The crisis in Morality

[Outrider]

Amazing.

Thank you.

I'm wondering how and where to direct my incredulity that people holding your view actually exist and that is even after being on this message board for years.I'm so gobsmacked for once I dont know what to say.  Do you really think there are two sides to the slavery question along the lines of Christianity?

Are you asking me if I think there should be, or if historically there have been?  Historically it's without question that there have been.  In order to be able to say whether there should have been or not I'd have to take a stance on which is the 'correct' interpretation of the various scriptural and canonical outputs of the various churches, and I'm not sure there is a definitive answer in there.

Secondly having fought to pick myself of the ground.....can I ask you how apparently just being a bit beastly to the mentally challenged, the desperate and a few Philippine maids has been in your view unnecessarily termed as slavery?

Is it legal for someone to openly own them, supported by legislation enforced by the government?  If it's not, then it's simply not slavery - slavery is the ownership of people as property; not treating them as though it is (which is despicable) but actually having the legal right to do so, being able to call upon the various arms of the government to reinforce your ownership.

It doesn't reduce the effect on people, it doesn't make it any more acceptable, but it does mean that it's not slavery.

I fail to see how this is such a challenge to understand - what definition of slavery are you employing that confuses this issue?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thank you.

Are you asking me if I think there should be, or if historically there have been?  Historically it's without question that there have been.  In order to be able to say whether there should have been or not I'd have to take a stance on which is the 'correct' interpretation of the various scriptural and canonical outputs of the various churches, and I'm not sure there is a definitive answer in there.

Is it legal for someone to openly own them, supported by legislation enforced by the government?  If it's not, then it's simply not slavery - slavery is the ownership of people as property; not treating them as though it is (which is despicable) but actually having the legal right to do so, being able to call upon the various arms of the government to reinforce your ownership.

It doesn't reduce the effect on people, it doesn't make it any more acceptable, but it does mean that it's not slavery.

I fail to see how this is such a challenge to understand - what definition of slavery are you employing that confuses this issue?

O.

Your status of holding despicable views on this issue is already out there IMHO.That is not the the question here. Why is it referred to as Modern Slavery if it isn’t anything of the sort?

[Nearly Sane]

Your status of holding despicable views on this issue is already out there IMHO.That is not the the question here. Why is it referred to as Modern Slavery if it isn’t anything of the sort?

What despicable views does Outrider hold on this issue IYO?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What despicable views does Outrider hold on this issue IYO?

That it isn’t slavery.
I think though he’s probably ok around here making enough mood music on LGTBQ and atheist zeal has been used to cover shortcomings.

[Outrider]

Your status of holding despicable views on this issue is already out there IMHO.

Oh, here's your opportunity to actually explain your stance on morality - in what way are my views 'despicable' on this?

That is not the the question here.

It sort of is after you make the statement.

Why is it referred to as Modern Slavery if it isn’t anything of the sort?

As I said earlier, because it's an emotive term that catches attention and elevates the status to try and engage more people and make it stand out in a field of other areas where we also need to do work.

Still nothing on a nation that permits the ownership of people, then?  You know, like actual slavery?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

That it isn’t slavery.
I think though he’s probably ok around here making enough mood music on LGTBQ and atheist zeal has been used to cover shortcomings.

Why is thinking it a bad thing but not fitting in with the definition of slavery despicable?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

That it isn’t slavery.
I think though he’s probably ok around here making enough mood music on LGTBQ and atheist zeal has been used to cover shortcomings.

Here’s what he actually said (emphasis added):

“Is it legal for someone to openly own them, supported by legislation enforced by the government?  If it's not, then it's simply not slavery - slavery is the ownership of people as property; not treating them as though it is (which is despicable) but actually having the legal right to do so, being able to call upon the various arms of the government to reinforce your ownership.”

I’ve told you before: if you insist on turning up here just to pollute this mb with lies rather than to contribute to it, why not at least try to make your lying a bit less obvious?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why is thinking it a bad thing but not fitting in with the definition of slavery despicable?

Because it is precisely the attitude that allows modern slavery to occur. It is blind eyeing as it were,
I’m surprised by you asking since you to my recollection consider anything you find homophobic tantamount to supporting the killing of gay people. You of all people should understand where I am coming from.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your denial of the bible. The how hard you can beat a slave for example. If they survive a week you support that. You worship that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Because it is precisely the attitude that allows modern slavery to occur. It is blind eyeing as it were,
I’m surprised by you asking since you to my recollection consider anything you find homophobic tantamount to supporting the killing of gay people. You of all people should understand where I am coming from.

Outy explained to you a difference in legal definitions - that difference exists as a matter of fact. He also made clear that he thinks that de facto slavery that does not entail the legal ownership of people is also despicable. How much clearer could he have been about that, and how much dishonesty does it require for you to misrepresent him so egregiously and so obviously?   

[Nearly Sane]

Because it is precisely the attitude that allows modern slavery to occur. It is blind eyeing as it were,
I’m surprised by you asking since you to my recollection consider anything you find homophobic tantamount to supporting the killing of gay people. You of all people should understand where I am coming from.

If you say something is bad and should be stopped you are not turning a blind eye. The rest of your post is a irrelevant lying tu quoque.

[Nearly Sane]

This is your best post in ages.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

Outy explained to you a difference in legal definitions - that difference exists as a matter of fact. He also made clear that he thinks that de facto slavery that does not entail the legal ownership of people is also despicable. How much clearer could he have been about that, and how much dishonesty does it require for you to misrepresent him so egregiously and so obviously?   

Are you saying slavery is a redundant term in the phrase “modern slavery”?
Why is it referred to then as modern slavery ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This is your best post in ages.

Mainly because it's the first time in ages he hasn't posted one or multiple lies. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is your best post in ages.

Would you say that because one doesn’t believe that modern slavery is modern slavery one worships slavery?

Or are such shitty equations reserved for people one hates Nearly Sane.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Are you saying slavery is a redundant term in the phrase “modern slavery”?
Why is it referred to then as modern slavery ?

No, that's just you lying again. What I'm actually saying (and, more to the point, Outy said several times quite clearly) is that IN LAW the term "slavery" requires the lawful ownership of people. That though does not for one moment imply that de facto slavery that doesn't meet that definition isn't also despicable.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Would you say that because one doesn’t believe that modern slavery is modern slavery one worships slavery?

Or are such shitty equations reserved for people one hates Nearly Sane.

Incomprehensible gibberish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

No, that's just you lying again. What I'm actually saying (and, more to the point, Outy said several times quite clearly) is that IN LAW the term "slavery" requires the lawful ownership of people. That though does not for one moment imply that de facto slavery that doesn't meet that definition isn't also despicable.   

Asking questions is lying is it?
Why is it called the Modern slavery act of 2015 then.?

Turdpolishers, pacemakers, electronic atheist dictionaries on full boys. Ha ha ha

[Nearly Sane]

Would you say that because one doesn’t believe that modern slavery is modern slavery one worships slavery?

Or are such shitty equations reserved for people one hates Nearly Sane.

No, because that's you using a false equivalence. I say that you worship the god of the Bible because you state that you do. I point out that the god of the Bible supports slavery and beating slaves - because it says that in the Bible. You don't call the god of the Bible 'despicable' - you worship it.


There is no equivalent to Outrider saying he does not think slavery happens now in the legal definition of owning a person, but that many despicable things which he condemns do.


And one thing that I find despicable is lying but you actually seem to worship it, The entirety of your drivellings on here are based on it. It seems to be your Alpha and your Omega.

[Nearly Sane]

Asking questions is lying is it?
Why is it called the Modern slavery act of 2015 then.?

Turdpolishers, pacemakers, electronic atheist dictionaries on full boys. Ha ha ha

No making statements that Outrider supports explotation is lying. And you have just lied about that lie in this post. Why do you lie so much? Is it pathological? Is it exciting for you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Asking questions is lying is it?

No, but lying about what people say is and you should stop doing it.

Why is it called the Modern slavery act of 2015 then.?

Because it's "An Act to make provision about slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and about human trafficking, including provision for the protection of victims;... " The Act uses "slavery" in its title as short form description for all such offences, but does not say that they all meet the more narrow legal definition of slavery.

If you weren't so determined to misrepresent what people actually say and instead bothered to look it up yourself you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself like this.   

Turdpolishers, pacemakers, electronic atheist dictionaries on full boys. Ha ha ha

Pathetic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No making statements that Outrider supports explotation is lying. And you have just lied about that lie in this post. Why do you lie so much? Is it pathological? Is it exciting for you?

I don’t think he supports it or condones it. I leave stupefyingly ludicrous equations like that to you.
I would stop at him having a dangerous attitude which allows this to flourish.....and for what? That he can keep this shit about Old Testament slavery and if people were proper Christians they would support it....afloat.

It also reinforces fallacious notions of modernity, progress and secularity......imho.

Unfortunately I fear the arseclenchingly stupefying hypocrisy going on here will never see the light of scrutiny.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

No, but lying about what they say is and you should stop doing it.

Because it's "An Act to make provision about slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and about human trafficking, including provision for the protection of victims;... " The Act uses "slavery" in its title as short form description for all such offences, but does not say that they all meet the more narrow legal definition of slavery.

If you weren't so determined to misrepresent what people actually say and instead bothered to look it up yourself you wouldn't keep embarrassing yourself like this.   

Pathetic.

yyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Not that you give a flying fuck about facts but the generally accepted legal definition of “slavery” is provided by Art 1 of the Slavery Convention 1926 as: “the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, and ‘slave’ means a person in such condition or status”. 

More recently various more general or colloquial uses of the term have emerged (“economic slave” etc) but there’s recently been a concerted effort to return to a property based approach to redress the balance.

So now you’ll lie about that too for a bit I guess. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

yyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

And your argument to defend having your arse handed to you in a sling again would be what?