Wondering why drug trafficing is a-ok while slaves etc isn't

Started by Lightzy, August 22, 2016, 04:51:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

brcruchairman

Mumble, what you say is true, but I believe the issue here is twofold: 1) Those arguments can easily apply to any pawn, not just purchased ones. Therefore, the status of bought slaves versus recruited pawns versus joining wanderers appears to be the same. Any changes in status would be player-assigned and manufactured, and have nothing to do with their origin. However, you are right in that a player COULD manufacture a circumstance whereby bought slaves are treated more harshly than any other pawn. Which brings me to point 2) The coding necessary for a pawn to recognize such uneven treatment, as distinct from legitimate orders (such as denying medicine to a pawn that's going to die anyway, stationing a pawn in a guard shack, prioritizing gear) would be extensive, complicated, and moreover based on an ambiguity of judgement; personally speaking, I'm having trouble imagining a circumstance which is clearly unfair to the pawn which also could not and does not occur naturally for other free pawns. (E.g., given a knife and told to charge raiders? Sometimes my colonists have to do that. Charging alone? Maybe the other colonists are incapacitated.)

All that said, maybe once the ideals system gets made and implemented, differing social status will likewise be implemented. It'd be an interesting temptation to be able to force captured pawns to work, not have to coddle them mood-wise, but know that you're basically being an unimaginable tyrant to do so.

mumblemumble

#31
Oh yeah I'm not saying we need code to detect inequity in society, but merely pointing out someone being a slave is far more than just being CALLED a slave.

You could have a "slave", and a "loyal companion", and the loyal companion treated far worse than slave ever would be. And before you say then "well then they aren't slaves", then you must ask, what MAKES one a slave? And how do you detect if someone is hiding behind a title? what makes it moral, or not moral? And do not forget the concept of "dependants" slaves.

"The word "slave" has also been used to refer to a legal state of dependency to somebody else.[26][27] In many cases, such as in ancient Persia, the situation and lives of such slaves could be better than those of other common citizens.[28]". So then, is it really slavery that is bad, or is it treating someone as disposable on only the bare minimum to sustain life for future servitude?

I'm just pointing out how much of this stuff isn't as straight forward as people believe it to be.

Context is infinitely important..
Why to people worry about following their heart? Its lodged in your chest, you won't accidentally leave it behind.

-----

Its bad because reasons, and if you don't know the reasons, you are horrible. You cannot ask what the reasons are or else you doubt it. But the reasons are irrefutable. Logic.

brcruchairman

Indeed, context is very important. I know that, personally, I tend to define a slave as a human being (or other sentient creature, if we're going into scifi or fantasy settings) which is classified as property, not person, by the society in which it resides. It sounds like your definition of slavery differs on subtle but key points; I admit, I'm not sure what your definition is, though I get the feeling that it has to do with how a person is treated, relationships between people. (E.g., control.)

Regardless, I believe we agree that slavery is an ambiguous issue; in many cases it tends to be an abhorrent atrocity, but there do exist circumstances in which it may be preferable to freedom. I'd further argue that this could also apply to drugs; some drugs, or drugs taken in moderation, can be benign or even helpful. (E.g., opium was a fantastic addition to the medical repertoire upon its discovery.) However, like any substance, they can also be abused, and nowadays often are, causing tremendous harm.

The thing I like to bring up is that legality is often a matter of time and place. Cocaine, for instance, was not only permitted but encouraged in 1885 United States, and often regarded as a popular vice, similar to alcohol.1

Cannabis, too, was only made illegal in the past century. Until that time, especially in climates where it grew naturally, it was considered just one of those things that people do.2

One may argue that the drugs themselves are bad, and one may be correct. However, I'd point out that things like alcohol and caffeine and one could argue fructose) have similar effects; they alter the mind, excessive usage can cause degenerative effects, and both can be addictive. Caffeine, in fact, has been shown to have a mild physical dependence as a result of excess (> 100 mg / day) caffeine consumption.3 Alcohol dependence can be lethal, due to the seizures associated with quitting cold turkey.4 And yet, the inclusion of beer did not provide the same visceral reaction we seem to be having to drugs. I'd wager that the inclusion of coffee would also be largely unremarked upon.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that, yeah, drugs can be bad. Drugs often are bad. But they can also be benign or good, depending on context. And much of this context depends on the time and place; in a context of illegality, drug trafficking often includes violence, criminality, and addiction, necessary parts of business. In such a circumstance, as is the case today, it can cause tremendous harm. However, in an environment of acceptance and legality, in which use is controlled by social pressures, the chief harm is physiological, which can be mitigated, in part, by moderation. Personally, I'm a teetotaler who's barely even tried alcohol; I'm still, despite all my logic, uncomfortable with the idea of mind-altering substances, and imagine I won't be using them. However, I feel it's worth noting that much of the evil we associate with drug use is dependent on their illicit status; the rest can be compared to things we already accept in society, so I can find relatively little reason to resent the inclusion of such drugs in a game like this.

This is just my two cents; I've been wrong before, Lord knows, and being a teetotaler, I've no firsthand experience to draw upon, so I may be working off of bad information. I just felt compelled to share these thoughts. :)

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#Popularization
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#Medical_use
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine_dependence
4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal_syndrome

Ambigore

I'd prefer that pawns have a default "anti-slavery" stance, just like how most pawns are anti-cannibal. A slave should incur a debuff. Psychopaths should be ok with slaves though.

Ruckus

Quote from: mumblemumble on August 22, 2016, 07:40:08 PM
Not even saying slavery is OK across the board, but if you gave 1 bullet, and told me to kill a corporate exec using slaves, ...
Wait, what? Slavery:  n.
The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

"Wage slave" is just an expression, it's not actual slavery.

Quote...or a person flooding america with meth, crack, Krokodils, heroin, and other drugs, ...

Why do you care what consenting adults do for recreation?

I do like the idea of being able to set policies for your colony. Like we don't tolerate drug use here! Or, everyone must worship the geyser god!

Ruckus

Quote from: Ambigore on August 23, 2016, 10:07:38 PM
I'd prefer that pawns have a default "anti-slavery" stance, just like how most pawns are anti-cannibal. A slave should incur a debuff. Psychopaths should be ok with slaves though.

It depends, if you start as a tribal then slavery would be the norm as it was in human history. But the people who get marooned in pods presumably come from advanced civilizations so slavery would be less palatable, maybe?

brcruchairman

Quote from: Ruckus on August 24, 2016, 03:26:28 PM
Wait, what? Slavery:  n.
The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

"Wage slave" is just an expression, it's not actual slavery.

I believe Mumble meant actual slaves. Not wageslaves as in disenfranchised workers, but legitimate human property. It's something you're unlikely to find nowadays, but it was, as I interpreted it, a hypothetical. :)

That said, there is an interesting argument about what free will actually is et cetera et cetera, but I'm pretty sure nobody here actually made that argument, so I'll avoid hijacking the topic. :p

Also, I agree with Ambigore and yourself that, for spacers, anti-slavery would make sense as the default stance. As for slavery being the norm in human history, my first instinct was to disagree, but upon further research, you seem to be correct.1 So I suppose it would make sense for tribals to have an ambivalence to slavery, provided of course that they aren't the ones being enslaved. :p

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Early_history