• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is slavery a matter of perspective?

Is slavery a matter of perspective?


  • Total voters
    29
No it does not. I have already explained why.
Your explanation fails, as illustrated. Direct or indirect, slaver ys is still slavery.

No because they are not restricting your freedom to...
-Move someplace else.
-Get tax exempt status etc.
You have a choice.
Oh... I see.
Well, as you -always- have a choice, under this argument, slavery cannot exist.
Being conscripted into a military is no choice. You go and if you try to move away etc, you are now in violation and under penalty of law considered a criminal.
You still have a choice, and its no different than the choice that you claim negates the argument that being forced by the government to provide for others is slavery. As such, by your own argument, conscription isnt slavery.

So, you need to make up your mind as you are now arguing out both ends of your digestive tract.
 
Last edited:
No. By declining the dictionary definition you have admitted you have no bases for your argument other than opinion. I don't care about your opinion as it is not backed up by any tangible evidence. Mine is.

Pretty simple.

Now as soon as you have actual evidence that backs up your statements, we may have something. Until that time you are just spouting a great deal of nothing.

You fail by not linking your dictionary definition showing it is a reputable dictionary and that it's definitions are sound.

Furthermore, we are talking about the institution of slavery and not the literary fuse of that word, a la "slavery to drugs".

You fail on both counts.
 
Your explanation fails, as illustrated. Direct or indirect, slaver ys is still slavery.

According to the actual definition, no it does not.

Oh... I see.
Well, as you -always- have a choice, under this argument, slavery cannot exist.

Yea, that is exactly what I said. :roll:

You still have a choice, ans its no different than the choice that you claim negates the argument that being forced by the government to provide for others is slavery. As such, by your own argument, conscription isnt slavery.

I have already shown in 3 or 4 posts this is not true. You have given nothing to support your position other than yelling my evidence does not jive with your opinion.

Sorry, does not float.

So, you need to make up your mind as you are now arging out both ends of your digestive tract.

Only in your mind. :mrgreen:
 
I guess the way I see it is that if being forced to provide service by the government is slavery. Than, yes, so are things like the draft, jury duty, paying taxes so that the poor can have a lawyer, etc.

I guess that would mean that one some level, forced service is necessary for a functional society.
 
Last edited:
You fail by not linking your dictionary definition showing it is a reputable dictionary and that it's definitions are sound.

You have got to be kidding? It's a freaking dictionary. I can get the same definitions from 3 or 4 on-line dictionary's.

Idiot | Define Idiot at Dictionary.com

Furthermore, we are talking about the institution of slavery and not the literary fuse of that word, a la "slavery to drugs".

You fail on both counts.

We are arguing if it is subjective or not and to whom.

Read the OP and get back to me. :lol:
 
I guess the way I see it is that if being forced to provide service by the government is slavery. Than, yes, so are things like the draft, jury duty, paying taxes so that the poor can have a lawyer, etc.

I guess that would mean that one some level, forced service is necessary for a functional society.

Like I have been saying it is indeed subjective. I think the debates with Goobieman and reefedjib have more than backed up my point.
 
Read the OP and get back to me. :lol:

Slavery is not subjective. The institution of slavery is well known and conscription, "slave" of drugs, and coercion do not meet the definition.

slavery

condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.

There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined. Nevertheless, there is general agreement among historians, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and others who study slavery that most of the following characteristics should be present in order to term a person a slave. The slave was a species of property; thus, he belonged to someone else. In some societies slaves were considered movable property, in others immovable property, like real estate. They were objects of the law, not its subjects. Thus, like an ox or an ax, the slave was not ordinarily held responsible for what he did. He was not personally liable for torts or contracts. The slave usually had few rights and always fewer than his owner, but there were not many societies in which he had absolutely none. As there are limits in most societies on the extent to which animals may be abused, so there were limits in most societies on how much a slave could be abused. The slave was removed from lines of natal descent. Legally and often socially he had no kin. No relatives could stand up for his rights or get vengeance for him. As an “outsider,” “marginal individual,” or “socially dead person” in the society where he was enslaved, his rights to participate in political decision making and other social activities were fewer than those enjoyed by his owner. The product of a slave's labour could be claimed by someone else, who also frequently had the right to control his physical reproduction.


Slavery was a form of dependent labour performed by a nonfamily member. The slave was deprived of personal liberty and the right to move about geographically as he desired. There were likely to be limits on his capacity to make choices with regard to his occupation and sexual partners as well. Slavery was usually, but not always, involuntary. If not all of these characterizations in their most restrictive forms applied to a slave, the slave regime in that place is likely to be characterized as “mild”; if almost all of them did, then it ordinarily would be characterized as “severe.”

Welcome to Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Black History
 
Slavery is not subjective. The institution of slavery is well known and conscription, "slave" of drugs, and coercion do not meet the definition.

They are defined in the dictionary.

I noticed no dictionary definition from you? :lol:


That is not the definition of the word. That is the history of black slavery. With examples of that type of slavery.

Blacks were not the only slaves, and slavery differed from society to society. Again proving it is not only a matter of perspective, but subjective.

Thanks.
 
They are defined in the dictionary.

I noticed no dictionary definition from you? :lol:

I didn't realize we were comparing dictionary definitions. I am happy to say that I am bigger and longer! :mrgreen:

That is not the definition of the word. That is the history of black slavery. With examples of that type of slavery.

Blacks were not the only slaves, and slavery differed from society to society. Again proving it is not only a matter of perspective, but subjective.

That article is found in the Black History Encyclopedia but is not restricted to a discussion of solely black slavery. You may want to read the article before spouting off about it.

That article goes much further that some measly dictionary definition. You are slayed.


You are most welcome. :2wave:
 
According to the actual definition, no it does not.
You have yet to show how indirect slavery is not slavery.

Yea, that is exactly what I said. :roll:
You said:
No because they are not restricting your freedom to...
-Move someplace else.
-Get tax exempt status etc.
You have a choice.
Your argument rests on "you have a choice".

Everyone always has a choice. If you have a choice, then, according to you, you are not a slave. As everyone always has a choice, then no one is a slave.

I have already shown in 3 or 4 posts this is not true.
On the contrary - you have argued that:

You may:
-Move someplace else.
-Get a [conscription-]exempt status etc.

Thus, you have a choice.
As you have a choice, conscription cannot be slavery.

You can disagree all you like. It makes it no less true.
 
I didn't realize we were comparing dictionary definitions. I am happy to say that I am bigger and longer! :mrgreen:

Even if you did pull up a dictionary definition, that wouldn't matter because unlike laws of physics- dictionaries are culturally defined.

That article goes much further that some measly dictionary definition. You are slayed.

You defeat your own argument by using a non-objective source to support it! That article is opinion about a particular concept.
 
You have yet to show how indirect slavery is not slavery.

Truth is I don't care. I was just proving how subjective the view of slavery is. I don't even necessarily disagree with you, just making a point.

You said:

Your argument rests on "you have a choice".

Everyone always has a choice. If you have a choice, then, according to you, you are not a slave. As everyone always has a choice, then no one is a slave.

On the contrary - you have argued that:

Thus, you have a choice.
As you have a choice, conscription cannot be slavery.

You can disagree all you like. It makes it no less true.

You have it completly wrong.

I am not saying it ALWAYS boils down to having a choice.

In your example it is clear people have a choice with no PENALTY'S or CRIMINAL actions against them if they leave or invest in tax shelters etc. With conscription you have no choice, period. Either do it or go to jail, period.

Either way it is no less subjective.

Thanks
 
I didn't realize we were comparing dictionary definitions. I am happy to say that I am bigger and longer! :mrgreen:

:rofl

That article is found in the Black History Encyclopedia but is not restricted to a discussion of solely black slavery. You may want to read the article before spouting off about it.

That article goes much further that some measly dictionary definition. You are slayed.

It is not a definition. As I said the concept is not structured by one system of slavery etc. Slavery has been defined for thousands of years. Even before the concept of private ownership was thought of.

It just does not apply or support your argument.

You are most welcome. :2wave:

I appreciate that.
 
Even if you did pull up a dictionary definition, that wouldn't matter because unlike laws of physics- dictionaries are culturally defined.

You defeat your own argument by using a non-objective source to support it! That article is opinion about a particular concept.

In other words, the dictionary definition is opinion and connected to linguistic use of the word and not historical precedent, which I linked to with my encyclopedia article, which is NOT opinion, it is fact. Encyclopedia beats dictionary.
 
Truth is I don't care.
Of course not.
:roll:

You have it completly wrong.
I am not saying it ALWAYS boils down to having a choice.
:rofl
So, it boils down to having a choice when it is convenient for your argument.
10-4.

In your example it is clear people have a choice with no PENALTY'S or CRIMINAL actions against them if they leave or invest in tax shelters etc. With conscription you have no choice, period. Either do it or go to jail, period.
You're confuring 'having a choice' with 'having choices that are palatable'. These are not interchangable, and as such, your distintion, above, does not fly. You -always- have a choice.
 
It is not a definition. As I said the concept is not structured by one system of slavery etc. Slavery has been defined for thousands of years. Even before the concept of private ownership was thought of.

It just does not apply or support your argument.

What are you talking about? My link is a definition of slavery and the facts of slavery throughout the history of humanity. Did you read the article and the linked pages? It discusses slavery in Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, Africa, and the USA.

Your dictionary definition lists linguistic uses of the word and only some of them relate to the institution of slavery.

You are slayed. :2wave:
 
Of course not.
:roll:

:mrgreen:

:rofl
So, it boils down to having a choice when it is convenient for your argument.
10-4.

That is just stupid. It does when it applies to YOUR example.

You're confuring 'having a choice' with 'having choices that are palatable'.

No. A choice that results in punishment or a loss of freedom through no direct action of your own is not the same.

Keep dodging.

These are not interchangable, and as such, your distintion, above, does not fly. You -always- have a choice.

Not what I am saying.
 
What are you talking about? My link is a definition of slavery and the facts of slavery throughout the history of humanity. Did you read the article and the linked pages? It discusses slavery in Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, Africa, and the USA.

From your encyclopedia and the first paragraph of the article...

"There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined.

End of game.

Thanks for playing! :2wave:
 
Last edited:
From your encyclopedia...

"There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined.

End of game.

Thanks for playing! :2wave:

Yes I saw that and did not try to hide it. It goes on to say:

"Nevertheless, there is general agreement among historians, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and others who study slavery that most of the following characteristics should be present in order to term a person a slave."

I win in overtime! :mrgreen:
 
Yes I saw that and did not try to hide it. It goes on to say:

"Nevertheless, there is general agreement among historians, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and others who study slavery that most of the following characteristics should be present in order to term a person a slave."

I win in overtime! :mrgreen:

Why? that agrees again with my position?

"Should be" and "are." are not the same thing.

Blocks the shot at the last minute!!!

PS a general agreement is not a consensus by any means.

Again shows it is subjective!

Touch down!!! :july_4th:

We are playing Calvin Ball, right?
 
Last edited:
Why? that agrees again with my position?

"Should be" and "are." are not the same thing.

Blocks the shot at the last minute!!!

You are playing cricket and arguing over the rules, while I am playing futball and putting it into the back of the net!

Player red carded off the field and the penalty shot goes in!
 
You are playing cricket and arguing over the rules, while I am playing futball and putting it into the back of the net!

Player red carded off the field and the penalty shot goes in!

No no no! In Calvin Ball I am winning: A to 14.
 
That is just stupid. It does when it applies to YOUR example.
All this means is that you're not applying your standard equally in all cases. This, alone, negates the soundess of your point.

No. A choice that results in punishment or a loss of freedom through no direct action of your own is not the same.
Choices are choices, regardless if you like the potential outcomes.
If, as you argue, having a choice means you are not a slave, then slavery does not exist.

You can disagree all you like - it makes it no less true.
 
All this means is that you're not applying your standard equally in all cases. This, alone, negates the soundess of your point.

Since when does applying something evenly equate soundless points? In Goobie land? :mrgreen:

Choices are choices, regardless if you like the potential outcomes.

Has literaly nothing to do with my point. Or yours for that matter.

If, as you argue, having a choice means you are not a slave, then slavery does not exist.

Again absolutely irrelevant to my argument.

You can disagree all you like - it makes it no less true.

In this case it does. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom