****SERIOUS AVAILABLE DEBATERS ONLY**** The modern day 9-5 is slavery.

Alright a survey to screen for serious available folks.

What was your impression of the topic to draw you to participate here?

I just don't know who is serious to engage after on average, every other person or the average person that accepts constantly forfeits.

Here's the breakdown introduction.

Basically the 9-5 wage labor industry is a system in which some cases occupies the lives of individuals in the overtime sector.

Taking more control of individual lives mandating work as without this obligation, you cannot fulfill your obligation to the monetary prison system that enables you to live.

That's why it's called "work for a living". You have to work, be obligated , enslaved to work to live.

If you don't work, you don't eat as the biblical scripture teaches. If you don't work, you don't live.

So you are obligated to work to live. That's all slavery is in nature. Obligation. You have debt slavery, monetary enslavement and slave labor.

Now there are those that have apparently broken out of this prison in route to the wilderness.

They too have to still work to eat. They have managed to escape the monetary prison. But their obligations to utilize resources more so than back when they first started a 9 to 5 is the reality.

Basically in a nutshell how the 9 to 5 is modern day slavery.

Common objections :

I can just quit a 9 to 5 job.

How am I enslaved to it?

There's no penalty or consequence for refusing to work.

I have the "freedom" to refuse to work.

What about when the time comes to get off work, quitting time as they say?

How about vacation, holiday time and "requested" time off?

How about a leave of absence or calling off?

Aren't I free then?

Don't I have freedom period?

Nobody owns me.

Maybe uncommon objections:

Who is my master?

What is my master?

A slave is in chains and shackles.

I'm not a prisoner.

I could go on and on perhaps. The rebuttals will be coming. That's all for now. This is just an introduction.

When you really see things for what they are on a grand scale in which you have to think outside the box, you'll see what I'm talking about.

"and then your claim becomes: if you don't work a 9-5 you don't eat. But there are millions (i.e. freelancers, part-timers, side-hustlers, etc.) who don't work 9-5s and live perfectly normal and free lives."

You actually have to quote me. Find where I made the following statement:

"if you don't work a 9-5 you don't eat"

This is why I have a stipulation about quoting exactly and correctly.

"Please quote exactly. Do not rephrase or reinterpret."

This is how we don't cause confusion and one person saying things that another hasn't said.

I won't call any fallacy yet so just clean this up or recant.

"Yes, this is a fact, but so must a shark eternally swim lest it die, and we do not call it a slave. A potter is obliged to continually make pottery lest he cease to be recognized as a potter, we do not identify him as a slave to clay. Just because men must work so they can eat, does not necessarily mean we are slaves. This is where the largest, logical hole lies, your main thesis is unfalsifiable based on definition. You claim:

obligation = slavery"

You don't have to call any of this slavery or anybody a slave .

I'm not going to argue over what you prefer to call anything.

Now.... here's the following question.

In a world of commerce and economic monetary supremacy, are people obligated to work for a living?

"Well, of course slavery by nature has some form of obligation"

Ohhhhh.....so I accept the conceding that slavery has obligation. Trying to evade that with "some form" is futile.

Either a slave is obligated or the slave is not.

Point blank.

"and yet the officiant of a wedding does not cry out, "I now pronounce you enslaved to each other!" In order for you to make a precise cut into the sphere of economic enslavement you need a pointed sword (thesis), not a large sheet of aluminum foil."

I think we already agree to use the terms synonymously so we don't even have to fuss how other people use terms.

"This then begs the question: who is the master of all of these slaves? You see this objection coming, and I challenge you to answer it. There must be a master, and the master must force all of working mankind to obey and work, thus they must be a being mighty enough to change the conscience of men so that obedience is inevitable. You cannot say that it is the 'economy' or the 'market' or the 'supply and demand', for true slavery implies sentient masters. Even if these false masters do coerce, they do so without a mind and it is a categorical error, meaning not slavery but mere circumstance."

I believe this is finally a point of engagement versus conveying your viewpoint. You asked a question as it pertains to my position even though you're mixing it with your viewpoint again.

Instead of getting ahead, let me answer, then rebuttal.

The master is actually monetary. All obligation or enslavement requires is the control to do nothing else but and that you cannot do but what you're imprisoned to. That is by nature, not social context, thinking about people and "man-stealers". I'm strictly dealing with the nature of things . What is the nature of the lack of freedom or no freedom? Is it freedom or imprisonment?

You can't name anything...... within the system of monetary supremacy or of the commerce world that has nothing to do with money. So as the expression goes , "what makes the world go round?", what is running what and can't run unless it's involved has total dominance, control, like a master.

See, this topic is just to help us look at things in a non conventional way, thinking about things for what they truly are.

This topic is really nothing to do with so called morality or what's right or wrong or is this or that justified or whatever.

Whether you call yourself enslaved to the system, participant of the system or a laborer in the workFORCE ...........wages are given, bills are paid at the end of it. Nothing has changed. Just observing or realizing the world we're in.

"You command me to quote you saying that, but the fact is that I do not need to. I have shown the logical progression from your claim, "if you don't work you don't eat" to "if you don't work a 9-5 you don't eat". I never said that you said, "if you don't work a 9-5 you don't eat", I am merely stating that this is what your argument becomes when you define work as a 9-5 (which this debate is centered upon). So, I did not quote you directly and I only moved to the next rung in the logical latter. If you believe I made a flaw in the logic, please point it out. Do not confuse a logical progression a misquote."

Ok well don't say I claimed or said something I didn't say. You can say my point is coming across such and such. This is how we undo confusion and you did say I claimed it. When you say somebody "says" or "claims" something, it can be interpreted as "exact words" so you want to be aware of that .

"You say, "[y]ou don't have to call any of this slavery or anybody a slave . I'm not going to argue over what you prefer to call anything. Now.... here's the following question. In a world of commerce and economic monetary supremacy, are people obligated to work for a living?" This entire piece of your rebuttal is vastly problematic. You have now shifted the playing field from an argument that is based on the definition of slavery to a debate on if people are obligated to work for a living. The prompt: "The modern day 9-5 is slavery" becomes the question: "Is the modern day 9-5 slavery?" To answer this we must define slavery, but you claim that you do not want to argue over what we call something. Okay, if this is the case then the whole initial argument is out the window. This being said, you have shifted the entirety of the debate to a whole new ground of labor obligation."

Out of all this I didn't see an answer to the question. This appears to be a second violation of the stipulations.

In a world of commerce and economic monetary supremacy, are people obligated to work for a living?

If you don't answer, you're running from an obvious refutation, then you forfeit the topic.

In a world of commerce and economic monetary supremacy, are people obligated to work for a living?

"You call my point about the relation between slavery and obligation "futile". To this I would like to clarify. Formerly I said "of course, slavery by nature has some form of obligation". I said this to show that your claim of obligation being slavery is much too broad. Thus, I would prefer you to narrow down a definition of slavery rather than the large field of "obligation". But I guess you do not care to "argue over what you prefer to call anything". Nevertheless, you need a clearer definition. Also, you say, "Either a slave is obligated or the slave is not. Point blank." You seem to suggest that since I believe that slaves have some form of obligation that therefore I concede your whole argument. I do agree that all slaves are obligated, for slavery includes obligations to a master. However, this does not mean that all obligated people are slaves. You can claim that all cats are mammals, but you cannot claim that all mammals are cats. You commit an illicit conversion that you must address."

So we agree slavery is obligation. Point blank.

You said and this is a proper quote, you said "I do agree that all slaves are obligated"

So........my question wassss........."In a world of commerce and economic monetary supremacy, are people obligated to work for a living?"

"No one is "legally owned", no one is "forced to work for or obey". "

If nobody is forced to obey, why does law enforcement exist? Is it to obey laws?

For example, tax laws.....that involve..........money.......that involve.............the 9-5......work........force .

In the world of commerce, if I can't do anything without money, how is that not being obligated for a living or being forced to do that which is in order to live?

In the world of commerce, if I if I can't do anything without massa', how is that not being obligated for a living or being enslaved to do that which is in order to live?

Why can't you see the parallels?

Is it just because a person has more freedom in comparison? Is that it?

"You say that the 'master' is "actually monetary" then you go on to say, "like a master". I ask you to pay close attention to your word choice, like. You do not say is a master, you use a simile, meaning there actually isn't a master. "

When I say "like a master" , it's referring to who YOU THINK OF AS A MASTER.

I know money is a master because you couldn't tell me anything we can do without it so you backed me up that it is. So in appealing to you because you apparently haven't realized that it is, in speaking of anything in regards to what you don't recognize yet as being such, I have to slowly bring you on board starting with what...... similarities......then you'll say "ok, like a...." whatever.....then work you towards same exact traits.

"Please respond to these, so I can truly understand your argument for what it really is."

You're not going to understand unless you start answering questions. I'll give grace this time but next round, start answering these questions or you forfeit.

"I understand your confusion, but looking back I see that I only said, "then your claim becomes:". In this case "becomes" means that if we follow the logical breadcrumb trail we reach this conclusion. If you do believe that I did say "claims" or "says" please show me where. Otherwise, I find that this point is fairly pedantic as we have been quibbling over it for a while now. I would like to drop it here now that I have shown that all I did was logically progress the idea. Anyways, I will note this and try to use, "your argument implies" instead, but I would like you engage in more content than using this point to stall momentum."

Saying "becomes" is still interpreted as my statement is this because it becomes this.

In the future, just be careful to stay away from language like that. If it's not exact words, say what you are getting or your interpretation or how something comes across or is conveyed or communicated to you upon receipt.

The thing is to make a distinction from what somebody is saying and how you're understanding something.

"Either way, I will say yes"

Thank you finally. In a world of commerce and economic monetary supremacy, are people obligated to work for a living?

You say yes or ....your final claim to that question becomes.........yes.

I'll certify you claim to fact.....or your claim to be trueeee.

People have no other choice to live in the system of commerce, not outside of it, but inside, people are obligated to the workforce.

Now this is in some form or fashion. I understand society has gotten advanced and people don't necessarily strictly have to fit into the structure 9-5 verbatim.

I just use "9-5" as a catch all term for labor of some sort . The commerce society demands or obligates some sort in order to live like an enslavement or plantation enslavement society for its workers......or......if we're passed........ similarities.....and we can understand identical natures of that which obligation is and a control of freedom.....we can be comfortable and no longer be confused about saying......."to live".....as.....an enslavement or plantation enslavement society.....for ..... its.... laborers, ok.

"Please respond to the illicit conversion fallacy directly or concede the definitional point."

All slaves are obligated like you said. So why wouldn't slavery be obligation?

Obligation is slavery so being enslaved is being obligated and being obligated is being enslaved.

What is supposed to be the difference between obligation and enslavement?

Nothing. Both terms mean forced. If one of them don't mean force, maybe we can have a part two of this topic and you can tell me which one has NOTHING to do with force.

Alright. Ok . Let me know.

Consider this awhile, you may get it.

"Alright, you conflate two very different things: general civic obligation and the master slave relationship. Me having an obligation not to go kill someone does not make me a slave. Of course, we are compelled not to break the law for there are consequences, but the mere existence of consequences does not imply slavery. If consequences mean slavery, then all men, are slaves, even people without wages. Thus, the argument you make is reduced to the definition explaining everything and therefore nothing."

My friend the problem is , you're not looking at "force" for what it is in nature. It's called law enforcement. Don't tell me there is no force or obligation which is the nature of enslavement.

THIS is why slavery is neutral. Being obligated to do something is not inherently incorrect. Being enforced to uphold the correct laws is not incorrect.

Using terms like or such as compelled or forced or enforced or obligated are all in one camp, but the term slavery you don't alternate with but you just want to keep this particular term in an isolated box which is what thinking in a box does, keeps perspectives short and hidden from complete grand scale fundamentals, foundations and basic elementary natures of things .

Meaning people conventionally......upon hearing or seeing or coming across the word "slavery" , you have an instant contextual picture to the word and you are not really looking at it in essence but by perhaps historical context and record and socially constructed interpretation and rendering.

Let me give this example. A father tells his son, "I go to work Monday". Son says "I'm going to work too ."

Father says "you mean school". Then the Father thought about it and said after giving it thought "in a way it is" ......it is........it is ..." work".

So even though you conventionally just think of school as school and work as work like or as, whichever way you feel comfortable in connecting the dots.....like or as work of a slave, school in essence in nature is constituted of work .

Just as enslavement building blocks is all about obligation, control of freedom.

So I'll stop there. I won't drag that out.

Unfortunately we've come to the end of this so there's no need to make anymore points.

It's too bad these things can't go passed five rounds but if interested, you can always request a part 2 on the topic.

Case closed for now.