Moderator: Community Team
Symmetry wrote:Nonsense. An atypical rapist is still a rapist.
stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote:Nonsense. An atypical rapist is still a rapist.
Nope. It's not rape if she would've said yes without having to call him "Massah"
Symmetry wrote:stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote:Nonsense. An atypical rapist is still a rapist.
Nope. It's not rape if she would've said yes without having to call him "Massah"
Perhaps the worst excuse for rape I've ever seen.
Night Strike wrote:Symmetry wrote:stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote:Nonsense. An atypical rapist is still a rapist.
Nope. It's not rape if she would've said yes without having to call him "Massah"
Perhaps the worst excuse for rape I've ever seen.
And this is about the worst excuse for a debate thread around. You asked a question of whether or not someone was a rapist by your definition, and then when they disagree with your reasoning, you consider them the worst people on the planet for supporting what you had already decided was rape. This thread has become the definition of a troll thread solely because of the actions of the OP and should be locked. It's sad too because I actually thought it was a decent premise for debate/discussion.
Symmetry wrote:I don't see how a 14 year old can freely consent, especially not to a 46 year old man. I don't see how a slave could freely consent. A 14 year old slave?
I have very little respect for the "as long as it's not against the law, it's acceptable" line of thinking.
Symmetry wrote:
Have you already decided that a man in his forties having sex with his 14 year old sex slave can't be rape?
Symmetry wrote:Have you already decided that a man in his forties having sex with his 14 year old sex slave can't be rape?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Symmetry wrote:I don't see how a 14 year old can freely consent, especially not to a 46 year old man. I don't see how a slave could freely consent. A 14 year old slave?
I have very little respect for the "as long as it's not against the law, it's acceptable" line of thinking.
That is not the question, but to judge the past by our times using terms that were not considered the same back then is wrong.
Would it be acceptable today, 50 years ago? Absolutely not! A hundred years ago? More debatable.
But go back to Jefferson and the real issue is how she was treated versus how other women of the day were treated, and the answer to that is not badly, by comparison.
To claim that you have the right to judge Jefferson is to claim that, given HIS circumstances, you would have acted differently. AND, to say that acting differently would have created a better result. In this case, the idea of taking a 14 year old black girl and treating her as a girl today would be.... was just not thinkable. To pretend that you would do differently means you think you can live then as we do today. No one has that luxury.
It is good to examine the past, to celebrate our advances. However to go back and claim that anyone who did anything good must be ignored if they did not live fully by our standards today is hypocritical at best, at worst plain ignorant (lacking knowledge) becuase you are claiming you would act differently and, in truth you almost certainly would not have, could not have.
stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote:Have you already decided that a man in his forties having sex with his 14 year old sex slave can't be rape?
No, but apparently you've decided that NO MATTER WHAT!!!!
a 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old MUST BE rape, regardless of society's decision on what the age of consent is.
Given your perspective, probably most kings and queens were rapists as well as born of rapists, as well as most lords and ladies must have been rapists/born of rapists (because it was NOT uncommon to LEGALLY betroth/wed as early as 12 years of age "back then.")
Or are you saying that NO MATTER WHAT!!! - if she is "black" and he is "white" it HAD TO BE rape?
If so, you're more racist than the supposedly perverted sex slave owner you're accusing.
I repeat: IF she would have said "yes" without having to call him "Massah," then it WAS NOT RAPE. It would have made her his "mistress" and that was perfectly acceptable to have back then.
Symmetry wrote:This is not an argument I made, however. Still, I agree that rape was common, and indeed legal in the past, as it still is now in some countries. Race has little to do with it. If a 46 year old man in Pol Pots Cambodia had enslaved a child, had sex with her, and made the children slaves, I'd still call it rape.
greenoaks wrote:Symmetry wrote:This is not an argument I made, however. Still, I agree that rape was common, and indeed legal in the past, as it still is now in some countries. Race has little to do with it. If a 46 year old man in Pol Pots Cambodia had enslaved a child, had sex with her, and made the children slaves, I'd still call it rape.
rape has never been legal.
greenoaks wrote:Symmetry wrote:This is not an argument I made, however. Still, I agree that rape was common, and indeed legal in the past, as it still is now in some countries. Race has little to do with it. If a 46 year old man in Pol Pots Cambodia had enslaved a child, had sex with her, and made the children slaves, I'd still call it rape.
rape has never been legal.
greenoaks wrote:Symmetry wrote:This is not an argument I made, however. Still, I agree that rape was common, and indeed legal in the past, as it still is now in some countries. Race has little to do with it. If a 46 year old man in Pol Pots Cambodia had enslaved a child, had sex with her, and made the children slaves, I'd still call it rape.
rape has never been legal.
greenoaks wrote:greenoaks wrote:Symmetry wrote:This is not an argument I made, however. Still, I agree that rape was common, and indeed legal in the past, as it still is now in some countries. Race has little to do with it. If a 46 year old man in Pol Pots Cambodia had enslaved a child, had sex with her, and made the children slaves, I'd still call it rape.
rape has never been legal.
there you go.
rape has never been legal. you seem to be attributing the term 'rape' to forms of sex you or your society do not currently agree with.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Sym, to be clear, do you agree that if someone is enslaved, then he/she cannot legitimately engage in any voluntary exchange (e.g. sex, trade of goods, etc.)?
Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Sym, to be clear, do you agree that if someone is enslaved, then he/she cannot legitimately engage in any voluntary exchange (e.g. sex, trade of goods, etc.)?
A person enslaved is considered as "goods" by the owner, no?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Sym, to be clear, do you agree that if someone is enslaved, then he/she cannot legitimately engage in any voluntary exchange (e.g. sex, trade of goods, etc.)?
A person enslaved is considered as "goods" by the owner, no?
Well, a "good" in economics is "something (and by implication someone) that you want more of (e.g. dildos, or your loved one)."
A "bad" is "something/someone that you want less of (e.g. pollution)."
So, a person enslaved is considered as "goods" by the owner; however,
that good is still a conscious, decision-making entity, so
how does that change the circumstances for you?
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm glad he wanted more of the good, children, but how about a clear and relevant answer?
So, a person enslaved is considered as "goods" by the owner; however,
that good is still a conscious, decision-making entity, so
how does that change the circumstances for you?
While the age of consent is now set between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, the age of consent has widely varied across the country in the past. In 1880, the age of consent was 10 in most states but ranged from 7 in Delaware to 12 across nine states and the District of Columbia.]
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users