locri t1_jedl5dq wrote


So you're a yeoman with a bit of land to farm on or a hunter or a fisher for your village one day and the next you're... What? You're definitely not in the same place and same status.

It's all the same, the reason people viewed it differently isn't because slavery was worse but because bronze age people didn't view those of other tribes as really anything like them, like animals. This is likely due to isolation and lower amounts of contact between tribes and people, they had tin trade but this was hardly globalisation. Even then, in each city state they'd probably maintain this tribalism right into the iron age. Consider how long it took people who could forge steel to treat everyone equally.

Honestly, at some stage you really do have to say the ancients were just a little primitive. I'm sorry, I know that's a history no no, but this is a slavery conversation. This time you're dealing with it.


locri t1_jedgwqy wrote

At some stage between the neolithic and bronze age this became highly taboo and only ever something you'd accuse your enemies of, kind of like the human sacrifice wickerman thing. Slavery on the other hand was borderline socially acceptable. Slavery is considered abhorrent in our society due to a completely different mentality caused by an almost unthinkably different upbringing.

It's important to understand that every society and culture has some questionable elements, personally I think it's odd a lot of people's take away from this is to stop questioning their own and working ahead of it.


locri t1_jeczqhq wrote

Raiding, yeah.

I'm not going to justify it, but if your crops fail you'd rather it was someone else's problem rather than the problem of your kids. If your neighbour doesn't have any food, well, then I'm sure they have something to sell.

Not a justification, it was just a very different time. There were fewer food banks and homeless shelters...


locri t1_ja5owrc wrote

I doubt it can, the issue is AI and the technology created by engineers has greatly outstripped an untrained person's ability to understand the tools that have been created. But there are just tools and like any tool absolutely requires an operator... If anything it's the operators going too far but not quite.

AI art seems to be an issue for people who want to idolise artists, not for artists themselves who by this stage should understand ideas beyond post modernism such as the expression or intent behind the art being more valuable than the outcome itself. IE, splatter paintings (postmodernism) have no value and neither does the hyper realistic neo romanticism that AI art seemingly excels at.


locri t1_j9w4hm7 wrote

OP is comparing a symptom of a deliberate food desert, the bodega, with something small Australian towns did to combat the food desert... Sell canned and dried food next to a single line of refrigerators that sell milk.


locri t1_j9w3iyq wrote

If they're zero for English, it's not actually a bad assumption. OP might want r/musictheory or r/theirinstrument or even r/wearethemusicmakers if you want your creativity gaslit from the consistent advice to just feel what sounds "good."


locri t1_j9sr0wi wrote

What "way"? The two are wildly different concepts that have at least become two wildly different things. You do not live in a food desert if you live next door to a milk bar because you can buy a loaf of bread for 3 dollars, but the same isn't true if you live next to a bodega that sells 30 dollar sandwiches.


locri t1_j9rsd9i wrote

> A small shop and/or cafe, often part of a larger shop, that sells fast food and a range of dairy based beverages such as milkshakes and ice creams; a deli or delicatessen.

This does not describe a small town Australian milk bar at all in anyway. Our milk bars sell bread and milk, as in, milk not mixed into a milk shake and bread without meat in between then sold at up to 30 times the price.

Again, my local milk bar sells kilo bags of beans for a few dollars.


locri t1_j9rmydx wrote


And one of the close ones to me sell bags of beans for 4 dollars a kilo. This isn't a bodega because the intention is to sell food products but not cooked food.

The issue is that affording labour is challenging but not affording food.


locri t1_j7xsbxi wrote

Instrument is good.

You sing "do re mi fa so la ti" to scales up and down scales, but also sing intervals like do mi so mi do which is a major chord and by singing it you'll better recognise what a major arpeggio sounds like. Likewise, singing do fa do will also teach you to recognise the perfect fourth, which can be confused for a dull perfect fifth for some people.

Also, if you don't want to use solfege names for whatever reason, then numbers work almost as well. Ie one two three four five and then one three five for the arpeggios.

Singing to learn audiation is traditional... I think they stopped forcing singing lessons in the 20th century, so a long, long time ago. In my high school class, which prompted me to self teach rather than rely on teachers, we were told to just know what the intervals are. No explanation how. Just know. Obviously some kids had a pretty severe advantage.


locri t1_j74ybj5 wrote

One references an action, the other references the state of mind. It is a near perfect theory that encompasses the physical and mental and provides me with one fool proof answer that you still haven't address. It even criminalises pollution, as to pollute knowingly is an action.

And it is the basis of a standard of guilt.

But what do I owe without action? The answer is nothing, or, no more than anyone else. This is the perfect negative right, until you convince me of a responsibility which almost certain demands the physical proof and an evaluation of my guilt before the standard is achieved.

This is how libertarianism addresses the problem. It does so by reminding you what slavery is.


locri t1_j74ucs2 wrote

Mens rea and actus reus is the basis.

It's very basic, you can even find similar ideas in Nietzsche's beyond good and evil because these aren't value judgements or moral rulings. If you're involved, you're involved and that's why it's an exception.

I'm not involved in the pains of randoms, I may feel empathy and I may want to help (often, it's more uncomfortable to not help) but I'm absolutely not obliged and my charity shouldn't be a granted, as the soft slavers I'm describing beleive it is.

> All rights require a duty to be imposed on someone else.

You should have listened to libertarians more before trashing.

An obligation is a positive right, as in you have a right to something and the addition is positive. Negative rights have absolutely no implication of duty, you don't have a duty to fuck off my property and stop spray painting my property, you should just not and doing not costs you absolutely nothing.

But if you continue, then you are now involved with me against my will and I therefore have an obligation to uninvolve you.. By calling the fucking cops.

Because it's absolutely free and easy to not feel entitled to my property. Again, this is why property rights are a thing... Because fuck off.


locri t1_j74qy7p wrote

Negligence is a little difference as it involves an action first to create the situation in which walking away is immoral. Truly an exception that proves the rule, without prior action and intentions behind those action then any claims of rights violation are probably a form of rights violation themselves.

As in, claiming someone isn't your slave and giving you free food becomes a rights violation because you're fabricating their responsibility with the intent of depriving them of the ability to simply walk away. Something similar happens when states build walls to keep people in. This is why a standard of guilt is necessary in this argument.

And finally why I stand by my right to walk away until you prove this responsibility was voluntarily chosen with informed consent.


locri t1_j74hbbl wrote

> 3. I want to be on the same page as everyone as far as vocabulary is concerned, so, do we use inalienable rights or natural rights?

I'd use them interchangeably and get annoyed and yell semantics if someone disagrees. I know it's fun to make philosophy difficult but let's at least make the words simple?

Also, I might post back later and answer some of those questions as an exercise.


locri t1_j74fzhz wrote

Besides the consistent shade on libertarians, I can't find many firm claims to argue against. Just got to say, if someone says "please leave me alone" and they walk alone, the belief that this is an infringement of your rights would be bizarre. It's not a great answer, but I must have the right to walk away, I must have the negative right away from people who feel entitled to whatever I have.

This isn't "property rights" it's simply an argument against being a greedy dick... And it's the entirety of libertarianism.