> My original point is the article very explicitly points out that the people are not actually being held in debt bondage.
Actually, your original point referenced people being "owned and chained" as being distinct from what was described in the quote you pasted from the article, which has this right in it: "This debt bondage is illegal".
Do you also take issue with the article's use of the term debt bondage?
From Wikipedia:
> Debt bondage (also known as debt slavery or bonded labor) is a person's pledge of their labor or services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation.
How is debt bondage different from "staying out [of] a sense of duty"?
Keep in mind that these people aren't free to just walk away--if they are to escape, it has to be just that: an escape. I saw a documentary on this a year or two ago, probably by Vice. The family wanting to leave had to run under the cover of night and rendezvous with someone with a car--only possible with existing outside connections.
Actually, your original point referenced people being "owned and chained" as being distinct from what was described in the quote you pasted from the article, which has this right in it: "This debt bondage is illegal".
Do you also take issue with the article's use of the term debt bondage?
From Wikipedia:
> Debt bondage (also known as debt slavery or bonded labor) is a person's pledge of their labor or services as security for the repayment for a debt or other obligation.
How is debt bondage different from "staying out [of] a sense of duty"?
Keep in mind that these people aren't free to just walk away--if they are to escape, it has to be just that: an escape. I saw a documentary on this a year or two ago, probably by Vice. The family wanting to leave had to run under the cover of night and rendezvous with someone with a car--only possible with existing outside connections.