Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Apparently you haven't explained your stance in a manner that is understandable outside of your own skull.

Yes I have

Try explaining it...break it down simply and clearly without a dozen Quotes With No Names.

I have broken it down well enough and the way the quotes are shown matters little.

[arewethereyet]

Apparently you haven't explained your stance in a manner that is understandable outside of your own skull.

Yes I have 

Try explaining it...break it down simply and clearly without a dozen Quotes With No Names.

I have. Though I doubt that's the issue.

Well, I guess this *discussion* is over.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yes I have 


I have. Though I doubt that's the issue.

Well, I guess this *discussion* is over.

Maybe. Though I doubt it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The concept of an employer and a worker is inherently imbalanced and the fact the worker most sells his labor is inherently exploitative. I'm not sure how to make that much clearer

That you believe wage labor is exploitative is clear.  What's not clear is what you mean by exploitative.  Is Brian exploiting me and my contributions because he has a penis and I do not?  That's an imbalance.  Are all imbalances exploitative?  If so, how do you determine who is exploiting who?  I seem to be exploiting Jeff Bezos' desire to be wealthy by ordering things from Amazon.  All you're doing is blathering.

That wage labor is exploitative doesn't answer why wage labor is exploitative, what does it mean for a relationship to be exploitative, which was the question.

Basically your answer is, "By saying wage labor is exploitative I mean that wage labor is exploitative."  Well, like fucking duh.

Please take whatever steps you find necessary to keep my penis out of this discussion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

That you believe wage labor is exploitative is clear.  What's not clear is what you mean by exploitative.  Is Brian exploiting me and my contributions because he has a penis and I do not?  That's an imbalance.  Are all imbalances exploitative?  If so, how do you determine who is exploiting who?  I seem to be exploiting Jeff Bezos' desire to be wealthy by ordering things from Amazon.  All you're doing is blathering.

That wage labor is exploitative doesn't answer why wage labor is exploitative, what does it mean for a relationship to be exploitative, which was the question.

Basically your answer is, "By saying wage labor is exploitative I mean that wage labor is exploitative."  Well, like fucking duh.

Please take whatever steps you find necessary to keep my penis out of this discussion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Boru

You have my word I will not bring up your anatomy in future 

[Angrboda]

That you believe wage labor is exploitative is clear. What's not clear is what you mean by exploitative. 

It's pretty clear

The only thing that's clear is that you don't know how to answer a simple question.

Is Brian exploiting me and my contributions because he has a penis and I do not? That's an imbalance.

Not really because there is no labor relationship and no the possession of a penis isn't inherently exploitative unless we attach a power dynamic to it.

There is a labor relationship involved, that of my producing posts and alternately of him performing administrative tasks. Those are both labor relationships.

If you think there is no power dynamic attached to having a penis, then you are fucking ignorant and naive.

 Are all imbalances exploitative? 

Nope talking about power imbalance in relation to labor in this case.

So not all imbalances are exploitative. At least we're getting somewhere. Therefore an imbalance is a necessary condition for exploitation, but not a sufficient condition for exploitation. What additional elements are required for exploitation. Further on you emphasize that a specific kind of power dynamic is involved. If your definition is to avoid circularity, there must be some characteristic of the specific power dynamic between labor and capital besides it simply being a relationship involving labor and capital. (Because if that is the only distinction, what you're saying boils down to, "Wage labor is exploitative because it is wage labor." Wage labor may be exploitative for many reasons but not simply for being wage labor. That would be vapid and meaningless.)

If so, how do you determine who is exploiting who? 

By the power imbalance in labor relations in this case

See above. What is the specific aspect of the wage-labor relationship that makes it exploitative?

I seem to be exploiting Jeff Bezos' desire to be wealthy by ordering things from Amazon. 

Nope buying something from Amazon is not exploiting Jeff Bezos there isn't the same kind of power dynamic.

What kind of power dynamic is required? There are a billion power dynamics. For this conversation to be meaningful, the wage-labor power dynamic must fall into a category which other relationships involving power dynamics must also fall into, otherwise your answer is wage-labor is exploitative because it just is. That's ipse dixit and won't fly.

All you're doing is blathering.

All your doing is getting upset for no reason. Take a deep breath and calm down.

Why don't you mind your own p's and q's instead of telling me what to do, fuckface? If I want to get upset, which I haven't done, I'll go there after my druthers.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself.

That wage labor is exploitative doesn't answer why wage labor is exploitative, what does it mean for a relationship to be exploitative, which was the question.

As I have said above By the power imbalance in labor relations and the fact workers have to sell their labor. 

Neither of those makes wage-labor exploitative in and of themselves (again, presuming your meaning is not vapid). So what about those facts makes it exploitative?

[Pat Mustard]

Not all labour of this type is exploitive. During the lambing and shearing seasons (April through July), my father would hire casual labourers - generally Romany -to help out. They were allowed to park their caravans on the farm, but Da also had some small cottages built for any of them who wanted a change. He never charged ground rent, fed them while they were there, and paid above the going rate. He ALWAYS had to turn people away.

Boru

Your father is a communist!

I think you'll find, actually, that his father smelt of elderberries.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Your father is a communist!

I think you'll find, actually, that his father smelt of elderberries.

'Father was a cabinet minister and mother won the Derby'.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

WHY IS MY WILLY STILL PART OF THIS TOPIC???? Seriously, kids. I would much prefer that my personal region not by used as a metaphor for labour exploitation.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

It's pretty clear

The only thing that's clear is that you don't know how to answer a simple question.

Not really because there is no labor relationship and no the possession of a penis isn't inherently exploitative unless we attach a power dynamic to it.

There is a labor relationship involved, that of my producing posts and alternately of him performing administrative tasks.  Those are both labor relationships.

If you think there is no power dynamic attached to having a penis, then you are fucking ignorant and naive.

Nope talking about power imbalance in relation to labor in this case.

So not all imbalances are exploitative.  At least we're getting somewhere.  Therefore an imbalance is a necessary condition for exploitation, but not a sufficient condition for exploitation.  What additional elements are required for exploitation.  Further on you emphasize that a specific kind of power dynamic is involved.  If your definition is to avoid circularity, there must be some characteristic of the specific power dynamic between labor and capital besides it simply being a relationship involving labor and capital.  (Because if that is the only distinction, what you're saying boils down to, "Wage labor is exploitative because it is wage labor."  Wage labor may be exploitative for many reasons but not simply for being wage labor.  That would be vapid and meaningless.)

By the power imbalance in labor relations in this case

See above.  What is the specific aspect of the wage-labor relationship that makes it exploitative?

Nope buying something from Amazon is not exploiting Jeff Bezos there isn't the same kind of power dynamic.

What kind of power dynamic is required?  There are a billion power dynamics.  For this conversation to be meaningful, the wage-labor power dynamic must fall into a category which other relationships involving power dynamics must also fall into, otherwise your answer is wage-labor is exploitative because it just is.  That's ipse dixit and won't fly.

All your doing is getting upset for no reason. Take a deep breath and calm down.

Why don't you mind your own p's and q's instead of telling me what to do, fuckface?  If I want to get upset, which I haven't done, I'll go there after my druthers.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself.

As I have said above By the power imbalance in labor relations and the fact workers have to sell their labor. 

Neither of those makes wage-labor exploitative in and of themselves (again, presuming your meaning is not vapid).  So what about those facts makes it exploitative?

If you can't have a conversation without freaking out at me. Then really don't see any reason to continue this. Declare that a victory if you want.