Has slavery really ended?

Lets see -

U.S. style African slavery:
they worked
they had housing
probably had a few hours of freetime as you can't overwork the slave and then expect him to put in a good days work the next day.
I mean...did they have big barbed wire fences around the plantation or do you think the slave might have thought his existence was...ok.
received no money

U.S. style workforce:
spend 10 hours toward work (including lunch break and travel time)
makes enough to barely pay for housing
has no money in the bank (actually huge negative balance on average)
Has a few hours of free time

Both I'd guess sleep around 8 hours or slighty less and worked 10 hour days. That leaves 6 hours of free time to decide who really has it better, plus some gadgets etc. which they might have let the slaves play with if they had been available.

Seriously? I mean, SERIOUSLY???

That's a good opening line...go on...

Slave owner is such a negative word, let's call them job creators

Where do you want me to start? Hell, I'll just take the easy option and lift some info from wikipedia (treatment of slaves in the united states)

'The treatment of slaves in the United States varied widely depending on conditions, times and places. Treatment was generally characterized by brutality, degradation, and inhumanity. Whippings, executions, and rapes were commonplace.'

'Slaveholders punished slaves by whipping, shackling, hanging, beating, burning, mutilation, branding, and imprisonment. Punishment was most often meted in response to disobedience or perceived infractions, but sometimes abuse was carried out simply to re-assert the dominance of the master or overseer over the slave.
Slavery in the United States included frequent rape and sexual abuse of slave women. Many slaves fought back against sexual attacks, and many died resisting. Others carried psychological and physical scars from the attacks. Sexual abuse of slaves was partially rooted in a patriarchal Southern culture which treated all women, black and white, as property or chattel.'

'According to historians David Brion Davis and Eugene Genovese, who won major awards for their work on slavery, treatment of slaves was both harsh and inhumane. Whether laboring or walking about in public, people living as slaves were regulated by legally authorized violence. Davis makes the point that some aspects of plantation slavery took on a "welfare capitalist" similarity. He also writes:
"Yet we must never forget that these same 'welfare capitalist' plantations in the Deep South were essentially ruled by terror. Even the most kindly and humane masters knew that only the threat of violence could force gangs of field hands to work from dawn to dusk 'with the discipline,' as one contemporary observer put it, 'of a regular trained army.' Frequent public floggings reminded every slave of the penalty for inefficient labor, disorderly conduct, or refusal to accept the authority of a superior."[3]'

'Education of slaves was generally discouraged, because it was feared that knowledge - particularly the ability to read and write - would cause slaves to become rebellious.[7] In the mid nineteenth century, slaveholding states passed laws making education of slaves illegal.'

'Working conditions
In 1740, following the Stono Rebellion, the Maryland legislature passed some laws to limit working hours for slaves: no work was permitted on Sundays, and the hours of work per day were limited to 15 hours in the Summer, and 14 in the Winter. The historian Charles Johnson writes that slave states passed such laws to pacify slaves and prevent future revolts, in addition to reasons of compassion'

'Slaves were punished by whipping, shackling, hanging, beating, burning, mutilation, branding, and imprisonment. Punishment was most often meted in response to disobedience or perceived infractions, but sometimes abuse was carried out simply to re-assert the dominance of the master or overseer over the slave.[22]
Those who punished slaves also used weapons such as knives, guns, field tools, and objects found nearby. The whip was the most common instrument used against a slave. One slave said that, “The only punishment that I ever heard or knew of being administered slaves was whipping,” although he knew several that had been beaten to death for offenses such as sassing a white person, hitting another negro, fussing, or fighting in quarters.[23]
Slaves who worked and lived on plantations were the most frequently punished. Punishment could be administered by the plantation owner or master, his wife, children (white males), and most often by the overseer or driver.
Slave overseers were authorized to whip and punish slaves. One overseer told a visitor, "Some Negroes are determined never to let a white man whip them and will resist you, when you attempt it; of course you must kill them in that case."[24] A former slave describes witnessing females being whipped: “They usually screamed and prayed, though a few never made a sound.”[25] If the woman was pregnant, workers might dig a hole for her to rest her belly while being whipped.'

'Laws governing treatment
By law, slave owners could be fined for not punishing recaptured runaway slaves. Slave codes authorized, indemnified or even required the use of violence, and were denounced by abolitionists for their brutality. Both slaves and free blacks were regulated by the Black Codes and had their movements monitored by slave patrols conscripted from the white population. The patrols were authorized to use summary punishment against escapees; in the process, they sometimes maimed or killed the escapees.'

Well fwiw, I think I would have been nicer, assuming this is all true. (and remember I saw it basically as the same as employment)

I really don't see it as the optimal game theory as far as the work to cost ratio is concerned.

15 hour days? How is this guy going to possibly do any work the next day?

Seems like you'd have to pay a ton for security, and constantly be worried about backlash. Perhaps the modern slavemasters realized this too?

But fair enough. Going on this data, if this is even possible, it would appear they were on a far more difficult work schedule.

I do think it's right to call the land owners and only land owners free though. (as opposed to employees or slaves) As in Numbers 33:54:

How cake walk is this? Get free land, work a few hours, eat and do whatev.

The difference between slavery and employment is not just a matter of how hard you work, or how unpleasant the work is (although that is relevant). Rather, it is a matter of being able to make your own choices in life about the kind of work you do, how you spend your down time, of not having to obey another person, etc. In relation to American-style slavery, the contrast is even more severe. Slaves did not have the same legal rights of freedom of speech, religion, movement, property, etc. that we take for granted today. If you were a slave, you could be raped without repercussion, your children could be stolen from you and sold to another slaveowner, you could be forced into illiteracy, etc.

Working a crappy job can suck, but it is not the same thing.

I'm guessing you've never worked on a farm...

Edit: Also, lots of employees own their own land. Owning land today just doesn't mean the same thing as it did in a predominantly agricultural society.

Would being gay be immoral based on the fact that there is a greater risk of STD, HIV ? Why would someone put themselves at risk like that? its not a "smart" life choice.

Passing STDs unintentionally but knowing there is a greater risk of doing so is still hurting people and thus immoral.

Is gluttony immoral? Its not a smart life choice to be obese its like slow suicide, the person is hurting themselves and puts an unnecessary strain on hospitals and thus is immoral?j

Sommerset wrote,
Morality is more than preference. It
isn't that we "prefer" not to murder,
its that we as a species enjoy
existing. In order to exist we cannot
permit things like murder.

What do you mean we as a species enjoy existing do you speak for everyone?

Maybe some people don't enjoy existing! Did you ever think of that?

You are confused here. Simply being Gay does not put you at greater risk for anything. It is true that you are more likely to get an STD while engaging in anal sex but:

1. Anal sex is not exclusive to the gay communiity

and

2. Correct use of protection makes this concern void.

To say that gluttony (being gluttonus with food)is immoral because it is a strain on hospitals assumes that all people are gluttons end up in the hospital, wich of course is not true. Also gluttonous does not equal obesity.

Again, I do not care what certain individuals enjoy or not. My morality is not subject to the whims of individuals. The ultimate goal of any given species is surviving, this is not a conscious choice, it is a hardwired brute fact.

I would also add that these sort of questions strike me as not much more than mental masturbation. if a certain moral system has no semblance of practicality then my first question would be to ask: what good is it?

+1

I dont get it why would I care about the human species surviving when I only have so many years of life and the fact that I will die.

Also like you my morality is not subject to the whims of individuals, even you.

mr muck, honest question: do you take meds for your depression? if not, you should start. they work.

i take 100mg of sertraline for 1month now.

Look into existentialist philosophy. Specifically read "existentialism and human emotions" by sartre.

I Googled it. It similar to what a fat ugly girl would say, you know beauty is in the inside now go have some cake.

The game of life is hard to play and in the end I lose anyway.

I lot of it is based on the golden rule and I explained that the golden rule is nonsensical.

No offense, but this isn't existentialism at all. Maybe you shouldn't rely on quick Google searches for your information.

I'd suggest you actually read it. It gives a very coherent account of atheistic morality IMO.

sort of, but not really.

If you don't want to read it that's fine, but if you refuse to look into these views then you probably shouldn't pretend to know what they are.

I will read it. I don't pretend to know anything.

All I know is that I'm not obligated to care about the human species surviving, what good does that do me when I'm dead?

if everyone thought this way, then the human species would be in a lot of trouble

what good does it do me when I'm dead? tell me please. thanks

It doesn't do you any good when your dead, your view is very myopic here. If everybody, throughout human history, espoused the view that they shouldnt care about what happens to others because they will die, would you even be here today? Would any of us?

So.......why is life better than no life? The rest of universe gets on perfectly well without it.

If all life ended the universe wouldn't even notice.