• 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
Blackdog said:
PS a general agreement is not a consensus by any means.

Again shows it is subjective!
Click to expand...

Ok, I will concede that the conclusions are a general agreement, but that that is not a consensus and that it is subjective (I am generally a moral relativist, so I like subjective).

However, I will not agree that this makes slavery a matter of perspective, back to the OP. There is general agreement on what slavery entails. Slave of drugs and conscription do not meet this measure.

Blocks the attack and counters for a GOAL!!!
 
reefedjib said:
Ok, I will concede that the conclusions are a general agreement, but that that is not a consensus and that it is subjective (I am generally a moral relativist, so I like subjective).

However, I will not agree that this makes slavery a matter of perspective, back to the OP. There is general agreement on what slavery entails. Slave of drugs and conscription do not meet this measure.

Blocks the attack and counters for a GOAL!!!
Click to expand...

I think it absolutly does. Look at the debates going on around us. It is absolutly subjective. People do not agree at all.

Penalty on the play. -15 bases.

Score is C to 23.

No score!
 
Blackdog said:
Since when does applying something evenly equate soundless points? In Goobie land?
Click to expand...
You created a standard relevant to a subject
You want to apply that standard when you find it convenient and ignore it when not. Either your standard is valid in all cases regarding that subject, or it isn't. Your choice.

Has literaly nothing to do with my point. Or yours for that matter.
Click to expand...
Wow. You must not be paying attention to your own posts.
 
Goobieman said:
You created a standard relevant to a subject
You want to apply that standard when you find it convenient and ignore it when not. Either your standard is valid in all cases regarding that subject, or it isn't. Your choice.
Click to expand...

It was specific to your example. And since my argument is about the subjectivity of the issue, you are basically making my case for me.

And you still have no clue as to what I meant.

Things do not have to be applied evenly either way.

You going to show me some evidence that all subjects need to be applies evenly? Good luck. :lol:

Goobieman said:
Wow. You must not be paying attention to your own posts.
Click to expand...

I am not paying attention to the silliness of your posts. Huge difference. :mrgreen:
 
Blackdog said:
It was specific to your example. And since my argument is about the subjectivity of the issue, you are basically making my case for me.
Click to expand...
:rofl
Well, if that's the case, your standard doesn't apply at all, and your point fails.
:rofl

:2wave:
 
Blackdog said:
I think it absolutly does. Look at the debates going on around us. It is absolutly subjective. People do not agree at all.

Penalty on the play. -15 bases.

Score is C to 23.

No score!
Click to expand...

In the encyclopedia entry I cited, it says general agreement, but for the first item I will bet that there is consensus. "The slave was a species of property; thus, he belonged to someone else.". This is an objective observation about slavery.

This fails conscription and "slave" of drugs.

It is not subjective, therefore it is not a matter of perspective.
 
reefedjib said:
In the encyclopedia entry I cited, it says general agreement, but for the first item I will bet that there is consensus. "The slave was a species of property; thus, he belonged to someone else.". This is an objective observation about slavery.
Click to expand...

Still flies in the face of the definition of the word from any dictionary. It just does not pass muster as too many types of slavery have existed since the dawn of man.

reefedjib said:
This fails conscription and "slave" of drugs.

It is not subjective, therefore it is not a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...

I disagree for the reasons I already stated. And by the evidence I have shown.
 
Goobieman said:
:rofl
Well, if that's the case, your standard doesn't apply at all, and your point fails.
:rofl

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Another dodge.

I guess we are done.

Again thanks for proving my point.
 
Blackdog said:
Still flies in the face of the definition of the word from any dictionary. It just does not pass muster as too many types of slavery have existed since the dawn of man.



I disagree for the reasons I already stated. And by the evidence I have shown.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we disagree. Enjoyed it none the less and it feels good to win one of these here debates on DP! :cool:

(arguing with a Dictionary! BWHAHAAHHAHAHAA!!)
 
reefedjib said:
Yeah, we disagree. Enjoyed it none the less and it feels good to win one of these here debates on DP! :cool:

(arguing with a Dictionary! BWHAHAAHHAHAHAA!!)
Click to expand...

You did not even come close to winning.

But as a consolation...

winternet.jpg
 
reefedjib said:
Slavery is owning people as property for the purposes of getting work out of them. Period.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by catz
I agree. Misusing the term weakens it. I do not support hyperbolic misuse of terminology for the purpose of inflaming an emotional response to some political issue. Other terms that are frequently misused include hate speech, racism, and terrorism.
Click to expand...

Not according to the definitions of the term...
 
Without having read this thread (as my lazyness level is high at this time), I state the following:

IMO, "Slavery" is defined as "involuntary service/labor".
 
Slavery is when someone takes a machine gun, actual or metaphorical, and denies you the fruits of your labor for the benefit of himself or others and with no measurable benefit to yourself.

The classic example is the black slaves owned by Democrat Jefferson Davis. Except Ol' Jeff didn't have a machine gun.

The modern example is the American worker who gets taxed and taxed and taxed so his masters can bail out AIG, GM, Greece, Europe, the Universe, and none of which will ever benefit him.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Slavery is when someone takes a machine gun, actual or metaphorical, and denies you the fruits of your labor for the benefit of himself or others and with no measurable benefit to yourself.

The classic example is the black slaves owned by Democrat Jefferson Davis. Except Ol' Jeff didn't have a machine gun.

The modern example is the American worker who gets taxed and taxed and taxed so his masters can bail out AIG, GM, Greece, Europe, the Universe, and none of which will ever benefit him.
Click to expand...

And there we go, the viewpoint that proves the case. Slavery is not a pinned down definition and even if it is, the terms in the definition are up to debate. What does "against one's will" mean? What does "will" mean?
 
reefedjib said:
It is really pathetic seeing you try to deny it. But thanks for the coupon! :doh
Click to expand...

Nothing pathetic. You did not prove your case. Your evidence supported my position more so than your own. You just want to white wash it. So no one cares but you.
 
Blackdog said:
Nothing pathetic. You did not prove your case. Your evidence supported my position more so than your own. You just want to white wash it. So no one cares but you.
Click to expand...

Not a chance. Let's revisit the argument. The institution of slavery requires that people be owned as property. I proved it and you brought a dictionary. :roll:
 
reefedjib said:
Not a chance. Let's revisit the argument. The institution of slavery requires that people be owned as property. I proved it and you brought a dictionary. :roll:
Click to expand...

Your source shows their is no consensus. You can't deny this. The dictionary definition also says "property ownership" is not necessary.

Going by the preponderance of the evidence, your point is not valid.

As most of the other posters have shown, it is clearly subjective from person to person.

Got evidence that says "The institution of slavery requires that people be owned as property." that is a statement of fact? No, you don't because their "is no general consensus."
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Your source shows their is no consensus. You can't deny this. The dictionary definition also says "property ownership" is not necessary.

Going by the preponderance of the evidence, your point is not valid.

As most of the other posters have shown, it is clearly subjective from person to person.

Got evidence that says "The institution of slavery requires that people be owned as property." that is a statement of fact? No, you don't because their "is no general consensus."
Click to expand...

"Slavery (also called thralldom) is a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be the property of others."

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery]Slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

It's a done deal.
 
reefedjib said:
"Slavery (also called thralldom) is a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be the property of others."

Slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a done deal.
Click to expand...

Now wait. You say the dictionary is not good enough. You use the encyclopedia which also agreed with me. Now Wikipedia is good enough? :rofl :sinking:

You are correct.

We are done here.
 
Last edited:
I plan to stay up late, and sleep in tomorrow. Just because I feel like it. Can a slave do that. Or can you?
 
Blackdog said:
Now wait. You say the dictionary is not good enough. You use the encyclopedia which also agreed with me. Now Wikipedia is good enough? :rofl :sinking:

You are correct.

We are done here.
Click to expand...

Hey, Wikipedia is a peer-reviewed site. It is good to go.
 
Blackdog said:
For some things yes. Working for someone else is a form of slavery. This is not a bad form of slavery, but some can't make a life for themselfs without the job. So this is a form of slavery.

So it is in some cases subjective, and based solely on opinion or perspective.
Click to expand...

When I have a job, I am not working for someone else.

I am in business for myself, and my employer is my costumer. I work for me, not them.

In this way I am not a slave.
 
Blackdog said:
Now wait. You say the dictionary is not good enough. You use the encyclopedia which also agreed with me. Now Wikipedia is good enough? :rofl :sinking:

You are correct.

We are done here.
Click to expand...

Here's another:

"slavery
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 | Copyright
slavery institution based on a relationship of dominance and submission, whereby one person owns another and can exact from that person labor or other services."

slavery Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about slavery


and another:

"Condition in which one human being is owned by another."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/548305/slavery
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom