Thank Mhysa for “Freedom”

[I'm the Party Pooper]

I read my post again and failed to see where I praised slavery but since so many people thought that way, the fault is mine. Sorry for that.

Then, since I've been the first to criticise your unfortunate choice of words, I'll take upon my sleeve to explain you why 'you've been misunderstood'.

I wanted to emphasize that there are a wide variety of slavery practices including some ant species, so we cannot take one type of slavery and generalize it.

There is only one generalization that is being recurrently done in respect to slavery in this kind of threads, and this is that 'enslavement is evil'.

If you call for 'we can't generalize it card', it means - to me - that in your own opinion we can't generalize the only aspect of enslavement we have generalized so far, that is: 'enslavement is evil'.

Not all form of enslavement are equal, so what?

Unless you propose that there exists a type of enslavement that 'full-fills human existence in a good way', we can certainly discuss Daenery's case starting from the generalization that 'enslavement is evil'.

Now, you have tried to shift your 'argumentation' toward saying that you wanted to discuss the 'very reasons' that led toward birth of enslavement forms in human history 'to prevent it'.

All the good, but the fact is that up until page 8 of this thread, what 'you wanted to discuss' was not even from afar the main core of the discussion.

It wasn't even mentioned in your OP.

You started this thread to argue that freed slavers conditions have not improved after Daenerys actions, that is to discuss either:

- the 'subjective' opinion on whether or not Daenerys choice has been a good/bad choice either in principle/practical ways

- the existence - or absence - of objective criteria that allow to judge such a choice

- the flaws in Daenerys plan (if any plan at all existed) and what we believe could have been done differently (and better)

Now, provided that there is plenty of room for this kind of criticism, to discuss this stuff there is absolutely no need to start a philosophical debate on 'enslavement is evil' or make any distinction among historically different types of 'enslavement'.

And this is because we have a clearly identified and well described type of enslavement going on in 'Slaver's Bay' and - more generally speaking - in Essos.

And this particular 'enslavement type' has shown to be particularly mean, cruel and bloody.

Objectively.

So even if might be 'we should not generalize', it remains true that we have no need for it.

The enslavement we are talking about is uniquely identified by the books, and it easily earns the 'evil' label.

Whether or not what happens next to the freed slaves is 'better or worse' is an entirely different issue: two evil deeds do not make one good.

What happens next is only fruitful at discussing Daenerys decision making process, not to white wash slavers.

Also, whether or not the price of so-called 'freedom', brought by Daenerys' Storm on Slaver's Bay, was worth paying it.. it's entirely subjective. Some might legitimately thing it was too high, some might not. But it shouldn't make anyone reconsider their evaluation on 'Enslavement in Slaver's Bay is bad'.

Another reason for which I interpreted in such a way your post, is that one of the statements you have made in your thread debut was:

Not all the slaves were being tortured, executed and raped before Dany freed them.

And this seems to me as an early attempt to minimize the cruelty of what is going on in Slaver's Bay.

How other have underlined, enslavement practice should not be judged only on living conditions of slaves: if they are fed, given a shelter and not beaten (but still chained, with bloody bruises for that).

Let alone the fact that the previous condition is untrue for the slaves in Astapor who are treated similarly as 'products' with and subdue a 'production process' that has nothing human about it.

It should also be judged on how much their own mindset, their spirit, their human expressiveness has been mortified and nullified.

And it should be judged together with the violence, the killing and rape of those populations - Lhazareen - that are being constantly oppressed to fill the slaver's coffers and fuel 'Slaver's Bay business'

What ants and bees do is 'slavery' because, to the science man who studied them, this has been the word that best described their behaviour.

Their own 'type of slavery' should not be even remotely considered when talking about 'human enslavement' which is a totally different thing.

Otherwise the next step of this argumentation line is to call for 'machine enslavement'.

'Greek Slavery' and similar forms of slavery would have been a better argument. But what is the point of dragging them into this thread, when they do not - even remotely - reassemble what is taking place in Slaver's Bay? Slaves in Slaver's Bay have been given none of the rights Greek Slaves had, the abuse of power in their respect has been given no limit - to our own knowledge based on GRRM description - and as such any similarity is out of place.

Now I'm pretty sure we had only a misunderstanding and that we agree on much I've written here [except, of course, my interpretation of your statements].

It's obvious that In the same way you have been naive in your wording, I've been biased by my judgement when interpreting your posts.

But this should clear it out the urgency of being particularly careful on how thoughts are expressed to strangers.

Now Rome allowed free slaves to become citizens, funny I don't recall that in the books, I thought this was the Roman model? But the slaves were happy well except for things like the Servile Wars, those three famous slave revolts. You know like Spartacus, now what happened at the end of that revolt? With happy slave Spartacus oh yeah he died and the 6000 survivors of his army were crucified.

Let me note that, those slave revolts are only the most famous and early ones.

The Roman Empire has been plagued with slave revolts for it's entire existence.

A particularly hot region - even before Roman's conquest, but in particular after - was the modern Palestine.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

Well just look at the fate of Astapor. How many hundreds of thousands of people died or suffered greatly due to Daenerys actions there?

The slavers were evil but one can't look at the result of Daenerys actions at Astapor and not see at least some evil there. If for nothing else her example of attrocities against the (prior) ruling classes was replicated when the butcher leader needed a new army. Plus, I think depriving a city with its armed forces, putting a weak leadership and making them a pariah state is pretty bad actions, even if Daenerys had good intentions. Unfortunately, she fits perfectly the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So she had a responsibility to protect the societies in which she forced difficult changes upon.

As for the whole: A lot of slaves find freedom hard. That is an issue an an actual problem. And while that is true but on the long term (and for many in the short term) it is much better especially for a whole society than the institution of slavery- that is provided we don't have hell on earth in war atrocities. Because slavery in peace and hell on earth of war and massive suffering and casualties is the one thing that might be worse- at least for the people involved. What happened in Astapor was worse for the people of Astapor than the previous slavery. Now the sack of Mereen was bad, but they didn't have that Astapor like fate yet. As someone with a more threedimensional view of events than random slaves, fire and blood Daenerys is not only a symbol for hope for the people of the area including slaves but also a symbol to dread and of war and atrocities. Ultimately like many actual figures of history, she will be judged by the result of her actions, which so far are more on the negative side.

As for the intentions of the author, it is obvious he shows the consequences of war, the negatives of slavery and is showing difficult ethical dilemma's and he tries to introduce complexity into those issues.

[Game Of Thrones]

Snip

Another straw man or comprehension failure. My point was about your (true) claim that in the 19th century no slaves was more economically effective than slaves. I did not say that slavery was morally good, since it is not.

[Danelle]

This post takes the cake. Really, have we come to the point of Bees and Ants? Not to mention that, but I think one can find the act of slaving someone else terrible whilst criticizing Dany. And there's nothing natural about it.

I think that the argument regarding the behaviour of the insects is fascinating.

Think of the immense possibilities of drawing parallels between insects and humans.

The praying mantis for example, a creature known for resolving to sexual cannibalism.

The female has sex with the male and at the same time she is feeding on him.

Truly the habits of animals and insects prove that humans still need to learn. :drunk:

[Game Of Thrones]

I think that the argument regarding the behaviour of the insects is fascinating.

Think of the immense possibilities of drawing parallels between insects and humans.

The praying mantis for example, a creature known for resolving to sexual cannibalism.

The female has sex with the male and at the same time she is feeding on him.

Truly the habits of animals and insects prove that humans still need to learn. :drunk:

Very true. Parents should let their children eat each other.

[Mithras]

I think that the argument regarding the behaviour of the insects is fascinating.

Think of the immense possibilities of drawing parallels between insects and humans.

The praying mantis for example, a creature known for resolving to sexual cannibalism.

The female has sex with the male and at the same time she is feeding on him.

Truly the habits of animals and insects prove that humans still need to learn. :drunk:

I am disappointed by your ignorance on Evolutionary Psychology or Sociobiology. Personally I don't feel so confident about making fun of such theories and scientists.

[Game Of Thrones]

But ants, IMO, are the second most advanced creatures in the world. But the topic's not about ants sadly.

[HexMachina]

I am disappointed by your ignorance on Evolutionary Psychology or Sociobiology. Personally I don't feel so confident about making fun of such theories and scientists.

All well and good, but our ancestors were not ants.

[Mithras]

During the Holocaust, Nazis referred to Jews as rats. Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis cockroaches. Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals. In Less Than Human, David Livingstone Smith argues that it's important to define and describe dehumanization, because it's what opens the door for cruelty and genocide.

“We all know, despite what we see in the movies,” Smith tells NPR's Neal Conan, “that it's very difficult, psychologically, to kill another human being up close and in cold blood, or to inflict atrocities on them.” So, when it does happen, it can be helpful to understand what it is that allows human beings “to overcome the very deep and natural inhibitions they have against treating other people like game animals or vermin or dangerous predators.”

Ser Jorah said the people of this country named themselves the Lhazareen, but the Dothraki called them haesh rakhi, the Lamb Men. Once Dany might have taken them for Dothraki, for they had the same copper skin and almond-shaped eyes. Now they looked alien to her, squat and flat-faced, their black hair cropped unnaturally short. They were herders of sheep and eaters of vegetables, and Khal Drogo said they belonged south of the river bend. The grass of the Dothraki sea was not meant for sheep.

Across the road, a girl no older than Dany was sobbing in a high thin voice as a rider shoved her over a pile of corpses, facedown, and thrust himself inside her. Other riders dismounted to take their turns. That was the sort of deliverance the Dothraki brought the Lamb Men.

“She is a lamb girl,” Quaro said in Dothraki. “She is nothing, Khaleesi. The riders do her honor. The Lamb Men lay with sheep, it is known.”

“It is known,” her handmaid Irri echoed.

“It is known,” agreed Jhogo, astride the tall grey stallion that Drogo had given him. “If her wailing offends your ears, Khaleesi, Jhogo will bring you her tongue.”

Somebody called dehumanization?

[Lointain]

Freedom is hard.

Slavery is harder.

[Mithras]

All well and good, but our ancestors were not ants.

Parasitism does not belong to humans only.

[I'm the Party Pooper]

Parasitism does not belong to humans only.

Parasitism != slaverism

There are plenty of parasites living on human body that do not embody any form of enslavement in respect to us.

[Danelle]

I am disappointed by your ignorance on Evolutionary Psychology or Sociobiology. Personally I don't feel so confident about making fun of such theories and scientists.

Well, in the link that you provided, there was another link, to another page, regarding criticism of evolutionary biology.

But my problem is not the theory, but your argument about the ants and the bees, which is rather weak and not very convincing.

In asoiaf, quite often, characters have been compared to animals.

• The Starks are the wolves and Ned's children have a unique connection to their direwolves.
• Targaryens are dragons, and Daenerys has a strong connection to her dragons.
• Jaime has been compared to a lion, when Cat visited him in his cell.
• Sansa is called "Little Bird".
• Sandor compared himself to a dog, and his sigil is three dogs.
• Quentyn is compared to a frog.
• The Mormonts are called bears, Jeor-the old Bear, Dany referred to Jorah as her Bear and Maege is of course the She-Bear
• LF's sigil is the Mockingbird

There are countless examples of people in the books that have been compared to an animal, and in some cases, they have an actual bond with that animal.

But then again, the characters, their motivations and their behaviour, is not limited to the comparison with an animal.

Let us not forget what Daeron Targaryen had to say about his brother's fascination with dragons

Aerion’s quite the monster. He thinks he’s a dragon in human form, you know. That’s why he was so wroth at that puppet show. A pity he wasn’t born a Fossoway, then he’d think himself an apple and we’d all be a deal safer, but there you are.

ShadowCat Rivers, on 31 Jul 2014 - 8:56 PM, said:

Not only that but Plato was sold to slavery, when he angered a tyrant and he barely survived/

Luckily for him, one of his fans, felt sorry for him, bought him and freed him.

Well, this is a top level superficial observation.

Bees and ants do not kill their slaves for amusement of the wealthy, they do not rape for the pleasure of doing it, don't grow superiority feelings or perform discrimination acts toward their slaves, they do not rip their slaves breasts to show off how good and well trained their slaves are since they do not rebel, they do not force each slave to kill a puppy and an infant to test their own insensibility and kill those too soft to do it, they do not sell them, they do not torture them, they do not crucifix them at whim.

Slavery has a strongly negative characterization because it is historically OFTEN associated to all forms of abuses of human rights. Slavery isn't evil because priests preach it on Sunday morning. It's evil because people suffering it over the course of centuries have rebelled over and over until human rights have been recognised to them.

To the memory of those millions of people died and who have shed their blood to grant us the freedom we can't appreciate.. it should be respectful not calling it anything less than abhorrent evil. People have chosen death and martyr over it, this is no fairy tale.

It's the idea at the basis of slavery, that a human being can be an exclusive property, that enacts and allows any form of abuses.

Greek slaverism does not reassemble from afar what has been depicted into ASOIAF, so it shouldn't even being mentioned here.

If you people are so confident that this living system is not so bad, you should consider trying it on your own skin first, up to its most extreme consequences.

Then, since I've been the first to criticise your unfortunate choice of words, I'll take upon my sleeve to explain you why 'you've been misunderstood'.

There is only one generalization that is being recurrently done in respect to slavery in this kind of threads, and this is that 'enslavement is evil'.

If you call for 'we can't generalize it card', it means - to me - that in your own opinion we can't generalize the only aspect of enslavement we have generalized so far, that is: 'enslavement is evil'.

Not all form of enslavement are equal, so what?

Unless you propose that there exists a type of enslavement that 'full-fills human existence in a good way', we can certainly discuss Daenery's case starting from the generalization that 'enslavement is evil'.

Now, you have tried to shift your 'argumentation' toward saying that you wanted to discuss the 'very reasons' that led toward birth of enslavement forms in human history 'to prevent it'.

All the good, but the fact is that up until page 8 of this thread, what 'you wanted to discuss' was not even from afar the main core of the discussion.

It wasn't even mentioned in your OP.

You started this thread to argue that freed slavers conditions have not improved after Daenerys actions, that is to discuss either:

- the 'subjective' opinion on whether or not Daenerys choice has been a good/bad choice either in principle/practical ways

- the existence - or absence - of objective criteria that allow to judge such a choice

- the flaws in Daenerys plan (if any plan at all existed) and what we believe could have been done differently (and better)

Now, provided that there is plenty of room for this kind of criticism, to discuss this stuff there is absolutely no need to start a philosophical debate on 'enslavement is evil' or make any distinction among historically different types of 'enslavement'.

And this is because we have a clearly identified and well described type of enslavement going on in 'Slaver's Bay' and - more generally speaking - in Essos.

And this particular 'enslavement type' has shown to be particularly mean, cruel and bloody.

Objectively.

So even if might be 'we should not generalize', it remains true that we have no need for it.

The enslavement we are talking about is uniquely identified by the books, and it easily earns the 'evil' label.

Whether or not what happens next to the freed slaves is 'better or worse' is an entirely different issue: two evil deeds do not make one good.

What happens next is only fruitful at discussing Daenerys decision making process, not to white wash slavers.

Also, whether or not the price of so-called 'freedom', brought by Daenerys' Storm on Slaver's Bay, was worth paying it.. it's entirely subjective. Some might legitimately thing it was too high, some might not. But it shouldn't make anyone reconsider their evaluation on 'Enslavement in Slaver's Bay is bad'.

Another reason for which I interpreted in such a way your post, is that one of the statements you have made in your thread debut was:

And this seems to me as an early attempt to minimize the cruelty of what is going on in Slaver's Bay.

How other have underlined, enslavement practice should not be judged only on living conditions of slaves: if they are fed, given a shelter and not beaten (but still chained, with bloody bruises for that).

Let alone the fact that the previous condition is untrue for the slaves in Astapor who are treated similarly as 'products' with and subdue a 'production process' that has nothing human about it.

It should also be judged on how much their own mindset, their spirit, their human expressiveness has been mortified and nullified.

And it should be judged together with the violence, the killing and rape of those populations - Lhazareen - that are being constantly oppressed to fill the slaver's coffers and fuel 'Slaver's Bay business'

What ants and bees do is 'slavery' because, to the science man who studied them, this has been the word that best described their behaviour.

Their own 'type of slavery' should not be even remotely considered when talking about 'human enslavement' which is a totally different thing.

Otherwise the next step of this argumentation line is to call for 'machine enslavement'.

'Greek Slavery' and similar forms of slavery would have been a better argument. But what is the point of dragging them into this thread, when they do not - even remotely - reassemble what is taking place in Slaver's Bay? Slaves in Slaver's Bay have been given none of the rights Greek Slaves had, the abuse of power in their respect has been given no limit - to our own knowledge based on GRRM description - and as such any similarity is out of place.

Now I'm pretty sure we had only a misunderstanding and that we agree on much I've written here [except, of course, my interpretation of your statements].

It's obvious that In the same way you have been naive in your wording, I've been biased by my judgement when interpreting your posts.

But this should clear it out the urgency of being particularly careful on how thoughts are expressed to strangers.

Let me note that, those slave revolts are only the most famous and early ones.

The Roman Empire has been plagued with slave revolts for it's entire existence.

A particularly hot region - even before Roman's conquest, but in particular after - was the modern Palestine.

Wonderful posts that contain persuasive arguments! :agree:

[No Song so Sweet]

snip

I agree completely, very well written. Your statement "And this particular 'enslavement type' has shown to be particularly mean, cruel and bloody. Objectively" regarding Slaver's Bay slavery is true IMO.

But slavery is evil is in fact, as a general statement, not true. That's why for example Plato (or Jesus :eek: ) were not strictly opposed to it no matter what. It doesn't mean that they were in favor of human exploitation, it means that "slavery" in some forms can be just. if a person is not a slave from birth but becomes a slave because of an offence he made to someone else, and then slavery doesn't take from him some basic freedoms, then it may in fact be acceptable and not evil. It is just that the word slave has negative connotations, otherwise slavery can mean exactly the same as institutions that apply today: you can go in prison for debt or have to do forced labor. Why is that despicable, if say this sentence is carried out to a loser in a war? a captured Nazi soldier for example, after the end of the war.

You may work in a job long hours, have to commute and get minimum wage. A cleaning lady now for example may live in the same house as her employer, get paid very little, and serve them all day. Essentially this could be the exact same thing a slave would do in ancient Greece. Yes, you could say that is her "choice" but it really isn't more of a choice for her than the slave.

You could say that Ghiscari slavery or American slavery or Roman slavery is despicable.

But as far as Ghiscary slavery, yeah it is evil and inhuman, and those slavers had it coming. At least those who practiced their "rights" to their slaves.

[SeanF]

I agree completely, very well written. Your statement "And this particular 'enslavement type' has shown to be particularly mean, cruel and bloody. Objectively" regarding Slaver's Bay slavery is true IMO.

But slavery is evil is in fact, as a general statement, not true. That's why for example Plato (or Jesus :eek: ) were not strictly opposed to it no matter what. It doesn't mean that they were in favor of human exploitation, it means that "slavery" in some forms can be just. if a person is not a slave from birth but becomes a slave because of an offence he made to someone else, and then slavery doesn't take from him some basic freedoms, then it may in fact be acceptable and not evil. It is just that the word slave has negative connotations, otherwise slavery can mean exactly the same as institutions that apply today: you can go in prison for debt or have to do forced labor. Why is that despicable, if say this sentence is carried out to a loser in a war? a captured Nazi soldier for example, after the end of the war.

You may work in a job long hours, have to commute and get minimum wage. A cleaning lady now for example may live in the same house as her employer, get paid very little, and serve them all day. Essentially this could be the exact same thing a slave would do in ancient Greece. Yes, you could say that is her "choice" but it really isn't more of a choice for her than the slave.

You could say that Ghiscari slavery or American slavery or Roman slavery is despicable.

But as far as Ghiscary slavery, yeah it is evil and inhuman, and those slavers had it coming. At least those who practiced their "rights" to their slaves.

Prisoners of war are an interesting case. My father grew up when German prisoners of war were building a road near to where he lived. I don't think it's considered unreasonable to make prisoners of war carry out civilian work, so long as they're decently treated. In the ancient world, this became permanent for prisoners of war who couldn't ransom themeselves.

Slavery can encompass many different states. At one end, you have free people being kidnapped and sold into slavery (and that was considered a crime in much of the ancient world) ; at the other, people being made to labour to pay off a debt, or being made prisoners of war. In Slavers Bay, slavery is definitely at the worse end of the spectrum.

[MandrakeWench]

I consider that the mere fact that I am posting on this forum indicates I have a life of great privilege.

I have a hot piece of technology and can access communication with people worldwide, almost instantly. I have the ability to read, to obtain these large books, and the leisure to read, consider, and discuss them at some length.

I doubt any of us will ever experience anything as horrific as actual slavery - though it does still exist in our world, of course, and should there be any survivors of such in this forum I'd think their input would be far more interesting than my own.

Ah, we have such nice lives, to be able to consider the merits of such things from our lofty towers. If nothing else we should indeed be thankful for our own good fortune, no?

[Maia]

Another straw man or comprehension failure. My point was about your (true) claim that in the 19th century no slaves was more economically effective than slaves. I did not say that slavery was morally good, since it is not.

False. Doing away with slavery was more economically effective long before that. Why else, do you think, did slavery greatly diminish and largely vanish in Europe during the Middle Ages? Why, for that matter, did Italy become unable to feed itself during late Republic/Empire, once it switched to mainly slave-driven agriculture?

If you'd have read that wikipedia article on abolition of slavery that I provided earlier, even some rulers in antiquity saw benefits in giving up slavery. And abolition was certainly well within the scope of medieval mindset, as numerous laws to that end in many western european countries demonstrate.

Re: Astapor, what happened there was awful, but how many people died every year to keep it's economy flourishing? The 8K Unsullied alone represent 24K deaths - only 1 in 3 survive, and they have to kill a baby for graduation, too. And to take slaves in the first place people are slaughtered too - as we have seen with Drogo, that other khalasar and the Lamb Men.

Even if this tragedy only results in some laws protecting the slaves, improves their conditions and wakes up various slave-holding city-states to the fact that they don't actually need wide-scale slavery to prosper, it still would have been worth it. How did it go, about tree of liberty needing to be watered with blood?

A cleaning lady now for example may live in the same house as her employer, get paid very little, and serve them all day. Essentially this could be the exact same thing a slave would do in ancient Greece.

LOL! No, in ancient Greece the lady would have been also raped by her employer if he felt like it, pimped and bred with whoever he chose, might have been forced to watch her babies being killed if he didn't feel like he wanted to feed more mouths in the household, watch her family, if she had any, sold away, etc. Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Game Of Thrones]

False. Doing away with slavery was more economically effective long before that. Why else, do you think, did slavery greatly diminish and largely vanish in Europe during the Middle Ages? Why, for that matter, did Italy become unable to feed itself during late Republic/Empire, once it switched to mainly slave-driven agriculture?

If you'd have read that wikipedia article on abolition of slavery that I provided earlier, even some rulers in antiquity saw benefits in giving up slavery. And abolition was certainly well within the scope of medieval mindset, as numerous laws to that end in many western european countries demonstrate.

1. Slavery vanished in Europe only to be replaced by serfdom. Which is a slightly more developed form of slavery but still slavery: the serfs belong to the landlord.

2. Italy was unable to feed itself because it had too many people, not because of the economic failures of slavery. And Rome was already full of slave plantations in 60 BCE so slavery did not cause Rome's collapse.

And let's see if ancient abolitionists actually had economy in mind.

-Shi Huangdi freed slaves to weaken the aristocracy, and failed and was overthrown. Liu Bang reinstated slavery. Politics, not economy, and failed in the end.

-Wang Mang freed slaves for moral reasons. He was assassinated and slavery was reinstated.

And those were the only governmental abolitionist attempts before 476 CE. And none were in Europe.

[Mithras]

I'm the Party Pooper,

There is a significant difference in our approaches. I am bringing other types of slavery practices and trying to reach the idea at the bottom so that we can understand the basis and look for ways to remove those foundations.

You are making a great intellectual fallacy by claiming that SB slavery is clearly identified and well-defined; hence, there is no need to compare it to other types of slavery practices. Sorry but any professor of social sciences might slap you for your approach to this subject. Slaver’s Bay is not an isolated place. The life in Slaver’s Bay is not so different from other places in Planetos or some RL historical counterparts. Of course we should compare them.

I will also ask you to be more specific about, since you think SB slavery is well-defined, the reasons of the current slavery practice there and how you propose to end slavery in SB.

SB slavery is evil. Is this what you call well-defined?

[SeanF]

I'm the Party Pooper,

There is a significant difference in our approaches. I am bringing other types of slavery practices and trying to reach the idea at the bottom so that we can understand the basis and look for ways to remove those foundations.

You are making a great intellectual fallacy by claiming that SB slavery is clearly identified and well-defined; hence, there is no need to compare it to other types of slavery practices. Sorry but any professor of social sciences might slap you for your approach to this subject. Slaver’s Bay is not an isolated place. The life in Slaver’s Bay is not so different from other places in Planetos or some RL historical counterparts. Of course we should compare them.

I will also ask you to be more specific about, since you think SB slavery is well-defined, the reasons of the current slavery practice there and how you propose to end slavery in SB.

SB slavery is evil. Is this what you call well-defined?

But, there is plenty of textual evidence that the slavery that is practised in Slavers Bay is the most brutal and degrading form of slavery. Slaves may have a better time in Qarth and the Free Cities, but that doesn't alter what's being done in Slavers Bay.