- Thread starter xןʞ
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 3dcg ahegao anal sex animated bdsm big tits corruption cosplay creampie dating sim exhibitionism female domination footjob groping group sex harem lactation lesbian male domination male protagonist masturbation mobile game oral sex sandbox spanking titfuck trainer urination vaginal sex virgin voyeurism
I'm just in it for the headpats.Maybe, but some of us enjoy that stuff.
Personally, I'm hoping we're coming to an end to this debate before this thread is derailed too much.
- Jan 24, 2020
- 764
- 1,874
If all else fails to bring the debate to an end, we can all come together (giggity) in an unprecedented discussion of epic proportions about what the PC's face actually looks like.
That isn't really a debate, it is Honey Select, male characters look terrible in Honey Select. So the answer is "not good".
Really appreciate all the exposition provided here, and effort you put into the world building <3
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Last edited:
The opposite. I'm taking away the last refuge of the slaver, the idea that slavery at least works for the slaver. Which it doesn't. It makes the slaver poorer than they would be if they just did business with others without resorting to forcing them to do things through force of violence. As I said, I view it as bloodletting - it's horrible, and it doesn't even do what it's supposed to. It might have been a debate if slavery did help those who are enslaving others, but it doesn't. Free, educated workers willing to perform for their employer, are better at their jobs than slaves financially.
Also, slavery did exist in Europe, probably Switzerland too... In the ancient times, under Rome. Well, sorry, over the course of 12000 years, pretty much everything happened everywhere, including slavery. Within a reasonable timeframe of the past 500 years, it didn't happen there. And while you can make all sorts of claims like "some Swiss companies profited from the slave trade, therefore they're just as bad", I'm just looking at the direct impacts of slavery on the slavers. It doesn't work for them.
I totally agree, but there are two separate conversations here and a lot of other things to take into account.
If we're talking about building a nation up to modern standards as fast and profitable as possible 300+ years ago, slavery was a great way to do that.
In modern times, it's a horrible way of doing things. In modern times, it is absolutely best for our economy if we are all free and educated workers. But even in our real world, we still outsource slave labor to build our products. We just don't do it here anymore.
There is an equivalent to this in HH, the world uses Syl'anar's slaves to produce all their goods.
Right, in the past 500 years Europe wasn't a developing nation, it was one of the best technologically. America was a developing nation. My point in this is that slavery was a great way to jump start a developing nation, none of which Europe was during these times. And when they were developing more, slavery seems to have been higher. (I still disagree with the usage of slavery, but it's hard to deny slaves built America)
Last edited:
- Mar 27, 2017
- 32
- 149
Arguing that Europe didn't practice slavery and was successful ignores that much of Europe's power during that period was built on other horrible practices. Europe profited heavily from the slave trade, and profited even more from colonialism, which at times was as horrible as any form of slavery. Just look at the awful things that happened in
Moreover, insisting that slavery wasn't profitable is baffling. How were the slave owners of the Southern US able to maintain their vast wealth through generations of slavery if it wasn't profitable? Why weren't the non-slave owning farmers in the Southern US outperforming the slave owners?
You must be registered to see the links
. Moreover, insisting that slavery wasn't profitable is baffling. How were the slave owners of the Southern US able to maintain their vast wealth through generations of slavery if it wasn't profitable? Why weren't the non-slave owning farmers in the Southern US outperforming the slave owners?
Slavery is unacceptable. But it's unacceptable for moral reasons. Focusing on the economics of slavery serves to muddle the strongest, most compelling argument against slavery.
This is blatantly and provably false.
You're using an article that discussed a macroeconomic impact of slavery to justify a baseless claim on individual scale.
You don't need to go that far, it was only mass Christianization of Europe that removed the legitimacy of direct slavery on religious grounds. The serfdom system in Eastern Europe can be argued to be an extension of it into later times.
In Europe? Um... Kinda did:
You must be registered to see the links
You must be registered to see the links
Not sure why you decided to obsess about Switzerland, with its unique economic position.
And yes, slavery did work for the slavers. Kinda why it's been a long-standing pretty much worldwide practice until societal norms prohibited its implementation... at least in explicit terms of it.
Edited for better links.
Last edited:
Fun fact, the word Slave comes from "Slav", Slavs were those enslaved by... you guessed it... europeans.
- Mar 27, 2017
- 32
- 149
Having now looked at your source, it seems very focused on the Industrial Revolution, discounting the more than 100 years of American slavery before that point.
If a strategy is profitable for over 100 years, but then changing circumstances render it unprofitable, I don't think it's accurate to say that it "didn't make America rich", as the title of the article claims. Perhaps it didn't keep America rich, and I don't feel that literal slavery would be profitable in America today, but it certainly made America rich for a significant period of its history.
If you want to argue that the long-term consequences of slavery weren't worth that wealth, that's a valid argument, and one I'd agree with. But ignoring the decades of profitable slavery before the Industrial Revolution in an attempt to strengthen the argument against slavery is misguided, in my opinion.
EDIT: You also said that we need to demonstrate that slavery is unprofitable so that sociopaths don't engage in it. I don't think sociopaths would be bothered about the economic impact of their exploitation if that impact only occurs decades or a century after they've gotten rich and possibly already died. That's not going to be a compelling argument to stop exploitation.
If a strategy is profitable for over 100 years, but then changing circumstances render it unprofitable, I don't think it's accurate to say that it "didn't make America rich", as the title of the article claims. Perhaps it didn't keep America rich, and I don't feel that literal slavery would be profitable in America today, but it certainly made America rich for a significant period of its history.
If you want to argue that the long-term consequences of slavery weren't worth that wealth, that's a valid argument, and one I'd agree with. But ignoring the decades of profitable slavery before the Industrial Revolution in an attempt to strengthen the argument against slavery is misguided, in my opinion.
EDIT: You also said that we need to demonstrate that slavery is unprofitable so that sociopaths don't engage in it. I don't think sociopaths would be bothered about the economic impact of their exploitation if that impact only occurs decades or a century after they've gotten rich and possibly already died. That's not going to be a compelling argument to stop exploitation.
Considering Runey's at least implied that the MC is basically us, the player, that answer probably still works (Honey Select or not).
I'm keenly aware of it. Made it all the more entertaining on the occasions when I got confronted about how I should support "more-than-equal-rights" because of what my ancestors supposedly did (long story short, was in student council of our higher-education-place and there were demands to "adjust" grading and admittance test results based on racial profiling because, apparently, "equal rights").
Bitch, please, I'm Slavic. A first-gen immigrant, to boot. Now show me where I can get some "minority" special treatment in this culturally "Germanic" country, heh. /s
Apparently the concept of actual egalitarianism is frowned upon in modern America.
Hah, it has certainly seems that way. I know I could have been taught a lot better in school here in America.
I still acutely remember the sheer ignorance of my American peers when the discussion veered into treatment of "Eastern Europe" by the WW1 and WW2 Allies.
Though I probably should stop with these kind of posts before the thread gets mod-nuked.
So, how about them new side-scenes, Runey?
We barely learn of our own full history, how do you expect us to know others?I still acutely remember the sheer ignorance of my American peers when the discussion veered into treatment of "Eastern Europe" by the WW1 and WW2 Allies.
Though I probably should stop with these kind of posts before the thread gets mod-nuked.
So, how about them new side-scenes, Runey?
Oddly enough, I know european countries better than US states
The base of this conversation revolves around how slavery is handled in harem hotel, so I think it's fine.
In Syl'anar's current era, they use slaves for labor. In the case of Lin, MC barely pays her and she does a ton of work. He's a great master relatively though. But Lin is definitely profitable!
- Nov 20, 2017
- 5,411
- 12,865
Mathematical I don't see a problem here. And neither from a programming point of view.
So, as I'm Swiss, let me add a few things here form my perspective.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Last edited:
How many of us remember everything about our own personal history (i.e, childhood)? Trying to remember much from a time centuries or eons ago is asking a lot.We barely learn of our own full history, how do you expect us to know others?
Oddly enough, I know european countries better than US states