Beep beep. Pull over. This is a bullshit check. Step out of the car with your hands on your head.
"I offered that situation to S.W and he fucking agreed with the analogy that slavery for necessities is warranted."
That shit right there, that didn't happen. I told you I'd even rather society be generations behind if it meant there had been no slavery. That said, her reading comprehension actually works, so she already knows that. Just like how she doesn't pretend it's even remotely difficult to know what Lloyd was talking about with the 10-ton blocks.
The only thing I can even possibly think of that could be confusing you is me saying that I don't judge the people who were buying goods like bamboo who didn't even necessarily know where the fuck it came from. I judge the slave drivers absolutely and in all circumstances. I completely derailed your suggestion that it's better to enslave 10 people than let 100 starve by pointing out the obvious: The 100 is 10 times enough people to do the work themselves. Slavery is _never_ justifiable. Period. It's like rape It's not a good look to even suggest situations wherein it's justifiable or even merely less wrong.
"I don't trust that dude for a second."
Hahaha. I've never told you this, but it's always tickled me pink when you say, "I don't click links from you."
Not just links, links from _me_. None of that's as good as Clunk42 calling me evil though. It's as if just because I murder you social conservatives so hard disputationally you start fearing me in other ways, thinking like, "Man, this is a dangerous motherfucker."
I feel like a fucking oversized black widow spider crawling around a bunch of arachophobes. It's so fucking funny. I'm completely harmless to everything but your egos and the perceived validity of your positions.
Oh, yeah! I was probably abusive to my ex as well! It gets better and better. Which way? Still funny if you only think I'm emotionally abusive, given the way I chew you up and spit you out, but it will be even funnier if after all the verbal spankings you've had to endure you even imagine me beating the shit out of women because it's just impossible to imagine me as a nice guy after you've felt the heat.
You're right though. So abusive. That's probably why she's trying to get back with _me_ and I'm the one who has _her_ blocked for my own mental health. I'm really just afraid, as you suggested, that she'll sign up and tell everyone how abusive I am. Logic checks out.
The reason why I dont trust the link is because the first one you sent i looked up the site and the first result was virus related. Most likely theres nothing to worry about I dont take those risks.
Actually nevermind, the rest is just you wanking yourself off again. Get to the arguments plz.
Consider dual-booting and running a Linux OS for your browsing. You're virtually immune then. It could happen but you're about as likely to get a serious virus as be hit by a car.
For one, the virus actually has to be designed to infect Linux and no one wastes their time designing viruses for anything besides major OSs like Windows and Android. Additionally, Linux is just inherently more secure and won't give the malware root access anyway. There has never been a single widespread Linux virus.
Being careful is always good but it's one Hell of a safety net.
Yes it fuckin' did, dude. I asked you about the 10 and 100 group thing and you said that the ten can get up off their asses to do what was required to save the 100. Or was this the thing where you vaguely answer and leave enough of a wiggle room to backtrack only to display you never even answered the question to begin with?
Ok, I'll ask again. 10 people in one area, 100 in another. Skip all the realism bullshit as that's what a hypothetical is for. If 9 of those ten can save 100 people but don't want to put the work in so one out of that 10 finds a mean to force them into slavery to save that 100 people, what would your option be and is it a simple "But slavery bahd!" situation?
I didn't ask you if you'd prefer society be further behind, I was talking about lives. Again you're trying to hard to pivot by giving mucky answers that don't even relate.
You're still using the 10-ton block argument but I've already said to you time and time again that he went into further depth on the topic which demonstrated that the analogy doesn't work with his more in-depth review of the topic and therefor can be considered an analogy that doesn't represent his views. You think you can watch someone make a mistake, run away, and use that one mistake to represent them and you're still purposely avoiding this explanation and just repeating the same 10-ton line I already addressed.
I didn't suggest that it's better to enslave 10 people than let 100 starve, I simply made you aware that it was the core of the argument Lloyd was making. Yes, the 100 people is bigger but that's the point of hypotheticals, my dude, so that we can argue the rational behind something without the exact scape-goat shit you're doing there.
So I'll ask again. 10 people one side, 100 on the other. 100 can't survive without the work of the 10. Would you rather the 100 die or the 10 be enslaved to save the 10?
I'm not even looking for you to pick a side but simply to appreciate the complexity of it.
Oh my God. I actually thought I was being _too_ condescending in how baby-like I was being when I broke that down for you the first time but now I see you _still_ didn't get it. You apparently haven't even understood just how hard that example got fucked the entire time. I'll try to be more visual.
10 prisoners are being proposed as slaves. We'll call them Os:
OOOOOOOOOO
100 people will no longer be hungry due to the work of just 10 slaves. We'll call this other group Xs:
We've established that 10 people is enough to pull this off. So guess who could do this work instead:
XXXXXXXXXX
It takes 10 fucking people, man. There are 100 of these lazy motherfuckers. They have 10 times more than enough people to do it themselves and you're suggesting that not even 1 out of 10 of them get off their sorry ass, but instead force 10 slaves to do the work?
Actually there's no complexity here at all. Appreciate the simplicity of it.
*Headslam*
You just dont get it and you're trying everything you can to avoid answering.
Ok, I'll try once more for you. If you try to avoid this I might just end up blocking you tomorrow because it'll tell that you just lack the capacity to be rational and I lack the capacity not to call it out.
100 people trapped on an island.
10 people that know how to build a boat.
Would you think it's better to enslave the 10 to build a boat to save the 100 or would it be more moral to not enslave the 10 people capable so as to save the 100 and leave the 100 to die?
So you want the 10 potential slaves to have to come _from_ the 100 itself. That's a vital distinction. Okay. That's fine. No Os to speak of, just Xs and the idea that 10 of them should be forced to do the work. I'll address both the first situation and the second one.
Back in the first one, it is now a completely absurd situation because you're suggesting that 100 people are just going to starve to death rather than willingly do the work required to not die unless someone starts beating the hell out of them. I say if they're that done with it all, respect their wishes and let them pass. It's their choice to make. They've seen some shit, man. They're clearly quite done with life if they would rather lie on the ground and slowly disintegrate unless savagely beaten than willingly work to live.
You've changed things substantially in the second example because you're now designating a _specific_ 10 as the only ones out of the group capable of doing it in the first place. That's not how slavery works. That example is more analogous to 90 people trapped in a building with 10 lunatics who are the only ones with the passcode to escape the building as it fills with gas. That's not slavery; that's refusing to be held hostage until certain death.
Slavery doesn't work like that. Slaves might at times be considered somewhat _better_ at certain tasks due to things like the higher African resistance to sunburn, but I know of no situations in which would-be "victims" of a lack of slavery are outright incapable of willingly doing the work themselves so as to avoid this victimization.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. Nah, see I think I just need to block you. You've just send 4 paragraphs and didn't answer the question, you entirely altered the hypothetical I presented just so you can weasel out. Now all of a sudden it's not making the decision between to enslaving people to save people or not to enslave people which leads to death, it's now that the 100 people are actually in a suicide pact and just want to die.
I can't get you to answer this question and that's fine. I'm moving on now.
As an observer here with no dog in the fight, just putting this out there...
Sounds Weird did answer the question when he (?) said previously that slavery is NEVER acceptable. So, no matter what scenario you can cook up, his answer will always be that. Bearing that fact in mind, SW was taking your scenarios and explaining the absurdity of them, NOT avoiding answering. His answer is and always will be "no" to slavery.
I agree with SW in his pointing out the problems with your scenarios.
100 people on an island and they all want to/need to leave but ZERO people will voluntarily lift a finger to help? As SW points out, obviously they don't actually want or need to leave if NOBODY is willing to work to do so. Why would everyone refuse to help? SW is right, if nobody will help then they've resigned themselves to staying where they are/dying.
If you're saying only the 10 boat guys are refusing to help, then why isn't that their right? The other 90 can't do ANYTHING? Why would the 10 boat guys refuse though, if this was a real-life situation? That doesn't make much sense. Unless they're hostage takers or something, which makes this not about slavery anymore.
Now picture YOURSELF as the "boat guy"/slave. Should you be able to choose whether you build a boat for free or not? I mean, you can volunteer if you WANT to help get off the island, can't you? If you WANT to save people, you have the option. Should you be FORCED to help though, if you don't want to? Even if it saves lives?
Then also consider, what happens to the boat slaves once the boat is built? Do the slaves get to come along? "OH, hey, I know the other 90 of us enslaved you guys and made you toil your asses off for us for nothing, but let's put that behind us, we'll all get on the boat and sail off into the sunset. No hard feelings? You won't murder us in our sleep, right? Right.....?" No. Most likely the slaves would be killed upon completion, left behind, or kept restrained and kept eternally as slaves. You can't just go on as a group together like nothing ever happened. Remember, think of your scenarios as one of the SLAVES, not the slaveholder.
why are you atheist? why are you theist?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Beep beep. Pull over. This is a bullshit check. Step out of the car with your hands on your head.
"I offered that situation to S.W and he fucking agreed with the analogy that slavery for necessities is warranted."
That shit right there, that didn't happen. I told you I'd even rather society be generations behind if it meant there had been no slavery. That said, her reading comprehension actually works, so she already knows that. Just like how she doesn't pretend it's even remotely difficult to know what Lloyd was talking about with the 10-ton blocks.
The only thing I can even possibly think of that could be confusing you is me saying that I don't judge the people who were buying goods like bamboo who didn't even necessarily know where the fuck it came from. I judge the slave drivers absolutely and in all circumstances. I completely derailed your suggestion that it's better to enslave 10 people than let 100 starve by pointing out the obvious: The 100 is 10 times enough people to do the work themselves. Slavery is _never_ justifiable. Period. It's like rape It's not a good look to even suggest situations wherein it's justifiable or even merely less wrong.
"I don't trust that dude for a second."
Hahaha. I've never told you this, but it's always tickled me pink when you say, "I don't click links from you."
Not just links, links from _me_. None of that's as good as Clunk42 calling me evil though. It's as if just because I murder you social conservatives so hard disputationally you start fearing me in other ways, thinking like, "Man, this is a dangerous motherfucker."
I feel like a fucking oversized black widow spider crawling around a bunch of arachophobes. It's so fucking funny. I'm completely harmless to everything but your egos and the perceived validity of your positions.
Oh, yeah! I was probably abusive to my ex as well! It gets better and better. Which way? Still funny if you only think I'm emotionally abusive, given the way I chew you up and spit you out, but it will be even funnier if after all the verbal spankings you've had to endure you even imagine me beating the shit out of women because it's just impossible to imagine me as a nice guy after you've felt the heat.
You're right though. So abusive. That's probably why she's trying to get back with _me_ and I'm the one who has _her_ blocked for my own mental health. I'm really just afraid, as you suggested, that she'll sign up and tell everyone how abusive I am. Logic checks out.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh you edited more in.
The reason why I dont trust the link is because the first one you sent i looked up the site and the first result was virus related. Most likely theres nothing to worry about I dont take those risks.
Actually nevermind, the rest is just you wanking yourself off again. Get to the arguments plz.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Consider dual-booting and running a Linux OS for your browsing. You're virtually immune then. It could happen but you're about as likely to get a serious virus as be hit by a car.
For one, the virus actually has to be designed to infect Linux and no one wastes their time designing viruses for anything besides major OSs like Windows and Android. Additionally, Linux is just inherently more secure and won't give the malware root access anyway. There has never been a single widespread Linux virus.
Being careful is always good but it's one Hell of a safety net.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ta.
Yes it fuckin' did, dude. I asked you about the 10 and 100 group thing and you said that the ten can get up off their asses to do what was required to save the 100. Or was this the thing where you vaguely answer and leave enough of a wiggle room to backtrack only to display you never even answered the question to begin with?
Ok, I'll ask again. 10 people in one area, 100 in another. Skip all the realism bullshit as that's what a hypothetical is for. If 9 of those ten can save 100 people but don't want to put the work in so one out of that 10 finds a mean to force them into slavery to save that 100 people, what would your option be and is it a simple "But slavery bahd!" situation?
I didn't ask you if you'd prefer society be further behind, I was talking about lives. Again you're trying to hard to pivot by giving mucky answers that don't even relate.
You're still using the 10-ton block argument but I've already said to you time and time again that he went into further depth on the topic which demonstrated that the analogy doesn't work with his more in-depth review of the topic and therefor can be considered an analogy that doesn't represent his views. You think you can watch someone make a mistake, run away, and use that one mistake to represent them and you're still purposely avoiding this explanation and just repeating the same 10-ton line I already addressed.
I didn't suggest that it's better to enslave 10 people than let 100 starve, I simply made you aware that it was the core of the argument Lloyd was making. Yes, the 100 people is bigger but that's the point of hypotheticals, my dude, so that we can argue the rational behind something without the exact scape-goat shit you're doing there.
So I'll ask again. 10 people one side, 100 on the other. 100 can't survive without the work of the 10. Would you rather the 100 die or the 10 be enslaved to save the 10?
I'm not even looking for you to pick a side but simply to appreciate the complexity of it.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh my God. I actually thought I was being _too_ condescending in how baby-like I was being when I broke that down for you the first time but now I see you _still_ didn't get it. You apparently haven't even understood just how hard that example got fucked the entire time. I'll try to be more visual.
10 prisoners are being proposed as slaves. We'll call them Os:
OOOOOOOOOO
100 people will no longer be hungry due to the work of just 10 slaves. We'll call this other group Xs:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
We've established that 10 people is enough to pull this off. So guess who could do this work instead:
XXXXXXXXXX
It takes 10 fucking people, man. There are 100 of these lazy motherfuckers. They have 10 times more than enough people to do it themselves and you're suggesting that not even 1 out of 10 of them get off their sorry ass, but instead force 10 slaves to do the work?
Actually there's no complexity here at all. Appreciate the simplicity of it.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
*Headslam*
You just dont get it and you're trying everything you can to avoid answering.
Ok, I'll try once more for you. If you try to avoid this I might just end up blocking you tomorrow because it'll tell that you just lack the capacity to be rational and I lack the capacity not to call it out.
100 people trapped on an island.
10 people that know how to build a boat.
Would you think it's better to enslave the 10 to build a boat to save the 100 or would it be more moral to not enslave the 10 people capable so as to save the 100 and leave the 100 to die?
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So you want the 10 potential slaves to have to come _from_ the 100 itself. That's a vital distinction. Okay. That's fine. No Os to speak of, just Xs and the idea that 10 of them should be forced to do the work. I'll address both the first situation and the second one.
Back in the first one, it is now a completely absurd situation because you're suggesting that 100 people are just going to starve to death rather than willingly do the work required to not die unless someone starts beating the hell out of them. I say if they're that done with it all, respect their wishes and let them pass. It's their choice to make. They've seen some shit, man. They're clearly quite done with life if they would rather lie on the ground and slowly disintegrate unless savagely beaten than willingly work to live.
You've changed things substantially in the second example because you're now designating a _specific_ 10 as the only ones out of the group capable of doing it in the first place. That's not how slavery works. That example is more analogous to 90 people trapped in a building with 10 lunatics who are the only ones with the passcode to escape the building as it fills with gas. That's not slavery; that's refusing to be held hostage until certain death.
Slavery doesn't work like that. Slaves might at times be considered somewhat _better_ at certain tasks due to things like the higher African resistance to sunburn, but I know of no situations in which would-be "victims" of a lack of slavery are outright incapable of willingly doing the work themselves so as to avoid this victimization.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. Nah, see I think I just need to block you. You've just send 4 paragraphs and didn't answer the question, you entirely altered the hypothetical I presented just so you can weasel out. Now all of a sudden it's not making the decision between to enslaving people to save people or not to enslave people which leads to death, it's now that the 100 people are actually in a suicide pact and just want to die.
I can't get you to answer this question and that's fine. I'm moving on now.
--
wigz
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
As an observer here with no dog in the fight, just putting this out there...
Sounds Weird did answer the question when he (?) said previously that slavery is NEVER acceptable. So, no matter what scenario you can cook up, his answer will always be that. Bearing that fact in mind, SW was taking your scenarios and explaining the absurdity of them, NOT avoiding answering. His answer is and always will be "no" to slavery.
I agree with SW in his pointing out the problems with your scenarios.
100 people on an island and they all want to/need to leave but ZERO people will voluntarily lift a finger to help? As SW points out, obviously they don't actually want or need to leave if NOBODY is willing to work to do so. Why would everyone refuse to help? SW is right, if nobody will help then they've resigned themselves to staying where they are/dying.
If you're saying only the 10 boat guys are refusing to help, then why isn't that their right? The other 90 can't do ANYTHING? Why would the 10 boat guys refuse though, if this was a real-life situation? That doesn't make much sense. Unless they're hostage takers or something, which makes this not about slavery anymore.
Now picture YOURSELF as the "boat guy"/slave. Should you be able to choose whether you build a boat for free or not? I mean, you can volunteer if you WANT to help get off the island, can't you? If you WANT to save people, you have the option. Should you be FORCED to help though, if you don't want to? Even if it saves lives?
Then also consider, what happens to the boat slaves once the boat is built? Do the slaves get to come along? "OH, hey, I know the other 90 of us enslaved you guys and made you toil your asses off for us for nothing, but let's put that behind us, we'll all get on the boat and sail off into the sunset. No hard feelings? You won't murder us in our sleep, right? Right.....?" No. Most likely the slaves would be killed upon completion, left behind, or kept restrained and kept eternally as slaves. You can't just go on as a group together like nothing ever happened. Remember, think of your scenarios as one of the SLAVES, not the slaveholder.