Why is slavery such a bad thing? (I don't mean racial, just people having a slave)

It would be a legally operated system. They would still have human rights. However, while in work they should do as they're told as long as it involves the work, common sense can be used.



Not really. They would still have the vote. If they refused to work they'd have their benefits cut for lack of commitment to the cause. They wouldn't be tortured or anything sadistic like that from the old era, they'd be financially penalised for a period.

You think it being government sanctioned makes it automatically ok? The Egyptians rulers kept an entire race as slaves, which obviously was approved by their rulers. Does that makes it ok??

And how the heck do you financially penolise a slave? A slave is not paid for their labour. An employee or servant recieves wages.

Do I really need to point out how utterly stupid this whole thread is? Are you some kind of neo nazi or something? You'll be suggesting herding them "work" camps next.
 
There is a valid facet of slavery, which is debt slavery, whereby a person is interred into service of one they owe a debt, until such time as that debt is paid. The system benefits both parties, the trouble is, such system are greatly open to profound corruption. What of the living costs to keep the slave alive? I may start charging a fee for a bed to sleep on, food, drink, perhaps luxurious, and suddenly debt is accrued upon debt. Then, since i control the system, it becomes lesuirly simply to ensure my debt slave never leaves. I can charge for outlandish fees, I can use a legal framework to conjure costs out of thing air.

We are all already slaves
 
You think it being government sanctioned makes it automatically ok? The Egyptians rulers kept an entire race as slaves, which obviously was approved by their rulers. Does that makes it ok??

And how the heck do you financially penolise a slave? A slave is not paid for their labour. An employee or servant recieves wages.

Do I really need to point out how utterly stupid this whole thread is? Are you some kind of neo nazi or something? You'll be suggesting herding them "work" camps next.

The system would work as;

They get benefits anyway.

They do slave work out of respect for recipient of those benefits.

If they choose not to work. They disrespect the taxpayers.

In doing so, they are punished by having their benefits cut.

Simple algorithm.
 
Do I really need to point out how utterly stupid this whole thread is? Are you some kind of neo nazi or something? You'll be suggesting herding them "work" camps next.

Do you read the Daily Mail? This is the sort of response I'd expect from one of their readers. In all seriousness, maybe in not putting it across that well but my system works and is very good. Trust me, I'm an engineer.
 
Maybe not everyone on benefits chooses not to work ? Have you ever thought of the possibility that there genuinely are not many jobs out there and even less skill paid jobs for skilled and educated people?

What kind of retard are you that suggests that every one on JSA is lazy and doesn't want to work and should be made a slave? This is the most retarded post I've ever seen on GD without a doubt.
 
Do you read the Daily Mail? This is the sort of response I'd expect from one of their readers. In all seriousness, maybe in not putting it across that well but my system works and is very good. Trust me, I'm an engineer.

No, actually, your post is the kind you would expect from a Daily Mail reader.
 
OP isn't a neo-nazi, he just thinks a 'slave' is someone you buy at a charity auction to do your dishes for a week.

No, its because you don't understand there are different types of slaves.

Chattel slaves, forced labour slaves, debt slaves. Anyone with an education in history would know this. Even in modern times debt slavery is rife, especially in the middle east.
 
Do you read the Daily Mail? This is the sort of response I'd expect from one of their readers. In all seriousness, maybe in not putting it across that well but my system works and is very good. Trust me, I'm an engineer.

I don't think anyone would be taking issue with what you've said if you said:

Whole-bodied people who can't find jobs and are on benefits should still work for their money.

So, if capable, they should be set on jobs such as community service, or helping the elderly with tasks in their homes, or if they aren't trustworthy enough, with street-cleaning etc.


A very sensible suggestion.

Instead, totally idiotically, you said THEY SHOULD BE SLAVES, completely misunderstanding the concept of a 'slave', and insisting that 'slaves' is what they actually are. A SLAVE IS SOMEONE OWNED BY ANOTHER HUMAN. They don't bloody work from 9-5.
 
Maybe not everyone on benefits chooses not to work ? Have you ever thought of the possibility that there genuinely are not many jobs out there and even less skill paid jobs for skilled and educated people?

What kind of retard are you that suggests that every one on JSA is lazy and doesn't want to work and should be made a slave? This is the most retarded post I've ever seen on GD without a doubt.

If you can't find a job in 2 years you're doing it wrong.

Nowhere did I suggest everyone on JSA is lazy, hence why I stated there should be a 2 year period. Thats more than enough time to find a job, any job.

The fact you cannot read is shocking, truly shocking.
 
I don't think anyone would be taking issue with what you've said if you said:

Whole-bodied people who can't find jobs and are on benefits should still work for their money.

So, if capable, they should be set on jobs such as community service, or helping the elderly with tasks in their homes, or if they aren't trustworthy enough, with street-cleaning etc.


A very sensible suggestion.

Instead, totally idiotically, you said THEY SHOULD BE SLAVES, completely misunderstanding the concept of a 'slave', and insisting that 'slaves' is what they actually are. A SLAVE IS SOMEONE OWNED BY ANOTHER HUMAN. They don't bloody work from 9-5.

This is the point though, THEY WOULD BE OWNED. Just like a car, the owner would have a document to say this person is their property. The only difference is, they only have legal right to have this property work for them for certain hours of the day. 5 hours max. a bit like some car insurance policies that only cover you for certain hours of the day. Same sort of thing.
 
This is the point though, THEY WOULD BE OWNED. Just like a car, the owner would have a document to say this person is their property. The only difference is, they only have legal right to have this property work for them for certain hours of the day. 5 hours max.

Lol. Listen to yourself. Like I said in my first post in this stupid thread, it's just semantics. If you want to re-define slave as:

"Someone who works for someone else for 5 hours a day MAX, who can only do reasonable things and cannot be coerced or harmed (and can actually refuse to work if they wanted to), and IS PAID FOR IT" then by all means, that's your perogative.

:rolleyes:.
 
... The Egyptians rulers kept an entire race as slaves, which obviously was approved by their rulers. Does that makes it ok??...

What race? :o

definition of slave from the oxford dictionary;

a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them

There's no mention of how long someone must be property, so wind yer neck in!
 
Last edited:
Do you read the Daily Mail? This is the sort of response I'd expect from one of their readers. In all seriousness, maybe in not putting it across that well but my system works and is very good. Trust me, I'm an engineer.

I dont read trash rags.

However I would consider anyone who thinks human life is so cheap that it can be literally bought and sold like a commodity and exploited for the good of the nation to be a facist. Nazis were facists. The comparison is fairly obvious.
 
Back
Top Bottom