Quote Originally Posted by honedright View Post
An example would be nice. Otherwise your statement here could mean anything. Who's claiming a right to property? And what property? What other human beings are you referring to?
Really? I thought I pointed it - it's written in the original US Constitution, and it was discussed at length at the adoption, as I do not doubt you are well aware. Here it is verbatim with emphasis:
which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons
And the lengths to which for example a big-name founding fathers went to defend his right to use his slaves even in the states where it was illegal with the argument that he's there only for the job - those are also well documented.

Quote Originally Posted by honedright View Post
Abuse and exploitation does have a long historical precedent, but what evidence can you provide that modern society has moved away from it. How are you defining "Abuse"? "Exploitation"? "Modern society"? What do you mean by "Moved away from it"?
Well the above mentioned text was repealed after a bloody war in which the side that won happened to be on the progressive (read it as advancing, i.e. moving forward, hate to say it but it seems I have to) side of history. It's still illegal to own people, it is also illegal to rape them (it wasn't if they were your property, slaves or wife), it is illegal to kill them. Reading of the laws pertaining to slaves is very illuminating about 'abuse' and 'exploitation'.


Quote Originally Posted by honedright View Post
Putting words in your mouth? Or calling you out for making a false argument? And then you make another false argument, appeal to pity. Yes, maybe we are done, since you seem unwilling to have an honest discussion.
Nope just I didn't think I have to chew your food either, and you don't strike me as a person who would defend slavery, or say pedophilia (another well established ancient practice, which is fallen out of fashion), so I don't understand what is the argument you are making here?
Instead of looking up at the paragraph I explicitly pointed you to you stated that I am rejecting "ideas merely because of age, and regardless of merit" which I didn't do at all. That is indeed putting words in my mouth.