The question that makes fundies hostile

[Drich]

My kids, my mom, my dad, my sister, my brother... none of which I own.

...So i would be free to take one of YOUR Kids if they are willing to get into my van and help me look for my lost puppy?

One day my kids will make a choice of staying or leaving.

..And if you look in the biblical example of slavery, a slave (every seven years) had that option as well.

Slavery was a possiable way of comerce, a way a poor person could ensure the safty and room and board for his family, a way for a poor person to buy land, live stock , to pay back a debt, or even marry into a family. in a soceity with little actual physical money, work was often traded for tangable things. a 'slave's agreement' was to ensure that both slave and master got what they orginally agreed to.

They won't have to pay their way to freedom.

'Freedom isn't free.' Every generation since the beginning has had to pay something for their understanding of that word.

Furthermore, I don't use them.

It does not matter what you do with the people you own, you still own them. I have begals, they were orginally breed for hunting, but I do not use them for hunting. even so they still have that inclination to hunt. Meaning whether I use them for hunting or not they can not escape their nature. Like wise you own your kids, and whether you work them as slaves or not, they too can not escape your ownership. Your will takes precedence over their own. They must surrender themselves to you and your rules.

They live here, because I gave birth to them and I have love for them plus responsibility.

Which if you look at the way slaves were to be treated in the bible (not how the Early American treated their slaves) You will find that same sense of responsiablity.

When I get my paycheck, most of it goes towards things they need and I find myself skipping things I want, so they get what they want. I cook, I clean, wash their clothes, teach them, talk to them, play with them, and love them more than I would ever love myself hoping that when it's time for them to leave they miss me enough to want to come and visit.

I could draw a paralell between how field hands were used in the 1700's verses how well some of the 'kept' women/slaves were used and how they were treated, and compare that to how you/we treat our kids. But I do not want to risk you taking it the wrong way. So I will just make my point.

Bottom line, is that it does not matter how you treat a slave. If you have ownership of another human being, If your will and want for their lives, superceed their own, that is the second Merrium webster's defination for the word Slave.

Would a slave be treated this way?

Again yes many were. they just had to 'service' HHIC (Head Honky In Charge.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillis_Wheatley

Would a slave get a college fund and a wish list for his birthday?

In OT times anything could be bartered for service as a slave. Even in the 1700's some of the 'children of slaves and white men were even educated. see link above.

If a slave got anything like this, well, I suppose he's not much of a slave, but family, or even employee if working for you and getting something fair in return. You and I both know that a slave is not like a son or daughter, so your comparison is invalid.

My whole point is that white guilt propaganda had changed the meaning of the word so much that you/we do not truly understand the word any more. You see the word slaves as always being bad. I see the word to mean one who has to surrender his own will to that of another. Now whether that is a good or bad thing completely depends of 'the other.'

YOUR Children seem to greatly benefit by surrendering their will to you. While we both know there are other kids who are not so fortunate. so is that the institution of parental ownership that has failed them? or was it the indivisual parents that failed them?
The same is true for out and out slavery.


(Edited to incorrect spelling.)