pop morality

[Drich]

Substandard to me, which is the only metric that matters in a discussion -with me-.  You have trouble accepting other peoples positions and statements for what they are, though...so I don't expect to see any progress here.  

The last time you asked me ag related questions you didn't like the answers..and retreated into fantasy.  You're still trying to appeal to hypocrisy and I've already told you that I won't take you seriously.

I have 'trouble' accepting other people's positions when they abandon logic and reason to obtain or maintain them. For you, you have to quite literally re-define the word slavery to only include what you want that word to mean so that you have maintain your position. When YOU abandoned the rules of our spoken language and the very word definitions that give mean to the very words we use, just so you can blindly hold on to your 'morality' means you are the one who has retreated into fantasy, you are the one leaving fact and reality, just so you can maintain your fleeing sense of moral superiority.

Brother I have given you detail specific instances and backed them up with links you can check and read for yourself, and all you respond with is your thoughts and 'feelings' on the subject. Again all of which points back to your super strong blind faith in your 'morality.'

[downbeatplumb]

You have time to spout off on atheist forums, presumably on a computer you purchased with your own money.

What if this is apart of what I have been tasked to do?

Plus educate yourself fool, Slave can indeed be paid. Even chattle slaves of the 19th century were paid trivial amounts.

The important part there is "Trivial amounts", you have a computer, electricity and rather a lot of time off to troll web sites. You have zero idea of what constitutes a state of slavery you utterly gormless prick.

[rexbeccarox]

I don't know about others, but I do extremely little to support your definition of "slavery", Drich, and in fact, I rail against it.

I buy local produce at farmer's markets, where I meet the actual people who grow it.

I wear Saucony brand tennis shoes, which are made in the US. I haven't owned a pair of Nikes or other shitty brands since I began working when I was fourteen.

My last J-O-B was supply-chain manager for a designer shoe company whose practices I was extremely close to and couldn't condone. I planned on quitting that job the actual day I got laid off so I didn't have to quit. We were acquired by a company who owned a few other shitty brands and some of them have now gone under.

For my own business, I only bought American brands and things that were made in the US.

The job I'm about to start is for a not-for-profit to benefit developmentally disabled adults (not retards or mongrels, you slimy fucker) teaching them how to make things with which they can make an income locally.

I actively protest and vote against unfair labor practices.

I will admit it's not perfect, and, yes, we are stuck with brands that don't use fair practices (like most electronics brands), but I always have my finger on the pulse of what's going on in that arena, and use products that are most fair; people like me and others who are actively against these things will eventually change them. The bubble will burst, no doubt in my mind.

I absolutely do not condone slavery, whether it's your dubious definition or the real one, Drich, and the fact that you are so insistent that everyone does condone it says way more about you and your shitty Godwin argument than anyone else.

[Nihilist Virus]

In that slavery is not morally a good or a bad thing. it is just how some people have to live. what makes it bad is when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, because soceity does not care enough to enforce basic rules.

Exodus 21:20-21

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.


So you can beat your slaves for your own amusement as long as you don't kill them.  This is not abuse?  It can't be, because you said it is bad when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, and this is something straight from the Bible so it can't be bad.

[Angrboda]

For you, you have to quite literally re-define the word slavery to only include what you want that word to mean so that you have maintain your position.

Oh the irony.

[Jenny A]

[Drich]

[Drich]

For you, you have to quite literally re-define the word slavery to only include what you want that word to mean so that you have maintain your position.

Oh the irony.

see above post

[Drich]

In that slavery is not morally a good or a bad thing. it is just how some people have to live. what makes it bad is when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, because soceity does not care enough to enforce basic rules.

Exodus 21:20-21

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.


So you can beat your slaves for your own amusement as long as you don't kill them.  This is not abuse?  It can't be, because you said it is bad when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, and this is something straight from the Bible so it can't be bad.


Where does it say a owner can beat a slave for amusement?

[Nihilist Virus]

Exodus 21:20-21

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.


So you can beat your slaves for your own amusement as long as you don't kill them.  This is not abuse?  It can't be, because you said it is bad when owners are allowed to abuse their slaves, and this is something straight from the Bible so it can't be bad.


Where does it say a owner can beat a slave for amusement?

You remove the part where I call you a retard only to ask a retarded question which you also place in the wrong quote block.

We may have differing views on rape and slavery but I think I have sufficiently demonstrated my case on your intelligence.

As for your question, we are to presume from the text the beating is typically administered if the slave is not working to the master's satisfaction. Is that any less abusive?