The idea of having someone who will do whatever you tell them to:
Wouldn't it be nice if there was someone to clean your house, make your food, drive you around, or whatever else you may need them to do without having to pay through your arse for it.
Slaves must do whatever you ask, and all you need to do in return is take care of their basic needs.
Ideally, slaves should be raised from birth in a similar way to pets such that they desire nothing more than their master's happiness and have no desire to rebel.
You think slaves have no desire to rebel? Seriously? Seriously? If all I had ever known in my whole life was subservience and slavery I know I'd damn well want to rebel.
You think a human being can ever be reduced to the level of a mere pet? That idea disgusts me. People have needs beyond that of pets.
Furthermore - and this is a secondary point - I don't believe pets think of themselves as being "owned" by their "masters". They see themselves as part of a pack, and within that pack there is a strong sense hierarchy and obedience, but not of *ownership* per se.
/RANT
EDIT: Look up learned helplessness theory to find out why I believe being "owned", as defined by having no control of your own actions, is always a bad thing. Let me get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
That seems to be more characteristic of adverse stimulus or events. I believe it may be possible if they were brought up in a positive way.
It would work in much the same way as me being willing to to whatever my parents ask of me out of trust and respect for them most likely developed through the way they raised me.
I'm obviously not their slave, yet I'll still fulfil requests willingly. If children can be raised to be obedient, surely the method could be adapted to raise obedient slaves too.
Success would also likely depend on a special schooling system where servant-class learners are trained in the required skills to serve their masters and not encouraged to strive for their own independence.
Essentially, you belong to the class you are born into and your goal in life should be to strive to be the best and most respectable among your own people.
It would obviously never happen because it would not be fair to create such a class division in our now unified society, but assuming this was done long ago, the system may have had a better chance at success with slaves being satisfied being slaves.
------
Like I mentioned in another comment above, this is all just speculation to kill some time and boredom.
I'm only forcing myself to say that because it's a hypothetical scenario and I'm too jaded today to fight someone who's both stubborn and is only debating me because they're bored, not because they're at all interested in the debate. Debating someone who's passionless does not interest me.
If it was an a hypothetical situation I would be much more critical though ;P
No, it wouldn't be "nice". I honestly can't believe I'm reading this. I keep asking myself why anyone would want that because I really can't understand how you can justify slavery. Turns out you can't.
And, yeah, I think I already know the answer to my question. It's beyond vile. Thank God more people have voted no.
If it was legal to own a slave, would you?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
The idea of having someone who will do whatever you tell them to:
Wouldn't it be nice if there was someone to clean your house, make your food, drive you around, or whatever else you may need them to do without having to pay through your arse for it.
Slaves must do whatever you ask, and all you need to do in return is take care of their basic needs.
Ideally, slaves should be raised from birth in a similar way to pets such that they desire nothing more than their master's happiness and have no desire to rebel.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
5
5
-
bananaface
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
RANT
You think slaves have no desire to rebel? Seriously? Seriously? If all I had ever known in my whole life was subservience and slavery I know I'd damn well want to rebel.
You think a human being can ever be reduced to the level of a mere pet? That idea disgusts me. People have needs beyond that of pets.
Furthermore - and this is a secondary point - I don't believe pets think of themselves as being "owned" by their "masters". They see themselves as part of a pack, and within that pack there is a strong sense hierarchy and obedience, but not of *ownership* per se.
/RANT
EDIT: Look up learned helplessness theory to find out why I believe being "owned", as defined by having no control of your own actions, is always a bad thing. Let me get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
--
GuessWho
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
That seems to be more characteristic of adverse stimulus or events. I believe it may be possible if they were brought up in a positive way.
It would work in much the same way as me being willing to to whatever my parents ask of me out of trust and respect for them most likely developed through the way they raised me.
I'm obviously not their slave, yet I'll still fulfil requests willingly. If children can be raised to be obedient, surely the method could be adapted to raise obedient slaves too.
Success would also likely depend on a special schooling system where servant-class learners are trained in the required skills to serve their masters and not encouraged to strive for their own independence.
Essentially, you belong to the class you are born into and your goal in life should be to strive to be the best and most respectable among your own people.
It would obviously never happen because it would not be fair to create such a class division in our now unified society, but assuming this was done long ago, the system may have had a better chance at success with slaves being satisfied being slaves.
------
Like I mentioned in another comment above, this is all just speculation to kill some time and boredom.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I guess we'll just agree to disagree.
--
VioletTrees
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
I really can't wrap my head around "agreeing to disagree" about the fact that slavery is awful.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm only forcing myself to say that because it's a hypothetical scenario and I'm too jaded today to fight someone who's both stubborn and is only debating me because they're bored, not because they're at all interested in the debate. Debating someone who's passionless does not interest me.
If it was an a hypothetical situation I would be much more critical though ;P
--
VioletTrees
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Maybe they're playing devil's advocate, but I think this is one of those topics where playing devil's advocate isn't really ok.
No, it wouldn't be "nice". I honestly can't believe I'm reading this. I keep asking myself why anyone would want that because I really can't understand how you can justify slavery. Turns out you can't.
And, yeah, I think I already know the answer to my question. It's beyond vile. Thank God more people have voted no.
"Ideally"? These are your ideals? Seriously?