I think there is a greater burden on the historically and contextually obtuse dolt throwers to actually tell us why it would not have been justified.
FMF didn't even try. He literally was like ... "Wellllll I just can't even.... I think... YOU CAN'T morally justify it...."
By the way, FMF, is the PM system down?
I haven't gotten that private message from you.
Please send me a PM about your PM.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Mar 18
4 edits
Originally posted by @thinkofoneI am not getting the significance of your apparent attempt to identify indentured servitude in the US from the US slavery.
For these intents and purposes, what you call "these poor forced confined people" are analogous to what had been foreign born free men in the US back in the days of slavery. They were not "chattel slaves". Chattel slaves were "for life".
My reference about "these poor forced confined people" was about modern slaves. Usually they are confined, or under threat, by their owners. Certainly modern sex slaves are "poor forced condinfed people".
It goes without saying the slaves of the US Slave Trade were also.
Now whether "chattel" means "for life" or not, I would have to research. However the Old Testament shows that slaves were not necessarily for life. The year of Jubiliee was instituted to forbid that.
Some provision was made for the slave who wanted to remain for life with a master.
YOU quoted this -
48they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee.
That concerns Israelites who become slaves of rich foreigners in the land of Israel. If "chattel" insists on entire life, then this passage negates that.
And for Hebrews slaves of Hebrew masters, of course Jubilee negates mandatory LIFE servitude.
So if your point is that "chattel" by nature means "no possibility of getting out of servitude for life," you've lost the case.
Both cases had a provision for redemption from servitude.
That is what was ordained by the law of Moses.
Is your point that foreigners could only be slaves for life to Hebrews?
Do you believe that God is?
As you seek to educate me on God's word, do you believe God exists?
23 Mar 18
4 edits
Originally posted by @sonshipI posted the following earlier, but you still seem to be confused by what Leviticus 25:39-55 is saying:
I am not getting the significance of your apparent attempt to identify indentured servitude in the US from the US slavery.
[quote] For these intents and purposes, what you call "these poor forced confined people" are analogous to what had been foreign born free men in the US back in the days of slavery. They were not "chattel slaves". Chattel slaves wer ...[text shortened]... o you believe that God is?
As you seek to educate me on God's word, do you believe God exists?
The first quote box applies solely to Hebrew indentured servitude (39-43, 47-55).
As such, "The year of Jubiliee" applies solely to Hebrew indentured servitude.
The second quote box applies solely to non-Hebrew chattel slavery (44-46)..
As such, "slaves for life" applies solely to non-Hebrew chattel slavery.
Please take the time to fully understand what is being said below.
The following describes the rules governing Hebrew indentured servitude:
Leviticus 25
39 “ ‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.41Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
47“ ‘If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner’s clan, 48they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. 51If many years remain, they must pay for their redemption a larger share of the price paid for them. 52If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, they are to compute that and pay for their redemption accordingly. 53They are to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly.
54“ ‘Even if someone is not redeemed in any of these ways, they and their children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee, 55for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
The following describes the rules governing non-Hebrew chattel slavery:
Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life...
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaI have no problem at all with the "historical understanding" aspect of looking at what excuses and justifications people had for owning fellow human beings as chattel.
"Oh WELP you're so CRAZZZZZYYYYY and I don't understand HISTORRYYY"
Originally posted by @philokaliaWhich post of mine are you claiming to be quoting here? Please copy paste it into your reply to this. I've said quite a lot of stuff across two threads, almost none of which you have acknowledged, let alone responded to. Now you are quoting me as saying something I have not said unless I am mistaken. I've posted quite a bit so there is no need for you to fabricate words and attribute them to me as quotes. Please indicate the post you have taken the text in quotation marks from.
FMF didn't even try. He literally was like ... "Wellllll I just can't even.... I think... YOU CAN'T morally justify it....".
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @fmfBut you don't really understand it then if you view it as an "excuse."
I have no problem at all with the "historical understanding" aspect of looking at what excuses and justifications people had for owning fellow human beings as chattel.
It was a necessity of the reality.
- You're starving and homeless.
- I have no liquid currency or assets like 98% of other people. And what assets I do have are extremely tenuous because I, like you, exist in a state of perpetual fear that my crops will fail and I'll be reduced to absolute nothing, and likewise have to wander the countryside hoping to glean food from people's fields...
- I will take you in to be my slave, and I'll clothe you and feed you, but I need some guarantees and benefits. I can't do this purely out of the goodness of my heart because then you're just going to stay with me until you have enough food and then maybe you'll just kill me in the night and leave. I am doing you a massive favor and taking food out of my own stocks to feed and clothe you.
Of course, this doesn't sound like 18th-19th century slavery because that was a very different circumstance and was undoubtedly not ethical in my mind. Not in the least.
I'm also sure there were some abuses and some people who didn't use the system well.
But the slavery system was a net gain for many people.
Do you choose death from squalor in the city, or a second chance at life? Do you realize that people need guarantees and need some sense of benefit themselves to have interest in doing these things?
It makes sense.
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @philokalia"Justification", then. I have been using the word "justification" as well.
But you don't really understand it then if you view it as an "excuse."
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @fmfSure.
"Justification", then. I have been using the word "justification" as well.
You don't have to cling to these petty distinctions in everything but I will be charitable to you as I realize that this is your hobby in life.
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @philokalia- You're starving and homeless.
- I have no liquid currency or assets like 98% of other people. And what assets I do have are extremely tenuous because I, like you, exist in a state of perpetual fear that my crops will fail and I'll be reduced to absolute nothing, and likewise have to wander the countryside hoping to glean food from people's fields...
- I will take you in to be my slave, and I'll clothe you and feed you, but I need some guarantees and benefits. I can't do this purely out of the goodness of my heart because then you're just going to stay with me until you have enough food and then maybe you'll just kill me in the night and leave. I am doing you a massive favor and taking food out of my own stocks to feed and clothe you.
Draw up a contract that does not abrogate the basic freedoms and rights and human dignity of either party.
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaI'd probably have condoned slavery if I'd lived in the past. I may well have subscribed to it as an economic model for the same "justifications" as you now tout.
You don't have to cling to these petty distinctions in everything but I will be charitable to you as I realize that this is your hobby in life.
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaThese "guarantees and need [for] some sense of benefit themselves" would certainly be created by owning humans as chattel, buying and selling them, passing them on to your children. And such practices were a deeply dark period in the history of the human condition. Thanks goodness our sense of morality has changed.
Do you choose death from squalor in the city, or a second chance at life? Do you realize that people need guarantees and need some sense of benefit themselves to have interest in doing these things?
23 Mar 18
Low wages are morally justifiable. No wages, only food, and maybe shelter too, are also justifiable. Long hours, justifiable. Back breaking work, justifiable. These are all take-or-leave-it propositions. But owning another human being as property, as chattel, as a tradable commodity like livestock?. Using the danger that a person may starve in order to turn them into property? That's moral darkness.
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaI believe that it would have been morally justifiable for victims of "18th-19th century slavery" [i.e. the slaves] to kill their "owners" if necessary if they sought to prevent their "property" from walking away freely.
Of course, this doesn't sound like 18th-19th century slavery because that was a very different circumstance and was undoubtedly not ethical in my mind. Not in the least.
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @fmfLOL, the average person cannot write and there's no artificial concept of "freedom" and "liberty" because it is taken for granted.
[b]-Draw up a contract that does not abrogate the basic freedoms and rights and human dignity of either party.
See, FMF, this is what you get when you do not study philosophy. You think that "rights" and "dignity" can only exist within the confines of contracts.
Instead of imagining that if they are not stated, they are witheld, you should think that if they are stated, they are qualified.
But it's OK. I am sure you grew up as an average, regular guy in a Western nation and have swallowed the line about "rights," "dignity," "liberty" since you were knee-high to a grasshopper.
Tell me, did you grow up learning in some British or Commonwealth perspective about these things? That'd be even less fortunate as they do not even pretend to do it like the Americans do in terms of an absolute concept of rights.
You don't know liberty until you know American libertarianism -- and then reject it.
23 Mar 18
This is why I wish you participated in the "debates" forum. We would have already been over all of this and our debate would be a few steps ahead.
But you don't.
Why?
Because I am sure someone like Marauder stepped on your toes and you finished a bit sore or some such.
I shouldn't say these things, degrading to your person as they are, but it is an issue where you relentlessly harrass people like Romans and it would be inappropriate for me to not give you a hard time about your inappropriate behavior.