Correct, prison labor is a form of involuntary servitude the 13th Amendment explicitly doesn’t apply to. Bear in mind, all this time I haven’t even argued in favor of prison labor. I’m saying calling it slavery is inappropriate, no matter how passionate you are about it.
It can be called slavery while still being permissible under the constitution. It’s not illegal slavery, just like pre-civil war slavery in the south wasn’t illegal… But it’s still slavery.
If “has an owner” is what everything hinges on, and the Department of Corrections or whoever has full custody and control doesn’t count, fine. I guess that’s technically in the first definition that came up. But Jesus Christ, when the vast majority of conditions match up, you sure spent a hell of a lot more time puffing your chest and acting high and mighty instead of, you know, explaining why it isn’t. You had to go through a few responses before any explanation at all!
Yes, having an owner is what the word itself hinges on. The imagery and emotion that go with it aren’t a handy colorful Post-It to stick on something else.
And a lot of people think (not unreasonably IMO) that it hinges on the involuntary labor. I’m all for strong arguments and being accurate or whatever, but even if someone is one of today’s ten thousand it doesn’t do any good to insult them and repeat your unsubstantiated point. You know why this doesn’t perfectly fit the dictionary definition of slavery, we don’t. Is it too much to ask for you to tell us that detail, if you’re going through the trouble of commenting?
Correct, prison labor is a form of involuntary servitude the 13th Amendment explicitly doesn’t apply to. Bear in mind, all this time I haven’t even argued in favor of prison labor. I’m saying calling it slavery is inappropriate, no matter how passionate you are about it.
It can be called slavery while still being permissible under the constitution. It’s not illegal slavery, just like pre-civil war slavery in the south wasn’t illegal… But it’s still slavery.
Slaves have owners, but call it flapjacks or pudding or whatever makes you feel like a keyboard justice warrior.
If “has an owner” is what everything hinges on, and the Department of Corrections or whoever has full custody and control doesn’t count, fine. I guess that’s technically in the first definition that came up. But Jesus Christ, when the vast majority of conditions match up, you sure spent a hell of a lot more time puffing your chest and acting high and mighty instead of, you know, explaining why it isn’t. You had to go through a few responses before any explanation at all!
Yes, having an owner is what the word itself hinges on. The imagery and emotion that go with it aren’t a handy colorful Post-It to stick on something else.
And a lot of people think (not unreasonably IMO) that it hinges on the involuntary labor. I’m all for strong arguments and being accurate or whatever, but even if someone is one of today’s ten thousand it doesn’t do any good to insult them and repeat your unsubstantiated point. You know why this doesn’t perfectly fit the dictionary definition of slavery, we don’t. Is it too much to ask for you to tell us that detail, if you’re going through the trouble of commenting?
“It’s not slavery, its involuntary servitude.”
This guys is either trolling or dumb as a bag of dumb cunts
Name-calling - a time-honored way to win any argument. Respect!
Semantics isn’t an argument, it’s a waste of time.