Imagine

[truthreality]

why are you applying a definition to my argument that I never agreed to?

The only way he can argue is with straw man because he has no substance to support his position.

[Questatement]

Instead of beating around the bush and asking a bunch of off topic unrelated random questions to divert the attention away from the ridiculous system you are justifying do you care to provide a legitimate argument justifying slavery?

Since when is defining terms off topic?

Also, I have already provided my arguments for when slavery is justified... when it benefits all parties involved.

[truthreality]

If the rights of ownership entail "that the owner makes the decisions for and controls his or her possession in anyway he or she pleases" as truthreality has stated, mixed with your belief that: if the owner's decisions violate the person being otherwise 'controlled,' the owner's rights no longer apply, don't we end up with something very close to my boss and I in the workplace?

RED HERRING, STRAW MAN, JUMPING TO CONLCLUSIONS and FALLACY OF PRESUPPOSITION ALERT

First stop putting words in our mouths and leaping to unrelated conclusions. Second the Bible advocates slavery not employment. Slavery and employment are two completely different concepts. If the Bible meant employment it would have said employment after all you would think God's word would be clear. The Bible explicitly advocates slavery. The relationship between an owner and a slave are different then the relationship between a boss and his employee.

For example the Bible condones the beating of slaves because the slave is the owner's property:

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21:20-21

If a boss beats his or her employee the boss will be fired, sued and put in jail. Nice try though Master Red Herring.

[truthreality]

Since when is defining terms off topic?

Also, I have already provided my arguments for when slavery is justified... when it benefits all parties involved.

You haven't justified slavery. All you have done is gone on tangents and switched the topic. I have provided an example where the Bible allows the beating of slaves just because the slave is the owner's property. This does not benefit both parties. Employment benefits both parties not slavery. You need to pick up a book to understand the difference between slavery and employment.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Since when is defining terms off topic?

Also, I have already provided my arguments for when slavery is justified... when it benefits all parties involved.

And you are simply fucking WRONG.

The ONLY time slavery is justified is if the slave consents.

[Questatement]

Me thinks you are entire approach to argumentation is akin to a 7 year old.

Speaking of 7 years, did you know that in colonial North America, 'several' years was the average duration that indentured servants (redemptioners) from Europe signed up to serve their masters in order to get their travel costs to America paid by their waiting masters? (considered property under the law to be bought and sold until their indentures matured) Did you also know that redemptioners comprised almost 80% of the total British and continental emigration to America prior to the Revolution?

That's a whole lot of people voluntarily not acting in their own best interests don't you think?

Lastly, does a term of several years sound a bit familiar from our reading of the bible for most slaves or, dare we call them indentured servants?

Could it just be, in some wild imagination of the application, similar to America's history of the same?

[xx_mortekai_xx]

What if I were to say here is a person for you to own / control.

However,


Speaking of 7 years, did you know that in colonial North America, 'several' years was the average duration that indentured servants (redemptioners) from Europe signed up to serve their masters in order to get their travel costs to America paid by their waiting masters? Did you also know that redemptioners comprised almost 80% of the total British and continental emigration to America prior to the Revolution?

That's a whole lot of people voluntarily not acting in their own best interests don't you think?

Lastly, does several years sound a bit familiar from our reading of the bible for most slaves or, dare we call them indentured servants?

Could it just be, in some wild imagination of the application, similar to America's history of the same?

there is a difference between having to work to pay off a debt and slavery. Nice try, though.

[Questatement]

They were owned with the owner having the right to buy and sell at will during the term of service.

What differences are you referring to?

[xx_mortekai_xx]

They were owned with the owner having the right to buy and sell at will during the term of service.

What differences are you referring to?

I am not arguing what happened in practice. It may very well have been essentially slavery, and if so, it was fucking wrong. In actuality, i simply dont know if what you are claiming indentured servitude was is actually true, and given your propensity for distorting the words of others, I dont know if I can trust you.

But the concept of having someone front you the capital to get to another country and their consideration for this was you working for them is far from being property of that person and working without term or contract. Besides, if the people agreed to this, then its consent, and its not slavery, per se. the fact that the contract would include the ability to buy out that contract is, again, far from being treated as property, because the contractee would agree to this beforehand. giving up your rights is a different situation than having your rights taken from you.

and i dont care how popular it was, because the popularity of a thing goes for nothing when considering the correctness of a thing.

[Questatement]

... and i dont care how popular it was, because the popularity of a thing goes for nothing when considering the correctness of a thing.

What of the testimonies of those indentured servants who said they were better off for it? How do you define 'correct' if not that both parties were satisfied with the arrangement?

Did you know it is still legal in the US?

Maybe you should write your congressman?

[truthreality]

Speaking of 7 years, did you know that in colonial North America, 'several' years was the average duration that indentured servants (redemptioners) from Europe signed up to serve their masters in order to get their travel costs to America paid by their waiting masters? (considered property under the law to be bought and sold until their indentures matured) Did you also know that redemptioners comprised almost 80% of the total British and continental emigration to America prior to the Revolution?

That's a whole lot of people voluntarily not acting in their own best interests don't you think?

Lastly, does a term of several years sound a bit familiar from our reading of the bible for most slaves or, dare we call them indentured servants?

Could it just be, in some wild imagination of the application, similar to America's history of the same?

No. The slavery in the Bible is not indentured servitude it is slavery. It's not in your best interest to use America and slavery to substantiate your argument considering how horrible it turned out.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

What of the testimonies of those indentured servants who said they were better off for it? How do you define 'correct' if not that both parties were satisfied with the arrangement?

Did you know it is still legal in the US?

Maybe you should write your congressman?

You obviously didnt read the rest of the post, otherwise you wouldnt have posted something so stupid.