Exodus 21

[Astreja]

FFS, Drich is *still* making excuses for slavery. *facepalm*

So much for Christianity holding the moral high ground. Even if it turns out to be impossible, I at least want to try to eliminate slavery.

On a related note, and putting my $$$ where my mouth is, can anyone recommend good secular charities that try to rescue people from enslavement?

[Bahana]

Here's a secular org that helps refugees. http://arcrelief.org/

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='1843041' dateline='1541524653']

my argument is despite man's best efforts we have not even been able to conceive of a plausible working society that does not have slavery at it's base. the fact that there has never been one despite our efforts to create classless societies  one group always rises to the top. Orwell animal farm is a great illustration of this where/when a society tries to make everything equal it turns out more tyrannical. in saying that... neaner neaner..

And as noted, that argument is a non sequitur.  It is an appeal to ignorance, and thus your conclusion that slavery is necessary for a society to function fails.  Since your argument, loosely, is that God was not immoral in tolerating slavery in the bible because slavery is necessary for the function of a society also fails.  Additionally, you're equivocating.  A classless society and a society in which all persons enjoy the same or similar economic freedoms is not necessary for us to have a society in which the slavery which is referred to in the bible does not exist.  You're simply pulling a bait and switch.  I don't think anyone is claiming, necessarily, that inequality of economic opportunity is necessarily immoral, and that is not what they are referring to when they discuss slavery in the bible.

what an ignorant way to bury your head into the sand just because you do not like a historical fact. understand or try to understand what is being discussed is not a presupposition, nor we are speculating on or discussing the plausibility of a society. In truth my position represents or reflects 4000 years of recorded history and the best and worst efforts of man collectively. You can not deny or hide behind an appeal to logical fallacy here. it only serve to discredit you intelligence everytime you try and do so! further more I left the discussion open ended which is another reason your appeal to fallacy fails! I asked you to provide an example of a non slave based society. I know logical fallacy is your go to answer out of any and every discussion but again for people who do not depend on such a crutch to escape goat them out of a discussion, know that fallacy does not apply to the resuscitation of a historical fact. Such as in 1750 the 13 american colonies were subject to english rule! that is not a non sequitur it is not an appeal to ignorance. it is simply a historical fact. now facts can be right or wrong, If you believe my facts about slavery were wrong I did indeed give you an opportunity to prove it. That is your only recourse, not a retreat to logical fallacy.

Slavery is divided into social and economical definitions. 
Chattle slavery is different because it has the chattle prefix, meaning owned/property slaves.

the Social side of slavery is having your will supplanted by the will of another or your will must first be filtered through a system. example you want to marry guy a, but your culture demand you marry guy b because for whatever social communal reason. Or you want job A, but because you belong to this group or sect of people you only qualify for job b (the sunni arabs verse the shia kurds in northern Iraq (pre gulf war 11)for example, and the resulting genocide because they were pushing what their society demanded of them/they were being displaced and refused to go so saddam gassed them.) your will or the will of others like you is first subject to the will of another or others. This describes a distinct lack of basic freedom to choose for one's self how and where they want to live.

The economic side basically describes someone who works under a living wage for their region (meaning would other wise die/not afford a new car or live like everyone else, living wage means can sustain life) and subsequently has to be subsidized with either 'other benefits' from the country and or company for the basics of life. shelter food clothes etc. As a result freedoms are workers rights are often exchanged for these extras.. 2/3 of the world works like this. my family worked like this up to my grand father, and my aunts and uncles worked this way. 

Then there is chattel slavery. sugar, coffee bananas and other topical grown food and or drink still use chattel slaves/ outright owned people. they may receive a wage of some kind, but every aspect of their lives is dependant on the plantation. they neither have social or economic freedom. the plantation decides everything for them.

And as noted, you need a definition of slavery that is consistent with both the bible and your current argument.

Glob.. do I have to hand hold you through everything or are you testing the limits of reasonable patients?
The definitions provided ARE BASED oN THE BIBLE AND ON WHAT I HAVE BEEN DESCRIBING!!! You seem put off by the fact that I can easily tie all of thee things together! why else ask me to redefine something you can argue!

 Since slavery in the bible was state sanctioned ownership of people and the laws regarding the slavery which the bible refers to provided legal recognition of that ownership, in order for your argument to be successful, you either need to show that the legal recognition of slavery is not a significant difference, or that our society depends upon the legal and state recognition of ownership of people.

That's not true not in most cases. Slavery was contracted employment. You small mind is trying to force the definition of chattel slavery to every aspect of slavery. Now understand everything you say and think negatively about chattel slavery is true... But not all forms of slavery falls into that catagory.. For instance here in the bible Slavery was time based, trade in a time where mone.. so what if you did not have property or live stock? you sold your time just lke we do now, but also include the basics of living..

Meaning People were sold and sold themselves into slavery for many reasons as the primary economic model worked off the barter system or this was a time when coinage/banks was not feasible to a traveling ban of nomads. it was a away to buy your way into a family/earn a wife, a way to pay a debt, a way to compensate a worker, or his family (providing them room and board/health care and the like) it was the social security system. which is why I divided the definition it into 3 systems. Chattle slavery did include ownership but that was the only form of slavery that demanded it which is why there is no reason for me to redefine anything as ownership is covered in my initial assessment as the word chattel literally implies ownership of a slave.

in fact the rules of the bible would see every slave bee set free every 7 years or to sign back up every 7 years.. can't have ownership if you are only leasing... Which is why I defined the second group as economic slavery. As that was the primary form in scripture and what is used now to control people. in the bible this control also puts a burden on the owner in that he was also to provide suitable shelter food and protection of not only their rights but well being. This is where modern slavery lacks. there is no over site or protection of well being.

 As far as I'm aware, there is no state in the world which legally recognizes the ownership of persons.

this is a no brainer.. while the laws for political reasons will not openly say you own your children you are indeed treated as if you own them if and when they do something wrong or illegal. now i know someone like you would debate whether or not you own your own child, but I or anyone came and took that child from you with out a word between you SHOULD/would fight for it and even give you life in the struggle.

even if you wouldn't I know after this last election the majority of this country's parents would. The point? despite what douche bags put in the laws or will allowed to be said, we feel we all 'own our children.' and if you can't own up to that fact they should be take from you/someone who would deny ownership of a child to make a philosophical point, and given to someone like me who would give my last breath keeping them from someone who can love them enough to OWN them.

 

So, then, failing that, you need to show that there are not relevant differences between what you are referring to as slavery and that which the bible refers to as slavery.  The further you get away from the biblical notion of slavery, the less credible your argument.  You seem engaged in nothing more than an extended example of equivocation.  

wrong again princess. you are describing only one aspect of slavery which demands ownership. which again is covered in definition chattel slavery... however even by merriam webster standards chattel slavery is not the only defination of the word... lest you also claim merriam webster is also subject to logical fallacy everytime you want to dominate the topic of slavery. (like learn a different dance already, the moon walk, while cool and all doesn't work on every song, plus it's not like 1983 anymore..)

Regardless, your argument is a response to the argument that the God portrayed in the bible is immoral because he allowed and condoned slavery.

Here is where nonsequiteur applies. Morality is just some bull shit standard people like yourself made to feel good about the shit choices you make for yourself... meaning if and when you are at odds with God like when God tells you or your friends to not poke each other in the b-holes. but you can't find anything wrong with that you will justify it be saying two consenting adults yada yada yada= moral behavior...

which will also allow you to go the other way like now when you don't think you use slaves any more because you changed the definition of slave to only include ownership (eg why you were trying to change the definition I provided) and since no country allows owner ship you can not possible be benefiting from slaves , yada yada yada= I'm moral and God is not because he condones it... which again is a nonsequiteur, why? because morality is your bull shit samwhich.. If God or his followers don't/won't eat a bull shit sandwiches/don't buy into your definitions or pop morality then judging us by how good you think your sandwich is means nothing to us. after all what are you going to do send God to Hell?

 

You haven't shown that slavery is necessary to a society,

Bull shit, you just have you head in the sand again. FOOD Electronics Tech of any kind really our basic transportation all of our basic building materials.. EVERYTHING modern has it's roots into the the list I provided. You may not simply be smart enough to discern the list of core materials and translate them into building blocks of modern life... but here's the thing you can not deny I did leave 3 points of reference that do indeed expose 50 to 60 everyday common items that if where removed would set our life back 100+ years. Just rubber alone takes away all non rail forms of transportation meaning 1890 here we come! then lithium batteries in every electronic devise which means communication is limited to the 1940s not to mention food production which is now moot because we have no way to get it to market... How did you miss this smarty pants? or again are you being obtuse in hopes I do not understand my own arguments? how many times are you going to fall for the 'gottcha?' either that or you are not reading my posts.

so all you have is the suggestion that slavery in toto is not itself immoral.  That modern societies to some extent tolerate lesser forms of slavery is not in and of itself an argument that slavery in any form is not immoral.  That simply doesn't follow.  In practical terms, it comes down to what you are defining as slavery, as I keep emphasizing.  In so much as slavery is forced servitude perpetuated by state sanctioned violence, most societies condemn it.  In so much as slavery is nothing more than economic exploitation, what is referred to in the bible is not what you are referring to in your argument.  If you are equivocating on your main term, your argument necessarily fails as you are using the same word in multiple ways as if you were using it in the same way throughout.

straw man
While I do not have a problem with slavery as a core concept( Ironic as I am 1gen out of my mom side born not a slave to Imperial Japan and had my birthright and family lands annex/taken from me. nor do I forget the uncle placed in a rice bag and slammed into trees over and over till they broke his arms and legs and later killed him because he could not work, or infant aunt who were muffled to death so the rest of the hiding women were not raped and baynotted) because despite this i know it can be better. I know we can make the user of slaves provide more with very little effort or cost. and with awareness we can make consumers look for and by 'fare trade type items that help support more sustainable yield for the producers.

I simply do not support it as it is unchecked unregulated as it is in the world now. the first step in regulation is to acknowledge it in all forms not only the 1840's black man in a cotton field or even your version that demand ownership! but slavery in all forms however it manifests.. slavery is a dynamic term that will always encompass the foundation of society. foundation not as in great philosophers or thinkers.. but foundation as in the literal people western society stands or make it's life upon. These people deserve basic rights which can not ever be administered if people like you will not acknowledge them or all that they contribute that you do not even think of.

---

Christian moral character and the advocacy of slavery go hand in hand, it seems, lol.  Folks like this are the bottom of the christer barrel.  Hell, this one thinks that his slavery loving christianity is somehow -not- a part of western "morality"

Scare quotes and all.

that said not ever slave is or can be king, but we can acknowledge our dependance on slavery and make sure while wages must remain low that other low to no cost things that are needed for everyday life are met.

oooooh...ooooh..like low priced human chattel!  Two for one on slaves at the walmart every thursday?    

not all slaves are chattel moron. people can be indentured meaning they can come and go as they like but have such a crushing debt they must give all they earn just to remain stagnet. like my grandfather worked a farm everyday he was over here till he had a stroke in the field at like 89.. just to give 90% of it back to his debtor... now under the threat of deportation do you think it was the will of an 89 year old man to work himself to death? how many more like that do you think pick your produce out of the fields for you so you can buy it cheaper at wal-mart.. or did you not know that field workers didn't make 15 dollars per hour and overtime after 40 for walmart?

[The Grand Nudger]

Just stop, lol.

[Drich]

FFS, Drich is *still* making excuses for slavery.  *facepalm*

So much for Christianity holding the moral high ground.  Even if it turns out to be impossible, I at least want to try to eliminate slavery.

On a related note, and putting my $$$ where my mouth is, can anyone recommend good secular charities that try to rescue people from enslavement?

whoa whoa whoa princess. I asked you to help me obliterate slavery to make the world a better place to help me create some way to feed the slaves once you take away their jobs!

Again right now 50 million people depend on slavery to live. I'm asking you how to support them when you take their livelyhood from them!

[The Grand Nudger]

Slaves don't have livelihoods you simpleton.  They are property, tools with which to make livelihoods.

[Drich]

Just stop, lol.

sorry didn't mean to force you to think outside your little box.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, that's you, Drich, opening eyes left and right to different ways of thinking.  Your delusions of self are just as amusing as your delusions regarding slavery, magic book, and cuntgod.

[Minimalist]

FFS, Drich is *still* making excuses for slavery. *facepalm*

What choice does he have?  According to his fucking bible jesus thinks it is so cool!

And people wonder why I want no part of the fucking bible.

[Drich]

Slaves don't have livelihoods you simpleton.  They are property, tools with which to make livelihoods.

you are describing chattel slaves dummy. not all slaves are chattel slaves. Jefferson slaves but not all where chattel matter of fact most skilled slaves in the south earned enough to buy their own freedom after about 5 years of saving. many took the names of their masters and became apart of the family in a manner of speaking and stayed on working.. while free black men they still had no rights in this country so opportunities not as a slave were extremely limited. enter the social part of slavery. one being bound by his station in life due in this particular case to races and or gender.