The analogy was good. Your interpretation was bad. There was no equivalency in it.
How about you take what I say as I say it and don't bring in past words that don't apply? My analogy in that post dealt solely with how planets are called and nothing else. Earth is not a salt planet and Dark Sun is not a slavery planet.
No, your analogy sucks. Salt does not, in and of itself, involve treating real people as property. Nor is salt a theme on Earth. If you were to write a fantasy game that takes place on earth, "salt" wouldn't likely be in the top twenty things that you think of. And slavery, especially fantasy slavery, is not something that people would literally die without.
You get rid of salt on Earth, things die. Or rather, would have evolved to not need salt, because evolution is fun that way.
You get rid of slavery on Dark Sun, then you have a thousand potential adventures for the setting, instead of a thousand and two. Big frikkin' deal.
"It's an integral part of the Realms. It still exists in my game as a result." Do you seriously not understand what being an integral part of the Realms means? That answered your question and it's the only answer you're going to get.
So every single Realms book that WotC produces from now one, where they no longer reference the Wall where they previously would have, is not actually about the Realms. It's about something similar to the Realms, but not actually about that. Have you written in to WotC and told them they're putting out books that are wrong?
Serfs, while somewhat close, don't work to inhabit the same space. Nor do short term indentured servants.
Unless you are only capable of running Dark Sun adventures that center around slavery in one way or another, they fulfill the exact same purpose: labor needed to build great big monuments for the sorcerer-kings.
The Wall of Faithless is not about atheism. That's what I understand. How are you insulted as an atheist by something that isn't about atheism?
Your understanding is incredibly off, then. Or else you're re-defining words to fit your definition. Maybe you should read up on the Wall and on atheism?
No. For the umpteenth time, because you refuse to step back and take a fresh breath in order to stop misrepresenting my words, slavery is needed because slavery is integral to the setting.
And you have yet to show how other than "because you say so."
You have not shown a single thing that would make Dark Sun unrecognizable if it didn't exist.
Dark Sun has unusual PC races, environment-destroying magic, elementals in place of gods, bizarre monsters, a post-apocalyptic feel, tremendous wastelands, oceans of silt, psionics everywhere, even weird halfling biotech, which I just remembered existed. Removing slavery doesn't change a single one of those things and
makes the game better for a lot of people.