(January 14, 2016 at 4:23 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:look at the bible sport, people sold themselves into slavery as a means of employment. The sold themselves in exchange for lands, the right to marry into a family, to pay debt... Again your the one with the broken idea of slavery as being unpaid black man beaten in a cotton field. I even posted a definition of it, actually here you go again:(January 14, 2016 at 4:15 pm)Heat Wrote: I can't believe the fucking kid is actually arguing in favor of slavery as when I originally posted that as an alternative option I was being sarcastic expecting him to have at least some sense of morality..
That's Drich's way. Like I said, he's trying to conflate slavery with employment, while also saying that we're hypocrites for both criticizing the bible for its slavery content and generally denouncing slavery in general even though the West was largely built on slavery. So, since we're not living in a cave or leading a revolution, we're bad people who have no intellectual or moral ground to stand on regarding slavery.
Which is complete bullshit, of course. It's becoming incredibly clear that the end result of a capitalistic republic is oligarchy, and short of revolution (either peaceful, through ideas and new government, or violent), it's not going to change, especially when the powers that be keep embroiling us in conflict after conflict which keep us weary.
Sorry, I can't topple the oligarchy. And I shouldn't be held in contempt because I can't.
from the oxford English dictionary:
A person who is the property of another.
(In the case of factory labor/slavery workers are made to sign quartly or yearly agreements that guarantees so many hours worked a week, or quota demands in exchange for money or some other form of compensation like housing or food.)
Also definition 2:
A person who works very hard without proper remuneration
is .16 cents an hour proper pay to you guys? what about .35 cents per hour? .35 is what Nike Employees got after they pledge to treat their workers better.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...lish/slave
Again, you guys have a failed understanding of slavery. One based on propaganda and guilt and not what the word actually reflects or means. You are taking a singular instance of slavery and trying to make that understanding fit all examples in the world so you can look at slavery today and say because nothing looks like it did 200 years ago in America, it does not exist.
This may allow you the ability to pretend that slaves do not exist, but it is at the cost of ignoring how slavery now manifests itself.
