it's still a weird way of saying "I agree"

That is begging the question. A person is a moral agent as long as they have sufficient intelligence. That is literally the only criterion. It literally does not matter if he is under the law or something else that restricts his options. That's like saying that people who are bound by the law i.e. the citizens cannot be moral agents because they are not allowed to go against the rules imposed upon them by the state.

A slave cannot form self-interested judgments and because he is bonded by others, he needs a permission to act for his own interest, a freeman on the other hand can form self-interested judgments and act upon them without the permission of anyone. so, unless he breaks free, he cannot be a moral agent. It's about freedom of the individual.

Has it really never occurred to you that slaves can actually have a significantly better life than someone who is labouring away at other jobs? Or is your idea of slavery just people in a comically perpetual state of being half-dressed and in chains and being forced to do hard labour? And no, being miserable in life doesn't affect one's intelligence. Don't be stupid. You can't blame your miserable environment for how stupid you are either.

you are delusional if you think that the lowest class generally has it better than any other class in the same country. on the other hand, saying living a hard life has no effect on well-being and in turn intelligence is.... foolish.
I asked you to take one position and you took both by saying a slave's life isn't miserable and being miserable doesn't affect one's intelligence. see you are really bad at making arguments; you made a fool of yourself by dismissing both points because if the first was true there wouldn't be need for the second.

 

[Maiorem]

you don't understand what legal states means. being a debt slave is not different from other slaves in terms of both lost much of their freedom, it is of no importance for my point for how long

I was only using duration as a point. During the sultanate of Sulu in the 19th century, several types of slaves existed, and while one was temporary enslavement due to debt or crime, the other had no rights at all. The former also retained rights such as not being allowed to be harmed for no justifiable reason and not being allowed to be sold. Some of the slaves also received education, and those who were skilled were treated well, especially since many among the aristocratic classes in Sulu couldn't actually read or write, so they relied on their slaves to act as scribes and interpret things for them. Some of the slaves were also given their own homes and they lived in communities with other slaves of similar backgrounds.

Well, the freeman class ware better of generally than the enslaved class in terms of living condition

What are you actually basing this on? Being a freeman does not mean you are self-sufficient, it just means you're not in slavery. Not everyone who was a freeman was an aristocrat. A beggar on the street with no property whatsoever is also a freeman. How is that better off than someone who is a slave for an aristocrat who provides food, shelter, and clothing for them?

I wasn't talking about me, and I did answer the question. You enforce rights (not human rights but rather just your rights) thorough power and power here is not limited to physical strength, it could be wealth, or relations etc.

But the question I asked was about you, so if you're not talking about yourself, you didn't answer the question. You, as an individual, have neither strength nor wealth nor relations to enforce anything meaningful. You can't enforce rights of any kind, let alone human rights.

huh? Who said anything about democracies?
what are you on about. ever since humans settled in cities, they formed some sort of government (something simple not systematic) to manage their affairs.

The earliest city that we have discovered so far, Çatalhöyük, dates to about 7,500 BC at the earliest. Modern humans emerged around 300,000 years ago. Behavioural modernity has been dated to around 160,000 years ago. As I've said previously, humans have existed for the vast majority of human history without any form of systematic government. The only forms of government which are formed by the people of that particular city are democracies. That's not even how it worked most of the time. The government is simply usually whoever decides to be in charge and has the power to be in charge. This includes conquering other cities and colonising other countries. So the idea that "the government and the people are not different entity. since the first is formed by the second and the latter partake in the first" is pure ignorance.

you mention this

and yet fail to understand that if it gives rights to those who partake in the government or those who do not it is all for a reason which is for benefit of the government itself and if it was a good one (not morally good but just good) for the benefit of its people because one helps the other to grow.

IF. But it does not. Taxation does not give the government any rights. Where do you even get such a silly idea from?

and if there is no other way to end his poverty. he then would rather be a slave than die. how is his so different from forced slaves who are given the chose of death or enslavement? are they too voluntary?

The difference is that no one is threatening to murder them for refusing slavery. Otherwise you could argue that all of humanity is born to be slaves since we are all forced to work to earn food, shelter, and clothing unless we were born into a rich family that is willing to provide for all our needs without us having to do anything.

Nah, it's still a weird way of saying "I agree"

Given that you are clearly inept at understanding language, it is no surprise that you would think this way to support your delusions.

A slave cannot form self-interested judgments and because he is bonded by others, he needs a permission to act for his own interest, a freeman on the other hand can form self-interested judgments and act upon them without the permission of anyone. so, unless he breaks free, he cannot be a moral agent. It's about freedom of the individual.

A slave can form self-interested judgements. In fact, voluntary slavery is a result of self-interested judgements. Being a moral agent is not contingent upon having permission. Do prisoners stop being moral agents because they are no longer free? That's a dumb argument.

you are delusional if you think that the lowest class generally has it better than any other class in the same country.

No one is arguing that the lowest class has it better than any other class. It is obviously preferable to one who is free but in abject poverty starving to death. Are you so stupid as to think that slavery automatically means being treated lower than dirt and being free automatically means having food, shelter, and clothing?

on the other hand, saying living a hard life has no effect on well-being and in turn intelligence is.... foolish.

Where did I even say that living a hard life has no effect on one's well-being? Your assumption that slavery = living the hardest life possible is already stupid enough, but thinking that hardship is capable of diminishing one's intelligence to the point where they are unable to be considered moral agents can only be uttered by someone who cannot be considered intelligent enough to be a moral agent.

I asked you to take one position and you took both by saying a slave's life isn't miserable and being miserable doesn't affect one's intelligence.

This isn't like the false dichotomy in your head. A slave's life is not automatically miserable, and being miserable does not turn someone into a retard like you.

see you are really bad at making arguments; you made a fool of yourself by dismissing both points because if the first was true there wouldn't be need for the second.

Both aren't even true to begin with, so how am I bad at making arguments by showing both your points to be very poorly thought-out?

 

[Goldenzeal]

the fact you posted this sentence unironically (let alone that you then followed it up with an incoherent essay) revokes your right to have an opinion on the internet. never share your thoughts with anyone again.

Sorry, but you don't have the right or ability enforce that.
So i am going to keep doing both.
Cry me a river why don't you ?

I might not have put hours off effort into writing it neatly like a school project.
But we both know that is not the real gripe you have with it.
But by all means, do tell me how wrong i am.

 

[Seraphus]

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.

Spain had slaves until 1897, so... no.

I'm not sure why this is glossed over in school, but the main perpetrators of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade were Spain and Portugal, who shipped over 90 million slaves to South America and the Caribbean.

The USA, by comparison, had 5 million people sold and used as slaves, and then fought an actual war over the moral right of all humans to be free.

Slavery is BAD.

The USA had the least slaves out of any nation, and only had slavery from 1783 (when the war of independence ended) to June 19th 1866 (last slaves freed in Texas).
That's 83 years; one single lifetime.

Spain, though?
Slavery started there in prehistory, and I was ALIVE at the same time as their slaves.

Get educated, yo.

 

[Maiorem]

Spain had slaves until 1897, so... no.

I'm not sure why this is glossed over in school, but the main perpetrators of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade were Spain and Portugal, who shipped over 90 million slaves to South America and the Caribbean.

The USA, by comparison, had 5 million people sold and used as slaves, and then fought an actual war over the moral right of all humans to be free.

Slavery is BAD.

The USA had the least slaves out of any nation, and only had slavery from 1783 (when the war of independence ended) to June 19th 1866 (last slaves freed in Texas).
That's 83 years; one single lifetime.

Spain, though?
Slavery started there in prehistory, and I was ALIVE at the same time as their slaves.

Get educated, yo.

You might want to try learning how to read. Maybe a bit of maths too. First of all, I said that slavery was abolished less than 200 years ago. 1897 was 127 years ago. 127 < 200.

Secondly, the reason why slavery in America was so short-lived was because of the exceptional cruelty of slavery in America. It's not about how many slaves were there, but how badly the slaves there were treated. So bringing up 90 million versus 5 million is meaningless.

How about you try to define slavery before you can even say whether slavery is good or bad?

Again, it's not about the number of years that slavery existed in any given place, but rather, how slavery was carried out in those places.

Leaving aside the fact that there was no country called "Spain" prior to the establishment of the Spanish Empire in 1492, the idea that slavery in Spain started in prehistory is also completely wrong as slavery in the region can be traced to the Phoenician and Roman eras. Also, for you to say that you were alive at the same time as their slaves would make you at least 127 years old today, but what you probably meant is that you were alive at the same time as someone who was a slave, which is just meaningless anyway as slavery still exists to this day, just not on the same scale as before.

The irony of the likes of you telling me to get educated is that you need to first educate yourself before you think you can educate others.

 

[Seraphus]

You might want to try learning how to read. Maybe a bit of maths too. First of all, I said that slavery was abolished less than 200 years ago. 1897 was 127 years ago. 127 < 200.

Secondly, the reason why slavery in America was so short-lived was because of the exceptional cruelty of slavery in America. It's not about how many slaves were there, but how badly the slaves there were treated. So bringing up 90 million versus 5 million is meaningless.

How about you try to define slavery before you can even say whether slavery is good or bad?

Again, it's not about the number of years that slavery existed in any given place, but rather, how slavery was carried out in those places.

Leaving aside the fact that there was no country called "Spain" prior to the establishment of the Spanish Empire in 1492, the idea that slavery in Spain started in prehistory is also completely wrong as slavery in the region can be traced to the Phoenician and Roman eras. Also, for you to say that you were alive at the same time as their slaves would make you at least 127 years old today, but what you probably meant is that you were alive at the same time as someone who was a slave, which is just meaningless anyway as slavery still exists to this day, just not on the same scale as before.

The irony of the likes of you telling me to get educated is that you need to first educate yourself before you think you can educate others.

I don't know if I touched a nerve or some shit, but telling somebody with a degree in social geography to read a book sounds dumb as fuck.

Now, you don't know that about me before I said it, but I promise that you're missing a ton of the story, here.

It sounds like you listened in high school, and maybe a college sociology class, and that's great; I am not belittling that.

BUT; (and it's quite a conjunction, this but...) But; you are leaving out the religious justifications, the fact that things were FAR worse in the Spanish Empire, the fact that Filipinos and Native Peoples were included, and leaving out the entire conquest and continued exploitation of the South American continent in your blithe assumption that "America is BAD," and I honestly cannot take you seriously when the scope of your statement is unsupported by both facts and evidence.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, who was kept as a slave during the period just before and after the industrial revolution was treated well.
It was a living hell.
But slaves in North America were treated no worse than the slaves in South America; they were both beaten, raped, tortured, and maimed; there were simply MORE of them elsewhere in the world. It's as if being hung or shot makes a person more or less dead.

To claim that it was because the conditions were so bad, as if the slave-owning, rebel traitor, proto-fascist shitbags in the CSA/Southern States were somehow "more naughty?"
It's ridiculous.

Please take your righteous fury and put it to better use; and if you do "go read," next time don't start with some shit like "400 Page Angry Screed" by Angry Leftist Grad Student.

You're right to be angry that slavery ever existed; you're incorrect to think that the US had a monopoly on cruelty, much less enough impact to change a worldwide institution.
Hell... If that were true, we'd celebrate Toussaint L'Ouverture (or Toussaint Bréda, or François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture) across the globe far and away more than we do, now.

Maybe stop being pissed at having your preconceptions challenged.

 

[888main]

"I STILL FEEL BAD FOR TURNING THIS CHILD INTO A SLAVE BUT IT'S WHATS BEST FOR HER"

Bro I'm finally done with the sunk cost fallacy get this shit out of here

 

[Maiorem]

I don't know if I touched a nerve or some shit, but telling somebody with a degree in social geography to read a book sounds dumb as fuck.

Now, you don't know that about me before I said it, but I promise that you're missing a ton of the story, here.

It sounds like you listened in high school, and maybe a college sociology class, and that's great; I am not belittling that.

BUT; (and it's quite a conjunction, this but...) But; you are leaving out the religious justifications, the fact that things were FAR worse in the Spanish Empire, the fact that Filipinos and Native Peoples were included, and leaving out the entire conquest and continued exploitation of the South American continent in your blithe assumption that "America is BAD," and I honestly cannot take you seriously when the scope of your statement is unsupported by both facts and evidence.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, who was kept as a slave during the period just before and after the industrial revolution was treated well.
It was a living hell.
But slaves in North America were treated no worse than the slaves in South America; they were both beaten, raped, tortured, and maimed; there were simply MORE of them elsewhere in the world. It's as if being hung or shot makes a person more or less dead.

To claim that it was because the conditions were so bad, as if the slave-owning, rebel traitor, proto-fascist shitbags in the CSA/Southern States were somehow "more naughty?"
It's ridiculous.

Please take your righteous fury and put it to better use; and if you do "go read," next time don't start with some shit like "400 Page Angry Screed" by Angry Leftist Grad Student.

You're right to be angry that slavery ever existed; you're incorrect to think that the US had a monopoly on cruelty, much less enough impact to change a worldwide institution.
Hell... If that were true, we'd celebrate Toussaint L'Ouverture (or Toussaint Bréda, or François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture) across the globe far and away more than we do, now.

Maybe stop being pissed at having your preconceptions challenged.

Maybe when you stop sounding dumb as fuck I wouldn't have to tell you to read a book, but that's not even what I said, so, obviously, you need to learn how to read. You are making your degree useless. Like, why would it even matter at all if I knew anything at all about you when your presentation of your arguments is complete garbage?

I am leaving out the religious justifications because they are simply irrelevant in this discussion about comparing slavery in America with slavery everywhere else in the world. You are acting as if there was no religious justification going on in American slavery too. Simply claiming that "things were FAR worse in the Spanish Empire" wouldn't cut it. I don't get why you think that the Spanish Empire including Filipinos and native peoples in slavery made them worse than American slavery which discriminated by race. Why are you even talking about conquest of the South American continent when the topic here is about slavery? Can you even focus on the topic at hand?

Why are you now restricting comparisons of slavery to the period just before and after the industrial revolution? Do you not want to concede that humane forms of slavery did exist? But even during the period just before and after the industrial revolution, there are places with better conditions for slaves. After all, it's not like the whole world ever conspired together and decided on all the legalities applicable to slaves and how to enforce them, nor did the whole world come together and decide on the extent of the treatment and mistreatment of slaves. This is also not taking into account the fact that many different types of slavery existed at the same time. Also, who is talking about North America vs South America? I was talking about America vs the rest of the goddamn world.

The rest of the things you are saying appear to not have any relevance at all to anything I've said. Are you sure you even know how to read?

 

[arashikitsu]

Like, he couldn't just have lied that she was his sister or something? They already look alike and It could explain why she doesn't have an id either.

in chapter 69 they have a device to check for blood relation

 

[ExecutiveDirector]

Sora can’t adopt her because he doesn’t have ID papers.

But he can make her a slave without identification papers? That’s dumb.

I was already getting bored with this one but after this Idont think I can continue.

 

[TheProtectorOfPureHeartedGirls]

Now the loli can eat the flying thing...