Yep, we know those workers have a choice of employers and get at least minimum wage, regular increases for merit, regular holidays and personal days, the right to organize, and an assortment of benefits. Their pay is commensurate with anyone doing similar jobs, right? There’s no way that’s space labor
Correct, prison labor is a form of involuntary servitude the 13th Amendment explicitly doesn’t apply to. Bear in mind, all this time I haven’t even argued in favor of prison labor. I’m saying calling it slavery is inappropriate, no matter how passionate you are about it.
It can be called slavery while still being permissible under the constitution. It’s not illegal slavery, just like pre-civil war slavery in the south wasn’t illegal… But it’s still slavery.
If “has an owner” is what everything hinges on, and the Department of Corrections or whoever has full custody and control doesn’t count, fine. I guess that’s technically in the first definition that came up. But Jesus Christ, when the vast majority of conditions match up, you sure spent a hell of a lot more time puffing your chest and acting high and mighty instead of, you know, explaining why it isn’t. You had to go through a few responses before any explanation at all!
America is falling apart, but not because some people’s pet issue is miscasting prison convict work as “slavery”. Fasten your seat belts.
if it’s not slavery, then why is it specifically an exception under the constitutional ban on slavery?
Found the asshole voting against human rights, gross
Yep, we know those workers have a choice of employers and get at least minimum wage, regular increases for merit, regular holidays and personal days, the right to organize, and an assortment of benefits. Their pay is commensurate with anyone doing similar jobs, right? There’s no way that’s space labor
Correct, prison labor is a form of involuntary servitude the 13th Amendment explicitly doesn’t apply to. Bear in mind, all this time I haven’t even argued in favor of prison labor. I’m saying calling it slavery is inappropriate, no matter how passionate you are about it.
It can be called slavery while still being permissible under the constitution. It’s not illegal slavery, just like pre-civil war slavery in the south wasn’t illegal… But it’s still slavery.
Slaves have owners, but call it flapjacks or pudding or whatever makes you feel like a keyboard justice warrior.
If “has an owner” is what everything hinges on, and the Department of Corrections or whoever has full custody and control doesn’t count, fine. I guess that’s technically in the first definition that came up. But Jesus Christ, when the vast majority of conditions match up, you sure spent a hell of a lot more time puffing your chest and acting high and mighty instead of, you know, explaining why it isn’t. You had to go through a few responses before any explanation at all!
“It’s not slavery, its involuntary servitude.”
This guys is either trolling or dumb as a bag of dumb cunts
Name-calling - a time-honored way to win any argument. Respect!
Semantics isn’t an argument, it’s a waste of time.