(January 14, 2016 at 10:36 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:I agree with you but to be quite frank, I don't think in this particular discussion it matters that owning someone is treating them badly. I think that the point to be made is that yes, there were some great, kind, caring slave owners in biblical times, yes there were some good, liberal, slave owners 200 years ago as well. However, the thing is, slavery being legal can be used to be horrid, torturous, and pain-stakingly bad, it invites these qualities to occur but does not mean they always do, but even if they do not always occur that is not an argument for the morality of it, what the bible commands in it's passages for slavery are not those you'd see in a liberal, loving, slave owners house hold, no, they are those qualities I mentioned as fitting the extremely bad examples of slavery, once you can treat a human being however you want, you can use this legality to justify any of the cruelty you commit.(January 14, 2016 at 1:17 pm)Drich Wrote: Again, Not all slaves were treated badly I gave examples from the bible and modern times. Why don't you try addressing the points I made rather than speaking about the stereotype your comfortable with?(bolding is mine)
Also the fact that I'm giving you points about slavery you are not familiar with should indicate to you that I have indeed 'done my research.' your turn.
Bullshit, Drippy. Owning a another person is treating them badly. I don't care how kindly a master is, if he owns someone else as property he is treating them badly.
And please, don't try to equate parenting with owning another human being. It's not just an argument of semantics as you implied in an earlier post. Though I can see how you can miss the distinction since you can't figure out the proper uses of their, there and they're either.
The fact that not all slave owners were terrible to their slaves alone is proof enough that this is not some societal development in morality, like Drich claims, this was not moral back then and it's not moral now that's why some slave owners were much less cruel than others, simply because something is legal does not mean it is correct. If this was morally correct back in biblical times, if this was just some recent social progression in morality, there would not be any slave owners who cared about their slaves, because they wouldn't know there was anything wrong with treating them brutally in the first place, which clearly, is not the case.
Which is better:
To die with ignorance, or to live with intelligence?
Truth doesn't accommodate to personal opinions.
The choice is yours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is God and there is man, it's only a matter of who created whom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more questions you ask, the more you realize that disagreement is inevitable, and communication of this disagreement, irrelevant.