Also my mum brought me some costco hotdogs the other day. It’s hard to get good American food in grocery stores here in Australia but those delicious smokey dogs have me considering a membership. So good.

This has a similar energy to, “Lend me a dollar, but give me fifty cents. Then I’ll owe you fifty cents, and you’ll owe me fifty cents, and we’ll be even.”

Do you have a sauce for that claim?

“We are legion.”

Iran getting nuclear weapons would be an immense boon to peace and stability in the Middle East.

I think you just put your finger on exactly why the US doesn’t want that to ever happen.

So like, you’re okay with slavery then? Is that the practical upshot?

You are just doing black & white thinking. There’s no room here for the idea that some forms of slavery are worse than others, even if they are all bad. This is pants-first-then-shoes basic stuff, and you’re tripping and falling flat on your face because you can’t get it right.

And thank you for laying out that as long as some paper-thin justification is given, you’re fine with slavery. Hell, you went as far as to say they’re better off in prison because they’re kept. That’s literally one of the old defences for chattel slavery.

I wish I could say I was surprised, but someone looking for excuses for prison slavery isn’t going to be a very nice person, or very good at reasoning. People with your level of miseducation are unfortunately far too common.

Uh, yes? That’s called wage slavery, and it very much is normalised in our sick system. Did… did you think that would stump me? What?

With slavery you’re kidnapped

Arrest is just a legally allowed kidnapping.

with no justification

Why do accept the justification of legality? Chattel slavery was legal.

and no trial

We’ve already been over the fact that most inmates never see a day in court.

somebody literally owns you, and you have fewer rights than farm animals.

Hard to see how that’s different to prison, except for the “literally owns you”, although inmates are essentially bought and sold, and quotas are maintained for private prison contracts. It’s not exactly ownership but that’s a very marginal difference.

Prison is a punishment for a crime.

So do you accept that anyone the state deems a criminal somehow deserves involuntary servitude? Why?

EDIT: Since you haven’t replied and I assume you haven’t seen this yet: involuntary servitude IS slavery, it just isn’t necessarily chattel slavery. The language of the bill even prohibits involuntary servitude, but it seems pretty clear to me that that wasn’t to say that involuntary servitude and slavery are somehow distinct, but to say that some future narrow definition of slavery as only chattel slavery such as you are doing right now couldn’t be used to justify some other form of technically but not meaningfully different kind of slavery. With the aforementioned exceptions.

It is slavery. I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, I was simply maintaining that the words you said were wrong.

Oh so you’re fine with slavery as long as there’s a thinly veiled justification then.

“Crime” is whatever the state deems a crime, it is selectively enforced, and in the US the system is so set up that the vast majority plea out, because they are penalised for fighting back in a trial.

The laws are arbitrary, racist and politically targeted:

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying. We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

• John Erlichman, advisor to President Nixon

https://www.unharm.org/the-racist-truth-behind-the-war-on-drugs/

Back in the days of chattel slavery they had thinly veiled justifications too, called race science.

Anyone with an interest in the matter and no moral compass could fall back on that and explain why chattel slavery was good for those other races, and it was the “white man’s burden” to deliver them to civilisation, ignoring how convenient it was that it also made them into slaves.

I’ll let you think about which side of the argument you’d have been on back then, based on how you’ve swallowed the modern day version of it.