• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If slavery were legal and accepted throughout the world today...

Would you own slaves today?


  • Total voters
    25
I could see helping to fund a campaign to repatriate them - that's "purchasing" people, if not trying to "own" them. I suppose that would be the closest I could come to it.
 
I could see helping to fund a campaign to repatriate them - that's "purchasing" people, if not trying to "own" them. I suppose that would be the closest I could come to it.

So would that include some kind of stipulation that they would be freed after a certain length of time?
 
Would you own any slaves? Why or why not?

Even in theory, just because something is legal does not automatically mean we would all get in on it. Especially something like this, ownership of another human being. Legal or not, there is plenty of reason to despise the idea.
 
So would that include some kind of stipulation that they would be freed after a certain length of time?
No. I would just free them. I'd ask them to remember where they came from, and join the repatriation movement, but they have basic human rights and dignity, the same as me or you or my children. I wouldn't want my children in Slavery, and I wouldn't want yours in it, either.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Even in theory, just because something is legal does not automatically mean we would all get in on it. Especially something like this, ownership of another human being. Legal or not, there is plenty of reason to despise the idea.
Precisely. Slavery is not wrong because it is illegal. It is illegal because we came to find it to be morally abhorent.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
I would hope I would do what Tubman did

Free the slaves, and kill the slavers
 
...I don't remember Harriet Tubman killing anybody. What kind of history class were you in?

I would have expected that she would have killed someone when leading 3 gun boats with 300 soldiers, or at the very least order soldiers to kill
 
Looks like a lot of people standing on high-horses. The subject line ask if it would be done if it was "legal and "accepted" in the world today. The word "accepted" is the key. For this to be true, the entire culture and POV of the world would be entirely different than what exists today.

Most people don't deviate from their cultures very much. It would be like asking someone, "If you were part of Genghis Khan's tribe would you have slaughtered entire cities for not opening up their doors and meeting your demands?" The answer is yes.

I don't think people are really equipped to answer this question. Too much idealistic POVs. Maybe that's just the realist in me.
 
Kill someone who isn't violating any law just because you find something they're doing to be odious? Most people would say that's a little extreme.


I would say that allowing slavery to continue when you could potentially do something against it would be extreme.


Just because something might be legal does not make it right, or that it should be followed.
 
if slavery were legal I'd buy you and force you to make moronic threads on this website.

whoops! you beat me to it
 
Would you own any slaves? Why or why not?

If this is something that just became legal I say no to owning slaves. If this is something that has been legal our whole lives and we grew up with the mind set that this is just something acceptable then who knows how any of us would answer that question. Because we would all like to think that we are all decent human beings who oppose such things. But many decent people 150 years ago and before either condoned slavery or even participated in owning slaves because that was something back then that was acceptable and done. I would like to think that because of one of the reasons I oppose outsourcing,illegal immigration, unrestricted immigration and worker visas because they hurt the wages of Americans that I would also oppose slavery(if slavery was legal then there probably wouldn't be those things) since that is something that also hurts the wages of Americans.
 
Seems a rather odd question to ask since slavery DOES exist today and I dont see too many people demanding force or action to end it.
 
Would you own any slaves? Why or why not?

I will give you the most honest answer that's been posted on this forum, if slavery were legal and accepted socially it is unlikely I would own any slaves as in many cases through history owning slaves meant you are of the highest social class and a man of considerable wealth. I am not

However, I do not desire there to be a world where it is both legal and accepted
 
If I was born into a society where slavery was part of daily life, I might think differently about it, but since I am who I am right now, I'd have to say no. Hiring a servant, paying them, and affording them equality as human beings, is not only morally right, it's just more practical.

How awkward would it be to buy another human being at some chattel market, and then treat them like they're less than yourself? I just can't unlearn those values.

There's still slavery in the world today and the psychopaths running the slave trade don't see their product as equal to them. To own a slave must involve some degree of entitlement to dominion over others, and that has never been part of my personality.
 
Would you own any slaves? Why or why not?

If slavery is normal and accepted and suites the methods of production of the times or products, history shows that most people that can will hold them. In some cases this is bad for the poor free population, as they cannot compete, can be less well treated or live under worse conditions than the general slave, the latter being expensive to buy, while the earlier can be replaced without a thought beyond managing fluctuation.
 
I would say that allowing slavery to continue when you could potentially do something against it would be extreme.

Killing slavers (in a world where slavery is accepted) might not be the wisest strategy to pursue if your end goal is to end slavery and free all the slaves. Moral outrage at slavery in America didn't rise because John Brown wanted to start a revolution against White Southerners, but rather because people read Uncle Toms' Cabin, and began to take a look at the moral horror that was chattel slavery.
 
I would have expected that she would have killed someone when leading 3 gun boats with 300 soldiers, or at the very least order soldiers to kill

That doesn't sound like Harriet Tubman either. Do you have any kind of link showing that Harriet led a small army?
 
That doesn't sound like Harriet Tubman either. Do you have any kind of link showing that Harriet led a small army?
Maybe he's confusing Harriet Tubman with Joan of Arc? [emoji12]
 
Last edited:
Kill someone who isn't violating any law just because you find something they're doing to be odious? Most people would say that's a little extreme.

WTF !! :roll: isn't violating any LAW ? :shock: Is this from the Killary Rotten Clinton school of morals ? :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom