I was recently recommended a podcast hosted by Glenn Loury and John McWhorter. — Leontiskos

Talking Heads right? You might like McWhorter's book. A pretty good antidote the Kendi's, Crenshaw's and DiAngelo's of the world.

How is that compatible with the following? — Tarskian

What you've posted is a popular article literally advertising specific bars in the area. It has nothing, whatsoever to do with the discussion. Either critique thos several legal reports but local legal experts, or move on. Posting a travel article which is sponsored is not credible. I think it's possible you're under the impression that the level of discussion on these things remains in the same place it does when one speaks from a theocratic position (i.e restrained by belief). This would apply to your beliefs that aren't directly related to your theology too. In this case, you simply 'believe' that things are OK for LGBT people in these places, perhaps because you need to, to reconcile your religious position, with the world around you and your apparently inherent moral code (i.e don't arbitrary criminalise same-sex relationships - yet Islam does, routinely, almost anywhere it gets the chance).

Is it just about any perceived Malaysian distaste for LGBTQ propaganda? — Tarskian

You haven't read the reports, so stop trying to have a conversation about htem. Read them and critique them, if you wish. Otherwise, please stop trying to talk about things you are plainly ignorant of from every conceivable angle.

I also note that you've just swallowed, without reflection, that the term "propaganda" is being used correctly. No. It is not. It is being used to label anything which is visible not heteronormative which is an strictly religious impulse in human history.
It would be better if you asked questions, clarified, and accepted sources and facts that go against your initial position. This should have been an opportunity to learn.

What you've posted is a popular article literally advertising specific bars in the area. — AmadeusD

These gay bars, a multitude of them -- being openly advertised -- seem to be perfectly legal in Malaysia. How is that compatible with your gay-persecution hypothesis?

You haven't answered to what seems to be a glaring contradiction in your position on the matter.

Besides that, there is no need to read your sources of propaganda if you cannot even deal with the simple facts in front of you.

A fact is more important than the Lord Mayor of London.

These gay bars, a multitude of them -- being openly advertised -- seem to be perfectly legal in Malaysia. How is that compatible with your gay-persecution hypothesis? — Tarskian

You may want to re-read all the replies to this erroneous posting, and your ridiculous conclusions.

I also note that you are now relying on 'legality' instead of 'enforcement'. This is because if you read the reports, you'd realise prosecution is rife. You are cherry-picking, and changing your position based on what it supports in your retorts. This is extremely bad thinking, writing and argumentation. First-year critical thinking courses would tie you in knots.

You haven't answered to what seems to be a glaring contradiction in your position on the matter. — Tarskian

You haven't presented one, so I'm not answering to one. This is a mistake on your part, not mine.

Deal with the legal reports, or don't.

there is no need to read your sources of propaganda — Tarskian

Right, so you're a religious zealot who refuses to engage with criticism, 'fact's or evidence. Gotcha brother. Could have said this at the start and saved me the time. I was 100% right - you are under the impression that high-level discourse is the same as low-level discourse, but it isn't. You are floundering here my friend.

You are cherry-picking — AmadeusD

I present you with a simple fact, and you answer again with a useless word salad.

If you had made that claim about Afghanistan, I would have agreed that homosexual behavior is combated in that country by means of legal enforcement:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/life-hiding-kabuls-gay-community-driven-underground/

A life in hiding: Kabul’s gay community driven underground

This is clearly not the case in Malaysia.

What's more, your meandering word salads won't make any difference whatsoever to the facts on the ground.

My position on the matter is otherwise perfectly clear. The government should not enforce matters deemed of moral self-discipline unless public order is at stake.

I present you with a simple fact, and you answer again with a useless word salad. — Tarskian

You did not. You posted a popular, sponsored article which has been removed from the 'credible' list by more than one poster. You're going to beat a dead horse now too?

This is clearly not the case in Malaysia. — Tarskian

You're an ignorant werido. I have provided several local reports from legal experts to the contrary. You literally refuse to read them. You're a joke, my friend.

What's more, your meandering word salads won't make any difference whatsoever to the facts on the ground. — Tarskian

That you cannot understand plain English is sufficiently clear. You did not need to be so mean to yourself.

My position on the matter is otherwise perfectly clear. The government should not enforce matters deemed of moral self-discipline unless public order is at stake. — Tarskian

You're now doing the non sequitur. A quaint dance. Once again, no one will be taking you seriously on the back of this. Was that the goal?

You did not. You posted a popular, sponsored article which has been removed from the 'credible' list by more than one poster. You're going to beat a dead horse now too? — AmadeusD

Blue Boy Club
Club in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Google review summary

"Nice local drag show"

"I go to see the drag queen show more often. They are super profitional and amazing"

50, Jln Sultan Ismail, Bukit Bintang, 50250 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Another one:

Are there gay clubs in Malaysia?

Source Built next to the Leisure Mall, Cheras, the iBlue Bar is one of the lively karaoke gay bars in Kuala Lumpur that holds regular dance and drag performances. The staff is polite and well-trained, and the owner is welcoming and gracious.

Heterosexuals could actually also claim to be persecuted since prostitution is more or less illegal in Malaysia. But then again, prostitution is persecuted only when it is deemed a disturbance to public order.

If you cannot live with the Malaysian compromise on the matter, then don't visit the country. Simple, no?

Until you're willing to read the legal reports, keep beating hte horse my dude.

prostitution is persecuted only when it is deemed a disturbance to public order — Tarskian

I assume you got this from the legal reports about rates of prosecution? (btw, prosecution is the word you're looking for here).

If not, you'll need to provide those statistics (preferably vetted by an external HR-type source) for me to take this seriously.

You ahve also ignored hte direct challenges to your obvious hypocrisy and cherry-picking.

Are you going to address any of the objections you've received, or just continue to ignore them? I have asked specifically if you're going to beat a dead horse. Are you?

Thank you for the link. I think (hope) that we don't need to get into the weeds here. Simpson summarizes his argument at the end of the article and I think that may serve our purposes. I think it will help if I copy it here.

The natural masters are fundamentally the virtuous or those who have been or those who have been perfected in their development and the natural slaves are fundamentally the vicious, or those who have been damaged or corrupted in their development. Many barbarians are in this condition, to be sure, but there is no need to suppose that all of them are. More to the point, some Greeks will be in this condition, in particular the many and (sc. those) whom the many admire. These views fit in with, and may in fact be said to fall out of, the teaching of the Ethics (where the many are certainly characterized as slavish and bestial (references to the text omitted). They are not views peculiar to the ancient Greeks or to Aristotle. — Simpson pp. 13,14

They are certainly not peculiar to Aristotle. The parallels with Plato's argument about the leadership of the ideal society are inescapable. The common theme is the central importance of reason. They share the view that the critical feature required to qualify one for leadership is reason. (Admittedly, Aristotle, unlike Plato, distinguishes between theoretical and practical reason, and that is an important distinction.)

Aristotle says that Greeks are fit to rule because they have x, y, and z characteristics. He does not say that Greeks are fit to rule because they are Greek. — Leontiskos

Aristotle says that most Greeks are not fit to rule. It is implied that some are. Nothing is said or implied about all Greeks - or barbarians. On the other hand, there is nothing to rule out the possibility that some random group of people may turn out (empirically) to share some characteristic which makes them all natural leaders or natural slaves. In fact, he proposes just such a group of people - "the many". One is inclined to think that "the few" must share the characteristic of being being leadership material.

Aristotle gave an empirical case for inequality qua ruling, and I don't see how serious-minded individuals can oppose Aristotle's arguments without making their own empirical case for equality. — Leontiskos

The first sentence of Simpson's summary makes it quite clear that Aristotle equates the natural with the moral. So Aristotle's empirical case is not what we would call an empirical case at all. It is built round his moral principle that the rational should rule over the irrational. I'm sure he would accept that that is not always the case in practice. He would say that when it is not the case, something unnatural is going on, meaning that something wrong is going on. So his claim is fundamentally a moral claim, not empirical at all.

That's a very good test. It's not perfect. Some people have very poor imaginations and worse memories. I remember, in the small town that I lived in a while ago, there was a recession and a number of people lost their jobs. They got very annoyed about the welfare system - not much money, ill-mannered and unhelpful staff. When they got jobs, they forgot all about it and reverted to moaning about high taxes and the idle poor. — Ludwig V

:D -- Yeah. That seems a case if the fundamental attribution error -- those people are poor because they are lazy, whereas I am poor because of circumstances outside of my control: Character for thee and circumstances for me.

I'm still trying to work out what that refers to. It doesn't reflect anything I know about and I can't find anything obvious in what the reference sites say. — Ludwig V

For myself I was conceding the point to say how even if it's true I know that if I were one of the Greeks -- at least in the Veil of Ignorance type sense -- that it's pretty unlikely I'd think being dominated did me good.

Like you said here:

The Romans, therefore did not bring peace and prosperity - the Greeks were doing quite nicely on their own, thank you. — Ludwig V

More generally I'm skeptical that entire empires or cultures can take or give to one another in any sense other than a historian's narrative -- while I think there are social entities, and social ontology is one of the things I puzzle over, I'm uncertain that there really is such a thing as a whole Empire with its own properties as much as historical evidence can be arranged empire-wise. The story, in that case, has more to do with the storyteller than the events.

Though, at the same time, we can't do without this narrative aspect -- it's the sweeping, big narratives that I'm skeptical of here; so in some sense to concede that Greek Culture was given a Mediterranean empire for free because their culture was absorbed and spread across the Mediterranean after being dominated is to say, sure, we can put the story this way, but if I apply the Veil of Ignorance thought experiment in thinking about the being in the Greeks position I don't believe it matters too much if some historian later down the line comes along and synthesizes a big narrative which happens to include my culture as a character in it.

Basically the cost of being conquered isn't worth the prize of being a main character in a history later down the line, at least when I think through it from the position of the veil of ignorance.

That seems reasonable. But I feel that they are rather weak on the role of co-operation in making life worth living. — Ludwig V

I'd say anarchists are more pro-cooperation than liberals tend to be, but I'd contrast this with liberalism's ability to build lasting social institutions.

Liberalism not only preaches individualism but reinforces it through its distribution of individual property rights.

Anarchists believe in individual needs and individuals, but that they are a part of a wider community -- rather than a bundle of self-interested individuals anarchists build collectives of cooperation which are intentionally built through collective decision-making and consensus building.

We cooperate for the same reason any human being cooperates -- because you can do more together than you can all by yourself. The anarchist only wants more freedom for everyone in building that "doing more together".

Well, everybody accepted that. The point of war was to get rich quick. — Ludwig V

Yeah. Still seems to be the case, though I like to think that we can work on moving beyond "Everybody accepted that"; in some sense to recognize that we don't have to accept some things which everyone has always accepted as the way things are.

Of course. Nothing changes, except the way people dress up what they're doing. Hope is all there is. — Ludwig V

I do think things change, actually -- it's just not a sweeping Progressive narrative, per se. And they can change for the better. The only way I know of in which this happens is when regular people get together to demand change, though. It takes effort and planning, but it can be done.

Talking Heads right? You might like McWhorter's book. A pretty good antidote the Kendi's, Crenshaw's and DiAngelo's of the world. — AmadeusD

Yes, and I might end up reading his book, but I'm guessing it will be a variant on things I already believe. I don't think an approach like Kendi's et al. has anything to recommend it. I thought McWhorter's analysis of Kendi's vantage point was insightful.

Did you enjoy McWhorter's book?

Did you enjoy McWhorter's book? — Leontiskos

1. Yes;
2. Your earlier assumption is correct, it's just a good elucidation with great referencing.

I agree regarding Kendi et al. I guess this is just a great counterpoint as its two prominent, intelligent black men basically saying 'not my circus'. It's neat.

Though, at the same time, we can't do without this narrative aspect -- it's the sweeping, big narratives that I'm skeptical of here; so in some sense to concede that Greek Culture was given a Mediterranean empire for free because their culture was absorbed and spread across the Mediterranean after being dominated is to say, sure, we can put the story this way, — Moliere

It might help your perspective on this to point out that the Greeks thought of themselves as Athenians or Spartans or Thebans. During the Persian Wars the opposition was never more than an alliance of city states, and some cities (Thebes) simply surrendered to them. That disunity continued until Philip of Macedon defeated them in battle and force a unification treaty on them. The story after than is very complicated, but a lasting unity was finally imposed by Rome in 30 BC. So although the culture was Greek, it was not the product of any single Greek political entity.

I do think things change, actually -- it's just not a sweeping Progressive narrative, per se. And they can change for the better. The only way I know of in which this happens is when regular people get together to demand change, though. It takes effort and planning, but it can be done. — Moliere

Some things are better, that's true. It's just that so many important things are not.

Anarchists believe in individual needs and individuals, but that they are a part of a wider community -- rather than a bundle of self-interested individuals anarchists build collectives of cooperation which are intentionally built through collective decision-making and consensus building. — Moliere

Yes. That would be better. And I guess it can work, but only at a relatively small scale. Roughly, up to the size of community that can function at a person-to-person level.

- :up:

I agree regarding Kendi et al. I guess this is just a great counterpoint as its two prominent, intelligent black men basically saying 'not my circus'. It's neat. — AmadeusD

For sure. It helps remind me that one is not insane to question this stuff and that plenty of other folk are also questioning it. Perhaps that would be another reason to read the book.

DiAngelo has been accused of plagiarising several passages from her PhD (and some subsequent) thesis. From POC.
Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. Schadenfreude - I have to say.

Aristotle says that most Greeks are not fit to rule. It is implied that some are. Nothing is said or implied about all Greeks - or barbarians. — Ludwig V

Right, "Aristotle says that Greeks are fit to rule," does not mean that Aristotle says that every Greek is fit to rule.

The first sentence of Simpson's summary makes it quite clear that Aristotle equates the natural with the moral. So Aristotle's empirical case is not what we would call an empirical case at all. It is built round his moral principle that the rational should rule over the irrational. I'm sure he would accept that that is not always the case in practice. He would say that when it is not the case, something unnatural is going on, meaning that something wrong is going on. So his claim is fundamentally a moral claim, not empirical at all. — Ludwig V

Aristotle argues that the rational are more fit rulers than the irrational, and he thinks this is empirically demonstrable. He also argues that Greeks happen to possess the rational qualities most suited to ruling, which is also an empirical point.

But again:

Aristotle says that Greeks are fit to rule because they have x, y, and z characteristics. He does not say that Greeks are fit to rule because they are Greek. — Leontiskos

1. Anyone who possesses x, y, and z characteristics is fit to rule.
2. Greeks possess x, y, and z characteristics.
3. Therefore, Greeks are fit to rule.

Empirical arguments can be offered for (1), but when I spoke of the empiric nature of Aristotle's argument I was pointing to (2). This is because the counterargument against Aristotle (or else his successors) is that there is no middle term and therefore no argument. It is the idea that Aristotle has nothing more than a blind predilection for Greeks. But this is false, and because he gives an argument of this kind, if it can be shown that barbarians possess x, y, and z characteristics to the same extent that Greeks do, then Aristotle can be shown to be wrong about favoring Greeks over barbarians. (2) is an empirical claim, and because of this the conclusion which utilizes it is also empirical. (1) is beside this point.

- Interesting. :up:

I am surprised to find these views among an undergraduate in Australia. Are you abnormal within your cohort, or is the rest of your generation on the same page?

* New Zealand :)

Very abnormal, thought probably not so abnormal outside of the undergraduate cohort (remember, I'm a 'mature' learner and so not part of hte generation I'm studying with. It's been extremely obvious - even a couple of tutors are hopelessly ideological). My school just introduced a Bachelor of Social Justice Studies. I nearly threw up.

- Ah, well that unfortunately confirms my suspicions. It's good for you but bad for your cohort! :grimace:

Right, "Aristotle says that Greeks are fit to rule," does not mean that Aristotle says that every Greek is fit to rule. — Leontiskos

Well, I think it is ambiguous and I didn't recognize that. However, because he says the "the many" are not fit to rule and therefore implies that some, but not all, are fit to rule, I should have realized that your interpretation is correct. So you are right.

I'm in a bit of a quandary here. There are two conclusions in this argument. One is about leaders. I don't have any violent objection to that argument. I think it's false, but I'm not sure that I can be bothered to refute it. In practice, it wouldn't make any difference. The other is about slaves, and I cannot accept that it is right, or even all right, to enslave any human being. So I need to show that that conclusion does not follow from the argument. Briefly.

A. If we can identify characteristics that make someone fit to rule, then it follows that people who do not possess those characteristics are not fit to rule; it does not follow that they are slaves, or fit to be slaves. We could, instead, characterize them as natural followers or maybe natural independents (compare Simpson on tame and wild animals p.4)

B. You may be mistaken, however, to think that "the rational are more fit rulers than the irrational" is empirical. I may be wrong, but I think that, for Aristotle at least, reason is the faculty that enables us to get things right. A leader needs to decide the best thing to do and how to do it; so, by definition leaders need to be rational.

C.

All he (sc. Aristotle) says is that it is unjust to enslave those who are not natural slaves. — Simpson - p.13

So who is a natural slave and what is the index of being one?
1 Aristotle thinks the index is irrationality. Is there anyone whose life does not include some irrationality? And some rationality? This is not a clear criterion.
2 If slavery comes naturally to some people, why is it necessary to enslave them? One doesn't have to force a natural musician to play or a natural leader to lead. One only needs to enforce something that is against nature - irrational. A natural slave would accept slavery when it was offered. Voluntary slavery is a contradiction in terms.

D.

A thing is manifestly contrary to nature when it is not as its nature requires it to be, but is losing or has lost that nature. Disease is contrary to nature, in that sense. — Simpson - p.4

That's a most confusing sense of "nature". In the real world, disease is entirely natural. That's why we take many artificial measures to restore us to health.
We are in two minds about nature. Sometimes we consider that what is natural is good. Sometimes we consider that it is bad. It depends on the case. No general evaluation can stand up to the facts.

There is always a hierarchical top to society where all the political power accumulates, and therefore, also pretty much all the wealth. — Tarskian

This notion was widespread among French, Italian, and Austrian economists and social theoreticians at the beginning of the 20th century. Some of these theoreticians (though not their fault) became popular among fascists, nazi, and communists, who took for grounded that societies always are hierarchical/patriarchal/dominated etc., and for this reason the solution is not to go against a natural trend/inclination of humanity (they thought democracy and liberalism were doing that), but to choose the last worst outcome through placing the group who deserves it the most at the head of these ("inevitable") societal hierarchies.

I don't know what's going on in Asia, or wherever Tarskian lives, but the USA seems to be more a chaotic kind of society, than a well-thought hierarchy.

We have a poor class in this country that may decide who will govern in 2025 and can hope in some money (through tax reforms) to be transferred from the rich to them. We have single mothers who have become Kamala Harris' primary target. We have the zionists who take every congressman to travel to Israel and "see" what perfect democracy Israel is. We have NRA which organizes gun festivals in evangelical churches, and at the same time is in big love with Israel and whoever pays well in the Middle East. We have SCOTUS. We have Elon Musk who takes money from Obama in order to save the US from carbon emissions and then gives Trump 45 million a month (though the latter wants more carbon emissions). We have media outlets, the Catholic Church of America, BLM and LGBT groups.

At this moment the zionists and NRA seem the strongest groups in Washington DC. But in other circumstances, you may see other groups to exercise more power. So, I am more eager to believe that this country tends to be chaotic (like most of the countries in this continent), more than hierarchical.

Well, I think it is ambiguous and I didn't recognize that. However, because he says the "the many" are not fit to rule and therefore implies that some, but not all, are fit to rule, I should have realized that your interpretation is correct. So you are right. — Ludwig V

Okay, thanks for that.

I'm in a bit of a quandary here. There are two conclusions in this argument. One is about leaders. I don't have any violent objection to that argument. I think it's false, but I'm not sure that I can be bothered to refute it. In practice, it wouldn't make any difference. The other is about slaves, and I cannot accept that it is right, or even all right, to enslave any human being. — Ludwig V

The two arguments come together insofar as masters/rulers and slaves/servants are two sides of the same coin. If one is fit to rule then they are not fit to be a slave, and if one is fit to be a slave then they are not fit to rule. This maps to a proficiency with the mind vs. a proficiency with the body, "Hence natural slaves will be those from whom the best work one can get is the use of the body" (Simpson, 5).

If we can identify characteristics that make someone fit to rule, then it follows that people who do not possess those characteristics are not fit to rule; it does not follow that they are slaves, or fit to be slaves. We could, instead, characterize them as natural followers or maybe natural independents (compare Simpson on tame and wild animals p.4) — Ludwig V

For Aristotle a slave is a natural dependent in that they require the economia of a master to flourish. To take a bit of a contrived example, the worker on the early Ford assembly line requires Henry Ford's ingenuity in order to have a wage, and Henry Ford's ingenuity requires manual laborers in order to come to completion. The difference is that Henry Ford is capable of performing the manual laborer's job whereas the manual laborer is not capable of performing Henry Ford's job, and because of this the dependency is not entirely symmetrical.

B. You may be mistaken, however, to think that "the rational are more fit rulers than the irrational" is empirical. I may be wrong, but I think that, for Aristotle at least, reason is the faculty that enables us to get things right. A leader needs to decide the best thing to do and how to do it; so, by definition leaders need to be rational. — Ludwig V

I see it as a truth that could be confirmed empirically, but need not be.

If slavery comes naturally to some people, why is it necessary to enslave them? — Ludwig V

Simpson's point in the quote you provide is that it is not necessary to enslave them (nor to not-enslave them).

A natural slave would accept slavery when it was offered. Voluntary slavery is a contradiction in terms. — Ludwig V

Voluntary slavery is not a contradiction if we attend to Aristotle's terms. Indeed, it is not clear that voluntary slavery of any kind is an analytical contradiction.

That's a most confusing sense of "nature". In the real world, disease is entirely natural. That's why we take many artificial measures to restore us to health.
We are in two minds about nature. Sometimes we consider that what is natural is good. Sometimes we consider that it is bad. It depends on the case. No general evaluation can stand up to the facts. — Ludwig V

A disease is contrary to human nature. That is the point. If it were not contrary to human nature then the human will and immune system would not oppose it. It is not being said that disease is contrary to Nature in some absolute sense.

Some of these theoreticians (though not their fault) became popular among fascists, nazi, and communists, who took for grounded that societies always are hierarchical/patriarchal/dominated etc., and for this reason the solution is not to go against a natural trend/inclination of humanity (they thought democracy and liberalism were doing that), but to choose the last worst outcome through placing the group who deserves it the most at the head of these ("inevitable") societal hierarchies. — Eros1982

My conclusion is rather that you can choose to go where you are treated best. That is the most efficient way of choosing the least worst outcome.

Ideology does not matter particularly much.

I am personally treated better in communist Vietnam than in supposedly democratic Denmark or Spain.

We have a poor class in this country that may decide who will govern in 2025 and can hope in some money (through tax reforms) to be transferred from the rich to them. — Eros1982

This is exactly what will never happen.

The ruling elite may transfer money from the middle class to the poor, only when it is sufficiently easy to do. However, they will never, ever transfer money from themselves to the poor. This does not happen in any country. The people in power will never use their power to confiscate money from themselves.

The real piggy bank is the excess income and excess wealth of the middle class. These people cannot protect themselves from confiscation. They have some money but do not have the political power to hang on to it. That is why they will gradually find themselves dispossessed of their money.

So, I am more eager to believe that this country tends to be chaotic (like most of the countries in this continent), more than hierarchical. — Eros1982

There are a lots of special interests, the most powerful of which collectively form the ruling elite.

Communist Vietnam has no hope nor reasonable ambition to forcibly extract money out of my pockets. That is why they are nice to me.

So, either you join the political elite of a country and try to extract money from other people, or else, you allow the competition to play between political elites of different countries as to prevent them from extracting funds from you. Otherwise, they will look at you as just another idiot to strip clean.

A disease is contrary to human nature. That is the point. If it were not contrary to human nature then the human will and immune system would not oppose it. It is not being said that disease is contrary to Nature in some absolute sense. — Leontiskos

I'll abandon the example of disease and this point until and unless l can work out a better way of putting it.

Voluntary slavery is not a contradiction if we attend to Aristotle's terms. Indeed, it is not clear that voluntary slavery of any kind is an analytical contradiction. — Leontiskos

Simpson's point in the quote you provide is that it is not necessary to enslave them (nor to not-enslave them). — Leontiskos

You are right, Aristotle's slavery is not a sufficient condition of forcible enslavement. I was naive, then, to assume that all slaves are imprisoned by force and kept imprisoned by force as long as they are slaves. It should have been obvious, natural slaves are slaves whether anyone is forcing them to do things or not. (That's implicit in the discussion of the rules of war, where it is envisaged that the defeated army will be composed of a mixture of slaves and non-slaves.) Ordinary slavery, then, is a state quite different from Aristotle's slavery.
There's another difference which I might as well bring up here.

The condition that makes the natural slave need not be permanent

Details are given on the same page. The natural slave might cease to be irrational. Presumably, one should release them at the point.
So a slave is just a servant. It seems that masters of tame animals are supposed to look to their welfare, and presumably the same applies to servant-slaves.
I left with just two questions. How do natural slaves who have no master live? How do natural rulers who have no people to rule live?

For Aristotle a slave is a natural dependent in that they require the economia of a master to flourish. — Leontiskos

Does the master not require the slave to flourish? Mutual dependency, common good. Positively inspiring!

The difference is that Henry Ford is capable of performing the manual laborer's job — Leontiskos

Perhaps. He may well not be. He probably doesn't have the time, what with running the whole show.

This maps to a proficiency with the mind vs. a proficiency with the body, — Leontiskos

Yes. Intellectuals do tend to down-grade physical work. They might have more respect for it if they did some for a week or two.

I understand that some people think that Aristotle's argument demonstrates that universal human equality is nonsense. It is indeed nonsense if it means that everyone is the same. But Aristotle's argument demonstrates what it does mean. For the motivating assumption of the argument is that everyone should be treated in the way that is appropriate to them. Irrelevant circumstances (such as Hecuba's birth - Simpson p. 12) should not come into play. The only issue is what is appropriate to who. That's what universal equality means.

You are right, Aristotle's slavery is not a sufficient condition of forcible enslavement. — Ludwig V

Good, we are in agreement on this.

I left with just two questions. How do natural slaves who have no master live? How do natural rulers who have no people to rule live? — Ludwig V

I think Aristotle's answer to both would be, "Poorly." If humans are social animals, then flourishing will require society, and where society is lacking flourishing is lacking. A master or slave in isolation would be like a part disconnected from the whole, and in both cases the lack of cooperation or communion will make their lives worse than what they otherwise would be.

Does the master not require the slave to flourish? Mutual dependency, common good. Positively inspiring! — Ludwig V

Yes, the master does require the slave to flourish.

Perhaps. He may well not be. He probably doesn't have the time, what with running the whole show. — Ludwig V

Sure, but he is capable in a way that the slave is not. There may be some curious exceptions of masters who cannot function as slaves, such as Stephen Hawking, whose body was not capable of manual labor.

I understand that some people think that Aristotle's argument demonstrates that universal human equality is nonsense. It is indeed nonsense if it means that everyone is the same. But Aristotle's argument demonstrates what it does mean. For the motivating assumption of the argument is that everyone should be treated in the way that is appropriate to them. Irrelevant circumstances (such as Hecuba's birth - Simpson p. 12) should not come into play. The only issue is what is appropriate to who. — Ludwig V

Yes, I agree.

That's what universal equality means. — Ludwig V

It seems to me that universal equality means that the same things are appropriate to each. Or at least it often means this, or leans in this direction. A kind of classlessness.

A master or slave in isolation would be like a part disconnected from the whole, and in both cases the lack of cooperation or communion will make their lives worse than what they otherwise would be. — Leontiskos

Why do you assume that a natural leader with no people to lead and a slave without a master to serve will inevitably live in isolation. Why cannot they live in society?
Come to think of it, he divides Greek society into two groups "the many" and "the few", natural slave and natural leaders. Natural slavery is not necessarily legal slavery and vice versa, it would seem. So maybe that is what he is thinking. I'm finding this very confusing. I think this would all have been a lot clearer if we could just drop the bit about slavery and talk about leaders and followers. It is at least plausible that anyone who is not a leader is a follower. Then we could say, with a clear conscience that natural leaders with natural followers makes for a peaceful society and the people who are not natural leaders may become leaders, but they will be poor leaders, and vice versa for followers. There would still be arguments about it, but at least what is at stake would be clear and make sense.

Yes, I agree. — Leontiskos

I'm glad about that.

It seems to me that universal equality means that the same things are appropriate to each. Or at least it often means this, or leans in this direction. A kind of classlessness. — Leontiskos

But now I'm a bit confused. It is just obvious that there are some things that are in common between all human beings (whether by essence (definition) or by accident (empirically)) and other things that are not. So yes, everyone is equally entitled to vote and equally entitled to a fair trial.
So perhaps I should reformulate a principle of non-discrimination, which requires that people are not discriminated either in favour or against on irrelevant grounds. Aristotle specifically picks out the case of Helen of Troy claiming that the fact that her parents were divine meant that she had special privileges. Aristotle rejects that. So it looks as if he believed in that principle. Does that help?
I'm all for classlessness. But there's nothing wrong with distinguishing between classes of people when the criterion of membership is relevant. (People who are sick and people who are well).

Why do you assume that a natural leader with no people to lead and a slave without a master to serve will inevitably live in isolation. Why cannot they live in society? — Ludwig V

You asked about slaves without masters and masters without slaves. If a master is not isolated from slaves then he is not without slaves, and vice versa.

I'm finding this very confusing. I think this would all have been a lot clearer if we could just drop the bit about slavery and talk about leaders and followers. — Ludwig V

Isn't it just that "slave" and "servant" have become dirty words? But they were not dirty for Aristotle ("doúlos").

I'm all for classlessness. But there's nothing wrong with distinguishing between classes of people when the criterion of membership is relevant. — Ludwig V

Does not the substantive question come down to whether a distinction is relevant or real? When Aristotle argues for natural slavery he is arguing that the distinction between natural slaves and natural masters is both real and relevant. When someone opposes him they are arguing that such a distinction is either not real or not relevant. We could say that those who favor "universal equality" are those who see fewer real and relevant distinctions between humans.

You asked about slaves without masters and masters without slaves. If a master is not isolated from slaves then he is not without slaves, and vice versa. — Leontiskos

That's true, but doesn't answer my question. What if a (natural) master is isolated from slaves and vice versa?

Isn't it just that "slave" and "servant" have become dirty words? But they were not dirty for Aristotle ("doúlos"). — Leontiskos

But he does think that slaves are vicious and bestial and should be treated as animals. I think that's a pretty dirty, don't you?
The issues get very complicated. Simpson has made me realize that Aristotle's argument is not nearly as simple as I thought. But at the heart of this one is the question when it is moral to deprive another human being of liberty and to compel them to obey your wishes - for life? Closely related is the question is when we can morally treat another human being as (just) an animal?

Aristotle thinks (I think) that there is a fact of the matter that justifies that. In fact, as I showed last time, it is not altogether clear exactly what his argument proves, because he distinguishes between natural and legal slavery without explaining what the difference amounts to. So it isn't clear what the argument is about. It's certainly not about the actual practice of slavery. So we are left with a fog, only slightly illuminated by his comparison of slaves with tame animals.

Does not the substantive question come down to whether a distinction is relevant or real? — Leontiskos

Yes, that's exactly what I think. Though I've qualified that below.

When someone opposes him they are arguing that such a distinction is either not real or not relevant. — Leontiskos

Yes. As it happens, I think that his distinction is neither real nor relevant. But I've shelved the question whether it is real for the sake of the argument.

We could say that those who favor "universal equality" are those who see fewer real and relevant distinctions between humans. — Leontiskos

Well, I don't know how we would count them. But certainly the argument is about which distinctions are real and relevant.
But there are two different issues going on here. (This is slightly different from what I said in my last post). One issue is about the common elements that all human beings share - and there must be some if the classification as human or not is to work - and the rights that "follow" from those common elements. The other is about what differences among human beings allow or require different treatments of them in various situations.