>On Apr 10, 9:40pm, Guru George wrote:
>
>} However, free human beings do not want slaves; slaves are an encumbrance.
>} (In an image: each slave has only one chain, the slave-'master' has
>} many.)
>}
>} On the other hand, free human beings might want *servants*, whom they
>} would pay a proper wage.
>
>Oh no, not this claim again. What wages do dogs get paid? Cows?
>Chickens? Computers?
>
>Humans are different, you say? How? They're sentient, yes. Now assume
>a dairy cow has been made sentient. What practical difference does that
>make to us?
>
Not much to us, but a lot to the cow. It might object to being treated
as a *simple* machine, and prefer to be treated like a more complex
machine, like we human sentient beings treat each other. If it doesn't
stand up for itself, and let us know this, and let us know that it isn't
going to put up with being mistreated, then it is, ipso facto, in the
position of a sentient being allowing itself to be enslaved.
>I suppose this debate depends on the definition of 'slave'. Is a human
>enslaved if they serve your every wish willingly?
>
That is called 'co-operation'!
>
Guru George