>Your redefinition of slavery is significantly broader than the accepted definition of it. Please note this is not my redefinition of slavery as I was largely

>Your redefinition of slavery is significantly broader than the accepted definition of it. Please note this is not my redefinition of slavery as I was largely using the definition many other posts here assume, but only pointing out that it isn't limited just to hard labor on the enslaver's behalf. If you think this definition of slavery is wrong, then this would apply to numerous other posts here and the core take away would be that prisoners aren't slaves. At which point we can just pick a different word or create a new word and continue to the point. So, if you have an issue with the word slave, then I'll define a new word to capture what people in other posts are complaining about, praves (yes, just combining prisoners and slaves into as single word). Now, I repeat my point using praves instead of slaves.