well see that's the argument.
Well see that is not the argument that's the conclusion, you are skipping over a step.
screwing you over because of some imagined or promised benefit down the road.
again you are thinking in 1 benefit or 1 positive, the idea behind this assignment was to go into detail.
Looking at historical perspective (not just black US slaves) Slavery had obvious benefits to slaves (housing, food, protection) it's simple as that. The fact that these most often don't weigh up to the negative side-effects is obvious. Things are not black and white, negative things can have positive elements in them. Acknowledging that doesn't make you a supporter slavery, just means you look at things in a critical and detailed manner before you reach a conclusion.
Quick example:
Hitler:
Benefit:
- Massive improvement of industry and infrastructure in Germany.
Negative
- Caused WW2, invaded Europe and massacred a shitload of people
So yeah; bad man, but he actually did some good things.
so you would volunteer for slavery because of implied (or even unpromised) future benefits?
No .... because for me, in my current position, they obviously don't outweigh the negatives.
Now if you where a Frankish warrior that was defeated by the Romans (historical perspective) and you got the choice Death or slavery what would you choose?
edit:
so you would volunteer for slavery because of implied (or even unpromised) future benefits?
this question has nothing to do with the whole balancing thing btw, i dont know why you are pressing it to try and make a point.
well see that's the argument.
screwing you over because of some imagined or promised benefit down the road.
given a cynical look at political promises, etc, I expect that most people would expect no return on that "investment"