a number of issues with the assertions in this post.

1. of course I am not a vulcan lol (but they didn't invent logic; the Greeks did...then again I'm not Greek either, but it doesn't seem they have a patent on logic or anything, and they don't seem to be using it much lately which is neither here nor there, so...)

2.How do you know what my emotions are? Or what they are telling me? lol. of course I know slavery was heinous, I'm just willing to look at the whole picture logically.

3. Ignoring the history of slavery? Were Roman slaves partially to blame for their condition? Well, as a matter of fact, some sold themselves into slavery voluntarily. How is that for a history of slavery?

4. Of course the Jews were not to blame for the Holocaust. This is another emotional argument on your behalf, apparently, because the two events are not even close (just like the rape example TurnProhet cited). The Jews were subject to genocide, slaves were not (hint: their owners needed them alive). Also, it seems you have never seen "Escape From Sobibor". Check it out. Great film inspired by true events that happen to somewhat prove my point itt.

1. Meh.

2. You're an ape with emotions just like me. Don't pretend you're the logical one in the argument just because you assert yourself to be. I don't care about what your emotions are, I just know you have some and the influence these blame the victim mentality.

3. You did not answer the question, so I will ask it more clearly. Do you blame the roman slaves, who were not there voluntarily, the same as the ones in the south? If you want could you say whether or not all slaves, those there against their will, thoughout history are equally culpable for their predicament?

4. They are quite close. Jews were subject to slavery. I don't the genocide aspect changes much when it comes to your reasoning for blaming slaves for their condition.

Your point is terrible. Blaming slaves for being slaves is flat out trolling.

the bolded is just lol. If it doesn't change things much, then why does history show us an example (which I already provided) of Jews in a concentration camp successfully overpowering their captors through the virtue of sheer numbers and forcefully taking their freedom back. We have no such large-scale examples of this in slavery. This is because at some point the slaves reasoned that it was better to remain enslaved and have room and board than risk death in an attempted escape (as pointed out by Wookie earlier ITT). That is a choice. A choice implies some amount (however small) of responsibility. You don't think the cost/benefit calculation would have changed if the slaves knew they were going to be murdered regardless? So, yeah ok, the whole genocide thing doesn't change anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_r...#North_America

Slave rebellions happened all the time. Then the rebels were brutally murdered in front of the other slaves. There was also the underground railroad which I mentioned. I also don't think making a choice between almost certain tortuous death and trying to get through a horrible existence is much of a choice that implies any culpability at all.

but do you still think the whole genocide thing doesn't change much?

What about the choice between working for minimum wage and having a horrible existence, or between not working at all or not surviving etc. Is that a choice?

Did you read the entire sentence? I still think, within the frame work of your logic, that the genocide aspect of the holocaust does not change the culpability of the victims under your terms.

then you would be incorrect. please answer my question pertaining to wage slavery.

Who knows what the "modern world" would look like if the CSA had won (check out the pseudo-doc "Confederate States of America"). It's certainly possible that there never would've been an international consensus, so slavery was still legal in the Middle East, the South, and parts of Latin America & Asia.

But even in a world much like our own, they'd have likely not abolished slavery until some time in the early 20th century due to internal political issues.

Yes, and wage slavery is far from chattel slavery. Especially in countries with semi functioning social safety net. In chattel slavery there is not even the illusion of choice. A wage slave has far more options than a real slave.

1. lol no it's not, if you are using "having no choice" as a metric of slavery/not slavery.

2. Even if the individual has no marketable skills? Can't go to school to gain skills because can't qualify for a loan or a grant? Can't get a second job because can't afford childcare? Has no living relatives to help and has no time for friends? Massive credit card debt that must be paid down (because he was forced to supplement his wages with credit for a time until card was cancelled) or he will be thrown in jail (btw they are doing this now in America)? These are choices?

1. What metric do you use to define slavery or not slavery.

2a. What amount of people in any country are in the category you described? If someone is so hopeless in the modern economy it would be nice to have a welfare state that can assist.

2b. Do you think there is such a thing as living wage slavery?

1. Gross exploitation of human capitol for financial gain.

2a. How would I know the exact number? They exist, though.

2b. Yes. I think this is close to what the slaves had in chattel slavery, since they were provided with food and shelter and clothing (except they "weren't able to quit" their "job" of course)

I think you're employing a gross over simplification of history and only employing economic analysis of slavery in your comparisons. If you looked at the actual day to day lives of people who actually experienced slavery then I think your position about responsibility for slavery would be different. Factories were terrible during the mid 1800s, but that was nothing compared to southern chattel slavery.

Yes. Not de jure, but slavery nonetheless. For example, this article about DOJ anti-slavery efforts during the Bush 2.0 administration.