And the age of modern slavery is happening in pretty heavily secular times.
Secular does not mean 'not religious', remember - how many of those modern slavers are religious people, do you think?
Yes......was...... Being challenged as to whether one believes in owning slaves or burning witches is though the genetic fallacy writ large.
I wasn't suggesting that you did, I was pointing that claiming 'Christianity' didn't make it clear which side of the debate you were on at the time.
When were you last on a website asking Germans whether they supported the final solution......or for that matter, asking atheists whether they thought Pol Pot was a bit over the top?
The former I'm not sure that I ever have been, but I'd be interested in the answer, we all know there's still an undercurrent of it out there. The latter, well, today... here, now, it's the sort of thing that's dribbled out on a semi-regular basis. What makes you think that atheists have a particular stance on whether Pol Pot's actions - which don't derive from his atheism - were over the top?
You realise, of course, that asking about the actions of people where there actions are incidental to a trait is fundamentally different to asking about the actions of people specifically in regard to a trait they are openly claiming is their motivation... you get that difference?
Modern slavery is actual slavery.
Really? Can you tell me which governments are enforcing the laws regarding ownership of people?
Usually qualification by slavery type is frowned on in your circles as excuse and yet here you are saying, well, it’s not real slavery.
It's not slavery, that's just an emotive shorthand. It's not acceptable behaviour, I can understand why they've adopted the terminology, but it's fundamentally different to actual slavery.
Not only is that dangerous nonsense which allows this sort of thing to flourish, it is the fallacy of modernity, the fallacy of progress, and the fallacy of secularity, in your case thinking it impossible for actual slavery to exist today in your backyard, post enlightenment and in a secular society.
Don't talk shit. There's a fundamental difference between a social institution that's part of the foundation of the economic system of a nation and which is actively protected by the government, and illegal activity exploiting vulnerable people in the criminal fringes.
Which of course allows it to flourish and not seen as any real problem.......It’s not actual slavery after all.
No-one is saying that it's not a problem, but it's not slavery.
Wiktionary - Slavery - slavery (usually uncountable, plural slaveries)
An institution or social practice of owning human beings as property, especially for use as forced laborers.
A condition of servitude endured by a slave.
(figuratively) A condition in which one is captivated or subjugated, as by greed or drugs.
Where is it legal to own people in the world in the current day? Where in the world has a statute book that applies property law to people?
Dark age and medieval times Times were society scraping by held together by among other things ,although I can’t think what, Religion. It was a time of dynastic ambition and plenty of dirt shit and tribalism turning into feudalism yes. Turning it into an age of slavery is arrant historical revisionism.
Dark age and mediaeval times were societies defining in- and out-groups on a number of criteria, one of which was religion and propogating wars of conquest based on those categorisations. I am not turning into an age of slavery, slavery was a fairly significant part of the economies of Europe at least at the time, and continued to be so until well into the 19th Century in most places.
That slavery has made a comeback shows more, I would have thought that progress was in reverse.
Slavery has not made a comeback, the term has been recycled for a modern usage which is the nature of language. That we have identified modern exploitative practices as 'slavery' could be seen as progress, given that we obviously don't have a current need for it to describe actual slavery.
O.
