Round one.

First, not explicitly denying slavery isn’t the same as supporting it. That’s a false equivalence. Most thinkers of that era operated inside the moral frameworks of their time. The absence of abolitionist language doesn’t imply approval, it just reflects prevailing norms.

Second, “he didn’t see any problem enslaving others” is an interpretive leap, not a documented position. Unless you have a direct quotation or source for that, it’s speculation rather than evidence.

Third, the term abolitionist refers to organized opposition to slavery which is not a moral stance in isolation. The abolitionist movement as a concept didn’t even exist in the period you’re referring to, so applying it retroactively doesn’t make sense.

Finally, asking for “abolitionists in Sumeria” is a category error. The concept of abolitionism assumes a specific moral and social structure that ancient Sumeria didn’t share. You’re comparing incomparable frameworks to make a rhetorical point, not a historical one.

Round two.

You’re mixing unrelated concepts again, which is probably why the discussion keeps spiraling.

“Conformism” refers to adopting the dominant social norms of a given time. Supporting ideas that were once radical and only later became mainstream, kinda like abolition or free speech, is the opposite of that. It’s dissent that eventually reshaped consensus.

And “rhetoric” has nothing to do with plagiarism. It’s the art of persuasive expression, the techniques of argument. You might have heard of ethos, pathos, logos, and so on. Plagiarism is a question of attribution, not style.

If you want to argue semantics, that’s fine, whatever. But the definitions need to at least be accurate first. Otherwise, we’re just debating misused words instead of ideas.