House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint LONG

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 180788

> > Alla:
> > 
> > The beneficial to the slave part? I mean you ( generic you) keep 
> > saying that elf's POV does not matter, but wizards ARE aware of 
> that 
> > POV that elves indeed live to serve the master, and to me it is 
> > very  different from human slavery. That to me changes 
everything, 
> I 
> > mean if I want to keep owning house elf because it is good for 
him 
> ( 
> > and of course good for me) is different from human slavery 
because 
> > it is not good for human to be owned.
> 
> a_svirn:
> But that's altogether different matter. It is one thing to say 
that 
> elves aren't slaves. It is quite another thing to say that there 
is 
> no harm in their being slaves since it is just the way they like 
it. 
> But you seem to be agreeing with both these statements here. They 
are 
> mutually exclusive, however. 

Alla:

Well, no, that's the point. I do not see how those statements are 
mutually exclusive since I am not saying that elves likes being 
slaves. I am saying that elves like serving the wizards even if to 
us it LOOKS like slavery.

Oh, and again just for the record since I am an interview person, I 
DO think that they are supposed to be metaphor for slaves, it is 
just I think that canon is less than clear on that and I am trying 
to argue other side. I am not arguing it just for the sake of 
arguing, I am sort of disregarding interviews for the purpose of 
this argument.

So, the elves are not slaves and the elves LIKE to serve the wizards 
to me is by no means mutually exclusive. Am I being slow here? How 
are they mutually exclusive?

  

> > Alla:
> > 
> > No not at all. We are talking about what is happening to house 
> elves 
> > to be considered slavery in one society and not one in another.
> 
> a_svirn:
> And what is happening to them? They are being owned. They are 
being 
> someone else's property. <SNIP> 

Alla:

No, it is not another issue to me at all, because if you add to your 
list this issue, we will get something like this :

They are being owned. - Sure they are.

They are being 
> someone else's property. - Of course they are.

But they also LIKE that arrangement as long as they are not abused. 
In what society is that happening to slaves?

That is why your next sentence to me just does not follow from the 
rest.

>That mean they are being slaves. That would 
> mean being slaves in any society. -  See above.

a_svirn:

Whether it is beneficial or not is 
> another issue. Though, of course, any self-respecting slave-owning 
> society would deem such arrangement beneficial. 


Alla:

That's the thing. It is NOT slave-owning society position that such 
arrangement is beneficial, I mean scratch that, it is not ONLY the 
society position, it is those alleged slaves position as well.

JMO,

Alla