Exodus 21

[Angrboda]

It doesn't follow that because we have no working model of a slaveless society that such a society would be a failure.  That's just a non-sequitur.  At minimum, you need to give some reason why such a society would fail, not simply show that one has not existed.  That would be like saying because we haven't had an example of a true communist state that a successful one cannot exist.  Or that because we haven't seen heaven, that heaven can't exist.  It's essentially an argument from ignorance and thus fails.  You need to explain not just how slavery is important or useful to a society, but how it is necessary.  I don't think you've done so.

nice identification of a logical fallacy,  now simply provide the world with a working model of a society not built on slavery and the argument is yours.

Oh that's right you can't because all models demand basic needs: food water clothing to be provided at or below the average income. which means someone is working below a livable wage to provide the basics for everyone else. eg.. slaves by this name or the modern terms..

Maybe when robotics are perfected, but then again what happens to those who currently depend on slave wages to survive? if the robots take all of the slave work what will the modern slave do for a job? how can they make money or survive? robots don't make food free. the may make it cheaper but more than likly it will simply become more profitable for the growers.

Even if a society based on slavery does not meet all the requirements of a logical premise it does not mean we have the tools or capability to create such a society free from slavery. intellectually you are right but in practice the lack of a working slave less society despite some of our greatest minds best efforts proves that I am practically correct.

So, basically you don't have an argument. Just more "neener neener, I'm right, you're wrong, la la la, I can't hear you" bullshit.

Your defense of God and the bible fails as it is based on an invalid argument. There is nothing 'practical' about an invalid argument.

Additionally, you missed the following:

Additionally, you need to define what slavery is for any argument to have legs. I recently participated in a discussion as to whether slavery was over or not and the meaning of the term varied dramatically. There is the example of chattel slavery on one end, and the ideas of being slaves to materialism or slaves to sin or some other thing on the other. The closer you hew toward the latter, the more it becomes difficult to disentangle society from it, but then it also renders your argument something of an equivocation and rather moot. The more you hew toward the former, the more your argument misrepresents reality and is therefore simply wrong. Without an actual definition of slavery, you can talk until the cows come home, likely equivocating left and right, without accomplishing a damn thing.

As an afterthought, I don't see that you've discussed why it would not still be wrong even if we grant you everything you argue. A necessary evil is still an evil, and "everybody does it" isn't a rational justification for anything.