You're captialist even in argumentation. Expecting others to do your work for you.

prove your claim or retract it.

You said quote me one person, I told you google has a traditional definition. Well traditional enough.

And hardly

Platos definition I think is the same as mine

"a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them."

Under that definition, nobody here is a slave

And Southern slave owners pre Civil WAr were not slaves

"There is no special cast called "slaves" in Platos Utopia. Instead all children are given to the state to be brought up and given work as the state sees fit once adult. Hence, almost everybody are slaves. ref Although all people are "citizens" these "citizens" have no rights, only obligations, and no freedom at all except for the absolute upper part that rules the city.

Plato wishes to abolish freedom, and hence in our terminology make everybody slaves. He tries to cover this by claiming that rulers are enslaved (by responsibility and fear of those who rules over) and in pure NewSpeak claim that freedom leads to slavery. (ref: The Republic)

In Platos later 'Laws', he describes another city which he thinks is more realistic, and it does have a separate slave cast. ref

Platos view of slavery was therefore quite clearly very positive. But he knew that the word was negative, and therefore tried both to associate things he did not like, primarily freedom, with the word slavery, and also tried to excuse tyrannic rulers by claiming they actually were slaves to the people. But people that we today would call slaves, are people he wanted many of in his ideal states."

Someone wrote this, let's read it.

this is the first definition of slave

In ancient times you could buy your freedom as a slave could you not?

and logically under capitalism those who are unlucky and arent born privelaged have to be slaves

Only if your owner allowed it

Manumission was completely up to the whim of the owner

Correct but I mean in general

You could offer to pay your owner 10 times what he paid for you and he could refuse

that's called slavery

obviously there was a price then but now its more basic

and better

thats not called slavery

I don't understand how your a slave.

That's called being way too abstract in your concepts

slavery is ownership of another person

How's that abstract?

What human past or present has not been a slave under your definition?

I thought my terms were too loose?

Abstract and loose mean similar things

Most people are slaves.

who isn't?

I never said they werent

To what?

The rich arent

Why the hell would we use your definition of slave then?

Mr.E

because its the traditional definition

They have to spend some of their time making sure they stay rich

it's not the traditional definition

It is

it's not the current definition

its a bit of both to be honest

and it sure as hell is not the definition people on this server use