Modern Slave Trade. Worse Than Ever.

reply to post by Robin Goodfellow


If a societies values include removing the rights of an individual, then yes. We not only have the right to intervene, but also an obligation.

The idea (that you seem to be pushing) that societies should not evolve to a higher standard of moral code is wrong.

Just because something has been a certain way, why do we have to accept that it should stay that way?

There are several other examples of this we can cite. The binding of women's feet. The binding of babies heads. And in most cases, female circumcision.

As a modern society do you think we were wrong to push for the end of these practices?

reply to post by nixie_nox


Instead of socialism, one could instead rely on a modernized social contract.

Originally posted by beta.services]

there are more slaves today than ever before in human history.

That's because of population growth. We are all slaves, but many don't realise it because we have been repeatedly told that we are all "free" to such an extent, they actually believe it.

Slavery itself has evolved over time. It is much more efficient to trick someone into wanting to be a slave than wasting energy whipping them.

If you don't believe we are slaves, try saying "no" to your slavemaster. See what happens...

[edit on 25/10/09 by NuclearPaul]

That was very informative and I am guessing, probably totally accurate.
You have therefore explained why they wear veils.

This means what?

Follow:
Sweden suddenly announces that their scientist have discovered that children who engage in sex before puberty grow up to be much more psychologically balanced, healthy adults should mean what to the average Christian in the American Bible belt?
Should one of these Christians say they are indifferent to the health benefits preached by the Swedes, they, on moral grounds, will not allow their ten-year-old daughters to become sexually active, would the swedes be justified in attempting to force them to conform? Does the Christian have the right to make this decision?

Do you believe those people who demand their women wear veils do so for the deliberate purpose of depriving them of vitamin D?
When informed of this potential health threat have they the right, like our hypothetical Christian, to say they do not care about potential health benefits, they, on moral grounds, will continue to demand their women wear veils.
Do we have the right to force them to change?
From where do we derive this right?

Let us replace veils with slavery. They do not share our moral system. They accept slavery because they were raised in a society where it was the social norm and endorsed by their religion.
Do we have the right to force them to change?
Other than the barbaric 'might makes right' argument, from where comes this authority?

We think its right. We know better than them. Our belief system is obviously more civilized, superior. Because all intelligent people think like us.
Is this the argument of some religious fundamentalist or is it yours?
You are not uncomfortable using the same rhetoric as every other bigoted racist sicko group out there?
And the the final outcry! "But we're RIGHT!"
You do know that is also their final argument too, yes?
So when I ask 'you differ how?' you can provide me with some argument they do not use?

So,, errrr.........you differ how?

"If a societies values include removing the rights of an individual, then yes. We not only have the right to intervene, but also an obligation."

And so a society which believes you are denying a man the 'right' to dominate his daughters and/or wives behavior would have the right to force their views on us because they believe we have denied this man his 'individual' rights?

Do you have any arguments that do not break down to "because you say so" or "because you think it is right"? Who elected you or a group of you to be the final arbitrator? This is the bigot's justification.

reply to post by Robin Goodfellow


I fail to see why you keep intentionally missing the point.

One's right can not supersede the right of another.

Your right to own slaves can not supersede my right to be free.

You keep mentioning this 'might makes right' and its not a concept I believe in. If anything 'might gives ability' but it should never be assumed that it gives any rights.

Originally posted by beta.services
reply to post by Robin Goodfellow

 

One's right can not supersede the right of another.

Your right to own slaves can not supersede my right to be free.

You keep mentioning this 'might makes right' and its not a concept I believe in. If anything 'might gives ability' but it should never be assumed that it gives any rights.

Ergo .. Your right to be free can not supercede someones right to own slaves.

I think Robin's arguement is valid. Everyone has rights, whether you agree with them or whether they fit into what your society deems wrong.

We have the human right to believe what we individualy want to believe.

I believe the Earth is round.
You believe the Earth is flat.

What justification can you produce that gives you the right to forceably attempt to make me believe what you believe?

You're arguements against me are based on what you deem to be the right answer, with no variables; and without the consideration of what my beliefs are based on.

Pure unadulterated sophistry.

You cannot argue with a sophist. They have no reasons. Only universal truths. If they are religious, they fix their dilemmas by apply to a "higher power" otherwise all things are not good enough.

If you manage to find a law of physics that denies slavery, he'll be happy. Otherwise, minor details like consequences, physical repercussions, emotional traumas, mean nothing because human experience has no universal truth. No meaning.

Arguing with sophists who are also sociopaths is not worth your time.

Originally posted by Detailed Perfection
Ergo .. Your right to be free can not supercede someones right to own slaves.

They can have the right to own slaves, as long as they don't stop me from exercising my right to be free.

Originally posted by Aeons
Arguing with sophists who are also sociopaths is not worth your time.

I'm not arguing. And I don't believe for a second that they truly believe that slavery has a place in a modern society.

Perhaps I have been misunderstood.

I had thought that every reference I made to the idea of 'might makes right' was to express my disapproval of it. I thought I had usually referred to it as 'barbaric'. I do not approve of it. I do not support it.

What everyone seems to be missing is simple

I do not believe I should grant myself any privilege/right that I do not acknowledge to every other human being.
I believe it is wrong to give myself a right and deny it to others.
I do not believe I have any right to limit any human being without acknowledging their right to limit me.
I refuse to consider my opinion to have greater weight in any debate simply based solely on the fact that it is 'my' opinion.
As these should apply between people, so too should they apply between nations and societies.

If you claim the right to interfere with another society for not living up to your standards, values, beliefs, preferences, etc., so too must you acknowledge their right to interfere with your society for not living up to their standards, values, beliefs, preferences, etc.

Anything else is self-righteous bigotry.

There are different societies possessing different moral standards. For anyone to assume theirs are superior to the point that they would be justified in forcing them on others is to imply they are in possession of moral 'absolutes'.
This is what I question.
If they are moral absolutes then I agree, yes, you do have the right to force others to conform.
If they are not moral absolutes then they are only opinions and you have no right forcing them on others.
Are they absolutes rather than opinion? How did you come into possession of them? What objective evidence do you have that they are more than opinions? How do you respond to others who present a different conflicting set of absolutes?

I would love to simply adopt that attitudes you all seem to have. To simply say that of course, any decent reasoning human being would behave this way, but I am too aware of the fact that these were the very same thoughts that passed through the heads of those who threw fagots onto the fires in support of the Inquisition. Let us not talk trivia. What matter as pertains to rights could you bring up more important than these people's souls. So just toss your torch at their feet and know you are doing the right thing.

As long is what is right or decent is subject to debate, is incapable of being expressed as no more then opinion, then I hesitate to burn, or condemn anyone. Again, your source for these moral absolutes?

reply to post by Robin Goodfellow


I don't think you were misunderstood. As I said, I didn't think you were advocating slavery.

"I do not believe I should grant myself any privilege/right that I do not acknowledge to every other human being.
I believe it is wrong to give myself a right and deny it to others.
I do not believe I have any right to limit any human being without acknowledging their right to limit me. "

And if I was to rephrase my position in that I would stand up for the rights of the slave; rather than to impress those beliefs of slave rights onto slavers, would that settle your argument?

The only issue that I have with that is that it is not a vehicle for real change.

Then we could argue: the slaver deprived the slave of freedoms, so in turn, we will deprive the slave driver of their freedom and imprison them.

But that would put us back into the position you would have us avoid in the first place.

So what is the solution?
To ignore it?
Turn a blind eye and let them continue on?
I don't think so. But what is it?

[edit on 25/10/09 by beta.services]

"And if I was to rephrase my position in that I would stand up for the rights of the slave; rather than to impress those beliefs of slave rights onto slavers, would that settle your argument?"

Most definitely. Not denying others the right to stand up for their beliefs you are equally entitled to be as vocal as you wish for yours.

"The only issue that I have with that is that it is not a vehicle for real change."

Does this not translate into "The only issue that I have with that is that it does not provide any justification for me to impose my beliefs on others"

"Then we could argue: the slaver deprived the slave of freedoms, so in turn, we will deprive the slave driver of their freedom and imprison them."

I have acknowledged if you are willing to act like every other barbaric group of people who believe in might makes right, then yes, you could do that. But if you acknowledge that possibility then you are forced to agree there would be nothing morally wrong with them forcing slavery on us. Is it all a matter of who has the biggest stick?

So what is the solution?

Remember the Inquisition and those who actually thought it was proper
Remember Nazi Germany and those who actually thought it was proper
Remember the extermination of the aborigines in New Zealand and those who actually thought it was proper.
Now tell yourself that forcing your opinion on slave nations is proper
Tell yourself you actually believe it.
Now ask yourself what that proves.

the solution?

To understand that no matter how sincere, how pure, how just you believe your motives to be, then as much as you dislike it you still do not have the right to control the world. You do not have the right to force any society to conform to your standards.

Attempt to influence, to persuade, preach, teach and lecture to your hearts content. The moment you begin to give serious consideration to force you are no better than the worse of the worse.

It is difficult sometimes but I always imagine myself next to a kind loving grandmother type tossing a torch at the wood by the feet of some poor woman tied to a stake as she mutters to me "It is really for her own good and the good of her soul. I know God would approve."
It tends to knock any self-righteous air right out of me.

I am in total agreement with you. Any man, being a member of a society, is obligated to abide by the rules of that society.

I have no problem with any type of punishment, up to and including death, for a slaver in a no slave society.

It was the assumption that we have the right to impose this view on the world including pro-slave societies. As much as people may dislike the idea, we have no right to rule anyone but ourselves. That was the gist of my argument.

reply to post by nixie_nox


ACK! A C K


Somehow I got censored as saying the N-word. I did not say the n word, ever! !!!I said N.i.g.e.r.i. a. n. But somehow that got censored as the n-word!

reply to post by nixie_nox

Being fairly new to ATS I wasn't aware that one could be censored for use of the 'N' word!
That seems so dumb, to meaningful word loving I!
At the risk of being censored, here goes!
As a 6 year old in the care of my maternal grandmother, and standing outside her house, her seemingly mad neighbor opposite looked at me, and suddenly shouted out loud the words "Nigger, Nigger, Nigger..." Then disappeared behind her closing door leaving little me somewhat baffled by her outburst.
Whilst I do not have the blue eyes of my Irish born grandfather, and my hair, as then, had more curl to it than his, I am of a distinctly lighter shade of pale Irish type skin color, with Caucasian features.
Evidently my part Afro grandmother's white racist neighbor was attempting to insult her through attempting to insult me. Ever since then I've thought of myself as a bit of a 'n-word'. Although many of the black bro think me to be too white to qualify for that ''n-word'' epithet. However, I much prefer to be a physically & metaphysically vigorous racial hybrid, than an inbred degenerate whatever.
When visiting Manhattan a Columbia University lecturer friend advised me not to visit Harlem alone, if I valued my life! So be it, I thought, and never went there.
Races are horses for climatic hunter gatherer courses:
If there is a viable future for humanity and this world, then it is to become metaphysical, interstellar, quantum leaping hunter gatherers in a reciprocating Universe.
Interstellar Quantum Leaping Cosmic Consciousness telepathy ET's are up there but do not want to impinge upon our perceived free will ~ so they give us signs like harvest field crop geometries that would be a revelation to Euclid, were he alive today: and with an aim to persuade us not to fission fireball ourselves to extinction. It being a nasty headache to psychic/telepathy connect with another sentient being engulfed in the total agonising torment that is a fission fireball, to say the least ~ in time dilated.

There is only one religion in Pantheistic All aahhh & aargh Universe, although there is a billion and one versions of it.
The words from my keyboard are beating on the conundrums in your head, so don't think this is casual:

I just ADORE the idea that people who are being oppressed, raped, pillaged and bought is a cultural concept that we should just keep our noses out of so that we aren't unfair.



Like, human compassion, human rights, happiness, have BORDERS.

reply to post by Aeons


So if the hypothetical Swedish country I mentioned earlier had nuclear capabilities far beyond ours, you would not be upset when their average citizens make remarks along the lines of:

"I just ADORE the idea that innocent children, those people most in need of protection and proper nurturing, are being raised by a nation of sexual neanderthals to have their psyches twisted and damaged beyond repair but that we should view this as a cultural concept that we should just keep our noses out of so that we aren't unfair" implying they should take over our country so they might free our children to begin healthy sex lives at eight or nine years old?

It would be wrong of them to say this? But it is right for you to make your comment? Who gets to decide and where did they get that right from?

Twist and turn. Sodomizing children and brutalizing people and working them to death by 25 is not a "cultural" phenomena. Keep trying to make it one though.

Just because people scream culture, doesn't make it so. Just because one country is more powerful, doesn't make it right. Just because one society glorifies human poker, where one person's happiness is bought and increased by taking happiness from others, doesn't make it okay or culture.

You want to be happy thinking that your borders mean something, that the children starving next door over the invisible boundary is somehow not in your sphere of influence. But it is. And pretending it isn't, regardless of your position in life, is not cultural - its cowardice.

Let us take this to a personal level. Let us go behind the mask and cowardice of the "culture defense."

Things that people who are sexually abused say - you know, something that can be ignored if it happens next to you but isn't in YOUR house or your family -

"I was most scared when my mum sat silently. All I could do was imagine what horrors she was dreaming up - I would stare so hard at the wallpaper wishing it would swallow me up and I would die. It was the only way I thought I could be safe." -Susannah Faithful


"The only conversation we had was when I was begging them to kill me. That's when they laughed. Their response was 'we don't need you dead.' "
-Jasmina, Bosnia


Here is some pictures of women who SET THEMSELVES ON FIRE because the "Cultural" trauma is too great for them to bear:

images.google.ca...

On this one, you get to see a little boy who is beaten for not begging for his master.

news.bbc.co.uk...

"culture" starving and beating children to death to perform for your benefit is CULTURE. You really want to claim THIS as culture?


How about this one. Its a boy this time too.

findarticles.com...

'They raped me', Majok cried. 'And when I tried to refuse, they beat me'.

Many of the boys told me that in order to avoid rape some of the male slaves tried to escape, but were quickly hunted down by their captors. They said that the punishment for resisting rape is severe beatings, limb amputation or death.

When someone tries to save themselves from being beaten and physically traumatized, after working all day with little to eat - if they try to help themselves they get their limbs amputated? THIS is CULTURE?

Here we are - the argument to ignore this is that it "has been happening forever" like somehow constancy is a good argument in favour of brutality.


www.nationalpost.com...

She NINE. At the TIME OF THE REPORT.

Ms. Pakzad said when Mahbakhat arrived at the shelter, she had terrible infections and was in so much pain she could not sit down comfortably.

I think you need a better definition of CULTURE.



[edit on 2009/10/26 by Aeons]

I do not deny that the human part of me agrees with everything you say but I understand that this is because I believe human life to be sacred. I believe the greatest sin possible is simply to make another soul suffer and who would deny these children are suffering.

But I understand there are those who see humans as glorified animals, as evolved apes. I too would, given the opportunity, FORCE these people to stop. My problem is not justifying it to them. I would tell myself they were scum and I do not need to explain anything to them. Just bury them up to their necks and break out the honey.

It is justifying it to myself. I listen to myself saying "But I KNOW I am right" and that was enough for me for years until I heard all types of sick bastards using the very same arguments I was using to justify myself to me.

And so I said "Yes, but 'I'm" right" and realized every one of them would say the same. I am now very upset with the people I find myself keeping intellectual company with. I need to find something that does not translate to "because I believe so" because there is always that little voice asking me who the hell am I and who appointed me king to write the rules. Why should my opinion be viewed by any but me as anything more than just my opinion.

You all preached. None of you have offered any help. I am sorry I asked.