h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm aware of the concept of de facto slavery. And as I said, I wasn't talking about the rest of the world, I was talking about America. And you haven't convinced me that there are as many de facto slaves in America, proportionally or otherwise, as there were in the 1850s.

As far as the world at large is concerned, maybe there is and maybe there isn't, but I don't much consider it my problem. It's up to them to condemn slavery or not; no lasting change can be made unless the people living there are actively willing to make it. Trying to impose my will on a foreign country wouldn't help anything.

To support this argument, I point to what happened in the South immediately after the Civil War, when the condemnation of slavery was imposed upon them. Specifically, I point to the various laws and social policies that sprang up to turn blacks back into de facto slaves. Which is, to my limited knowledge, where the concept of de facto slavery started in the first place.



"Julia Gillard IS an atheist as am I, and I'm damn proud of her for it."

I meant that Hitler was somewhere between an agnostic and a Deist. Not Julia Gillard.

I thought my tone and my smileys made it clear that I was also being tongue-in-cheek, but apparently not.




"if someone doesn't /want/ to vote they shouldn't be forced to"

~*~How about if they don't /want/ to pay taxes? Or stick to the speed limit? ... I can't see why voting shouldn't be something that's required, just as paying tax is required.~*~

As for /you,/ do you have selective vision or something? Did you not see the other half of that statement?

By choosing not to vote, they are ACTIVELY DEMONSTRATING that they have nothing to contribute to the democratic process. Therefore, they should not be required to do so, because better decisions are made without them.

If someone doesn't have the personal motivation, on their own, to go and vote for a candidate or policy or whatever, then that vote either for or against is inherently unworthy of being counted in the first place. A candidate or policy or whatever should only be put in place if it has *sufficient support* from people who are *personally motivated enough* to see that is, because they ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT IT.

By making voting voluntary, it serves as a natural screening process for just that. THAT'S why I don't think it should be mandatory.

Mr. X, you keep putting words in my mouth, arguing against things I never stated. I never said anything about the number of slaves in America specifically. I simply stated the FACT that there are more slaves today than there were at the height of the colonial slave trade. I used that period for reference as it is the time that we today consider the height of slavery. I'm sure a good historian could point out times and places that had more slaves, but I was just using it as a point of reference and also repeating a point that has been brought up in many articles on the subject, including the one I linked. (In the text of which states the estimate you seem to want from me. "Even in the United States, low-end Justice Department figures estimate that there are about 50,000 people languishing in hidden bondage at any one time.")

Now, considering the original subject of this thread, why does my statement seem to irk you so much?

What number of slaves is acceptable? Or is it only unacceptable if it's happening in your country?





And, yes, your use of the smiley did lead me to misinterpret your response to my first post about the Australian PM.

"considering the original subject of this thread... is it only unacceptable if it's happening in your country?"

The original subject of this thread was, rather specifically, speculation on the likely change in social mores in the UK by 2062.

Contributors are, of course, free to interpret the question more globally, but my intention was to wonder aloud about how much our attitude to banging teenagers has changed since the 60s, and what else might similarly alter in years to come.

Well, before I get another fisking...

I'll tell you what I;d quite like to change in the next fifty years. The whole "She was asking for it" thing. I'd settle for a shift to "He was asking for it", where 'it' is a charge of statutory rape for an aging rocker or actual rape for a pissed footballer. But I wouldn't want to stray into the realms of fantasy too far.

One thing I think might change relates to the acceptability of getting an abortion. If They do succeed in getting it banned, how long would it take for that to be the subject of retrospect prosecution I wonder? After all, it would have been murder, wouldn't it?

I can't speak for American law but the only retrospective law in the UK as far as i know is civil - tax changes to shut loopholes can be made retrospective
Using my dad as the accountant, it's a "should have been obvious it should be illegal" basis that's used...whether in these straitened times that is the level i can't say

Indeed by your logic it would have been murder, but legalised murder...weird

Meanwhile, back on topic.

Spitting.
It will be a criminal offense in fifty years.
And its cyber equivalents will carry the same penalties.

In fact, all crimes in cyberspace will generally carry
harsher penalties, but spitting'll be considered just as
reprehensible in real reality as it in virtual reality.

The old defense about just being human and therefore a
fallible machine will fall from favour and cyber crimes
will have automatic penalties to be imposed and inflicted
by real people under the direction of machine judges.

It'll be Dreddful.



~jwf~

Estate agents will be illegal.

I knew as soon as i started to read that message that a judge Dredd joke was coming

The sentence for the attempted spitting at a judge, is death

Actually - that spitting thing (you heard it here first - it's always been in the house rules) has started me on a train of thought. In 2062 we may well all be walking round with germ masks on....

Nah, too low tech, maybe an equivalent

It's not so much of a social point, but i do hope that biological weapons are finally completely banned by 2062 (if not much sooner)
They pose a far greater risk than nuclear weapons, most notably if a rogue organisation got one and the risk of accidental release

I reckon internet (or whatever it evolves into) will be far more regulated in 50 years. People will look back on the early internet as a time of anarchy.

It might be nice if in 50 years time there will be less interference from everyone in people's private life but in particular on the part of the press(if we still have newspapers in hardcopy form).

~*~Or is it only unacceptable if it's happening in your country?~*~

That is the point I was trying to make. If that makes me a monster in people's eyes I guess I'll have to live with it.

Germ masks might be the least of it. It's possible that in fifty years time antibiotics won't work any more. Think on the ramifications of that for a few moments and despair...

face masks might not necessarily be more hi-tec than they are now.

After all, 50 years ago everyone thought we'd be driving flying cars and all have our own personal jet-pack

Don't *you*?

Yeah.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-FdfbDjxwsAQ/T7NSLkX1kEI/AAAAAAAAAFM/yeX7a44QMXQ/s960/jetpac.jpg

Oops, I meant... yeah.

https://picasaweb.google.com/SonofRojBlake/ThereSMyJetpack#5743024308523208770

is that you, Hoo?