Slavery can, but doesn’t need to exist. The whole point original slavery started was as prisoners of war. But sometimes , but rarely it ended with the getting free. But why not add them. It’s like not adding nat-corp, because you disagree with what they stand for or what they did.
That still fails to explain why symbiosis can’t be slavery, or why a line of creatures is either of those things
Where exactly did I make that claim?
So then how is this discussion relevant to slavery? Why, for example, are modular organisms naturally more efficient while also more rebellious?
This is another grey area in slavery: Is it considered slavery to artificially change someone’s desires? The definitions given above seem to say that no, it isn’t, which seems rather strange
Literally in this exact same post:
WTF are you reading? Mind control / brainwashing is obviously not real consent.
1 Like
Because… He answered your question?
3 Likes
Gaslighting someone to believe you’re right and they’re wrong along with Stockholm syndrome seems a lot like slavery to me
4 Likes
Gaslighting by definition requires actual malice to be behind the attempt to make another person question their memory or sanity. I’m not yet convinced that is the case, because if that was the case I’d have already banned BurgeonBlas for trolling.
Why?
That’s the conundrum: It seems like slavery, but the definitions say it isn’t
because brainwashing and mind control force the person to do something when they normally wouldnt do it???
it is still slavery by the definition though
2 Likes
Let me just give you an example
Mr M kidnaps Ms A
Mr M bashes Ms A’s head
Ms A doesn’t think what Mr M did was wrong anymore(for very obvious reasons)
Therefore, Mr M did nothing wrong
2 Likes
I posted this in Pets/ Domestication , and am moving it here:
A slave-dependent society only really works when there is a regular influx of new slaves.
The purpose of the slaves is to perform labour at a lower economic cost than regular workers (considering requirements for food, clothing, shelter, etc.) The slaves are provided with less than they require to sustain themselves long-term, thus working themselves to death, and requiring that they be replaced.
Once the availability of new slaves decreases, continuing the use of slaves means giving them enough to survive for longer and reproduce effectively. This means raising their living standard, and using more resources on them. At that point, they become indentured servants, rather than full-on slaves. And if the system relies on heavy use of slavery, it can no longer function in the same way.
It’s still a form of slavery, either way. And there is no reason why a servant necessarily couldn’t be owned by their master. Until the Nineteenth Century, married women in Britain were officially owned by their husbands (except for royals, and such). There are many forms of slavery, though some are less extreme. My point was that when the conditions which form the basis of a society change, that society cannot continue to exist in the same way.
2 Likes
this, combined with the fact that consent requires you to be sapient and in control of your brain, is why
1 Like
Sentient, not sapient. Sapient would be for humans or any civilized species. Eusocial species might not always be sapient, but I guess that’s up for another debate to decide. Let’s just say that being sentient is enough to be part of slavery.
Sapient, not setient. Sapient would be for humans or any species capable of higher forms of reasoning. Eusocial species might not always be sapient (but it’s irrelevant), but I guess that’s up for another debate to decide. Let’s just say that being sapient is necessary to be part of slavery.
Yea otherwise dogs, horses, cats, and other domesticated animals would be considered slaves
you do need sapience to be able to consent to things which is why any form of bestiality is legally considered non-con
Hmm… don’t they have the notion of consent? Would a cat like to be killed since they have no notion of consent?
I thought bestiality was censored, wasn’t it @hhyyrylainen? Anyway, it’s possible that I simply don’t have the same definition of sapience, which is why we are debating about that right now. To me, for a species to be sapient, they need to feel attachment or advancement about things that aren’t necessary for their survival such as art, philosophy and science. That is why humans are the only sapient species on Earth and that ants aren’t sapient because they don’t advance in such abstract fields. Sentience, to my definition, would be to be not only aware about the outside (other individuals, the environment, etc.) and the inside (self), but also to have at least basic feelings/emotions (anger, desire, fear, consent, satisfaction, etc.).
my definition of sapience is just an int score above 7 any lower is just sentience
What is an int score?
intelligence score, the thing used to measure how smart something is in DND. humans are around 10 on average
It’s only censored when it is typoed.
That’s absolutely unusable definition. Not everyone plays DND on these forums. I don’t play it either.
In Thrive when discussing things you need to use the actual definitions of things. I’ve had to complain so many times to various people about this that I just might start banning people who use nonsensical non-standard definitions for words that then cause massive debates.
Sadly wikipedia doesn’t seem to have a definition but I found one here:
Sapience is synonymous with some usages of the term sentient, though the two are not exactly equal: sentience is the ability to sense or feel, while sapience is the ability to think about sensations, feelings and ideas.
2 Likes