What is with refusing to admit slavery is wrong?

[Redbeard The Pink]

This is what disturbs me so much pinky, is your attitude to want to brush off this very real and active type of slavery, just because a white man is not beating a black man in a cotton field somewhere in a southern state.

2 things. First off, I haven't mentioned race really much at all, and chattel slavery (which is how you spell that, by the way) does not have to be racially motivated (although it looks like it was for the Jews at least partially, hence the different laws concerning the treatment of Hebrew slaves as opposed to others).

Second, in what ways am I "brushing off" wage slavery? I've said multiple times that it's a problem that needs to be addressed and gotten rid of. In what way is that brushing it off? What I'm saying is that your claim of modern wage slavery being worse than institutionalized chattel slavery is unfounded and indefensible.

---

According to the verse, sellers of slaves should be put to death, so no, they couldn't reasonably buy from them and claim to be following the Bible.

No. According to the verse, people who kidnap men to sell and/or keep as slaves should be put to death. It makes no such admonition against all slave traders.

You need to support this claim regarding Israel's slaves. Also, there's a difference between buying slaves and winning them through conquest.

Yeah, there is, which is why I mentioned them both separately, and I'll note that both of those things are different from kidnapping. As for support, here's a pretty good breakdown from JewishVirtualLibrary.org. I'm not gonna go over the whole thing in detail, but of particular note is the passage from Leviticus 25 that encourages the Israelites to buy bondsmen and bondswomen from other countries.

There's also mention of the fact that Hebrews had to be court-ordered into slavery or volunteer themselves to pay off a debt, and the fact that they are to be let free eventually; alien slaves, on the other hand, served in perpetuity as far as we can tell and didn't have the same bodily rights as Hebrew slaves, either. Given all this information, it stands to reason that non-Hebrew slaves would be more common and more available than Hebrew ones, and that most of them would have been bought from slavers rather than obtained some other way. Most nations with legalized slavery bought the bulk of their slaves, so it's really not an unreasonable claim to state that Israel was probably the same way.

The word used can refer to mankind in general (e.g.Gen 7:23), same as the English word.

Sure it can. I'm sure that's what they meant. Care to support that?