[pirate]

I propose to you the following scenario:

Scenario 1:
I take a hungry man off the street, in an environment where work is scarce, and pay him a worksman's wages for the day.
His task is to roll a boulder up a small dirt mound I've constructed in my backyard. When he reaches the top and it rolls down the other side, he has to start over.
He has to keep doing this, until sunset.

I pay him to do this, of course, for my amusement.

Q1: Does this make me a good or a bad man?

Scenario 2: I take twenty hungry men off the street. Ten of them have the task of rollling the rock, while ten of them have the task of plowing a farmland manually, to a similar exertion as the rock rollers.

Q2: They can choose to show up the next day again for the same labour, for the same pay.
In a thirty day period, which group will show up for "work" more? Why?
Does the answer change if the two groups are aware of each other?

[ProGambler]

Bad man

The plowing group turn up more
Result even more pronounced if both groups aware of each other. I expect zero rock rollers turn up on day 2 if from western country in this scenario.

[Marmite]

Scenario one: Neither good, nor bad. Is a boxing fan who pays to watch two men beat each other senseless bad for enjoying the spectacle?

Scenario two: The plough me are more likely to return as their work yields some form of measurable results. They are more likely to feel as though they have achieved something for their labour.

[samifon]

Okay. The working man is given money to feed himself, but the work done is useless and brings no value.

The second group will likely feel more fulfilled and return as their work is productive and creates value.

[RiderKnight]

I think what pirate is trying to get at is that a man is more satisfied by his work when it is obviously productive. I think his second question is no question at all, but rather something meant to get us thinking. Is he trying to get at "wageslaves" who don't do productive labor (like farming, being a mechanic, computer engineering, or even cooking and being a janitor in terms of doing labor that produces visible results) but only move data around (and will eventually be replaced by code)?

As for your first question, pirate, then there is no harm done in what you ask. You give him a task and pay him for it, and it is his choice to decline or accept.

[Going strong]

(10-18-2017 08:48 AM)pirate Wrote:  

task is to roll a boulder up a small dirt mound I've constructed in my backyard. When he reaches the top and it rolls down the other side, he has to start over.

Scenario 2: I take twenty hungry men off the street. Ten of them have the task of rolling the rock,

Out of the ten hungry homeless dudes, 8 (realizing you're a sick rich guy mocking them) will team up to mug you, pee all over your backyard, kill your dog, puncture your Merc's tires and ransack your home.

That'll teach you about funny social experiences with crowds of homeless persons.

[Mage]

Scenario one:
Unless there is something, you are not telling it just makes you a stupid man wasting money on useless task.

Scenario two:
This depends on how will you monitor the work. Many men will subscribe to the stone pushing if you don't look all the time and just loiter around when you don't look. In this case more men will choose this work and that mimics how people prefer office jobs where you can sit in internet and drink coffee a lot, despite having not much to accomplish.
If you do monitor the work all the time, then plowing farmland is a better choice because you see fruits of your labor and more men will select this.
The catch is that as an employer you always think you will be watching your employees constantly, but you get tired of that and employees start living a life of their own. You can only realistically expect to control the amount of work that has been done.

[RatInTheWoods]

Q1 - a good man because you are feeding a man who would otherwise go hungry

Q2 - If there is no welfare, all the men would turn up everyday to work, earn money and eat.

Once you introduce welfare, they would all be refusing to do menial tasks, while wanking to pron and playing WOW in a cheap basement somewhere.

[Paracelsus]

All I know is that if you set the first man on fire, he'll be warm and dry for the rest of his life.

[Mage]

(10-24-2017 03:45 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

All I know is that if you set the first man on fire, he'll be warm and dry for the rest of his life.

Not necessarily because:
a) Getting in fire is not always lethal
b)One can still be wet and burn if you are covered with oil or other flaming liquid.

An autistic objection I know.

[YoungBlade]

This is now a would you rather thread:

Would you rather fuck a goat and no one ever finds out, or not fuck a goat but everyone thinks you did?

[Mage]

(10-25-2017 02:04 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

This is now a would you rather thread:

Would you rather fuck a goat and no one ever finds out, or not fuck a goat but everyone thinks you did?

If someone answers that he would rather fuck a goat then anybody would assume he is on a level of a goat fucker even trough he isn't. So this choice is valid only if you don't have to answer this question loud. If you have to answer then like in game, denial of your guilt, despite even overwhelming evidence is the best option.

[Paracelsus]

What is the sound of one hand fapping?

[YoungBlade]

If a baker throws a thief out his window for attempting to rob his bread, and the thief breaks his leg, then he brings a case against the baker for attempted murder, who is guilty?

[Mage]

(10-27-2017 07:51 AM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

If a baker throws a thief out his window for attempting to rob his bread, and the thief breaks his leg, then he brings a case against the baker for attempted murder, who is guilty?

The legal system might think otherwise, depending on country, but humanly the thief is guilty obviously, why is this even a question? Most people here probably believe in rights to exercise deadly force to protect their property. Of course much of it depends on details how violent the thief was, did baker issue a warning and how valuable the stolen bread really was.