Instigator / Pro
0
1389
rating
413
debates
44.55%
won
Topic
#5709
The 9-5 is modern day slavery. Part 2
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
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
0
1500
rating
3
debates
33.33%
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
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.
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
Pro
#3
"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"."
So within the system of monetary currency, currency is something use must receive and use.
"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."
I'm assuming you're not saying no to this question :
"Ok is not a slave one whom can't do otherwise without being subject?"
I'm just going to lead the logic right back to this again:
Ok being that you said what you said about money here, name something you do or a person does in the system of commerce that does not involve money?
"A slave is one whom can't do otherwise without being subject to a person/people."
What is one that can't do otherwise without being subject to something?
What's the difference when both have a lack of freedom?
Do you see what I mean? It's the same nature.
Even if I'm not physically there to master over you, you still are my slave .
"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."
Oh it doesn't matter if it's indirectly or not. You're still subject . So one way or the other, you are .
So being that you are, you agree all who are subject to it, is , in whatever word you prefer to use. I say they are enslaved, subject, obligated, bound to it and mostly through the typical 9-5 which gets classified then as modern day slavery.
Just like this example I thought of while making the response. Do you still have a job even when you're not working the job? You do. Are you still subject to it when you're off duty? Yes. That's why you have to report back to it. You are subject to the terms of your work schedule. On or off days, you're subject. So days where you're on you directly work and days you don't work you're not directly on a job under the terms of the job, right. Not just right then on an off day, but still subject. Your off duty time is subject as it is approved and allowed.
Even when you're not in the moment spending a dollar , you're spending dollars.
When you sleep,or when I sleep, I know I had to pay for a shelter for me to sleep in. I had to pay for what I sleep on. I had to pay for what I sleep in. I don't pay to get out of bed. Wait a minute, how am I physically, naturally able to get out of bed?
Oh I have energy. Where did the energy come from? The food I had to pay for. To walk out the room, down the hall which is all paid for. See, if you stop and consider, everything around you is tied up in financial obligation.
Typically people just don't think in depth into this of everything being interconnected. So when you see topics like these, you instantly think nonsense because you have not even ruminated such an idea.
"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. "
Just speaking for myself, in a world of commerce, time and energy is money. There's no way out of it .
This site I'm on, I have to pay a service called an internet provider to have access to it. If you heard of the phrase "time is money", it's 100 percent real . You're totally subject.
It doesn't matter if your sitting talking with friends or sitting staring at a wall. Does it cost me money ? Do I have to work a job to pay up the money?
Oh yes. I'm paying for the walls I'm staring at. I've paid for the chair I'm sitting in. Again I I've paid for the food to grant me nutrition to aid in eye sight.
See now we're getting to the nooks and crannies of this topic. The last debate,it was more so an argument over terms and looking at all these different facets going back and forth on the monetary system and what do we do to escape and is it ethical, etc.
Fine and well but now we're getting down to practical terms in everyday life, observing everyday life to verify are we really enslaved but or and just institutionalized not to realize it.
"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".
I believe you admitted that we are subject to money but prefer to not call it enslavement. My position is not arguing about what term to call it but the nature of it I think you agreed with. As grim as it may be, you can make the most of it doing the best you can just as a penal inmate does with serving out his time.
"No, yes, and depends on what you mean by insurance.
I simply go to the military hospital whenever my current supply of insulin is close to running out."
Military, government, taxes, cost. If you're not paying, somebody is. Think about it. Just like your illustration with you supporting a person.
"The questions do not display how this transitions into the conclusion that currency is a slave master."
That's my definition of slave master. Again you may just call it being subject to money as you agreed to being affected by it. To me , I see it no different than a slave on a plantation being subjected and affected.
Those are really only the required elements. Subjection and affection. This is the nature, the nature of the thing called slavery. I'm dealing with the essence of it. But you, you have to have a person specifically as being subject to, to call it slavery, ok.
Not here to argue specifically what you want to call it .
"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?"
Not "the slave master" but along with. See we can be subject to a lot of things. It just is what it is even if you don't feel like you're subject or enslaved. Subject is subject. I don't believe I said the monetary system or the 9-5 is the ONLY enslavement there is .
Your situation still qualifies. People that are not in a 9-5 but have other means to still qualify. People that are in penal prisons are subject to the warden or a judge's sentence even from ten , twenty years ago.
That judge maybe long gone and dead but that prisoner is still subject to that prosecution even without those district attorneys and prosecutors being any longer present. Still subject.
"Why should we believe that I am adding extra unnecessary layers, and not that you're ignoring necessary aspects of the debate?"
Just compare this to part 1 of this topic. It is more to the bottomline and we could of started off this way from the first part.
"Can you back up this statement?"
Yes you agreed we're subject to money .
"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?"
They are whoever or whatever they are. See a slave is subject regardless. No matter the chain of command, we know it is the currency .
"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."
Within the system of monetary supremacy, you have people, you have groups and organizations. All headed by money. This is what I mean by not complicated. We're subject to money, that's it. Just throw everything else out to think about. We are subject to money.
If you really just leave that thought alone just like that, that's it. It may be hard to just accept the simplicity of it because you don't like it or it just sounds too grim so you have the "what about this?", "what about that?"
Like a knee jerk reaction with the "well it can't be just that?"
Too much to just accept now. I'm subject to the dollar but I ain't a slave to it. I'm subject to Master Smith , another person, I ought not be a slave to him, but according to you I am.
But anyway, just leaving it like that, leaving it as we are subject to money which is how I can make the statement by a means to get what I'm subject to, I cannot, cannot , cannot, cannot , cannot, cannot do without it .
In the system of monetary subjection, no way, directly or indirectly, no how.
I'm sorry, I don't think it's personal, it's just business.
"Can you back up this claim?"
Not really a claim to back up. See the appropriate question is, what do I mean by "slave".
Just being subject. That's it. You seem to be content with calling it subjection, being a subject.
Being a subject/slave.
You can be subject/enslaved to debt, an addiction, a vice or virtue. These things can have affect over your life to where it's all your living for.
"Can you provide me with strong reasons for why I should be doing this?"
Makes it easier for you to understand and get it. Just focusing on the word subject.
" I am asking whether or not money would continue existing as something we are subject to if there weren't enforcers."
I don't know. I just know we're subject now to the dollar itself. That's why I can't point you to any one or whatever amount of "enforcers " because every person you encounter within this system is just another subject.
I think if everyone in the world, not including dependents agreed to abolish the monetary system, we'd be no longer subject to it obviously. But now we're getting into hypotheticals that really don't take away from our current status anyway.
"I said it failed as an analogy in conveying what you intended to convey.
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'm not going to go in circles on this and going back re-quoting. Leave it to the readers to pick it up a little better, whatever.
"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."
The simple response because I keep it simple, nevermind that. We're subject to money. That's it.
"Then, in addition my question, why should I believe slavery can be more than just person to person."
It's not about what you should believe. It comes down to how you define it. Words and definitions are to each its own. If you particularly just prefer not to use the same terms to call what being subject to something is, it's still being subject . Being subject is still what it is .
"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."
"Just being subject. That's it. You seem to be content with calling it subjection, being a subject.
Being a subject/slave.
You can be subject/enslaved to debt, an addiction, a vice or virtue. These things can have affect over your life to where it's all your living for."
" "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."
I'm talking about me. When I say I can't tell you a thing about it, I'm referring to the experience as I said with pertaining to what life was like because I didn't experience it . Even if I have been reincarnated from that time, I still have no memory of it.
"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?"
I'll try to give this example as we're talking about institutionalization and how it works.
I won't even try to make this a slavery example.
A person that gets a high paying job that is perceived to be a "big" position in a company and particularly with an impressive title comes with all the perks and benefits in comparison to what he or she had. It appears this situation is better in comparison to a role with hardly any leverage, growth or luxury.
The former role was more laborious.
It can look like you're no longer in the same prison or any. You really just got a more luxurious prison cell perhaps with inmates working for you now .
Another example, if I been eating mostly crumbs like forever , crust is like a silver platter.
But in actuality, I'm still far from adequate nutrition.
Hopefully that answers the gist of the question. It was more on the lengthy side to grasp. But I hope I answered if I understood the question .
"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."
Yes I can't speak for everyone on this. Every individual is different, right. So to each his or her own.
"Am I missing something? I require your assistance in what I could've missed out on or what you could've meant"
I'll modify this: Regardless, is money enslavement/subjection?
"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."
Quite simple, your time and energy is subject to monetary obligation.
"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?"
It doesn't matter. You're not just born and handed money. You had to go through obligatory steps to get payment assistance setup. Let's not be obtuse here .
"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?"
If there is nothing legally obligating you to cover somebody else's financial obligation, then obviously you're not obligated. You're both still subjects to the system. But if you elect not to meet another's obligation, that other is left to meet his or her own .
"And if I decide to give him food and shelter. Am I doing so with obligation or without obligation?"
I'll just repeat. It's really self explanatory. If you have at least a legal obligation, you can answer your own question. If you don't, what is obligating you? You can say yourself, you can say the other person is obligating you. It's very straightforward if you know what obligation is. I trust you do already.
"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?"
Please quote where I said "lesser masters". Are those terms I actually used or did you coin them?
Please quote exactly what I've said of that you're referring to and we can go from there .
"Ok. Is the person truly subject or not?"
Which person? Is it the one that is subject?
If so, the answer is in the question isn't it?
"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 look at the definition of subject itself and see if it applies to whomever you're talking about. That's it right there.
You can ask that question, is the person able to do anything otherwise to what that person is beholden to.
"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?"
I don't understand the question.
"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?"
I don't understand the question.
You did say "observe the parallels of the modern day 9-5 and slavery".
I believe I described the parallels or explained why I've said the 9-5 is what it is in the first round in part 1 of this topic. So I ask you to refer back to that. I believe we're beyond that at this point to progress on. But if you're still stuck for some unknown reason, refer back to that. If you have questions about it, please quote what you read , post it and ask your question on it.
"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 can respond to your statement better than answering the question. Like I said I don't understand the way it is formatted.
I believe I've stated over and over, the 9-5 is delegated via the currency system. I think I said this before. So the question is , do you agree? Do you understand that it is?
"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?"
It's because it's not helping you understand. It's only confusing you. You notice the more complicated you make it the more questions which just leads to more and more getting further and further out into abyss where the foundation of this topic is long long long long long gone.
Furthermore, the one question that has an answer is all the topic is to make it true or not. Are we subject/enslaved to money? Which you already agreed to but we're going in circles. So we keep coming back to this.
If you would have stopped your responses at the point you've acknowledged this, we wouldn't continue the reiterated back and forth on the same points.
"Thirdly, alternatively I will instead, to the best of my abilities, try to demonstrate that we are not slaves to money."
We are not slaves to it but subject to it, is that right?
Basically we just have a difference in semantics. I'm sure I've reiterated this repeatedly as well.
"Do you mean exactly the same or nearly the same?"
I just answered in relation to this. You're asking me over again in a redundant fashion.
Same means same. I didn't say nearly the same. I didn't say similar.
"But if every human state of living is being obligated to a particular obligation or obligations? What is freedom of obligation?"
No obligation. When you're free of something, you don't have it .
"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?"
I'll just make this illustration. When you've lived all your life in a neighborhood you're used to , you're not used to living any other way. So you don't see the way you're living as less than or more than without comparison because it's all you're used to.
If you can't understand that, I can't really break it down any further.
"Am I specifically subject to the modern day 9-5 slavery?"
Tell me what do you think by common sense and the meaning of subject.
"Is the person in the wilderness subject to money?"
By this point, you should be able to answer and know the answer to these questions. We've gone over about what being subject is haven't we?
It goes back to that question. Is there anything a person does that is not subject to money , indirectly or directly?
"Can freedom from the monetary prison system result in an overall increase in freedom?"
I don't know. I haven't taken an overall average on every single individual on the planet.
"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?"
There's no distinction. How you define obligation is how I define slave so I use the terms interchangeably. See, the key term for me is freedom. Once that is affected or tampered with, that's it. The freedom of ability is the very nature of what we're talking about. What you can't do otherwise.
Being obligated is what you can't do otherwise.
Being a slave is what you can't do otherwise.
Being a subject or being subject is what you can't do otherwise.
If you don't disagree with that then there you go. They're interchangeable. It's not complex.
You already have a picture in your mind of what slavery is so the knee jerk reaction is to not simply interchange with the other terms.
Slavery, the picture is person to person.
Obligation, the picture is paying bills or a debt for example and for subject you may apply a similar example.
I just use the term slavery in simple bare bones terms of freedom itself as that's what it comes down to .
You basically have enslavement in essence when your freedom to do otherwise is gone. Whether you're in a prison cell, shackled on a plantation under a plantation owner or continuing to work a job you can't do otherwise in order to do whatever.
It's all in the same essence. You get the same nature. It's the nature, nature, nature, nature of it that equates the same value.
I yield.
Con
#4
Answering questions
Once again I'll answer the questions posed directly. Except for questions I've already answered in my previous round's Answering questions section.
What is one that can't do otherwise without being subject to something?
Depends on what the something is. Someone who is subject to drugs is an addict. One who is subject to food I call human. One who is subject to money I call a member of today's society. The common term I'd use for them is "obligated", although I wouldn't often use it in normal conversation.
What's the difference when both have a lack of freedom?
Technically? Whether what they're subject to is something or someone. Whether its a master or not.
By the nature of it? Whether it is the results of human beings depriving you of freedoms you should reasonably have, or if it is mostly the result of the very nature of life imposing needs upon us.
Please quote where I said "lesser masters". Are those terms I actually used or did you coin them?
When I say that, I mean what you coined as "secondary masters".
If the you find issue with me using lesser masters instead of secondary masters. Then I apologize and ask you to then assume I said every instance I said lesser masters I meant secondary masters.
Which person? Is it the one that is subject?
The one in the literal prison scenario in my literal prison scenario.
"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?"
We are not slaves to it but subject to it, is that right?
That is correct, that is indeed my position.
Tell me what do you think by common sense and the meaning of subject.
I think I am not for several reasons. Firstly I am not part of the modern day 9-5 (even if I am part of the monetary system). And secondly, the modern day 9-5 is not (always) slavery.
Common Issues
Definitions and word choice
So being that you are, you agree all who are subject to it, is , in whatever word you prefer to use. I say they are enslaved, subject, obligated, bound to it and mostly through the typical 9-5 which gets classified then as modern day slavery.I believe you admitted that we are subject to money but prefer to not call it enslavement. My position is not arguing about what term to call it but the nature of it I think you agreed with. As grim as it may be, you can make the most of it doing the best you can just as a penal inmate does with serving out his time.That's my definition of slave master. Again you may just call it being subject to money as you agreed to being affected by it. To me , I see it no different than a slave on a plantation being subjected and affected.You seem to be content with calling it subjection, being a subject.Basically we just have a difference in semantics. I'm sure I've reiterated this repeatedly as well.How you define obligation is how I define slave so I use the terms interchangeably.Not here to argue specifically what you want to call it .
There seems to be a possible misunderstanding of my position, I apologize if it wasn't clear enough from what I've said previously (especially in regards to the heart of the meaning), and so allow to correct this by saying this as directly and clearly as I possibly can.
When I say "Obligation is obligation and not all obligation is slavery". I am not merely saying that my preferred terminology of, say for example the monetary system, is obligation. And that slavery is an unpreferred terminology as far as I am concerned. I am arguing, that by nature, by the heart of the meaning of obligation and slavery and how they differ from each other. That it is inappropriate to reach the conclusion that we are slaves to money.
Now of course, that is my claim. A claim that I will go further into defending under Nature and parallels, however I wished to make this separate argument to make clear that my counter-argument is not merely about preferential word-choice/terminology under hopes that you stop wasting your time and energy in continuing to treat it as such from now on.
Nature and parallels
Do you see what I mean? It's the same nature.Even if I'm not physically there to master over you, you still are my slave.Those are really only the required elements. Subjection and affection. This is the nature, the nature of the thing called slavery. I'm dealing with the essence of it. But you, you have to have a person specifically as being subject to, to call it slavery, ok.Just being subject. That's it. You seem to be content with calling it subjection, being a subject.It's all in the same essence. You get the same nature. It's the nature, nature, nature, nature of it that equates the same value.
The majority of your argument goes as follows. Being subject and enslavement are interchangeable because they are of the same nature and/or because of the parallels they share.
There is plenty to unpack here so I'll pick them separately piece by piece.
What's the difference when both have a lack of freedom?See, the key term for me is freedom. Once that is affected or tampered with, that's it. The freedom of ability is the very nature of what we're talking about. What you can't do otherwise.
As I understand it you define obligation and slavery both in regards to how they relate to freedom. That obligation and slavery are the absence of freedom.
And while indeed both obligation and slavery share the trait that they are packaged with a reduction in freedom. For example being a slave to Samwell the slave master means I do not have the freedom to act without Samwell's say if I want to live. And being obligated to eat food means I do not have the freedom to avoid eating food if I want to live.
However, this argument to me is lacking, because your pitch is that obligation and slavery are in essence, in spirit, in nature, the same. (And you've even just now gone on record to elaborate that you mean the same, that you did not say similar or "nearly the same") And yet your supporting arguments, such as this one, are merely that they share (some) traits.
To bring back the rectangle and the square. Both of these share traits such as both being four sided shapes, and both having right angles. However they are not the same, not just definitionally, but also in nature, in essence and spiritually. In every possible angle of interpretation, rectangles and squares are not exactly the same and/or interchangeable. Squares are a sub-category of rectangles, squares have the features of rectangles plus more.
My counter-claim is that slavery is potentially a sub-category of obligation. Not just definitionally, but spiritually, in nature and in essence. Slavery has the features of obligation plus more. The above statement of "they (slavery and obligation) both lack/reduce freedom" is, in analogy, the parallel of saying "they (squares and rectangles) both have four sides and four right angles", and "you are a slave of money because you can't do without it" is, in analogy, the parallel of saying "This shape is a square because it has four sides and four right angles".
Being a subject/slave.You can be subject/enslaved to debt, an addiction, a vice or virtue. These things can have affect over your life to where it's all your living for.
My previous argument applies against this as well. Here you demonstrate that non-person things such as debt, addictions, vices and virtues (I do not know how one can be a slave to virtues) can have control over our lives, such as how slave owners own the lives of their slaves.
But here as well, all I see are "things that obligation and slavery share in common" not "why obligation and slavery are the same in every way". In my case you can say I am obligated to insulin (or to taking insulin) as I need to take it every time I eat in order to keep my sugar levels stable, or else I will become more ill and eventually die if my sugar levels rise too high.
However while that is something in common. A difference for example I can point out is that unlike a human slave master, insulin can not grant me freedom from it. Neither insulin, nor my diabetic condition or dead pancreas, have the sentience or the ability to grant me freedom from needing to take insulin to stay alive.
What I am asking here, in order for you to satisfy the claim that obligation and slavery are the same. Is not merely the presence of common traits, but the lack of differences. There is the possibility that being obligated to something and being a slave to someone are different things (not just definitionally, but in essence and in nature too) and I am not merely saying that to me personally they are not the same, I am arguing that you haven't satisfied the burden of proof that they are the same. That eliminates the reasonable possibility that they are different.
I believe the burden of proof is on you, however if you or the viewers are not satisfied with this, I continue my arguments in a more active manner under My own arguments in Why they are different
Follow my simple road
Unfortunately the arguments my opponent provides regarding the simplicity of the issue continue to be, in my humble opinion, not sufficiently supported.
Just compare this to part 1 of this topic. It is more to the bottomline and we could of started off this way from the first part.
Can you demonstrate to me the validity of this claim?
It's because it's not helping you understand. It's only confusing you. You notice the more complicated you make it the more questions which just leads to more and more getting further and further out into abyss where the foundation of this topic is long long long long long gone.
The topic is The 9-5 is modern day slavery, how is asking questions that examine what slavery is an exercise in diving out into the abyss where the foundation is long gone? I would argue that this is not even one step removed from the foundation of the topic.
Furthermore even without my counter-point your claim here is unbacked. What are the reasons to believe that the more complicated I make it and more questions I ask the further away from the foundation I get? You testify that the evidence is in our debate itself however I will counter-claim that I can make a strong case for my questions and argument being relevant to the topic at hand. You can pick one or several bullet points I have created and I will do so. Such as for example how here I've demonstrated the relevancy of my questions about the nature of slavery due the topic being whether or not the 9-5 is modern day slavery.
Furthermore, the one question that has an answer is all the topic is to make it true or not. Are we subject/enslaved to money? Which you already agreed to but we're going in circles. So we keep coming back to this.
Your testimony about my agreement is false actually. I agreed to "Are we subject to money?", I did not agree to "Are we subject/enslaved to money?" as there are two disagreements here I have already voiced. That we are not enslaved to money. And that subject and enslaved are not interchangeable.
As for the heart of your argument, why should I reasonably believe that the one question is all we need and that I am the reason we're going in circles? (assuming that that is what you meant, if not please correct me)
If you would have stopped your responses at the point you've acknowledged this, we wouldn't continue the reiterated back and forth on the same points.
Technically you are correct. If I simply did not respond after and agreed with you, there would be no more back and forth, the debate would be over.
Why should I believe that that course of action would lead me to the truth?
This is a troubling statement, it could potentially be interpreted as "if you stop disagreeing, you would see the truth" which in turn, could potentially be interpreted as an insult on my intellect. That my responses are intellectually unreasonable (not merely incorrect, but something that a reasonable person normally wouldn't say at all). Hopefully I am wrong about this so I will give you the chance to set the record straight and ask, is this or similar what you mean?
Either way, I argue that this statement adds nothing to the debate. And at its best possible interpretation (that I can think of) "If you stopped disagreeing, we'd stop going back and forth on the same points" is redundant.
The way you've carried the overall argument of simplicity, in my humble opinion, potentially suffers from being built upon the presumption that your thought process will lead to the truth and that sometimes (if not usually) mine will lead away from it, will lead away from the topic altogether even. Is in danger of being interpreted as "if you'd just listen to me you'd see the truth"
My own arguments
Why they are different
Now while I have argued that the burden of proof is on my opponent, after all he is the pro for The 9-5 is modern day slavery and I am the Con, I believe I merely need to show that his isn't the only possible way to interpret the 9-5 truthfully. That I only need to dismiss his claim, not necessarily to proof the opposite of it true.
That said, because part of the exercise, as Pro stated in the description, "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.", I will provide these arguments anyway, as if the burden of proof were on me, in hopes that perhaps there might potentially be insight in them for my opponent or the viewers to learn from just as there might be something for me to learn from this debate and my opponent's instructions.
To start with the conclusion of my argument, the reason slavery and obligation are different from each other (not just definitionally, but in nature, essence and spirit) is because there exists differences between them. That while, according to my claim, slavery is a sub-category of obligation and as a result, every form of slavery has obligation in it. Not every form of obligation has slavery in it. That there are instances of non-slavery obligation that are different enough from instances of slavery that the distinction between them can be reasonably made. And that it can potentially be argued that it is unreasonable to use them interchangeably. Even in cases where one preferentially wishes to personally do so.
One of these differences can be found when comparing chattel slavery to "the monetary prison system", a point which I've gone into more detail in part 1 ( https://www.debateart.com/debates/5559-the-9-5-is-modern-day-slavery- ) my round 1 argument under 4.How does chattel slavery compare? and 3.The monetary prison system. To summarize, chattel slavery brings unjust harm to most and unjust benefit to some, serves slave owners, and is overall negative for societal development while currency brings benefit to most, serves most people and is an overall positive for societal development. I'd argue the differences are too drastic to name these "two different kinds of slaveries". To say that all of the things (not some of, all of) that make slavery slavery are fully present in both.
More generally in regards to obligation and slavery. There are reasons why person to person slavery and person to thing/concept/etc. obligation have enough differences that they are distinct from each other in nature. Even with the similarities they share.
- When you are a slave to a person, that person chooses what you can do and what you can not do. The prison warden (or the state) decides how the prison is run. The slave owner decides what work you will do for him among other things. However when you are a slave to something, such as money or food. The monetary prison system does not decide whether or not you need money to live. It does not even decide how much money you need to live. It simply does not decide. And likewise food, (or your stomach) do not decide whether or not you need to eat. Or even how much you need to eat. They simply do not decide at all. The monetary prison system can not decide to free us from the need of money. And food (or our stomachs) can not decide to free us from the need to eat. Nor can our lungs free us from the need to breath oxygen.
- Some people are slaves to person(s), but everyone is obligated to something. In the traditional term of slavery where the slave master is a human or several human beings. There are people who are slaves, and people who are not slaves, people who are completely free of slavery in all forms. In regards to obligation to something, everyone is obligated. Everyone is born obligated, even before the introduction of currency, everyone is subject to food. There is not an instance of human life (or even animal life) that is free from obligation to something. Humanity itself is born into obligation. But there are instances of people being free from other people.
- The possibility of freedom. This is similar to point 2. in regards to slavery under someone there always exists the possibility of freedom. The possibility of being free from that person/people. No matter how small. In regards to obligation to something, in some instances that possibility does not exist. According to you, freedom from money can not exist unless the monetary prison system itself is ended. And freedom from food is impossible, period.
Direct responses
I'm assuming you're not saying no to this question :"Ok is not a slave one whom can't do otherwise without being subject?"
You are correct in assuming that actually. I errored in this response. I answered "Is not one whom can't do otherwise without being subject a slave?" to which the answer was what I gave. One who is subject is not always a slave.
I apologize for this. To answer your question again, correctly this time, yes, a slave is always someone who is subject.
Oh it doesn't matter if it's indirectly or not. You're still subject . So one way or the other, you are .
If it does not matter if its indirectly or not, why did you give a full response to my "if you mean directly" statement? And most of what followed is recycling what I said under "if you mean indirectly", such as how we spend our energy.
Military, government, taxes, cost. If you're not paying, somebody is. Think about it. Just like your illustration with you supporting a person.
You've already given this argument in a different bullet point. However in this bullet point chain I am responding specifically and directly to your dismissal of my testimony (not your argument for how my testimony can be interpreted/analyzed and its deeper implications). When I said I don't have to continue qualifying for my pension and you responded by saying that yes I must be constantly doing something to continue qualifying for it.
Yes you agreed we're subject to money.
Can you back up the conclusion that this means I conceded that the 9-5 is slavery inside the enslavement system?
And if you answer with "because when you said x, it means y", can you back up how and why x means y?
They are whoever or whatever they are. See a slave is subject regardless. No matter the chain of command, we know it is the currency.
We know its the currency? That is two claims in one sentence. Can you back up that this is a fact? That currency is a slave master.
And can you back up that we know this?
You can be subject/enslaved to debt, an addiction, a vice or virtue. These things can have affect over your life to where it's all your living for.
Can you provide reasons as to why this is sufficient to appropriately consider debt, addiction, vices and virtues as slaves masters? Not just that they share similarities with them, but that they lack differences. That they are the same.
Makes it easier for you to understand and get it. Just focusing on the word subject.
Why should I believe this? I do not find this statement a strong enough reason. Can you provide me reason why focusing on the word subject will make the truth easier to understand for me?
I don't know. I just know we're subject now to the dollar itself. That's why I can't point you to any one or whatever amount of "enforcers " because every person you encounter within this system is just another subject.
In that case I will provide my own answer. I believe that due to the convenient merits of common currency, money would continue to exist even if everyone you would classify as an enforcer stopped being as such. That people by and large would continue using money to the point that its more convenient to us than its alternative, bartering. I agree that active abolishment would be necessary to remove money.
The simple response because I keep it simple, nevermind that. We're subject to money. That's it.
How does us being subject to money help us in examining how A is B without needing to know what B is? (in this case, how the 9-5 is slavery without knowing what slavery is)
Allow me to use something different from squares and rectangles to try to help convey what I mean. Let us say the argument is "The clementine is a citrus fruit", how does any statement or even group of statements bring us the conclusion "yes this is correct" without us needing to know what a citrus fruit is?
In regards to previously when I said "A dozen" and "twelve" are a better analogy (for interchangeable terms) than killing and death. In order for me to do this. I needed to know what "A dozen" meant, what "twelve" meant, what "killing" meant and what "death" meant. Not knowing any one of these four terms. (independent from merely how they relate to each other) would've made it impossible for me to give a personal judgement as to which pairing made a better analogy for interchangeable terms. Impossible to say that twelve and a dozen are interchangeable. And impossible to say that killing is a sub-category of death.
How can we examine that A is B without needing to know what B is?
It's not about what you should believe. It comes down to how you define it. Words and definitions are to each its own. If you particularly just prefer not to use the same terms to call what being subject to something is, it's still being subject . Being subject is still what it is .
I beg pardon? I thought the nature of it was what was important, not how we define it.
Allow me to rephrase my question. Why should we believe the slavery, in nature, essence and spirit, can be more than just person to person?
I'm talking about me. When I say I can't tell you a thing about it, I'm referring to the experience as I said with pertaining to what life was like because I didn't experience it . Even if I have been reincarnated from that time, I still have no memory of it.
Very well then. I believe you are selling yourself short, but moving on. I claim that, for myself, while I do not have the lived experience of living in a money-less society. I can, even with that disadvantage, examine it as a data point that I can potentially compare current life to. That I can tell at least a thing or two about it. (That "I can't tell a thing about it" would be an incorrect exaggeration about my knowledge of it) Even if it does not compare to how much I can tell about the current life I am living.
Hopefully that answers the gist of the question. It was more on the lengthy side to grasp. But I hope I answered if I understood the question .
This gives the implication that every single one of us is born into slavery. Is this correct?
It also implies that, generally speaking, the introduction of money reduced our slavery. (or took us from a greater slavery to a different lesser slavery). Is this also correct?
I'll modify this: Regardless, is money enslavement/subjection?
This is just you repeating the exact same question. (with the only difference of adding subjection next to enslavement). All this does is modify my statement to this.
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/subjection. But earlier you made several remarks that the establishment of money (and the 9-5) being enslavement/subjection 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.
I have to ask again. Am I missing something?
Because if not, the potential contradiction remains unresolved. That money being enslavement/subjection is a reason to pursue the wilderness despite the topic (establishment of money being enslavement/subjection) supposedly having nothing to do with determining if its better or worse or concluding why or why not or determining the reasons/motives for the courses of actions we should pursue.
Quite simple, your time and energy is subject to monetary obligation.
I argue that the time and energy used is far too little for this act to qualify as a part of being subject to monetary obligation in nature, spirit and essence. That the "obligation" merely exists in the technical terminology of the word and not the platonic idea of it.
It doesn't matter. You're not just born and handed money. You had to go through obligatory steps to get payment assistance setup. Let's not be obtuse here.
I don't fully understand the relevance of this response to my statement. And if it doesn't matter whether I get money to my bank account or my mail, why is my trip to the ATM relevant?
If there is nothing legally obligating you to cover somebody else's financial obligation, then obviously you're not obligated. You're both still subjects to the system. But if you elect not to meet another's obligation, that other is left to meet his or her own.I'll just repeat. It's really self explanatory. If you have at least a legal obligation, you can answer your own question. If you don't, what is obligating you? You can say yourself, you can say the other person is obligating you. It's very straightforward if you know what obligation is. I trust you do already.
With this you have said the following 3 things.
- Charity is non obligated payment or compensation of some type.
- In my scenario with Mark I am not providing charity work
- I am not obligated to provide for Mark
However the sum of the 3 seemingly leads to a contradiction. My taking care of mark is non-obligatory payment/compensation and therefor charity work according to 1 and 3, but it is not charity work according to 2.
Could you resolve this for me?
You can ask that question, is the person able to do anything otherwise to what that person is beholden to.
I wish for a direct answer, not instruction on how I can arrive at an answer myself, to better examine what you consider and don't consider subject.
To me he would usually be subject as while he is not confined to the prison complex, he would have no where else to live or seek shelter.
I don't understand the question.
You said "coming to these conclusions (that obligation is slavery, and to observe the parallels of the 9-5 and slavery) takes time, experience and observation."
If your assertions are factual, I (and I assume at least some viewers) do not have this time, experience and observation yet. I am asking you for instructions on how we can attain maybe even a nugget of it within the duration of this debate.
I have not enough reason to believe time, experience and correct observation will eventually lead me to the same conclusions you've arrived at. (or in other words, that your conclusions are the correct conclusions) So I am asking for your assistance in this matter. Otherwise the statement "it takes time, experience and observation to xyz" gives me and other readers no help in understanding your stance better.
Same means same. I didn't say nearly the same. I didn't say similar.
You said synonymous, which could mean exactly the same or nearly the same. Either way, the wording of your answer (dismissing nearly the same and similar) implies you meant exactly the same. I'll still ask so there's no doubt left. Am I correct in assuming this implication?
No obligation. When you're free of something, you don't have it .
I apologize you misunderstood my question. I am asking, if every state of human living is obligated. How can there be a living counter-example freedom of obligation? What is freedom of obligation and who has it?
I'll just make this illustration. When you've lived all your life in a neighborhood you're used to , you're not used to living any other way. So you don't see the way you're living as less than or more than without comparison because it's all you're used to.
Is it completely and utterly impossible to (within a certain level of intellectual confidence) determine if living any other way would be better or worse?
Tell me what do you think by common sense and the meaning of subject.
I asked to get your conclusion, not to be given instructions to come to the answer myself. (I answered it myself regardless under Answering questions).
I ask the question again, am I specifically subject to the modern day 9-5 slavery?
By this point, you should be able to answer and know the answer to these questions. We've gone over about what being subject is haven't we?It goes back to that question. Is there anything a person does that is not subject to money , indirectly or directly?
I asked to get your conclusion, not to be given instructions to come to the answer myself. (and it is a question I already answered previously under Answering questions)
I don't know. I haven't taken an overall average on every single individual on the planet.
So the potential exists that it could reduce freedom.
My next question is how can liberation (in this case, from money) result in the reduction of freedom?
Sadly this time outside of the questions in my responses I can not think of additional questions to ask at the moment. I apologize.
Round 3
Pro
#5
" Someone who is subject to drugs is an addict. One who is subject to food I call human. One who is subject to money I call a member of today's society. The common term I'd use for them is "obligated", although I wouldn't often use it in normal conversation."
That someone is a slave to drugs and money. Taking away freedom to do otherwise is slavery. When slave masters would purchase slaves, those slaves could not do otherwise from what the master allowed.
"Technically? Whether what they're subject to is something or someone. Whether its a master or not.
By the nature of it? Whether it is the results of human beings depriving you of freedoms you should reasonably have, or if it is mostly the result of the very nature of life imposing needs upon us."
But I have a lack of freedom or no freedom to do otherwise. You are in preference using the term slave in pertinence between people.
"When I say that, I mean what you coined as "secondary masters".
If the you find issue with me using lesser masters instead of secondary masters. Then I apologize and ask you to then assume I said every instance I said lesser masters I meant secondary masters."
I can't find where I said any of this either so I'm moving on.
"The one in the literal prison scenario in my literal prison scenario."
Depends whether the person is actually subject or not , huh .
"Can you demonstrate to me the validity of this claim?"
Yes it's demonstrated in your reading of part 1 compared to this part .
"Furthermore even without my counter-point your claim here is unbacked. What are the reasons to believe that the more complicated I make it and more questions I ask the further away from the foundation I get?"
It's because you apparently still can't grasp the thing.
"I did not agree to "Are we subject/enslaved to money?" as there are two disagreements here I have already voiced. That we are not enslaved to money. And that subject and enslaved are not interchangeable."
Will you accept the way you define subject is the way I define enslavement or will you argue with that?
"As for the heart of your argument, why should I reasonably believe that the one question is all we need and that I am the reason we're going in circles? (assuming that that is what you meant, if not please correct me)"
It's because of the following, I'll just repeat it.
"Will you accept the way you define subject is the way I define enslavement or will you argue with that?"
This is what I mean by making things simple. Instead of just coming back with ten counterpoints, I can look at this simply and recognize our true and only discrepancy here out of all this interaction is just a definition to a word .
"Why should I believe that that course of action would lead me to the truth?
This is a troubling statement, it could potentially be interpreted as "if you stop disagreeing, you would see the truth" which in turn, could potentially be interpreted as an insult on my intellect. That my responses are intellectually unreasonable (not merely incorrect, but something that a reasonable person normally wouldn't say at all). Hopefully I am wrong about this so I will give you the chance to set the record straight and ask, is this or similar what you mean?"
Heyyy, simply put: "Will you accept the way you define subject is the way I define enslavement or will you argue with that?"
"I apologize for this. To answer your question again, correctly this time, yes, a slave is always someone who is subject."
So subjection is related to slavery .
"If it does not matter if its indirectly or not, why did you give a full response to my "if you mean directly" statement? And most of what followed is recycling what I said under "if you mean indirectly", such as how we spend our energy."
I mean either way it doesn't matter. Directly or indirectly you are as well as anybody else, myself are slaves to the monetary system. You prefer the term subject, semantics, ok.
"When I said I don't have to continue qualifying for my pension and you responded by saying that yes I must be constantly doing something to continue qualifying for it."
Indeed. If your medical status changes hypothetically speaking, what stopped and didn't continue to meet the qualifications?
Rhetorical, no need to answer. Think about it. Readers can think about it as well.
"Can you back up the conclusion that this means I conceded that the 9-5 is slavery inside the enslavement system?
And if you answer with "because when you said x, it means y", can you back up how and why x means y?"
I certainly can. But I think you want to know more than what I can do so I'll do that . The 9-5 is slavery/subjection inside the enslavement/subjection system.
Rather, the 9-5 is modern day subjection.
"We know its the currency? That is two claims in one sentence. Can you back up that this is a fact? That currency is a slave master.
And can you back up that we know this?"
Subject master. Can you accept that as true? I don't know if you actually can so I'm asking.
"Can you provide reasons as to why this is sufficient to appropriately consider debt, addiction, vices and virtues as slaves masters? Not just that they share similarities with them, but that they lack differences. That they are the same"
It's the same reason you say we're obligated to them. It's the same reason you say we're subject to them.
"Why should I believe this? I do not find this statement a strong enough reason. Can you provide me reason why focusing on the word subject will make the truth easier to understand for me?"
It's because you already agree we're subject so why argue beyond that and complicate it?
"That people by and large would continue using money to the point that its more convenient to us than its alternative, bartering. I agree that active abolishment would be necessary to remove money."
Regardless whether it's a more convenient enslavement or subjection than another, it's still subjection.
"How can we examine that A is B without needing to know what B is?"
In terms of this topic, the simple answer which is in the frame of a question, is there anything we do in the system of currency where we're not subject to it?
So and that's what being subject is. I use another word which is the same. This again is just becoming an argument over a choice of semantics. The definition to affect one's life as mentioned in this debate is what it is. It is that. Now if you want to require a person to person structure being involved, whatever. It still comes down to the basic condition or spirit of condition. In simple terms or basic terms. Maybe basic is a better way to put.
"Why should we believe the slavery, in nature, essence and spirit, can be more than just person to person?"
I can't speak on that. I don't think I ever argue about what anybody should believe. I just demonstrate the reality before us and you either see the consistency or challenge for consistency in what is said.
"Even if it does not compare to how much I can tell about the current life I am living."
Nobody including you can tell me about the experience of something you didn't experience. That is illogical.
"This gives the implication that every single one of us is born into slavery. Is this correct?"
No there's no implication. Either we are or aren't. There is either proof there is or proof otherwise.
"It also implies that, generally speaking, the introduction of money reduced our slavery. (or took us from a greater slavery to a different lesser slavery). Is this also correct?"
No, money enslaves us period. Those of us that are subject.
"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/subjection. But earlier you made several remarks that the establishment of money (and the 9-5) being enslavement/subjection 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.
I have to ask again. Am I missing something?
Because if not, the potential contradiction remains unresolved. That money being enslavement/subjection is a reason to pursue the wilderness despite the topic (establishment of money being enslavement/subjection) supposedly having nothing to do with determining if its better or worse or concluding why or why not or determining the reasons/motives for the courses of actions we should pursue."
Yes you missed this question which completes the topic. Is money subjection? Does it cause us to be subject to it?
"I argue that the time and energy used is far too little for this act to qualify as a part of being subject to monetary obligation in nature, spirit and essence. That the "obligation" merely exists in the technical terminology of the word and not the platonic idea of it."
When you are subject to money it means your time and energy is under subjection. Of course affecting many lives via delegation of a 9-5.
"I don't fully understand the relevance of this response to my statement. And if it doesn't matter whether I get money to my bank account or my mail, why is my trip to the ATM relevant?"
I say again, the answers are right in these statements reading them carefully. You're not just born and handed money. You had to go through obligatory steps to get payment assistance setup.
"However the sum of the 3 seemingly leads to a contradiction. My taking care of mark is non-obligatory payment/compensation and therefor charity work according to 1 and 3, but it is not charity work according to 2.
Could you resolve this for me?"
You are both subjects to the system. Makes no difference about this charity stuff. Within the system of monetary supremacy, you are both subjects. Are you getting this?
"I wish for a direct answer, not instruction on how I can arrive at an answer myself, to better examine what you consider and don't consider subject.
To me he would usually be subject as while he is not confined to the prison complex, he would have no where else to live or seek shelter."
Do not continue with what I consider. I've told you it's about what you are subject to. So that is the standard so you don't have to continue to ask is this person and that person subject or whatever over and over. I have given you the standard, use it .
"If your assertions are factual, I (and I assume at least some viewers) do not have this time, experience and observation yet. I am asking you for instructions on how we can attain maybe even a nugget of it within the duration of this debate.
I have not enough reason to believe time, experience and correct observation will eventually lead me to the same conclusions you've arrived at. (or in other words, that your conclusions are the correct conclusions) So I am asking for your assistance in this matter. Otherwise the statement "it takes time, experience and observation to xyz" gives me and other readers no help in understanding your stance better."
Being that we done had this interaction, people are familiar with what I'm talking about. This does not include those that already know the 9-5 is modern day slavery. But for those that want to verify all that is said here is true, ask questions of reality itself. Like starting with that first question. Is there anything I do that is not tied to money?
Do I have to continue to work in order to live? What happens if I don't continue to work?
I think again these questions were posted in the first debate. Everything you're asking I've answered but it's like too much or something to grasp. When we're talking about observation, it's all about questions. You question things. You question the world around you .
It's not about a better stance but about it being a truthful one.
"You said synonymous, which could mean exactly the same or nearly the same. Either way, the wording of your answer (dismissing nearly the same and similar) implies you meant exactly the same. I'll still ask so there's no doubt left. Am I correct in assuming this implication?"
I said same. So if you are asking do I mean same then yes because I said same. No, implications are not needed . You can go by the exact words.
"I apologize you misunderstood my question. I am asking, if every state of human living is obligated. How can there be a living counter-example freedom of obligation? What is freedom of obligation and who has it?"
Every person in the system of monetary obligation is obligated. I'm not really going to speak of anything outside of that.
"Is it completely and utterly impossible to (within a certain level of intellectual confidence) determine if living any other way would be better or worse?"
I guess it depends on the person and the person's circumstance.
"I asked to get your conclusion, not to be given instructions to come to the answer myself. (I answered it myself regardless under Answering questions).
I ask the question again, am I specifically subject to the modern day 9-5 slavery?"
I don't know. Do you work a 9-5? This is what I mean by common sense. If you know the answer to that , how would you yourself not know the answer to the question you're asking me?
Are you really grasping what I'm saying or just asking these questions for the sake of?
"So the potential exists that it could reduce freedom.
My next question is how can liberation (in this case, from money) result in the reduction of freedom?"
I don't know. I'm not giving any focus on that right now.
"Sadly this time outside of the questions in my responses I can not think of additional questions to ask at the moment. I apologize."
Good. When you can't come up with any more questions, we've come to a complete resolution on the topic.
Like I said, you use the word "subject". We are subject to the monetary system. So that's all my position is . Specifically delegated via the 9-5 where most of us are imprisoned by. Some are retired, semi-retired, on welfare, some type of government assistance, whatever. It is what it is.
Con
#6
Answering questions
Will you accept the way you define subject is the way I define enslavement or will you argue with that?
I will accept that. While I will maintain my arguments under Definitions and word choice, Nature and parallels, and Why they are different. That enslavement and being forced to do something are different in nature. And that our contention is more than just a matter of difference in definitions. That there is a difference in the nature and spirit of it. I will accept that never the less our difference in definitions is one of our points of contention.
Subject master. Can you accept that as true? I don't know if you actually can so I'm asking.
I will not accept it. A master needs to be sentient, and we can be subject to the non-sentient. "Subject master" is an oxymoron phrase in itself, as it implies that the potentially non-sentient can be a master.
Is money subjection? Does it cause us to be subject to it?
This is a different question than "are we subject to money" or "is there anything we can do without?" so I will answer it directly.
And it might surprise you to hear this answer. No and no. Money itself is not subjection, nor is it causing us to be subject to it.
To elaborate on the first no. Money is not a person or sentient being of some form or a group of people in order to elect to subject us, it does not have the free choice or decision making to grant or remove from us freedoms. We are subject to using money but money itself is not subjection.
To elaborate on the second no. Money does not cause us to be subject to it. While indeed we have to use money in order to live, the primary reason for that is not because it exists. It is because our body needs the stuff we buy, it needs food, it needs warmth/clothing, and money is the easiest most convenient most labor efficient way of acquiring these.
Money is no more the cause of us being subject to it than food is forcing us to eat it. We are forced to eat food. But food does not force us to eat it by virtue of growing from the ground, or growing from trees, or coming from animals, etc. Any of these "activities" (if you can call it such) food partake in does not cause us to need food, nor does it's existence cause us to need it. Likewise the reason we need money is not because it came into existence or continues to exist.
Do I have to continue to work in order to live? What happens if I don't continue to work?
These are new questions so I'll answer them directly. I am not currently working, (last freelance job I did was many months ago) so there is no work for me to need to continue. And no work for me to wonder what happens if I stop doing it.
Do you work a 9-5?
I don't work a 9-5
how would you yourself not know the answer to the question you're asking me?Are you really grasping what I'm saying or just asking these questions for the sake of?
I know my personal answer but not yours. The reason I asked is because you'd previously assigned me to the 9-5.
"When you say the 9-5 workforce. Given what I've said about my work situation, do I qualify as part of that workforce?"You qualify in the sense of not being free from financial obligation regardless of how much or little you need to do to sustain for a living. Some live like grunts in a field. Others are living like kingpins in the lap of luxury. Both are in prison.You're 9-5 could be just 9 seconds to 5 minutes, whatever.
You could've answered "you're not part of the 9-5 but you're in the monetary prison system", but no, in all my questions about my status regarding the 9-5 you've either implied or outright answer that I am a part of it.
This seems to come in contradiction with you simply asking me if I work a 9-5 job. The answer is no. So then, is that answer relevant? Does that mean that I am not part of the 9-5 workforce? Or does my financial obligation still mean that I qualify for it? (in which case, what is the point of asking me if I work a 9-5?)
Indeed. If your medical status changes hypothetically speaking, what stopped and didn't continue to meet the qualifications?Rhetorical, no need to answer. Think about it. Readers can think about it as well.
While I appreciate the freedom not to answer the question due to its rhetorical nature. I will elect to do so regardless.
Nothing would change. There is nobody who is checking on me to still see that I have autism or that I am still what they had deemed "unfit to work", and additionally to that there is nobody who is checking on me to still see that I am diabetic. So if one day, hypothetically speaking, I was magically ""cured"" of my autism (and/or becoming fit to work) and of my diabetes. I would still be receiving pension and a steady supply of insulin because the military hospital would not be aware of either of these changes.
In fact I have what could be considered high functioning autism and suspect that I am fit to be in a workplace environment (That deeming me unfit to work was an inaccurate diagnosis). So part of your hypothetical could already be the situation I am in. That I don't meet the qualifications for early pension and receive them regardless.
Unaddressed issues
In my opinion, there have unfortunately been a few counter-points that not only have not been properly enough addressed, but that arguments have continued to be made as if I had not made these counter-points at all.
Similarities and definitions
That someone is a slave to drugs and money. Taking away freedom to do otherwise is slavery. When slave masters would purchase slaves, those slaves could not do otherwise from what the master allowed.But I have a lack of freedom or no freedom to do otherwise. You are in preference using the term slave in pertinence between people.This is what I mean by making things simple. Instead of just coming back with ten counterpoints, I can look at this simply and recognize our true and only discrepancy here out of all this interaction is just a definition to a word.It's the same reason you say we're obligated to them. It's the same reason you say we're subject to them.I said same. So if you are asking do I mean same then yes because I said same. No, implications are not needed . You can go by the exact words.
I find that you carry the argument either not having properly enough addressed or fully ignoring the points I have made under Definitions and word choice, Nature and parallels, and Why they are different
To begin, you continue to assert that our point of contention is purely definitional, that there is nothing else to it but semantics, without having properly addressed what I'd said about how Obligation and Slavery, are not only definitionally different. But that they also are in its nature, in spirit, in the heart of its meaning. These are your two direct responses to my question regarding the matter.
I can't speak on that. I don't think I ever argue about what anybody should believe. I just demonstrate the reality before us and you either see the consistency or challenge for consistency in what is said.
I was not talking about faith here when I said "why should we believe". Let me rephrase the question. Why should we determine that the logically correct conclusion to arrive to is that what you are demonstrating? Why should we arrive to the conclusion that slavery, in nature, essence and spirit, can be more than just person to person?
So and that's what being subject is. I use another word which is the same. This again is just becoming an argument over a choice of semantics. The definition to affect one's life as mentioned in this debate is what it is. It is that. Now if you want to require a person to person structure being involved, whatever. It still comes down to the basic condition or spirit of condition. In simple terms or basic terms. Maybe basic is a better way to put.
And I have made the argument that they are different in nature, essence and spirit while elaborating on it with supporting arguments under Nature and parallels, and Why they are different. Here, you merely assert that they are the same in spirit without elaboration.
Both of these, in my view, leaves my counter-points unresolved.
Additionally to this, you continue to proclaim similarities between as sufficient reasoning to believe they are the same, such as "both have a lack of freedom", without properly enough addressing my concern that they don't lack in differences, that they need to lack in differences to be the same, not just similar. This was your one response to the matter.
It's the same reason you say we're obligated to them. It's the same reason you say we're subject to them.
But all this does is merely re-iterate the similarity we already discussed. What they and slavery have in common. This does not address why they are the same (not similar, same) despite the differences, this neither demonstrates that they lack in differences or give reason why we don't need them to lack in differences to consider them the same thing.
Using the rectangle and square analogy. It would be similar to if I said "Why should we believe they're the same if a square needs to have four equal sides and a rectangle doesn't?" and you responded with "It's the same reason you say rectangles have four right angles"
I need you to either demonstrate that they lack in differences, or provide sufficient logical reason to come to the conclusion that a lack in differences is not required to consider them the same thing in spirit, essence and nature.
Continued simplicity
This is what I mean by making things simple.It's because you already agree we're subject so why argue beyond that and complicate it?In terms of this topic, the simple answer which is in the frame of a question, is there anything we do in the system of currency where we're not subject to it?
Not as many remarks about simplicity here, but the narrative continues to be pushed as if it were already established fact that simple is better. And that simplicity is a trait inherently synonymous with truth. However my concerns under Follow my simple road have not been properly satisfied. These were your responses to them.
Yes it's demonstrated in your reading of part 1 compared to this part .
Could you elaborate on this with detail and back it up?
It's because you apparently still can't grasp the thing.
This is a very counter-productive response. If I, as you say, can't grasp the thing. Shouldn't I be asking more questions in hopes of better understanding it.
Furthermore this still does not address my concern. It's a claim that I can't grasp the truth. Why should I conclude that my grasp on the truth is inferior to yours? Why should I come to the conclusion that the more I complicate the matter, the further away from the heart of the matter, from the foundation, from the truth that I get?
Will you accept the way you define subject is the way I define enslavement or will you argue with that?It's because of the following, I'll just repeat it."Will you accept the way you define subject is the way I define enslavement or will you argue with that?"Heyyy, simply put: "Will you accept the way you define subject is the way I define enslavement or will you argue with that?"
My response to this generally can be found earlier in this writing under Similarities and definitions
Elaborating on that. These responses to do not yet address to me why using the two terms (slave and obligated) interchangeably is correct, why I should conclude that your one question is all I need to come to the truth. And why stopping my responses will lead me to the truth. And you claim that the answer to most of my concerns under Follow my simple road comes down to a mere difference in semantical preferences without properly enough building that foundation first.
Furthermore you have not directly answered one of the questions in there.
"if you stop disagreeing, you would see the truth" is this statement what you mean or similar to what you mean to imply? Or is it not?
The one question universal response
In several instances you've used your one question (or some forms of variations of it) as a response that, I will argue, hardly if at all addresses what you've responded to. Here's my elaboration on this via my responses.
In terms of this topic, the simple answer which is in the frame of a question, is there anything we do in the system of currency where we're not subject to it?So and that's what being subject is. I use another word which is the same. This again is just becoming an argument over a choice of semantics. The definition to affect one's life as mentioned in this debate is what it is. It is that. Now if you want to require a person to person structure being involved, whatever. It still comes down to the basic condition or spirit of condition. In simple terms or basic terms. Maybe basic is a better way to put.
I argue that our argument is more than semantics (further elaborated under Similarities and definitions), but let us say for the sake of argument within the confines of this bullet point that it just is about semantics. Even then, how can we come to the conclusion that A and B are interchangeable terms without knowing what B means?
Let's take terms we can both agree are factually interchangeable, such as "twelve" and "a dozen". How can a person who does not know what "a dozen" means, come to the conclusion that "twelve" and "a dozen" are the exact same thing and are interchangeable?
And, with the argument being about more than semantical preferences. About me challenging your usage of obligated and slave in regards to its spirit, essence and nature. How can we conclude that A and B are in spirit, essence and nature, the same, without knowing what B is?
Yes you missed this question which completes the topic. Is money subjection? Does it cause us to be subject to it?
This does not address my concern. Can you explain how answering this question addresses the potential contradiction that I say remains unresolved. That money being enslavement/subjection is a reason to pursue the wilderness despite the topic (establishment of money being enslavement/subjection) supposedly having nothing to do with determining if its better or worse or concluding why or why not or determining the reasons/motives for the courses of actions we should pursue.
Being that we done had this interaction, people are familiar with what I'm talking about. This does not include those that already know the 9-5 is modern day slavery. But for those that want to verify all that is said here is true, ask questions of reality itself. Like starting with that first question. Is there anything I do that is not tied to money?
Could you elaborate on how answering this question will assist me in acquiring the time, experience and observation required to reach the truth? On why I'd positively conclude it is only a matter of time, experience and observation to reach the same conclusions as you have?
Other responses
I can't find where I said any of this either so I'm moving on.
You said it in part 1 in your round 5 argument.
You have a slave master or you can the headmaster and his SYSTEM of secondary masters under him. These secondary masters form companies, right. They form corporations that head all the workers. Of course this is done in an organized fashion so it doesn't fall apart. The word you used, organized and it's all subjection or obligation so it's in a prison, another word you used. They're all imprisoned headed by a slave master.
And now I ask again. What are the key differences between me and those you labeled "secondary masters" that makes them qualify as secondary masters over us, but does not qualify me as a secondary master over Mark?
So subjection is related to slavery .
Of course it is. Not only have I never challenged this. I have even said what directly means this. I have said that slavery is a sub-category of subjection. It comes to reason that by my saying that I am also saying that they are related.
I certainly can. But I think you want to know more than what I can do so I'll do that . The 9-5 is slavery/subjection inside the enslavement/subjection system.Rather, the 9-5 is modern day subjection.
Can you back up that this means that I am conceding that the 9-5 is modern day slavery. Especially when I have argued, in detail, that slavery and subjection are different in spirit, essence and nature? When I go into length to challenge your usage of the terms interchangeably as incorrect. (not merely concluding that you have your definitional preferences and I have mine)
Subject master. Can you accept that as true? I don't know if you actually can so I'm asking.
My direct answer to the question can be found under Answering questions
That said, I challenge the notion that this response addresses my concern. Can you demonstrate to me how money is the slave master and how we know this?
And can you do this without insufficiently assuming that slave master and "subject master"(a notion I challenge under my direct answer) are interchangeable? I wish for you to either provide an argument that does not require the foundation of "subject always means slave in every context". Or, if it must require that foundation, then I wish for you to properly build that foundation as well. The foundation of "subjection always means slave in every context".
Nobody including you can tell me about the experience of something you didn't experience. That is illogical.
I never claimed that I can tell about the experience of previous life. I claimed that I can tell about previous life.
I never experienced world war 2. I could never tell you what it is like to be a soldier or civilian during world war 2. However I can tell you information about it. Information that I argue can be put to use. At least enough that "We did not experience it, we can not say a thing about it" is an unproductive unconstructive response.
No there's no implication. Either we are or aren't. There is either proof there is or proof otherwise.
I am talking about the implications that arise from your response. Not what represents reality.
But ok, I'll just ask the question directly then. Has every single human being been born into slavery? (If there is a single human being not born into slavery then the answer is no. Even just one in many billions throughout history.)
No, money enslaves us period. Those of us that are subject.
So, despite money reducing our overall required labor (or forced labor, the crux of your argument as regards to the 9-5. As well as how you described how this could result in some "slaves" having slacker chains than others), money does not reduce slavery? Can you back this up? How can reconcile both the fact that you tie up any source (even nature/hunger itself) of forced labor as one of the measures of the degree of slavery while simultaneously asserting right now that money (which reduces required labor duo to its market efficiency as compared to bartering) does not reduce slavery?
When you are subject to money it means your time and energy is under subjection. Of course affecting many lives via delegation of a 9-5.
This is the technical answer. I am asking how in spirit, essence and nature, a few minutes of a trip to the ATM can be reasonably considered subjection and obligation.
I argue that in spirit, something like paying rent, and having to acquire enough money to pay rent, can reasonably be considered an obligation. While a trip to the ATM can only be considered so if we're speaking purely technically, ignoring the soul of the matter.
I say again, the answers are right in these statements reading them carefully. You're not just born and handed money. You had to go through obligatory steps to get payment assistance setup.
That still does not answer my question. If my trip to the ATM is part of the payment assistance setup then why would it not matter whether or not this trip is eliminated via them mailing me the money instead?
Additionally I'd argue that my trip to the ATM is not part of the obligatory steps to get payment assistance setup. As my monthly trip to the ATM is something I already do on a regular monthly basis to collect bank return money. This is an already existing setup as a result of me having money in a bank account that gives me a return rate. Not at all part of any kind of welfare plan.
I am sorry, that this feels like as if I was under a food stamp program, you'd respond that the act of going to collect the food, or the act of eating the food. Is obligated labor that I have to perform as part of the obligatory steps to get assistance setup.
You are both subjects to the system. Makes no difference about this charity stuff.
Then why did you address it if it makes no difference? and this still does not resolve the contradiction arising from your previous statements.
Do not continue with what I consider. I've told you it's about what you are subject to. So that is the standard so you don't have to continue to ask is this person and that person subject or whatever over and over. I have given you the standard, use it .
I am asking you these question to further examine more closely the details of the standard you presented. You asked me to examine your stance for consistencies, this is one of the ways I am doing this. By asking you example situations of who is and isn't subject. Both to compare it with your overall stance for consistency if you happen to be incorrect. Or to better understand how to use your standard in practical intellectual determination if you happen to be correct.
I ask for your cooperation in answer questions directly. In returning my courtesy of answering all of your questions directly no matter what they are.
I think again these questions were posted in the first debate. Everything you're asking I've answered but it's like too much or something to grasp. When we're talking about observation, it's all about questions. You question things. You question the world around you .
This feels like it lies in contradiction with your dismissal of the validity and/or relevance of many of my questions. You instruct me to question the world, but then only in specific set ways? I am intended to question the world in the thought road map you've set but not question other things related to it or question in many details your stance? Your scrutinizing the world is relevant and my scrutinizing your stance is simultaneously irrelevant?
This also lies in contradiction with your celebration of my lack of questions at the end of the argument. This appears to be that you wish me to question the conclusions the world, as you put it, institutionalized on me. But become content with the simple conclusions you've arrived at.
I will still regardless, engage in the questions you've deemed I should engage in in case you are right. But I ask, if questioning things is an inherent good (and I myself will argue this also, as you've seen, I question a lot of things), why should you not also engage in questioning your own stance (and in engaging in many of my questions directly) in case you are wrong?
It's not about a better stance but about it being a truthful one.
Firstly I did not say "gives me and other readers no help in understanding yours is the better stance", I said "gives me and other readers no help in understanding your stance better", as in having a better understanding and mastery on the details of your stance, on what your stance means. Just wanted to make that clear.
Regardless, I will respond to this directly as well. Indeed the better stance, the better argument is not always the truthful one. Sometimes when two people debate, even if person A presented his argument poorly, that doesn't mean that argument A is factually incorrect and argument B is factually correct. The opposite could potentially be true.
That said however, that is not sufficient reason to say that "it is not about the better stance". While indeed "which stance is truthful?" is a more important question to answer. We are not omniscient. We do not have perfect knowledge. We have logical deductions and conclusions. And in debates like these, examining "which stance is better?" helps in arriving to the truth. It will not always lead to the correct answer for "which stance is truthful?". But it will, at the very least, provide a higher overall success rate to it.
Every person in the system of monetary obligation is obligated. I'm not really going to speak of anything outside of that.
I am asking how can there significant meaning to it without an existing opposite? We have alive and we have dead. We have human and we have non-human. We have land-based life and we have aquatic life.
Essentially, what I am saying is, if all life was aquatic life, we wouldn't have aquatic life as a distinction, it simply would be life. How can obligation exist as a distinctive attribute without others (who aren't obligated) that we can distinct it to?
I guess it depends on the person and the person's circumstance.
In that case I will elaborate and proclaim that, duo to its nature compared to bartering, the elimination of money would result in worse living condition for the majority of people around the world. What is your response?
I don't know. I'm not giving any focus on that right now.
In that case I will make the argument that it is not possible, for something that reduces slavery, that causes liberation, to be slavery. And that such an argument, if left unattended, relevantly damages your stance in this debate (That money is enslavement, and that the 9-5 is modern day slavery via it). What is your response to this?
Good. When you can't come up with any more questions, we've come to a complete resolution on the topic.
Can you back up this claim? Not only are we still in contention in several bullet points, I will also ask. What is this resolution I've come to as a result of not having end of argument questions?
Depends whether the person is actually subject or not , huh .
This does not answer the question.
Do you know the answer to the question? Do you know whether the person in the prison scenario I mentioned qualifies as subject or not?
Like I said, you use the word "subject". We are subject to the monetary system. So that's all my position is . Specifically delegated via the 9-5 where most of us are imprisoned by. Some are retired, semi-retired, on welfare, some type of government assistance, whatever. It is what it is.
This is a troubling statement for several reasons. Firstly, if what you mean to say is "My stance is we are subject to the monetary system because being subject to the monetary system is being a slave to it". Then there is yet plenty you have to respond to, including under Definitions and word choice, Nature and parallels, Why they are different, and Similarities and definitions.
If what you mean is "My stance simply is we are subject to the monetary system. It's just my personal preference to refer as slavery what you refer to as obligation". Then you still have to respond to Definitions and word choice, Nature and parallels, Why they are different, and Similarities and definitions. Duo to my directly challenging that this isn't a mere matter of preference. That you are, by its nature, essence and spirit, incorrectly using slavery and attributing it to what it should not be attributed to.
Regardless, you suffer from proclaiming that your stance is "We are subject to the monetary system." in a debate where the primary debate is "The 9-5 is modern day slavery." You suffer from doing this without having first laid properly and significantly enough the foundation for why every single source of obligation is slavery. Not just why there is the existence similarity (both include lack of freedom). But why there is the absence of difference.
Questions
Can you provide me an example, outside of obligation and slavery. An example of any two things, that have existing in them differences (or even just one difference, even a small one(not including their names themselves obviously)) but can be used interchangeably in every context?
(For example "twelve" and "a dozen" are interchangeable because there is no difference between them except in how they're written.)
You enjoyed my question in part 1 but not here in part 2. But at the same time you said the debate went worse in part 1 and better in part 2. Could you explain this?
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.
With this encouraging further exploration, questioning, deep diving, and not closing our minds to a specific single conclusion oriented road map. Why is your approach, especially as of late, at least from the impression I am getting, so averse to exploration? Why the fixation on sticking to what you consider on topic? Why the repulsion to questions you deem irrelevant? Question that, I'd argue even if potentially irrelevant, could help us view, learn and take away from this interaction?
Can a slave master free you at least from specifically your slavery to him?
Do you believe that in debates, on average, the more simple stance is more likely to be correct and truthful as compared to the more complex stance?
What is each and every singular required attribute for slavery? And if your answer is different than most people's, why is yours correct and theirs wrong? Why does yours represent the reality and theirs doesn't?
"When you really see things for what they are on a grand scale in which you have to think outside the box, you'll see what I'm talking about."
Would you say I am thinking outside the box? And if yes or no could you explain?
Round 4
Pro
#7
"I will accept that. I will accept that never the less our difference in definitions is one of our points of contention."
We really don't have a difference in definitions but in semantics. You use "slave" in particular contexts while I broaden it. So I'll include those particulars in line with my broad view. There is really no basis to argue there. As long as I'm not opposed to the specific contexts, we can conclude it as resolved. If I find common ground, I leave it alone.
"I will not accept it. A master needs to be sentient, and we can be subject to the non-sentient. "Subject master" is an oxymoron phrase in itself, as it implies that the potentially non-sentient can be a master."
Will you accept "subjected debtor/obligor"?
"No and no. Money itself is not subjection, nor is it causing us to be subject to it."
So money is not subjection but we are indeed subject to it. We can be subject to an entity that has no subjection element because it's not subjection. Ok .
"These are new questions so I'll answer them directly. I am not currently working, (last freelance job I did was many months ago) so there is no work for me to need to continue. And no work for me to wonder what happens if I stop doing it."
Ok but answer these questions.
"Do I have to continue to work in order to live? What happens if I don't continue to work?"
"I know my personal answer but not yours. The reason I asked is because you'd previously assigned me to the 9-5."
Being that you don't work a 9-5, how are you subject to it?
I think you asked me are you subject to it. This is not personal, this is universal according to what subject means.
"This seems to come in contradiction with you simply asking me if I work a 9-5 job. The answer is no. So then, is that answer relevant? Does that mean that I am not part of the 9-5 workforce? Or does my financial obligation still mean that I qualify for it? (in which case, what is the point of asking me if I work a 9-5?)"
The answer is already in the following:
"You qualify in the sense of not being free from financial obligation regardless of how much or little you need to do to sustain for a living. Some live like grunts in a field. Others are living like kingpins in the lap of luxury. Both are in prison."
Also regardless of those that are working or retired, it doesn't change the fact that the modern 9-5 is modern day slavery. Whether you are qualified to work it or not and others obligated to pay into a system where it gives you exemption from it. It still is what it is .
"So if one day, hypothetically speaking, I was magically ""cured"" of my autism (and/or becoming fit to work) and of my diabetes. I would still be receiving pension and a steady supply of insulin because the military hospital would not be aware of either of these changes."
Whether you want to be honest and notify the appropriate parties of something you don't qualify for is a separate issue.
Just like if I'm fully retired and I receive social security pay, a set amount. If the set amount is double and I bring this to no one's attention that I don't qualify for this amount, these things are called loopholes or slipping through the cracks.
"Why should we arrive to the conclusion that slavery, in nature, essence and spirit, can be more than just person to person?"
I can't speak to what you should arrive at. I can tell you why I use the term. You don't have to use the particular term. You use the term "subject" to say we are obligated still in order to live. Now the 9-5 is modern day subjection. Alternatively if you find difficulty with that statement, the 9-5 is modern day to that what we are subjected to . That's because it's a money situation and we can live no otherwise.
Just like a slave no otherwise but hey that's just me using the word the same way. "Subject" works, whichever.
"Additionall wey to this, you continue to proclaim similarities between as sufficient reasoning to believe they are the same, such as "both have a lack of freedom", without properly enough addressing my concern that they don't lack in differences, that they need to lack in differences to be the same, not just similar. This was your one response to the matter."
Like I say if you want to know why I particularly use the term "slave " , just ask.
I think what would help is answering those questions I asked you .
"Do I have to continue to work in order to live? What happens if I don't continue to work?"
Then ask yourself as a follow up to progress this along, is this also true for a slave that has to work?
"But all this does is merely re-iterate the similarity we already discussed. What they and slavery have in common. This does not address why they are the same (not similar, same) despite the differences, this neither demonstrates that they lack in differences or give reason why we don't need them to lack in differences to consider them the same thing."
Like I say you don't have to use the term slavery to agree with my position. Would you have accepted the original debate if the words "subject to" were in the topic title?
"I need you to either demonstrate that they lack in differences, or provide sufficient logical reason to come to the conclusion that a lack in differences is not required to consider them the same thing in spirit, essence and nature."
Any differences you see, you're seeing them that way. I'm not trying to make distinctions, you are.
I think I've already explained about the bare bones nature in enslavement and subjection.
"Not as many remarks about simplicity here, but the narrative continues to be pushed as if it were already established fact that simple is better. And that simplicity is a trait inherently synonymous with truth. However my concerns under Follow my simple road have not been properly satisfied. These were your responses to them."
It's not about what is better but what is unnecessary. I believe I've stressed this point already about engaging in what is necessary. When we can understand something simply, it would be unnecessary to look for things to complicate. There is where I try to draw you back to the simple terms and simple ways to look at it. You're looking at all this in a more convoluted fashion which perhaps is unbeknownst to you but nevertheless I'm trying to help you out.
"Could you elaborate on this with detail and back it up?"
No. For simple fact is that it is demonstrated in your reading of part 1 compared to this part . Whether you realize it or not, you're just asking me to repeat these things over and over .
Just like here when you asked an initial question, I give you the answer and you ask it over again or rephrase it. In my response I say the answer is already there along those lines.
Bottomline, you agree that we are subject to money and by us being subject we are subject to the means to obtain money which we call the 9-5. I particular use a different term but semantics are of no consequence. I'll just conclude with that statement.
I'll respond to anything that mildly appears new and conclude with the wrap around statement.
"This is a very counter-productive response. If I, as you say, can't grasp the thing. Shouldn't I be asking more questions in hopes of better understanding it."
No, you adhere to what I'm simply saying. But you're insatiable with it.
"Furthermore this still does not address my concern. It's a claim that I can't grasp the truth. Why should I conclude that my grasp on the truth is inferior to yours? Why should I come to the conclusion that the more I complicate the matter, the further away from the heart of the matter, from the foundation, from the truth that I get?"
You can't grasp the thing. We're back at that again.
"why I should conclude that your one question is all I need to come to the truth. And why stopping my responses will lead me to the truth. And you claim that the answer to most of my concerns under Follow my simple road comes down to a mere difference in semantical preferences without properly enough building that foundation first."
We've reached agreement and resolution. We being subject to money is all the topic statement translates to.
"if you stop disagreeing, you would see the truth" is this statement what you mean or similar to what you mean to imply? Or is it not?"
Nah I'll put it this way. We've reached agreement and resolution. We being subject to money is all the topic statement translates to.
"Let's take terms we can both agree are factually interchangeable, such as "twelve" and "a dozen". How can a person who does not know what "a dozen" means, come to the conclusion that "twelve" and "a dozen" are the exact same thing and are interchangeable?
And, with the argument being about more than semantical preferences. About me challenging your usage of obligated and slave in regards to its spirit, essence and nature. How can we conclude that A and B are in spirit, essence and nature, the same, without knowing what B is?"
I told you the way you define subject is the way I define slave so you honestly can't say you don't know what the term means when I use it. When I use it. Not talking about anybody else using it like yourself.
"This does not address my concern. Can you explain how answering this question addresses the potential contradiction that I say remains unresolved. That money being enslavement/subjection is a reason to pursue the wilderness despite the topic (establishment of money being enslavement/subjection) supposedly having nothing to do with determining if its better or worse or concluding why or why not or determining the reasons/motives for the courses of actions we should pursue."
Sure it's a reason. People have all sorts of reasons of their own to do things. People may love the wilderness, the outdoors, out in the natural , in nature, zero industrial hustle and bustle rat race, whatever . Escaping the monetary strain, bills, rent, finance, etc .
Escaping paying money because you're subject to it otherwise. We agree with that. Don't even worry about the question I asked. It's rhetorical at this point.
People also like what they do on a job or corporate career, whatever. People desire to be career criminals. People desire to be monks in isolation. Whatever reason a person does what he or she does is what it is. Not really of any contention.
"Could you elaborate on how answering this question will assist me in acquiring the time, experience and observation required to reach the truth? On why I'd positively conclude it is only a matter of time, experience and observation to reach the same conclusions as you have?"
The answer to the question will make the topic statement true or false.
Is there anything I do that is not tied to money?
"You said it in part 1 in your round 5 argument."
No, quote it word for word. If you can't find it word for word, you admit that I never made such a worded statement.
"And now I ask again. What are the key differences between me and those you labeled "secondary masters" that makes them qualify as secondary masters over us, but does not qualify me as a secondary master over Mark?"
Quote where I said the words "secondary masters".
You have yet to do this. Do you know the difference between exact words and paraphrasing?
Find me the exact words where I said "secondary masters".
Thank you .
"Of course it is. Not only have I never challenged this. I have even said what directly means this. I have said that slavery is a sub-category of subjection. It comes to reason that by my saying that I am also saying that they are related."
Thank you. So being that slavery branches from subjection and slaves are subject, we are subject to money which branches from the subjection of money. Can't be subject to what has no subjection element whatsoever.
"Can you back up that this means that I am conceding that the 9-5 is modern day slavery. Especially when I have argued, in detail, that slavery and subjection are different in spirit, essence and nature? When I go into length to challenge your usage of the terms interchangeably as incorrect. (not merely concluding that you have your definitional preferences and I have mine)"
So being that slavery branches from subjection and slaves are subject, we are subject to money which branches from the subjection of money. Can't be subject to what has no subjection element whatsoever.
"Can you demonstrate to me how money is the slave master and how we know this?"
So being that slavery branches from subjection and slaves are subject, we are subject to money which branches from the subjection of money. Can't be subject to what has no subjection element whatsoever.
"And can you do this without insufficiently assuming that slave master and "subject master"(a notion I challenge under my direct answer) are interchangeable? I wish for you to either provide an argument that does not require the foundation of "subject always means slave in every context". Or, if it must require that foundation, then I wish for you to properly build that foundation as well. The foundation of "subjection always means slave in every context"."
The way you define subject is the way I define slave. The way you define subject master if you ever have or will have perhaps is the same way I define slave master.
"Can you back up that this means that I am conceding that the 9-5 is modern day slavery. Especially when I have argued, in detail, that slavery and subjection are different in spirit, essence and nature? When I go into length to challenge your usage of the terms interchangeably as incorrect. (not merely concluding that you have your definitional preferences and I have mine)"
So being that slavery branches from subjection and slaves are subject, we are subject to money(9-5) which branches from the subjection of money. Can't be subject to what has no subjection element whatsoever.
"Can you demonstrate to me how money is the slave master and how we know this?"
Taken from your statement: "I have said that slavery is a sub-category of subjection. It comes to reason that by my saying that I am also saying that they are related."
So being that slavery branches from subjection and slaves are subject, we are subject to money which branches from the subjection of money. Can't be subject to what has no subjection element whatsoever.
"And can you do this without insufficiently assuming that slave master and "subject master"(a notion I challenge under my direct answer) are interchangeable? I wish for you to either provide an argument that does not require the foundation of "subject always means slave in every context". Or, if it must require that foundation, then I wish for you to properly build that foundation as well. The foundation of "subjection always means slave in every context"."
Taken from your statement: "I have said that slavery is a sub-category of subjection. It comes to reason that by my saying that I am also saying that they are related."
So being that slavery branches from subjection and slaves are subject, we are subject to money which branches from the subjection of money. Can't be subject to what has no subjection element whatsoever.
"I never claimed that I can tell about the experience of previous life. I claimed that I can tell about previous life.
I never experienced world war 2. I could never tell you what it is like to be a soldier or civilian during world war 2. However I can tell you information about it. Information that I argue can be put to use. At least enough that "We did not experience it, we can not say a thing about it" is an unproductive unconstructive response."
The experience is still crucial to determine what is better or what is preferred if we're going to ask these questions.
"But ok, I'll just ask the question directly then. Has every single human being been born into slavery? (If there is a single human being not born into slavery then the answer is no. Even just one in many billions throughout history.)"
Depends on the slavery you're talking about.
"So, despite money reducing our overall required labor (or forced labor, the crux of your argument as regards to the 9-5. As well as how you described how this could result in some "slaves" having slacker chains than others), money does not reduce slavery?"
No, money is slavery. Those that have more space to buy what they want ( do what they want) are still subject to money because they still have to use it like those that have less room to buy what they want or can only afford what's needed , let alone wants. You have less you're able to do based on a limitation. In this case , buying power. If I understood the question, that's what we have.
You either have slavery/money or you don't. It either exists or it doesn't. There's no little bit or scale or range of an amount. Once it exists, you're subject to it collectively. There's no here and not there within the system of monetary supremacy. Supreme means supreme. Dominates everything (within it).
"Can you back this up? How can reconcile both the fact that you tie up any source (even nature/hunger itself) of forced labor as one of the measures of the degree of slavery while simultaneously asserting right now that money (which reduces required labor duo to its market efficiency as compared to bartering) does not reduce slavery?"
I don't know how to answer this question. It just comes across off topic.
"This is the technical answer. I am asking how in spirit, essence and nature, a few minutes of a trip to the ATM can be reasonably considered subjection and obligation."
You're either obligated to go to the ATM or not. Which one of those , you'd know to your own unique situation. It's really that simple if you know what obligation is.
"I argue that in spirit, something like paying rent, and having to acquire enough money to pay rent, can reasonably be considered an obligation. While a trip to the ATM can only be considered so if we're speaking purely technically, ignoring the soul of the matter."
I argue to nevermind consideration. It either is obligation, something you have to do or don't.
"That still does not answer my question. If my trip to the ATM is part of the payment assistance setup then why would it not matter whether or not this trip is eliminated via them mailing me the money instead?"
Makes no difference. You have to do something in order to get something. Things are not just happening for the sake of. Whether you have to walk somewhere or have to fill out a form with your mailing address on it or tell somebody.
No matter how you slice, you're subject in the system of monetary supremacy like anybody else.
Just take time to really think about all these things that are just interconnected to the system.
"Additionally I'd argue that my trip to the ATM is not part of the obligatory steps to get payment assistance setup. As my monthly trip to the ATM is something I already do on a regular monthly basis to collect bank return money. This is an already existing setup as a result of me having money in a bank account that gives me a return rate. Not at all part of any kind of welfare plan."
Whatever. Still subject. Like I say, think subject, when you think money, think obligation. Cement that into your psyche.
"I am sorry, that this feels like as if I was under a food stamp program, you'd respond that the act of going to collect the food, or the act of eating the food. Is obligated labor that I have to perform as part of the obligatory steps to get assistance setup."
Like I say, think subject, when you think money, think obligation.
"Then why did you address it if it makes no difference? and this still does not resolve the contradiction arising from your previous statements."
I think it serves the topic better to address what you say instead of ignoring what you say. Many things will be contradicting to you. I mean this is a subject you will not fully grasp right now.
"In returning my courtesy of answering all of your questions directly no matter what they are."
Oh you don't have to answer all or any questions. Matter of fact, you convey when you already have answered a question. I do the same. It's asinine fatuity to answer the same question over and over again.
You may not realize you're doing it as you ask it in different ways. But it comes back to the same basic fundamental answer.
"This feels like it lies in contradiction with your dismissal of the validity and/or relevance of many of my questions. You instruct me to question the world, but then only in specific set ways? I am intended to question the world in the thought road map you've set but not question other things related to it or question in many details your stance? Your scrutinizing the world is relevant and my scrutinizing your stance is simultaneously irrelevant?
This also lies in contradiction with your celebration of my lack of questions at the end of the argument. This appears to be that you wish me to question the conclusions the world, as you put it, institutionalized on me. But become content with the simple conclusions you've arrived at.
I will still regardless, engage in the questions you've deemed I should engage in in case you are right. But I ask, if questioning things is an inherent good (and I myself will argue this also, as you've seen, I question a lot of things), why should you not also engage in questioning your own stance (and in engaging in many of my questions directly) in case you are wrong?"
Here is my stance and it can be summed up where you don't have to ask question after question after question because it'll keep leading you right back to this one common denominator in form of a question, see.
Is there anything we do not subject to money? I say no. That's my stance. You can verify the answer to that question with everything around you.The world around us will either back up that stance or disprove it.
"Regardless, I will respond to this directly as well. Indeed the better stance, the better argument is not always the truthful one. Sometimes when two people debate, even if person A presented his argument poorly, that doesn't mean that argument A is factually incorrect and argument B is factually correct. The opposite could potentially be true.
That said however, that is not sufficient reason to say that "it is not about the better stance". While indeed "which stance is truthful?" is a more important question to answer. We are not omniscient. We do not have perfect knowledge. We have logical deductions and conclusions. And in debates like these, examining "which stance is better?" helps in arriving to the truth. It will not always lead to the correct answer for "which stance is truthful?". But it will, at the very least, provide a higher overall success rate to it."
Either what I've said is true or false. When an argument presents irrefutable proof which is truth , you either concede to it or deny it in ignorance or dishonesty.
"Essentially, what I am saying is, if all life was aquatic life, we wouldn't have aquatic life as a distinction, it simply would be life. How can obligation exist as a distinctive attribute without others (who aren't obligated) that we can distinct it to?"
I don't know sorry. I just know we're subject to the system of monetary supremacy. We start with that one question, is there anything we do....etc ...
Once we have the answer, case closed. That's how open and shut case this is.
"In that case I will elaborate and proclaim that, duo to its nature compared to bartering, the elimination of money would result in worse living condition for the majority of people around the world. What is your response?"
I don't know. We are subject now, now ,now. That's all I'm arguing about. Have no thoughts on this "what if " stuff.
"In that case I will make the argument that it is not possible, for something that reduces slavery, that causes liberation, to be slavery. And that such an argument, if left unattended, relevantly damages your stance in this debate (That money is enslavement, and that the 9-5 is modern day slavery via it). What is your response to this?"
So being that slavery branches from subjection and slaves are subject, we are subject to money which branches from the subjection of money. The modern 9-5 is enslavement as a limb from the root of currency.
"Can you back up this claim? Not only are we still in contention in several bullet points, I will also ask."
How is there resolution to an unresolved issue , particularly when you keep asking questions?
You ask questions to get answers to solve problems. As Neely Fuller Jr. would say, all problems are solved through the process of questions and answers.
"What is this resolution I've come to as a result of not having end of argument questions?"
So being that slavery branches from subjection and slaves are subject, we are subject to money which branches from the subjection of money.
"Do you know the answer to the question? Do you know whether the person in the prison scenario I mentioned qualifies as subject or not?"
No. Not
"Can you provide me an example, outside of obligation and slavery. An example of any two things, that have existing in them differences (or even just one difference, even a small one(not including their names themselves obviously)) but can be used interchangeably in every context?"
Debt and being subject. Prisoner ,prisoner of war, prison system, currency system, currency supremacy, monetary supremacy, "white supremacy", ''racism", "the system of white supremacy ".
"You enjoyed my question in part 1 but not here in part 2. But at the same time you said the debate went worse in part 1 and better in part 2. Could you explain this?"
I don't believe I could. Please quote where I said "the debate went worse in part 1 and better in part 2 ."
"Why is your approach, especially as of late, at least from the impression I am getting, so averse to exploration? Why the fixation on sticking to what you consider on topic? Why the repulsion to questions you deem irrelevant? Question that, I'd argue even if potentially irrelevant, could help us view, learn and take away from this interaction?"
We've hit the resolution:
So being that slavery branches from subjection and slaves are subject, we are subject to money which branches from the subjection of money. Can't be subject to what has no subjection element whatsoever.
"Can a slave master free you at least from specifically your slavery to him?"
I don't know. That's up to the slave master.
"Do you believe that in debates, on average, the more simple stance is more likely to be correct and truthful as compared to the more complex stance?"
It depends. When something can be simplified, that's the key. If something is simple in nature, that's the difference from something that isn't. You're not unnecessarily trying to complicate something that naturally is .
"What is each and every singular required attribute for slavery? And if your answer is different than most people's, why is yours correct and theirs wrong? Why does yours represent the reality and theirs doesn't?"
This is an example of asking a question again about how I define slavery. You're rephrasing with "What is each and every singular required attribute".
Ok, so the way you define subject, all the attributes, traits, whatever, in any configuration of how that constitutes "subject " is the same way I define slave/slavery.
I don't know how most people define slavery. I have not taken a survey on it.
"Would you say I am thinking outside the box? And if yes or no could you explain?"
No. If you were, you would have never taken the initial debate challenge.
Bottomline, you agree that we are subject to money and by us being subject we are subject to the means to obtain money which we call the 9-5. I particular use a different term but semantics are of no consequence. I'll just conclude with that statement.
Con
#8
Answering Questions
Will you accept "subjected debtor/obligor"?
Are we still talking about currency? I believe you instead mean creditor and obligee in which case I will say I still do not accept as both of those must be sentient beings.
If you actually mean debtor/obligor, I don't accept those either as those also must be sentient beings.
"Do I have to continue to work in order to live? What happens if I don't continue to work?"
I am confused by this repetition of the questions I thought I'd answered them directly enough. Regardless I'll answer them again so that its ultra clear.
I do not have to continue to work in order to live, I know this because I am not working right now and haven't done so for months.
Nothing will happen if I don't continue to work. Because I already am not working.
Then ask yourself as a follow up to progress this along, is this also true for a slave that has to work?
Obviously not. If a slave does not continue to work he will suffer consequences, usually from his master.
Being that you don't work a 9-5, how are you subject to it?
I am not.
Would you have accepted the original debate if the words "subject to" were in the topic title?
Given how quickly I'd concluded that money is something we have to use to live, the answer is probably no. I wouldn't have taken the debate as I wouldn't have believed the contender side had much room for argument, nor would I have thought that there would be as much room for exploration, inquiry and learning.
How is there resolution to an unresolved issue , particularly when you keep asking questions?
There isn't, that's already my claim.
Direct responses
Whether you want to be honest and notify the appropriate parties of something you don't qualify for is a separate issue.
It isn't a separate issue. Not only does this serve as an example that disproves your earlier statements that people have to (not "usually have to", just blanket have to) be in the regularly constant state of qualifying for welfare in order to receive it. But additionally it demonstrates that if we remove from my life what you deemed as necessary qualifications, my situation wouldn't change.
Calling these loopholes/slipping through the cracks does not disprove either of those things.
So money is not subjection but we are indeed subject to it. We can be subject to an entity that has no subjection element because it's not subjection. Ok .
We are forced to use money (in order to live). But money does not force us to use it.
We are forced to eat food but food does not force us to eat it.
Any differences you see, you're seeing them that way. I'm not trying to make distinctions, you are.
I contend this as a falsely loaded statement that claims that I am inserting differences into a matter where there is none. (or that whether or not there are differences is a matter of personal preference) Without backing such a claim.
Some of my reasons for why they are different can be found under Why they are different. It is in my view that your response against this has been lacking.
(And my addressing for why I believe you lack evidence of them being the same under Nature and parallels)
I think I've already explained about the bare bones nature in enslavement and subjection.
You have done so many times and I argue that you have yet to sufficiently enough back it. Or to sufficiently enough address my response.
One such example is, the majority of your argument is "enslavement is that I can not do without and subjection is that I can not do without."
One of my counter-arguments, under Squares and Rectangles, can be summarized as:
When you say "enslavement is that I can not do without and subjection is that I can not do without." is an analogous equivalent to saying "Squares have four sides and Rectangles have four sides"
A sufficient response to this has yet to be presented. All there has been is "You're seeing the differences" "How you define subjection I define slavery" and other such repetitions of claims.
It's not about what is better but what is unnecessary. You're looking at all this in a more convoluted fashion which perhaps is unbeknownst to you but nevertheless I'm trying to help you out.
Hmmm. Do you believe that it is absolutely completely beyond any imaginable thought impossible for any of my questions/points that you've deemed unnecessary to be in fact necessary to help finding the truth in this debate?
Bottomline, you agree that we are subject to money and by us being subject we are subject to the means to obtain money which we call the 9-5.
Actually I did not agree to that latter part. We might need money and need to use it, but we are not subject to a specific way of obtaining money. Whether it be us obtaining the money, or someone obtaining it for us. The 9-5 is not the only way with which money can be obtained.
No, you adhere to what I'm simply saying. But you're insatiable with it.
You wish for me to adhere to what you say without first better understanding it or, in your own words, truly grasping it? This is both unproductive and very unreasonable.
We being subject to money is all the topic statement translates to.
I challenge this, I've already challenged it. You make this statement as if it were fact when we continue to argue about it. When the matter is, at best, under contention.
Or, do you believe that slavery and obligation being interchangeably always the same thing is a completely indisputably irrefutable fact beyond even the tiniest possibility of being untrue?
Sure it's a reason. People have all sorts of reasons of their own to do things. People may love the wilderness, the outdoors, out in the natural , in nature, zero industrial hustle and bustle rat race, whatever . Escaping the monetary strain, bills, rent, finance, etc .
This still does not explain the contradiction between giving the reasons and the reasons having nothing to do with the topic.
But that aside. How can this serve as reason for people to wish to put an end to money? If as you outlined in your opening statement:
"Now there are those that have apparently broken out of this prison in route to the wilderness.
They too have to still work to eat. They have managed to escape the monetary prison. But their obligations to utilize resources more so than back when they first started a 9 to 5 is the reality."
If people can escape money without putting an end to money. How can escaping money be a reason to putting an end to money?
The answer to the question will make the topic statement true or false.Is there anything I do that is not tied to money?
No. Everything I do is tied to money. Even those in the wilderness, everything they do is tied up to money.
I have answered the question. I can not say for certain for the readers of this debate, but I at least (assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct about this debate and your conclusion is truthful), in earnest, have not yet acquired the time, experience and observation required to reach the same conclusion you have.
Have you any further comments or assistance in this matter?
No, quote it word for word. If you can't find it word for word, you admit that I never made such a worded statement.Quote where I said the words "secondary masters".You have yet to do this. Do you know the difference between exact words and paraphrasing?
I have already quoted it, I will do so again. I will even put "secondary masters" in bold and underlines so that you may notice it more easily.
You have a slave master or you can the headmaster and his SYSTEM of secondary masters under him. These secondary masters form companies, right. They form corporations that head all the workers. Of course this is done in an organized fashion so it doesn't fall apart. The word you used, organized and it's all subjection or obligation so it's in a prison, another word you used. They're all imprisoned headed by a slave master.
This is the first time you have used the exact term secondary masters in part 1 in your round 5 argument.
Now I will ask for a third time. What are the key differences between me and those you labeled secondary masters that makes them qualify as secondary masters over us, but does not qualify me as a secondary master over Mark?
So being that slavery branches from subjection and slaves are subject, we are subject to money which branches from the subjection of money. Can't be subject to what has no subjection element whatsoever.
The specific wording of the statement is a little confusing given it goes "since slavery branches from subjection and slaves are subject, we are subject to money because of our subjection to money"
However, given that you've used it several times in response to statements where I either question, ask for proof, or deny that subjection always means slavery. I am assuming you are using this with the intent of conveying therefor slavery and subjection are the same.
Now firstly, the response itself on its own is internally contradictory. A term can not be the same, or interchangeable with, another term that is its sub-category, or that it is the sub-category of. That's a fundamentally distinctive relationship.
I say "A and B are not always the same", when you respond with "But you said A is a sub-category (implying therefor A and B are the same)". The response itself is an oxymoron. There can not exist any context in which A is a sub-category of B and A & B are interchangeable both simultaneously. That would be like saying A is the son of B and A & B are the same person.
You saying "being that slavery branches from subjection" is in danger of self-destructing your side of the argument given that the majority of it is built upon slavery and subjection being interchangeably the same.
Secondly. The reason this does not work for an argument for "every instance of subjection is slavery" is because slavery is a sub-category of subjection. Not the other way around. Similar to how square is a sub-category of rectangle. I went more in detail on this partly in part 1 under Squares and Rectangles, I will try to summarize.
Fighting games are a sub-category (or I suppose, genre) of games. It naturally flows that every instance of fighting game is a game. However the opposite is not true, not every game is a fighting game. Your response might similarly look like "so being that fighting games branch from games" as a response to me saying that fighting games and games are not always the same. That not every instance of game is a fighting game, or of rectangle is a square.
The reason this response is in complete folly ,at least in its attempt to use my own argument against me, is because the directional flow of "every instance of" you are arguing for is in the opposite direction of what I said. What I said concludes to "every instance of slavery is subjection, but not every instance of subjection is slavery". You can not use that argument to claim that every instance of subjection is slavery.
Whether your response intended to convey "what Con said shows that slavery and subjection are the same" or convey "what Con said shows every instance of subjection is slavery", it failed in both.
The way you define subject is the way I define slave. The way you define subject master if you ever have or will have perhaps is the same way I define slave master.
If this were replaced with squares and rectangles it would be "The way you define squares is the way I define rectangles", and if you were to say such a thing you would be very obviously incorrect.
Now you did not and would not say such a foolish statement. What this exercise is intended to convey is that "The way you convey x is the way I convey y" is not good enough. I have challenged, and am still challenging that subject and slave are always the same. Your preference in word choice does not disprove or sufficiently address this. Nor does it make an argument that the two are interchangeable.
The experience is still crucial to determine what is better or what is preferred if we're going to ask these questions.
I will not deny that it is very important. I will however deny that it is necessary. And will also deny that it is impossible for us, and a pointless endeavor, to attempt to determine what is better when experience is unavailable.
In fact, furthermore built upon this. You have said:
"Now there are those that have apparently broken out of this prison in route to the wilderness.
They too have to still work to eat. They have managed to escape the monetary prison. But their obligations to utilize resources more so than back when they first started a 9 to 5 is the reality."
So not only does according to that statement, that experience exist (although I will admit I do not have such an experience, I will imagine neither do you) within people. But additionally, also within that statement, the resource (and I'd imagine by extension, labor) cost is higher for those who escaped the "monetary prison".
Not only does this imply that, in most cases at least, being in the "monetary prison" is better than leaving it. But additionally it begs the question.
How do you know that those in the wilderness, their obligations to utilize resources more so than back when they first started a 9 to 5 is the reality. Without having that experience yourself?
Depends on the slavery you're talking about.
I am not talking about a specific type of slavery. Any type of slavery or group of slaveries at all will qualify.
You either have slavery/money or you don't. It either exists or it doesn't. There's no little bit or scale or range of an amount. Once it exists, you're subject to it collectively. There's no here and not there within the system of monetary supremacy. Supreme means supreme. Dominates everything (within it).
So that's it? Our relationship to money is just a yes/no binary? The rich man and the chattel slave, both are equally slaves? (or equally slaves of money?)
And how does this reconcile with one of the slaveries you mentioned in your opening statement? Slave labor. If the reduction of necessary labor (and by extension, slave labor) happens as a result of money's existence. How does "Money is just slavery. You either have it or you don't" suffice as a counter argument to my saying it reduces slavery?
And furthermore in some cases, like my own, I am not performing any necessary labor, and for the last few months, any labor at all ever. So even if you argued that "slave labor" also is just an off/on switch. That there is no "little forced work" and "lots of forced work", I simply either have it or I don't. Even if I were to leave that argument unchallenged, even in that scenario my "slave labor" switch is off. And I can argue this is thanks to the monetary system. That even while money turned on the "money slavery" switch, it also turned off the "slave labor" switch. How does your position "No, money is slavery, it does not reduce slavery" reconcile with that?
I don't know how to answer this question. It just comes across off topic.
The debate topic is The 9-5 is modern day slavery, or is A is modern day B. The question is directly about B (slavery), it is very on topic.
Makes no difference. You have to do something in order to get something.
The response is contradictory, if its something I have to do then why does it not matter?
Whatever. Still subject. Like I say, think subject, when you think money, think obligation. Cement that into your psyche.
These instructions without sufficient reasoning are both unproductive and unreasonable and risks coming from a source of assumed correctness/superiority.
Many things will be contradicting to you. I mean this is a subject you will not fully grasp right now.
Am I reasonably expected that, in good mind, the most intelligent course of action for me to do is to conclude that the potential contradictions I've presented, some of which have remained unresolved. Are merely contradictions to me?
Not to conclude that I *might* be wrong. And that just because you didn't give enough explanations, that those explanations don't exist.
But rather to outright conclude that I *am* wrong. And that the explanation definitely exist I am just not looking or listening hard enough?
Am I reasonably expected, given what you've given me thus far, to arrive to this conclusion either now or in the long future? That never arriving to this conclusion could only ever be the result of ignorance or dishonesty?
Oh you don't have to answer all or any questions. Matter of fact, you convey when you already have answered a question. I do the same. It's asinine fatuity to answer the same question over and over again.You may not realize you're doing it as you ask it in different ways. But it comes back to the same basic fundamental answer.
I know I don't have to. I elect to do so whether or not I personally believe a question to be valid. The topic only suffers from my not answering questions (unless I run out of typing space). There is less reason to go with my personal gut as to whether or not a question is valid than there is reason to ignore my personal gut feeling.
And additionally, therein lies another difference between us. I answer similar questions regardless of how similar they are and sometimes my answers differed between them even. I do not follow my gut feeling of if a question is another question asked in different ways or might come back to the same basic fundamental answer. You do not. You've determined for example that "If A is in X scenario is he a slave?" will always be the same question regardless of how I change A and/or X
Is there anything we do not subject to money? I say no. That's my stance. You can verify the answer to that question with everything around you.The world around us will either back up that stance or disprove it.
Verifying the answer to that question with everything around me requires questioning everything around me, including the answer itself, as well as your argument. I don't see how this is a response against me asking you why I shouldn't question your argument.
And additionally I don't see how what you said addresses sufficiently why you shouldn't question your own stance if I am expected to question mine. And if, as the disclaimer outlines, we are expected to learn from each other.
And I will not deny that there might exist perfect evidence and/or reasoning to the truth, or that that truth could potentially be what you're presenting, That there exists the ability to verify that you are correct through examining the world. And I imagine the implication of your argument could be something like "I have examined the world and it has proven me correct on this matter, why should I question myself?"
But how do you know for certain that you are correct? How do you know that your interpretation of the evidence is accurate enough, and by extension, that the evidence, or the world, represents your conclusions? How do you know that "there's nothing we do not connected to money" means that we are slaves? Or that the 9-5 is modern day slavery? At the very least, how do you know that you know the things you claim so conclusively that expecting you to question your stance (especially in response to you instructing me to question mine and the world) is an unreasonable request?
Either what I've said is true or false. When an argument presents irrefutable proof which is truth , you either concede to it or deny it in ignorance or dishonesty.
Firstly, that does not disprove what I said. Even if there exists irrefutable proof, that still does not mean we are omniscient. We do not digest information as pure data, we interpret it, with various degrees of accuracy. It still comes to reason that, especially in debates. A necessary, often reliable bridge, towards "Which is the truthful stance" is "Which is the better stance"
Secondly, I will outright ask you.
Do you believe that you have represented irrefutable proof that your stance is truth? And that my not conceding to it *must* be the result of either dishonesty or unreasonable levels of ignorance?
Once we have the answer, case closed. That's how open and shut case this is.
Hmmmm. Do you believe my question as to how obligation can exist as a distinctive attribute, without others that we can distinct it to, to be an unreasonable side-question that has absolutely beyond a doubt no purpose in this debate than to distract me from seeing this case closed open and shut case for what it is?
I don't know. We are subject now, now ,now. That's all I'm arguing about. Have no thoughts on this "what if " stuff.
Tracing back this bullet point chain, that if I were to be correct, then it is untrue that people perceive life with money as better than life with no money, merely or predominantly because money has been institutionalized.
Do you challenge my claim and/or the conclusion I've just presented just now? And whether or not you do, how do you feel this affects your overall argument?
I don't believe I could. Please quote where I said "the debate went worse in part 1 and better in part 2 ."
"Just compare this to part 1 of this topic. It is more to the bottomline and we could of started off this way from the first part."
I don't know. That's up to the slave master.
"Up to the slave master" is an answer to "will a slave master free you?". I am not asking this, I am asking "Can a slave master free you from slavery to him?", does the slave master have the capability, the option, of freeing you from slavery to him?
It depends. When something can be simplified, that's the key. If something is simple in nature, that's the difference from something that isn't. You're not unnecessarily trying to complicate something that naturally is .
If it depends, how do we know for absolute certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the current topic is simple in nature. That the road to reaching the truth is a simple one and not a complex one.
No. If you were, you would have never taken the initial debate challenge.
This implies that any who would take the debate challenge will not think outside of the box. Or are incapable of thinking outside of the box. (since he who can/will think outside the box would never take the debate challenge). This is both unreasonable and unproductive. You risk putting your stance, in a position of assumed intellectual superiority.
Furthermore this renders your opening instruction to your opponent (of thinking outside the box) internally counter productive. As according to you, it is assumed that a person who would be your opponent won't/can't follow this instruction correctly.
These are in danger of lying in contradiction with your opening disclaimer of understanding and learning from each other. Claiming that if I would/could think outside the box I wouldn't have taken the debate risks implying that, given that I have taken the debate, I can not think outside the box, and given that you outlined thinking outside the box a necessary prerequisite of reaching the truth, that the possibility of me reaching the truth does not exist, and that there is no potential of learning something from me.
The matter of interchangeability
Debt and being subject. Prisoner ,prisoner of war, prison system, currency system, currency supremacy, monetary supremacy, "white supremacy", ''racism", "the system of white supremacy ".
Indeed these things (except maybe monetary supremacy and currency supremacy) you've listed have differences between them, this fulfils the first part of my call to example.
However it fails the second part, that they can be used interchangeable in every context. I will now proceed to provide a few examples to why in some examples one term can not replace the other without the statement either changing or being incorrect.
"Al Capone was a prisoner in the united states of America", "Al Capone was a pow in the united states of America". The first statement is true, the second statement is not only different in that it provides a more specific type of prisoner, it is also blatantly false.
"The Zebra murders were a string of murders that were an act of racism" , "The Zebra murders were a string of murders that were an act of white supremacy" , "The Zebra murders were a string of murders that were an act of the system of white supremacy".
The first statement is true, the second statement is not only different in that it provides a more specific type of racism, it is also blatantly false. The third statement is not only different from the second in that it further specifies that its referring to the system (of white supremacy), it does not begin to make sense.
"currency supremacy, monetary supremacy"
How we handle this depends on whether you believe currency and money to be different or exactly the same. If you think they are exactly the same then this does not qualify for the first part of my challenge "two things that have existing in them differences". If you think they are different and provide what you believe the differences between them are, then when you say so I will proceed to provide examples where the two can not be used interchangeably.
"I am being subject to eating food as a result of my biological necessities" , "I am in debt to eating food as a result of my biological necessities"
Debt can potentially be a sub-category of being subject, as it can be argued that a debtor is subject to his creditor. That said, whether this is true or not, debt (or being in debt) and being subject are not interchangeable.
"currency system had formed as money was first being used" , "currency supremacy had formed as money was first being used"
Due to the nature of your comment about supremacy, that currency supremacy can not be a "here not there", and supreme means supreme, it must dominate everything. It stands to reason that during the transition of civilizations from bartering to common currency, there stood a period of time in which there existed currency systems, but not currency supremacy.
The first statement is true and the second statement is false. Currency system and currency supremacy are not interchangeable. The supremacy of currency might require the system of currency. But the system of currency does not need to be supreme in order to exist.
"Those who have broken out of the monetary prison, are still in a prison system due to their obligation to utilize resources", "Those who have broken out of the monetary prison, are still in a currency system due to their obligation to utilize resources"
Firstly, I obviously challenge that being in a system governed by money means that we are in prison.
For this bullet point however, let us say for the sake of argument that the currency system is a prison. Even then that would make currency a sub-category of prison. Every form of currency would involve imprisonment, but not every form of imprisonment would involve currency. This is further supported by one of your remarks that money is not the only slave master. (and I imagine by extension, not the only form of slavery)
So even if your position of money being imprisonment were hypothetically assumed to be true. The two statements would still be different. The first statement true while the second statement false. And the two things (prison system and currency system) would still not be interchangeable.
A common issue that can be found in the groups you exampled as can be used interchangeably in every context, is that your example pairings are at best, one directionally changeable.
For example, if "Floyd James Thompson was a pow" is true, then since pow can be replaced with prisoner without inaccuracy "Floyd James Thompson was a prisoner" would also be true in that context.
However, things with a sub-category relationship can only be "changeable in every context" one directionally. In a single direction, not both.
For example, "Al Capone was a prisoner in the U.S" is not an instance where prisoner can be replaced with pow without inaccuracy. As we know, "Al Capone was a pow" would a simply false statement. Pow can be replaced with prisoner in every context without potential inaccuracy. But prisoner can not be replaced with pow in every context without potential inaccuracy. "X is a pow" always means "X is a prisoner", but "Y is a prisoner" does not always mean that "Y is a pow". It can potentially, but it does not always have to.
Interchangeable means that the things can always in every context be replaced Both ways, that they are always in every context without exception, capable of replacing each other without either changing the meaning or transforming from an accurate statement to an inaccurate one. From a statement that represents the world and reality to one that doesn't. I can replace every instance of "twelve" with "a dozen" and I can replace every instance of "a dozen" with "twelve", both ways, in every possible context.
Sub-categories are, by their very nature, a one directional relationship. Not only does something being a sub-category of another insufficient basis for them being interchangeable. Them having that relationship positively and affirmatively disqualifies them from being interchangeable. As it affirms a distinctly one directional relationship. Pow, by virtue of being a type of prisoner (among several types of prisoners), disqualifies prisoner and pow from the potential of being interchangeable. Prisoner can always replace pow without loss of accuracy. But Pow can't always replace prisoner without potential loss of accuracy.
I will openly claim that, it is outright impossible, to have two things ,that have existing in them differences, to be able to be used interchangeably in every context. The challenge for you to give such examples (or to explain the ones you already gave) is still open.
Questions
Why do you believe "we are slaves to money" correctly represents reality?
Do you believe it is beyond question impossible for your usage of "slavery" to be just outright wrong in some contexts?
Round 5
Pro
#9
"Are we still talking about currency? I believe you instead mean creditor and obligee in which case I will say I still do not accept as both of those must be sentient beings."
Yes we were as we bring this to a close. We've reached resolution anyway.
I am confused by this repetition of the questions I thought I'd answered them directly enough. Regardless I'll answer them again so that its ultra clear.
I do not have to continue to work in order to live, I know this because I am not working right now and haven't done so for months.
Nothing will happen if I don't continue to work. Because I already am not working."
I asked "do I". "DO I". MYSELF. You continue to respond pertaining to you. I don't know if you just don't see this or you're truly evading the question.
Nonetheless, we've reached the resolution.
"Obviously not. If a slave does not continue to work he will suffer consequences, usually from his master."
Likewise to those that suffer the consequences from not working a 9-5(receiving income if you don't work a 9-5, etc., whatever).
Thank you. The truth is right there plain. If you don't prefer the term "slave" or "slavery", use whatever word you like.
"I am not."
There you go. You already know the answers when you adhere to the standard of obligation I laid out. No need to ask is this and that subject like I said.
"Given how quickly I'd concluded that money is something we have to use to live, the answer is probably no. I wouldn't have taken the debate as I wouldn't have believed the contender side had much room for argument, nor would I have thought that there would be as much room for exploration, inquiry and learning."
Thus proving my point rigorously that the only discrepancy is the language. Everything else you can get behind and see because it's all true. But when you think of "slave", you have a particular context in my mind. Which to each its own, fine.
"It isn't a separate issue. Not only does this serve as an example that disproves your earlier statements that people have to (not "usually have to", just blanket have to) be in the regularly constant state of qualifying for welfare in order to receive it. But additionally it demonstrates that if we remove from my life what you deemed as necessary qualifications, my situation wouldn't change."
You have not proven that the separate issue whether you'll accept that or not , which would have to be made known, that the proper entities will not act to rearrange your terms based on the changes of your status. Please refer back to my social security example. Accept it or not.
"Calling these loopholes/slipping through the cracks does not disprove either of those things."
This type of response is communicating you don't even know what loopholes are. Loopholes allow you to get away with things off the books. If your status changes and you do not notify the party that is supplementing you based on the former status, your supplementation only continues unless somehow the party discovers this on their own, aside from that, your supplementation only continues because no notification was given. So your change of status has gone off the books , off the record.
Case closed.
Regardless you're still subject to money. If you're an honest person, you'll report a true status of your situation which keeps you subject to due process to receive your income which may have you subject to a 9-5 after all.
"We are forced to use money (in order to live). But money does not force us to use it.
We are forced to eat food but food does not force us to eat it."
Doesn't really make a difference. Just being able to do no otherwise to live is force in nature. You're looking at who or what can force you . The very nature of slavery itself which it seems you won't conceptualize or concede to existing as is, exists on its own. You're still subject.
You can have a slave master that doesn't force you to be subject to him. But the way life works under present slave owners and slaves, the laws carry a system which today is commerce still maintains bondage.
You don't have to be my slave, you can choose to die. You see how that works. This isn't subjection but you are subject. If you want to say money isn't subjection but it does subject you so with the system in place , it qualifies anyhow . You can live or die under the systemic terms. So you're not forced to live on this planet but you are forced under the terms you're given. Depends on how you choose to look at it .
But when you understand the NATURE of the thing, you don't get caught up being pulled to and fro of any perspective.
Bottomline is, are you at subject or not. Nevermind the details of who or what. Like I can have a slave owner that's dead. Does the system around me change where in order to live in it I'm under different terms?
I can be laid off from a 9-5 . Doesn't mean I'm no longer subject to the type of system we have with labor and wage . A slave master doesn't have to be present in the room where you are at all. He doesn't have to be physically there physically subjecting you. The system is still there. The nature and conditions are present to restrain you. You're still under bondage. The warden of the prison don't have to be in your face 24/7 to reinforce that you're still a prisoner to him . He doesn't have to force you at all. The system is already there in place physically and via the organized laws, regulations, authoritative orders of control . The warden don't even have to be present in that prison building you're caged in.
So again, this "who" or "what" that is directly forcing you or able to, becomes a moot point. Your condition, your condition is still of that of a slave. May be an ill term for you in this case as it makes it more grim putting it parallel but it is what it is.
It is the truth of the matter my friend. In bare bone terms, it is what it comes down to. You can soften it with " well we don't actually have a sentient person standing over us dominating , so it's not exactly the same ".
So what?!
You're dominated. I still have the condition. It doesn't make my condition any different nor make me feel better or more comfortable or actually free to do otherwise. Does it ? Noooo.
I'm telling you, you gotta face that bottomline nature pal .
"Hmmm. Do you believe that it is absolutely completely beyond any imaginable thought impossible for any of my questions/points that you've deemed unnecessary to be in fact necessary to help finding the truth in this debate?"
No. Your initial questions were necessary for an introduction to this topic. You'll notice if you read back over all this , where things get circular because the questions get circular which creates unnecessity.
"Actually I did not agree to that latter part. We might need money and need to use it, but we are not subject to a specific way of obtaining money. Whether it be us obtaining the money, or someone obtaining it for us. The 9-5 is not the only way with which money can be obtained."
There is no " might", you are subject to money and when all you have is a 9-5, until you can get another legitimate way, you are subject to the 9-5. You are subject to your slave master whether you like it or not. It's true whether you agree or not so instead of being delusional, just go ahead and accept the reality. It's ugly, but it's the truth .
"You wish for me to adhere to what you say without first better understanding it or, in your own words, truly grasping it? This is both unproductive and very unreasonable."
You're free to make this complicated. I just won't be able to help you. I'm helping you by keeping it simple. But feel free to fight against that.
"Or, do you believe that slavery and obligation being interchangeably always the same thing is a completely indisputably irrefutable fact beyond even the tiniest possibility of being untrue?"
You don't dispute semantics and argue definitions that people decide to use. If you want to have a discussion on that , let me know with a message. You don't argue definitions. Words and definitions are tools of communication. I'm not going to argue with a particular word you use. I'd question it if I don't know what you mean by that word.
"This still does not explain the contradiction between giving the reasons and the reasons having nothing to do with the topic.
But that aside. How can this serve as reason for people to wish to put an end to money? If as you outlined in your opening statement:
"Now there are those that have apparently broken out of this prison in route to the wilderness.
They too have to still work to eat. They have managed to escape the monetary prison. But their obligations to utilize resources more so than back when they first started a 9 to 5 is the reality."
If people can escape money without putting an end to money. How can escaping money be a reason to putting an end to money?"
My friend I never said anything about putting an end to money here. That's why it's crucial to quote my exact words. You run into trouble when constantly paraphrasing. I'm not arguing about that so don't question where there's no interest of argument.
I simply illustrated an exemption with some people on the planet as it appears aren't subject to money as you and I.
"Have you any further comments or assistance in this matter?"
Yeah , you say "Everything I do is tied to money"= The 9-5 is modern day slavery.
If I can't do anything unless my wallet says so which says so by a 9-5 , how much more freedom is this than from slavery.(Rhetorical), no question mark, ends with a period.
"Now I will ask for a third time. What are the key differences between me and those you labeled secondary masters that makes them qualify as secondary masters over us, but does not qualify me as a secondary master over Mark"
There is no difference. I'll say it again, you and whoever that are subject are subject to the monetary system. You can call yourself master this and that for whatever reason. What difference does it make when the headmaster is money?
See how you're getting finicky over the "secondary" and "lesser" stuff. The hierarchy is you the slave below, money slave master above. It's the top, your the bottom. A slave mastering over another for whatever circumstances are still prisoners of enslavement alike.
"Your preference in word choice does not disprove or sufficiently address this. Nor does it make an argument that the two are interchangeable."
They're interchangeable when I use the language. Language is subjective. You continue to make a point about shapes. Shapes inherently aren't subjective. False equivalency you're getting into.
"I will not deny that it is very important. I will however deny that it is necessary. And will also deny that it is impossible for us, and a pointless endeavor, to attempt to determine what is better when experience is unavailable."
If it's not necessary it's not important. All importance is necessity. You don't find one without the other.
"How do you know that those in the wilderness, their obligations to utilize resources more so than back when they first started a 9 to 5 is the reality. Without having that experience yourself?"
Due to it being present day observable real time experience that I can practically engage in such as gardening, planting, hunting. We can tap into these things now even during the system of monetary supremacy.
But I can't compare it exactly to before a dollar existed. Tools and wherewithal for using resources at least from an attempt at it may still be attached to money.
But what's that like able to survive without money at all or not even having it at least as a starting point?
I don't know. I'm not from that time.
"I am not talking about a specific type of slavery. Any type of slavery or group of slaveries at all will qualify."
I'm sorry I don't remember the context. I'll have to move on.
"So that's it? Our relationship to money is just a yes/no binary? The rich man and the chattel slave, both are equally slaves? (or equally slaves of money?)"
Oh yes. No in-between. The rich man is still subject to money even though he has tons of whatever he's rich in. Why? He still uses the money that's master over him. He still subject to it. He can't do anything without it just like any other slave. That's the thing about this. All in the system are all slaves to the system.
It's even easier to understand looking at it this way.
"And how does this reconcile with one of the slaveries you mentioned in your opening statement? Slave labor. If the reduction of necessary labor (and by extension, slave labor) happens as a result of money's existence. How does "Money is just slavery. You either have it or you don't" suffice as a counter argument to my saying it reduces slavery?"
This topic has never been about reducing slavery so I'm not going to counter something that's irrelevant. If you want to have a separate topic called reducing slavery, let me know. This topic was about just strictly calling something what it is , true or false, stop, the end, that's a wrap .
"And furthermore in some cases, like my own, I am not performing any necessary labor, and for the last few months, any labor at all ever. So even if you argued that "slave labor" also is just an off/on switch. That there is no "little forced work" and "lots of forced work", I simply either have it or I don't. Even if I were to leave that argument unchallenged, even in that scenario my "slave labor" switch is off. And I can argue this is thanks to the monetary system. That even while money turned on the "money slavery" switch, it also turned off the "slave labor" switch. How does your position "No, money is slavery, it does not reduce slavery" reconcile with that?"
You do and have done necessary labor. You have to do what you do to receive what you are subject to. You had to do what you had to do to qualify to get what you are subjected to. This dead horse has been beaten to a pulp on this point .
"The response is contradictory, if its something I have to do then why does it not matter?"
When I say "makes no difference", I mean anything irrelevant to what my point was.
"These instructions without sufficient reasoning are both unproductive and unreasonable and risks coming from a source of assumed correctness/superiority."
Hey just think money, think subject. Just try it.
"But rather to outright conclude that I *am* wrong. And that the explanation definitely exist I am just not looking or listening hard enough?"
Hey, this question is sufficient. Is there anything you do not tied to money?
No . Is there anything a slave does not tied to the permission of his or her slave master ? No .
Simple. When something is that simple, you're like "no it couldn't be that simple".
"Am I reasonably expected, given what you've given me thus far, to arrive to this conclusion either now or in the long future? That never arriving to this conclusion could only ever be the result of ignorance or dishonesty?"
Being a slave to money is just too grim and extreme.
Oh at least the currency itself is not forcing me. But I'm living a life as if it is. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Really the basic concept.
"Verifying the answer to that question with everything around me requires questioning everything around me, including the answer itself, as well as your argument. I don't see how this is a response against me asking you why I shouldn't question your argument."
I didn't say don't question it. I'm saying you've already questioned it and you've gone circular in your question where I've answered and you don't seem to realize it .
"And additionally I don't see how what you said addresses sufficiently why you shouldn't question your own stance if I am expected to question mine. And if, as the disclaimer outlines, we are expected to learn from each other."
You have to admit that the pattern is so with each answer I give fundamentally will not suffice so eventually you have to just throw in the towel.
You're correct that the answers aren't sufficient. That's because it's going to require you time to just sit and think a while on the answers. There'll come understanding in time.
"But how do you know for certain that you are correct? How do you know that your interpretation of the evidence is accurate enough, and by extension, that the evidence, or the world, represents your conclusions?"
That's why I ask questions myself. Universal questions are setup to where you don't have to worry about stumbling with subjective interpretation. The universal question of "are we subject to money?"
That same question goes to anybody of the known that universe affected as a slave that has affected their life. What we agree to. The affect of whatsoever thing has on one's life.
"How do you know that "there's nothing we do not connected to money" means that we are slaves? Or that the 9-5 is modern day slavery? At the very least, how do you know that you know the things you claim so conclusively that expecting you to question your stance (especially in response to you instructing me to question mine and the world) is an unreasonable request?"
How do I know? Ask the question. See my point again in you asking questions in which I've given the answer. There's not a billion answers to this matter.
The fundamentals I point you back at with this point. How do I know? I asked the question. Is there anything we do not tied to money?
You don't have to worry about my interpretation of anything. A subjective interpretation is not needed.
The world , the reality will give you the answer. The proof, the confirmation. That's what evidence is. That's how it's demonstrated. It's not demonstrated in what I tell you. It's the reality itself where you collect empirical data. I just direct or redirect you back to it.
"Do you believe that you have represented
irrefutable proof that your stance is truth?"
No . I don't represent or re- present it. I direct you to it back to reality.
"And that my not conceding to it *must* be the result of either dishonesty or unreasonable levels of ignorance?''
Oh I don't know. Not something I have to know. Just take note for yourself and readers at large.
"Hmmmm. Do you believe my question as to how obligation can exist as a distinctive attribute, without others that we can distinct it to, to be an unreasonable side-question that has absolutely beyond a doubt no purpose in this debate than to distract me from seeing this case closed open and shut case for what it is?"
Sorry, question is too convoluted me for to answer. Too bad it wasn't more simplified. May be it couldn't be.
"Do you challenge my claim and/or the conclusion I've just presented just now? And whether or not you do, how do you feel this affects your overall argument?"
No affect.
"I don't believe I could. Please quote where I said "the debate went worse in part 1 and better in part 2 ."
"Just compare this to part 1 of this topic. It is more to the bottomline and we could of started off this way from the first part.""
I don't know if you understand about quoting but quoting is exact wording. It's not something I said with your interpretation. Your interpretation could be a misrepresentation of what was exactly said. This is why you stick with exact wording.
Comparing the two paragraphs, they have different wording and they're not synonyms of one another. I said compare . I didn't say anything about worse or better.
" "Up to the slave master" is an answer to "will a slave master free you?". I am not asking this, I am asking "Can a slave master free you from slavery to him?", does the slave master have the capability, the option, of freeing you from slavery to him?"
He'll decide his capability or options. I'm not the slave master.
" it depends, how do we know for absolute certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the current topic is simple in nature. That the road to reaching the truth is a simple one and not a complex one."
Well we've reached resolution already.
"Firstly, I obviously challenge that being in a system governed by money means that we are in prison."
Go ahead and challenge it. See if you can do anything without money in the system of money. If you can't, that's what a prison, systemic prison system is.
"Why do you believe "we are slaves to money" correctly represents reality?"
There's is nothing we can do without the subjection of money and you agree.
"Do you believe it is beyond question impossible for your usage of "slavery" to be just outright wrong in some contexts?"
Depends on the way slavery is defined.
Hey thanks for your participation on the topic part 1 and 2.
I conclude.
Con
#10
Answering Questions
I asked "do I". "DO I". MYSELF. You continue to respond pertaining to you.
I apologize given that your question earlier in this bullet point chain referred to my life situation (and you'd said "ask yourself"), I concluded that you were referring to me and not yourself.
Answering the question as earnestly as I can. I don't know the answer. I don't know the specifics of your life situation, whether or not you can quit your job, and what will happen to you if you do.
If I can't do anything unless my wallet says so which says so by a 9-5 , how much more freedom is this than from slavery.(Rhetorical), no question mark, ends with a period.
Thank you for making clear that this is a rhetorical question. I shall answer it regardless.
As much difference as there is between a normal human being and a prison inmate regarding food. (More on this under Closing argument)
What difference does it make when the headmaster is money?
I don't know, I never claimed being a master would exclude you as a slave. I was merely examining further details about your stance.
Direct responses
Likewise to those that suffer the consequences from not working a 9-5
This shows a common trait, not a lack of differences. You've demonstrated that the shape in front of us has four right angles, not that all 4 sides of it are equal in length.
I will posit several differences regarding the nature of consequences here. As I pointed out, if a slave suffers consequences for disobeying, he will suffer those consequences from his master.
Where as regarding the 9-5 this can differ from person to person. For some people there is no consequence from not working a 9-5, for others the consequence come at the hands of their life situations and not at the hands of their boss, or master. Even in an argument where money itself is the master, money itself does not punish them, nor does its existence punish them either. The existence of currency is not the reason they don't have it unless they work for it same as the existence of food is not the reason you can't have food unless you farm it, forage it, fish it, hunt it, or buy it.
There you go. You already know the answers when you adhere to the standard of obligation I laid out. No need to ask is this and that subject like I said.
This conclusion contradicts your earlier answer about me that I am subject, not only to money, but to the 9-5 as well. My adherence to the standard you gave me is the direct opposite of the conclusion you came to.
You have not proven that the separate issue whether you'll accept that or not , which would have to be made known, that the proper entities will not act to rearrange your terms based on the changes of your status.
I don't need to. Your hypothetical scenario was if my situation changed, not if my situation changed and the authorities were made aware. I was merely responding directly to that.
And even if you intended to add that nuance, that wouldn't have supported your earlier point, that I constantly need to qualify. Always, in any situation under any context. Even if the reason I don't need to constantly qualify is something you deem a "loophole", that still is, a living practical real world applicable example of not needing to constantly qualify for welfare.
My overall response not only addresses the original version of your hypothetical, but it also demonstrates a counter to the original premise of your claim (that one must constantly qualify). Your elaboration on your hypothetical (that the authorities must also be aware) makes it a different hypothetical, and that different hypothetical would not support the original premise of your claim.
This type of response is communicating you don't even know what loopholes are.
No, your response demonstrates that you did not understand my statement. I said "Calling these loopholes/slipping through the cracks does not disprove either of those things." , the "either of those things" in this statement is not "loopholes" and "slipping through the cracks". It is "serve as an example that disproves your earlier statements" and "demonstrates that if we remove from my life what you deemed as necessary qualifications, my situation wouldn't change."
How would you know that that's what I meant? It is the natural follow up from the paragraph that came before it.
Regardless you're still subject to money. If you're an honest person, you'll report a true status of your situation which keeps you subject to due process to receive your income which may have you subject to a 9-5 after all.
You shoot yourself in the foot. Taking this statement at face value would mean that being an honest person is a necessity to having to be tied to the (due process of the) 9-5 and money. Which would imply, consequently that dishonesty is an optional alternative to being subject to money. Not only would this contradict the primary premise of your argument, that we currently have no choice but to be subject to money. But this would also be an internally inconsistent statement, as the statement itself declares that I am subject to money and the 9-5.
Given how you use subject as "forced to do/use in order to live", your statement can boil down to "you are forced to use money if you choose to be honest". This does not only fail to demonstrate slavery, this fails to even demonstrate subjection or obligation.
The very nature of slavery itself which it seems you won't conceptualize or concede to existing as is, exists on its own.
Firstly, this is a claim you've made a lot in your argument without adequately supporting it or properly enough addressing my counter-points against that claim.
Secondly, as most of the world views it, slavery did not come into being until people invoked slavery. While popularity of viewpoint does not in itself qualify as enough evidence, it does at the very least put the burden of proof on you.
Thirdly, this directly contradicts your claim in this argument that how "slavery" is used is subjective. You can not simultaneously argue the term slavery objectively has a nature to it, and that the term is subjective.
If you instead mean to say that the term slavery subjectively has a nature to it. Then that claim is self-redundant as then it would fail to serve as a supporting argument to your overall statement that I am wrong to make a distinction between something forcing us to use it, and us being forced to use that something.
So what?!You're dominated. I still have the condition. It doesn't make my condition any different nor make me feel better or more comfortable or actually free to do otherwise. Does it ? Noooo.
Am I supposed to feel uncomfortable about having to eat food?
I understand that the topic is about the 9-5 and due to your argument, by extension money. But the matter of "enslavement" you've posed is also a matter of consistency, where the consistency of the outline of your logic should be scrutinized.
Given the same bare steps that you deemed necessary to conclude that we're not only slaves to money, that we should feel uncomfortable about it, simply because we need to use it to live. Those same steps without difference can be used to argue that one not only is a slave to food, but should feel uncomfortable about this necessity, this "enslavement" thrust upon them unwillingly.
Don't you get it? Your bare minimum checklist for what qualifies as something we should feel uncomfortable about is not constrained to slaves, its not even constrained to human beings. Not even to animals. Every life form imaginable needs nutrition and can not continue to live/exist without. According to you, every life form imaginable *should* feel uncomfortable. And only deludes itself into false comfort if it thinks otherwise. Is not facing the bottomline.
There is no " might", you are subject to money and when all you have is a 9-5, until you can get another legitimate way, you are subject to the 9-5. You are subject to your slave master whether you like it or not. It's true whether you agree or not so instead of being delusional, just go ahead and accept the reality. It's ugly, but it's the truth .
Not everyone who works a 9-5 is financially forced to do so and has no other legitimate options. It's true that in several situation the 9-5 model is used to defacto insert someone into what can properly be identified as slave labor. But saying that the 9-5 itself is slavery is saying that cotton fields are chattel slavery. Not every instance of someone working a cotton field is that of a contracted slave. Likewise not every worker in a 9-5 salary job is a slave to his employer or to money. Arguably not even most of them.
You're free to make this complicated. I just won't be able to help you. I'm helping you by keeping it simple. But feel free to fight against that.
This does not address my concern in the slightest. You wish for me to adhere to what you say without truly grasping it. You want agreeance to come before understanding. That might technically be a complication but its a necessary one. How can I know I reached the right conclusion if I don't first understand it? Asking for me to perform the former *before* the latter is still incredibly unreasonable.
They're interchangeable when I use the language. Language is subjective. You continue to make a point about shapes. Shapes inherently aren't subjective. False equivalency you're getting into.
False equivalency is if I said "Rectangles aren't squares therefore obligation isn't slavery"
I did not say this, you can read my part 1 section about Squares and Rectangles again, but to summarize. The purpose of referencing those shapes is to display an example, of two things that bare many similarities, but a few differences, and are ultimately two separate things that are not always interchangeable.
Now indeed some language could be subjective, but not all of it, and certainly not squares and rectangles, squares and rectangles are not only shapes, they are part of our language as well. They're words just like any other, and they're certainly not subjective.
Now I will admit that obligation and slavery are not as obviously cut and dry as shapes. But concluding that therefor they're completely up to the person's interpretation is too short minded.
And at the very least, the skills of your interpretation are in question. You've named prisoner and prisoner of war, as well as, racism and white supremacy, as interchangeable terms. Indisputably without a doubt not every prisoner is a prisoner of war. This hurts the credibility of your personal usage of the term interchangeable.
Now the lack of credibility of your personal usage of "interchangeable" does not (on its own) necessarily mean that obligation and slavery aren't interchangeable. It's possible that the content of your argument is incorrect but that what you're arguing for is still right.
It still however means that your personal usage of obligation, subjection and slavery, can not be used (or are much less grounds) for supporting the argument that obligation and slavery are interchangeable.
If it's not necessary it's not important. All importance is necessity. You don't find one without the other.
A claim without support. It is not necessary for me to work out but it is important for my physical well being. It is not necessary for me to read more books but it is important for my intellectual well being. I am sure the readers of this debate can think of several more personal examples of things that are not necessary to them, but nevertheless important.
I'm sorry I don't remember the context. I'll have to move on.
I did not remember the context of some responses I read. It took less than a minute of using ctrl + f to be able to trace it back so I could respond properly.
This lack of effort is displeasing. Since you would not answer the original question I will.
Not everyone is born into slavery. Including now in the modern day.
Oh yes. No in-between. The rich man is still subject to money even though he has tons of whatever he's rich in. Why? He still uses the money that's master over him. He still subject to it. He can't do anything without it just like any other slave. That's the thing about this. All in the system are all slaves to the system.It's even easier to understand looking at it this way.
Partially already outlined by me under Conflict between spirit and semantics in the part 1 argument. This suffers from purpose. On the level of how we examine life and learn from it, we set ourselves for more downsides than upsides when considering subjection on a binary rather than a spectrum, and I'd say this extends to even slavery as well. When comparing someone with a 1 year prison sentence to a contractually owned slave. Or hell, someone with a 1 year prison sentence to one with a life sentence. We benefit more from examining that the former is a lesser form of slavery than the latter. But you would not only say either that they're the same level of slave, or that there is no such thing as a degree of slavery, or that the degree of slavery doesn't matter. Your range for what qualifies is so broad that it would put someone like me under the same umbrella as a slave under chattel slavery. That I am not a lesser slave than them.
This topic has never been about reducing slavery so I'm not going to counter something that's irrelevant. If you want to have a separate topic called reducing slavery, let me know. This topic was about just strictly calling something what it is , true or false, stop, the end, that's a wrap .
The reduction of Slavery is relevant to Slavery
You do and have done necessary labor. You have to do what you do to receive what you are subject to. You had to do what you had to do to qualify to get what you are subjected to. This dead horse has been beaten to a pulp on this point .
Actually no. Even my trip to the ATM I'd argued wasn't part of the obligatory steps to get payment assistance setup. All you had to respond with was "Whatever. Still subject. Like I say, think subject, when you think money, think obligation. Cement that into your psyche."
When I say "makes no difference", I mean anything irrelevant to what my point was.
And therein lies a core issue with how you carry your arguments in this debate. You have a point to make, you have your arguments, your reasoning, your mental roadmap. And anything that is not relevant to that. You deem is not relevant to the topic. You're not necessarily thinking of what's relevant to the topic, but simply what's relevant to your side of the argument.
Hey just think money, think subject. Just try it.
I have been. Or at least I'd like to claim that I am. But according to you the fact I took this debate challenge in the first place proves that I am incapable of what you just described.
Hey, this question is sufficient. Is there anything you do not tied to money?No . Is there anything a slave does not tied to the permission of his or her slave master ? No .Simple. When something is that simple, you're like "no it couldn't be that simple".
So you really are answering "Am I just wrong no question?" with "Hey my argument is plenty sufficient." (implying the answer is an emphatic yes.
This response contradicts your earlier response to my question "could you be wrong" to which you've answered yes. Even without this contradiction, there is plenty wrong with concluding that you are correct for sure.
Being a slave to money is just too grim and extreme.Oh at least the currency itself is not forcing me. But I'm living a life as if it is. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Really the basic concept.
The analogy fails actually, on the surface we walk and "quack" like free men.
I didn't say don't question it. I'm saying you've already questioned it and you've gone circular in your question where I've answered and you don't seem to realize it .
My bad, you're telling me to stop questioning it because I am, according to you, repeating questions you've already given full and logically satisfying answers to.
Why should I stop? What if your examination of my repeating the same questions, or of what's relevant or irrelevant, or whether your responses were logically satisfying, is incorrect?
And reverse engineering this logic, I've answered the question "Is there anything we can do not tied to money?"(and its other variations you gave) directly. With no. And still came up with the conclusion that this is not enough to show that I am (or people in general are) a slave. With your logic just now, why should I not consider that matter already settled in my favor? And that you repeating that question is simply you illogically going circular and not seeming to realize it?
You'd respond with something like "because I've answered your concern correctly and you haven't" or "Because in your response you actually agree with me its just a matter of language" or so on. But how do we know for sure? You're essentially saying that we should stop repeating those interactions because of your judgement and interpretation of these interactions. How do we know that your judgement is sound?
And besides that, there have been questions, responses and bullet points that you've deemed to irrelevant to even give a first answer to. (other than calling it irrelevant to the topic).
And this does not answer the truer meaning of my concern. That you wish others to (constantly) challenge their worldviews, at least until they agree with you. But not for yours to be questioned, at least not in ways that you deem irrelevant, or in ways that you deem have been already brought up/asked and properly addressed by you.
You have to admit that the pattern is so with each answer I give fundamentally will not suffice so eventually you have to just throw in the towel.
So I am expected to question my stance but you aren't yours because eventually I "have to just throw in the towel"?
How do I know? Ask the question. See my point again in you asking questions in which I've given the answer. There's not a billion answers to this matter.
So that's it? What you've presented is so conclusive that its unreasonable for me to question your stance?
Oh I don't know. Not something I have to know. Just take note for yourself and readers at large.
You shoot yourself in the foot again, not because of this response (although the response itself has its bag of issues), but with how your previous responses tie to it.
Given your earlier responses that allude that "I should eventually throw in the towel", that your interpretations are correct no question full stop. That what you've presented is so conclusive that its unreasonable for me to question your stance.
Whether the answer to "I'm not conceding to it *must* be the result of either dishonesty or unreasonable levels of ignorance?" is yes or no. If it is no, then that contradicts what I've outlined about your earlier responses. And if it is yes. Then that contradicts your earlier response that you could be wrong.
No affect.
One would wonder why institutionalization was a part of your argument in the first place if its not important.
And if you say its important but not necessary, that would contradict one of your earlier remarks.
That aside, if people aren't fooled, by institutionalization, or otherwise, into a life they otherwise wouldn't live, therefor implying that its by choice. How can that choice, society's choice to adopt money, be slavery?
Comparing the two paragraphs, they have different wording and they're not synonyms of one another. I said compare . I didn't say anything about worse or better.
You said this in response to when I asked "Why should we believe that I am adding extra unnecessary layers, and not that you're ignoring necessary aspects of the debate?"
If back then your point wasn't that my questions in part 1 were adding unnecessary layers, one would question the relevance of your response or what the point of it was.
Besides, I wasn't arguing that part 1 and 2 were the same, so one would wonder why you'd out of no where merely argue for their difference.
One would also wonder what the point of we could of started off this way from the first part. If not to convey that I was wasting time in part 1.
He'll decide his capability or options. I'm not the slave master.
That is not how capability works.
Let's say my maximum jump height is 50 cm. I can decide to jump 50 cm in the air, or 30 cm, or 10 cm, or pretty much any number between 0 and 50. (assuming I am not exhausted, injured, etc.)
I can decide what I'll do within my capabilities. What I can not decide is what my capabilities are, I can not simply decide to be capable of jumping 200 cm.
Additionally to this, your response raises a possible contradiction. This response implies slave masters having to have the ability to decide. Yet a huge chunk of your argument is about how the slave master does not have to be sentient.
Well we've reached resolution already.
And we know this for absolute certain?
Go ahead and challenge it. See if you can do anything without money in the system of money. If you can't, that's what a prison, systemic prison system is.
You repeat this challenge, yet you leave the remainder of the paragraph (of what you responded to) that demonstrates prison system and currency system aren't interchangeable unchallenged. You don't counter-argue the argument that challenges having to use something means you're imprisoned to it, which is the very foundation of your current response.
There's is nothing we can do without the subjection of money and you agree.
Not of money, to money. Money doesn't subject us. We have to use it.
Depends on the way slavery is defined.
This contradicts some of your responses about how debates aren't about definitions. Or that language is subjective. If definitions don't matter or language is subjective. Then how slavery is defined should not be a factor on whether or not your usage of the word is correct.
This is a decent answer, my problem is not with this answer, but with your remarks that contradict it.
Counter-points left unaddressed
Interchangeability
In the previous argument I'd made the point about this under The matter of interchangeability , my opponent asserts that obligation and slavery are interchangeable yet when asked to provide examples of things that are different but interchangeable, not only does he agree (implying that he truly believes two things could have differences and be completely interchangeable at the same time), but one of the pairing examples he provides is prisoner and prisoner of war.
Firstly, his choice of examples showcases a lacking understanding of what interchangeable means, putting his personal judgement of what is interchangeable under question, and by extension, his personal judgement of obligation and slavery being interchangeable.
Secondly, The matter of interchangeability going largely unchallenged potentially demonstrates that any two things that contain differences can not be interchangeable. Not only has my opponent lacked the ability to demonstrate a lack of differences between them, he has also left what I've said under Why they are different largely unchallenged.
Thirdly, one of my opponent's arguments attempts to utilize slavery being a sub-category of subjection in support of his argument (he uses this a lot in round 4), when sub-category and category inherently disqualifies the two things from being interchangeable. If you don't like squares and rectangles, how about prisoners and prisoners of war? Not all prisoners are POWs.
Slavery inclusion
My opponent's responses and descriptions of slavery and money sometimes puts the people of the wilderness as slaves to money and sometimes does not.
There even is exchanges in which in one of the exchanges my opponent ties me to the 9-5 and in the other he does not.
Incapable challenger
My opponent makes several remarks that imply (and one that outright says without implication) the incapability of any that would take his challenge of open minded thinking, thinking outside of the box or grasping what he's saying. While including in a grand deal of his arguments instructions for his opponent to do those very things.
Branches
Kinda similar to what I already said under Interchangeability, my opponent spends a good chunk of the debate arguing against my argument that subjection is a sub-category of slavery. But then in argument 4 of this part 2, uses that exact argument to support his conclusion.
Other issues
Certainty
My opponent not only carries his main argument with an air of near assured certainty, some of his answers go so far as to imply that those who would disagree with him are not only incorrect, but potentially *must* be dishonest or incredibly ignorant
Additionally, the more reasoned humble responses my opponent gave lie in contradiction to this.
Structure
My opponent's argument (especially some of the word choice) is potentially riddled with impatience and demand. Now it could be that my opponent is having a few bad days. Maybe he even has a nasty cold like I do. Even if this exempts us from putting his credibility in question, this should at least put the in question the credibility of the current version of his argument. That we should be wary of accepting what is said, at least until a more cooperative and well-mannered version of the argument is presented.
This does not have a direct bearing on the accuracy of the argument presented, but it presents a need for caution in regards to accepting it as true.
Absolutely subjective
My opponent argues that the world and objective empirical evidence shows that we are slaves to money while at the same time arguing that slavery itself is subjective.
Claim without elaboration
In several exchanges my opponent makes a claim of being correct without further elaborating on it. For example one response my opponent had to potential contradictions I presented was "Many things will be contradicting to you. I mean this is a subject you will not fully grasp right now."
Relevance
Not only showcased throughout his argument, but especially magnified with his response "When I say "makes no difference", I mean anything irrelevant to what my point was.", my opponent decides the relevance of something to the topic not based off of its direct or indirect relevance to the debate topic, but rather, how relevant it is to his side of the argument. (And as I've quoted John Stuart Mill before, he who knows only his side of the argument knows little of that.)
My accusation is supported by how many times my opponent has deemed a matter I raised about slavery irrelevant to the topic The 9-5 is modern day slavery.
Commitment
Said in more detail under Lack of commitment to answers in my part 1 arguments, my opponent does not commit to answer he personally judges as irrelevant to the debate topic. This issue is further magnified when we take into consideration his criteria for what is relevant further elaborated in the above points under Relevance
A circular argument
The relationship between slavery and obligation are still displayed in my opponents arguments in such a way of a circular logic, failing to give slavery (or obligation for that matter) its own independent identity first so that we can examine if the two are the same.
Continued contentions
These I'll argue are, at best, still issues of contention/debate, that my opponent has concluded are not so.
Slavery is obligation and obligation is slavery
The topic is simple in nature
The slave master can be non-sentient
Money is a slave master
I apologize for the lackluster conclusion of this final presentation (as compared to my final presentation in part 1), I've come down with a crippling cold. Don't let that sway your votes in my favor though. Assume that this is the best argument I could muster even if I was in good health. I just regret I didn't present it better.
Closing remarks
Firstly, with all my talk about humility and self-reflection I have to stress out that that needs to apply to me to. The whole time I am dismissing the assured correctness of my opponent's argument, but not only could potentially my side of the argument be wrong. It is even potentially so that even just my dismissals are wrong as well. It is entirely possible that all of my opponent's judgements and conclusions are correct. Maybe even one day we'll choose to treat prisoner and POW interchangeably. I am not saying this in jest or ironically. I mean I highly doubt it'll happen, but the possibility for it to happen in the future exists. Keep in mind that its always possible for you to be wrong.
I am adding this to my closing remarks because I want to convey, I rejected my opponents conclusions not because I *know* they're wrong(I don't), but because I don't know they're right. How are lives tie to money and the 9-5 and how that could or could not be slavery is still a thought process worth serious consideration and deep mental diving. And while I was personally dissatisfied with my opponents arguments. It could be that:
a) My arguments are sound and I am correct
or
b) My opponent's were insufficient and we can say we don't know enough to conclude that he's correct
It also however could be that
c) My opponent's arguments weren't sound, but we *are* slaves to money and the 9-5 due to other arguments
or
d) My opponent's arguments are sound and they're correct, and they're how we conclude that we're slaves to money and the 9-5
I personally think its b), I hope for votes so I can get external views on the matter. To me, votes against me would be better than having no votes at all like we had in part 1.
But that's just one of my personal wishes, for extra insight to further help me grow. Another wish of mine is that, more importantly that how valid you believe my or my opponent's argument to be, for you to grow from this exchange and/or watching this exchange. Maybe even to further research this matter if you deem it important.
That extends to Mall himself as well.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Additionally it saddens me that part 1 had no votes at all. I would've preferred losing to that honestly, as there would've at least been potential insight from others who are not you or me.
Putting this separately here since its not part of the debate.
The atmosphere and feel of this debate feels unprogressive, unconstructive, and overall unhelpful.
If this is, even just in part, at my fault. Then I hope that God forgives me for my misconduct and/or my intellectual shortcomings and aids me in growing wiser. At least wise enough to avoid committing whatever follies I might've committed in this debate. And personally apologize to both Mall and the readers for it if that is the case.
If this is, even just in part, at your fault Mall. Then I hope that God can help you in attaining better humility.
Whoever's fault it is, I feel this has failed to be informative or pleasant, that said, I still wish to thank you for accepting to extend this to part 2 when you could've refused.
Not part of the debate so I'll post it here instead, I apologize if you found my posting a link despite what you said disrespectful. I meant no disrespect by it. I simply disagree and personally believe that reducing the inconvenience on our readers is more respectful to them. Even if putting the link comes under the potential risk of them being relatively less interested as a result of not putting in the effort to do the search.
At the start of your first argument, give a link to the first debate so viewers can easily find it.