(November 6, 2018 at 12:36 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(November 6, 2018 at 11:41 am)Drich Wrote: 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:
(November 6, 2018 at 11:39 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: 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.
my argument is despite man's best efforts we have not even been able to conceive of a plausible working society that does not have slavery at it's base. the fact that there has never been one despite our efforts to create classless societies one group always rises to the top. Orwell animal farm is a great illustration of this where/when a society tries to make everything equal it turns out more tyrannical. in saying that... neaner neaner..
Slavery is divided into social and economical definitions.
Chattle slavery is different because it has the chattle prefix, meaning owned/property slaves.
the Social side of slavery is having your will supplanted by the will of another or your will must first be filtered through a system. example you want to marry guy a, but your culture demand you marry guy b because for whatever social communal reason. Or you want job A, but because you belong to this group or sect of people you only qualify for job b (the sunni arabs verse the shia kurds in northern Iraq (pre gulf war 11)for example, and the resulting genocide because they were pushing what their society demanded of them/they were being displaced and refused to go so saddam gassed them.) your will or the will of others like you is first subject to the will of another or others. This describes a distinct lack of basic freedom to choose for one's self how and where they want to live.
The economic side basically describes someone who works under a living wage for their region (meaning would other wise die/not afford a new car or live like everyone else, living wage means can sustain life) and subsequently has to be subsidized with either 'other benefits' from the country and or company for the basics of life. shelter food clothes etc. As a result freedoms are workers rights are often exchanged for these extras.. 2/3 of the world works like this. my family worked like this up to my grand father, and my aunts and uncles worked this way.
Then there is chattel slavery. sugar, coffee bananas and other topical grown food and or drink still use chattel slaves/ outright owned people. they may receive a wage of some kind, but every aspect of their lives is dependant on the plantation. they neither have social or economic freedom. the plantation decides everything for them.
