(December 21, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Drich Wrote: The problem with your arguement? You have failed to establish a fallacy of equivocation, because the defination of slavery not only includes what I have identified it encompasses your defination as well. Truth be known to seperate your version of slavery from the dictionary defination which includes people who work for less than a livable wage is infact the very fallacy of equivocation your trying to transfer to me.
Let's see, drippy...on the one hand we have you and on the other Marcus Porcius Cato. I gotta go with Cato since you are an idiot.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/slaveryrome.htm
Quote:The institution of slavery provided a critical pillar that supported the existence of both the republican and empire phases of ancient Roman society. The size of this slave population is estimated in the millions, and comprised between twenty-five and thirty percent of the total Roman population. The majority of these men, women and children worked on the farm - tilling the soil and reaping the harvest. Others, however, labored as artisans, scribes or secretaries.
The Roman slave had no rights. They could not marry nor have a traditional family many did not even have a name. Slaves could not own property.