megapope
you know how huskies are used to pull sleds
and horses are used for transportation and plowing, etc.

thecybersmith
yes.

megapope
could you use a human pet as a working animal?

thecybersmith
Possibly. I don't know how well it would work.

megapope
so slavery is cool then?

thecybersmith
???

megapope
i mean if you own them you can have them work for you and not worry about paying them

thecybersmith
...okay you might have a point there.

megapope
so you're good with slavery, then?

thecybersmith
I wouldn't say that.

megapope
explain to me how keeping a human as a pet and using them to work for you is different from slavery

thecybersmith
I never suggested "using them to work". You did.

megapope
ah, but you said it was possibly okay
and answer the question, how is it different from slavery

thecybersmith
I said I didn't know, because I hadn't really considered it before.

megapope
can pets be used for certain types of labor? yes
can humans be kept as pets? according to you, yes
therefore, human pets may be used for labor
it's all right there, by your own logic you've justified slavery
Yesterday at 5:52 PM

megapope
are you going to answer me or no?
Yesterday at 11:42 PM

thecybersmith
Well, then I suppose you've successfully found a model argument against coercing someone to. Be a human pet.

megapope
once again, are you going to answer me or not? do you believe that slavery (via the labor of "human pets") should be legal or do you believe that the keeping of human pets is unjustM
?

thecybersmith
I believe that forcing someone to be a human pet is unjust, as I have said on multiple occasions.

megapope
nah nah nah once again you're not answering my question

megapope
you're up against a wall here because you believe something that you don't want to admit to yourself, much less me
now tell me, there are precisely two choices here: either people can be owned and forced to labor for their owners or they can't and owning "human pets" is unjust. which one?

thecybersmith
False dichotomy.

megapope
no, I'm pretty sure I've clearly explained my reasoning here. Explain why it's a false dichotomy, though, if you will.
Today at 4:54 AM

thecybersmith sent a chat The...
This applies to you.
Today at 10:58 AM

megapope
I don't care, man, you're evading the question. Explain to me why you think it's a false dichotomy or admit that you can't morally justify human pets.

megapope
also that definitely doesn't apply to me, i'm not progressive, traditionalist, or centrist
Today at 3:36 PM

megapope
are you going to respond to me or are you going to just ignore me? You're not exactly showing your Enlightened Rhetoric abilities here.

thecybersmith
It's a false dichotomy because you act like a consenting human pet is morally equivalent to a coerced human pet.

megapope
That's not the argument, though. I'm asking you how using an adult human being for labor without paying them is different from slavery.

thecybersmith
Consent. I work as a volunteer sometimes. I labour, and I am not paid. Am I a slave?

megapope
No, you're not, because THE PEOPLE YOU ARE VOLUNTEERING FOR DO NOT OWN YOU.
HOW IS THIS NOT CLEAR
owning a human being and having them labor for you is slavery!

thecybersmith
Does the human being consent to be owned?
If so, there is no sin.

megapope
have you even read rousseau, idiot? even if they consent to it they lose their status as a moral agent
therefore there's no way somebody can meaningfully consent to that.

thecybersmith
I disagree with Rousseau.

The last choice a person ever makes is a choice nonetheless.

megapope
furthermore, you're a libertarian, right?

thecybersmith
Yes.
Mostly.

megapope
you know that rothbard disagrees with this, right?
The concept of "voluntary slavery" is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master's will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary. But more of coercion later on.
you haven't read rousseau and you know it

thecybersmith
I'm not bound to totally agree with these people because their views partially align with my own.
Rousseau was a the bloke who thought man was best in a state of nature, and advanced the empirically disproven tabla Rasa theory, right?
Things philosophers say aren't above critique! Sometimes they are just wrong!

megapope
i'm not talking about those theories. I want you to tell me on what grounds you disagree with Rousseau on the loss of moral agency of a human slave

thecybersmith
I don't disagree that a pet has no moral agency.
I disagree that a person cannot consent to give their moral agency away.

megapope
On what grounds?
this stuff is basic libertarianism, by the way. like, these are the documents and thinkers on which the entire ideology is based

thecybersmith
Because the last choice a person ever makes is still a choice.
Dead people have no moral agency, you would agree, yes?
If a person chooses to die, is that not a valid choice?

megapope
A choice made under coercion is not a choice and you know it.
because there is only the illusion of choice
the examples you give for people who would become human pets are all coercion of some form or another.

thecybersmith
Who mentioned coersion? Not I!

megapope
Just because you didn't use the word doesn't mean you didn't imply it. You're being dishonest and you need to call it what it is.

megapope
" and one of your old schoolmates had (voluntarily or otherwise) become a human pet"

thecybersmith
I don't support coercing people into becoming human pets! Those were hypothetical thought experiments!

megapope
there you go, admitting that human pets have the possibility of being involuntary.
you're implicitly taking the side that those "thought experiments" are justifiable

thecybersmith
Possibility ≠ certainty!
Anything CAN be coercive!!!

megapope
yes, but coercion that precludes the possibility of reversing the decision is immoral

megapope
if I have a gun to your head and a knife in your gut and I offer you the choice between being shot or stabbed to death that's not a real choice, is it?

thecybersmith
WHICH IS WHY I DON'T SUPPORT COERCION. I HAVE SAID THIS MANY TIMES. OUT-OF-CONTEXT THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS ARE NOT CONDONEMENT!

megapope
but I've shown you right there that the concept of consenting to being a human pet cannot be anything other than coercion! how is this not clear to you?

thecybersmith
Because someone could consent!
Obviously if they do so at gunpoint, that's coersion, but just because something CAN be doesn't mean it MauST be!

megapope
Good fucking LORD i've already shown you this, the will is inherent to personhood and not something able to be bought or sold
can you give up ownership of something that is itself an inalienable part of oneself?

thecybersmith
Yes.

megapope
no, you obviously can't. the will is the entirety of one's self

thecybersmith
It happened a lot in Roman times.
I disagree that a person cannot do that.

megapope
appeal to tradition is not an argument
you say you disagree, but on what grounds?

megapope
give me your reasoning, right here, right now
which is something you seem to be chronically incapable of doing, mind you

thecybersmith
I'm not appealing to tradition I'm saying that it DID happen, and by definition what DID happen is not impossible!

megapope
But they didn't give up their will, did they? The Servile Wars showed otherwise. You're talking about someone giving up their will entirely, which I'm saying is impossible, and history has shown this to be true.
i'm going to ask you again: explain why you disagree, don't just tell me that you do!

thecybersmith
Dead people have no will. People can choose to die. Ergo, people can choose to forfeit their will.

megapope
that is the destruction of the will, not the forfeiture of it
either way, you're equating the process of becoming a slave to that of dying, which is not exactly making your case

thecybersmith
I'm saying that both can be chosen. A person who consents to being a human pet is not violated when one treats them the way they agreed to be treated.

megapope
But one cannot consent to being owned, which, again, is something I cannot seem to hammer into your thick skull.

megapope
here, maybe this'll make sense to you: https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/the-impossibility-of-voluntary-slavery-3e6c3f7da1f1

thecybersmith
Yes, one can.
You have not given convincing evidence to the contrary.

megapope
I have, you just don't want to hear it because this isn't about people's rights, is it now?
no, I know what this is really about for you.

thecybersmith
Pray tell.

megapope
you're not getting any with that beard, are you? ain't no way in hell
so...

thecybersmith
It isn't a beard.

megapope
wouldn't it just be convenient for you to have someone who's "voluntarily" given up their will to you?

thecybersmith
Beards go under the mouth.

megapope
so you can't deny that you want a human slave to fuck but you'll argue all day about what a beard is?

thecybersmith
You're assuming I'm looking for such a relationship right now. At this point in my life, I'm not. I want to focus on university, getting an internship, and losing weight.
I only have time for so much. A relationship at this point? No.

megapope
that's a nice way to explain it to yourself, but now I want you to explain something to me. if you own a human pet who has given up their entire will to you, what keeps you from using them sexually?
you seem to be awfully invested in this, it'd make a lot of sense if it was all just a long shot justification for getting your rocks off in someone who can't deny you on account of facial hair.

thecybersmith
Your own self-restraint.

megapope
you don't seem to have that in great supply, seeing as how you seem to comment on everybody's posts even though everyone's uncomfortable with you doing so.

thecybersmith
I don't think everyone is uncomfortable.

megapope
oh absolutely everyone is, look at them! everyone says "whoa isn't that the human pet guy? fuck off dude" whenever you reblog their posts with one of your idiot diatribes

megapope
hollering about how nobody appreciates your Logic and Rhetoric

megapope
so tell me, if you owned someone, what would keep you from using them sexually? and not even you, necessarily - a lot of men can't seem to keep their hands off women they decidedly don't know, if they owned people do you really think they'd show restraint?

thecybersmith
That's their issue. It doesn't make the concept of human pets wrong or right.

megapope
and furthermore, using your own logic - that the will is given up when one submits to slavery - why is the rape and murder of human pets wrong?

thecybersmith
Cruelty is bad, even when it isn't a breach of contract.
Having the right to do something doesn't make doing that thing good.

megapope
so why would it be cruel to rape a human pet?
rape is a violation of consent, but consent has been given up as per your definition.

thecybersmith
Something can be cruel without being a violation. You have the right to go up to grieving mourners at a funeral, laugh at them,and say that their loved ones deserved it.

But it's cruel.

Anyway, I need to sleep now, I have stuff to do tomorrow.

megapope
a violation of what? the contract? what contract? there is none, per your logic they've given up their autonomy unconditionally. as you say, "the last decision they'll ever make"

megapope
face it, fool, you've justified the rape of slaves.