Slavery (on Thursdays)

[Huggy Bear]

who chooses to be a servant? I already gave an example:

Genesis 29
18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
19 And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me.
20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.

No slave trade.
As you can see Jacob willingly offered to become the servant of Rachel's father for seven years.

Ah, so because you can come up with a single example of equitable slavery, that means the rest were too.

exactly, unless you have some evidence that says otherwise.

Read again, the thing about law is you need to pay attention to how it is worded.

Yes, I know you can rip words out of context, I've already called you on that.

show me where I've taken anything out of context.

I've already educated you on how "possession" does not mean "property"

And you were wrong when you did. Because in context it's clear what it means, and besides, it says "A possession." Not "take possession," or "be in possession," but "a possession," as in, "a thing that is owned," as in, "property." You are just fucking wrong here.

from Wikipedia
"In law, possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing. In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership)."


"Possession is a factual state of exercising control over an object, whether owning the object or not."

so if you look closely you see that it doesn't say "forever" it says "for ever". The word "for" is being used as a preposition.

Yes, and it's in a sentence that describes the process by which a slave owner may pass his slaves down to his children, a process without limitations, so that it can be done over and over again. What is that, other than forever?

Honestly, the fact that you have to twist this much to maintain a losing position is just sickening.

For seven years or until Jubile is hardly forever.

ev·er adverb \ˈe-vər\
: at any time
: at all times
: to a greater degree

In other words "at any and all times" until the year of Jubile when all bondsmen can go free.

And as we've established, this is not a moral system in any way, for many reasons.

so it's immoral because you say so?
What two consenting adults agree to is up to them, right?

How many times do i have to remind you that Jubile mandates all bondsmen be allowed to go free.

And how many times do I have to tell you that slavery for any length of time is immoral?

Again what two consenting adults agree to is between them.

Or that people didn't live fifty years back then?

Except I showed you that they lived a lot longer.

Or that there's no assurance that a person who owns slaves will even follow an old apocryphal law?

then he would be executed because he is forcing someone to be a servant against their will.

Or that there's a trick involved to keep them there forever?

There is no trick.

Why do you keep dishonestly focusing on the single dim glimmer of light in this darkness, while ignoring every other point I make? Is it because you can't defend yourself against them, and are just hoping they'll go away?

So I'll ask it again: are you saying that a maximum of fifty years spent as the property of a person who can pass you down like an inheritance to his kids and doesn't pay you at all, moral?

First of all, possession not property. Second, you got paid because you had to sell yourself into servitude. Thirdly, if it was your choice to become a servant of your own free will, it sounds moral enough to me.

you do not have a passage that says they "CAN" be beaten, you have a passage that says what happens "IF" they are beaten.

I have a passage saying that there is no punishment for beating them, meaning there is no law against it.

Now who's being dishonest
this was your exact quote..

And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.

you specifically said you can show where they can be beaten.
I'm still waiting on that passage btw.

actually it does
Exodus 21:4
If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself

Do you often find yourself in favor of passing out women like christmas gifts and not people, or is it just when defending your favorite book of nightmares?

really? The guardian of the woman has always been the one to "Give" her away. That tradition still goes on today, where the father gives his daughter away at the wedding.

Is it your stance that "Property" and "Possession" mean the same thing?

My stance is that "Possession" implies ownership, something that is supported entirely by the word's usage in the text. You seem to want it to be used in another sense, going against what the text describes, for no reason other than that reading the sentence like a normal, reasonable person would, would make you look bad for defending it.

And so, you lie about it.

It was a simple yes or no question like I posted from Wikipedia
"Possession is a factual state of exercising control over an object, whether owning the object or not."
it does not imply ownership

your views ARE irrelevant, executing a murderer is the epitome of justice.

whether or not the justice system is perfect is another matter

So my views are irrelevant, but your views aren't?

yes, how you "feel" is irrelevant compared to facts.

jus·tice noun \ˈjəs-təs\
: the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals

If a person murders someone, then it is fair for that person to lose their life also. would you agree?