pop morality

[KevinM1]

Wow! I'm impressed by your logic for once Drich! I see what you mean... slavery isn't immoral because I buy stuff!

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. 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.

[FatAndFaithless]

Ah, the old Drich slavery argument. Haven't seen that one in a while.

[Drich]

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.

What you're forgetting is that your book, which you claim to be "God-breathed scripture", sets the entire tone for what behaviors are acceptable and which are prohibited. Just as Eloah/Yahweh/Jehovah told them to cut the foreskins off their penises and avoid menstruating women and pork*, he could have told The Chosen People™ to eschew slavery in its entirety. 

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.

* Footnote: the absence of pig bones in archaeological digs in that region is how they can tell if the city is Israelite or built/settled by other Canaanite populations. Clearly, God is not opposed to ordering His Chosen People™ to do things no one else in the region does, or prohibit them from doing things that everyone else in the region does.

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.

The new/alternative verse might look something like this:

Leviticus 25:44 "And then the LORD said unto Moses, 'For as you were slaves in Egypt, and have known the cruelty of the yoke of such bondage from which you were freed by My hand, never again shall My Chosen people own their fellow human beings as property, nor allow others to adopt this practice among you.' And the people said Amen."

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?

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.

Remember, you are the one who says that the Bible is from God.  To us, it is very clearly the work of human beings. Human beings would not necessarily be expected to come up with a moral concept that is actually transcendent, but to have a spotty and very localized set of social beliefs and traditions backed up by the force of a claim  that "this is from God!!", according to the priests/prophets who wrote it. We see the same thing wherever you look in the world (e.g. the Hindu prohibition against eating beef, or the Muslim prohibition against fermented grains). A "God" who cares more about foreskins and who's having sex with whom than about whether or not human beings are turned into property is not a god, but as RaphaelDrake pointed out, is clearly a way of "Super-Alpha-ing" human prejudices and practices so that others will fall in line and obey the rules set down by the priesthood/ruling-class in the name of God.

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.

A "god" who can tell his people how to eat and screw but not how to treat fellow human beings as equals is not a god but a human-created excuse for the goals of the ones who created that god to help shape society as they wanted it. A "god" who cares more about diets, foreskins, and sodomy than about the abuse of women and slaves is indistinguishable from the mythological creations of the Norse, the Greeks, the Romans, the Britons/Druids, or the Japanese. It's man-made, and the fingerprints of our own egos are all over YHWH, just as it is on the others I've listed here.

I'm sorry, but your "God" is no more a god than Odin, Zeus, Iopater (Jupiter), Dagda, or Izanagi.

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.

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?

[Drich]

Who said anything about a slave not working to a master's satisfaction?

Look at the History of the Jews. Beating were reserved as punishment for breaking laws. What did you think would happen if a slave stole and sold all of his master's goats? what recourse would the master have? (The law said if you stole live stock you had to pay it back or become a slave) Did you think he would goto Jail? Remember the context in which the law was given (wandering the desert) And if he were to goto Jail, what of the loss the master suffered? And now has to find another slave??? Why not just keep the one you had, 'correct' the bad behaivor with a big stick, and move on?

again no jails, the only way to make things right then was slavery, but if one was already a slave and still messing up, the next stop was the stick!

What you are describing is indentured servitude. That was typically Jew on Jew indentured servitude.

WE are all talking about slavery. We are talking about conquered people being taken into chattel slavery where they were property and could be passed down as inheritance.  The Jews either committed genocide or else took the virgins as slaves.  Tell me why you think they were taking virgins only.  Tell me what you think they were doing with them.

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?

[downbeatplumb]

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.

[Drich]

But again, if you waved a magic wand and eliminated all forms of slavery how would 2/3 of the world's population that currently depends on it exist?

Moot point..if I had a magic wand, like your "god"..... I could and would wave away a bunch of shit that your "god" doesn't...but I don't, so I can't.  You do realize that it's not  the -slaves- who depend on slavery to exist in any such situation...right.....?  It's the plantation owner, not the plantation labor, that depends upon the institution.  Meh, fuck all that, too complicated......apparently you can;t handle anything more difficult than wondering what I would do with magical powers, and even that taxes you if the most biting question you can muster is the above.  I'd do alot of things that twisted your panties into knots..like getting rid of slavery, substandard wages, and substandard working conditions.  

: shrugs :

seriously?
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..

Many slaves went back to africa, Many more had to stay where they were because they did not want to leave their lives, their homes. those who did took on similar 'jobs'/share croppers which is the illusion of freedom, 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Drich]

If this is the case then why do you support it with the food you eat or the products you buy?

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?

[downbeatplumb]

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?

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?

[Drich]

You don't get it because you don't ever hang around to discuss the final point.

Once we identify slavery in modern life the question then becomes is it needed? Can life go one in the world where the slave works, and can it go on in the world buying slave made products???

the answer is no.

Don't you think that if we had an economic structure that did not COMPLETELY depend on slavery we would have at least tried it in one of the countries of the world one time since the dawn of civilization???

This is why you don't understand. You blank out of the conversation, 1/2 way through and come back in after the final conclusion is made missing the correlating argument.

If you want to say all slavery is bad fine. All slavery is bad. Now figure out how to feed 5 billion people without the economic structure and support slavery provides.

That is my point sport! WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE!!!

Necessity does not imply morality one way or another.

I agree that is why I said slavery is morally neutral, and why I hold the position not all slavery is 'bad.' that it is how one treats a slave that makes slavery immoral.

 Moreover, the necessity of slavery hasn't been proven, either.

A simple frank examination of world history proves that slavery is the key element that pulled man out of the hunter gather era and started us towards civilization.

 Indeed, we seem to be ever so slowly moving away from such practices (abject slavery -> feudalism -> pure wage slavery) due to a conflux of our ideas about working, workers' rights, and how we view the Other changing and technology advancing.

No we are not. that is my point. The only thing that has changed is how we define slavery. It's not slavery anymore. It migrant worker, outsourced factory worker etc.. The job and pay remains the same, and our new definition even allows for little to no regulations allowing the exploitation of these workers because we are not willing to own our part in slavery.

Finally, I actually have a life and responsibilities outside of this forum.  I'm not beholden to reply to you.

then do not complain that you don't understand. Go back and catch yourself up and ask questions about what you have missed. If you are not 'beholden' to me what makes you think I am 'beholden' to you?

[Nihilist Virus]

What you are describing is indentured servitude. That was typically Jew on Jew indentured servitude.

WE are all talking about slavery. We are talking about conquered people being taken into chattel slavery where they were property and could be passed down as inheritance.  The Jews either committed genocide or else took the virgins as slaves.  Tell me why you think they were taking virgins only.  Tell me what you think they were doing with them.

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?