This is a pretty terrible explanation, honestly. Going through some quick..

Wow. Thanks, I'm glad my well supported argument was terrible. I was discussing specifically Stockholm Syndrome and that Belle didn't have it. However, in your entire response to me constantly pointing out that she acted on behalf of her father -- guess what? Once her father was free, she could have left. Once again, her father being the one at risk would NOT induce Stockholm in Belle. It has to be at risk to HER being, not her father's. So the rest of your argument is completely unrelated to mine because I'm pointing out that she doesn't suffer from Stockholm, you are going off on some random tangent that is -- well, if you're trying to say she did, you're just flat out wrong, read a book?

The servants are captives. They're magically transformed helpers who cannot leave or go against their prince, nor do they have any other place in the world outside that castle.

No. The prisoners want to turn back into human by helping the Beast find love and become unenchanted. They were trapped by the Evil Enchantress, not the beast, though they are his servants and help and still serve him. If the servants are captives, the Beast is a captive.

The whole defense /u/thecotton makes can be summarized as "Beast didn't abuse Belle, he was just gonna totally fuck up her father", and okay. Sure. I hope no one says I kidnapped someone when I make them come with me and live in my rape dungeon or else I'll murder their children.

My defense is that Belle doesn't have stockholm. So, no, my defense is not "Beast didn't abuse Belle, he was just gonna fuck up her father".

You are an incredibly rude person, do you know that? You should honestly learn to relax and get some serious manners because if this is how you talk to people and try to have any level of conducive debate, then you are not a nice person.