Same thing, the way I see it. Both machines.


Yes, that would somewhat alter my opinion of them. I would be less distasteful of the synths if they didn't pretend to be, or get programmed to think they are human. It wouldn't get me to value them any more, but it would remove part of my problem with them. And to the other question, yes, I'd say that they are still meant to serve ther creators, as all machines are.

Serfdom did indeed carry benefits, as well as hardships. I'm not disputing the later, but trying to emphasize the former to make a case that serfdom wasn't born out of slavery as one before had claimed, which is utterly false. Serfdom was a very complex economic vehicle in the Middle Ages, and in many cases the higher castes had much more responsibility, such as serving as the vanguard in the military or having to fight in battle, and possibly losing more than their position.

I'm completely against any form of dictatorship, but one must realize that not all monarchs or dictators were malevolent in nature or in action, and history has shown this -- Marcus Aurelius, Henry V, Louis XIV.

You aren't going to find many audiences whose response to "You would be much happier as slaves" is favorable. Try picking a winnable argument. There is no such thing as a benevolent leader, just people who died while controlling their public image. Just take the big examples of "good people", Ghandi was racist and slept with his niece, Mother Theresa embezzled millions and set up charnel houses. Hell, Lincoln was super racist against blacks and people treat him like a hero.

The argument is they weren't slaves actually.

Oh god so your argument is the semantics between slave, serf and indentured servant? The only difference is skin tone.

How fair our metallic, bread toasting brethren and their pursuit of liberty?

Slavery based on skin-color wasn't common until the trans-atlantic slave trade actually. I'm not arguing semantics. A slave and a serf held two very different positions in Feudal society, as I've mentioned in a previous post. A serf could form is own business if he chose to, grow his own garden, become a freeman if he so chose (sometimes serfs chose to remain serfs); a serf had over 150 days off a year. They were protected under the law from abuse. The differences go on and on, and they can be seen. A slave, never enjoyed these types of privileges, even under the Roman Empire.

Removing the human element from people allows seemingly normal people to commit great acts of evil against them. Look to WW2 propaganda, governments were dehumanizing their enemies to make it much easier for their soldiers to kill.

You make a lot of sweeping generalizations. Ironically, that would be like me saying that all Lords were benevolent, which of course wasn't true.

Race is about much more than skin color.

Free labor under the boot heel of a rich man is still slavery, them getting minor benefits from it doesn't change that.

Depends on what day and age we speak of, and area of the world (cultures) In the case of the Fallout world, I could think up some scenarios where serfdom at least kept you alive

My ancestors, the Vikings, kept thralls (tr?l / tr?lle in danish) and thralls under Viking ownership could experience some fluidity within the Viking society. Buying themself freedom, granted freedom in honor of a good / great deed within the society or being set free by their owner. In such a case, you are better off serving as a Thrall (Vikings weren't cruel towards their thralls in general. Commodity is most valueable when intact!) instead of being cut down where you stood under the Viking raid.

That of course, stopped when the the christians took over, and wanted the monopoly of serfs / slaves etc. Then you were a slave, until the day you took your last breath

But it wasn't "free" labor in any sense of the word...what don't you understand about that? They were paid, fed, clothed, and housed, and received half the year off including religious holidays, and they could become freeman if they pursued it. We are no different from them in a lot of ways, including purchasing our freedom. We all have some form of debt and some debtor we're bound to.

Yeah it's a construct to keep populations of labourers from uniting and killing the minority that keeps them at each others throats. The only meaningful difference between humans is financial.


My point was they called the irish identured servants and Europeans sersf and Africans slaves in order to prevent the awareness that they are being used in the same way by the same people.

I'm more scared of the hoi polloi actually.

Fresh off reading the communist manifesto eh? Not quite se?or, there are stark differences between the different races, they for thousands of years lived in different lands, under different conditions, ate different foods, studied different topics, etc. Different races have different skull structures and sizes, different shaped noses, are more prone to certain diseases than others, etc.

Nice phrenology work but genetics has disproved the multiple race idea. Minor variations due to geography doesn't split us into different races. Inbreeding gives populations homogeneous looks within sociopolitical boundaries.


You don't have to be communist to see that power and wealth have alwas been concentrated at the expense of humanity.



As for "its not free labor" the lord collects tax, serfs do the work and in exchange he allows you to work the land. So because he come from a line of murderers you work your entire life in poverty while he sits idle in a castle.

No, the Lord exchanges protection, food, housing, and a wage for the resources harvested. The Lord was rare to sit idle in his castle. Statecraft isn't an idle job. Having been a supervisor before, I would have gladly switched to working on the line, then wracking my head about expenses and waste-management costs. Now imagine if I could be called at any time to fight in some war where I could possibly die. Yeah, I would have chosen to become a serf. Not that I'm some kind of coward or anything, but let's be real, what would you rather do, work the fields for half a year or be called to service at any moments notice?

the lord doesn't fight, peasants do. Nor does he farm or provide anything of value. He didn't build the houses he just collects tax. He's a parasite.

There's a reason every forward thinking country murdered their royals.

Intent only exists in the mind of the perpetrator. Even what they "tell" you the intent is may be a lie. Basing a conviction on "intent" alone is a witch hunt.

Of course Lord's we're called to fight as were all nobles.

"In times of strife, noblemen were not only expected to fight for their king, but also to provide a certain number of highly trained knights and other fighters to aid in the mission."

http://www.thefinert...es.html">Noblesin the Middle Ages

You have nearly zero knowledge on this period in time. I have to wonder where you even got your information from, conspiracy sites?

Let's not forget, though, that literature, history included is often based on the bad stuff. It makes for better reading, and there's more to learn from it. Plus, history also deals with amazingly large segments of history in one breath, while simultaneously ignoring what was happening elsewhere in the world for the sake of focus.

Case in point -- the Pax Romana was the most peaceful and prosperous period in human history that we have a record of. But "history texts" tend to skip from the fall of Gaius Julius to the invasion of the Visigoths over 200 years later. Guess those 2 centuries of trade, growth, artistry, education, medical advancements, technological advancements, international relations, and exploration...just wasn't all that interesting. Anyway, on to the next WAR!

Actually, both you and @TheRippaMan are both right on this account. The "design" of a feudal manor was as follows:

- Lord appointed (or elected!) to run the Manor House itself and oversee the fief.

- The lord is responsible for organizing / rotating the crops, keeping the books, managing the money, signing on the needed serfs, collecting the taxes, and acting as liaison for their lord and, by degrees, the king/queen.

- The lord was responsible for peacekeeping, acting as judge in a criminal matter, and raising levies in the event of a war.

- Peasants signing on as serfs were doing so for life, and for their future generations. (This is the misconception of the modern day. In our modern world, "signing your life away" to a company would be (is, in America) viewed as illegal. To a Medieval, it was the highest form of security you could hope for. You were promised a place to live, a wage, relative security, and that would pass on to your children. This was like getting a full-time job with Google for life, and they would pay for your children's college education, too.)

- Serfs were responsible for meeting the harvest quota for the fief, and they were also gifted a portion of the land to grow their own crops for their own personal use. They also has to pay taxes, which was EXACTLY the same situation as it is today. (Taxes simply svck. Taxes will always svck.)

- When a lord raised levies, serfs would normally leap at the chance to become a recruit. It was added pay, plus the ability to keep any booty. It was risky, but those who returned often became very wealthy men. Plus, honorable service in war would earn prestige and could result in a family advancing up the ladder to nobility. Peasants being "pressed" into service did not happen much, and when it did, it almost always caused problems.

It wasn't heaven-on-earth. It was a simple, hard-working system. People earned their keep. Life was relatively unchanged from generation to generation. Serfs did not want to leave their land. It was their hearth and home, and had been since their great-great-great grandparent's time. The lord of the manor...was one of them! It wasn't some high-born fop from the palace in London, it was a serf that had been raised into the position. The fief governed itself almost entirely. Its needs were met, as the populations were quite small. Everyone knew everyone, like a big family.

Look at historical accounts from the times, and you see that most "early deaths" were tragic accidents...killed in a fire...fell into a river and drowned...attacked by an animal while hunting...died of a pox... Not too much about...murdered by our @#$%!ing "lord" for failing to bow low enough.

An interesting observation of people in general: A large population of Americans across the country was surveyed concerning their attitudes towards Congress. The HUGE majority felt that nearly everyone in Congress was corrupt and/or incompetent. Something like less than 10% Approval rating. HOWEVER, at the same time, the HUGE majority also felt that their elected State reps were "mostly trustworthy" and capable. The irony of the answers is that collectively, all of their elected reps constituted nearly all of Congress. If the overwhelming majority of Congress can't be trusted collectively, how is it that individually they are trustworthy?

This is the contrast between general conceptions and specific knowledge. Generally, we modern Americans believe that Slavery is universally Bad, Bad, Bad. However, when we start to think of specific cases, maybe Slavery for that person might not be such a Bad Thing. Maybe he deserves to be made a slave. Or maybe he isn't emotionally capable to take care of himself and really needs some kind of "keeper" to give him direction and focus in his life. (I know soooo many people that fit that description!)

I think that most of us stop reasoning after answering "Would Slavery be such a Bad Thing?" with a kneejerk response of, "I know it would be Bad for me, and therefore it would be Bad for EVERYONE."

Good view on the psychology of the situations.

I love how many people expect to find an "honest politician". It's not just an oxymoron as a joke -- it's the verifiable truth! "Politics", by literal definition, is the manipulation of others to reach a goal. And it's necessary for a government -- ANY government -- to function. A politician that's open and honest is a sheep among wolves. Easy to read, easy to outmaneuver, and easy to take advantage of. Good person. Lousy politician.

Slavery is very overshadowed by the horrible crimes committed against slaves in America. I would vouch to say that the Ancient cultures would have looked at the way we treated slaves and been horrified. For myself, I'll say right now that I would choose slavery over prison for myself any day. At least as a slave, I could still be productive. And I'd probably receive no less recognition or thanks than I do right now...