How to deal with human waste

[Argus]

Excuse me while I am laughing at your self-description

"I know you are, but what am I?" Such clever repartee! Are you a professional debater, sir!?

Excuse me. I was under the delusion that the evil of slavery was something evident enough that it did not need to be explained. Perhaps I should explain why 1 + 1 = 2 as well?

You stated "There is a very good reason while western countries abolished slavery"

I asked for that reason.

Slavery is a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be the property of others. The property of others... Not like a human being, but like a piece of furniture, or chattel. That concept that a human being is a property is sufficient proof of the evil of the slavery, in and by itself.

Why?

You're dealing with concepts - ones you don't seem to have actually thought out, btw, while I'm dealing with reality.

Explain why a human being is better off living in a tin shack in a squalid slum in some third world dictatorship (please note, no freedom), spending his days scrambling for food in the municipal dump than he would be as a house slave in some Alabama mansion opening doors and fetching iced tea for the lady.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

...Explain why a human being is better off living in a tin shack in a squalid slum in some third world dictatorship (please note, no freedom), spending his days scrambling for food in the municipal dump than he would be as a house slave in some Alabama mansion opening doors and fetching iced tea for the lady.

Because it would be a lot warmer than being a "house slave" in Lower Canada.

[CANADIEN]

You're dealing with concepts - ones you don't seem to have actually thought out, btw, while I'm dealing with reality.

Of course, I did not think it through - for thinking it thorugh would mean starting from a view point where human beings are mere commodity.

Explain why a human being is better off living in a tin shack in a squalid slum in some third world dictatorship (please note, no freedom), spending his days scrambling for food in the municipal dump than he would be as a house slave in some Alabama mansion opening doors and fetching iced tea for the lady.

Iwas not about to single out the American slave system, but since you provided that example...

Your "so-lucky" hosue slave was sleeping in a shack at night. Food and clothing provided as long as the master found it in his own interest. From a material point of view, only marginally better than a person lving today in a slum in let's say Nairobi. If one were to measure what makes a human being only from a material point of view, neither of them would be much of a human being, with marginal advantage to the slave.

Human beings though, have another measure, as beings with a soul, a conscience and inherent dignity. There is not much dignity in a life in the slums of Nairobi. But even that is more dignity than a life as an object... which is exactly what slavery is. That's the concept you either do not graps, or wilfully ignore.

You want to know if I find a life in abject poverty, or life under a brutal disctatorship, better than a life in slavery? Neither is acceptable. Nothing short of work for better living conditions and more freedom (both from slavery and dictatorship) is acceptable.

But then again, feel free to explain how free a slave is.

And if you believe that being a slave is no big deal, I could certainly use one. I have a shack in the back-yard. I think I can spare you two slices of bread and a cup of water (not stale, I promise) a day... as long as you do exactly what you are told. And remember, the moment you become my slave, do not expect to be treated better than I would treat my dog (if I had one) or my TV. You want slavery, you'll get slavery.

Edited January 24, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Argus]

Because it would be a lot warmer than being a "house slave" in Lower Canada.

We have indoor heat here, yank.

[Argus]

Of course, I did not think it through - for thinking it thorugh would mean starting from a view point where human beings are mere commodity.

In many senses, humans are a commodity, for their lives are worth as much as their skills and abilities can command.

Your "so-lucky" hosue slave was sleeping in a shack at night. Food and clothing provided as long as the master found it in his own interest. From a material point of view, only marginally better than a person lving today in a slum in let's say Nairobi. If one were to measure what makes a human being only from a material point of view, neither of them would be much of a human being, with marginal advantage to the slave.

Times have changed, and I think one of the mistakes you make is in assuming all slaves were treated badly. In fact, the more valuable a slave, the better the slave tended to be treated. Seneca warned Romans that they should treat slaves well, for that improved their behaviour. Besides, a good slave is hard to replace. Most people will not naturally treat others cruelly without reason. And just as business originally wanted to improve public health - not because they cared about others but because a healthy worker is better for business - so too slave owners should do the best to keep their slave healthy.

Human beings though, have another measure, as beings with a soul, a conscience and inherent dignity. There is not much dignity in a life in the slums of Nairobi. But even that is more dignity than a life as an object... which is exactly what slavery is. That's the concept you either do not graps, or wilfully ignore.

Dignity is an interesting concept and important in some respects, but not as important as food, clothing and shelter, I think. When the American slaves were freed did they gain dignity? Most replaced one form of slavery with another, for they had to crawl before their new masters - their bosses, assuming they could get work somewhere. They had to accept mistreatment and contempt as the price for being employed and being fed. India, meanwhile, created whole classes of people who were distinctly inferior to everyone else. They got to handle excrement or dead animals, for example. And even today, in more "enlightened" India, an untouchable can be beaten to death for stepping onto the shadow of a higher caste Indian. How much dignity did they have?

But again, I'm not suggesting slavery, and if I did, it would be for the benefit of society - ie, doing something with the useless criminal element, not the benefit of the would-be slave. What I was suggesting is locking them away from society on some sort of prison farm.

[CANADIEN]

In many senses, humans are a commodity, for their lives are worth as much as their skills and abilities can command.

Feel free to reduce yourself to being an object. I won't.

Times have changed, and I think one of the mistakes you make is in assuming all slaves were treated badly. In fact, the more valuable a slave, the better the slave tended to be treated. Seneca warned Romans that they should treat slaves well, for that improved their behaviour. Besides, a good slave is hard to replace. Most people will not naturally treat others cruelly without reason. And just as business originally wanted to improve public health - not because they cared about others but because a healthy worker is better for business - so too slave owners should do the best to keep their slave healthy.

I treat my TV, my collection of old books, my computer well. If I had an animal, I doubt I would be treating them cruelly. They are not human beings.

Dignity is an interesting concept and important in some respects, but not as important as food, clothing and shelter, I think.

It is no less important.

When the American slaves were freed did they gain dignity? Most replaced one form of slavery with another, for they had to crawl before their new masters - their bosses, assuming they could get work somewhere. They had to accept mistreatment and contempt as the price for being employed and being fed.

Trading one for of indignity (slavery) for another (racism) does not make either more acceptable.

India, meanwhile, created whole classes of people who were distinctly inferior to everyone else. They got to handle excrement or dead animals, for example. And even today, in more "enlightened" India, an untouchable can be beaten to death for stepping onto the shadow of a higher caste Indian. How much dignity did they have?

None. Then again, you will not be surprised to know I have no love whatsoever for the caste system.

But again, I'm not suggesting slavery, and if I did, it would be for the benefit of society - ie, doing something with the useless criminal element, not the benefit of the would-be slave. What I was suggesting is locking them away from society on some sort of prison farm.

sorry to burst your bubble, but forced labour (except as a punishment for a crime, is slavery). And as with any form of attack on the dignity of a human being, it has very little good, if any, to offer society.

Edited January 24, 2010 by CANADIEN

[maple_leafs182]

The wrong way to live is living off others while giving nothing back - and not wanting to give anything back, not even making the slightest effort to give anything back.

How do you know they don't want to give anything back, how do you know they aren't making an effort.

Who are you speaking on behalf or are you just stereotyping.

Try walking a mile in their shoes.

Your solution is slavery and would not solve any problems.

Lets legalize drugs, we would get rid of many gangs, lower street violence, free up the court system, lower the prison population.

Lets stop producing human waste instead of just dealing with human waste.

I don't like that term human waste, find it offensive and demeaning.

[bush_cheney2004]

We have indoor heat here, yank.

Not for impoverished Canadians living on frozen dumps and handouts:

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/photos/homeless_in_snow.jpg

Edited January 24, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Can you reduce it to zero?

Seriously, take a fellow, say John Smith. He's thirty seven with a grade 8 education, addicted to heroin, thirty four arrests, never held a job in his life... what else do you want to do with this wasted creature?

Maybe your corporal punishment idea, i.e. a stern spanking ?

[August1991]

Seriously, some of these people would be better off as slaves. It's hard to say a life of scrambling in alleys, snatch and grabbing small items to sell for your desperately needy daily fix, or rooting through garbage for food and newspapers to use to insulate you against the cold is better than working on some sort of prison farm.

Once again Argus, who should decide?

You state that "Some of these people would be better off as slaves." Who would decide who is a slave?

I stated above that some people believe that civil servants (such as you) are "parasites".

====

Argus, your OP is based on the premise that there is some way to decide who is productive to society and who is not.

My question to you is: who will make this decision?

IOW, I don't disagree that some people in society cause more harm than others. But I am fearful to give power to anyone to clear society of the harmful people.

Edited January 25, 2010 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Liberal drivel, and dishonest drivel at that. I'm not speaking about people who "at one point or another are unemployed or homeless" and that is patently clear. I'm speaking about criminals with forty or fifty convictions, who haven't held a job in decades. I'm speaking about people who grew up on welfare, applied for their own welfare at eighteen, and have been on welfare for a dozen years since then, with no intention, hope, desire of ever getting off welfare, getting an education, getting job skills or a job. In the United States there are entire slums filled with such people, for whom the phrase "the underclass" was coined, people whose parents, grandparents were all on welfare, and whose children and grandchildren will be on welfare.

Right, but you're not asking why this happened - you're just calling them 'waste' and suggesting 19th century approaches, like work farms which failed in Ontario.

Here's a news flash to many people on the board: The 19th Century was miserable, which is why we decided to move on.

[Michael Hardner]

Dignity is an interesting concept and important in some respects, but not as important as food, clothing and shelter, I think. When the American slaves were freed did they gain dignity? Most replaced one form of slavery with another, for they had to crawl before their new masters - their bosses, assuming they could get work somewhere. They had to accept mistreatment and contempt as the price for being employed and being fed. India, meanwhile, created whole classes of people who were distinctly inferior to everyone else. They got to handle excrement or dead animals, for example. And even today, in more "enlightened" India, an untouchable can be beaten to death for stepping onto the shadow of a higher caste Indian. How much dignity did they have?

But again, I'm not suggesting slavery, and if I did, it would be for the benefit of society - ie, doing something with the useless criminal element, not the benefit of the would-be slave. What I was suggesting is locking them away from society on some sort of prison farm.

The difference between that and slavery being ?

[ToadBrother]

In many senses, humans are a commodity, for their lives are worth as much as their skills and abilities can command.

In what sense is that, precisely? The trend of Western thought since the Enlightenment has been the complete opposite; that humans are not simply tools, not simply slaves of the state or society or whatever traditional construct has been used to subsume what are considered inherent rights. I thought you were living in the 19th century, but I'm beginning to think you're living in the 12th century, with an unhealthy admixture of Libertarianism to boot.

Times have changed, and I think one of the mistakes you make is in assuming all slaves were treated badly. In fact, the more valuable a slave, the better the slave tended to be treated. Seneca warned Romans that they should treat slaves well, for that improved their behaviour. Besides, a good slave is hard to replace. Most people will not naturally treat others cruelly without reason. And just as business originally wanted to improve public health - not because they cared about others but because a healthy worker is better for business - so too slave owners should do the best to keep their slave healthy.

Wow, 300 years of philosophy blown out the door. Yes, some slaves were treated well, depending on the culture, but the notion that all men are equal argues against the idea that a well-treated slave is some sort of reasonable compromise. You do realize that this was the precise argument used by slave-owners in the American South prior to the Civil War; that the Negro lived this short, brutish, barbaric life in Africa, and that the American slave owner had in fact improved their general lot. Even Jefferson, whose own plantation relied on slave labor, and who still believed blacks to be somehow lesser than the white man, struggled with how a nation could declare itself a land of liberty, and still hold some men in a position of slavery.

Dignity is an interesting concept and important in some respects, but not as important as food, clothing and shelter, I think.

Only to a society that has little or no value of liberty. Yes, many would trade their freedom for food, but a society that forces that choice is immoral.

When the American slaves were freed did they gain dignity? Most replaced one form of slavery with another, for they had to crawl before their new masters - their bosses, assuming they could get work somewhere. They had to accept mistreatment and contempt as the price for being employed and being fed. India, meanwhile, created whole classes of people who were distinctly inferior to everyone else. They got to handle excrement or dead animals, for example. And even today, in more "enlightened" India, an untouchable can be beaten to death for stepping onto the shadow of a higher caste Indian. How much dignity did they have?

The reason that happened is because Reconstruction was ended too early, and the southern States were permitted for a century to enact various laws, like poll taxes to prevent blacks from voting, and the whole assemblage of Jim Crow laws, designed specifically to undo the effects of the 13th amendment. They were actively deprived of their rightful liberties, and yes, their dignity. That seems a strange defense of slavery.

But again, I'm not suggesting slavery, and if I did, it would be for the benefit of society - ie, doing something with the useless criminal element, not the benefit of the would-be slave. What I was suggesting is locking them away from society on some sort of prison farm.

This seems like the stock justification for any kind of slavery. Whether it's the criminal element, or black skin, or social class, it's a rather scary thought. What's more, I fail to see how any of it is going to deal with the root of crime.

[Argus]

It is no less important

Says the fat, happy frenchman who's never known fear or want.

It is HUGELY less important as all of human history has more than amply attested. Any number of peole in any number of situations have been more than willing to forfeit all dignity in exchange for demands of food, clothing and shelter, and continue to do so today. dignity has no value when you're starving.

You are engaging in mindless parotting of brainless twaddle. engage your mind or stop replying to me.

sorry to burst your bubble, but forced labour (except as a punishment for a crime, is slavery).

Well since we are discussing forced labour for criminals I'm not entirely sure where your self-righteous but oh-so-noble statement arises.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

Says the fat, happy frenchman who's never known fear or want.

It is HUGELY less important as all of human history has more than amply attested. Any number of peole in any number of situations have been more than willing to forfeit all dignity in exchange for demands of food, clothing and shelter, and continue to do so today. dignity has no value when you're starving.

Is it your goal to end welfare so as to assure a nice slave labor pool? It's hard to read what you're writing any other way.

[Argus]

Once again Argus, who should decide?

If we're talking about lifelong criminals - society can decide. If you're referring to denizens of third-world rat holes... Let me posit this. How many such residents, if given the opportunity to surrender all freedom (such as one living in poverty in the third world enjoys) and instead move to Canada or Europe, get a warm, dry, safe little room, and be required to do basic chores for his master thereafterm, would jump at the chance? How many would willingly give up their tin shack, their filthy water, and their desperate daily quest for food to put on a suit and act like a rich man's butler, answering the door and such?

You state that "Some of these people would be better off as slaves." Who would decide who is a slave?

I stated above that some people believe that civil servants (such as you) are "parasites".

What does that make Quebec civil servants then? Doubly parasitic? I mean, your whole province has geen a parasite on confederation for generations. So I think we should leave aside the nonsensical suggestions that anyone other than lifelong losers and criminals would be judged as better off being made into slaves. that's lazy, stupid thinking of the sort which says "Oh I would never judge him" even though, of course, we judge people all the times by the standards we set ourselves.

Argus, your OP is based on the premise that there is some way to decide who is productive to society and who is not.

Yes, shockingly, one can also decide what is wet and what is not. It's usually rather obvious, in fact, unless you're determined to not use your senses. Let me start by suggesting, without hesitation, that Anthony Bennett deserves no freedom, and both he and society would be better off if he were exiled to a prison farm for the remainder of his life.

My question to you is: who will make this decision?

IOW, I don't disagree that some people in society cause more harm than others. But I am fearful to give power to anyone to clear society of the harmful people.

Since we're restricting it to crime I would suggest a judge and jury decide, much as they do now with other crimes.

[Argus]

Is it your goal to end welfare so as to assure a nice slave labor pool? It's hard to read what you're writing any other way.

I did not suggest those on welfare should be made into slaves. I said those on welfare should be made to work - in exchange for what they're given. They are free to refuse and get no welfare, of course. I did suggest lifelong criminals would be better off exiled to prison farms for life, however.

[ToadBrother]

I did not suggest those on welfare should be made into slaves. I said those on welfare should be made to work - in exchange for what they're given. They are free to refuse and get no welfare, of course. I did suggest lifelong criminals would be better off exiled to prison farms for life, however.

In other words, they have the freedom, the freedom to starve. That isn't really a freedom at all, but that coupled with your other musings does appear to be some sort of a justification for slavery.

I mean, what if someone refuses your offer, and they have kids? Will the kids starve too, or will they be seized by the State? What if the person is mentally ill and not really capable of making the choice in a competent manner?

[Argus]

In what sense is that, precisely? The trend of Western thought since the Enlightenment has been the complete opposite; that humans are not simply tools, not simply slaves of the state or society or whatever traditional construct has been used to subsume what are considered inherent rights.

But I'm not talking noble philosphies here but down-to-earth realities. If the west had slaves, they would be far better treated than the southern slaves of the pre-civil war south. Their lives would almost unquestionably be far safer, longer and probably more fulfilling than the denizens of the squalid slums of the third world. They would have few rights, of course, but what rights does a slum dweller in a third world dictatorship have, in reality?

Wow, 300 years of philosophy blown out the door. Yes, some slaves were treated well, depending on the culture, but the notion that all men are equal argues against the idea that a well-treated slave is some sort of reasonable compromise.

I do believe that all men are (more or less) created somewhat equally. However, once the creation process is done, does anyone really think those who grow up in the slums of the third world are going to be the equals to those growing up in Canada? Are they going to have the physical health, the sophistication and education, the twenty-first century mindset needed for success? Hardly. They'll be, in all likelihood, no more educated, sophisticated or advanced than their great, great, great, great grandparents were.

Those children brought over from Haiti will be raised as Canadians by Canadian parents, and will bear very little resemblance to the children their age left behind to grow up in Haiti. They will not be equals - far from it probably.

You do realize that this was the precise argument used by slave-owners in the American South prior to the Civil War; that the Negro lived this short, brutish, barbaric life in Africa, and that the American slave owner had in fact improved their general lot.

Maybe, but that argument was flawed. I think the negro living in Africa two hundred years ago almost certainly had a better, more satisfying, more fulfilling life than your average Haitian slum dweller - or a slave in the southern US. The lives of aboriginal villagers might have been shorter than ours, but they could be quite content and fulfilling.

But again, whether Haitian slum dwellers would be better off as slaves, or would want to be slaves, was not the subject of my original post.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

In other words, they have the freedom, the freedom to starve. That isn't really a freedom at all,

Welfare is a modern concept. Are you going to suggest there was no freedom prior to the late twentieth century instituting of welfare programs in the West?

I mean, what if someone refuses your offer, and they have kids? Will the kids starve too, or will they be seized by the State?

I belive the law requires parents to provide the neccesities of life to their children. If they are unable or unwilling to do so the state takes the children away.

What if the person is mentally ill and not really capable of making the choice in a competent manner?

I am a big advocate of vastly improved mental health services, including institutions to care for those incapable of caring for themselves. Why liberals felt it made more sense to throw the mentally ill onto the streets to fend for themselves is beyond me.

[Argus]

Right, but you're not asking why this happened - you're just calling them 'waste' and suggesting 19th century approaches, like work farms which failed in Ontario.

They didn't "fail" in Ontario. Corrections Canada decided that agricultural skills were no longer of much value in rehabilitation in today's economy.

But I'mnot talking about prisons - with farms to help rehabilitate the criminals and teach them skills. I'm talking about large farms, which use prisoner-labour. I'm not unduly concerned with the value of that labour in rehabilitation, either, since most would not be going anywhere.

[Argus]

Maybe your corporal punishment idea, i.e. a stern spanking ?

that is, metaphorically speaking, what you people on the Left have been doing for the last twenty or thirty years. Giving the criminal a gentle pat on the wrist, tweaking their chins, and sending them back out to victimize more people.

I never really understood why the Left has so much compassion for criminals and none for the victims of criminals.

[Michael Hardner]

I never really understood why the Left has so much compassion for criminals and none for the victims of criminals.

This is an exaggeration. I would submit that they don't see it useful to blame someone who emerges from their environment exactly as one would expect.

[ToadBrother]

Welfare is a modern concept. Are you going to suggest there was no freedom prior to the late twentieth century instituting of welfare programs in the West?

The Roman government used to give food to the masses of Rome to prevent food riots; hence the "bread" in bread and circuses. Believe me, welfare ain't a new concept.

I belive the law requires parents to provide the neccesities of life to their children. If they are unable or unwilling to do so the state takes the children away.

Interesting, so you simultaneously remove the ability of some percentage of the people to provide, and then take the children away. Doubtless they'll make a fine addition to your growing slave class.

I am a big advocate of vastly improved mental health services, including institutions to care for those incapable of caring for themselves. Why liberals felt it made more sense to throw the mentally ill onto the streets to fend for themselves is beyond me.

What of those who can, with support of the government, live on their own? Or is it again simply a question of economics?

Edited January 26, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

So the powerful parasites that eat the human weak - those that are masters of consumerism who consume the consumer are more dignified than the rest? So as those that control the wealth of nations shit - what comes out...and who manages the waste product..who cleans it up - who whipes the asses of these super beings? Let them clean up their own mess..to become rich and totally powerful you must consume as much matter and humanity as possible..let the cannibals at least become house broken.