No, it was just a bit snappy.

__________________
An' it harm none, do as ye' will.


Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level of intelligence and beat you with experience.

I merely define slavery as yielding benefit from another person's labor by way of coercion. That is, one man works to benefit, not himself, but another man.

To extract this, let's say that I am a slave. I am coerced (forced) by an authority to work in exchange for benefiting an individual or a set of individuals (whether it's a plantation family or merely a single farm owner) while reaping unsatisfactory benefits from my labor (i.e., I work 12 hours a day, and I get to eat Oatmeal every night and sleep on top of plywood with only leaves to cover me). The exchange of labor for product (for the purpose of consumption so that I can stay alive) is not done by way of mutual agreement between me and the provider of the product.


That's how I would define slavery. And that's how I defend my statement that slavery exists in America today.

Would you consider being a slave better or worse than begging ...

I know - it is a bit off topic ...

but thats how my brain works ...

__________________
I MUST Be A Negro .... maybe a Caucasian Negro?

Rich White Folks Don't Readily Accept Me Either!

Obama's Preacher implies that ...

Depends on the society. I look at slavery comparing one society to another. I would rather be a Roman Slave in a city (definetly not the fields and mines) than a begger, but a begger over an American Slave. So I guess I'm saying slavery is relative based on the society you are in.

__________________
Non concupisces domum proximi tui; nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum, non ancillam, non bowem, non asinum, nec omnia quae illius sunt.

The labourer has only his labour to sell. The slave can't sell his labour, his labour is stolen from him, he is fed, watered and housed like livestock. As previous posters put it, a slave is a chattel.

That was my point.

Fair enough. But I was a bit more concise don't you think?

I preceded my verbosity with "To extract this a bit..." In other words, I was going for the exact opposite of concise.

I personally see the Bible as a collection of stories and psalms although most of the references in the bible that I have seen seem to instruct on how you should treat slaves and deal with them...they look more like guidelines for an existing practice rather than an actual advocation of the practice. One could argue that the fact that the bible does not openly condemn slavery is actually an advocation for the practice.......again im sure my view is supplemented by the fact that I see the Bible as written and compiled by men and is not neccessarily the "untainted word of God". They look like advice on how to handle and deal with slaves written by men to whom slavery was a fact of everyday life.

Ancient slavery really wasn't much better than "modern" US slavery from the 19th century, but there were some differences. The US system was worse in the sense that it became racial chattel slavery.

They all sucked, though, and it's hardly a defense to claim your version of slavery was less bad.

__________________