[quote=Isaac Gates]1) Never said Jasper & Frank were representative of all Clay Men, said they were representative of Unfinished Men IE: what happens when Clay Men achieve independence. If you’re looking for more dangerous examples, there’s the Pirate Poet (who is despite her eloquence a pirate), the Missing Heiress’ "lover" (there was never any indication that she consented to what he did to her), the Adventuress’ bodyguard from Sunless Sea, July’s bodyguard I described above, etc. Also: Lyme is actively being trained by Jasper & Frank to join in their business- so he’s not exactly the best example to choose.[/quote]Nothing you’ve listed is something that humans are not capable of. You’re defining all Clay Men who achieve independent thought as "Unfinished", with all the dangerous connotations associated with that word, rather than, for instance, defining "Unfinished" as Clay Men who achieve independent thought. That removes the inherent bias created by the idea of the "Unfinished" and forces one to examine the Clay Men in the context of what they are - automata seemingly capable of love, hate, affection, care, abstract thought, art, science, and writing. In other words, Clay Men who can act like humans, who you’re arguing should be denied equal rights.
The Pirate-Poet is an anti-authoritarian, violent artist-pirate, which stands in contrast to the highly authoritorian and methodical Jasper and Frank. July’s bodyguard is employed to protect her; you’re the one who’s breaking and entering. Remember, humans are far more resilient in the Neath, where death is only a temporary inconvenience (the same cannot be said for Clay Men). Barnabas, if given the choice, chooses the middle path of rebellion and obedience: he could very easily kill the Delightful Adventuress (given that she just tried to kill him), but he instead takes her to face justice with the Wildweald Court. There are humans more dangerous than that. Lyme is being recruited into Jasper and Frank’s business, but not as an enforcer - he’s there to keep books and write records as a business associate. You’re also ignoring all of the other aspects of Lyme’s personality, from his friendship with London’s cats to his sympathy for the dockers to his happiness exploring London and learning about people from all different walks of life. When explicitly trained in independent thought and philosophy, he starts asking questions for himself. He can ask himself if he wants to work for Jasper and Frank, or for Mr Fires, or for the neddy men, or himself, or Clay Men, or for society - he gains free will, in a way. This can be viewed as dangerous by people with interest in maintaining the current stratified order, but it is clear that Lyme in particular is an example of a Clay Man growing into his personality.
And my point still stands: two data points is not enough to draw conclusions about the entire sample, whether it’s all Clay Men or just Unfinished Men.
[quote=Isaac Gates]2) The point really wasn’t about the legal ramifications of giving them rights, it was about the consequences of encouraging all Clay Men to think for themselves and therefore making them Unfinished- because as I’ve said many many times that would be incredibly dangerous. You give a historically oppressed class with superpowers who are only held in check by an ingrained compulsion towards servitude free reign and bad things will happen. Guaranteed.[/quote]This is inherently a contradiction. If Clay Men can think for themselves, they are not only held in check by an ingrained compulsion towards servitude. And my point wasn’t about the legal ramifications of giving them rights - my point was that societies exist to allow individuals of different backgrounds to coexist, and that equal rights is a tool used to minimize the risk of violence within that society.
Furthermore, you’re ascribing too much value to "superpowers" for the Clay Men, I believe. They’re strong and resilient. That’s useful enough. They only possess limited dexterity, however, and they’re far from impervious. Marsh-wolves can tear their throats out, and they’re flesh and blood animals. Jack-of-Smiles can kill them. There are some lines of work that Clay Men will just be inherently better at. That does not include ruling. And remember that this is the Neath, where humans can die and still be fine, whereas Clay Men have only the one life to live.
Your argument is essentially the same argument used against freeing slaves. You have a historically oppressed class supposedly only held in check by an ingrained compulsion to servitude. Give them free rein and bad things will happen, guaranteed, or so it was said. Racial tensions continued to exist and reached new areas because of the expanded economic capabilities of freedmen, but these "bad things" were more often violent actions taken against the former oppressed class. When we look at history, we do not see the act of giving equal rights causing violent uprising; rather, we see violent uprising to establish equal rights for the oppressed, or we see the oppressed violently killed by the powerful because they don’t have equal rights and are not treated as human.
[quote=Isaac Gates]3) There’s a reason why "Unfinished" has negative connotations- it’s because a Clay Man unrestrained by the compulsions I described above is dangerous. Whether or not they engage in aggressive behavior the fact is their potential to do harm is incredible- it would take a dozen men with pickaxes to threaten one in a stand up fight.[/quote]If Clay Men are unrestrained from their compulsion to servitude, it does not mean they are unrestrained in all other aspects. If you give them free will, then you give them the choice to engage in aggressive behavior or not. I’ve made the case previously that societies are structured to allow individuals to collaborate and protect themselves in a non-violent manner. And by your reasoning - "the fact is their potential to do harm is incredible" - we should strip away the rights of all humans, since all humans have incredible potential to do harm. Even the worst felons maintain a basic level of human rights in our society.
[quote=Isaac Gates]4) I never said humans weren’t dangerous, I said Clay Men are dangerous in ways we aren’t. A human being can do a lot of harm with the right tools and a bit of planning- an Unfinished man can do the same amount of harm bare handed and naked. Also let’s not forget that Clay Men can also do all the things we can once they’re "awakened" (for lack of a better term) to the possibilities of life outside indentured servitude. IE: set fires, plant explosives, use firearms, etc. Except once more: they can also dispatch an entire building’s worth of people with their bare hands in a matter of minutes.[/quote]No, you’re not saying humans aren’t dangerous. Your argument, however, is that because Clay Men are dangerous, they should not be given equal rights. You must subsequently distinguish, as you’ve done here, why Clay Men are dangerous enough to warrant not granting them equal rights. You appear to have focused on the physical capabilities of an Unfinished Man - the idea that they can "dispatch an entire building’s worth of people with their bare hands in matter of minutes."
Which means, of course, that a 200 kilo heavy, 2 meter tall (440 lb / 6’9") man easily capable of lifting a baby elephant is not dangerous enough "bare handed and naked" to deny them their rights, but a Clay Man is. Tell me, where do you draw the line?
[quote=Isaac Gates]5) As I said above, giving the Clay Men more rights wouldn’t allay tensions with the rest of London, it would increase them. People are inherently tribalistic, xenophobic and reactionary- quote Tommy Lee Jones:
"The person is smart, people are dumb panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
So even if the Clay Men didn’t initiate hostilities with the rest of London (which they’d have ample cause to do as I explained above), hostilities would still inevitably crop up. And once they did… well, there’d be about a dozen pancaked human beings for every shattered Unfinished Man on the street.
[/quote]I couldn’t have said it better myself: people are inherently tribalistic, xenophobic and reactionary. "The person is smart, people are dumb panicky dangerous animals." That’s precisely the purpose of a society - the social contract that binds the tribe together. There are two aspects to this. On the one hand, we don’t murder because we know that if we’re caught, the tribe will exact judgement on us. The risk tends to outweigh the benefit. On the other hand, we don’t make cost/benefit analyses for murdering the people around us; we just don’t think about murdering them, even if they annoy or frustrate us. We’ve been interpellated with this inhibition to not murder fellow humans - it’s a part of the culture and society around us. By integrating the Clay Men into society, they become part of the tribe. By contributing to the economy as free agents, they become more trusted. There will be those who they displace, and there will inevitably be tension there, but that does not equate to full-blown class warfare.
Humans may be tribalistic to a fault, but do not underestimate the capability of humans to adapt to their surroundings. Consider the case of racial minorities in the western world. Asians went from savage apes of the Orient to accusations of being "the privileged minority". In the United States, racism against the Irish went from fear and mistrust (even considered worse than the enslaved African races) - an attitude that persisted into the past half century - to being viewed as part of the dominant "white" race. There were not violent uprisings that placed them into power, even though there was and continues to be significant racial tension. You assume that "hostilities" - which are inevitable - automatically lead to racial or class warfare, which has not been demonstrated to be accurate.