I remember that time you said something else almost that bad and then Clunk and I started arguing about it before Clunk was like, paraphrased, "Oh shit my bad. I read that wrong in a hurry. He totally DID say that shit. What the fuck."
It was such a weird moment of solidarity because Clunk and I never agree about shit. You know you said some fucked up shit when both of us are looking at it like that.
I don't think it's the fact that these people think these things that surprises me anymore. We all know how they think.
It's just that they usually jump through hoops to twist things and beat around the bush when it comes to directly owning some of it so it's still a little surprising in those rarer moments when they drop something basically like, "I am both sexist and homophobic. I hope this clears things up" with zero fucks given.
By the way, an actual one from a certain someone on here the other day: "Consent is way overrated."
I think you should read it as if he added the word "considered". Slavery was considered okay, so it is foolish to call the people at the time immoral for their slavery, since they did not know it was not acceptable.
On an unrelated note, I dislike your usage of curses in your paraphrase. I do not curse and never will. It was more like, "I just realized that I misread it and will not continue making my argument."
I don't think the Bible folk were "considering" _anything_ only just over 200 years ago when the industrial revolution _finally_ made slavery unacceptable, you know, only because we have really easy alternatives. Otherwise... ehhhh... kinda need slavery because it's going to be such a drag trying to get big shit done without it.
No. That's a LloydAsher perspective right there. And fuck slavery.
And perspective doesn't matter anyway. Imagine I'm talking about child killer Gacy:
"I think you've really gotta look at it in the right context. Gacy was REALLY tryna torture and rape those kids dressed as a clown. He was BIG horny. In Gacy's basement, killing those kids was okay."
See how it doesn't help?
As for the cursing, relax. That was part of the joke. Everyone knows you think you would spontaneously combust if you cursed like that.
Never got the whole cursing thing. Feces. Fine to say. Shit. Cursing. Means the exact same thing. How did we decide to demonize one set of weird noises we make with our mouths versus another set? It's actually something so weird that science has actually looked into it. We just take it for granted and never give much thought to how completely absurd it is that we do this.
*Comes back from future to edit comment*
Yeah he just confirmed that it in fact was okay. Not considered okay. It was okay.
We Catholics have this concept in sin that I'll call "required knowledge". If you do not know that what you're doing is evil, it is not considered a sin until you learn that it is evil. Gacy knew that what he was doing was evil (I assume), while the people practicing slavery did not know that what they were doing was evil, assuming that it is evil. So, at the time, in a way, it less not okay, since they did not know that it is not okay.
It all has to do with what amount of the truth a certain person has been suggested of at any given time. Assuming that the truth is that slavery is immoral, and that many people back then never even had it suggested to them that slavery is immoral, then their acts were less immoral. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make their actions any less evil, but it makes their intentions less evil, making the act of them holding slaves less evil (an act is made up of action and intention). It would bring a sin (intentional rejection of truth) down to a fault (unintentional rejection of truth).
About the cursing, I personally just far prefer using more formal words to pointlessly informal words like curses.
Well we atheists have a concept in morality. I'll call it, "Something is terribly wrong with you if you can't intuitively _feel_ what is right and wrong."
The world is fallen; Satan clouds people's senses of morality, attempting to turn them against the good truth of God, and towards evil things of this world, of which slavery could be considered one. The non-Christians are the ones who cannot feel the true good, as they have been tempted so much by Satan that they reject the truth of God, which is what is good. You say that you would be able to tell that slavery was evil those hundreds of years ago, but I seriously doubt that you would.
I find it highly disturbing that you feel that way. Wouldn't _you_ be able to tell? If not, that's probably a big part of why having something else inform you is so appealing to you.
I sincerely doubt anyone besides full-on sociopaths didn't know what they were doing was shitty _unless_ they felt the slaves somehow _deserved_ it. Even in that scenario they're aware a negative thing is being inflicted upon them.
Yeah WAS ok. Every damn civilization on the planet that was somewhat successful (until fairly recently) used slavery. Hell it seems to be apart of our nature like war.
Yeah slavery is bad now since we have the ability to mass produce things with less labor as well as owning someone being fucked up. Its inhuman but also obsolete production wise.
What the hell were kings and chiefs supposed to do with prisoners of war? Just let them go? They could regroup and rebel. Killing most of them was a common solution. Slavery was like a 3rd choice. Given the circumstances of life back then with an average life expectancy of 40. Doing manual stuff is hard, without machines it was even more intensive. The only power people could readily control was animal and human power and cows dont have hands.
That being said modern day slavery is completely abhorrent and we should kill the traffickers.
Conclusion: fucked up but necessary for progression and expansion, later on it was to secure better production prices thus profit, then it became obsolete.
Just out of curiosity. Would you say that every luxury you own was not a result of modern day slavery/child labour? If not, how does your view on this co-exist with your position here?
Ok you are a Pharoah and you need to move ten ton stone slabs 50 miles through the desert with practically zero tools. How the hell are you going to do it?
I don't know if you've worded this correctly but I'm curious.
Do you believe that because people were such a greater resource in history that it justified their enslavement to meet the means of production for the sake of progress.
--Or--
Are you saying that due to the circumstance of history it was "ok" in the minds of the people at such times but would not be ok today by your own moral standard to sacrifice freedom for progress even if we were majorly set back and couldn't rely on what you believe made slavery obsolete?
Look, I know I'm not Lloyd and obviously he's free to repeat himself a third or fourth time, but he did already answer this. Clunk tried to bail him out as well but he doubled down instead of reaching for a hand out of the water. I wouldn't say he's backed in a corner because he's perfectly fine with owning this.
He's not in a corner saying the white wall isn't white; he's saying it's white, and in this particular case the white wall is him saying slavery was okay in the past, not just _considered_ okay, but that it's wrong at the point that tech is a better option anyway.
I won't speak for him beyond all that, which the man both initially asserted and then doubled down on himself, so from here are only my own further extrapolations, but I actually doubt either of us will see any way around them.
• Words like "obsolete" make it apparent that the fact that tech is simply more efficient is playing a role as well. Us slaveholders aren't simply freed of a "necessary" evil alone, but we'd simply be inefficient for not upgrading anyway because this gets _more_ done. It's not just a way out of slavery; it's way better than it. That's not to say we're not happy just to be letting slaves go though. Except... well, we did also earlier go on about how slavery was such an awesome answer as to what to do with prisoners. None of the other options seemed to be valid. But, you know, at the point that tech is the better answer in terms of expenses, all that goes out the window.
• Yes; it's about progress. That said, moving a bunch of fucking rocks around so future people remember how bad fucking ass you were counts as vital progress. (Still absolutely cannot believe that was the example he chose out of everything. Even despising slavery, I could play the Devil's advocate and do so much better of a job defending it. Probably the worst example possible, that one.)
I don't know if you've ever had to do any manual labor but Lloyd and I have, and like he said, it's "really hard work" man. Looking back on it, I remember, and actually I think he's converted me. Sure, you won't find me supporting universal healthcare or expanded welfare because I'm not some leftist looking out for those lazy bums who should have had a better job before they decided to get cancer. Hate laziness and people mooching off others. But if I ever need some giant fuck-off blocks hauled miles and miles to build shit so people remember how lucky they would have been to suck this dick for 2 seconds, you expect ME to do that shit? Shiiiid. It's really hard work man! I better just beat the shit out of some other people until they do it for me. This is okay because I don't have any alternative here and this must be done.
Both of those points. Technology and society progress together.
In 1900s america 40% of the population was involved with growing food. 60% every other job. By 2000 it was 2%. What changed technologically over the last 100 years? Fucking everything. If people were set back technologically there would be mass starvation.
Morals are subjective to the circumstances. Canabalilsm is seen as discusting and wrong, yet canabalilsm was common during times of famine. It wasn't seen as a good thing but it was to prevent starvation which is a shitty way to go.
For the bulk of human history human power was needed to do practically everything. If we got set back to that time, you will see slavery again.
Slavery becomes a moral issue when the proper technological progress already exists. The treatment of the slaves are a different issue all together
Both can't exist together. I'll be a bit more blunt. Do you think society's "progress" should come at the expense of the freedom of others or that the freedom of others should come at the expense of progress if it came down to those two options?
I think I understand your argument as one that comes from necessity but if there was other options at the expense of progress happening at a much slower rate, would you prefer that outcome if it protected the perceived rights we view people as having today in Western civilization?
You know, I thought about it and you're right. I really do absolutely need to get these narcissistic monuments to myself built. I probably wouldnt utterly violate humans rights if there were some sweet tech that worked better anyway, but there's not, so I'll just utterly violate human rights. This is okay.
Amazing response.
You know, I used to laugh at your profile going on about "sociopathic reasoning" because you're so rarely logical and it was clear what you really meant was "logical at all cost" rather than "sociopathic" since you had just called yourself a nice guy. But sociopathic and logical are not synonymous at all and sociopathic reasoning can just as often be illogical. Right now I'm amused at the fact that we just take it as is. You're spewing shit that's both illogical and certainly sociopathic.
In fact it's actually making me laugh aloud right now that your sociopathy (and perhaps unwarranted narcissism) is so much higher than your logic that you would even use _THIS_ as your example without the possibility of just _NOT_ making the narcissistic love-me monuments even so much as crossing your mind. It's like a given that it must be done for you.
Anyway I gotta go murder a bunch of people at a heavily guarded bank I'm robbing so I can buy myself a sick new whip and bachelor pad. I mean obviously I'd prefer they just hand me the money or there were some kind of tech that made robbing banks obsolete but there's not. Lot of people are going to have to die. Is what it is.
Okay put yourself in my shoes bro. I already have a really nice house, vacation house, and multiple vehicles. We're really trying to get some new shit for vanity's sake though and we've recently overinvested too much to do this right now. We have to rob this bank bro. How are you doing it?
Life always has a hierarchy, the exsistance of the slave class has been present for most civilizations. Why? Because slavery solves a problem of production, this is easier when you have the idea that you are superior to your slaves by some arbitrary reason.
I'm a utilitarian mixed in with libertarian (they do complement eachother) I want people to be happy. We are at the technological level to make individual life fairly easy... that is not the case for the vast majority of human history. You needed more hands to make stuff. Slavery just makes the best of a shitty production problem. It frees up other people do make advances in culture and technology.
You are being wholly ignorant of human nature. Humans are neutral and slavery solves a pretty big problem of cheap labor. They wouldnt be using slavery if there was a better option because revolts were feared. While it's better to have a workforce that is happily chugging along. But the shit jobs ie mining, farming, milling are jobs that people avoid because people are lazy yet they don't wanna starve.
How can you not grasp that theres a clear distinction between it being a necessary evil and it being a good practice.
Slavery was ok because slavery was pretty common! Humans were racist and xenophobic. 1+1=2
Slavery was a completely logical conclusion to the problem of production which is why it's so common throughout history.
I suppose you're really down with radical Islam, right? Fastest growing religion in the world. Beheading infidels is okay because beheading infidels is pretty common!
why are you atheist? why are you theist?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"Slavery was ok" - LloydAsher
What. The. Actual. Fuck.
I remember that time you said something else almost that bad and then Clunk and I started arguing about it before Clunk was like, paraphrased, "Oh shit my bad. I read that wrong in a hurry. He totally DID say that shit. What the fuck."
It was such a weird moment of solidarity because Clunk and I never agree about shit. You know you said some fucked up shit when both of us are looking at it like that.
--
charli.m
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
-
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
LloydAsher
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-2
-2
Nothing that dumpster fire says surprises me anymore.
Horrified and disgusted, of course. But not surprised.
He's a self professed nice person. Nuf said.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I don't think it's the fact that these people think these things that surprises me anymore. We all know how they think.
It's just that they usually jump through hoops to twist things and beat around the bush when it comes to directly owning some of it so it's still a little surprising in those rarer moments when they drop something basically like, "I am both sexist and homophobic. I hope this clears things up" with zero fucks given.
By the way, an actual one from a certain someone on here the other day: "Consent is way overrated."
--
charli.m
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Yeah...that one was nothing new. Not remotely. That person has said worse and continues to do so.
I think you should read it as if he added the word "considered". Slavery was considered okay, so it is foolish to call the people at the time immoral for their slavery, since they did not know it was not acceptable.
On an unrelated note, I dislike your usage of curses in your paraphrase. I do not curse and never will. It was more like, "I just realized that I misread it and will not continue making my argument."
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I don't think the Bible folk were "considering" _anything_ only just over 200 years ago when the industrial revolution _finally_ made slavery unacceptable, you know, only because we have really easy alternatives. Otherwise... ehhhh... kinda need slavery because it's going to be such a drag trying to get big shit done without it.
No. That's a LloydAsher perspective right there. And fuck slavery.
And perspective doesn't matter anyway. Imagine I'm talking about child killer Gacy:
"I think you've really gotta look at it in the right context. Gacy was REALLY tryna torture and rape those kids dressed as a clown. He was BIG horny. In Gacy's basement, killing those kids was okay."
See how it doesn't help?
As for the cursing, relax. That was part of the joke. Everyone knows you think you would spontaneously combust if you cursed like that.
Never got the whole cursing thing. Feces. Fine to say. Shit. Cursing. Means the exact same thing. How did we decide to demonize one set of weird noises we make with our mouths versus another set? It's actually something so weird that science has actually looked into it. We just take it for granted and never give much thought to how completely absurd it is that we do this.
*Comes back from future to edit comment*
Yeah he just confirmed that it in fact was okay. Not considered okay. It was okay.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
We Catholics have this concept in sin that I'll call "required knowledge". If you do not know that what you're doing is evil, it is not considered a sin until you learn that it is evil. Gacy knew that what he was doing was evil (I assume), while the people practicing slavery did not know that what they were doing was evil, assuming that it is evil. So, at the time, in a way, it less not okay, since they did not know that it is not okay.
It all has to do with what amount of the truth a certain person has been suggested of at any given time. Assuming that the truth is that slavery is immoral, and that many people back then never even had it suggested to them that slavery is immoral, then their acts were less immoral. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make their actions any less evil, but it makes their intentions less evil, making the act of them holding slaves less evil (an act is made up of action and intention). It would bring a sin (intentional rejection of truth) down to a fault (unintentional rejection of truth).
About the cursing, I personally just far prefer using more formal words to pointlessly informal words like curses.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well we atheists have a concept in morality. I'll call it, "Something is terribly wrong with you if you can't intuitively _feel_ what is right and wrong."
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The world is fallen; Satan clouds people's senses of morality, attempting to turn them against the good truth of God, and towards evil things of this world, of which slavery could be considered one. The non-Christians are the ones who cannot feel the true good, as they have been tempted so much by Satan that they reject the truth of God, which is what is good. You say that you would be able to tell that slavery was evil those hundreds of years ago, but I seriously doubt that you would.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I find it highly disturbing that you feel that way. Wouldn't _you_ be able to tell? If not, that's probably a big part of why having something else inform you is so appealing to you.
I sincerely doubt anyone besides full-on sociopaths didn't know what they were doing was shitty _unless_ they felt the slaves somehow _deserved_ it. Even in that scenario they're aware a negative thing is being inflicted upon them.
Yeah WAS ok. Every damn civilization on the planet that was somewhat successful (until fairly recently) used slavery. Hell it seems to be apart of our nature like war.
Yeah slavery is bad now since we have the ability to mass produce things with less labor as well as owning someone being fucked up. Its inhuman but also obsolete production wise.
What the hell were kings and chiefs supposed to do with prisoners of war? Just let them go? They could regroup and rebel. Killing most of them was a common solution. Slavery was like a 3rd choice. Given the circumstances of life back then with an average life expectancy of 40. Doing manual stuff is hard, without machines it was even more intensive. The only power people could readily control was animal and human power and cows dont have hands.
That being said modern day slavery is completely abhorrent and we should kill the traffickers.
Conclusion: fucked up but necessary for progression and expansion, later on it was to secure better production prices thus profit, then it became obsolete.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Hole. Lee. Shit.
This just in: Slavery was okay confirmed.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
LloydAsher
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Just out of curiosity. Would you say that every luxury you own was not a result of modern day slavery/child labour? If not, how does your view on this co-exist with your position here?
Genuine question.
Ok you are a Pharoah and you need to move ten ton stone slabs 50 miles through the desert with practically zero tools. How the hell are you going to do it?
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I don't know if you've worded this correctly but I'm curious.
Do you believe that because people were such a greater resource in history that it justified their enslavement to meet the means of production for the sake of progress.
--Or--
Are you saying that due to the circumstance of history it was "ok" in the minds of the people at such times but would not be ok today by your own moral standard to sacrifice freedom for progress even if we were majorly set back and couldn't rely on what you believe made slavery obsolete?
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
LloydAsher
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Look, I know I'm not Lloyd and obviously he's free to repeat himself a third or fourth time, but he did already answer this. Clunk tried to bail him out as well but he doubled down instead of reaching for a hand out of the water. I wouldn't say he's backed in a corner because he's perfectly fine with owning this.
He's not in a corner saying the white wall isn't white; he's saying it's white, and in this particular case the white wall is him saying slavery was okay in the past, not just _considered_ okay, but that it's wrong at the point that tech is a better option anyway.
I won't speak for him beyond all that, which the man both initially asserted and then doubled down on himself, so from here are only my own further extrapolations, but I actually doubt either of us will see any way around them.
• Words like "obsolete" make it apparent that the fact that tech is simply more efficient is playing a role as well. Us slaveholders aren't simply freed of a "necessary" evil alone, but we'd simply be inefficient for not upgrading anyway because this gets _more_ done. It's not just a way out of slavery; it's way better than it. That's not to say we're not happy just to be letting slaves go though. Except... well, we did also earlier go on about how slavery was such an awesome answer as to what to do with prisoners. None of the other options seemed to be valid. But, you know, at the point that tech is the better answer in terms of expenses, all that goes out the window.
• Yes; it's about progress. That said, moving a bunch of fucking rocks around so future people remember how bad fucking ass you were counts as vital progress. (Still absolutely cannot believe that was the example he chose out of everything. Even despising slavery, I could play the Devil's advocate and do so much better of a job defending it. Probably the worst example possible, that one.)
I don't know if you've ever had to do any manual labor but Lloyd and I have, and like he said, it's "really hard work" man. Looking back on it, I remember, and actually I think he's converted me. Sure, you won't find me supporting universal healthcare or expanded welfare because I'm not some leftist looking out for those lazy bums who should have had a better job before they decided to get cancer. Hate laziness and people mooching off others. But if I ever need some giant fuck-off blocks hauled miles and miles to build shit so people remember how lucky they would have been to suck this dick for 2 seconds, you expect ME to do that shit? Shiiiid. It's really hard work man! I better just beat the shit out of some other people until they do it for me. This is okay because I don't have any alternative here and this must be done.
Both of those points. Technology and society progress together.
In 1900s america 40% of the population was involved with growing food. 60% every other job. By 2000 it was 2%. What changed technologically over the last 100 years? Fucking everything. If people were set back technologically there would be mass starvation.
Morals are subjective to the circumstances. Canabalilsm is seen as discusting and wrong, yet canabalilsm was common during times of famine. It wasn't seen as a good thing but it was to prevent starvation which is a shitty way to go.
For the bulk of human history human power was needed to do practically everything. If we got set back to that time, you will see slavery again.
Slavery becomes a moral issue when the proper technological progress already exists. The treatment of the slaves are a different issue all together
Hope this clarifies it.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Both can't exist together. I'll be a bit more blunt. Do you think society's "progress" should come at the expense of the freedom of others or that the freedom of others should come at the expense of progress if it came down to those two options?
I think I understand your argument as one that comes from necessity but if there was other options at the expense of progress happening at a much slower rate, would you prefer that outcome if it protected the perceived rights we view people as having today in Western civilization?
You know, I thought about it and you're right. I really do absolutely need to get these narcissistic monuments to myself built. I probably wouldnt utterly violate humans rights if there were some sweet tech that worked better anyway, but there's not, so I'll just utterly violate human rights. This is okay.
Amazing response.
You know, I used to laugh at your profile going on about "sociopathic reasoning" because you're so rarely logical and it was clear what you really meant was "logical at all cost" rather than "sociopathic" since you had just called yourself a nice guy. But sociopathic and logical are not synonymous at all and sociopathic reasoning can just as often be illogical. Right now I'm amused at the fact that we just take it as is. You're spewing shit that's both illogical and certainly sociopathic.
In fact it's actually making me laugh aloud right now that your sociopathy (and perhaps unwarranted narcissism) is so much higher than your logic that you would even use _THIS_ as your example without the possibility of just _NOT_ making the narcissistic love-me monuments even so much as crossing your mind. It's like a given that it must be done for you.
Anyway I gotta go murder a bunch of people at a heavily guarded bank I'm robbing so I can buy myself a sick new whip and bachelor pad. I mean obviously I'd prefer they just hand me the money or there were some kind of tech that made robbing banks obsolete but there's not. Lot of people are going to have to die. Is what it is.
Okay put yourself in my shoes bro. I already have a really nice house, vacation house, and multiple vehicles. We're really trying to get some new shit for vanity's sake though and we've recently overinvested too much to do this right now. We have to rob this bank bro. How are you doing it?
--
LloydAsher
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Life always has a hierarchy, the exsistance of the slave class has been present for most civilizations. Why? Because slavery solves a problem of production, this is easier when you have the idea that you are superior to your slaves by some arbitrary reason.
I'm a utilitarian mixed in with libertarian (they do complement eachother) I want people to be happy. We are at the technological level to make individual life fairly easy... that is not the case for the vast majority of human history. You needed more hands to make stuff. Slavery just makes the best of a shitty production problem. It frees up other people do make advances in culture and technology.
You are being wholly ignorant of human nature. Humans are neutral and slavery solves a pretty big problem of cheap labor. They wouldnt be using slavery if there was a better option because revolts were feared. While it's better to have a workforce that is happily chugging along. But the shit jobs ie mining, farming, milling are jobs that people avoid because people are lazy yet they don't wanna starve.
How can you not grasp that theres a clear distinction between it being a necessary evil and it being a good practice.
Slavery was ok because slavery was pretty common! Humans were racist and xenophobic. 1+1=2
Slavery was a completely logical conclusion to the problem of production which is why it's so common throughout history.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Commonness does not equate acceptableness.
I suppose you're really down with radical Islam, right? Fastest growing religion in the world. Beheading infidels is okay because beheading infidels is pretty common!