In the sense that Rick Kitchen’s post seemed to be a case of him reading a meaning into what was said that had nothing to do with what was said, it would be a fair comparison.
To summarize the other thread:
People adapt to their situation.
Back when people lived on mud floors, had their daughters kidnapped and raped by the neighbor tribe, and would likely die of dysentery in their 40s, they were mostly happy and satisfied in their lives.
This is true across all situations in life throughout history and if anyone wants to make an argument that, for whatever reason, that wouldn’t be true of the one specific case of slaves in 18th century America, while remaining true across the rest of history and the globe, then you are free to make that argument. I have not seen such an argument, let alone one that was compelling in any way.
The problem of slavery is not that people were unhappy or mistreated or whipped - everyone was mistreated and whipped in those days be they factory workers, soldiers, wives, children, or anything else (though far less frequently than a slave), it’s a) that it was unjust that they had no choice in life except to be in that position, and b) rape was almost certainly the greatest horror of the era not whipping. The fact that we live in a world where Jefferson in Paris is a film that was created and passed by with little comment as possibly one of the most offensive film ever produced, while everyone celebrates any movie where a black man is whipped is insane. The orthodox view of what was wrong with slavery and why we don’t want it is wrong, gleefully ignores the rest of history, the basics of human psychology, and serves to reduce any fight against slavery ever happening again, because it focuses on corporal punishment rather than basic human rights.
I continue to disagree with the orthodox and I think it is harmful to understanding history and to ensuring that we don’t recreate it.
But you need to accept the concept that being non-orthodox is not the same thing as being opposed to the aims of the orthodox. Because I disagree about the presentation of a thing is irrelevant to what I think the thing. So unless you can find a place where I say, “Woohoo! Let’s open up the slave auctions again!” Or even saying anything at all in support of human ownership, you should consider whether you’re reading what was actually written or simply too tied up with trying conform to what society says you have to say to think about the subject in any way.
I would argue that any real thought about the subject will bring you to a larger hatred of slavery than accepting the commonplace viewpoint on what it was about the thing that made it bad. So if you want to have a hatred-fest for slavery, then start that thread and we’ll take votes as to who is actually in greater opposition of the two of us.