255 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

thats1evildude wrote...

As far as I'm concerned, 'this is a thing that happened in real life' is not an actual argument: Thedas is not reflective of real world history, unless I fell asleep during that one class that talked about the darkspawn invasion of Europe.

Ah...
Nah, too easy.

[Hellion Rex]

MisterJB wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

As far as I'm concerned, 'this is a thing that happened in real life' is not an actual argument: Thedas is not reflective of real world history, unless I fell asleep during that one class that talked about the darkspawn invasion of Europe.

Ah...
Nah, too easy.

I see what you did there. 

[werewoof]

JCAP wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Evil is an insanely loaded word. Is making an enemy combatant a slave instead of killing them evil? A different kind of evil? Even an acceptable form of mercy? 

Well, tell what do you think. If I was that said combatant, I would prefer to be put down right there. I don't want to live without rights or hope.

Is providing protection against marauders and opposing nations, shelter and food in exchange for work (the essential framework for serfdom, a form of slavery) evil? What if you had people begging at your gates for this very deal, because of how dangerous things were? And you didn't have enough resources to feed everyone, let alone pay them a fair wage? Would you save a dozen and pay them a fair wage, or would you bring in 100 and pay them only in food?

That is employment my friend. Slaves are men and women stripped from their land and forced to work. They only receive food just to keep working.

If someone agrees to work for me for food, that is not slavery. You don't need to pay in money to employ someone.

And slavery often means you either work or die. What do you think would happen to one fugitive slave? They can't just quit you know?

Slavery is a terribly damaging practice. But so is stealing. And murder. And prostitution. And it has varying degrees - not all slaves were doomed to have their children enslaved forever as well, nor where all slaves bound for life, or uneducated, or reduced to manual or degrading labor. So to call it, completely out of hand, evil, is a bit silly. If you can justify murder as not evil (as has been done countless times, with nearly every war in the history of mankind), then how can someone say "having someone work without monetary wage is evil?"

I have a question for you: Do you live to work or do you work to live? Think about it for a minute.

thank you for your good commentary

it baffles me how many people on this site seem to be under the impression that slavery is just fine and dandy

it's just like any other job! except you aren't getting paid and you were forced to do it by someone else and you've been stripped of your rights and are considered no more valuable or autonomous than a chair and you can't ever leave 

[Fast Jimmy]

JCAP wrote...

Well, tell what do you think. If I was that said combatant, I would prefer to be put down right there. I don't want to live without rights or hope.

Well, fair enough. But you do realize there are others who would have a different opinion?

That is employment my friend. Slaves are men and women stripped from their land and forced to work. They only receive food just to keep working.

If someone agrees to work for me for food, that is not slavery. You don't need to pay in money to employ someone.

And slavery often means you either work or die. What do you think would happen to one fugitive slave? They can't just quit you know?

I'm not sure "employment" is the best use of that term, either. It's not like the people would be saying "let me work, please" they would be saying "don't let me die." They would be saved, but then put to work for only food. That sounds remarkably similar to the enemy combatant scenario.

And slavery didn't "often" mean live or die. Many Europeans sold themselves into indentured servitude to be paid out in the colonies in order to forgive their debts. Slavery does NOT mean forced, or that you are torn away from your family, or that you would be abused or mistreated. Yes, it did mean those things in more instances than the human race should ever be happy about, but forced servitude at the point of blade (or gun) is not the only definition of the existence of slavery. 

I have a question for you: Do you live to work or do you work to live? Think about it for a minute.

I work to live. I also like to live - yet I can go right back to my murder example in a heartbeat. We commit so many acts of murder in a DA RPG, our characters should be admitted for psychological disturbance on the highest order. Why is slavery worse than murder, when this is a different world than ours and when slavery in Thedas doesn't always take the same course as it did in any Real Life example we can give?

I'm not even really FOR the concept in the game, because I can really see it being gimmicky and rather shallow - like how they did it in DA2. But to say any practice is, across the board, evil, wrong and should never be even mentioned, let alone performed, is a bit naive. Especially when what you imagine that practice to be, across all examples and instances, is not the reality it many times was.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 décembre 2013 - 08:04 .

[Karlone123]

Havng a slave army aspect could be a nice story touch, though I do not know if we could ever become anything like a slave master like Caser from Fallout New Vegas.

[Fortlowe]

Just to be clear, slavery, in all it's forms, always involved pedophilia. Always. So if in your pro slavery argument, you can replace the word 'slavery' with the word 'pedophilia' and 'slave' with 'child' and somehow the practice still seems benign, well then you win the argument.

[Fast Jimmy]

thank you for your good commentary

it baffles me how many people on this site seem to be under the impression that slavery is just fine and dandy

it's just like any other job! except you aren't getting paid and you were forced to do it by someone else and you've been stripped of your rights and are considered no more valuable or autonomous than a chair and you can't ever leave

I never once said slavery was "good," for the record. It was a terrible practice that I'm glad we've outlawed in most places in the real world - it is quite unfortunate that there are more people in slavery now than there every was in any other time in human history, however.

But it wasn't always the mental image perceive it to be. Roman or Biblical slaves had a very different experience than American colonial slaves, for instance. And, perhaps more importantly, slavery in Thedas is quite common. Saying slaves shouldn't exist in anywhere but Tevinter because that is the only place it isn't outlawed is like saying assassinations shouldn't exist anywhere else but Antiva, because assassin's guilds are outlawed everywhere except for where The Crows reside.

I realize it is a sensitive subject, but it is a part of the Thedosian setting. It is quite possible that the Inquisition will have a scenario where slaves or slavery is a real choice and topic. What if by releasing a group of slaves, it turns out that they were later mostly captured by their masters (invalidating your freeing them), brutally tortured for trying to escape (making their lives worse) and that, during this torture, they leaked information about the Inquisition that cost the lives of your people (making it worse for you)?

Would you say that keeping those slaves controlled or contained, for their own safety but possibly against their will, would be more terrible than the above consequences I outlined?

[Fast Jimmy]

Fortlowe wrote...

Just to be clear, slavery, in all it's forms, always involved pedophilia. Always. So if in your pro slavery argument, you can replace the word 'slavery' with the word 'pedophilia' and 'slave' with 'child' and somehow the practice still seems benign, well then you win the argument.

This is just not true. An indentured servant was always of full adult age, for instance. And serfdom resulted in no more pedophilia or sexual abuse than what you'd see from the nobility to the peasants in general. I'd say that was more indicative of the abusive, non-representative class structure.

Equating one sin with another doesn't somehow support the argument you are making.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

Just enslave elves & mages, is not like their real people.

[JCAP]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, fair enough. But you do realize there are others who would have a different opinion?

But this discussion is between you and me. What would you prefer?

I'm not sure "employment" is the best use of that term, either. It's not like the people would be saying "let me work, please" they would be saying "don't let me die." They would be saved, but then put to work for only food. That sounds remarkably similar to the enemy combatant scenario.

And slavery didn't "often" mean live or die. Many Europeans sold themselves into indentured servitude to be paid out in the colonies in order to forgive their debts. Slavery does NOT mean forced, or that you are torn away from your family, or that you would be abused or mistreated. Yes, it did mean those things in more instances than the human race should ever be happy about, but forced servitude at the point of blade (or gun) is not the only definition of the existence of slavery. 

No sorry, employing someone means giving someone something in return of their service willingly. I can be a ****** and pay them next to nothing but as long I am not forcing them it is employment.

In that lord giving work scenario you are putting me on the spot. If I help them you say I am exploring them or if I turn them away I am a murderer.

And those that sold themselves weren't forced (or were by their situation?). I wouldn't call that slavery but I wouldn't call either employment. I would call that "don'tRemember servitude" from Mass Effect 2 on Elysium.

[Killdren88]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

thank you for your good commentary

it baffles me how many people on this site seem to be under the impression that slavery is just fine and dandy

it's just like any other job! except you aren't getting paid and you were forced to do it by someone else and you've been stripped of your rights and are considered no more valuable or autonomous than a chair and you can't ever leave

I never once said slavery was "good," for the record. It was a terrible practice that I'm glad we've outlawed in most places in the real world - it is quite unfortunate that there are more people in slavery now than there every was in any other time in human history, however.

But it wasn't always the mental image perceive it to be. Roman or Biblical slaves had a very different experience than American colonial slaves, for instance. And, perhaps more importantly, slavery in Thedas is quite common. Saying slaves shouldn't exist in anywhere but Tevinter because that is the only place it isn't outlawed is like saying assassinations shouldn't exist anywhere else but Antiva, because assassin's guilds are outlawed everywhere except for where The Crows reside.

I realize it is a sensitive subject, but it is a part of the Thedosian setting. It is quite possible that the Inquisition will have a scenario where slaves or slavery is a real choice and topic. What if by releasing a group of slaves, it turns out that they were later mostly captured by their masters (invalidating your freeing them), brutally tortured for trying to escape (making their lives worse) and that, during this torture, they leaked information about the Inquisition that cost the lives of your people (making it worse for you)?

Would you say that keeping those slaves controlled or contained, for their own safety but possibly against their will, would be more terrible than the above consequences I outlined?

^^^This

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Fortlowe wrote...

Just to be clear, slavery, in all it's forms, always involved pedophilia. Always. So if in your pro slavery argument, you can replace the word 'slavery' with the word 'pedophilia' and 'slave' with 'child' and somehow the practice still seems benign, well then you win the argument.

I know some good masters who had at least the minimum respect for their slaves and wouldn't treat them like sex objects... just labor force in their houses and their fields maybe. And most of other masters haven't been pedophile. Female slaves were more in demand if masters wanted slaves for lust.

[AlexanderCousland]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

Just to be clear, slavery, in all it's forms, always involved pedophilia. Always. So if in your pro slavery argument, you can replace the word 'slavery' with the word 'pedophilia' and 'slave' with 'child' and somehow the practice still seems benign, well then you win the argument.

This is just not true. An indentured servant was always of full adult age, for instance. And serfdom resulted in no more pedophilia or sexual abuse than what you'd see from the nobility to the peasants in general. I'd say that was more indicative of the abusive, non-representative class structure.

Equating one sin with another doesn't somehow support the argument you are making.

An Indentured Servant is not a Slave.

SWING AND MISS

Modifié par FreshIstay, 26 décembre 2013 - 08:18 .

[Fast Jimmy]

JCAP wrote...

But this discussion is between you and me. What would you prefer?

I would rather live than die. 

No sorry, employing someone means giving someone something in return of their service willingly. I can be a ****** and pay them next to nothing but as long I am not forcing them it is employment.

In that lord giving work scenario you are putting me on the spot. If I help them you say I am exploring them or if I turn them away I am a murderer.

And those that sold themselves weren't forced (or were by their situation?). I wouldn't call that slavery but I wouldn't call either employment. I would call that "don'tRemember servitude" from Mass Effect 2 on Elysium.

If you classify only the absolutely worst cases of slavery as slavery, then yes... it will be undeniably bad. Just like you can classify the absolute most heinous cases of killing people to be murder, then it is pretty bad as well. But if you take the action, murder - the act of killing another - and then see all of the circumstances and scenarios that this can come about, you'd see that murder is a very bad thing... but not always the WORST thing. And if killing someone is truly evil, would self-defense (a form of murder) be bad? No, of course not.

If you cookie cut a word or practice to only take its most deviant, terrible form, then that word losses meaning, because it is not even indicative of what is being talked about. The same goes with slavery - if we are saying that people who aren't being paid for their wages, who may have volunteered to be put in that situation, who weren't sexually abused and who didn't have their children abducted and sold to the highest bidder weren't slaves, than you have effectively made the word slavery useless. Because those scenarios fall under the definition of slavery - people who weren't obligated to their masters all of their lives, who didn't suffer the worst abuses imaginable and who were forced to do so or face death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 décembre 2013 - 08:22 .

[Fast Jimmy]

FreshIstay wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

Just to be clear, slavery, in all it's forms, always involved pedophilia. Always. So if in your pro slavery argument, you can replace the word 'slavery' with the word 'pedophilia' and 'slave' with 'child' and somehow the practice still seems benign, well then you win the argument.

This is just not true. An indentured servant was always of full adult age, for instance. And serfdom resulted in no more pedophilia or sexual abuse than what you'd see from the nobility to the peasants in general. I'd say that was more indicative of the abusive, non-representative class structure.

Equating one sin with another doesn't somehow support the argument you are making.

An Indentured Servant is not a Slave.

SWING AND MISS

According to the FreshIstay definition? That's fine. You'll forgive me if I don't give a rat's rear end about your definition.

According to a historian's definiton? Yes - it is considered slavery. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 décembre 2013 - 08:20 .

[Fortlowe]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

Just to be clear, slavery, in all it's forms, always involved pedophilia. Always. So if in your pro slavery argument, you can replace the word 'slavery' with the word 'pedophilia' and 'slave' with 'child' and somehow the practice still seems benign, well then you win the argument.

This is just not true. An indentured servant was always of full adult age, for instance. And serfdom resulted in no more pedophilia or sexual abuse than what you'd see from the nobility to the peasants in general. I'd say that was more indicative of the abusive, non-representative class structure.

Equating one sin with another doesn't somehow support the argument you are making.

A serf and an indentured servant is not a slave. If you think a slave is the same as a P.O.W. then you are incorrect. Slaves have no agreement. Slaves have no possessions. Slave have no hope of rescue. Slaves are cattle. They are born and die as property. To be used in any manner the owner sees fit. I'm not equating anything. Slaves were and tragically still are sexually abused from a very young age. This is a fact.

[Fast Jimmy]

Fortlowe wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

Just to be clear, slavery, in all it's forms, always involved pedophilia. Always. So if in your pro slavery argument, you can replace the word 'slavery' with the word 'pedophilia' and 'slave' with 'child' and somehow the practice still seems benign, well then you win the argument.

This is just not true. An indentured servant was always of full adult age, for instance. And serfdom resulted in no more pedophilia or sexual abuse than what you'd see from the nobility to the peasants in general. I'd say that was more indicative of the abusive, non-representative class structure.

Equating one sin with another doesn't somehow support the argument you are making.

A serf and an indentured servant is not a slave. If you think a slave is the same as a P.O.W. then you are incorrect. Slaves have no agreement. Slaves have no possessions. Slave have no hope of rescue. Slaves are cattle. They are born and die as property. To be used in any manner the owner sees fit. I'm not equating anything. Slaves were and tragically still are sexually abused from a very young age. This is a fact.

Again... the Fortlowe definition is fine for you to have... but it is not the academic definition of the word.

You can be in a forced marriage, able to own objects and exert influence on your life, even have another job... and still be considered a slave. You can have conditions to your servitude and have it still considered slavery. 

And Catholic altar boys were (and tragically still are) sexually abused from a very young age. That doesn't make the act of going to church pedophilia.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 décembre 2013 - 08:25 .

[AlexanderCousland]

Freshistay wrote...

An indentured servant is not a Slave

Fast Jimmy wrote...
According to the FreshIstay definition? That's fine. You'll forgive me if I don't give a rat's rear end about your definition.

According to a historian's definiton? Yes - it is considered slavery. 

Indentured Servant

Slave

For people who care to know the actual definition

Modifié par FreshIstay, 26 décembre 2013 - 08:31 .

[Fast Jimmy]

FreshIstay wrote...

Freshistay wrote...

An indentured servant is not a Slave

Fast Jimmy wrote...
According to the FreshIstay definition? That's fine. You'll forgive me if I don't give a rat's rear end about your definition.

According to a historian's definiton? Yes - it is considered slavery. 

Indentured Servant

Slave

For people who care to know the actual definition

Okay... and here is the Oxford English Dictionary definition, which includes people who are underpaid.
http://www.oxforddic...n_english/slave

...as well as the WordReference.com definition that has the same variable definition as well...

http://www.wordrefer...efinition/slave

That you can paste a definition from one source that mentions the right words you want does not make it the academic or historical definition of the word. 

I'll refer back to the Wikipedia link on slavery, which has dozens of linked and verified sources as to the broad definition and history of the term "slavery."

[Hellion Rex]

Retracted.

Modifié par eluvianix, 26 décembre 2013 - 08:39 .

[Afro_Explosion]

Indentured servitude is diet slavery for the slaver worried about his waistline.

[Toasted Llama]

I don't always agree with Fast Jimmy, but when I do... I am surprised.

The logic on this thread is seriously appaling.

I say that slavery in a certain form - with the conditions that 1. the owner of the slave has respect for their slaves (Yes, this exists and has happened in history. no argument here, if you deny it you deny history) 2. a slave at some point in his life has the opportunity to free himself or have free children 3. the slave is not denied shelter, food and security - is acceptable.

There are also willing slaves. And  when 2 countries are at war, most soldiers taken prisoner have committed multiple murders anyway, so the fact that they are allowed to be slaves with the opportunity to regain their freedom after services rendered, is an act of mercy. Do you prefer to die instead of having the option to be free again? Sure, go ahead. I won't stop you.

The fact that people immediately accuse me of making all slavery sound acceptable is ridiculous. This is the reason why I am "mad' as some people like to say it; here on BSN people only read what they want to read and there is no healthy discussion possible.

Again, slavery in a certian form =/= all slavery. If no-one is willingly to read and understand that I suggest this thread would be closed as there is no way to have a healthy discussion anyway.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Orkfaeller wrote...

Getting a bit annoyed when people consider slavery ( or other topic ) in games like this as "evil".

Owning someone else in ancient/medieval times wasn't evil, it was natural ( if you were a person of power ),

So yeah, I'd hope slavery/thraldom will be a thing, but not exclusivly to sadistic, "evil" characters.

The problem is that it's already been established as this in-setting. So, it's a little late for the setting as a whole to consider it as anything but this.

[Sully13]

this is going well. intresting fact Mississipy signed the anti slavery bill in 1995 yaay Mississipy. so its still relevent in my book.
Maybe we can free a load of slaves but this reminds me of my Squire topic.

[AresKeith]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Orkfaeller wrote...

Getting a bit annoyed when people consider slavery ( or other topic ) in games like this as "evil".

Owning someone else in ancient/medieval times wasn't evil, it was natural ( if you were a person of power ),

So yeah, I'd hope slavery/thraldom will be a thing, but not exclusivly to sadistic, "evil" characters.

The problem is that it's already been established as this in-setting. So, it's a little late for the setting as a whole to consider it as anything but this.

Not really