What is with refusing to admit slavery is wrong?

[Homeless Nutter]

If all slavery is wrong we are all in trouble, because modern life would not be possible if not for active modern slaves.

Argument from final consequences  fallacy. How do you know we're not all "in trouble"? And what is "trouble"? Just because a morally wrong act is committed - doesn't mean there are immediate, perceivable repercussions.

Of course - that thing about "active modern slaves" - that's just demagogic bullsh*t and you know it. Whatever you mean by "modern slaves" has virtually no resemblance to actual slavery - unless you mean actual slavery, which - sure - still happens, but on an infinitely smaller scale, compared to what it was when Christian authorities actively, supported, participated in and benefited from slave trade.

[abaris]

If all slavery is wrong we are all in trouble, because modern life would not be possible if not for active modern slaves.

And we are. Some more than others. Looking at Mc Donalds or Walmart here. Or the ones that have to do two or three jobs to even survive. You on the other hand seem to be comfortably farting from your chair and to add insult to injury.

But I get it. Your particular brand of christianity is all about scripture. Words, empty word at that and no empathy for others, since, well, you can always find a bible verse to justify inhumane treatment of others. The great reward is waiting once they snuff it, am I right?

[Drich]

Argument from final consequences  fallacy.

What is the “Argument from Final Consequences?”

The “Argument from Final Consequences” fallacy can effectively be stated as: “Something exists, therefore [this] caused it.” In other words, it confuses cause and effect, starting with an effect and then assuming a cause.

So no I didnot commit a 'argument from final consenquences' as I'd did not confuse cause and effect.
The cause of the trouble i identified, is benefiting from modern slavery.

How do you know we're not all "in trouble"?

because we all directly benefit from modern slavery.

And what is "trouble"? Just because a morally wrong act is committed - doesn't mean there are immediate, perceivable repercussions.

to be in trouble in this instance means to be found in hypocrisy. For people who don't consider themselves hypocrites this is troubling. For people who find themselves to be hypocritical a lot your right.. They may not see the the problem here.

Of course - that thing about "active modern slaves" - that's just demagogic bullsh*t and you know it. Whatever you mean by "modern slaves" has virtually no resemblance to actual slavery - unless you mean actual slavery, which - sure - still happens, but on an infinitely smaller scale, compared to what it was when Christian authorities actively, supported, participated in and benefited from slave trade.
[/quote]

[Redbeard The Pink]

Aaand here comes Drich, defending slavery to the hilt and insisting we all still depend on it. Way to go, you predictable little shit-flinger.

I'd love to hear your rationale for the statement that we all depend on modern slavery, or for why it would be necessary for us continue to do so even if that were true, but I also don't necessarily want to hear your condescending bullshit and floundering around while failing to answer direct questions, so I'm experiencing a dilemma as to whether to ask you to clarify your position...hmmm...

[Homeless Nutter]

What is the “Argument from Final Consequences?”

The “Argument from Final Consequences” fallacy can effectively be stated as: “Something exists, therefore [this] caused it.” In other words, it confuses cause and effect, starting with an effect and then assuming a cause.
[...]

Wrong. But it's nice to see, that you're trying.

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

I'm Homeless Nutter and I've been your Google today.

[Psychonaut]

I'm not going to defend slavery, because that would be absurd.

I am curious though, how is it that we can justify any moral behaviour over any other? Sure some behaviours feel good and others don't, some benefit others and others don't, but right and wrong are religious terms, and are best left to those who want to speak in archaisms.

Living in a godless universe does indeed lead to the conclusion of Dotsoyevsky

"If God does not exist, everything is permitted"

There is no absolute basis for morality, and to contest that is to deny that nature has not equipped morality in to itself universally.

There is no physical law stopping a bear from eating a rival males cubs, there is no physical law that has stopped slavery historically. I am not advocating slavery, as I am against it (unless of course it's between to consenting adults), but I don't see how my culturally bound ethical conditioning happens to represent some underlying universal principle that slavery is wrong, period.

[JuliaL]

I AM NOT DEFENDING SLAVERY.
or religion.

However, and I hate to say it, I find Drich to have an argument here.

At what point does a condition in which one is not able or allowed for financial reasons to leave employment or to question conditions of employment constitute slavery?
At what point is a particularly low wage essentially no wage at all?
If such a plant worker transfers with a change of plant ownership, is this not effectively a sale of the worker?


The power disparity between the multi-billionaires of our society and the dollar-a-day workers of the third world is much greater than that of the classic southern plantation master and slave.
Effectively this is slavery in all but name and exceedingly common.  Denying this while profiting from it, say by buying cheap consumer goods at S-Mart, is what Drich, and I, consider hypocrisy.

[robvalue]

I agree, the work conditions in some countries are absolutely disgusting. I make efforts where possible to buy from producers who are ethical and don't use such suppliers.

Drich's argument makes no sense of course, he's simply defending these horrible working conditions as "OK" in order to validate the bible. They are not OK to anyone who cares about human welfare. But then, OK and not OK don't mean anything if God planned everything to the letter. It's just a theatre for him, for which he thought slavery and now terrible working conditions would be good to include.

I really hope there will be a decline in this kind of thing. It pisses me off that my country has a minimum wage law, but then imports from countries which don't have such a law. That's not right. The more people stand up to this, the more companies will take note and change their policies. Some have, we have some excellent ones in England which are improving their policies a lot.

The conditions are horrific I'm sure, and not in any way acceptable. I can easily see how they are financially tied to continue working. But it is still better, although perhaps not by much, than slavery. The people get to go home, they get to try and find another job if they can, they aren't allowed to be beaten or had sex with (I hope this is generally true) and can at least choose to leave even if there isn't much they can turn to. So it's not slavery.

[Drich]

What is the “Argument from Final Consequences?”

The “Argument from Final Consequences” fallacy can effectively be stated as: “Something exists, therefore [this] caused it.” In other words, it confuses cause and effect, starting with an effect and then assuming a cause.
[...]

Wrong. But it's nice to see, that you're trying.

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

I'm Homeless Nutter and I've been your Google today.

oh, I guess I forgot my citation:
(My response was cut and pasted from here)
https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/1...sequences/

Either way your identification of a fallacy in my work is still wrong. I gave no such argument that concludes a hypothesis. I stated a fact. We all currently benefit from modern day slavery. If we say all slavery is wrong we are in trouble. Meaning we are hypocrits. By 'we all' I am acourse referring to the people who say all slavery is wrong.

Too bad my google for the day was so focused on the an accurate definition that it totally misidentified it's pratical application. Thankfully the reall google is not so blind sided... Although it did link me to a bad definition.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Ok. Two things. While I expect we all know more or less what you'd say, I have yet to see you adequately defend the assertion that we all benefit from modern slavery, or how that would be in any way acceptable even if it is demonstrably true (which it may or may not be, honestly). Second, this right here:

Either way your identification of a fallacy in my work is still wrong. I gave no such argument that concludes a hypothesis. I stated a fact. We all currently benefit from modern day slavery. If we say all slavery is wrong we are in trouble. Meaning we are hypocrits. By 'we all' I am acourse referring to the people who say all slavery is wrong.

is your argument from consequence fallacy. Your assertion is that if we admit slavery is immoral, the consequences are that we will be hypocrites (which is how you spell that, by the way), therefore we should not admit slavery is wrong. Your reasoning is fallacious, the reasons behind your reasoning are fallacious, and the tie you wore to church yesterday is fallacious.

Regardless of how much modern society (myself included) may or may not rely on modern forms of slavery, humans should still be working to eradicate all forms of slavery from the globe because slavery is wrong. The fact that a bunch of people are still doing it doesn't make it ok.