For anyone still wanting to be apart of this conversation I feel we have gotten a little side track, so here is a summary of everything i have said so far:

(February 16, 2016 at 10:59 am)KevinM1 Wrote:

(February 15, 2016 at 6:33 pm)Drich Wrote: O...K.... let me try this another way...

If Slavery is immoral, then why do you support it with your purchases of slave made/produced goods?

Likely because capitalism has placed the means of production in the hands of a relative few so Evie can't build his own vehicle, or computer, or weave his own clothes.  Just like you can't.

Exactly!!!

As I have already said, I don't believe slavery is either moral or immoral, it is how that slaves are treated. That is why so many of you call me 'immoral.' That is also why I said in the quoted post above "IF you think slavery is immoral then why..."

Quote: The difference between him and you is that he doesn't see being trapped in that kind of economic reality as being good by virtue of being trapped in it.  Because he's not an idiot, you see.

Again Mr. Not so smart, I am not judging it good or bad That would be your peers. My position is neutral and has been since my very first post. It is the self righteous who assigns a moral value on all slavery with out weighing the factors.

The grand idea being the 'morality' the self righteous use to judge all slavery bad, is corrupt. that it is not a true measure of right and wrong. That it reflects sentiment rather than anything that resembles a true standard. Why? because of the hypocrisy found in the example i provided here with my slavery arguement. On one hand the self righteous use this "popular morality" to say all slavery is bad, yet the same self righteous seem to want to ignore the fact that every aspect of their lives has been provided for them by slaves.

When confronted with the fact that slavery still exists in modern culture, the self righteous move to the definition of chattel slavery as being the only definition of slave, and want to pretend that I am the one who endorses chattel slavery because I say as you did, 'that slavery is not all immoral that it is a neutral act.' then the next move of the self righteous is to pretend that if they are not involved in chattel slavery then they have no role in slavery what so ever.

To which I point out that the true definition of slavery goes far beyond the definition pop culture assigns that word. and because they ignore what modern slavery looks like, modern slavery goes for the most part unregulated, allowing companies who use slaves, Do so in such a way as to mirror the work conditions and hardships (the immoral aspects of slavery) onto the very people we owe a debt that provides us with the lives we live. My argument is to acknowledge our dependence on slavery and demand better work conditions! Rather than take the morally self righteous road and pretend I have or do not depend on slavery, and to continue to allow such work conditions to deteriorate.

Again all of this is allowed to happen, because modern 'morality' is not the standard of right and wrong most of you think it is. Morality is nothing more than compromise. It is a continuation of ever devolving compromise that allows this society to go deeper and deeper into evil than any evil civilization in our past ever has.

My examples of slavery and abortion a prime examples of this. because at it's core the self righteous think they have over come these evils (chattel slavery, and infanticide) but in reality all we have done to accept slavery and infanticide into our current culture is to relabel and redefine the evil to a more technical or clinical term. Then we no longer see slavery and the slaughter of babies. we see migrant workers and abortions.

This is EXACTLY What the Nazis did in Germany. That is why none of them thought "just following orders" was a bad thing. None of them saw themselves as being evil people. They were doing the moral thing by purifying the human race.

So the question then becomes how do we know that 'we' (the western world) haven't already stepped into Nazi level evil? Without an absolute standard we could never know because like the nazis we would simply believe whatever society says is right. In the beginning of this conversation everyone pointed to 'feelings'/empathy as their 'moral guide.' But, again as the Nazis shown us empathy can be manipulated and controlled by propaganda. So again, popular society on it's own has nothing to keep it's morals from ever declining.

Then I pointed to the Bible and God's perfect standard. a Standard which none of us were ever meant to keep as we think we are to keep morals. I explain that the acts in God's righteousness (as a Christian) no longer contain a moral value, and that the Law of God is only to push us to the point where we are to seek atonement/freedom from the law of God to define our righteousness.

Now with this standard we are not to justify our sins (make them moral) we are to simply repent and do our best to move on. Meaning we are no longer judged by God as being 'immoral/sinful' if we can not stop sinning (like if one of us were gay) that our actions did not define our right or wrong-ness before God. Yet we would be able to maintain and know where our limits should be if we indeed wanted to honor God, because we could still have the standard of the law to point us in the right direction.

(February 16, 2016 at 1:17 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I think what Drich is arguing for is a more moral form of society based on communism, where everyone gains equally by labour. You get slavery in capitalist or feudal systems.

No... Communism is slavery to the state. how is that better?

(February 16, 2016 at 1:46 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 1:37 pm)Drich Wrote: Your monetary support of slavery through companies who use slaves Makes it Moral. Or are you saying what you do is immoral?

We do not support slavery.
That people in other countries are poorly paid in comparison to our own and we get our products from there is not slavery, its economics. Slavery is when people are owned by another person who has the power to punish and kill, like the slaves in the bible. Or are you arguing that the jews that built the pyramids were basically just low paid whiners?

Never mentioned the pyramids

Again I have posted the defination of slavery several times, and it is not limited to chattel slavery. (that is your defination of the word whether you understand it or not)

In truth Chattel slavery is only one type of slavery. And I have shown several examples (with Nike) that modern slavery has adopted chattel slavery practices.

In that people sign away large blocks of their lives and assure the company that they will stay no matter what it takes to fill quotas inorder to secure their jobs. In this way the company tells you when you come when/if you can leave when eat rest or whatever. If you miss work, workers have be humilated, beaten or jailed. All because people like you will not acknowledge slavery now is still slavery. they do not want to let their 'morality'/tool that makes them feel superior to all who have come before, and yet gives them what they want out of life..

For me that price is too high. keep your 'morality' I'll gladly wear whatever tag your 'morality' allows you to stick me with.

(February 16, 2016 at 3:18 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 12:50 pm)Drich Wrote: breeding stock is what they were doing with them.

Remember the time in which you speak. their weren't 7 billion people on the planet. The survival of these people were what was being looked at.

Do you think your ancestors in that time period were not taking women or being taken themselves?

How long do you think we would survive as a species if we all maintain xenophobic tendencies, especially in that time period?

So absolute morality changes depending on survival conditions?

again it is not morality. It's righteousness.

Morality defines and judges actions. In that each action has a 'moral value.'

God's righteousness is not about actions having a right or wrong value, but it is what God has to say about a given or specific situation.

God defines right and wrong, not our deeds or actions.

Before you imagination runs away on you. know what God said is we must obey his full law from the time we can comprehend it till we die, or we must seek atonement. If we seek atonement, then it is no longer by the law that we are judged.

(February 16, 2016 at 1:37 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 15, 2016 at 6:19 pm)Evie Wrote: Wow! I'm impressed by your logic for once Drich! I see what you mean... slavery isn't immoral because I buy stuff!

Your monetary support of slavery through companies who use slaves Makes it Moral. Or are you saying what you do is immoral?

You suggested slavery wasn't immoral. I said it was. And you asked me "if it's immoral then how come you do X?" as if to suggest that it can't be immoral because of how I behave...

Regardless of my behavior, it is immoral.

It is immoral, simple as that. You seemed to suggest that it wasn't, and it is and I'm saying it is.

My issue is with you saying it's not immoral. Do you believe slavery is immoral?

Clearly, Pepsi has far greater moral clarity and resolve of conscience than Coke.

Ha! Get it? Has anyone made that joke yet in 48 pages of responses? POP morality?!

...

Like... soda... pop....
...

I'll let myself out

(February 16, 2016 at 3:44 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 3:18 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: So absolute morality changes depending on survival conditions?

again it is not morality. It's righteousness.

Morality defines and judges actions. In that each action has a 'moral value.'

God's righteousness is not about actions having a right or wrong value, but it is what God has to say about a given or specific situation.

God defines right and wrong, not our deeds or actions.

Before you imagination runs away on you. know what God said is we must obey his full law from the time we can comprehend it till we die, or we must seek atonement. If we seek atonement, then it is no longer by the law that we are judged.

So... when God said that the slave owners could use the virgins as "breeding fodder" or whatever it is you said, this was a righteous commandment?

(February 16, 2016 at 1:35 pm)Drich Wrote: Open your friggen eyes!
What happened to the American slaves right after they were freed? Did they all move away from the plantations, goto collage and all become doctors and lawyers?  No..

Yes, yes, "open my eyes"....the mating call of the loon....

Quote:Many slaves went back to africa,

....nope, but that's a nice story.  

Quote:Many more had to stay where they were because they did not want to leave their lives, their homes.

They were no longer property where they lived, in their homes.  An improvement.

Quote: those who did took on similar 'jobs'/share croppers which is the illusion of freedom,

Excellent, it's good to have a marketable skill.  Most of us have sharecropping in our family's past.  It was the dominant model.    

Quote:but still has you working the same job for the same 'pay.' Very few slaves (volume wise) completely changed their lives. Why? because they couldn't.

Slaves don't get paid, there's no need. Just like you don't pay a horse.  So, very few slaves changed their lives but many moved back to africa......?  If you're going to peddle fantasy, you could at least pick a story and stick with it.  

Quote:Education is not a universal fix we pretend it is today. Again not all are equal. Not all can be educated to a profitable level. For those who can't and have only known their vocation their whole life, then that is all they will ever be good for.

It isn't, and we aren't...and?  Labor can be paid an acceptable wage, we call it a minimum wage here in the states, some of us are working to improve it.  

Quote:My grandfather died like this. He was a farmer/slave to empirical Japan, he work his family (annexed by Japan) lands as a slave to provide food for the Japanese war machine. After the war they cut him loose, and what did he do? he kept on farming in his mid 40s this time for the Korean government. Till he was moved here. Then took on the task of 'paying back' the family who moved them here by working a smaller family farm till he had a stroke @ 85 in another mans field, and later died a 'share cropper.'
 He knew a life where he lived very well, but after a life time spent in the fields this is all he ever knew and ever wanted for himself. The farmer/share cropper/slave accepted who he was and had no shame in it for him.

Your grandfather sounds like a great man, you must be what's left.  

Quote:That is what is forgotten when people talk about slavery now. everyone assumes all slaves want what you all have. which for some I would even concede most may or did. but again not all. History records this to be true.

Regardless of whether or not all men have wanted to be free, we have abolished slavery and continue the work to eliminate substandard wages and working conditions. Admittedly, there are holdouts like yourself who do neither and may even argue for the necessity of slavery or substandard wages or conditions.  Excuse the complicity of yourself and your god some other way, there's nothing for you here.

(February 16, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 15, 2016 at 6:33 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: No, it was not the only way to "make things right", back then (and was not instituted in reaction to crime, by the way, but to conquest and/or debt... it was "might makes right"). It was a barbaric practice that simply happened to be common at the time because of all the endless, semi-genocidal warfare for territory in the highly-contested Canaan region; it was barbaric then, and it's barbaric now. 

Then please provide other period correct examples of "making things right." Not things you think they could have done but other examples maybe from other cultures if you need to pull from a different source of 'making things right.'

Again just so we are on the same page we are talking about beatings in general and not slavery. so address the beatings first.

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.

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.

(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.)

(February 16, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Drich Wrote: Remember, I personally saying I do not like Chattel slavery, but again I also can acknowledge and accept that in certain economic conditions and certain civil situations chattel slavery is indeed needed for the basic preservation of humanity/society in general.

I do not agree with chattel slavery because it's nature is one of absolute authority and power over another. with this level of power in most cases seems to bring uncontrolled corruption and evil.

That said their are no laws in the bible or anywhere else that says the person who owns chattel slaves must be a monster. Remember the founding fathers own and worked chattel slaves, and while it was no picnic. their slaves lived a life equal to, or sometimes greater than most other immigrants/settlers in that time.

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.

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.

(February 16, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Drich Wrote: But again, replace it with what? What of the poor who sold themselves into slavery just to survive? Or do you like everyone else assume ALL Slaves are like the 18th century African slaves brought to America against their will?

Understand people did elect to be slaves, because that life was better than the alternative.

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.

(February 16, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Drich Wrote: But again just short of God supplying everything how does their economy work? And if God supplies everything why would they do anything for themselves?

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

(February 16, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Drich Wrote: What you all fail to see is the mistreatment is 'immoral aspect' of slavery. not the removal of the illusion of freedom, because in that time no one had this illusion. In that time their were no 'freemen.' All bore the burden of authority, All had to submit their lives to the theocratic community. Specific instances of slavery then was just specific responsibility or a specific aspect of life in their community. Even in the 'New world' Freedom only applied to a few, and even then their freedom was not free. Their was a cost involved, and restrictions placed on those 'free men.'

Just so we are clear I do not advocate Chattel slavery especially in this time or for as long as the US kept it around. But as a species and our (Humanity) survival, Chattel slavery is what brought the world out of the hunter gather era and into cities and civilization. That said we are no longer in that era and should not be dependent on chattel slaves. That is why I make such a big deal about "wage slavery." Because in most unmonitored situations their is very little difference between wage slavery and chattel slavery, yet by our 'moral standards' we still do not question and we reap the befits.

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".

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.

(February 16, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Drich Wrote: But it did indeed transcend the local laws and customs at the time both in the Old and the New testament.
For example you look and scoff at the rules of slavery in the bible, but before these rules their were no restrictions on how badly a slave could be treated. God allowed for their/our central foundation for their economic stability to remain in place, but at the same time gave those holding that economic pillar up, (the slaves) rights they never had before. And, it held accountable the slave owners in such away as they never experienced.
An example in the New testament would be the fact that for the first time EVER women were made equals before God. Not to mention Jesus' personal upheaval of the standing Jewish authority. 2 to 5 thousand years later this is all old hat to you, but at the time this was written this was all indeed ground breaking.

You're kidding, right? That's a joke? I'll just point out that women weren't even "granted" souls until a vote was taken in ~400 C.E., and let the women on this forum rip you up about the concept of New Testament women being "made equal".

As to the "there were no rules", that's a lie. A damned, dirty lie, and I think you know it. Almost every civilization had strict rules governing the condition of their slaves. Literally the oldest surviving law code known to man has laws regulating the treatment of slaves (the Code of Ur-Nammu).

(February 16, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.

(February 16, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Drich Wrote: 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... 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.

(February 16, 2016 at 4:09 pm)Evie Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 1:37 pm)Drich Wrote: Your monetary support of slavery through companies who use slaves Makes it Moral. Or are you saying what you do is immoral?

You suggested slavery wasn't immoral. I said it was. And you asked me "if it's immoral then how come you do X?" as if to suggest that it can't be immoral because of how I behave...

Regardless of my behavior, it is immoral.

It is immoral, simple as that. You seemed to suggest that it wasn't, and it is and I'm saying it is.

My issue is with you saying it's not immoral. Do you believe slavery is immoral?

Oh, my glob..
If you say slavery is immoral and I ask if it is then why do you do X." The suggestion or question I am asking is are you immoral? and have assumed you would answer no. So I simply skipped that question and asked the follow up. "If you are not immoral, then why do you do X"/If you are not immoral why do you support slavery with your money?

And I answered your other question in post 471