Modern Slave Trade. Worse Than Ever.

No logical basis. The basis of it is in your society. Perhaps we are simply astounded that the reason for the hatred of slavery is apparently all around you. If you cannot see it, then you don't want to see it and only a cultural societal beat down will suffice to cow you.

Originally posted by Jean-Luc
You know I hear this all the time. The slave trade is alive and well.

Well, no one has ever tried to sell me a slave! And for the right price I might just consider a cute asian girl.

Is it because I don't live in a big city?

Can you go online and buy a wife? If that doesn't clue you in, then nothing will.

"No logical basis. The basis of it is in your society."

You imply that in a society which did not disapprove it would be morally acceptable? You suggest here that the objections to it are merely cultural opinions and not absolutes? Isn't that what I said when I suggested this was no more than your cultural bias'?

'Perhaps we are simply astounded that the reason for the hatred of slavery is apparently all around you. If you cannot see it, then you don't want to see it'

Again, what I see all around me can be written off as cultural bias. I did not say I do not share it. I am simply asking is that all there is? If, in denouncing slavery I am accused of attempting to force my belief system on another, is there no reply for me other than 'yes'. And if that is all I have how do I differ from any other self-righteous bigot attempting to force his views on the world? Do you really think "because my mom told me so" is a valid argument?

'and only a cultural societal beat down will suffice to cow you.'

You consider that a valid argument? I guess I am forced back to my original question. Are you capable of intelligent discussion? Should we discuss the potential for life on other planets would my stating that I 'disapprove' of the idea have any meaning insofar as weighing the evidence?

'cow you'

Please. We are not children. Let me rephrase. Do you grasp the idea of intelligent 'adult' conversation?

Adult conversations?

Not with sociopaths.

Socio pathology can be turned into a cultural trait, but shared mental disorder isn't any better than individualized mental disorders.

Brutality isn't a cultural trait. It if it is, your culture doesn't deserve consideration. Keep your stories, and your music, your dance, your food. Leave your disgusting traits in the trash, where they belong.

[edit on 2009/10/22 by Aeons]

reply to post by Robin Goodfellow


Robin, i've gotta say that you really do seem to be really annoyed here that no-one can really give you the explanation you want... i really don't know why you seek one so badly... we seem to have got your back up a little.... it's almost as if you are admitting to viewing child porn pics or you are indeed involved in the sex slave trade!!

Is this the type of thing you'd wish for your son or daughter?

On another note.... An investigation has discovered that Twitter is being used by Peodophiles to groom young boys & girls.... here is a little from the article:

TWITTER has become a free and easy hunting ground for paedophiles seeking to lure kids for sex, experts believe.
Their vile pursuit emerged in a Sun investigation into abuse of the ultra-successful blogging website.

Pornographic pictures of young girls are also freely available. Yet the site is completely unpoliced and uncensored.



Read more: www.thesun.co.uk...


And if you are still not happy with the argument i'll get some facts for you a little later....

Actually what annoys me is people answering questions I did not ask and refusing to deal with the ones I do.

You, for example, are offering me what? Further evidence that Twitter is being used to lure young children into lives as sex slaves. And? This has anything to do with my questions?

You are all so smug with your assumed air of moral superiority but no one can provide me with any justification for that smugness. Unable to answer my question you avoid dealing with it and instead seem to get off by attacking me personally.

Let us try this once more

Assume I disapprove of slavery. OK? Can we stop the ranting for a moment?
Assume I find the idea of children lured into the sex market to be a horrible and disgusting idea. OK? Can we wipe the tears from our eyes long enough to read the actual question?

When confronting pro-slavery people, if I am accused of simply attempting to force my moral beliefs on others (an act engaged in by every religious bigot), if I am accused of demanding that my preferences, my opinions be given greater weight than others (an act engaged in by every type of racist, bigoted, self-righteous idiot), when I am accused of attempting to force my cultural bias' on others, I can distinguish myself from these others by informing them............what?
Am I, in the end, forced to admit that, yes, I believe you should all be butchered or at a minimum sent to prison to rot because you will not accept 'my' cultural bias? Because you will not concede 'my' belief system is superior? It should not disturb me if I see I am using the same arguments as Hitler?

For the record, I do not believe in slavery, child or other. I believe that people who import wives from overseas are actually holding young women in economic slavery. I have a very hard time with homosexual men because I personally find it hard to believe that none of them have any information they might provide the police in recovering young kidnapped boys sold into the sex trade. I would personally like to see pedophiles buried up to their neck and honey smeared on their faces.

However, I also have a deep love for objectivity. While I understand and approve of the emotional response most people have for the subject, I am, in the end, left helpless when trying to explain to myself how the justification of my POV is to be OBJECTIVELY distinguished from the self-righteous claims of perverts and sicko's of every ilk.
I am just attempting to find a logical reasoned justification that does not break down to no more than an emotional response.
All the responses provided me so far I could have collected by bringing the subject up at any church or social function here in my home town. I came to ATS hoping for reasoned, intelligent, OBJECTIVE responses. I got more preaching.

I love objectivity. I am saddened that should I find myself in a culture where slavery and/or child sex exploitation are accepted I have no argument to attempt to denounce it with beyond "I don't like it"

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I appreciate the hand guys.

You have a deep love for objectivity.

And humans aren't objects.

So long as you have some view that there is some "objective" reason for some humans to be classified as commodities, you'll fail.

Because I can come up with reasons. Societies that are rejecting that model are progressing so much faster than their counterparts that they are have literally had to go out of their way to cripple themselves to not destroy every other culture. That progress, and better lives and more opportunities have abounded at a pace which exponentially has increased their societies and individual gains beyond anything ever conceived of in all of history. Every day.

There is an objective reason for you.

But it still doesn't touch the real source of the problem. Some ideologies can be understood and thought about, without being given MERIT. I can UNDERSTAND a cultural concept I find abhorrent, without feeling the need to give it equal status. It is an idea. To even allow it to have space on the table as a possible okay concept, you need to accept that human-as-commodity deserves some play as a possibility.

You can be objective without being tolerant to the point of ridiculousness.

But the people who like this idea will continue to push that their sociopathology deserves equal consideration. Just because they say it with passion, doesn't make it so. Just because they are willing to be vicious beyond all humanity, doesn't make it so. That their "concept" is so selfish, so self-serving, so gross in its consequences is enough to make it clear that such people do not argue from a point of morals, culture, or even humanness. They are USING morals and ethics to twist you and hit you with it as a weapon. For they have NONE, and therefore do not feel constrained by ethical consideration of any kind.

Not all cultural phenomena are equal. Not here, not anywhere. And one of those phenomena that is unworthy is slavery.

[edit on 2009/10/23 by Aeons]

"You have a deep love for objectivity. And humans aren't objects."

This is the best you could come up with? Semantics? Had I simply rephrased the statement differently using 'impartiality'' instead of 'objectivity' would you tell me people aren't partials ? This is ridiculous.

"So long as you have some view that there is some "objective" reason for some humans to be classified as commodities, you'll fail."

Very good. That is exactly what I was looking for. The simple admission that the anti-slavery bias is an emotional reaction based on cultural conditioning and that those with this particular bias believe they have the right to force their beliefs and cultural conditioning upon others, and I understand that if I attempt to claim this as more, as objectively evil, I will fail.

"Societies that are rejecting that model are progressing so much faster than their counterparts that they are have literally had to go out of their way to cripple themselves to not destroy every other culture."

I have no memory of the South going out of their way to cripple themselves to not destroy every other culture. What are you talking about?

"That progress, and better lives and more opportunities have abounded at a pace which exponentially has increased their societies and individual gains beyond anything ever conceived of in all of history. Every day.

There is an objective reason for you."

The technological, medical, scientific advances in the last 100 years can be somehow attributed to civil rights law? Forgive me but I do not see it.

"But it still doesn't touch the real source of the problem. Some ideologies can be understood and thought about, without being given MERIT. I can UNDERSTAND a cultural concept I find abhorrent, without feeling the need to give it equal status. It is an idea. To even allow it to have space on the table as a possible okay concept, you need to accept that human-as-commodity deserves some play as a possibility."

Yes but doesn't that all depend on who has sufficient power to do the deciding as to which ideologies deserve MERIT? In the 1940s Nazi German decided that the beliefs of certain groups did not deserve MERIT. Did the fact that they were the source of authority in that country at the time justify their decision? Did it make them correct? And if not then exactly who gets to make these decisions and was is the basis for their authority?

You can be objective without being tolerant to the point of ridiculousness.

That's funny. It is exactly what I would expect to hear from a racist discussing interracial dating. "Yes, my dear. I can understand you wanting to help black people get better housing, but to actually date them? Let us not push the idea of being tolerant to the point of ridiculousness."
Forgive me but I do not wish to use the same arguments as these people. If I truly believe my view to be superior than I should have a superior argument.

But the people who like this idea will continue to push that their sociopathology deserves equal consideration. Just because they say it with passion, doesn't make it so. That their "concept" is so selfish, so self-serving, so gross in its consequences is enough to make it clear that such people do not argue from a point of morals, culture, or even humanness. They are USING morals and ethics to twist you and hit you with it as a weapon. For they have NONE, and therefore do not feel constrained by ethical consideration of any kind.

Again, an argument similar to something I would expect to hear in Nazi Germany used against Jews or used by a racist against those supporting interracial marriage or by slave owners against the abolitionist.

Not all cultural phenomena are equal. Not here, not anywhere.

Perhaps but the obvious question that follows is who gets to decide which are? To simply say I do, or people who will support my view do sounds a bit like when Bush said dictatorship might not be so bad as long as he got to be the dictator. How do we criticize that argument if we indulge in the exact same type of logic?

Forget it. I got it. The neo-Platonist decided that what was evil was only what people decided it was and only for so long as they so decided.
When asked in the future what is wrong with slavery other than the fact that I do not approve of it personally, I will reply "It is against the current social norms". I personally think that's a pretty weak, lame, pathetic argument but it seems no one here can provide me with a better one. It also forces me to agree that should society change and allow it there can be no objective arguments against it, it having fulfilled all the requirements needed to be considered a 'social norm'.

Yeah, OK. I understand. Thanks for the assist.

This is just the way of life around the world. It is very dishearting but just the cold hard facts of the world that we have created for ourselves.

You are under the impression that fairness must be used to evaluate which societal modes are more important.

If you are correct in that all are nothing and don't matter or cannot be judged, then by their actions and by their consequences is the only standard to which you can hold them.

Your attempt to remove even the veneer of humanity from judgement is pointless. No matter how you slice it, you have to put your stake somewhere and be willing to defend that. Even the lone wolf is still a wolf.

You are frustrated because you cannot remove THOUGHT and consequences from decision making. You cannot remove judgement. You cannot remove emotions, because emotions are integral to your ability to live and process.

You are coming from a point where morality, ethics, and judgement have no place. One in which you try to deny that emotion has an obvious reason for existence in your life otherwise you wouldn't have it. You bias yourself with the idea that emotions don't matter - but emotions do matter, and indeed are your minds first warning system to get you to hussle your butt before you get eaten. You don't have time to analyze every little thing and then write a thesis on it. Emotions cue you into behaviours that have your best interests in mind so long as they aren't your ONLY reasons all the time.

Why is morality not a valid argument?

Its not a matter of forcing slavers/traffickers into our view of a morally justified existence. Its a fact of trying to elevate those that are having their rights and freedoms taken from them to a an equal level as everyone else.

I agree in the sense that I have no right to force my views onto anyone else. And by that very same argument, slavers have no right to force their views onto those that they oppress.

Appart from some grey areas in regards to things like the age of consent, minimum wage and working conditions, I don't think that the debate is that in-depth.

People have rights that need to be adhered to.

My question to you is this : What is it that you think gives someone the right to remove the rights and liberties from another?

And if you say that its simply because they have the ability to do so, then that was the reason for starting this thread in the first place. So people can become aware, and those that choose to can do whatever is in their power to help remove that ability from those who choose to oppress.



[edit on 23-10-2009 by beta.services]

Because he is a sophist. As in the more original meaning and the newer meaning.

He wants the reason why to be a universal truth. Unquestionable, obvious, without need to apply to thought. It should just spring from a well of wisdom like Athena from the head of Zeus.

That constructs like "rights" are a cultural phenomena with no more truth than another.

He is also suffering from a bias towards believing that life is a zero-sum game, and that this is only possibility for interactions. While this is common, it isn't the only possibility.

[edit on 2009/10/23 by Aeons]

The problem is that moral values are subjective.

For example:
Before they were introduced to western values a family of Eskimos, if their first born was a girl, would leave her in the snow to die. This was due to custom that probably originated with economic necessity. Before a child which would just consume food could be accepted a child capable of acquiring it was needed.
The point is that the Eskimos once abandoned their first born on the ice if it were female. If we attempt to understand that this was the way they had been raised, that this was their cultural norm, are we justified in calling them 'evil'?

So should I encounter someone who has been raised in a society where slavery is the norm, where he has been taught since childhood that this is the part of the proper world ordering, am I justified in calling him evil?

Trying to explain that slavery is wrong to him, he listens and then tells me that it appears we have two different sets of moral values. He asks me why I assume mine to be superior to his. He calls me ignorant and a barbarian for assuming I might even have the right to force him to accept my standards. He mocks me and tells me that my justification is no more than the crude 'might makes right' argument and so I am the last one who should be preaching about 'civilized' standards. I have yet to hear anyone here provide anything resembling an intelligent counter argument.

Do we have the right to force Christian standards on Hindus, Jews or others who do not agree with them?
Do we have the right to force westernized standards on others who do not agree with them?
How do we justify claiming such rights?

Please. If you are going to simply preach I can, as I've already pointed out, get plenty of that from friends, family and neighbors here at home.
I came here hoping for an answer to my questions. If you cannot answer the specific questions I have asked then please, simply do not respond. There is nothing to be accomplished by additional preaching.

Also, for the record, objectivity means I do not assume the person I am speaking to is Christian. Perhaps he is Hindu. If so quoting the bible would not necessarily mean anything to him.
He might be a materialist who believes we are, in the end, evolved apes. Objectivity means all these points of view are to be given equal consideration. To say a materialist who believes we are only glorified animals does not deserve equal consideration is religious bigotry of the worst kind. He does not believe like me, ergo, he does not count. I find that logic disgusting.

reply to post by Robin Goodfellow


No, Christians do not have the right to impose their values on Jews or Hindus.

And in the same spirit of what is 'right' nobody has the right to impose their belief that they can claim ownership of another person.

Now, if you have another specific question, please ask it.

Now, if you have another specific question, please ask it.

Do the spiritually minded who believe in the sanctity of human life have the right to force their views on the materialists who believe we are merely evolved apes?

And in the same spirit of what is 'right' nobody has the right to impose their belief that they can claim ownership of another person.


I have no argument. No society that accepts slavery should have the right to demand that anti-slavery societies change their value system.

How do you justify the position that anti-slavery societies do have the right to impose their value system on pro-slavery societies and demand they change?

reply to post by Aeons


I would give you 500 points if I could.


actually I take that back.

the poster brought up a very good point about economic status. It is economic situation that keeps the drastically poor selling their children to the rich when they have no other options.

There is slavery everywhere. In fact, some of the chocolate you eat is picked by nigerian slaves.

People don't want slavery. But then you have to eliminate the class seperation, you have to alleviate the economic status of the poor.

Which means socialsim. And since many on this site are against socialism, there is no end in sight.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by nixie_nox]

Forgive me but did you not ask for a specific question?

I had assumed you would provide a specific answer

There are societies that consider women to be 2nd class citizens. Do you believe young boys raised in such a society to believe that this is not only the social norm but is even backed by their religion are simply 'misguided' or are they inherently evil?

If they are only misguided then in all fairness we must acknowledge they see us as 'misguided'. Does this not break down to simply two different sets of moral beliefs?
If so, why are we more entitled to force our values on them than they would be to force their values on us?
Would if be acceptable for them to demand or even force all our women to wear veils?
If not then why would it be acceptable for us to demand their women be freed from this restriction? Or to suggest the use of force if they do not agree?

How do we differ from any other fundamentalist religious group demanding others accept their standards and values?

We are all of us in bondage ~ everyone of us being a bondage of sentient atoms, and all else extrapolates from that valency fact to either a benevolent or malevolent degree.

To be specific about women wearing veils, or the hijab.
In a hot arid climate subject to much windblown sand & dust it makes sense to wrap up so.
However, do so in a cooler cloudier climate and you're in danger of vitamin D deficiency, or rickets. Which means women are liable to die in childbirth through a narrowing of the pelvic bone birth canal. Exposing the naked skin (face, arms & legs), to the sun enables the body to synthesise its own supply of Vitamin D where it is deficient in the diet.
It was the long suffering of women dying horribly in childbirth that brought about a gradual selective lightening of the skin color in the hunter gatherers who first colonised Europe from Africa, tens of thousands of years ago.

Therefore, the often dark skinned Islamic immigrant women who are compelled by custom to wear the hijab in Northern Europe, and other such cloudy climes, are more likely to suffer from vitamin D deficiency; endangering their health, especially that of their still growing daughters.
The problem with so many priest & mullah types is that they have a tendency to parrot read the 'holy scripture' words without thinking about them sufficiently! I'm sure if Muhammad was alive in the world today he would berate them for their ignorance.