Once again: There was no revision. I simply did a poor job of differentiating between the servantry of the past and today's exaggerated ideas of what constitutes slave labor. I admit that I waited til the last minute to make the point about servantry, but even you gave my argument some leniency after Wanna clarified my point for me.

Quote:

Animalman said:
If Pariah's real argument was that identured servitute was necessary, that might be different. I have a feeling, considering some of the other things he's said, that that isn't the case, though.



You may not want to believe that it's what I actually meant, but I'm not gonna say otherwise.

This is the sole quote you're making your case off of:

Quote:

Animalman said
Quote:

Pariah said:
I'd also like to make a note of the fact that the reprehensibility of slavery is actually a relative subject.


That is most certainly not a fact. That is your opinion, and one I disagree with enormously. I believe slavery is completely wrong, and that the act itself has no varying degree of atrociousness. Slavery, at its core, is cruel and unforgivable.



While not specifically suggesting indentured servantry, it's not totally indicative of chattel slavery through any other interpretation but this:

Quote:

Animalman said:
You're right, I didn't make that distinction.

When I think of slavery, I think of forced slavery.



I realize that I should have been the one to clarify that distinction. But I'll admit that, like you, I was more focused on how the servants were treated rather than how their suffering was different than that of the slaves in, say, 1850s America. Wanna just kinda beat me to it.

Last edited by r3x29yz4a; 2006-07-20 10:56 PM.