What If ..... Aliens landed and took over the earth
- Thread starter EmoBorg
- Start date
- Status
Explain to me again why a society that can achieve interstellar (and, if you're going to a "major colony or homeworld" FTL) travel would need slave laborers in the first place? Besides the pure dickishness of it?
First of all they need forced labour to work their mines and high tech farms. When the europeans settled the new world, didn't they use native ameircan and later africans labour to work the mines and fields. Sentient beings like humans have a wonderful brains which are supercomputers if you think about it. The human brain is capable of great creativitiy and intelligence. As result those aliens need humans to work as
1) miners
2)farmhands
3) servants
4)personnel assistants
5)nannies
6)waste extraction
If you look at globalization nowdays, the more developed countries are bringing in workers from less developed countires to add to their work force. In the past, slaves were used but now we hire foreign workers to work cheaply.
We are cheap labour/ servant force to the aliens. They come to earth because we are sentient and hence able to listen to and obey orders and carry out low level skilled work but we are not techologically advanced enough to take them on.
The aliens are not willing to force members of their own species to work but are willing to get less advanced species like humans to do the menial tasks.
Just because they are technologically advanced, it does not mean that they are also morally advanced as well.
Regarding horatio's argument, I just want to point out that all my erections are moral and ethically praiseworthy.
Of course it is.
Also, flattering.
Also, flattering.
I for one welcome our new erectile overlords.
Just another Internet Tough Guy except of the "cucumber-cool, hyper-rational cynic" variety. Bit of a Wesley Wyndham-Pryce.
As did you from the very beginning. Anyway, pointless to talk with people who mistake acting tough with claiming to be a nazi / alien collaborator.
Good job, you managed to address one of my points, though you did so with another logical fallacy (ad hominem if you're curious...seriously, it's like a game of Name That Logical Fallacy!). As for the misrepresentation, mine was not deliberate, but a misreading of your initial position. I made no attempt to build a strawman argument. I already noted it and apologized for it, so there's no need to bring it up again. If your misrepresentation of my position was also by mistake, that's fine, but own up to it.
As for acting tough, does this mean you now concede that people actually do this? Because you've been arguing that they don't this whole time. While it sounds to me that the OP is either acting tough or not seriously thinking through the hypothetical implications of his statements, it is also possible that he genuinely means what he says (at least so much as anyone can considering we're talking about a fantasy alien invasion), in which case he is being honest but morally condemnable. I never said which was the case, but argued the possibility of acting tough since you seemed to think this never happens.
How about addressing the other points?
About logical fallacies, people who care about logic (I don't, paradoxes are much more interesting) virtually never mention it and just do it. Second nature kind of thing.
To satisfy you, point one is irrelevant as you'd find similar responses wherever you asked people how they would have behaved under fascism, oppressive aliens or in general a nasty regime of power. More people would claim to be resistance fighters to convince themselves or to meet social standards and less people would claim to be opportunistic followers relative to how it would actually be. And this is bullshitting not something bad but just the way culture works.
About your second point, of course I have met people who pretend to be worse than they actually are. The reasons vary, for some it might a protective shield whereas others consider this to be a way to gain recognition. I doubt that saying that you would be an opportunistic guy and join the nazis meets any of these points though. It is rather a safe way to lose all respect of your fellows and seems to be caused by blunt honesty or serious confusion ... or it is just plain trolling. Who cares.
To satisfy you, point one is irrelevant as you'd find similar responses wherever you asked people how they would have behaved under fascism, oppressive aliens or in general a nasty regime of power. More people would claim to be resistance fighters to convince themselves or to meet social standards and less people would claim to be opportunistic followers relative to how it would actually be. And this is bullshitting not something bad but just the way culture works.
About your second point, of course I have met people who pretend to be worse than they actually are. The reasons vary, for some it might a protective shield whereas others consider this to be a way to gain recognition. I doubt that saying that you would be an opportunistic guy and join the nazis meets any of these points though. It is rather a safe way to lose all respect of your fellows and seems to be caused by blunt honesty or serious confusion ... or it is just plain trolling. Who cares.
This is not true, learning to recognize and refute logical fallacies is a key component to making a valid argument, be it a silly (but fun) internet debate, a legal trial, a philosophical quandary, or scientific pursuit. Pinpointing and addressing specific formal and informal logical fallacies in one's opponent's position is a skill, and with some of the more difficult fallacies it is actually the exact opposite of second nature; some examples of logical fallacies that would fit this description are post hoc ergo propter hoc, No True Scotsman, Correlation does not Equal Causation (which is similar but not the same as the post hoc fallacy), Argument from personal Incredulity, and false dichotomy, etc. These are all logical fallacies that are extremely common specifically because what seems logical, common sense, or second nature is often not so. Simply by the multitude of logical fallacies you've made in this one debate, you offer a good illustration of that point.
I agree with this.
Yet you've been claiming this doesn't happen for the entire thread.
This is a reasonable position, but again a clear deviation from your previous position. I still don't see how the statement could be viewed as any more honest than stating the opposite, however, which goes back to my initial argument.
Seriously...after debating the point in this thread for several days this is your final statement? Clearly you care something about it or you wouldn't have spent so much time discussing it.
This guy protests too much...
i don't entirely understand what the heck TSQ's saying (logical fallacies? whut?) but damn it seems so sexy when a woman is 'talking' like this. i know far too many women who aren't that bright.
^On behalf of womankind I am offended. On behalf of me I am flattered. 
Horatio, I understand that you feel passionately about this subject, but this is right on the borderline for a flaming infraction. You and I have spoken about this before. Dial it back in the future.
I read far too much stuff which isn't that bright either. Given the content of your post, it definitively belongs in that category.
Last edited:
- Status
