Slavery (on Thursdays)

[Huggy Bear]

I don't see how you can even begin to defend Bad Wolf's position my, signature says it all.

In The KJV of the bible the word "slave" is used only once, Meaning there is a distinction between the word "servant" and "slave". In my sig I was specifically referencing a "hired servant".

Bad Wolf replies with.."Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves."

Is this what that was all about? It was literally a servant you were talking about? That wasn't very clear. I just assumed that your bible had replaced the word 'slave' with the word 'servant' and were using that as an argument to say that slavery didn't exist in the bible (something you still haven't denied)
So what was the relevance of you bringing up servants? We were talking exclusively about slaves, nothing else. Why did you bring up servants?

---

Huggy wrote:

how is it immoral if you decide to sell yourself in to servitude? Please explain. Not giving someone the freedom of choice to do what the want with their life would be "immoral".

I wrote:
Because the slave owner is taking advantage of the slaves poor fortune. Why could he not pay them, you know, how everyone does today? A job? Where you aren't treated as property. Making people slaves was not the only fucking option.

Huggy wrote:

Leviticus 25
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.

So why did you literally start talking about servants? To confirm what I had said? That slavery was not the only option a poor person had? Why bring up servants at all?

It's very clear...
paraphrasing.

I ask: how is it immoral if you decide, of your own free will, to yourself in to servitude?

you reply: "Because the slave owner is taking advantage of the slaves poor fortune. Why could he not pay them, you know, how everyone does today? A job? Where you aren't treated as property. Making people slaves was not the only fucking option."

I reply:
Leviticus 25
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.

then your response was: "Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves."

I don't know why I'm taking the time to try and explain something YOU wrote.