NAACP issues travel advisory for Florida...

[Revoltingest]

Just because everybody does not agree on the definition does not mean there is no definition. Obviously 100% consensus is not required, otherwise the term slavery becomes meaningless.

I notice that with intelligent posters who really want
to converse, definitions are no problem. They glean
shared definitions from context.
But there are those who are......different. It's tedious
trying to converse with them. Ideas get lost in a
morass of misunderstanding, etymological fallacies,
vague & shifting definitions, & mis-communication.

 

[Kfox]

Google what is religion and look at the different definitions and e.g. compare a simple dictionary one with say this one:

Religion | Definition, Types, Beliefs, Symbols, Examples, Importance, & Facts | Britannica

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.

www.britannica.com

I mean I can even go deep and find a philosophy of religion definition that is meaningless to you and meaningful to me.

Then go into philosophy, or where ever you need to go and provide a definition of religion that is meaningful to you, but not me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then go into philosophy, or where ever you need to go and provide a definition of religion that is meaningful to you, but not me.

Well, here is one:
Religion is the most intensive and comprehensive method of valuing that is experienced by humankind.

The Definition of Religion

 

[Kfox]

Well, here is one:
Religion is the most intensive and comprehensive method of valuing that is experienced by humankind.

The Definition of Religion

That is a claim about religion, not a definition of it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is a claim about religion, not a definition of it.

Yeah, well somebody says it is and it isn't me. I just read the text, that says it is a definition.

 

[Kfox]

Yeah, well somebody says it is and it isn't me. I just read the text, that says it is a definition.

Okay; allow me to rephrase. In your response you provided a claim about religion that I disagreed with, and a definition of religion which I agreed with. I asked for a definition of religion that I disagreed with; so you didn't provide what I asked for.

 

[wellwisher]

9/11 was definitely a watershed moment for America, although the circumstances leading up to 9/11 started probably around the time of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, which then led to Reagan's election. The post-Vietnam, post-Watergate era led to a certain anti-militaristic viewpoint, as well as one of greater tolerance, but once footage of Iranians burning our flag, saying "death to America," and leading blindfolded hostages out in front of angry mobs, any chance for a peaceful, tolerant America pretty much evaporated at that point.

Reagan also appealed to the so-called "moral majority," which was a reaction to various movements which came out of the 60s, believing that America was becoming too immoral and permissive. It should be noted that a lot of the leading Republicans up until that time were far more secular and felt that religious right was too radical. Even the grandfather of conservativism, Barry Goldwater, somewhat eschewed the religious right, although not so much as to abandon them entirely.

In the ensuing decades, there was a resurgence in American militarism which continued even after the end of the Cold War, which eventually triggered 9/11, which led to a doubling-down of the same process Reagan set in motion 20 years earlier.

One slogan of the 1960's and 1970's, by Harvard Professor Timothy Leary; 1966 was, turn on, tune in and drop out. This slogan helped to shape an entire young generation; drug culture. It broke down the traditions of the past and led to dependency; drop out into the teenage wasteland.

Reagan was from the past just before that change; Hollywood Actor from the 1930's to the early 1960's. Regan later become the Governor of California, before he was president. He was also the President of the Actor's Union. Reagan reappeared on the national scene in 1979, when the pendulum was starting to swing the other way; away from the 1960's, back toward unity and self reliance. Carter was the end of a different time. Reagan led to the modern age. Reagan knew how to use various forms of media to affectively promote his beliefs.

Reagan was still well liked and connected to Hollywood, with movies like Rambo, helping to create appeal for the military. Raiders of the lost Ark, would recreate WW2 feelings mixed with mysticism, while Star Wars was about the future of the Military. Today the political Left tries to add woke to movies; copying Regan. However, this does not feel as organic as Rambo or Star Wars.

If Congress was delaying, Reagan would take it to the airways; TV, and give an affective presentation that could motivate citizens, who would take it to Congress, who would cave. Reagan is still hated by the Left; revisionist history, since he had them running in circles.

Regan increased US world prestige in the 1980's, which led to end of the Cold War. This freed tens of millions of people; Soviet Union breaks up. Take down that wall!

I like Reagan since he seemed like a kind grandfather who was very wise and persuasive. He was not angry, mean or hateful. His acting skills was part of his charm, but he was had firm conviction, that he could artfully present.

Reagan is also hated, because he inspired figures like Rush Limbaugh, who would become the father of talk radio, opening up a countering voice to the Liberal Main Street media. Today the political Right is well set up to compete with all forms of media.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Many of us discover a vast number
of surprising things after school is
long over.

From soon-to-be-banned books, as like as not.

 

[The Hammer]

Calling punishment for a crime "slavery" in the
same context as legal private ownership of another
person is overly broad use of the term. Even worse
is fools using "wage slavery" to decry being required
to work to get an employer to pay them money.

If a for-profit prison is using persons to gain profits, than it is slavery.

If a person is not being paid enough money to survive (housing, food, etc) in a particular job, than it too, is also slavery.

 

[Kfox]

If a for-profit prison is using persons to gain profits, than it is slavery.

If a person is not being paid enough money to survive (housing, food, etc) in a particular job, than it too, is also slavery.

Absurd. Corporate motivation has nothing to do with whether the workers involved are slaves or not. If I chose a lifestyle requiring me to earn $100,000 per year to survive, the idea that I am a slave if I choose to work for less than what my lifestyle requires is absurd.

 

[Revoltingest]

If a for-profit prison is using persons to gain profits, than it is slavery.

To conflate it with owning a person is to broaden
the term to the point of near uselessness. Moreover,
using this as a basis to criticize forced labor as
punishment is specious. Punishment is generally
accepted, unlike slavery. And punishment by its
very nature & intent is intended to be onerous.

A better example of modern day slavery is military
conscription, ie, the loss of civil liberties when
coerced using threat of force to serve, especially
for minimal compensation, & sometimes at great
personal cost, eg, injury, death.

If a person is not being paid enough money to survive (housing, food, etc) in a particular job, than it too, is also slavery.

When the person isn't owned or forced, it's
ridiculously histrionic to call it "slavery".
Might as well call paying taxes, paying license
fees, serving on a jury "slavery" too.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Absurd. Corporate motivation has nothing to do with whether the workers involved are slaves or not. If I chose a lifestyle requiring me to earn $100,000 per year to survive, the idea that I am a slave if I choose to work for less than what my lifestyle requires is absurd.

He didn't say that.

 

[Kfox]

He didn't say that.

How is what he said different?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How is what he said different?

He for wage part was about a minimum living wage.

 

[fantome profane]

If a for-profit prison is using persons to gain profits, than it is slavery.

If a person is not being paid enough money to survive (housing, food, etc) in a particular job, than it too, is also slavery.

No, it isn't. It is exploitation and it is wrong. But it is not slavery.

And to call it slavery diminishes the horror that is slavery.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Excerpted... <--- This word employed to put @Shadow Wolf's nose out of joint
1 the condition of being enslaved, held, or owned as human chattel or property; bondage.
2 a practice or institution that treats or recognizes some human beings as the legal property of others.
Excerpt ended.

Typically, "involuntary servitude" is about someone
coercing labor/service from another, in the manner
of ownership.
Having to work for a living to survive is imposed by
circumstances, not someone else. It's analogous to
a lion needing to chase down prey in order to survive.
Obviously, no one calls the lion a "slave".

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it isn't. It is exploitation and it is wrong.

Is "exploitation" always wrong? If someone
needs more after-tax money from wages than
they're worth to an employer, what should be
done?
Not hire the person? That would be wrong.
Pay them more than they're worth? That's not happening.

This is where a social safety net should be useful.

 

[fantome profane]

Is "exploitation" always wrong? If someone
needs more after-tax money from wages than
they're worth to an employer, what should be
done?
Not hire the person? That would be wrong.
Pay them more than they're worth? That's not happening.

This is where a social safety net should be useful.

I understand your point. I was imprecise.

It is wrong to use someone merely as a means to an ends without considering their needs as well. If you employ someone you are morally obligated to pay them a living wage (for full time work). If you decide their value to you is not worth a living wage you can decide not to hire them, or you can decide to pay them a living wage regardless. I know lots of people who are paid more than they are worth, and lots of people who are paid less than they are worth. But you have to pay people a living wage, because regardless they have to live.

The U.S. (and most countries) has always had an unjustly exploited underclass. From the beginning, to this day. Whether it was slaves, or immigrants or just lower class people.

 

[Kfox]

He for wage part was about a minimum living wage.

Okay; just for the record, if you are getting paid for your work, and have the option to quit any time you want, that is NOT slavery.

 

[Kfox]

It is wrong to use someone merely as a means to an ends without considering their needs as well.

I find this absurd. If I am an employer, I am less likely to hire someone with needs that I have to consider (baggage) than the person without any baggage at all because the person without baggage is less complicated, risky, expensive, etc for me to employ. What you are suggesting will result in those most in need of a job being less likely of getting one

If you employ someone you are morally obligated to pay them a living wage (for full time work). If you decide their value to you is not worth a living wage you can decide not to hire them, or you can decide to pay them a living wage regardless.

Again; this would result in the person requiring a higher living wage not getting the job. Bad idea.

I know lots of people who are paid more than they are worth, and lots of people who are paid less than they are worth. But you have to pay people a living wage, because regardless they have to live.

Where is the obligation of the worker to either curtail his expenses so he can live within his budget, or get a second job in order to meet his expenses?