• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

History is embarassing

Surely a search for 'modern day slavery in UK' and 'modern day slavery in US' would answer your question and bring you links like this

https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/slavery-uk/

and this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_United_States



The discussion has moved on a little and, in many ways, concluded in this respect.

Do you feel that something that is clearly and unambiguously against the law in current UK and US is equivalent to something that was supported by law in the past?
 
Do you feel that something that is clearly and unambiguously against the law in current UK and US is equivalent to something that was supported by law in the past?

Pretty much equivalent as far as the victims are concerned, yes. How else would you suggest measuring its impact?
 
Pretty much equivalent as far as the victims are concerned, yes. How else would you suggest measuring its impact?


I thought you advocated the wider view. Yes, people are still mistreated. No, it isn't equivalent when viewed in the context of the two different eras.

Aren't you getting just a bit of tunnel vision in your effort to keep defending this one claim about your interpretation of what someone else wrote?
 
Pretty much equivalent as far as the victims are concerned, yes. How else would you suggest measuring its impact?
I can think of many ways, all more sensible. By the fact that it is not practiced with the sanction of the state. Can we say that the death sentence still exists in the U.K. because people are still murdered there? Being killed by the state or murdered by a criminal is the same thing from the victim's point of view after all. Therefore it must be the same thing as Stalin's Terror. Victims of individual crime and victims of political state terror are both equally dead. So these phenomena are the same. How else would you measure them?

One important difference is probably level of incidence. In the state of Mississippi in 1860, according to the census, 55% of the population were slaves, and in S Carolina 57%; including therefore the great bulk of agricultural workers. Some other states had over 40%. Is that the current situation in the UK? In fact according to you the crimes of the Old South are as nothing compared to those of today.

This is either a joke, or the sort of nonsense alt right apologists tend to spout, as their target audience really doesn't care whether statements are plausible or not. Global warming is a Chinese hoax intended to increase the costs faced by US industry. The UK intelligence service bugged the US presidential candidate. Slavery today is infinitely more common than in the 1860 South. Stuff like that.
 
Last edited:
I can think of many ways, all more sensible. By the fact that it is not practiced with the sanction of the state. Can we say that the death sentence still exists in the U.K. because people are still murdered there? Being killed by the state or murdered by a criminal is the same thing from the victim's point of view after all. Therefore it must be the same thing as Stalin's Terror. Victims of individual crime and victims of political state terror are both equally dead. So these phenomena are the same. How else would you measure them?

You're doing it again! Saying one thing then immediately and explicitly contradicting it.

Here's what you said not three posts back:

The kind of slavery referred to in the OP is chattel slavery, with advertised public sales of slaves. That is the context of the discussion that launched this thread. But I have repeatedly stated that if people are not permitted, either by the use of force or through other constraint, to change their employment, they are slaves
.

I then said exactly the same thing - that the legality of slavery doesn't affect the actual practice as far as the victims are concerned - and you promptly deny it.

This is why it's impossible to have any sort of discussion with you. An argument should be from a position of honestly held belief, not an academic exercise in disagreement for the sake of it.
 
Pretty much equivalent as far as the victims are concerned, yes. How else would you suggest measuring its impact?

In one case, the victim is being held against their will and illegally. If the victim can escape, they have access to law enforcement and they have the ability and the right to press charges and see justice done against a criminal who harmed them. In the eyes of the law, the captor is the criminal and the escaped slave is the victim.

In the other case, the victim is held against their will but isn't granted any legal agency - their will is a meaningless concept as far as the law is concerned. If that victim escapes then that victim is the criminal. They have no access to law enforcement and no ability to press charges against their captor because they legally belong to the captor. In the eyes of the law, the captor is the victim and the the escaped slave is the criminal.

I think that's pretty substantially NOT equivalent.
 
You're doing it again! Saying one thing then immediately and explicitly contradicting it.

Here's what you said not three posts back:

.

I then said exactly the same thing - that the legality of slavery doesn't affect the actual practice as far as the victims are concerned - and you promptly deny it.

This is why it's impossible to have any sort of discussion with you. An argument should be from a position of honestly held belief, not an academic exercise in disagreement for the sake of it.
Nonsense. I disagree with you when you state a) that conditions of slavery obtain whenever people are badly paid and subject to poor conditions of work. Contrary to that I say that constraint, whether through force or through legal sanction, preventing free movement of employment, is a necessary part of the definition of slavery.

And you say b) Slavery practiced in the USA was as nothing compared to slavery nowadays. And I am refuting you from the US Census 1860, and stating that you are a conscious and wilful apologist for the Confederacy.

You don't think I honestly believe you are mistaken about your definition of slavery?
You don't think I honestly believe you're an apologist for Dixie?

I do believe these things. You may be sure that I believe them.
 
In one case, the victim is being held against their will and illegally. If the victim can escape, they have access to law enforcement and they have the ability and the right to press charges and see justice done against a criminal who harmed them. In the eyes of the law, the captor is the criminal and the escaped slave is the victim.

In the other case, the victim is held against their will but isn't granted any legal agency - their will is a meaningless concept as far as the law is concerned. If that victim escapes then that victim is the criminal. They have no access to law enforcement and no ability to press charges against their captor because they legally belong to the captor. In the eyes of the law, the captor is the victim and the the escaped slave is the criminal.

I think that's pretty substantially NOT equivalent.

Well put
 
In one case, the victim is being held against their will and illegally. If the victim can escape, they have access to law enforcement and they have the ability and the right to press charges and see justice done against a criminal who harmed them.

In a world where facts are candy floss that's probably what happens. In the real world, not so much.

In the eyes of the law, the captor is the criminal and the escaped slave is the victim.

In the other case, the victim is held against their will but isn't granted any legal agency - their will is a meaningless concept as far as the law is concerned. If that victim escapes then that victim is the criminal. They have no access to law enforcement and no ability to press charges against their captor because they legally belong to the captor. In the eyes of the law, the captor is the victim and the the escaped slave is the criminal.

I think that's pretty substantially NOT equivalent.

If this, if that. A slave takes no comfort from the law if they are actively being a slave. You asked, "Do you feel that something that is clearly and unambiguously against the law in current UK and US is equivalent to something that was supported by law in the past?" The answer is still yes, for the people who are experiencing it, it very much is. I doubt there are many slaves saying, "Well this is terrible but it could be worse, it could be against the law."
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. I disagree with you when you state a) that conditions of slavery obtain whenever people are badly paid and subject to poor conditions of work. Contrary to that I say that constraint, whether through force or through legal sanction, preventing free movement of employment, is a necessary part of the definition of slavery.

And you say b) Slavery practiced in the USA was as nothing compared to slavery nowadays. And I am refuting you from the US Census 1860, and stating that you are a conscious and wilful apologist for the Confederacy.

You don't think I honestly believe you are mistaken about your definition of slavery?
You don't think I honestly believe you're an apologist for Dixie?

I do believe these things. You may be sure that I believe them.

Your beliefs are of no interest to me. You contradict yourself with every post. It's a waste of my time attempting adult debate with you.
 
Your beliefs are of no interest to me. You contradict yourself with every post. It's a waste of my time attempting adult debate with you.
Or to put it more clearly: you still have no answer to my arguments.
 
I doubt there are many slaves saying, "Well this is terrible but it could be worse, it could be against the law."
There are many slaves wondering: if I succeed in reporting to the authorities that I am being held under constraint, will they take my side and punish my exploiter, or will they take my exploiter's side and send me back?

It's not a mere academic question. Have a look at this.

Notice by the way, that my definition of slave agrees with the Constitution
Southern politicians saw that the Constitution included a “Fugitive Slave Clause.” This stipulation (Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3) stated that, “no person held to service or labor” would be released from bondage in the event they escaped to a free state."​

Slavery is here defined as constraint: "held".
 
Last edited:
In a world where facts are candy floss that's probably what happens. In the real world, not so much.
Smoke and mirrors. Your response is a non-response.

If this, if that. A slave takes no comfort from the law if they are actively being a slave. You asked, "Do you feel that something that is clearly and unambiguously against the law in current UK and US is equivalent to something that was supported by law in the past?" The answer is still yes, for the people who are experiencing it, it very much is. I doubt there are many slaves saying, "Well this is terrible but it could be worse, it could be against the law."

In this, I believe you are completely wrong. When the definition of who is the criminal and who is the victim are completely opposite to one another, that is a definitive and material difference that makes them not at all equivalent. Your tap dancing doesn't make it different.

To the person today being held against their will, they know that they are begin held against the law, and that they are unambiguously the victim.

To the person being held against their will two centuries ago, they know that they are viewed as the legal property of another person and have no recourse. They know that they are NOT considered a victim.
 
Smoke and mirrors. Your response is a non-response.



In this, I believe you are completely wrong. When the definition of who is the criminal and who is the victim are completely opposite to one another, that is a definitive and material difference that makes them not at all equivalent. Your tap dancing doesn't make it different.

To the person today being held against their will, they know that they are begin held against the law, and that they are unambiguously the victim.

To the person being held against their will two centuries ago, they know that they are viewed as the legal property of another person and have no recourse. They know that they are NOT considered a victim.

I'm sure that academic word play comforts thousands of trafficked girls as they're raped by their clients, or caged in basements between bouts of domestic labour, or are worked almost literally to death on a travellers' site. The reason 99% of these people remain slaves is that they do not have any concept of escape, they don't even know it's possible. The idea their situation is actually improved due to their knowledge of the legal system would be laughable if it weren't so wrong.
 
I'm sure that academic word play comforts thousands of trafficked girls as they're raped by their clients, or caged in basements between bouts of domestic labour, or are worked almost literally to death on a travellers' site. The reason 99% of these people remain slaves is that they do not have any concept of escape, they don't even know it's possible. The idea their situation is actually improved due to their knowledge of the legal system would be laughable if it weren't so wrong.

Nobody has said that it is anything other than terrifying and traumatizing to the person experiencing it.

What I (and others) have said is that slavery in existence today is not the same as slavery that existed in the past. Slavery today is unambiguously illegal, being perpetrated by criminals. Slavery of the past was legally permissible and societal supported ownership of other people as belongings.

Criminals doing criminal things sucks for their victims. Nobody has said otherwise. But that's a whole 'nother enchilada from their actions being legal.

It sucks to get killed. But being killed by a criminal who murders you on the street is not the same thing as being executed by the state.
 
I'm sure that academic word play comforts thousands of trafficked girls as they're raped by their clients, or caged in basements between bouts of domestic labour, or are worked almost literally to death on a travellers' site. The reason 99% of these people remain slaves is that they do not have any concept of escape, they don't even know it's possible. The idea their situation is actually improved due to their knowledge of the legal system would be laughable if it weren't so wrong.
It is not improved - you are well aware of this and are being disingenuous - by a slave's knowledge of slavery being illegal, but by the fact of slavery being illegal. Many Southern slaves had a concept of escape, and they frequently applied it and ran away. It was the fact of the legality of slavery that caused them to be sent back if apprehended. I have linked to sources that refer to that phenomenon in some detail.

But a modern slave sex worker or domestic servant who escapes and makes her way to the police will not be sent back. One would think you might appreciate that as an improvement on the earlier forms of slavery. But no; you tell is that the US institution was as nothing at all, compared to the evil situation today. That is why I believe you to be a conscious apologist for Dixie.
 
Last edited:
Nobody has said that it is anything other than terrifying and traumatizing to the person experiencing it.

What I (and others) have said is that slavery in existence today is not the same as slavery that existed in the past. Slavery today is unambiguously illegal, being perpetrated by criminals. Slavery of the past was legally permissible and societal supported ownership of other people as belongings.

Criminals doing criminal things sucks for their victims. Nobody has said otherwise. But that's a whole 'nother enchilada from their actions being legal.

It sucks to get killed. But being killed by a criminal who murders you on the street is not the same thing as being executed by the state.

I refer you back to my original statement, which, perhaps predictably, is being misrepresented.

Pretty much equivalent as far as the victims are concerned


So the legality is irrelevant as regards my statement. All that is relevant is the impact on the victim, which is the same.
 
It is not improved - you are well aware of this and are being disingenuous - by a slave's knowledge of slavery being illegal, but by the fact of slavery being illegal. Many Southern slaves had a concept of escape, and they frequently applied it and ran away. It was the fact of the legality of slavery that caused them to be sent back if apprehended. I have linked to sources that refer to that phenomenon in some detail.

But a modern slave sex worker or domestic servant who escapes and makes her way to the police will not be sent back. One would think you might appreciate that as an improvement on the earlier forms of slavery. But no; you tell is that the US institution was as nothing at all, compared to the evil situation today. That is why I believe you to be a conscious apologist for Dixie.

Do you know how many modern slaves, of their own volition, escape their captors? Virtually none, because as I said, and as you ignored, the option is not open to them, either by reason of threat, brainwashing, grooming, immigration status or physical incarceration. Now I appreciate that you are trying your best to play down modern slavery; first denying it exists, then, when forced to admit it does, trying to make out it's not that bad because people can just go to the police and everything will be sorted out, but lacking even the basic knowledge of the subject your bias is all too evident.
 
I refer you back to my original statement, which, perhaps predictably, is being misrepresented.

Pretty much equivalent as far as the victims are concerned


So the legality is irrelevant as regards my statement. All that is relevant is the impact on the victim, which is the same.

Following your logic to it's natural conclusion, you should have no problem with slavery once again being made legal. After all it would be no change at all as far as the victim is concerned.
 
Do you know how many modern slaves, of their own volition, escape their captors? Virtually none, because as I said, and as you ignored, the option is not open to them, either by reason of threat, brainwashing, grooming, immigration status or physical incarceration. Now I appreciate that you are trying your best to play down modern slavery; first denying it exists, then, when forced to admit it does, trying to make out it's not that bad because people can just go to the police and everything will be sorted out, but lacking even the basic knowledge of the subject your bias is all too evident.
Cites and references, please. Thank you in advance.
 
Following your logic to it's natural conclusion, you should have no problem with slavery once again being made legal. After all it would be no change at all as far as the victim is concerned.

I'm glad you see where I'm using logic because I can't detect any in your post. I would have thought it's obvious that by legalising slavery the number of slaves would increase by orders of magnitude. You simply can't accept that for the slave, the law's position on their slavery doesn't make one iota of difference.
 
I'm glad you see where I'm using logic because I can't detect any in your post. I would have thought it's obvious that by legalising slavery the number of slaves would increase by orders of magnitude. You simply can't accept that for the slave, the law's position on their slavery doesn't make one iota of difference.

If two things are equivalent there is no means by which you can distinguish them and thus no reason to prefer one over the other. You see this and thus give a distinction, but one which doesn't impact upon the state of those who are already slaves, which is fair, however: in that case it made a difference in their prior probability of becoming a slave in the first place.

It also makes a difference in the possibility of successful escape.

It's possible that it has a negative impact on their conditions as a slave, as the nature of the criminalisation means that it isn't subject to any sort of laws that might impact on the treatment of slaves.

On the other hand it may have a positive impact on their conditions as slaves as certain negative treatments (like simply killing them) might be more difficult given the need to prevent discovery.

Whether the net effect is positive or negative is an empirical question but it's certainly not clear that the net effect is zero.
 
If two things are equivalent there is no means by which you can distinguish them and thus no reason to prefer one over the other. You see this and thus give a distinction, but one which doesn't impact upon the state of those who are already slaves, which is fair, however: in that case it made a difference in their prior probability of becoming a slave in the first place.

It also makes a difference in the possibility of successful escape.

It's possible that it has a negative impact on their conditions as a slave, as the nature of the criminalisation means that it isn't subject to any sort of laws that might impact on the treatment of slaves.

On the other hand it may have a positive impact on their conditions as slaves as certain negative treatments (like simply killing them) might be more difficult given the need to prevent discovery.

Whether the net effect is positive or negative is an empirical question but it's certainly not clear that the net effect is zero.

If you go to that level of granularity then two different things rarely equate because if they did they would not be different in the first place. As you suggest I could have made an argument for slave conditions under illegal slavery being worse than under legal slavery (I alluded to it several posts back but didn't pursue it). There are also arguments for the reverse, but when you are considering slaves and their ongoing experience, which I have repeatedly stressed I am doing, the overall difference to their lives is non-detectable.
 
A random link to get you started. But I didn't base my statement on a quick Google before I posted, I actually have some knowledge of this from books and documentaries. I recommend that you expand your own knowledge, or obtain it, in similar ways.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsore...11151517/sex-slave-trade-britain-streets.html

This seems to contradict your point of view:

She did escape, fleeing after her captor said it was her daughter’s turn to “pay her way”. They eventually found refuge with The Salvation Army and then the Medaille Trust, which supports trafficking victims.

To remind you of what you said:
Do you know how many modern slaves, of their own volition, escape their captors? Virtually none

The article you linked did explain the means of control that make escape very difficult for these girls and women. We all agree it is horrible. But what you didn't supply is exactly what Craig asked for: a defence of the above quoted text, specifically, what do you mean by "virtually none" and can you give actual numbers to back up that assertion?
 
A random link to get you started. But I didn't base my statement on a quick Google before I posted, I actually have some knowledge of this from books and documentaries. I recommend that you expand your own knowledge, or obtain it, in similar ways.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsore...11151517/sex-slave-trade-britain-streets.html
Ah, the Torygraph. Well, which is right? The headline "Sex slaves are in every street in Britain"? Or the text
Makela is among hundreds, if not thousands, of vulnerable people trafficked into and within the UK annually for remunerative sexual exploitation. The United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre (UKHTC) – part of the National Crime Agency (NCA) – estimates that 2,744 people, including 602 children, were potential victims of trafficking for exploitation in 2013, an increase of 22 per cent on 2012.​
Now, lets assume the real situation is two or three times as bad as that, and the authorities have not solved the problem.

Is that infinitely worse than the situation in 1860 Dixie, where the authorities were concerned to preserve, not to suppress, slavery? Where in several states the vast majority of agricultural labourers were slaves, and in two states the majority of the whole population were slaves; and where sexual abuse of slaves was not merely commonplace, but normal?

This situation described by the Torygraph is infinitely worse than the slavery of the anteBellum USA? Really? I don't believe you think that. I truly don't. I think your affection for reactionary politics has blinded you to plain historical reality.

ETA I notice that your cited article is headed "Home>Sponsored>Lifestyle". I am reassured to learn that the bulk of your wide knowledge comes from other types of source.

ETA 2. Genevieve Fox, The author of the sponsored article you cite says of herself
Back in the UK nine months later, I cut off my African hair extensions (fake hair, not human) and wrote broader arts pieces before turning to features, celebrity interviews, property, wellbeing and luxury travel. You can find my pieces everywhere from The Telegraph, Guardian,Times, Independent and the Daily Mail to the New Statesman, Catholic Herald, Marie Claire and Psychologies ...
When it comes to marketing yourself, or your product or your organisation, communicating a clear message and reaching your target audience go hand in hand. Whether it’s developing content for your website that you need expert help with, writing press releases, helping you find the right voice for your product or drawing up a communication strategy, I will work with you.​
I see.
 
Last edited:
This seems to contradict your point of view:



To remind you of what you said:


The article you linked did explain the means of control that make escape very difficult for these girls and women. We all agree it is horrible. But what you didn't supply is exactly what Craig asked for: a defence of the above quoted text, specifically, what do you mean by "virtually none" and can you give actual numbers to back up that assertion?

I can't produce numbers, no, although I'm sure they're out there. I already said, I was writing from knowledge of the subject not obtained from a quick Google to prove a point. And quite how my point is invalidated by a single instance of someone escaping is an impenetrable mystery.
 
Ah, the Torygraph.

Oh dear, have you stooped to that level? Don't agree with the info = discredit the source with playground names.

Well, which is right? The headline "Sex slaves are in every street in Britain"? Or the text
Makela is among hundreds, if not thousands, of vulnerable people trafficked into and within the UK annually for remunerative sexual exploitation. The United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre (UKHTC) – part of the National Crime Agency (NCA) – estimates that 2,744 people, including 602 children, were potential victims of trafficking for exploitation in 2013, an increase of 22 per cent on 2012.​
Now, lets assume the real situation is two or three times as bad as that, and the authorities have not solved the problem.

And now you divert attention to an alleged discrepancy between headline hyperbole and the text. It has nothing to do with the topic, it's just another thing you've picked out to argue about.

Is that infinitely worse than the situation in 1860 Dixie, where the authorities were concerned to preserve, not to suppress, slavery? Where in several states the vast majority of agricultural labourers were slaves, and in two states the majority of the whole population were slaves; and where sexual abuse of slaves was not merely commonplace, but normal?

Another blatant straw man. Point out one place I have said or even hinted that the sex slavery situation in the UK is 'infinitely worse' than historic slavery in the US. You really are scraping the bottom of a barrel that was barely submerged in the first place.

This situation described by the Torygraph is infinitely worse than the slavery of the anteBellum USA? Really? I don't believe you think that. I truly don't.

No, which is why I never stated it. What a joke.

I think your affection for reactionary politics has blinded you to plain historical reality.

The truth is your determination to prove me wrong on something has caused you to post this outright nonsense.

ETA I notice that your cited article is headed "Home>Sponsored>Lifestyle". I am reassured to learn that the bulk of your wide knowledge comes from other types of source.

More diversionary tactics. So weak.

ETA 2. Genevieve Fox, The author of the sponsored article you cite says of herself
Back in the UK nine months later, I cut off my African hair extensions (fake hair, not human) and wrote broader arts pieces before turning to features, celebrity interviews, property, wellbeing and luxury travel. You can find my pieces everywhere from The Telegraph, Guardian,Times, Independent and the Daily Mail to the New Statesman, Catholic Herald, Marie Claire and Psychologies ...
When it comes to marketing yourself, or your product or your organisation, communicating a clear message and reaching your target audience go hand in hand. Whether it’s developing content for your website that you need expert help with, writing press releases, helping you find the right voice for your product or drawing up a communication strategy, I will work with you.​
I see.

Totally irrelevant, especially when I made it clear I was only posting a 'random link' to get you started, seeing as your knowledge of the subject is zero. Not wasting any more of my time on this.
 
I can't produce numbers, no, although I'm sure they're out there. I already said, I was writing from knowledge of the subject not obtained from a quick Google to prove a point. And quite how my point is invalidated by a single instance of someone escaping is an impenetrable mystery.
With this wide knowledge you will be able to cast your net wider than your current source Genevieve Fox, who is a writer with skills in this field
When it comes to marketing yourself​
Well, at least she is marketing herself and not being trafficked.
 
With this wide knowledge you will be able to cast your net wider than your current source Genevieve Fox, who is a writer with skills in this field
When it comes to marketing yourself​
Well, at least she is marketing herself and not being trafficked.

Not getting any better, is it? Your debating.

"A random link to get you started. But I didn't base my statement on a quick Google before I posted"
 
Not getting any better, is it? Your debating.

"A random link to get you started. But I didn't base my statement on a quick Google before I posted"
Why start educating me with a "random link"? Why not select something from your store of knowledge that you are prepared to defend against any arguments I might present? Surely that would be a more effective style of debating.
 
I can't produce numbers, no, although I'm sure they're out there. I already said, I was writing from knowledge of the subject not obtained from a quick Google to prove a point. And quite how my point is invalidated by a single instance of someone escaping is an impenetrable mystery.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "virtually none". If by virtually none you mean 1 in 1,000,000, then I do think that 1 example suggests that the number is much higher than that.

If 1 in 100 slaves escape and are protected from their former masters by the state, I would consider that a very different situation from the slave's perspective than the situation wherein those who escape are returned, by the state, to their masters.

If, on the other hand, only 1 in 100,000 escape, then I'd find that better than zero, but not by much.

Perhaps you can't site a source, but can you at least distinguish, based on your prior study, between those two numbers? Even if you don't have a source, please tell me what "virtually none" means: 1 in a million? 1 in 1000?
 
Why start educating me with a "random link"? Why not select something from your store of knowledge that you are prepared to defend against any arguments I might present? Surely that would be a more effective style of debating.

I don't think it's possible to educate someone without that person being willing to learn, and any adult who is willing to learn normally makes the effort themselves instead of watching a blank screen and waiting for a link to appear.
 
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "virtually none". If by virtually none you mean 1 in 1,000,000, then I do think that 1 example suggests that the number is much higher than that.

If 1 in 100 slaves escape and are protected from their former masters by the state, I would consider that a very different situation from the slave's perspective than the situation wherein those who escape are returned, by the state, to their masters.

If, on the other hand, only 1 in 100,000 escape, then I'd find that better than zero, but not by much.

Perhaps you can't site a source, but can you at least distinguish, based on your prior study, between those two numbers? Even if you don't have a source, please tell me what "virtually none" means: 1 in a million? 1 in 1000?

It means very few indeed. Maybe it's 1 in 50, maybe 1 in 100, I don't know, nobody knows, but my point, which I had hoped was clear, is that slaves in the Western world are conditioned / brainwashed / threatened so that escape is rarely something they see as a feasible option. Domestic slaves, sex workers and slaves of traveller families are often let out on their own to the shops or to work for 'clients', but the idea of escape is so alien to them that they will not make the attempt even when their captors are not in the vicinity. The reasons for this are multiple.
 
It means very few indeed. Maybe it's 1 in 50, maybe 1 in 100, I don't know, nobody knows, but my point, which I had hoped was clear, is that slaves in the Western world are conditioned / brainwashed / threatened so that escape is rarely something they see as a feasible option. Domestic slaves, sex workers and slaves of traveller families are often let out on their own to the shops or to work for 'clients', but the idea of escape is so alien to them that they will not make the attempt even when their captors are not in the vicinity. The reasons for this are multiple.

A 1 in 50 chance of escape seems to me to be vastly better than none, and certainly invalidates your claim that the situation wherein that chance exists is equivalent to one wherein they would be subject to state-sanctioned hunting down and return to their masters.

Those two situations are very much not equivalent, even from the slave's perspective.
 
A 1 in 50 chance of escape seems to me to be vastly better than none, and certainly invalidates your claim that the situation wherein that chance exists is equivalent to one wherein they would be subject to state-sanctioned hunting down and return to their masters.

Those two situations are very much not equivalent, even from the slave's perspective.

Really? How would that work? Is the slave sitting there perusing the statistics for escaped slaves in their host country?
 
Really? How would that work? Is the slave sitting there perusing the statistics for escaped slaves in their host country?

The slave is better off after having escaped. That is a meaningful difference from the perspective of the slave.

Whether or not they are aware of that possibility, and whether their experience before escape is better because of that hope, the objective fact is that for those who escape they are much better off after escape than they would have been if they had been hunted down.

A person doesn't have to be aware of being better off in order to be better off.
 
The slave is better off after having escaped. That is a meaningful difference from the perspective of the slave.

An escaped slave is not a slave. Isn't that the point you've repeatedly made. Slavery is not legal therefore an escaped slave is not a slave.

Whether or not they are aware of that possibility, and whether their experience before escape is better because of that hope, the objective fact is that for those who escape they are much better off after escape than they would have been if they had been hunted down.

Well, obviously.

A person doesn't have to be aware of being better off in order to be better off.

So list the ways in which a slave who is unaware that they are better off could actually be better off, in the context of the discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom