@Prinzinc This argument relies on redefining slavery so broadly that the word loses all meaning. If “slavery” includes employment, debt, prison, and military service, then the term no longer describes a specific system — it just becomes a rhetorical weapon.
Historically and legally, slavery is defined by one core element: the ownership of a human being as property, with the denial of freedom enforced by coercion and violence. Not “owing money,” not “having obligations,” not “being subject to law.”
Comparing slavery to employment or voluntary service is a false equivalence. An employee can leave. A citizen can contest the law. A slave cannot — because their body and labor are owned by someone else.
Yes, forced prostitution and certain prison practices can be described as slavery-like — precisely because they involve coercion and loss of autonomy. That doesn’t make slavery morally neutral; it proves the opposite.
Saying slavery “has never been historically evil” ignores the reality that it has always depended on violence, dehumanization, and exploitation of the vulnerable. Calling specific versions bad while defending the system itself is contradictory.
Expanding definitions to avoid moral judgment isn’t intellectual clarity — it’s moral evasion.
Historically and legally, slavery is defined by one core element: the ownership of a human being as property, with the denial of freedom enforced by coercion and violence. Not “owing money,” not “having obligations,” not “being subject to law.”
Comparing slavery to employment or voluntary service is a false equivalence. An employee can leave. A citizen can contest the law. A slave cannot — because their body and labor are owned by someone else.
Yes, forced prostitution and certain prison practices can be described as slavery-like — precisely because they involve coercion and loss of autonomy. That doesn’t make slavery morally neutral; it proves the opposite.
Saying slavery “has never been historically evil” ignores the reality that it has always depended on violence, dehumanization, and exploitation of the vulnerable. Calling specific versions bad while defending the system itself is contradictory.
Expanding definitions to avoid moral judgment isn’t intellectual clarity — it’s moral evasion.
Feel free to dislike my comment or review – that’s your right! But at least I'm making an effort. If you can't handle different opinions, you might want to rethink being on the internet. Stay safe!
