pop morality

[Drich]

Sure. The Inca empire, for instance, did not practice slavery, but had a system of indentured servitude (such as the Israelites practiced among themselves) for when people committed crimes or went into debt, by which a person could work their way out of that condition. It was not something that required heritable, chattel slavery to exist, and Jehovah could certainly have prohibited it.

The Incas were the WORST people you could EVER have mentioned. You do know they sacrificed over 4000 slaves "indentured servants" in one ceremony in 1527? do you really think all 4000 slaves.. I mean "servants" wanted their still beating hearts cut out of their chests and heads cut off?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_Empire

Which bring me to ask, what to you is a slave? to me an 'indentured servant' does not have to die (one of the worst ways possible) when the man he is indentured to dies.

compared to those monsters slavery in America during the 18th century would be better.

Darius the Great was also known for establishing a wage system for his slave-workers, and allowing them to work their way out of slavery; the Persians had various degrees of servitude to which a person could belong, and also buy their way gradually out of it. Soldiers typically started as "100%" slaves, and as they rose in rank were granted additional rights as freemen.

you are aware this same sort of thing happened in 17th century america as well right?
the term for this was "Manumission" it was common for slave owners to even set their older slaves free here in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission

Point being, their was still slavery in this society just like their was in each of the examples you listed above. I was asking for examples of societies NOT Built or currently maintain on slave labor. I am not saying non exist (although I have researched and can not find one that has ever existed) I am saying they can not last. Their whole economic structure is doomed to fail or convert over to slave laborers.

(Edit to Add: I skipped the part about the beatings because, honestly, I'm not sure to what you're referring with that question/passage.)

what you originally responded to was not about slavery it was about whether it was right or wrong to beat a slave. My observation being in that time in that culture it was "the only option."

Most slave owners in the old South were not abusive toward their slaves; that doesn't make it okay, if they're not "monsters". The living conditions of those slaves is also irrelevant to the question being discussed, here. Incidentally, I read George Washington's writings on the subject, when I was a history minor, and his objection to slavery wasn't that it was immoral or wrong for the servants, but that it was not the best idea, economically-- it did not allow for flexibility of labor pools, if the plantation owner wanted to change crops, for instance. His advice on treating slaves "well" specifically centered around the fact that abused slaves will not produce as much labor output.

Indeed.

Incidentally, the argument you are making here (I hope without realizing it's what you're doing) is exactly the argument that was made by Southerners as they objected to the Abolition movement: they claimed that there was not another realistic option, and that the economy could not function without the practice of slavery. They were wrong, and so are you.

No, they weren't. slavery continued, and continues still. The same crops were still planted much by the same people for the same terms for decades after. the only thing that changed in the south was the consolidation of the plantations, until that model was no longer sustainable and corporate America began to mechanize and turn family plantations into companies, who paid very low wages and provided the same housing and minimal existance the plantation owners did, but often added a 'company store' that often time put its works into a life debt to the company Just like slavery did.

It is/was the same game, just played a different way. That is the point I am making about 'modern morallity' it just changes the rules or how a evil is marketed and you all line up and buy whatever it being sold to you without question.

If we did not have slavery, then why the need for unions? and even as late as the 1940 and 50s these companies operated this way in the southern/non union states. They provide a shot gun shack, a minimal food credit, and wage then give you all the credit you want at the company store hoping you will sell your soul to them for your basic needs.

In my home town it was orange grooves/plantation owners who did this into the 1980s...

Now everything is outsourced to other countries and the only thing different is you do not have to look at it going on here in your back yard. I guess because it has moved it means it no longer happens.

That's not a justification for a slavery system, but an indictment of the fact that there was no social "safety net", as we call it in modern society. Again, it doesn't mean that a transcendent God, such as you claim to worship, couldn't have come up with something better (or closer to our modern outlook) by commanding the Israelites to behave differently from their neighbors/contemporaries. Whether or not I, a mere human being, can come up with something better is irrelevant. The fact that the God of the Bible cannot do better than human beings of their time is the entire conversation.

Not a safety net, but how society ALL Society works. Or Again show me one society not founded on or currently held aloft by slavery.

I have never suggested that God would "supply everything".

holy crap dude.. You have to keep in mind I was not originally talking to you. I was responding to something virus or rhythm said and you jumped in. My arguments are based off what i originally said, I was correcting your position to reflect the original answer I gave.

Slavery was not the only economic option they had, and it's not our only economic option. It's simply what powerful humans do to elevate themselves over the weaker/helpless humans and nations around them (including your modern versions of slavery, which is why we weren't moved by that argument). It's the kind of thing a transcendent moral being might be able to stop; it's certainly not something that would be endorsed by said being. Again, as I said before, it's what we would expect to find in a book written by humans, not a book dictated by the creator of the universe.

Again show me ONE Example of a soceity not built on or currently supported by slavery.

I don't think you endorse chattel slavery; I do think you're justifying it for no reason other than your emotional attachment to the idol you worship, called the Bible. You're a Bible idolator, and so to you the fact that the Bible endorses it means you simply must defend it, regardless of what it says in there, rather than simply admitting it was written by a barbaric people in a barbaric time, and is not actually the "Word of the Eternal Creator of the Universe".

whatever helps you get to sleep at night..
In truth I do not believe in chattel slavery because we live in a time where we have the societal support to manage without it. this was not always the case.

Your misrepresentation of the role of slavery in building civilizations would take an entire sociology course to dissect, so I'm going to leave it alone. A better way to put it, as succinctly as I am able, is to say that slavery is a sickness born of the rise of large cities/states (and with it, a Power Class), but no more "necessary" to the construction of those empires than it's "necessary" for us to have slavery in order to build the Interstate Highway System. Simply put, it's not.

"If you can not explain something simply, you do not understand it well enough."
~Einstein
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes...83803.html

But that's the thing isn't it... While the founding Father may have coined the term "all men are created equal." Not All human beings were to be considered "men" were they?

Matter of fact it was not till after world war two, in an attempt to rectify the damage hitler caused by trying to promote the Aryan race as being above all others, did the term 'All men were created equal." Mean what it means today.

A purely logical person would look at the data of the various races and see that physical attributes, and infirmities are not consistent across all races. some races are susceptible to disease that others are not. While some races across the board can not properly digest the same foods as others have no issue with. Some have a natural and high proclivity towards intellectual aspirations while others are naturally more physical and more easily develop their bodies. None of this means one race should dominate another, nor does it mean one is better. It just means not all men are equal. we all have different strengths and weaknesses. While their always exceptions to the rules we can indeed classify or group these strengths and weaknesses (in a general way) according to race.

Are we back to the Hitler thing again? Seriously? As for the rest of your reply, I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot pole.

Bock, Bock, booock...

Now then If God did indeed write the bible, would he not write or inspire the TRUTH to be written, despite one communities proclivity towards the propaganda it uses to hold itself together?? Would not God be obligated to side with the truth that has held and forged humanity for the last 4 to 5 thousand years, and the truth that allowed us to develop to this point (the last several decades) where we can teach our children the lie about all men being created equal?

So then, if God's book represents a 5000+ year old truth, and your 50 year old belief that 'all men are created equal' can not even stand up to a logical, non filter look at humanity through the lens of all mighty 'science.' Then why oh, why do you assume that God's book reflect your propaganda?

It is a hard or some may even consider offensive truth, but truth none the less.

Ask yourself does your world view contain any non emotionally charged, hard or offensive truths? Do they not exist? or has your world view simply "scrubbed" them? If your world view is scrubbed of all hard or offensive truths ask yourself does your world view indeed still represent the truth?

I don't have a clue what you're talking about, at this point. I'm not the one trying to turn science into a religion, or a moral lawgiver like your imaginary friend. As I pointed out before, science is a method, and it cannot "give its approval" or be almighty. I think you're projecting some serious emotional issues onto us, and your attempt to bait me just won't work because there's nothing there... the fact that you tried, though, tells me even more of what we all already knew about you.

All your above drivel aside, it's really very simple: our moral code today is not perfect. It's far from it. We have the biggest wealth and power gap in the history of the world, we have (as you pointed out) conditions for 2/3rds of the workers of the world which are almost indistinguishable from real slavery, we have many vestiges of xenophobia which manifest in our laws and social attitudes and need to be improved.

You speak of the recent improvements in the broadening of "all are created equal" as if it's a bad thing that it's newly-expanded. I say that's its greatest strength...

When is disillusion strength? We are not willing to tap our strengths and come to a full understanding of who we are and how we were built, just because we don't want to hurt anyone's 'feelings.' we want to tell our kids they can do whatever they want, and nothing is impossible, just follow your dreams... Which is all bunk. Ever watch American Idol? Out of the 10's of thousands if not millions of kids who parents would not tell them the truth, how many of them absolutely humiliated themselves on national TV that should have never even auditioned?

Can you see the connection I am making here? 99% of the kids who humiliated themselves did so because they were told they could do anything, despite an obvious limitation that anyone who head them sing could spot if they were just honest with them. Clearly that is not what happened though is it. why? because despite the fact they were not physically able to sing well enough to make the final cut, we lie to ourselves about our own limitations. Rather than seeking out the things we could have a natural advantage in, and helping our children develop along those lines showing them their strengths and their weakness so they can better navigate life, we waist our most important years chasing after crap that will never pan out.

Ever wonder why countries like china are absolutely kicking our teeth in academically? Because they understand their strengths and weaknesses. the shore up their weaknesses and feed and work out their strengths, rather than chase foolish ideologies.

we constantly broaden that umbrella to contain more types of person, whereas it was radical at the time for the Founders to say that "all rich, white men are equal", so to speak. Our morality improves. That's what makes the idea of your Biblical transcendent morality argument so laughable... we've managed, in the 239 years this country has been around, to radically improve (sometimes painfully, and always too slowly) over the moral conditions written down by your Bronze Age tribal sheepherder-warrior people's priests in the name of God.

And it's still improving. Your tu quoque arguments hold no weight because of this reason.

again, nothing as improved except the marketing around the things you call evil. You are apart of the evil and don't seem to know or care. that's marketing/propaganda sport, not your 'morals evolving.'