View Poll Results: Is Consenual Slavery OK?

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    1 8.33%
  • Yes but with some restrictions.

    3 25.00%
  • No.

    8 66.67%
  • Probably no.

    0 0%
  • Unsure.

    0 0%
Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 139 of 139

Thread: Should Adults be Permitted to Sell Themselves into Slavery?

  1. #131
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    Doublespeak.

    Where is your evidence? What are "official channels?"

    Please point the "evidence" you have used to back your argument. Be aware that personal opinion, conjecture and theory does not constitute evidence.

    For the record, you have never once presented an intelligible, concise argument in this thread. That is why no one is debating you on your terms, because you continually shift your terms under the pretense you are already correct.

    You do not want a debate, you want to be told you are correct. When you are told you are wrong, you attempt an absurdist strategy of recontextualizing terms to fit your ideology claiming that anything counter to those terms is an ideology enforced by a conspiracy.

    You frankly sound unhinged, inept and oblivious. That, or simply a disingenuous troll, which is why virtually no one cares to debate with you.

    Finally, the claim you are a teacher is without hyperbole, frightening to me. If I had a daughter, I would likely take what you've said here to the school board. The clear attempts at manipulation and gender based social insinuations are not humorous, they are borderline cultish and perverse, lacking all self awareness and only minimal coherence to intelligent thought.
    I can see that you are very frustrated by my approach to posting here. Let me try to address your post.

    I don't want to be told I am right. I want to make myself understood. My approach is an expository one. I form my opinions then state and attempt to explain them. When people reply with criticisms, I address their criticisms and clarify my position in light of any misconceptions they reveal. My aim is to get people to fully understand my opinion. If I manage to achieve that, then leave it up to them to decide whether to accept or reject my opinion.

    I am certainly open to being convinced by others that my opinion is wrong. I see no value in holding wrong opinions or succeeding in convincing others of something I discover to be wrong.

    I find that a lot of discussion involves misconceptions and clarification of misconceptions. Some of the misconception is due to my failure to clearly state or explain my opinion and some is due to the different backgrounds, experiences and views of others.

    I do listen to, seriously consider and respond to criticism. For example, you said that it is wrong to argue that prostitution is a form of slavery and should therefore be treated the same as slavery because prostitution is not a form of slavery. I agreed with that statement but said that it is an invalid criticism of my position because that is not my position and attempted to clarify my position.

    You also made the criticism that consensual slavery is impossible because people who are vulnerable are not truly in a position to consent to being exploited. After I understood that this was where you were coming from, I said that I acknowledge that slavery would involve powerful people exploiting vulnerable people but that vulnerable people with limited options choosing a bad option still constitutes legal consent as long as there are no individuals applying force or threats. In some cases, people can't agree but should strive to understand where the other person is coming from.

    I do try to genuinely and honestly address your criticisms and answer your questions but it seems that my expository approach frustrates you. I don't have much training in humanities and wasn't impressed by the approach to arguing that I encountered there so if that is what you are looking for, then I am bound to disappoint.
    Love displaces fear

  2. #132
    Moderator Thoth's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    AHJ 2006
    Posts
    987
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    I can see that you are very frustrated by my approach to posting here. Let me try to address your post.
    I am not frustrated.

    I have so much asked if I am having fun. The answer is not per se, but there is a certain sport to my endeavor here. I suppose "getting exercise" is a better analogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    I don't want to be told I am right. I want to make myself understood. My approach is an expository one.
    Self contradiction is an odd approach. How exactly did you expect people to engage in your debate if you continuously contradict yourself and prepose redefinitions of terms every time your contradictions are made evident?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    I am certainly open to being convinced by others that my opinion is wrong. I see no value in holding wrong opinions or succeeding in convincing others of something I discover to be wrong.
    It is not anyone's job to convince you you are wrong, and if that is your stance in entering a debate, you are not actually open to debate.

    You have been told you are wrong, even given examples in how you are wrong. Only you can consider the information presented for yourself. You have however chosen to close yourself off to debate by labeling all counter arguments as invalid ideologies.

    Thus far, only you have preposed an invalid ideology in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    I find that a lot of discussion involves misconceptions and clarification of misconceptions. Some of the misconception is due to my failure to clearly state or explain my opinion and some is due to the different backgrounds, experiences and views of others.
    There have been several attempts by multiple people asking you to clarify you points to minimize misconceptions. At every turn you have presented contradictions, double speak and false equivalencies only fostering a lack of cognitive coherence. This is, in part, why I believe you to be disingenuous. Such absurd ignorance is of course possible, but I find it unlikely given the tactics you employ that you are some kind of savant.

    No, your conversational tactics actually do remind me with a real experience with a Christian cult. I will admit that my experience would only be anecdotal, but what you have said here, and how you have said it, is very similar.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    I do listen to, seriously consider and respond to criticism. For example, you said that it is wrong to argue that prostitution is a form of slavery and should therefore be treated the same as slavery because prostitution is not a form of slavery. I agreed with that statement but said that it is an invalid criticism of my position because that is not my position and attempted to clarify my position.
    I said prostitution and slavery are not the same.

    It is amusing that you are trying to recontextualize that simple statement, as well as attempting to accuse me of doublespeak.

    You're not fooling anybody.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    You also made the criticism that consensual slavery is impossible because people who are vulnerable are not truly in a position to consent to being exploited.
    I never said this. I said consensual slavery is an oxymoron.

    You are attempting to project your bad arguments as mine own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    After I understood that this was where you were coming from, I said that I acknowledge that slavery would involve powerful people exploiting vulnerable people and that vulnerable people with limited options choosing a bad option still constitutes legal consent as long as there are no individuals applying force or threats. In some cases, people can't agree but should strive to understand where the other person is coming from.
    Now you're attempting to use a false interpretation of my assertion as validation for your argument?

  3. #133
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    Self contradiction is an odd approach. How exactly did you expect people to engage in your debate if you continuously contradict yourself and prepose redefinitions of terms every time your contradictions are made evident?
    What you call redefinition of terminology and shifting of my position, I call clarification of my position in light of misconceptions that come to light.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    It is not anyone's job to convince you you are wrong, and if that is your stance in entering a debate, you are not actually open to debate.
    I am committed to truth. I am not saying that it is your job to convince me that I am wrong. I am just saying that if anyone convinces me that I am wrong, I will certainly accept that I am wrong and admit that I am wrong. I am trying to make my opinions understood more so that win a debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    You have been told you are wrong, even given examples in how you are wrong. Only you can consider the information presented for yourself. You have however chosen to close yourself off to debate by labeling all counter arguments as invalid ideologies.
    Possibly. I am more focused on making my position fully understood than debating the merits of alternative perspectives. If I dismiss alternative perspectives as invalid ideologies, this is me attempting to explain my view of ideologies rather than simply dismissing them without seeking to debate them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    There have been several attempts by multiple people asking you to clarify you points to minimize misconceptions. At every turn you have presented contradictions, double speak and false equivalencies only fostering a lack of cognitive coherence. This is, in part, why I believe you to be disingenuous. Such absurd ignorance is of course possible, but I find it unlikely given the tactics you employ that you are some kind of savant.
    There are two things are inherently harmful. To one, people apply arguments that lead to its legalization and acceptance but to the other people do not apply these arguments and acknowledge that it should not be legalized or accepted because it is inherently harmful.

    I understand that prostitution are not exactly equivalent but I am claiming the both are inherently harmful, deserve to be viewed that way and people should seek to make them less common as a way to reduce the harm done to people who get caught up in them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    I said prostitution and slavery are not the same.
    I agree that you said this and agree that they are not the same. I'd also agree with the statement that prostitution is not a form of slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    It is amusing that you are trying to recontextualize that simple statement, as well as attempting to accuse me of doublespeak.

    I never said this. I said consensual slavery is an oxymoron.

    You are attempting to project your bad arguments as mine own.

    Now you're attempting to use a false interpretation of my assertion as validation for your argument?
    I made the point that others can easily misunderstand and therefore unintentionally misrepresent my position. The same applies to me in relation to the positions of others.

    I am trying to understand your points but sometimes fail.

    I'd agree that the use of slavery and putting the words consensual and slavery together was a deliberate rhetorical device on my part. So what? It was a rhetorical exercise that helped to make a point about how arguments that could reasonably be applied to similar situations are not. Consensual slavery does not exist but it could and something similar to it has existed in the past.

    However, I don't disagree that consensual slavery is an impossibility. Correct me if I am wrong but you did suggest that it is impossible because of a power imbalance between the slave and slave owner. My understanding of the meaning of the word consent allows for consent to be given even in the case of a power imbalance if the consenting party initiates the agreement.
    Love displaces fear

  4. #134
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    I am presenting some arguments and others are presenting different arguments and there is countering of arguments on both sides. This is a genuine debate/discussion. It probably looks like it is one-sided because I am the only one in the discussion arguing for my position.
    The number of sides in an argument has nothing to do with the number of voices speaking an argument. A one sided argument is not the same as a one sided fist-fight. You have a one sided argument and agenda. That you face opposition doesn't change that.

    There could be genuine discussion and debate where a variety of arguments and evidence for and against is presented through official channels and people are able to make up their own minds, but that is not what we get. What we get is indoctrination and the sewing of ideological division. This is and has always been the role of official channels, in my view.
    It is and always has been the responsibility of the listener to engage in critical thought.
    People think they understand their own mortality, even when that understanding has just changed.

    --Meditations on Uncertainty Vol ξ(x)

  5. #135
    凸(ಠ_ರೃ )凸 stuck's Avatar
    Type
    xNxx
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    I do listen to, seriously consider and respond to criticism.
    Well you also attempt to gaslight people and sully their character by apologizing for them being upset, when they're actually simply raising criticisms. I'm sorry you find your arguments so weak that you have to result to that, it must be extremely frustrating.

    I'm also sorry that you have a problem identifying when you engage in ideology, the cognitive dissonance must be terrible.

  6. #136
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,531
    Quote Originally Posted by stuck View Post
    Well you also attempt to gaslight people and sully their character by apologizing for them being upset, when they're actually simply raising criticisms. I'm sorry you find your arguments so weak that you have to result to that, it must be extremely frustrating.
    I took his post to be saying that debating me is very frustrating because I don't follow the normal rules of debating. I put myself in his shoes and thought it reasonable to apologize for any feelings of frustration I caused him or time he feels he wasted trying to get through to me. I don't try to gaslight people or use an apology to try to sully the character of someone in order to deflect from their criticisms of me. I am just not that sophisticated.

    I did seriously consider his criticisms and did agree with him in a sense. On reflection, my posts are not an attempt to engage in a debate but more of an exposition/discussion. His criticisms helped me to better understand this.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuck View Post
    I'm also sorry that you have a problem identifying when you engage in ideology, the cognitive dissonance must be terrible.
    I keep insisting that I don't have an ideology but you and others keep insisting that I do. Would you be happy to say that I have a theology and that we disagree about whether theology is an ideology or not?

    If not and you think that I have an ideology apart from theology, would you care to categorize or characterize it?
    Love displaces fear

  7. #137
    schlemiel Faust's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who
    I took his post to be saying that debating me is very frustrating because I don't follow the normal rules of debating.
    You should take it to say what it says, in plain English
    "All my heroes are dead" - John Zorn

    "It's not selfish if you hate yourself"

  8. #138
    凸(ಠ_ರೃ )凸 stuck's Avatar
    Type
    xNxx
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    I took his post to be saying that debating me is very frustrating because I don't follow the normal rules of debating. I put myself in his shoes and thought it reasonable to apologize for any feelings of frustration I caused him or time he feels he wasted trying to get through to me. I don't try to gaslight people or use an apology to try to sully the character of someone in order to deflect from their criticisms of me. I am just not that sophisticated.
    Apologizing for someone being frustrated is different from apologizing for being frustrating, I'm sure you can understand that even with your purported lack of sophistication.

    Furthermore I don't buy it, I think you're being disingenuous. Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    I keep insisting that I don't have an ideology but you and others keep insisting that I do. Would you be happy to say that I have a theology and that we disagree about whether theology is an ideology or not?

    If not and you think that I have an ideology apart from theology, would you care to categorize or characterize it?
    Your theology turns into ideology when you employ it to answer political and economic questions.

  9. #139
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,531
    Quote Originally Posted by stuck View Post
    Apologizing for someone being frustrated is different from apologizing for being frustrating, I'm sure you can understand that even with your purported lack of sophistication.

    Furthermore I don't buy it, I think you're being disingenuous. Sorry.
    If I apologize, I consider both how someone feels or is likely to feel and what I have done to cause them to feel that way. I didn't fully understand your point initially but I think it is clear now now. I wasn't trying to say anything along the lines of I'm "sorry" you are so weak that you are upset by a little debate. I am fully aware of how exasperating I can be and try to be mindful of it.

    I'd say that the potential for misunderstandings to arise when communicating is always present and much higher when communicating via a text based internet forum. Internet forums also provide ample opportunities for people to be deceptive and manipulative, so it is reasonable for you to judge me as being manipulative and deceptive. I would deny that I am being being manipulative and deceptive but you can judge as being so if you wish.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuck View Post
    Your theology turns into ideology when you employ it to answer political and economic questions.
    I think ideas and principles turn into ideology when they move from the individual and voluntary to the collective and compulsory. i.e. when someone advocates for the government to get involved in regulating the lives of individuals.

    I do discuss politics and economics based on a set of principles that I have adopted. I have, for example, advocated that governments adopt the Nordic model in relation to prostitution. There could be a few times when my positions could be described as ideological or bordering on ideological, so I can't claim to be totally free of ideology but I think I largely am.

    There are plenty of times when I oppose particular ideologies, as ideological people do, but, unlike ideological people, I don't oppose them on ideological grounds or advocate people adopt an alternative ideology. The fact that I speak out against certain ideologies could give the impression that I am ideological but I'd argue that criticizing ideologies does not make one ideological if it is not done on ideological grounds and does not involve advocating an alternative ideology.

    I believe that government, in general, is good and necessary. I am certainly no anarchist. I would like governments to implement common sense practical measures to make the lives of ordinary people better but it is not something that I spend much time thinking about or fighting for. I leave that to people who have a passion for politics. I think it is more important for individuals to pursue and spread truth and love.
    Love displaces fear

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •