Is there any book that explains why slavery is "immoral"?

Is there any book that explains why slavery is "immoral"?

Attached: 33918072066_cd3efd36ee_o.jpg (2048x1365, 380K)

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-trafficking-persons-one-in-200
ifstudies.org/blog/number-1-in-2018-who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-infidelity-in-america
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25635900
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

If you can't already see that, then no book is going to help you. You are a sociopath and should commit suicide.

Attached: Her-slaves-were-put-on-display-to-showcase-their-tortured-bodies.jpg (630x1010, 93K)

How old were you when you realized morality is just whatever the majority of people say it is

Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

because people say it is

sociopathy is a spook

>Metaphysics
lel

>It's immoral because it's immoral because it's immoral
Flawless logic

By your logic, majority of people in the past were sociopaths. Yup, makes sense.

they still are.
there are more slaves now than ever.
not to mention the wagecucks.

yes, just like a snake is not going to kill you because you are not tasty to her.

Yeah, i know that slavery isn't very convinient for capitalists. Buying a slave is a big investment of money and you would need to take care of his health and educate him for the tasks that you need him to perform.
But i wonder, what kinds of arguments were made to declare slavery as wrong from a moral point of view.

Snakes kill you in self defence.
Anyway sociopaths aren't more likelly to kill you as compared to the average person, the best predictor for crime is poverty.

a sociopath boss wont kill you because he needs you alive to work. But he would don't mind kick you out if you miss a day because you were in your grandma's funeral.

There is no such thing as perfect freedom nor is there perfect slavery within a society. Every person in even the most anarchic or repressive state is subject to certain controls and permitted certain freedoms. The question from the perspective of governance is how do we impose restrictions and grant liberties in order to maximize the public good. In general, societies where individual rights are kept to a minimum tend to be stagnant and often produce atrocities.

From a moral perspective it all depends upon why you are enslaving another human. Are you attempting to uplift them or protect them or are you motivated by personal gain? Often we tell ourselves one thing, but it gradually becomes a selfish act. An example of this would be how many colonialists initially believed that by ending slavery (yes one of the key moral justifications for African colonization was the antislavery movement), expanding infrastructure, educating the colonized, and spreading the word of god they would be doing good. However in many of these cases while good was done, is was outweighed by new atrocities and a profound selfishness came to define the system.

There can be such thing as a good master, but the principle moral problem with slavery is in almost all cases it corrupts the master. By treating another human being as your inferior you are already guilty of tremendous pride. Owning another human being often lets you indulge lust of the worst sort. The need to discipline a slave makes it very easy to fall into wroth. Finally the primary motivation for slavery is the extraction of profit allowing you to fall into the most addictive of vices greed.

I would recommend Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass for an examination of how a master can become morally corrupted by slavery. He describes how owning and disciplining several slaves turned a previously sweet and kind northern housewife into a cruel and spiteful person.

This attitude does nothing to help your cause. It inclines both you and OP to become worse people.

where were you guys when the whole Epstein thing happened?

You should consider reading Time on the Cross. Slavery was not necessarily on the way out at all

that was on a very small scale and its purpose was luxury for the porks, not profit.
a small girl for them is like a fast car, expensive food, a house, etc

>muh spooks

Excludes health insurance benefits

theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-trafficking-persons-one-in-200

sexual slavery is probably the only exeption, you don't need much skills to be a whore

>technology

pretty sure the wheel didn't bring freedom to any slave

Sociopaths are capable of empathy. They show more empathy than most humans. Empathy is just an understanding of how other people's emotions work, which is neither good nor bad. If you're Machiavellian and have high empathy, you will be good at manipulating people to your own ends using their emotions. Empathy is just awareness of other people's emotions and thought processes behind them: it does not mean you use that understanding to the other person's advantage at all.

>If you're Machiavellian and have high empathy, you will be good at manipulating people to your own ends using their emotions.

that would'nt be a sociopath tho. It would be an amoral person , or a sadist.

IMO a sadist needs empathy therefore sociopaths are not sadists.

I think thats one of the points of 2666. The many faces of "evilness".

So basically your argument is that people who are put in positions of absolute power and authority are more likelly to abuse that power and indulge in all sorts of cruelty towards those who are submited?

What you are describing is emotional intelligences, while empathy is the ability to feel what the other person feels.

Yes, but more then just cruelty. You become dependent on others to satisfy all your needs and you loose touch with the common humanity that you both share. It makes you less of a human and less of an independent individual as well as corrupting you morally.

Steam engines and agriculture automation did.

>that would'nt be a sociopath tho. It would be an amoral person , or a sadist
You need more traits than Machiavellianism and high empathy to be considered a sociopath, but they are two criteria for diagnosis. Borderlines also have abnormally high empathy. Schizophrenics on the other hand have low empathy. It's one of the few bits of the brain we do know something about. Your opinion won't change it. Sadists need to see pain and discomfort, but sociopaths often want to induce kindness in others. If they're sadistic sociopaths like Bundy, they use empathy to draw people in before they get to the sadist part. High empathy is more of a diagnostic criterion compared to sadism however. Not all sociopaths need to see their victim's pain, and many don't stick around to register it or punish people for showing them emotions other than profitable kindness. All sadists need to see the victim's pain, but they cannot tell feigned pain from real pain with the accuracy sociopaths can.

no not really.
Slavery """ended""" (because it didn't it just became ilegal to own people) for other reasons

>Morals
do people really give a shit about those? The only thing that really matters is power. You can be moral all you want and then you get crushed by a fascist who's ruthless and doesnt care about morality.

Attached: 1565976016897.png (713x611, 26K)

>crushed by a fascist who's ruthless and doesnt care about morality
Or maybe he only has a different set of moral standards and is willing to sacrifice you to reach a greater goal.

this is retarded, how can I measure my level of "machiavellianism" ?. You talk like everything is a roleplay game.

>You talk like everything is a roleplay game.
That is what life is sweetie

Well there always seemed to be a prerequisite of separation of validity of being between slave and slave owner. "he is from another tribe so it's okay", "he is a loser so it's okay", "his ancestors were mean to my ancestors so it's okay", and of course the obvious american thing. The more people learned to see similarity, or more like lack of "real" difference between themselves and others the harder it became to justify why exactly a person in front of them is inferior enough to subdue their will and whole being to their master. So immorality comes from subjugation of will when slavemaster has no justifiable reason to separate himself from their slave aside from money/convenience/gratification. So I guess morality depends on the level of development of society? If a person truly believes that someone from another tribe is a lower being of course they would have no restrictions but that person wouldn't be capable of manifesting their humanity to the highest capacity. Imho slavery is okay-ish when done willingly i.e. person sells themselves into slavery for whatever reason as person is willingly and knowingly committing to a certain decision.

Empathy has two parts: being able to mirror emotion (which is not just feeling what the other person is feeling as we do this even when we see someone else's pain but do not feel it ourselves, it's simply how our brains register emotion); and once we have mirrored the emotion to register what the other is feeling, the ability to tell why they feel that way and how it can be altered. There is a move to call it something other than empathy, since we now know that sociopaths and borderlines mirror better while schizophrenics have more trouble with it, but the reason why they want the name changed is because most lay people do not think of what empathy scientifically is when they hear the word. In common parlance it's usually seen as a good thing, and people are uncomfortable with the idea that sociopaths literally can tell by sight who is most easily victimised, especially as this means the sociopath mirrors any previous victimisation more easily. They like to think that charity workers and saints can see the most victimised better, but they don't' which is why they often burn out from trying to mirror emotions at extreme levels, while for a sociopath that is just another Tuesday.
I think David Goleman wants to keep the copyright on emotional intelligence anyhow. But yes, that is what empathy means to psychologists and neuroscientists, and no, they do not call it emotional intelligence.
There are many tests for Machiavellianism, but the one that tests for sociopaths, the Hare inventory (r), has measures for Machiavellianism alongside other traits of sociopaths. It's not perfect, but it is currently the standard test.

>Imho slavery is okay-ish when done willingly i.e. person sells themselves into slavery
That is what a job contract is

So how you call a guy that can cut your head and feel nothing about it other than -I have to clean the blood out of my shirt-. ?

An organized sociopath.

what could one then call that feel when you are compelled to help out someone once you "mirror their emotion"?

>a sociopath telling us sociopaths have empaty.

maybe you are the ultimate organized sociopath.

>people are uncomfortable with the idea that sociopaths literally can tell by sight who is most easily victimised
Any body can do that user
You look at the person and if he or she looks physically weak, shy and socially marginalized that is an easy target.
t. not a sociopath

Morality isn't logical, you fucking dimwits. Saying it's flawed logic is irrelevant because morality isn't in the realm of logic and reason. It's an emotional reaction. If you have no emotional reaction to the pic I posted you are simply sociopaths who should commit suicide.

Altruism. Also, mirroring emotion is a very primitive thing. If you only mirror emotion, you are also bad at empathy (eg the schizophrenic who thinks you're scowling because you can read his thoughts, and who attempts to pacify you with his thoughts does not understand you are scowling as something else and will not be changed in your emotion by his thoughts). We learn to suppress mirrored emotions as infants, and that helps the second part of empathy grow, so we can see someone in pain and feel the urge to comfort them rather than saying "Ow, I'm hurt too".
Having empathy to the degree a borderline or sociopath shows is not a good thing. Some level of empathy is necessary to understand other people, but too much empathy or too little is a problem. For another example, if we were as empathetic as sociopaths, we would feel the same joy as they do in benefiting off the destruction of others when they display it. We don't. Instead we say things like
>I don't understand how he can do that!
People who empathize with criminals and promise to marry them despite them being the night stalker are not showing normal levels of empathy but higher ones than are broadly sustainable. People who mirror others to the point their entire personality changes based on who else is in the room also have an overflow of empathy which is likely detrimental to themselves and others. For empathy to be beneficial, it needs restraint or you're just a mess of emotions.

>It's an emotional reaction
That isn't how laws work retard

They tested this hypothesis because Bundy said he picked his victim by the tilt of her head. They showed normal people and sociopathic killers footage of people walking away from the camera so facial tells were not in play. Sociopathic killers picked out significantly more people with a history of abuse accurately compared to normals who could spot them at about the same rate as coin flip was right.
If I were responsible for all the current measures on this I would be so fucking rich. Hare's monopolizing the area of interest though.

Yes it is. Our most base instincts to care for our fellow man coupled with the desire to live freely are ossified in the legal code. "I don't want to be raped and murdered and I don't want my neighbour to be raped and murdered; maybe we should make laws against rape and murder." It starts off as an emotional reaction and becomes reified into an enforcable set of laws handled by the state. Of course there are many other factors aside from morality that go into making a nation's laws, but presently we are talking about moral laws.

So, what? You expect me to believe 100% of the population of Ancient Rome were sociopaths? Fuck off with your Reddit buzzwords.

Did 100% of the population of Ancient Rome own slaves? Fucking retard.

So you're another racist who thinks Papuans and Aborigines aren't humans because they don't have base reactions? Take your imperialist colonialist bullshit somewhere else.

They're taxonomically humans. I don't believe in the humanist conception of "man".

Some of us derive our morality from a sense of identity and ideological purpose rather then an overweening sense of empathy. I feel far less then I once did, but I am by almost every measure a better man than I was in my youth. In the long run I find it makes me a stronger person then someone motivated by pure emotion.

This is not to say that empathy isn't valuable, but in order for you to leverage it into useful action you need to learn to control it. In this case your attachment to a single conception of what slavery is as defined by one photo has actually done you a disservice. You are so fixated on your own feeling that you fail to consider others who can think and feel differently while still being moral human beings.

Finally, some of us have seen enough suffering in life that a well known photo taken 150 years ago no longer moves us like it once did.

morality originated in tribes as a way of dealing with potential conflicts.
But what they prohibited doing to each other they did to outsiders.
You feel empathy only for the people towards who you have an emotional bond and it isn't the foundational basis of morality.

Oh cut the shit you retard if you had grown up in a savage culture you would be unscrupulous about killing and sacrificing babies to god, if you had grown up during the times of slavery you would have seen nothing wrong with torturing their slaves like that picture, if you were an Ancient Roman you would have been laughing and carousing with all the other barbaric retards while you watched two gladiators fight to their death, if you had grown up in biblical times you would have been fine with forcing your daughter to marry your rapist after you sold your other daughter into slavery before burning the third one alive for fornication and stoning your son to death for disobedience.

You're just as emotional as the rest of us you faggot. Reading philosophy and trying to ossify your sense of morality into an autistic gay little code of ethics. You can act like a casuist outwardly all you want, but that will not change the fact that you, like everyone else, are simply a product of your environment.

>believing morality is either subjective or merely a collective agreement
When will plebs learn that like the stars are without, so is the moral law within?

I wish you the best things in life, but I don't think continuing this conversation will help you in any way. Goodbye and Godspeed.

>his victim by the tilt of her head
So is there any example pic of a abused potential victim head tilt and body language, so that one can avoid giving that vibe?

It's worth noting male empathy is more organized and prevalent than female empathy. Male morality is usually built around fairness (I would not like this done to me, therefore I don't do it to my brother). However, this is a rigid and more violent form of empathy compared to women. Women empathize less with victims and perpetrators compared to males, but they are also more likely to offer random cruelty or, as Shakespeare put it, a quality of mercy. For men, once you do the bad thing, you must do the standard punishment for the bad thing. They have a harder time being sure about whether someone did the bad thing because of this, but, by the same measure, have less doubts about the due punishment. Women however are more likely to feel very strongly that you did or not do the bad thing, regardless of evidence, and because they do not empathize with either side as much as men do, offer more random consequences.
For men, if you did the crime you do the time. They focus on if you did or not and err on the side of you did not. For women, if you did the crime, maybe you deserve an ice-cream, and if you did not do the crime, you might "deserve" to be painfully tortured anyway, or vice versa. Men rarely offer unfair punishments or rewards, while women usually offer random ones. It's because it's much more important for men to understand You hit me, I hit you back. For women, getting hit or hitting someone else yields more random results.
NB these are general tendencies of genders in groups and there is very wide variation within the genders, but the norms of both genders gravitate that way.

Alexander technique, army training, anything with postural awareness.

>unironically arguing that men are more moral than women
All you need to refute this is to bring up crime statistics.

There is unironically nothing wrong with any of those actions.

There's nothing morally wrong with anything. Some actions just feel bad. That's all morality is.

Not more moral: more empathetic and more rigid in social norms. They empathize with the perpetrator more too, not just the victim. That is why they are more likely to give reasonable doubt to a genuine perpetrator when a jury of women are less likely to observe that stipulation. If they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt, they give the common punishment with no mercy. Women can believe you did the crime but do not deserve the punishment on the books, while men have a harder time with that.

Being weak and thus incapable of violence =/= being moral and just

>Some actions just feel bad.
They do only because you know that there might be negative consequences for you.
You fear punishment and you are weak.
But you can't build a morality on your fear of the punishment provided by laws due to our moral codes retard.

Strength means nothing mate. We're not hunter-gatherers anymore. Sorry to break it to ya but any old granny with a glock could take your head off even if you were the UFC heavyweight champion. You think the blacks in chicago are unbelievably strong, choking the opposing gang members to death or something? No, they have weapons.

Women are just less likely to be violent and break rules. Even in non-criminal offences such as cheating, men are more likely to cheat than women. I know this doesn't fit with your narrative but it's true: women are more moral than men.

shit bro you sound so hardcore i wanna see you last a day in a place where slavery is legal and you're the one being enslaved

See I'm not but I am who you tried a dumbass strawman on originally. I think you'll note the tit for tat nature of gang violence melds very nicely with fairness being You hit me, I hit you back.

>Women are just less likely to be violent and break rules
Men have high t levels, we evolved in environments where the use of physical violence was necessary for surivival, women were always passive, and expressed their anger only in a passive aggressive way because since they were physically weaker they wouldn't have had the chance to hurt anybody.
This kind of behavioural tedencies are encoded in our brain.
>men are more likely to cheat than women
It seems to me that there is evidence for the opposite, but i could change my mind if you could post some evidence.
>women are more moral than men
Women are less likelly to physically harm other people, but they are also the most likelly to abuse children and to bully verbally other women.

>slavery is morally bad because of some whipped nigger
Yikes

gimme your address

Why?

i wanna pay you a visit

ifstudies.org/blog/number-1-in-2018-who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-infidelity-in-america
>Women are less likelly to physically harm other people, but they are also the most likelly to abuse children and to bully verbally other women.
Lmao, is this even worth a response?

Attached: cheating1new-w640.png (640x540, 93K)

Why?
Give me a motivation and i will post it.

bro if i have to explain this then it's ok don't worry i'll find you

Well that is a self report, i mean women are on average more likelly to lie in order to preserve their social reputation especially when they are older and married. Men are more likelly to over exagerate the amount of sexual experiences that they had, because that is what increases their social status in their peer group. And yes this is a thing that happens even on anonymous self reports.
If it was something based on people who were caught cheating it would be different.

Tell me user, i don't get it.

I feel like most normies are sociopaths but they are just faking it, like they pretend to give a shit but it is all just a bunch of calculated moves for their own benefit.

haha

Ringing 'em up like Dougie, user.

>What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

haahhahahahahahahahah

>>Women are less likelly to physically harm other people, but they are also the most likelly to abuse children and to bully verbally other women.
>Lmao, is this even worth a response?
Not him, but women make up 52% of child murders in Australia (studied from 1989-2012), and the greatest human risk to a neonates life over its first 24 hours is its mother. Women are more than four times more likely to molest their own children or children in their care according to this US study of every substantiated child abuse case in 2010
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25635900

The reason it's not worth a response is because women are more likely to raise children than men, who can literally just leave and never think about them again. With over 40% of marriages ending in divorce (meaning the mother is left with the kid, most of the time) it's no wonder that mothers are more likely to abuse their kids.

lmao, who cares about children think about the women

>because women are more likely to raise children than men
So one could use the same argument about men doing most of the crime, since they usually have to provide for the family not wimen.

is this argument are men or women more fucked up because that's fucking retarded everyone can be fucked up

Lmao no

you ok negroe?

nice argument faggot
anyway women are more likelly to abuse kids because they are weaker than they are, women are fucking souless monsters

hahahahaha gimme your address faggot i'll break your faggot skull with my bare hands and get skull shards in your brain you'll be in a coma for 20 years

if you say so

Attached: 1533819427459.png (601x600, 194K)

lel
keep chimping out

>lel
tells me all i need to know kys faggot

It compares women with children in their care with men with children in their care. Men who abuse children are more likely to find a victim not in their care even if they have three bio children at home and six foster children without any mother figure to stop them. Women are also more likely to commit poisonings or display Munchausen by proxy, and are more like to abuse female elders too, especially family members. Their lack of strength does not mean a lack of violence. Women who kill more often want their victim to have a long drawn out death like a Greek tragedy than a bangMichael Bay moment where a long death agony is maybe once every 1000 on screen deaths. They are more likely to have a close relationship with their victim too.

Slavery is above all economically inefficient, it creates loads more problems than it solves. All in all absolutely not worth it.
If You have slaves You freeze the monetari value of the slave into a physical person whose Well being You're now responsible. He gets sick? You lose money. He breaks his arm? You lose money. There's no way to mobilize the money Thus invested through loans like You could do for instance with an house Because the good is perishable as well: You buy a house with a loan, You sell it after 10 years, You can probably pay the loan back.
You work a slave for 10 years? He's now worth less than half than You paid for it. Good luck repeating the loan. Your money is freezed into This slave.
The societal impact is monstrous. Rome's republic fell in large part because:
1) Rome had citizens soldiers who defeated carthage and conquered the known world for Rome.
These soldiers brought back slaves after years on campaign.
2) Rich guys who never went on campaign bought slaves and land (the land of the guys that did go to campaign since they left it to fallow for years trolololol) and outcompeted the absolute fuck out of them.
3) Congrats the ex soldiers are now urban poors. They vote for the Brothers Gracchi.
4) Hippity Hoppity August is now Cesar.
Similar things happened to various greek city states and bronze age cultures. The egyptians didn't have slaves and their civilization lasted a comical, crazy talk amount of Time.
Finally, Slavery by definition encourages the kind of economic activity You can have slaves do, namely plantation agriculture and perhaps '800s style factory work. Good luck evolving your economy senpai~

Now these reasons alone make slavery immoral too because in our (((modern society))) We define morality on the basis of economic worth.

If You need more Solid reason just consider the morality of owning an indipendent moral agent the way You would own an object and the fact that you'd be de facto responsible for all It's moral failings.

>mathematics
>lel
Mathematics is metaphysics.

Post body with timestamp

>They vote for the Brothers Gracchi.
>4) Hippity Hoppity August is now Cesar.
Honestly one of the sweetest renderings of the end of the Roman Republic, and I've read Cicero.

>Middle school understanding of economics and history.
Class flunked. F. Repeat.
>It's good because it's good because it's good
Flawless logic
Now you would need to explain why killing and raping you is supposed to be wrong.
Cognitive empathy. Not affective empathy. Sociopaths regularly measure weak in affective empathy.
Agriculture automation wasn't a thing until the '20s.

>explain why killing and raping you is supposed to be wrong
Because i'm stronger than you.

You're only a slave if you sin. Otherwise you a freeman.

Why does fucking everyone misuse the word sociopath

>Cognitive empathy. Not affective empathy. Sociopaths regularly measure weak in affective empathy.
Are you thinking of the imagine this painful thing happened to you, and now imagine it happening to someone else study where they show signs of empathy for themselves but not others? There's evidence they can show the same empathy for others, but they make a choice instead to think about how nice it would be to smash someone else's face in like that. When you control for that tendency you can get them to show the same empathy for themselves as for others. The tricky part is getting them to imagine it is of benefit to them to seem empathetic: if you ask, instead of "imagine that happening to someone else", "imagine if you saw that happen to someone else while the warden in charge of your parole review is watching with you" then suddenly it's painful for the other person again, not pleasurable.
It's provided more support for the theory it's bad to give them images of their crimes because they want them as mental porn than it's shown they can't think that way. The problem is if you put one in a scanner and tell them to fantasize about causing pain to others they get the same response as the empathy without benefit test. If they have a reason to show empathy while looking at goreporn, they do.

Thank you.

Smart post with many Good points.
Complete brainlet tier drivel. Morality derives in part from biological needs and evolutionary necessities, in part from The Uses and Traditions of each people (derived from the environment, the history AND the previously stated biological necessities) and in part from the metaphysical substrate of each People's mind (everybody needs something to strive forward, something to "worship" If You will Even If it doesn't take the form of actually worshipping a superior being).
To say that morality is "emotive" is to elevate It's perversions to the level of True morality. A vegan can repeat that He's my moral and ethical superior because he doesn't consume animal derived products as long as he like, the fact remains that He's a dopamine junkie that can't tell the difference between the feeling of righteousness and actual righteousness.

Yes, your moral character is so effortlessly superior to that of 99% of human history, all far greater men than you are. Your mind is so unquestionably and absolutely higher than aristotle's, Socrates', Kant's only for mindlessly commiting your thinking to the ressentiment based modern zeitgeist

Because slaves don't like being slaves. They can't choose to be not slaves. Therefore the one who is responsible for their suffering is not them, but the one who enslaves them. Therefore you can conclude that the more moral action should be the one where there is less suffering. Which means that it is better for slaves to do work while they have the freedom not do the work if they so wish; which is less suffering.

Let's do a little analogy, OK?
>Because slaves don't like being slaves. They can't choose to be not slaves.
I don't like being a virgin, and can't change that.
>Therefore the one who is responsible for their suffering is not them, but the one who enslaves them
Therefore it's women's fault.
>Therefore you can conclude that the more moral action should be the one where there is less suffering.
Yes, the state should provide me with a wife.

My point is, your argument justifies misogyny and patriarchy, so have sex, incel, and go back to

Attached: 5eb.jpg (480x600, 22K)

You can literally buy sex.
You can't buy freedom, moron, because they robbed you from literally everything.

couldn't slaves buy themselves freedom?
Like unironically i remember that they could just pay their owner and be set free

Slaves had it better than most workers have in in 2019. They were capital goods and most were well maintained. Well fed. In crapitalism, there is no obligation to make sure your employee is taken care of. They had more enjoyable and less stressful lives than you. What is sociopathic is to put rose colored glasses on for 2019, where people are suffering all around you, and you make up some stupid narrative based on a single picture "well at least you didn't have it this bad".

The one without the “!” In front of the “mxvabloSIE” should be though of as always trolling.

schizophrenics are the minority of population by definition

It's been proven that 1850s Irish immigrants in North America were more malnourished, had worse living conditions and higher morality rates than concurrent southern slaves. Slaves were not unhappy and most had pretty good, well taken care of lives. Any immorality about is from racial and sexual cruelty, which are separate issues.

Slavery is more morally justifiable than capitalism.

>Slaves had it better than most workers have in in 2019. They were capital goods and most were well maintained
In the US this was true. Most black slaves were bought as an investment which would yield labor for generations. The indentured servants who had termed contracts where upon completion of their time had paid off their passage and earned land or payment from finishing the contract however had about an 80% death rate before their 15-20 year contract was completed. A child born into slavery had an 80% chance of reaching 20years old in comparison. With slaves, you had made an expensive investment you had to keep sweet. With indentured servants, you had an ever closer debt to pay off. Most of those that survived were given land in what became West Virginia, which was the pro-slave Virginia because they did not want to bring in more of their own kind and wanted to invest long term in their new land. (Hence them going team Yankee while the Virginia that stayed in the south made it harder for former indentures to buy slaves if they did get land)
In Brazil, however, the black transported slaves were cheap. So cheap that killing them made sense because they became cheaper every year and trying to sell one on for the same price as one FOB was impossible with prices going down each shipment. Slaves were lucky to survive a year there.