It doesnt no, nor did I say it does

@BabygottBach You are applying the same moral complexity of locking up a person for manual labor and treating them like an animal to locking up an animal and treating it like an animal. (By animal I mean something non-sentient/sapient, like a Buffalo.)

No i"m not

You are,

Sure seems like it, considering the comparison you made.

we're haing two separate discussions here

Animals are sentient

Your Counterargument is faulty.

I'm way past animals now

This is fucking gay lmao

My counterargument worked. It forced E to shift goal posts

now his definition of slavery has changed

No I didnt

my definition is the exact same

it now includes "being under the control of someone"

So as soon as you realize you might be wrong, you claim you were never talking about this?

Yes which was my definition at first

Rather than address the point made?

You never said that before my cage slave example. You merely said "needing to work to live"

and you need to work under someone when you work usually.

are you talking to me or E?

I thought this was common sense

You.

I was never talking to you, but to E

I thought you were talking to E

gg

Press F for respects

Even though you responded to me about my point?

Bear Gryllis in the alps needs to work to live, so he would be a slave under your definition

No, he's rich isnt he?

He has a choice

Not when he's on the Alps

The man’s loaded. He’s just doing what he likes.

In that moment, when he's alone on the alps, he's a slave

according to E

Who is he serving then?

even though he works under no one

No, when he's alone and rich he's not a slave at all

Amos, when did I respond to your point?

but he has to work to stay alive in the Alps

When you're alone you're one of the most free people