Exodus 21

[Angrboda]

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:

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..

And as noted, that argument is a non sequitur. It is an appeal to ignorance, and thus your conclusion that slavery is necessary for a society to function fails. Since your argument, loosely, is that God was not immoral in tolerating slavery in the bible because slavery is necessary for the function of a society also fails. Additionally, you're equivocating. A classless society and a society in which all persons enjoy the same or similar economic freedoms is not necessary for us to have a society in which the slavery which is referred to in the bible does not exist. You're simply pulling a bait and switch. I don't think anyone is claiming, necessarily, that inequality of economic opportunity is necessarily immoral, and that is not what they are referring to when they discuss slavery in the bible.

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.

And as noted, you need a definition of slavery that is consistent with both the bible and your current argument. Since slavery in the bible was state sanctioned ownership of people and the laws regarding the slavery which the bible refers to provided legal recognition of that ownership, in order for your argument to be successful, you either need to show that the legal recognition of slavery is not a significant difference, or that our society depends upon the legal and state recognition of ownership of people. As far as I'm aware, there is no state in the world which legally recognizes the ownership of persons. So, then, failing that, you need to show that there are not relevant differences between what you are referring to as slavery and that which the bible refers to as slavery. The further you get away from the biblical notion of slavery, the less credible your argument. You seem engaged in nothing more than an extended example of equivocation.

Regardless, your argument is a response to the argument that the God portrayed in the bible is immoral because he allowed and condoned slavery. You haven't shown that slavery is necessary to a society, so all you have is the suggestion that slavery in toto is not itself immoral. That modern societies to some extent tolerate lesser forms of slavery is not in and of itself an argument that slavery in any form is not immoral. That simply doesn't follow. In practical terms, it comes down to what you are defining as slavery, as I keep emphasizing. In so much as slavery is forced servitude perpetuated by state sanctioned violence, most societies condemn it. In so much as slavery is nothing more than economic exploitation, what is referred to in the bible is not what you are referring to in your argument. If you are equivocating on your main term, your argument necessarily fails as you are using the same word in multiple ways as if you were using it in the same way throughout.