This is not my thread. The post you quoted is, as always, DIRECTLY addressing the post IT quoted. In this case the poster I quoted tried to dismiss slavery with a false equivalence. So I called him on it.
I realize that it is not your thread, but you are contributing to it. I also understand that you feel compelled to call someone out on what you believe is a false equivalence. I feel the same way when confronted with what I believe to be flawed reasoning. Isn't all slavery evil?...or are only some 'kinds' of slavery evil?...others less evil?
Do bonds of papyrus or rawhide chafe less than chains? Trying to make a distinction between geographical differences of the enslaved is faulty logic.
Once AGAIN ----- I never brought up "evil" or "degrees of evil". I never brought up "papyrus" or "rawhide" or "chafing". What I DID do was call out the false equivalence of a poster who tried to sell "b-but but 'the Indians' (as if "the Indians" is a single homogenous group, and I called that out too) had slaves too" as being the same thing as transAtlantic slavery. It absolutely was not, and I spelled out that distinction.
There's no "degrees of evil" or value judgment rendered there except in calling out that false equivalence as dishonest argument. That's it, full stop, period, aaaaand SCENE.