Instigator / Pro
Mall's avatar
Mall
1432
rating
379
debates
43.4%
won
Topic
#5709

The 9-5 is modern day slavery. Part 2

Status
Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the instigator.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
Money
freedom
Slavery
labor
working
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Round 1
Mall's avatar
Mall
Pro
#1

For anyone that is curious , a search can be done for "The modern 9-5 is slavery". I'm not into links. The effort you use to, search solidifies your interest level in learning.


I'm going to continue on in the last response to the last round of the original session.

"It does not provide an explanation for why every instance of obligation is necessarily packaged with slavery. Why all obligation is slavery."

What do you mean by obligation when you use the term?

"we can assume that the answer is "no, there is nothing I can think of that I can do that doesn't relate to money directly or indirectly.""

Ok is not a slave one whom can't do otherwise without being subject?

The case is really made right here in these last couple questions. I'm trying to just leave it simple at that. Adding all these layers, you're making it complicated for yourself and harder to understand.

"While I am your opponent, I would only hurt my case if I attempted to contradict every single bullet point I came across."

If it's being honest, so be it. Being evasive so you don't appear refuted doesn't help because evading is just a sign of refutation anyway. Just face the refutation when you know it's there. This isn't like it's bloodshed. Think of it as a learning experience. That's why I host topics like these. 

"All these first six questions would accomplish is establish that money is obligatory. That we need money in order to live, and that there is nothing we do that does not, directly or indirectly, relate to money in some way. That every area of life involves money directly or indirectly. Points that, as Pro himself observed, I had already conceded to within the course of this debate."

I accept you conceding. The 9-5 is slavery inside the enslavement system.

"So now there is a hierarchy of slave masters?"

Not now . There always was . A master and his subject is a hierarchial concept and system.

"This is still does not explain how money and currency itself being the, as you put it, headmaster fits in with this necessity. Even inserting people into this hierarchy as secondary slave masters the top slave master, to the best of my understanding of your argument, is still currency itself, a non-sentient being".

I just point you back to that question. Is there anything we do not subject to money?

It's just what you're subjected to make a slave to what it is you're subject. You can be a slave to debt, an addiction, a vice or virtue.
It's really just that plain. You keep thinking about sentience. The  "s" word you need to focus on is subject. Just fixate on it.

"Secondly this implies that currency, as something we must use in order to live, would disappear without people enforcing us to use it."

Unless the people enforcing also are enforced. So the question comes back to this. Who or what is the master we are subject to?

"But not every death is the consequence of killing. In here killing is a sub-category of death. And meaningfully in sentences they are not always the same, for example. "He died" and "He was killed" are not always the same. From this analogy it isn't the case that death = killing, killing = death."


My point still stands because I never said what form of death. I said what form of killing. You can always twist up things to make them fit your point. 

"But how can we examine the parallel's of the modern day 9-5 and slavery without knowing what slavery is/means?"

I believe I've explained this and you would know I have at this point. You're just not absorbing the explanation. Usually when your worldview has been fixated so long as it has been , it's really challenging to re-adjust. This how come so many questions from you.
But if you see slavery as a human person to human person, we know what I'm telling you won't go over easy to digest.

"Humanity has had a life before common currency. And we can examine it and use it as a point of comparison. That neither you nor I nor our grandparents lived such lives makes examining it more difficult, but not necessarily impossible, pointless and completely and utterly devoid of deductive evidence."

I don't know what life was like before the existence of currency. I can't tell you a thing about it. I can tell you what it's like now, modern day slavery.

"Potentially true, but this depends on assuming that money is imprisonment. And I would argue that the higher quality of life includes less hours we need to labor to live (under the system of money, as compared to in the wilderness), which is relatively more freedom, the opposite of imprisonment."

Don't assume. Verify money actually is enslavement or not. We have to get the facts in order once and for all .

"If life in wilderness isn't better why would we pursue it?"

Depends on the person's satisfaction. May be better for me, worse for you. I may want to stay in prison because I'm accustomed to it. Regardless, is money enslavement?

I'll take you right back to that main question.

"All I personally needed to do to qualify for pension was visit the military hospital once several years ago to get diagnosed for autism, after which the only thing I need to do to collect my pension monthly is go to the ATM and use my bank card to collect it."

There you go. Every time you put "need" in there, that's the obligation for the monetary system for your particular situation.

How else are you going to live in the monetary prison?

You're obligated to do something. The powers that be don't just hand over the money.

"I fully and confidently deny your assertion that I must be continuing to comply to medical proceedings to continue my payment assistance."

Do you have physical examinations? Do you take medicine for your condition? Is some type of insurance covering it?


"What is charity then?"

Non obligated payment or compensation of some type .

"In my example regarding Mark am I a secondary slave master of him?"

No you're both slaves or subject to money. Just one prison inmate looking out for another.


"If possible, could you name who is the top slave master of the United States? or of my country Egypt? Or of any country of your choosing."

Yes the currency itself is the name .

"Talking about a literal prison, not a figurative one. If a person chooses to stay in the prison complex.(Let's say for example, as a result of not owning a home) They have the key to their cell(or room I guess), and nobody will hurt or obstruct them if they try to leave. Are they still a prisoner?"

It depends whether the person is truly subject. For example, I have money in my pocket but I live life in the wilderness. I can take it or leave it .

Bottomline, and this is all that really matters, is that is your life subject to money , yes or no. 

"If possible, could you further assist me and the readers on what that time, experience and observation is? Especially to those of us who don't have it."

You'll have to be more specific but in pertinence to the topic, all that really matters, is your life subject to money , yes or no. 

"If possible, could you further assist me

If possible, could you elaborate on how slavery=obligation, obligation=slavery is not circular?

Also regarding slavery=obligation, obligation=slavery. To be clear and leave no room for interpretation, are slavery and obligation a square and a rectangle, or two identical squares?"

I think all you have to do to make it easier for you real simple, try to avoid adding other aspects and layers by just looking at this simple question. Is your life subject to money?

"Do you believe there is the possibility, the potential that you are wrong? "

Sure . Here's the thing . Demonstrate to me that my life is not subject to money. You have not done so yet.

"When you say obligation and slavery are synonyms, do you mean exactly the same or nearly the same?"

Same.

"If every human state of living is slavery, what is freedom?"

Being able to do otherwise not being obligated to a particular obligation or obligations.

So you can respond to what I've said and stay lost going deeper and deeper into the points.

But again to try to move this forward in basic clarity, just two questions, is your life subject to money?

Can you demonstrate mine isn't?

Basically it.
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
Con
#2
I'm into links however, so I'll provide one for the convenience of the viewers. 



Answering questions

Given that during the previous debate, giving a response to your questions other than directly answering them made a few bullet points flow slower than they should've, I will instead answer your questions directly in this section without elaboration. If there is elaboration and/or a nuanced response that addresses the heart of the question, I will give it under a more relevant category. Hopefully all of this leaves even less room for interpretation for what the heart of my argument is.


What do you mean by obligation when you use the term?
Usually in normal conversation when I use "obligation" I use it to mean something I have to do as a result of moral duty or commitment. For example I am obligated to take care of my mother.

However for the purposes of within the bounds of this debate, when I say "obligation" I mean, "something you must do in order to live".

Ok is not a slave one whom can't do otherwise without being subject?
Regardless, is money enslavement?
As far as this chain of responses is concerned, my personal answer is no. You can not be a slave to money. Money itself does not have the sentient to force me or not force me to use it in order to live, to give me or take away from me freedoms as per its conscience and/or desires. I can no more be a slave to money than I can be a slave to food, water and oxygen.

A slave is one whom can't do otherwise without being subject to a person/people.

I just point you back to that question. Is there anything we do not subject to money?
I already answered no to this. However let me give a more detailed answer.

If we are talking directly then the answer changes to yes, there are things I do not subject to money. My sleeping and waking up is not directly related to money. My participation in this debate (ironically) does not directly affect me financially. When I do house chores, that is not directly subject to money either. I might even go so far as to argue even eating food is not directly subject to money.

If we are talking indirectly however, then I am willing to accept that the answer can be "no, there isn't anything we do that is not subject to money" if we go indirect enough. The time I spend sleeping is time I am not earning money. Time and energy I spend on this debate is time and energy I am not spending in pursuit of money. Additionally how this debate goes could affect my outlook on finance which in turn can affect my financial behavior which in turn can affect my financial situation. When I do house chores, for example when I use cleaning products to clean the dishes and my kitchen, I eventually need to replenish it by buying more. When I eat food I need to buy more food.

Who or what is the master we are subject to?
I understand this is likely a rhetorical question, regardless I will answer it directly just in case. For me personally there is no master that I am subject to. No person or group of people or organization that is forcing me to act or behave in ways that I otherwise wouldn't.

Do you have physical examinations? Do you take medicine for your condition? Is some type of insurance covering it?
No, yes, and depends on what you mean by insurance.

I can go to the military hospital for health checkups but I haven't felt the need to do so for a long while. If you meant obligatory checkups then no, I am not obligated to do any such things.

I take insulin every time I eat in order to keep my sugar levels balanced.

And finally, if you're thinking about the American model of insurance then no, I am not paying for any insurance. I simply go to the military hospital whenever my current supply of insulin is close to running out.

Is your life subject to money?
Can you demonstrate mine isn't?
Yes it is. And no I can not, your life is subject to money as well. In fact, not only is your and my life affected by money, and therefor subject to it. But as I've said previously. Even the people of the wilderness that you were willing to exempt, are subject to money. The food they produce can be sold, and other products or their labor such as shelter, clothing, materials and tools can be sold as well.

In fact, this could even go so far as to apply not just to humans, but animals as well, and even other living organisms like plant life. Cats and dogs are subject to money because they are sold as pets, and the food that is fed to them costs as well. Wool is taken from sheep, Ivory is removed from Elephants. Trees are grown and cut down to make lumber and paper.

Not just everyone, everything is subject to money.


Responses

The case is really made right here in these last couple questions.
The questions, at best, display why we can't do anything without it relating to money. And that we need to use money in order to live. The questions do not display how this transitions into the conclusion that currency is a slave master.

I can ask a similar question, "can you name anything we do that is not subject to food?". Using your same thought process for what qualifies as "subject to". If the answer ends up being no. Is it then fitting to say that food is the slave master?

I'm trying to just leave it simple at that. Adding all these layers, you're making it complicated for yourself and harder to understand.
Why should I, and other people reading this, believe that I am overcomplicating a simple matter and not that you're oversimplifying a complex one? Why should we believe that I am adding extra unnecessary layers, and not that you're ignoring necessary aspects of the debate?

I will even go so far as to argue that, if the answer really was as simple as you claim it to be. Then in most cases there would not be a debate or contention. And most people would see things your way instead of, as you put it, your words ruffling people's feathers. Now while that is not necessarily the case, and that it is technically possible that the matter is simple and difficult. Such a combination is so unlikely that I will insist that I need strong reason to believe that the matter is inherently simple.

Again, I see much less potential harm than potential good in approaching this from more angles. If I am to risk ignoring potentially relevant points, and/or risk oversimplifying a potentially complex issue, to only and exclusively approach it your way, closing my eyes to the other ways it can be approached, I will need strong reason to do so.

If it's being honest, so be it. Being evasive so you don't appear refuted doesn't help because evading is just a sign of refutation anyway. Just face the refutation when you know it's there. This isn't like it's bloodshed. Think of it as a learning experience. That's why I host topics like these. 
Refusing to challenge you on every bit of detail is being evasive? 

Or are you talking about my not answering your questions. Because I did(or at least, gave enough of an idea that you knew what my answer was), I apologize that you got the impression that I did not. The Answering questions section was made in part so that such a misunderstanding would no longer happen. And so there is left zero room to say that I am being evasive or refusing to answer questions.

I accept you conceding. The 9-5 is slavery inside the enslavement system.
Can you back up this statement?

Not now . There always was . A master and his subject is a hierarchial concept and system.
Ok then, in my case specifically, or yours, preferably both cases. Who are those lesser masters that, with money being the master above them, are the ones forcing you or me to act as slaves to them?

I just point you back to that question. Is there anything we do not subject to money?
There is issue with this, in my opinion pivot in response actually. The chain of responses in this specific bullet point went as follows. I said "a slave master is a person, group of people or organization (of people)". You responded with "well, there are people and organizations, lesser masters working under their headmaster, money. Those fit your description of person, group of people or organization". and I responded with "Even if that's the case, money itself, their headmaster, still doesn't"

The response of pointing me back to the question "Is there anything we do not subject to money?" does not address this at all. While it is still possible for it to be a relevant and viable answer, it begs the question why you brought up the lesser masters in the first place. Or why you attempted to fit into my parameter of "person, group of people or organization" if all that is needed for money to be a slave master is for us to always be subject to it.

It's just what you're subjected to make a slave to what it is you're subject. You can be a slave to debt, an addiction, a vice or virtue.
Can you back up this claim?

It's really just that plain. You keep thinking about sentience. The  "s" word you need to focus on is subject. Just fixate on it.
Can you provide me with strong reasons for why I should be doing this?

Unless the people enforcing also are enforced. So the question comes back to this. Who or what is the master we are subject to?
Firstly, I will argue that the occupations you deemed enforcers actually have the freedom to select whether or not they have these occupations. That while even the tax collector is subject to money. Nobody is forced to specifically become a tax collector, not even forced by money itself.

Secondly, that does not actually address what I said. I am not asking whether or not the enforcers have the freedom to stop enforcing money on us. I am asking whether or not money would continue existing as something we are subject to if there weren't enforcers.

My point still stands because I never said what form of death. I said what form of killing. You can always twist up things to make them fit your point.
I did not say the statement "every killing is death" was incorrect, I said it failed as an analogy in conveying what you intended to convey. In your stance obligation = slavery and slavery = obligation. It therefor stands to reason that something like twelve and a dozen would be more fitting than murder and death. Given that twelve = a dozen and a dozen = twelve.

Unless there is some detail or nuance regarding your stance I am ignorant to that makes murder and death more fitting. And I do not see what I am twisting.

I believe I've explained this and you would know I have at this point. You're just not absorbing the explanation.
Forgive me, but if such an explanation exists and was provided within your arguments. An explanation for how we can examine the parallel's of the modern day 9-5 and slavery without knowing what slavery is/means.(if that's what your explanation is. If it isn't then please correct me) I will need directions to find it.

I apologize for being difficult, but even outside of the 9-5 and slavery, I truly do not know how we can, under any context, examine how A is B without knowing what B is/means.

But if you see slavery as a human person to human person, we know what I'm telling you won't go over easy to digest.
Then, in addition my question, why should I believe slavery can be more than just person to person.

Could you provide me with things that would make it easier for me to digest this. To digest how slavery can be of man to something. Of man to money.

I don't know what life was like before the existence of currency. I can't tell you a thing about it. I can tell you what it's like now, modern day slavery.
"Can't tell you a thing about it" is an exaggeration. That implies that we know absolutely nothing about it. Or that there is absolutely nothing at all to be gained from examining it.

Don't assume. Verify money actually is enslavement or not. We have to get the facts in order once and for all .
Ok? That only shows my point though, which is that that argument (that money fools us into thinking its not prison because its more comfortable) requires having already verified prior that money is enslavement. Which by extension, to my understanding, means that its hard to imagine how said argument could be used to establish that money is enslavement.

Additionally, in regards to this verification. What we have so far in this bullet point's chain of responses (to my understanding) is that, if the higher quality of life, part of which is the lower amount of necessary labor, and by extension, the relatively greater degree of labor, is supposed to be fooling us into believing money isn't enslavement.

My question is, how can the relative increase in freedom from labor, the net negative from a neutral position on our obligations, how can something that causes that be equated with imprisonment or enslavement? How can it be that a high quality can fool us into believing that it is not imprisonment?

Depends on the person's satisfaction. May be better for me, worse for you. I may want to stay in prison because I'm accustomed to it.
The statement you responded to was a response to in case the correct interpretation of your statement further back this bullet point chain was "Life in wilderness isn't better than life under money. However living our entire lives under money leaves us incapable of having the best living conditions in wilderness"

If that is not the case and the following quote was not an accurate representation of your stance, you should've simply ignored the statement that followed it.

That said, responding to the statement itself, I will simply repeat my response to an alternative interpretation. There is no evidence (that I am aware of) to believe life in wilderness is better, or even of more freedom (as far as the amount of labor you must do to survive) than life under money.

And by that I mean for anyone at all.

Regardless, is money enslavement?
I'll take you right back to that main question.
I am confused. To the best of my understanding, this response to my question "why would we pursue wilderness?" implies that the reason to do so is because money is enslavement. But earlier you made several remarks that the establishment of money (and the 9-5) being enslavement has nothing to do with determining if its better or worse or why or why not or reasons/motives for the courses of actions we should pursue.

Am I missing something? I require your assistance in what I could've missed out on or what you could've meant.

There you go. Every time you put "need" in there, that's the obligation for the monetary system for your particular situation.
Then that's my obligation? My trip to the ATM? A short elevator ride down and a 3 minute walk. Then the return trip. Can never be longer than 15 minutes in total. Once a month. That's my obligation? I mean I know that that technically fits the term for what we agreed obligation means within the parameters of this debate, but this feels like its very detached from the spirit of the meaning of the word. This is like saying sitting down and eating a meal is an obligation I have to fulfil in order to live. Which also is very technically true (as well as much more overall time consuming than said trip to the ATM), but not at all what one would say in regards to what we truly mean by obligation. The platonic meaning of the word.

You're obligated to do something. The powers that be don't just hand over the money.
My trip to the ATM? So its not good enough that the powers that be are adding money to a bank account I have? Would them instead mailing the money straight to my doorstep remove this obligation?

Non obligated payment or compensation of some type .
Ok, lets go back from the top then. Within the context of the scenario I mentioned, Mark is a complete stranger to me and I claim that I am not obligated to assist in his necessity for food and shelter in order to live. That it would be both legally and ethically permissible for me to leave him to his fate unassisted by me.

Are my claims correct that I am not obligated to help him? And that it is legally and ethically permissible for me to refuse feeding and sheltering him?

And if I decide to give him food and shelter. Am I doing so with obligation or without obligation?

No you're both slaves or subject to money. Just one prison inmate looking out for another.
Hmmmm, follow up question. What are the key differences between me and those you labeled "lesser masters" that makes them qualify as lesser masters over us, but does not qualify me as a lesser master over Mark?

Yes the currency itself is the name.
So, within the context of this response. The dollar bill is the slave master of the United States. The Egyptian pound is the slave master of Egypt. And the same applies to other countries depending on what currency they predominantly use?

It depends whether the person is truly subject.
Ok. Is the person truly subject or not?

If the scenario I presented lacks enough details to make a determination whether he is subject or not, what are some details you can think of that can be used to determine that he is subject? and details that can be used to determine that he isn't?

You'll have to be more specific.
Given that you've only said the phrase twice its easy to tell you the two specific things actually.

Could you further assist us on what is the time, experience and observation required to treat the term slavery in the same way that you do?

Could you further assist us on what is the time, experience and observation required to observe the parallels of the modern day 9-5 and slavery?

 but in pertinence to the topic, all that really matters, is your life subject to money , yes or no. 
Answering that question has currently been not enough to lead me (and likely other people, unless I am exceptionally dull in the head) to the conclusion that the modern 9-5 is slavery. Could you further assist me and possibly others in how I could better attain this time, experience and observation?

I think all you have to do to make it easier for you real simple, try to avoid adding other aspects and layers by just looking at this simple question. Is your life subject to money?
Why should I believe that I am unnecessarily adding irrelevant aspects and layers? Why should I believe that the debate will not suffer from neglecting these aspects? Why should we believe that answering your question is all that is needed to arrive to the correct conclusion?

Sure . Here's the thing . Demonstrate to me that my life is not subject to money. You have not done so yet.
Firstly, it is good to hear that at least we share that in common. I apologize for the implication of the question. The matter of factness of nearly every bit of word in your arguments gave off the impression that being potentially wrong did not exist in your head at all. I am glad to have asked instead of assuming.

Secondly, I do not wish to demonstrate this, as I neither believe it possible to demonstrate that we are not subject to money, nor do I believe it necessary to defend my position.

Thirdly, alternatively I will instead, to the best of my abilities, try to demonstrate that we are not slaves to money.

Same.
I request your commitment to an answer. I will argue that your stance is in danger of suffering if you proclaim that obligation and slavery are synonymous without elaborating on what exactly you mean. Let me make it easier, you can change your answer later in the argument if you wish.

Regardless, for the sake of both understanding your argument better, as well as potentially scrutinizing it for consistency, when you say that obligation and slavery are synonyms. Do you mean exactly the same or nearly the same?

Being able to do otherwise not being obligated to a particular obligation or obligations.
But if every human state of living is being obligated to a particular obligation or obligations? What is freedom of obligation?

So you can respond to what I've said and stay lost going deeper and deeper into the points.

But again to try to move this forward in basic clarity, just two questions, is your life subject to money?
Again, I see less potential harm in doing both. And more potential harm in doing only one of them. I would prefer to address extra points and they turn out to be irrelevant. Than to ignore them and they turn out to be relevant.


Questions

If I suddenly break out this subjection/monetary prison, go try to thrive in wilderness, I'm going to get the survivorship rationality shock instantly like a prisoner that was in penal prison who has basically lived an entire young adult life into elder age upon release. 
You don't realize how much you rely and are subject to the system just as any prisoner that has been in a system for so long. That person is so dependent. Being born into the thing is more than "so long" for any individual. A prisoner that has been in a system for so long, that person is so dependent on the system which is what is called institutionalization.

This can be interpreted in several ways, given that you can't respond (until a potential part 2) I'll address the interpretations I can think of. I apologize if none are what you meant.

Given that now we are in part 2 and have more rounds at our disposal, I'll take this opportunity to ask you, by your statement, which of the interpretations I gave represents it most accurately?

"Because the monetary prison system has a higher quality of life than the wilderness, we are tricked into believing it is not imprisonment"

"Life in wilderness is better than life under money. However living our entire lives under money leaves us incapable of having the best living conditions in wilderness"

"Life in wilderness isn't better than life under money. However living our entire lives under money leaves us incapable of having the best living conditions in wilderness"

If none of the following represents it accurately, could you provide me with an interpretation and/or elaboration that could assist me in knowing what you meant?



Given what I've told you about my situation. Am I specifically subject to the modern day 9-5 slavery? (not generally money, I already know I am subject to that. I am asking specifically about the modern day 9-5 system of slavery you're describing)

Is the person in the wilderness subject to money? Whether yes or no, why is that the case?

Can freedom from the monetary prison system result in an overall increase in freedom? (Freedom from labor, freedom from obligation, whatever other freedoms/enslavements you can think of)

Given the importance of this point of contention between us. Could you provide, as best as you can, in however many words you need. A sum of your reasons, arguments, explanation and whatever else you can to, as strongly as possible, provide an argument for why obligation to a thing (or to use a thing, in this case money) is being a slave to it?
Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet