The question that makes fundies hostile

[Godlesspanther]

Respectfully, that's bollocks.

There is a fundamental difference between a slave and someone who works a low pay job because they have to earn to eat. That being that the employer of the latter is subject to market forces because the low pay worker can get a low pay job somewhere else. Or even a higher pay job. Or he can Unionise. Or an education. He might not LIKE his choices, but he does HAVE choices.

Where as a slave, by definition, does not have those choices. They can't choose to leave and their owner can thus treat them however he likes within the law.

Society needs workers at all level, but a free man has upward mobility and choice. A slave does not.

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that the slaves in China and mexico who work in sweat shops do indeed have a choice in what they do. That their children elect to work in these factories rather than attend school, that if they do not work they still get to eat, that the factory owners do not purchase or by out lots or years of the workers time in order for them to hire on. Meaning they can't leave till a quote has been met or a time limit has expired.

That is a valid point. Sweat shops are, indeed, for all practical purposes like slavery. And American corporations are outsourcing labor to these countries in which human rights are not granted, nor valued. And that is intrinsically immoral just like slavery as most of us define it (without playing childish word games.)

Yes, slavery -- like it or not -- is intrinsically immoral. You can go on and on about this special (and non-existent) slavery that is right and good and made baby Jesus coo and giggle and get a stiffy -- but such a thing is and always has been imaginary.