I'm glad that their coverage list starts with 'abduction'. However... I have cause to wonder: where then is the 'human trafficking'? I looked for a list of similar terms, and I noticed that 'slavery' was missing, as was 'bondage', as was 'enslavement', as was every variation of 'serve'. Further... there was an absence of any variant of 'thrall', and even 'serf' and 'vassal' and every variant of such was missing!
Also ignorant was the list of 'drudgery', 'toil', and even 'labor' in general (regardless of how hard it might be)!
I even searched such archaic terms as 'moil', 'travail', and 'duress'... but I found nothing.
Now thoroughly befuddled as to why you considered this to be a list so complete that I could add nothing to it, I further searched for 'captivity', 'feudal', 'helotry' (the site has plato's name in the address, was worth a shot), 'indent' (I didn't even have to finish that word), any observation of what would make a task 'menial', 'peon', 'restrain'...
Finally, I found one that was almost what I was after. I searched 'subject', and I found 'human test subjects'... and after jumping through the hoops, I happened upon an article that was addressed at only ONE TINY NUANCE of what I sought: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/clinical-research/ After finding this, I happened upon the term 'exploit' and I was all 'hey, maybe that'll work!'... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/ I read the article, and I find it is CRITICALLY INCORRECT about its only observance of exploitation (being human exploitation... and very incomplete regarding such too), and extremely basic insofar as an adequate understanding of exploitation (hint: it's more than just a human thing). With such a myopic understanding of the subject, how could anyone believe that this is a topic to which I could not add so much as a word to it? I could write volumes-worth of data on these subjects, all of which as must be so by logic, all of which is broad in scope yet of fantastic specific usage... I mean seriously: not all exploitation is 'wrongful'... and here's a quote to sum up a great deal of that which is wrong with the article: "a transaction is exploitative only if it is unfair"... the unfairness of an exploitation is entirely unrelated to whether it is an exploitative action (or transaction) or not. They set up multiple false premises, and each one may be utterly eviscerated because of their misapplication of language used within such... if this was them surveying the definitional landscape they've arbitrarily selected, and highlighting the conceptual quarrels within such: it's safe to say that they missed the mark.
More like they fired the arrow in completely the wrong direction, and it whiffed the mountainside behind them so as to strike some poor blade of grass in a distant field out of sight.
Also ignorant was the list of 'drudgery', 'toil', and even 'labor' in general (regardless of how hard it might be)!
I even searched such archaic terms as 'moil', 'travail', and 'duress'... but I found nothing.
Now thoroughly befuddled as to why you considered this to be a list so complete that I could add nothing to it, I further searched for 'captivity', 'feudal', 'helotry' (the site has plato's name in the address, was worth a shot), 'indent' (I didn't even have to finish that word), any observation of what would make a task 'menial', 'peon', 'restrain'...
Finally, I found one that was almost what I was after. I searched 'subject', and I found 'human test subjects'... and after jumping through the hoops, I happened upon an article that was addressed at only ONE TINY NUANCE of what I sought: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/clinical-research/ After finding this, I happened upon the term 'exploit' and I was all 'hey, maybe that'll work!'... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/ I read the article, and I find it is CRITICALLY INCORRECT about its only observance of exploitation (being human exploitation... and very incomplete regarding such too), and extremely basic insofar as an adequate understanding of exploitation (hint: it's more than just a human thing). With such a myopic understanding of the subject, how could anyone believe that this is a topic to which I could not add so much as a word to it? I could write volumes-worth of data on these subjects, all of which as must be so by logic, all of which is broad in scope yet of fantastic specific usage... I mean seriously: not all exploitation is 'wrongful'... and here's a quote to sum up a great deal of that which is wrong with the article: "a transaction is exploitative only if it is unfair"... the unfairness of an exploitation is entirely unrelated to whether it is an exploitative action (or transaction) or not. They set up multiple false premises, and each one may be utterly eviscerated because of their misapplication of language used within such... if this was them surveying the definitional landscape they've arbitrarily selected, and highlighting the conceptual quarrels within such: it's safe to say that they missed the mark.
More like they fired the arrow in completely the wrong direction, and it whiffed the mountainside behind them so as to strike some poor blade of grass in a distant field out of sight.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
