For Those Who Don't Believe....in Religion

[Jodie.Lynne]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 9:10 PM, Guyver said:

Personally, I do not believe in religion; but there are plenty of things I do believe in.  I even believe in things I don't understand; and I believe that things exist which I don't even know.  

Really? It is a fact that 'religion' exists. Christianity (in its thousand flavors), Islam (with its divisions), Judaism (with its varied sects), and other organizations structured along belief lines.

Or do you mean that you do not subscribe to the various types of organized worship?

[Guyver]

7 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Really? It is a fact that 'religion' exists. Christianity (in its thousand flavors), Islam (with its divisions), Judaism (with its varied sects), and other organizations structured along belief lines.

Or do you mean that you do not subscribe to the various types of organized worship?

The latter of course.  

[Jodie.Lynne]

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 

morality is not fixed but changeable and socially driven.

When is it ever moral to own a human being?

Surely if a god existed, whether the Christian one, jewish one, muslim one, or some 'alien godthing', it would be a simple fecking thing for them to say, "Hey, don't make people your property!"

[Mr Walker]

Just now, Jodie.Lynne said:

When is it ever moral to own a human being?

Surely if a god existed, whether the Christian one, jewish one, muslim one, or some 'alien godthing', it would be a simple fecking thing for them to say, "Hey, don't make people your property!"

As i said this shows you are trapped in a modern paradigm of morality  based on what is possible and realistic in the world you live in .

Plus I think you are equating slavery with the particularly  brutal model of the 16-1800s

Slavery takes many forms and does not necessarily involve physical ownership of a person Eg throughout the middle ages serfs in Europe were basically slaves to their lords  They could  not  marry,  move, or change a job without their lords permission.   

So slavery is morally acceptable where the alternative brings worse outcomes for people ie slavery is ethical where it is needed to sustain the lives of all citizens including the slaves. So in an economy where people cannot be paid, but are needed to work to produce enough food or survival, they are basically slaves.

It is also ethical where the alternative is death Eg in  society where war results in captives beyond the capacity of a state to care for them, then there are three options

  Release the captives to their fate where they have no food shelter or land to survive on  and if   if you can be sure they are not a danger to you .

  Second, kill them

Third, make them productive elements of your society, so the y contribute to their care and upkeep.

In that scenario (common in past societies ) slavery is the most humane option and generally led to the slaves being integrated into the society and gaining freedom.    we simply canot impose moralities which work under modern socio economic strengths onto societies from  the past which had none of those strengths like a food surplus or abilty to care for non productive people   it might seem a warm and fuzzy thing to do, but its really quite dumb. and shows no knowldge of conditions of humanity in the past 

Many societies lived so much on the edge of survival that they had to kill their young or older family members just so those of child bearing and working abilty age could survive 

Ps Are you aware that more humans live in slavery today, than ever did a t the height of the slave trade,.or a t any other time in earth's history and we don't have the excuse of necessity.    

[+Sherapy]

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

As i said this shows you are trapped in a modern paradigm of morality  based on what is possible and realistic in the world you live in .

Plus I think you are equating slavery with the particularly  brutal model of the 16-1800s

Slavery takes many forms and does not necessarily involve physical ownership of a person Eg throughout the middle ages serfs in Europe were basically slaves to their lords  They could  not  marry,  move, or change a job without their lords permission.   

So slavery is morally acceptable where the alternative brings worse outcomes for people ie slavery is ethical where it is needed to sustain the lives of all citizens including the slaves. So in an economy where people cannot be paid, but are needed to work to produce enough food or survival, they are basically slaves.

It is also ethical where the alternative is death Eg in  society where war results in captives beyond the capacity of a state to care for them, then there are three options

  Release the captives to their fate where they have no food shelter or land to survive on  and if   if you can be sure they are not a danger to you .

  Second, kill them

Third, make them productive elements of your society, so the y contribute to their care and upkeep.

In that scenario (common in past societies ) slavery is the most humane option and generally led to the slaves being integrated into the society and gaining freedom.    we simply canot impose moralities which work under modern socio economic strengths onto societies from  the past which had none of those strengths like a food surplus or abilty to care for non productive people   it might seem a warm and fuzzy thing to do, but its really quite dumb. and shows no knowldge of conditions of humanity in the past 

Many societies lived so much on the edge of survival that they had to kill their young or older family members just so those of child bearing and working abilty age could survive 

Ps Are you aware that more humans live in slavery today, than ever did a t the height of the slave trade,.or a t any other time in earth's history and we don't have the excuse of necessity.    

Geez, what is wrong wth you.

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Geez, what is wrong wth you.

 

Nothing.

Everything i wrote is true, factual, logical, and common sense.

I ask what is wrong with humans who are so blinded that they cannot  understand simple historical realities (but i think it is because so few people are actually taught much history including social political and economic history and don't know what past societies were really like)

  You CANNOT judge people from  the past by your standards  Remember, in the future you may be condemned for many of your barbaric practices, like eating meat and wearing the skins of dead animals .   or for  living a lifestyle that used up all the worlds resources, leaving none for those future generations. 

Now, if you wish to debate, rather than make personal comments feel free to  dispute any of the points i have made, logically and factually.

.Put simply slavery is NOT always immoral. it depends on the political social and economic realities of survival in a society.

  It is not always immoral to kill or allow to die the very elderly and the very young if this is needed for your clan family or tribe to survive a t all.  

It is not ALWAYS immoral for a woman to kill her unborn child  (via an abortion) 

Sometimes realities require these things, in order to prevent even greater harm and evil  from occuring 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Mr Walker

[+Liquid Gardens]

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Slavery takes many forms and does not necessarily involve physical ownership of a person

No, slavery always involves ownership of a person, that's its definition.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You CANNOT judge people from  the past by your standards  Remember, in the future you may be condemned for many of your barbaric practices, like eating meat and wearing the skins of dead animals .

Of course you can judge people in the past by today's standards.  I judge how women have been treated historically pretty much worldwide, which I would very euphemistically define as 'poorly', as wrong and don't see a lot historically that justifies that being by necessity (as you are attempting to argue concerning slavery, based on your imaginative opinions about alternate histories).

[Jodie.Lynne]

17 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

As i said this shows you are trapped in a modern paradigm of morality  based on what is possible and realistic in the world you live in .

Plus I think you are equating slavery with the particularly  brutal model of the 16-1800s

Ah yes, the Jewish form of slavery was soooo humane!

Listen sparky, slavery is wrong. It is wrong today, wrong tomorrow, and wrong yesterday. Humans have, and continue to practice it, but that in no way makes it moral. And if, as so many choose to believe, there is some form of deity watching over this world, then surely it would be moral enough to recognize the wrongness of slavery, in any form and set the record straight among the hairless monkeys.

But oddly enough, there appears to be no 'god' moral enough to say that owning other human beings is flat out wrong.

[Jodie.Lynne]

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

.Put simply slavery is NOT always immoral. it depends on the political social and economic realities of survival in a society.

If you truly believe this, then you are an amoral barbarian.

[Opus Magnus]

4 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Ah yes, the Jewish form of slavery was soooo humane!

Listen sparky, slavery is wrong. It is wrong today, wrong tomorrow, and wrong yesterday. Humans have, and continue to practice it, but that in no way makes it moral. And if, as so many choose to believe, there is some form of deity watching over this world, then surely it would be moral enough to recognize the wrongness of slavery, in any form and set the record straight among the hairless monkeys.

But oddly enough, there appears to be no 'god' moral enough to say that owning other human beings is flat out wrong.

If you want out of Jewish slavery, all that you need to have happen is have your owner when beating you knock out an eye or a tooth. Then they have to release you for either the sake of the eye or the sake of the tooth.

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

If you want out of Jewish slavery, all that you need to have happen is have your owner when beating you knock out an eye or a tooth. Then they have to release you for either the sake of the eye or the sake of the tooth.

Only if you were Jewish. Those regulations didn't apply if you were a foreigner.

And even a Jew could be enslaved for life. All an owner had to do was buy a single male slave, then give him a wife. If, at the end of the 7 year term (Jewish slaves HAD to be released after 7 years. Unless...), the slave desires not to leave his wife (and any children), then the owner would take the slave to the temple, pierce his ear with an awl or nail, and then that man was a slave for life, Jewish or not.

[Guyver]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Only if you were Jewish. Those regulations didn't apply if you were a foreigner.

And even a Jew could be enslaved for life. All an owner had to do was buy a single male slave, then give him a wife. If, at the end of the 7 year term (Jewish slaves HAD to be released after 7 years. Unless...), the slave desires not to leave his wife (and any children), then the owner would take the slave to the temple, pierce his ear with an awl or nail, and then that man was a slave for life, Jewish or not.

Right.  Can you imagine?  You get married and have children, but they belong to the slave owner.  You can’t leave with your family.  I think you nailed it....those are the words of men, not God.

[Opus Magnus]

5 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Only if you were Jewish. Those regulations didn't apply if you were a foreigner.

And even a Jew could be enslaved for life. All an owner had to do was buy a single male slave, then give him a wife. If, at the end of the 7 year term (Jewish slaves HAD to be released after 7 years. Unless...), the slave desires not to leave his wife (and any children), then the owner would take the slave to the temple, pierce his ear with an awl or nail, and then that man was a slave for life, Jewish or not.

That's why it is best to avoid slavery. I think the missing eye or tooth applies to everyone Jew and non-Jew, because it just says it without any specification of Jew or non-Jew. If they said otherwise I wouldn't trust it, because they have also been trying to bend the laws concerning Jubilee since before the time of Jesus. There have been recent councils trying to revive the Jubilee, but fail. I don't think it will ever come back now.

[Jodie.Lynne]

 

Exodus 21

21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. ² When you buy a Hebrew slave,^[a] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. ³ If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. ⁴ If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. ⁵ But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ ⁶ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

⁷ “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. ⁸ If she does not please her master, who has designated her^[b] for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. ⁹ If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. ¹⁰ If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. ¹¹ And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

 

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Jodie.Lynne

[Jodie.Lynne]

On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 11:50 PM, Mr Walker said:

As i said this shows you are trapped in a modern paradigm of morality  based on what is possible and realistic in the world you live in .

Perhaps I am looking back from a modern viewpoint. Or not.

 

However, that does not answer the question of what 'god' did. Or did the deity not know that owning people is a "BAD THING"?

Perhaps, because 'god' was created by flawed human beings, and is not a celestial entity with ultimate power?

[jamesjr191]

10 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Perhaps I am looking back from a modern viewpoint. Or not.

 

However, that does not answer the question of what 'god' did. Or did the deity not know that owning people is a "BAD THING"?

Perhaps, because 'god' was created by flawed human beings, and is not a celestial entity with ultimate power?

Proverbial hitting of the nail on the head right there.

[Opus Magnus]

 In the rest of Exodus 21 in verse 26 and 27 you can see where it says it is generic to both Jews and non-Jews that if they lose an eye or tooth they go free. Also, it says not to steal men and sell them into slavery. Later in the Torah it has more laws that you are in trouble if you buy a man that was stolen and sold into slavery, and if you come across a slave that is fleeing his master you are not to turn him in. I think slavery was a last resort if you had gone totally broke and had no other alternative to live by.

 

¹² He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

¹³ And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

¹⁴ But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

¹⁵ And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

¹⁶ And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

¹⁷ And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

¹⁸ And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:

¹⁹ If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.

²⁰ And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

²¹ Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

²² If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

²³ And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

²⁴ Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

²⁵ Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

²⁶ And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.

²⁷ And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

²⁸ If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.

²⁹ But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

³⁰ If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

³¹ Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.

³² If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

³³ And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;

³⁴ The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.

³⁵ And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.

³⁶ Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Opus Magnus

[psyche101]

On 8/2/2018 at 7:20 PM, Mr Walker said:

Nothing.

Everything i wrote is true, factual, logical, and common sense.

I ask what is wrong with humans who are so blinded that they cannot  understand simple historical realities (but i think it is because so few people are actually taught much history including social political and economic history and don't know what past societies were really like)

  You CANNOT judge people from  the past by your standards  Remember, in the future you may be condemned for many of your barbaric practices, like eating meat and wearing the skins of dead animals .   or for  living a lifestyle that used up all the worlds resources, leaving none for those future generations. 

Now, if you wish to debate, rather than make personal comments feel free to  dispute any of the points i have made, logically and factually.

.Put simply slavery is NOT always immoral. it depends on the political social and economic realities of survival in a society.

  It is not always immoral to kill or allow to die the very elderly and the very young if this is needed for your clan family or tribe to survive a t all.  

It is not ALWAYS immoral for a woman to kill her unborn child  (via an abortion) 

Sometimes realities require these things, in order to prevent even greater harm and evil  from occuring 

In the case of a god, that is the case though. A god is supposed to be the benchmark, some even say the ultimate source of morals, of right from wrong, a god is supposed to be all knowing across all time and space. There is no way to condone a gods approval of slavery. He should always have known better and inspired man to abhor slavery, one wonders why didn't God point disciples at helpful achievements in medicine of science? Man had the capability to catapult development, but the Bible just has stories like Job, about God telling us how worthy of worship he is. A cure for cancer would be much more helpful and sensible. If it was only understood in modern times  it would offer a reason to have faith. The only way to rationalise such a God is to consider God a fictional character bound by the cultural values of the time. 

It is always immoral, ignorance doesn't excuse that, moving forward there's nothing wrong with recognising that during our development, we acted in morally at certain periods. What we have to do now is do better. 

Edited August 5, 2018 by psyche101

[Mr Walker]

11 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Perhaps I am looking back from a modern viewpoint. Or not.

 

However, that does not answer the question of what 'god' did. Or did the deity not know that owning people is a "BAD THING"?

Perhaps, because 'god' was created by flawed human beings, and is not a celestial entity with ultimate power?

Owning people is not always bad, and has not always been considered bad or evil 

I tried to explain that.

In a society where it was either becoming slaves, or death from starvation or being killed, slavery enabled survival, and thus hope for the future of individuals, families, and races. 

Likewise, it is not evil to kill children or old people,iIf that is the only way to ensure the survival of your family, clan, or tribe.

Humans construct the ideas and concepts of good and evil, and shape the ethics and moralities  of them, according to their own time and place.

What is evil now, was not always evil, and many things not considered evil now, will one day be seen as evil. 

I can see a day when modern day pet owners are regarded like we regard slave owners from the past, and people who eat meat today  are considered evil by the standards of a future time  We are not evil for doing either of those things, of course, but as moral values change, we could be held to be so.   

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

In the case of a god, that is the case though. A god is supposed to be the benchmark, some even say the ultimate source of morals, of right from wrong, a god is supposed to be all knowing across all time and space. There is no way to condone a gods approval of slavery. He should always have known better and inspired man to abhor slavery, one wonders why didn't God point disciples at helpful achievements in medicine of science? Man had the capability to catapult development, but the Bible just has stories like Job, about God telling us how worthy of worship he is. A cure for cancer would be much more helpful and sensible. If it was only understood in modern times  it would offer a reason to have faith. The only way to rationalise such a God is to consider God a fictional character bound by the cultural values of the time. 

It is always immoral, ignorance doesn't excuse that, moving forward there's nothing wrong with recognising that during our development, we acted in morally at certain periods. What we have to do now is do better. 

Only constructed gods are "supposed to be" anything. Real  gods simply are what they are, like real human beings.

Sorry but how is a god who must allow humans to learn evolve and develop their own wisdom and maturity  going to stop slavery or abuse etc Only humans can do this 

And slavery is not always evil As stated, in the past slavery was the only way some societies could survive and the only alternative for many people  You cant simply reorganise an economy  lacking science/technology  and the  knowledge and resources to do so 

You make a very common and very real error in assuming that there are  any absolutes in human morality. There are not.

They are all human constructed ideals based around the social norms and values  of the time. You CANNOT  have some beliefs and vlaues in some times because the y are impossible to achieve given the real physical conditions  of the t time   Often people couldn't even conceive of some of the ideas and  qualities  we hold dear,  such as the right of a wife to reuse sex with a husband.

  As i said earlier, i think a lot of this comes from people's total ignorance of the way people lived and thought in past times, and the limited knowledge and understanding the y had about many things    Do you have any pets? Have you ever used any animal for work? 

Can you  see that, even now, some people think this is immoral, like slavery, and that in the future you might be looked back on as monster for keeping other animals as your slaves   Do you see yourself as a monster Are those future judgements correct or fair? Do you see yourself as evil for eating meat, or consuming the earths  resources beyond what you  need for survival ? 

[fred_mc]

I believe in things where I see enough evidence to make me convinced.

I believe in a spirit world because I have seen psychics say things that would be impossible for them to know (like private knowledge between the person talking to the psychic and the diseased person that the psychic claims to be channeling), and because of people who have been clinically dead during surgery etc but who have still been able to tell what the surgeons have done and said during that time in a way that the surgeons have been able to verify.

I don't believe in a God because I don't see any evidence for that. I don't see that there has to be a connection between a spirit world and a God. I believe that the spirit world might just be one or several parallel worlds that are difficult or impossible for our instruments to detect. Compare with dark matter where it is very difficult for us to figure out what it is since it only seems to interact through gravity, otherwise it is invisible to us and just passes straight through us without interacting.

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, Scudbuster said:

It's OK to kill children to ensure the "survival" of your family, tribe, etc??????  You are one sick, disgusting, vile, horrible, individual. 

Disgusted by his comments.

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't think that if his children were to be culled, or his parents. What a scumbag.

I wonder if he'd sacrifice his himself or his wife?

Edited August 5, 2018 by danydandan

[Mr Walker]

14 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

It's OK to kill children to ensure the "survival" of your family, tribe, etc??????  You are one sick, disgusting, vile, horrible, individual. 

lol It is what tribes and people have done throughout human history.

  The old people would go off to die.

Babies and very  young would either be left to die or killed.

The alternative was that without enough food for survival, everyone died, including the young men and women needed to maintain the tribe and breed the next generation

Your comment shows a  shocking lack of knowledge about human history and the true nature of human morality.

   Still i cant blame you  for that.   Most people lack an education in human history and the reality of life in earlier times.

They think people always had the luxury of making ethical decisions form a position of  surplus and ensured survival. 

We still do much the same today, but call it abortion and euthanasia, and  we have no real survival requirements for either.   

[+Nuclear Wessel]

On 8/2/2018 at 12:50 AM, Mr Walker said:

Ps Are you aware that more humans live in slavery today, than ever did a t the height of the slave trade,.or a t any other time in earth's history and we don't have the excuse of necessity.    

Citations needed.

[Mr Walker]

27 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Citations needed.

No they aren't  It is a well known fact.  If you don't believe me look it up for yourself  

Oh very well, just because i am such a nice guy. 

There Are More Slaves Today Than There Were Four Centuries Ago

by Théo Mercadier | 1 year ago

facebook

twitter

mail

 53.7K SHARES

After investigating the presence of slavery around the world over the past fifteen years, specialist economist Siddharth Kara has come to a shocking conclusion: there are more slaves today than there were over the hundreds of years of slave trafficking that took place between the 16th and 19th century.

Over 350 years, 13 million slaves were bought and sold by traders; today, there are approximately 21 million people working as slaves around the world, according to figures provided by the UN's International Labour Organisation. 

As part of his research, Siddharth Kara toured 51 countries and spoke to around 5,000 victims of slavery before drawing up his disturbing findings in the book Modern Slavery. 

According to the British economist, human trafficking has become the third most lucrative activity on the black market, behind the illegal sales of weapons and drugs. As he explains to the Guardian: 

 

"It turns out that slavery today is more profitable than I could have imagined. Profits on a per slave basis can range from a few thousand dollars to a few hundred thousand dollars a year, with total annual slavery profits estimated to be as high as $150bn."

 

Kara estimates that while victims of sex trafficking only make up around 5% of modern slaves, the illegal industry accounts for around half of the total profits of slavery today.

The average profit generated by a victim of sex trafficking is around $36,000 per individual over one year, compared to around $3,978 for victims exploited in other ways.

http://www.konbini.com/en/lifestyle/modern-slavery-report/

 

One hundred forty-three years after passage of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 60 years after Article 4 of the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights banned slavery and the slave trade worldwide, there are more slaves than at any time in human history -- 27 million.

https://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/there-are-more-slaves-today-any-time-human-history

 

Slavery. The word conjures images of people in leg irons. We think of the abolitionists who toiled centuries ago in lands far away to abolish this horrific practice.

Yet two things should shock us. First, slavery is more common today than when it was "abolished". In fact, there are more slaves now than at any time in human history.

Secondly, our region — the Asia Pacific — is home to about half of the world's 45.8 million slaves.

Slavery is grounded in human exploitation, just as it has always been. The difference is that modern slavery now has numerous different forms: human trafficking, servitude, child labour, sex trafficking, forced labour and debt bondage.

Sadly, there are all too many examples of labour-hire companies bringing vulnerable workers from Indonesia and other Pacific neighbours to Australia on the promise of a good job with good pay and conditions.

When they arrive, their passport is often confiscated by their employer and they're paid a fraction of what they were promised.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/slavery-a-bigger-problem-than-ever/9100126

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by Mr Walker