yes, I would say that there are two completely different conditions veg is speaking about - being a prisoner/captive and being a slave. Ephrem is right that slavery implies forced conduct, not merely being held. Whereas a captive/prisoner is bound - but definitely not a slave, you give him half a chance to get free and that sucker’s outta here . . .
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Could we all then say that all men are as free as they want to be?
V[/quote]
…ultimately it does come down to this…[/quote]
Ok, I agree, what then do you call a person who is abducted against thier will and physically restrained. Even if they had the will to act in thier own interests, another human or humans has restrained them physically (with a cell with bars most commonly) so they cannot physically make any actions other than those inside the restraints. Prisoner?
V[/quote]
…i guess so. It’s a matter of definitions; a slave usually has to do something. The act of having to do something can be opposed. Being confined to a space without a means of escape, well… what can you do?
[/quote]
So I’m just trying to cover a few things here so I can make this statement, Slavery is self imposed, whereas imprisonment is forced upon you from an outside entity. Does anyone disagree with that statement for the most part?
V[/quote]
There is some overlap - after all a “slave” can be part of a chain gang, but mentally his “slavery” goes no further than the limitations of his chain, the moment he can get free - he will.
Whereas a slave without chains is only a slave because of the chains of his mind.
or like JJ says - I could be full of shit . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
yes, I would say that there are two completely different conditions veg is speaking about - being a prisoner/captive and being a slave. Ephrem is right that slavery implies forced conduct, not merely being held. Whereas a captive/prisoner is bound - but definitely not a slave, you give him half a chance to get free and that sucker’s outta here . . .[/quote]
I wouldn’t call slavery FORCED conduct per say, more like Coerced conduct. If you don’t do what I am telling you to do there will be X as a consequence. It is realy hard to force someone into action, it is less hard to force someone into inaction. At a very basicl level if someone goes fish, you can do a bunch of stuff to them but if their will is strong enough you can’t force them to make any actions.
V
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Could we all then say that all men are as free as they want to be?
V[/quote]
…ultimately it does come down to this…[/quote]
Ok, I agree, what then do you call a person who is abducted against thier will and physically restrained. Even if they had the will to act in thier own interests, another human or humans has restrained them physically (with a cell with bars most commonly) so they cannot physically make any actions other than those inside the restraints. Prisoner?
V[/quote]
…i guess so. It’s a matter of definitions; a slave usually has to do something. The act of having to do something can be opposed. Being confined to a space without a means of escape, well… what can you do?
[/quote]
So I’m just trying to cover a few things here so I can make this statement, Slavery is self imposed, whereas imprisonment is forced upon you from an outside entity. Does anyone disagree with that statement for the most part?
V[/quote]
There is some overlap - after all a “slave” can be part of a chain gang, but mentally his “slavery” goes no further than the limitations of his chain, the moment he can get free - he will.
Whereas a slave without chains is only a slave because of the chains of his mind.
or like JJ says - I could be full of shit . . .[/quote]
So you could be a slave, or a prisoner, or you could be both a slave and a prisoner. For to be a prisoner and not a slave, you would just lay fish on the chain gang and let the consequences come to you because you not a slave. There are some interesting concepts here we are fleshing out.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
So you could be a slave, or a prisoner, or you could be both a slave and a prisoner. For to be a prisoner and not a slave, you would just lay fish on the chain gang and let the consequences come to you because you not a slave. There are some interesting concepts here we are fleshing out.
V[/quote]
…a prisoner can also be a slave. A slave can also be a prisoner. “Cool Hand Luke” comes to mind; he breaks [and dies] in the end, but he’s never a slave. But a slave who isn’t a prisoner, well…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
But a slave who isn’t a prisoner, well…[/quote]
Is 90-95% of the human population?
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
But a slave who isn’t a prisoner, well…[/quote]
Is 90-95% of the human population?
V[/quote]
“A frog in a pond thinks the pond is the ocean”
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
But a slave who isn’t a prisoner, well…[/quote]
Is 90-95% of the human population?
V[/quote]
“A frog in a pond thinks the pond is the ocean”
[/quote]
“a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”?
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
But a slave who isn’t a prisoner, well…[/quote]
Is 90-95% of the human population?
V[/quote]
“A frog in a pond thinks the pond is the ocean”
[/quote]
“a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”?
V[/quote]
…you’ve seen youtube clip of a dog or a cat refusing to go through a screen door without a screen in it eventhough it’s owner is stepping through the frame of the door, and it’s not until the door is opened they go through it? Same thing…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you’ve seen youtube clip of a dog or a cat refusing to go through a screen door without a screen in it eventhough it’s owner is stepping through the frame of the door, and it’s not until the door is opened they go through it? Same thing…
[/quote]
i like that one - good illustration!
So have we come to the conclusion that the concept of slavery being what one person does to another is actually a misconception, slavery is done to ones self. Imprisonment may be done by another person, but slavery is more a condition of ones own mind than a physical condition? And also that basically all humans at least at one point or another have experienced “slavery” on some level?
V
I whish we had some dissenting veiws in here. I feel like we are just waltzing through this discussion.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
So have we come to the conclusion that the concept of slavery being what one person does to another is actually a misconception, slavery is done to ones self. Imprisonment may be done by another person, but slavery is more a condition of ones own mind than a physical condition? And also that basically all humans at least at one point or another have experienced “slavery” on some level?
V[/quote]
hmm . . you know that opens up another line of discussion - slavery through the eyes of the enslaver (is that a word?) We can’t discount the efforts of the one trying eo enslave another - they will use a variety of means/methods from force to bribery to deception and even sympathy. How do we account for that side of the equation? The enslaver can use hard methods (torture and punishment) or soft methods (persuasive argument, redefinition of terms), but isn’t his goal ultimately to get the slave to accept his position as a slave?
[quote]Vegita wrote:
So have we come to the conclusion that the concept of slavery being what one person does to another is actually a misconception, slavery is done to ones self. Imprisonment may be done by another person, but slavery is more a condition of ones own mind than a physical condition? And also that basically all humans at least at one point or another have experienced “slavery” on some level?
V[/quote]
…i think that’s a very apt and concise conclusion. The finer points may be subjected to debate, but i have no reservations endorsing this view, none at all the thumbs up
I think this is a great discussion. I agree with you guys to some level. I have been reading what you all said, but it is easy for us to look at it this way because we have never lived under the oppression of slavery.
If I was a Black from Africa in the 1700’s named Koonta Keente, I would probably think differently then what you guys are saying. I beleive it is about the will, and your will can be broken whether you are a slave or a prisoner. I hold on to hope that I will be able to choose what I want to do when I want to do it. If we are slaves to taxes, and work this is all about money. We can live a meager life by living off the government, but we want more than just that. We want to control our destiny. We want to be able to buy that house, that car, that vacation, but we have to give up something to get those things. We have to be a slave to the boss man. Just my $0.02.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I think this is a great discussion. I agree with you guys to some level. I have been reading what you all said, but it is easy for us to look at it this way because we have never lived under the oppression of slavery.
If I was a Black from Africa in the 1700’s named Koonta Keente, I would probably think differently then what you guys are saying. I beleive it is about the will, and your will can be broken whether you are a slave or a prisoner. I hold on to hope that I will be able to choose what I want to do when I want to do it. If we are slaves to taxes, and work this is all about money. We can live a meager life by living off the government, but we want more than just that. We want to control our destiny. We want to be able to buy that house, that car, that vacation, but we have to give up something to get those things. We have to be a slave to the boss man. Just my $0.02. [/quote]
Do we not then actually fall more accurately under the position of servant rather than slave?
…you can live off the grid. It’s perhaps easier in the States, i don’t know, but then it depends on what you want out of life. It’s what you desire that binds you to a job, a mortgage, your wife and/or children. No-one is forcing you to enter the rat-race: so it still comes down to you…
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I think this is a great discussion. I agree with you guys to some level. I have been reading what you all said, but it is easy for us to look at it this way because we have never lived under the oppression of slavery.
If I was a Black from Africa in the 1700’s named Koonta Keente, I would probably think differently then what you guys are saying. I beleive it is about the will, and your will can be broken whether you are a slave or a prisoner. I hold on to hope that I will be able to choose what I want to do when I want to do it. If we are slaves to taxes, and work this is all about money. We can live a meager life by living off the government, but we want more than just that. We want to control our destiny. We want to be able to buy that house, that car, that vacation, but we have to give up something to get those things. We have to be a slave to the boss man. Just my $0.02. [/quote]
Not everyone has a breaking point. Cue one William Wallace. He chose to die a free man, as did many of his men. Which again brings me to a point, unless you are a prisoner, you have a choice and therefore are free if you so choose.
V
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
So have we come to the conclusion that the concept of slavery being what one person does to another is actually a misconception, slavery is done to ones self. Imprisonment may be done by another person, but slavery is more a condition of ones own mind than a physical condition? And also that basically all humans at least at one point or another have experienced “slavery” on some level?
V[/quote]
hmm . . you know that opens up another line of discussion - slavery through the eyes of the enslaver (is that a word?) We can’t discount the efforts of the one trying eo enslave another - they will use a variety of means/methods from force to bribery to deception and even sympathy. How do we account for that side of the equation? The enslaver can use hard methods (torture and punishment) or soft methods (persuasive argument, redefinition of terms), but isn’t his goal ultimately to get the slave to accept his position as a slave?[/quote]
…the enslaver uses advertising, hard- and softmarketing, peer-pressure and the desire to belong to trap his victims. It’s so subtle his slaves will even defend him if he’s confronted by nay-sayers. The enslaver respects no-one but if you’ve seen one for what he is, you’ve seen them all…
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
So have we come to the conclusion that the concept of slavery being what one person does to another is actually a misconception, slavery is done to ones self. Imprisonment may be done by another person, but slavery is more a condition of ones own mind than a physical condition? And also that basically all humans at least at one point or another have experienced “slavery” on some level?
V[/quote]
hmm . . you know that opens up another line of discussion - slavery through the eyes of the enslaver (is that a word?) We can’t discount the efforts of the one trying eo enslave another - they will use a variety of means/methods from force to bribery to deception and even sympathy. How do we account for that side of the equation? The enslaver can use hard methods (torture and punishment) or soft methods (persuasive argument, redefinition of terms), but isn’t his goal ultimately to get the slave to accept his position as a slave?[/quote]
Well this might need to be spun off into another thread, but perhaps we can handle all the angles in this one. So is what you are asking, is getting someone to enslave themselves to you right or wrong? Does the method you use have an impact on the morality of the attempt?
V