Where did the Private Internal Moral Laws Arise from?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are no private internal moral laws.
In fact it is tantamount to a contradiction in terms since moral laws are definitively given by the community, else they are not laws at all.
Personal ethical behaviour is always a negotiation between personal opinion, moral teachings from one's culture and personal interests.
These are modified by how close or remote the moral actors are in the given situations and whom they might concern.
They say a friend will help you move; but a good friend will help you move a body.
Moral law has no semantic meaning in the context of the individual.

Additionally people do not jus "know" that slavery is wrong. You simply cannot delete the cultural indoctrination from an innate sense of justice. Slavery is a constant in human history and emancipation and manumission are rather recent ideas given the long duration of human history.

There are various meanings to the term 'law', it is not restricted only to 'community' laws.

Note this meaning of 'law', as in natural laws, e.g. Physics, etc. thus akin to 'principles'.

• a general rule that states what always happens when the same conditions exist:
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/law

It is a natural law that all living humans must have oxygen [via breathing naturally or artificially] else they die.
I am arguing, all humans are "programmed" with a moral potential which has been slowly unfolding since humans emerged and the rate of unfoldment is greater at present which had resulted in the average moral progress since 10,000 years ago.

Since the moral landscape of 10kbp is unknown and unknowable you cannot pretend "progress".
One thing we can be sure of it that there is more human misery now, and more slaves now, than there were then.
Again. Are you trying to make a point here?

What is 10 kbp, I assume it is 10,000 years ago?
One can easily make reasonable inferences from various historical articles, e.g. the building of the pyramids, great wall of China, Roman history, wars and losers captured as slaves, etc.
The differential power between the rulers and the majority is so great and thus slavery was very common during 3000-10,000 years ago.
Note even the evident Bible and Quran condoned slavery.

Note I have argued we need to look at relative % of the population then and the type of slavery involved.
Note the point there is an increased in the average IQ of the majority since 200 years ago but this is also corresponded with increased ignorance when with increased-intelligence widened the horizon of knowledge that is to be known.

What is critical here in terms of moral progress is the illegality of slavery [especially chattel slavery, exploitation of child labor, etc.] in all sovereign nations.

My point is as represented in the OP.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From elsewhere...

How can you be so ignorant even when I have highlighted the difference between 'chattel' slavery and other forms of slavery? Note you are the one who implied all forms of slavery are the same.

All slavery is the same. The pampered concubine is as violated as child gang-raped. The kidnapped Cleveland women hidden and held in a house against her will for ten years is as violated as the black man who was openly auctioned in a town square.

Are all crimes the same?
Are all sex crimes the same?
Are all diseases the same?

To generalize will serve only limited purposes.
To be efficient for all purposes we must break down whatever the issue into smaller manageable units and subsequently view them to holistically. This is one Golden Rule of Problem Solving and Philosophy.

[Sculptor]

There are various meanings to the term 'law', it is not restricted only to 'community' laws.

Note this meaning of 'law', as in natural laws, e.g. Physics, etc. thus akin to 'principles'.

• a general rule that states what always happens when the same conditions exist:
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/law

It is a natural law that all living humans must have oxygen [via breathing naturally or artificially] else they die.
I am arguing, all humans are "programmed" with a moral potential which has been slowly unfolding since humans emerged and the rate of unfoldment is greater at present which had resulted in the average moral progress since 10,000 years ago.

Since the moral landscape of 10kbp is unknown and unknowable you cannot pretend "progress".
One thing we can be sure of it that there is more human misery now, and more slaves now, than there were then.
Again. Are you trying to make a point here?

What is 10 kbp, I assume it is 10,000 years ago?

Archaeologists like myself use the phrase as a short hand for Thousands of years before present. But I thought you would have known that since you think you know something about the subject.

One can easily make reasonable inferences from various historical articles, e.g. the building of the pyramids, great wall of China, Roman history, wars and losers captured as slaves, etc.

There are no historical articles from 10kbp, but you ought to know that since you profess to know something about archaeology.

The differential power between the rulers and the majority is so great and thus slavery was very common during 3000-10,000 years ago.
Note even the evident Bible and Quran condoned slavery.

Your dates are wrong. There is no direct evidence of slavery before wheat production, and then only later from texts.
Slavery was common until the mid nineteenth century, but you ought to know that since you profess to know something about the subject

Note I have argued we need to look at relative % of the population then and the type of slavery involved.

Why?
Suffering is absolute. Millions are enslaved now, why would it make you feel better that there are more slaves NOW when we least need them?

Note the point there is an increased in the average IQ of the majority since 200 years ago but this is also corresponded with increased ignorance when with increased-intelligence widened the horizon of knowledge that is to be known.

There is no evidence for increased IQ.
You are so full of bollocks it is untrue.

What is critical here in terms of moral progress is the illegality of slavery [especially chattel slavery, exploitation of child labor, etc.] in all sovereign nations.

My point is as represented in the OP.

You have not addressed the thread in any sense.

[Immanuel Can]

In my case I have attempted to find the correlation between chattel slavery [sufficiently specific] and moral progress via the internal "programmed" moral potential.

Yes. You've tried to use one narrow subcategory to justify a universal claim about what human nature is like. In Logic 101, one learns that a specific cannot be used to justify a generalization, and a subcategory is not sufficient warrant for any categorical claim.

Another point which I had mentioned is in the past all the above types of slavery were not restricted by laws but at the present all the above slavery are illegal.

But let's take that claim, and test it.
https://theconversation.com/slavery-is- ... rch-115596

In the US, for example, slavery is totally illegal. It has been, since the Emancipation Proclamation. Is it then your claim that there have been no slaves in the US?
https://theexodusroad.com/does-slavery- ... ica-today/

So since slavery still exists in the US, does the mere having of laws against it prove that slavery is being rejected? Apparently not: for people can disobey laws, even where such exist.

No, I have not claimed slavery is totally illegal is equated with no slaves at all, that would be stupid of me.

Good. I'm glad you see that.

My point is the legal deterrence is an indication of progress over having no laws at all against slavery,

Actually, it's very nearly irrelevant. The having of a law means nothing if the law is not effectively enforced. And that fact that over half the world STILL has not even an appearance of such a law speaks against any conclusion that human nature is improving on that point, anyway.

even dictators has to flow with the will of the people to avoid being overthrown.

Where do you mean? In Russia? In China? In North Korea? I think you'll find they don't have to do any such thing. Rather, they control "the (so-called) will of the people" by force, by controlling the press, and through propaganda. It's really the dictator's "will," which is afterward said to be indicative of the will also of the people. But where the people themselves are not free, the dictator makes the rules.

However, none of this is any evidence for some kind of improvement in human nature.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In my case I have attempted to find the correlation between chattel slavery [sufficiently specific] and moral progress via the internal "programmed" moral potential.

Yes. You've tried to use one narrow subcategory to justify a universal claim about what human nature is like. In Logic 101, one learns that a specific cannot be used to justify a generalization, and a subcategory is not sufficient warrant for any categorical claim.

There you go again creating strawman.

What I had been claiming is specifically about 'chattel slavery' [X] in relation to the internal impulse to enslave another as a chattel slave [Y], i.e. legal ownership of another human as one 'chattel'.
Obviously there is a corresponding specific element of human nature to that impulse to enslave another human as a chattel slave.
I am attempting to prove there is a correlation between specifically X and specifically Y.

Thus my X and Y do not cover all other types of slavery in this case.

I have not made any claim like,
-'chattel slavery is correlated with a specific impulse to enslave another as a chattel and therefore this impulse is applicable to all other types of slavery.
While I claim that all humans are 'programmed' with a moral potential, my discussion on this moral potential so far is confined specifically to 'chattel' slavery.

I have not presented any detailed argument to link the above moral potential to other forms of slavery other than 'chattel slavery'.

However, based on my above thesis, I believe the moral potential related to 'chattel slavery' is applicable to all other forms of slavery. This is why I raised another OP to explore this possibility and I have not committed to any conclusion on it until further research, evidences and arguments are presented.

But let's take that claim, and test it.
https://theconversation.com/slavery-is- ... rch-115596

In the US, for example, slavery is totally illegal. It has been, since the Emancipation Proclamation. Is it then your claim that there have been no slaves in the US?
https://theexodusroad.com/does-slavery- ... ica-today/

So since slavery still exists in the US, does the mere having of laws against it prove that slavery is being rejected? Apparently not: for people can disobey laws, even where such exist.

No, I have not claimed slavery is totally illegal is equated with no slaves at all, that would be stupid of me.

Good. I'm glad you see that.

My point is the legal deterrence is an indication of progress over having no laws at all against slavery,

Actually, it's very nearly irrelevant. The having of a law means nothing if the law is not effectively enforced. And that fact that over half the world STILL has not even an appearance of such a law speaks against any conclusion that human nature is improving on that point, anyway.

How come you are so blinded on the above?
There is a big difference between having no laws at all in comparison to the existence of laws against chattel slavery [& other forms of slavery].
It took a very long time for all the sovereign nations to ratify the UN Slavery conventions.
This itself is progress.
The progress to introducing effective laws is also slowly progressing, i.e. another sign of progress.

That we are having this conversation is also another sign of progress.
https://theconversation.com/slavery-is- ... rch-115596

Clearly, this situation needs to change. States must work towards a future in which the claim that “slavery is illegal everywhere” becomes a reality.

Our database should make the design of future legislation easier. We can respond to the demands of different contexts by analysing how similar states have responded to shared challenges, and adapt these approaches as needed. We can assess the strengths and weaknesses of different choices in context, and respond to problems with the type of evidence-based analysis provided here.

To this end, we are currently developing model legislation and guidelines meant to assist states in adapting their domestic legal frameworks to meet their obligations to prohibit human exploitation in an effective manner. Now that we have identified widespread gaps in domestic laws, we must move to fill these with evidence-based, effective, and appropriate provisions.

While legislation is only a first step towards effectively eradicating slavery, it is fundamental to harnessing the power of the state against slavery. It is necessary to prevent impunity for violations of this most fundamental human right, and vital for victims obtaining support and redress. It also sends an important signal about human exploitation.

The time has come to move beyond the assumption that slavery is already illegal everywhere. Laws do not currently adequately and effectively address the phenomenon, and they must.

As I had stated before there are loads of NGOs and government efforts mushrooming all over the world to tackle chattel slavery [plus other forms of slavery].

The above are obvious progress in chattel slavery and that is because of the gradual [note gradual] unfoldment and emergence of an activating internal moral potential all humans are programmed with at least in relation to chattel slavery.

even dictators has to flow with the will of the people to avoid being overthrown.

Where do you mean? In Russia? In China? In North Korea? I think you'll find they don't have to do any such thing. Rather, they control "the (so-called) will of the people" by force, by controlling the press, and through propaganda. It's really the dictator's "will," which is afterward said to be indicative of the will also of the people. But where the people themselves are not free, the dictator makes the rules.

However, none of this is any evidence for some kind of improvement in human nature.

Note I am referring to topic, i.e. chattel slavery which is not a significant issue to present days dictators. Do you have any evidence, Russia, China, North Korea allowed for chattel slavery to be legal?
As I had stated before most dictators at present are flowing with laws on slavery, i.e. abolishing chattel slavery as discussed here plus other forms of slavery [discussed elsewhere].

[Veritas Aequitas]

Since the moral landscape of 10kbp is unknown and unknowable you cannot pretend "progress".
One thing we can be sure of it that there is more human misery now, and more slaves now, than there were then.
Again. Are you trying to make a point here?

What is 10 kbp, I assume it is 10,000 years ago?

Archaeologists like myself use the phrase as a short hand for Thousands of years before present. But I thought you would have known that since you think you know something about the subject.

One can easily make reasonable inferences from various historical articles, e.g. the building of the pyramids, great wall of China, Roman history, wars and losers captured as slaves, etc.

There are no historical articles from 10kbp, but you ought to know that since you profess to know something about archaeology.

The differential power between the rulers and the majority is so great and thus slavery was very common during 3000-10,000 years ago.
Note even the evident Bible and Quran condoned slavery.

Your dates are wrong. There is no direct evidence of slavery before wheat production, and then only later from texts.
Slavery was common until the mid nineteenth century, but you ought to know that since you profess to know something about the subject

Note I have argued we need to look at relative % of the population then and the type of slavery involved.

Why?
Suffering is absolute. Millions are enslaved now, why would it make you feel better that there are more slaves NOW when we least need them?

Note the point there is an increased in the average IQ of the majority since 200 years ago but this is also corresponded with increased ignorance when with increased-intelligence widened the horizon of knowledge that is to be known.

There is no evidence for increased IQ.
You are so full of bollocks it is untrue.

What is critical here in terms of moral progress is the illegality of slavery [especially chattel slavery, exploitation of child labor, etc.] in all sovereign nations.

My point is as represented in the OP.

You have not addressed the thread in any sense.

I have not claimed to be competent in archaeology.

Noted the earliest recorded signs of slavery was 3500 BC as such my inference is not wrong since I mentioned 5000 - 10,000 years ago.
My inference of 10,000 years ago is based on the inherent 'tribalism' and tribal conflicts where some of the losers [women, children, vulnerable men] were captured and turned into slaves as evident in recorded history.

If we ignore the above and rely on evidence from 3500BC, there is obviously moral progress re chattel slavery since then to the present 2022. Note my point is specific to chattel slavery not all forms of slavery.

As for progress of human intelligence re IQ, note this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... telligence

Note for example in the progress of this;

Calculus was on confined to the mathematical elitists 200 years ago, then to University students in the 30s - 50s ..but ..

Infinitesimal calculus was developed independently in the late 17th century by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus

But now, even 10th to 12th grade can do Calculus.

Calculus is sometimes taken in the 12th grade at high school or the first year of university studies, but can occasionally be taken as early as 10th grade. A successfully completed college-level calculus course like one offered via Advanced Placement program is a transfer-level course—that is, it can be accepted by a college as a credit towards graduation requirements. Other optional mathematics courses may be offered, such as statistics or business math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... ted_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... ted_States

IQ is related to language and mathematics, surely there are loads of examples where progress has been made on these topics since humans first emerge to the present.
You deny this?

[Sculptor]

What is 10 kbp, I assume it is 10,000 years ago?

Archaeologists like myself use the phrase as a short hand for Thousands of years before present. But I thought you would have known that since you think you know something about the subject.

One can easily make reasonable inferences from various historical articles, e.g. the building of the pyramids, great wall of China, Roman history, wars and losers captured as slaves, etc.

There are no historical articles from 10kbp, but you ought to know that since you profess to know something about archaeology.

The differential power between the rulers and the majority is so great and thus slavery was very common during 3000-10,000 years ago.
Note even the evident Bible and Quran condoned slavery.

Your dates are wrong. There is no direct evidence of slavery before wheat production, and then only later from texts.
Slavery was common until the mid nineteenth century, but you ought to know that since you profess to know something about the subject

Note I have argued we need to look at relative % of the population then and the type of slavery involved.

Why?
Suffering is absolute. Millions are enslaved now, why would it make you feel better that there are more slaves NOW when we least need them?

Note the point there is an increased in the average IQ of the majority since 200 years ago but this is also corresponded with increased ignorance when with increased-intelligence widened the horizon of knowledge that is to be known.

There is no evidence for increased IQ.
You are so full of bollocks it is untrue.

What is critical here in terms of moral progress is the illegality of slavery [especially chattel slavery, exploitation of child labor, etc.] in all sovereign nations.

My point is as represented in the OP.

You have not addressed the thread in any sense.

I have not claimed to be competent in archaeology.

You have demonstrated that you are utterly incompetent.
Given this revelation I suggest you stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Noted the earliest recorded signs of slavery was 3500 BC as such my inference is not wrong since I mentioned 5000 - 10,000 years ago.
My inference of 10,000 years ago is based on the inherent 'tribalism' and tribal conflicts where some of the losers [women, children, vulnerable men] were captured and turned into slaves as evident in recorded history.

False inference. And where that true it would be a false interpretation.
Archaeology is often in the habit of comparing extant and recently (last 200 years) studied hunter/gatherer societies to flesh out the material culture finds from prehistory. What they found is that slavery is uncommon, a luxury of civilisation where sufficient infrastructure and hierarchical specialisations are required to maintain the institution of slavery. Individuals brought into the "tribe" from outside were integrated as it was too costly of time and effort to provide the security necessary to keep slaves, especially as H/g societies were constantly on the move and also required good stranger relationships, to avoid constant fighting and competition. The h/g groups of Europe commonly stayed separate for reasons of subsistence and gathered together in large groups seasonally for the exchange of goods and festivals. Such a system could not be sustained were people under the threat of being taken as slaves.
Not even h/g groups such as the Yanomani of the Brazilian rain forest (a tribe know exceptionally for extreme violence), and whose environment was so rich they have no need to be mobile not even they have slaves. What would be the point. Tribal members work harder and require no securing.

If we ignore the above and rely on evidence from 3500BC, there is obviously moral progress re chattel slavery since then to the present 2022. Note my point is specific to chattel slavery not all forms of slavery.

You might like to consider WTF you want to mean by "progress". It's all a bit vague and primary school.

As for progress of human intelligence re IQ, note this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... telligence

Reading the odd wiki article is not going to give you the grounding needed to make you claims.

Note for example in the progress of this;

Calculus was on confined to the mathematical elitists 200 years ago, then to University students in the 30s - 50s ..but ..

Infinitesimal calculus was developed independently in the late 17th century by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus

But now, even 10th to 12th grade can do Calculus.

Calculus is sometimes taken in the 12th grade at high school or the first year of university studies, but can occasionally be taken as early as 10th grade. A successfully completed college-level calculus course like one offered via Advanced Placement program is a transfer-level course—that is, it can be accepted by a college as a credit towards graduation requirements. Other optional mathematics courses may be offered, such as statistics or business math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... ted_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... ted_States

IQ is related to language and mathematics, surely there are loads of examples where progress has been made on these topics since humans first emerge to the present.
You deny this?

You have fallen well off the thread and onto stoney ground. Calculus is not a measure of progress, and it is certainly not a measure of moral law, private or otherwise.

The history of the last 10000 years is a fall from innate moral laws where humans have attempted to shore up what they have lost by abandoning a more natural lifestyle to and from which those innate moral feelings were selected to evolve to.
Since innate feelings of this kind relate to somatic responses to moral situations rather than learned from cultural norms, such "progress" in that time is not "innate" , "internal" or "private".
The failure of modern morality can thus be attributed in part to the demands of unnatural living in cities and imposed cultural norms.
We are not evolved to live cheek-by jowl in our millions, and we no longer can rely on the evolved morals we enjoyed 10kbp.
But one thing is for sure, ancient hunter gatherers whose lives had daily violence in them in the acquisition of meat, can only have had a much greater respect for other humans else they would not have made it through the ice age. And one thing is for sure there is no evidence of mass graves and killings as we are witness to in Ukraine and what we have seen in Cambodia and Nazi Germany.
And this, my friend, is laughingly called "progess".

As for Newton who was a genius. He was not typical of the average person of his time. Statistically genius is rare. We ought to expect that has the human population increases we will see more genius in evidence.
You have zero warrant for suggesting that calculus is indicative of human progress.

We can only imagine the massive genius who first figured our how to make a bow and arrow where such a thing had never been seen before.
Or consider the genius who did this....

image_2022-04-04_112829.png (106.51 KiB) Viewed 927 times

[Immanuel Can]

No, I have not claimed slavery is totally illegal is equated with no slaves at all, that would be stupid of me.

Good. I'm glad you see that.

My point is the legal deterrence is an indication of progress over having no laws at all against slavery,

Actually, it's very nearly irrelevant. The having of a law means nothing if the law is not effectively enforced. And that fact that over half the world STILL has not even an appearance of such a law speaks against any conclusion that human nature is improving on that point, anyway.

How come you are so blinded on the above?

Heh.

You don't want to consider the proof of worldwide slavery or recognize the more than half of the world that doesn't even make it out to be officially wrong when people do it, and I'm the "blind" one? Charming.

Well, you've got your theory, and you're going to ride it into the ground, contrary to all facts. I can see that, but I haven't got a strategy to beat it.

Have fun, I guess.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Good. I'm glad you see that.

Actually, it's very nearly irrelevant. The having of a law means nothing if the law is not effectively enforced. And that fact that over half the world STILL has not even an appearance of such a law speaks against any conclusion that human nature is improving on that point, anyway.

How come you are so blinded on the above?

Heh.

You don't want to consider the proof of worldwide slavery or recognize the more than half of the world that doesn't even make it out to be officially wrong when people do it, and I'm the "blind" one? Charming.

Well, you've got your theory, and you're going to ride it into the ground, contrary to all facts. I can see that, but I haven't got a strategy to beat it.

Have fun, I guess.

I insist you are the blind one.

Re 'chattel slavery' there is obviously progress in the average consciousness of the world in terms of the detestation of chattel slavery and loads of efforts & progress had been made in the abolishment of legal chattel slavery and the tackling of illegal chattel slavery SINCE 5000 years ago to the present.

That all sovereign nations has ratify the UN Declaration of Slavery is a sign of progress.

I dispute the claim that only 50% of the countries had NOT implemented effective laws to ban chattel slavery.
BUT even that, 50% is already an obvious sign of progress since 200 years ago and more so relative to 5000 years ago.

Show me one country that is allowing the LEGAL ownership of humans as chattel slaves at present?

Ineffective enforcement is a different issue which does not contra the fact that the establishment of laws against slavery itself - independently - is a sign of progress.
NGOs around the world like the one you linked [Conversation] are putting pressure on those who are not enforcing their laws on slavery and this is a sign of progress.

It is your cognitive dissonance [else God does not exist] that hindered your acceptance [despite the facts] that there is gradual [note gradual!!] moral progress worldwide in terms of chattel slavery.

This gradual moral progress is due to the gradual unfoldment of the inherent moral potential within all humans.
There is no God [illusory] given moral laws EVER! that is an impossibility because it is impossible for a God to exists as real.

[Immanuel Can]

I insist you are the blind one.

We shall see...or at least, one of us will.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have not claimed to be competent in archaeology.

You have demonstrated that you are utterly incompetent.
Given this revelation I suggest you stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Noted the earliest recorded signs of slavery was 3500 BC as such my inference is not wrong since I mentioned 5000 - 10,000 years ago.
My inference of 10,000 years ago is based on the inherent 'tribalism' and tribal conflicts where some of the losers [women, children, vulnerable men] were captured and turned into slaves as evident in recorded history.

False inference. And where that true it would be a false interpretation.
Archaeology is often in the habit of comparing extant and recently (last 200 years) studied hunter/gatherer societies to flesh out the material culture finds from prehistory. What they found is that slavery is uncommon, a luxury of civilisation where sufficient infrastructure and hierarchical specialisations are required to maintain the institution of slavery. Individuals brought into the "tribe" from outside were integrated as it was too costly of time and effort to provide the security necessary to keep slaves, especially as H/g societies were constantly on the move and also required good stranger relationships, to avoid constant fighting and competition. The h/g groups of Europe commonly stayed separate for reasons of subsistence and gathered together in large groups seasonally for the exchange of goods and festivals. Such a system could not be sustained were people under the threat of being taken as slaves.
Not even h/g groups such as the Yanomani of the Brazilian rain forest (a tribe know exceptionally for extreme violence), and whose environment was so rich they have no need to be mobile not even they have slaves. What would be the point. Tribal members work harder and require no securing.

Nah you have over-read the various articles re slavery.

Note,

Hunter-gatherer culture was the way of life for early humans until around 11 to 12,000 years ago.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/ency ... r-culture/#

When the population is very small there is no room for "slavery" in a way.

But by 4000 years ago there was the Indus and other early civilizations which enable the opportunity for the enslavement of other humans. The population around the world then was about 27 million.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time ... ldpop.html

Taking 4000 years ago is quite a stretch for my point.

I can reduce the timeline to since 2000, 1000, 500 or even 200 years ago, it is still effective for my point there is moral progress in terms of slavery since those time period to the present.

Btw, one cannot be that arrogant like you to depend on archaeology so dogmatically.
There is a high limitation with archaeology because much of the critical evidence then in 5000 years ago had deteriorated.

It is argued that the pyramids were not built by slaves due to evidence of housing for workers. But that does not exclude and confirm the non-existence of slavery because the slaves would not be have proper housing then.

I have not claimed to be competent in archaeology and I have not insisted I am absolutely right with any claims related to 5000 years ago.

As I had stated, you are too arrogant based on ignorance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I insist you are the blind one.

We shall see...or at least, one of us will.

Btw, I am very interested in

"Show me one country that is allowing the LEGAL ownership [tradable] of humans as chattel slaves at present?"

see this https://storymaps.arcgis.com/e8027775-1 ... bf03d02e35

and this,

[Immanuel Can]

I insist you are the blind one.

We shall see...or at least, one of us will.

Btw, I am very interested in

That's great for you. I'm also interested in the even worse forms of slavery that you're ignoring as if they didn't exist. And I know why: they don't fit your thesis, so you don't care about them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We shall see...or at least, one of us will.

Btw, I am very interested in

That's great for you. I'm also interested in the even worse forms of slavery that you're ignoring as if they didn't exist. And I know why: they don't fit your thesis, so you don't care about them.

Btw, I am very interested in

"Show me one country that is allowing the LEGAL ownership [tradable] of humans as chattel slaves at present?"

see this https://storymaps.arcgis.com/e8027775-1 ... bf03d02e35

and this,


Who say I am not concern about the other forms of Slavery,
note this OP,
Slavery [all forms] Much Mitigated since 10,000 years ago?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34546
I am researching more in depth - since there are more variables to deal with - to reinforce my thesis re chattel slavery and moral progress.

[Immanuel Can]

Btw, I am very interested in

That's great for you. I'm also interested in the even worse forms of slavery that you're ignoring as if they didn't exist. And I know why: they don't fit your thesis, so you don't care about them.

Btw, I am very interested in...

I don't really care what you're interested in, honestly. As I see it, you morally fail to be "interested" in some very important things.

You're not interested in the child 'brides' of the Middle East, or the trans-Saharan slave trade, or forced labourers in Africa's mines, not in the sex slaves or Uighurs in China...

I guess you think they don't even have to enter your calculation. But personally, I think they all destroy your thesis. And I'll bet practically any moral person would agree.