AndyDufresne wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:The reason why the pet analogy is relevant is because ITT many people who agree with Sym assume that all pet-owners are all evil bastards who kick their pets. Obviously, that's not true for pet-owners. I don't see why it would be true of slave-owners. So, we need to focus on the individuals involved--not make broad assumptions. Then we need to understand context--and not ignore it.
Sure, owning another person is shitty--well, unless it's your own child, right? That's de facto ownership there, with some constraints, but we should recognize how weird our customs may become compared to societies 100 years in the future. Context still matters, but the Sym-Neo-TGD Trifecta have been ignoring it.
We can throw out your premise because it says nothing about the individuals involved. It just states "social process X = shitty." It doesn't follow that all slave owners would use coercion to rape their slaves. To me, that's like saying all pet owners (given their superior status) all beat up their pets and f*ck them.
Here's y'all's argument so far:
1. Slavery is shitty
2. All slave owners rape their slaves.
3. All slave owners are evil bastards who will coerce their slaves into doing anything at anytime.
4. Therefore, Jefferson raped his slave.
I'd like to point out, I've never once hit, slapped, or thrown any of my pet rocks, thank you very much please and thank you your welcome.
Follow the Jefferson code and whip them as a "last resort". Or hire someone else to do it more brutally.
Jefferson policy was to not allow his slaves to be whipped except as a last resort, and then only on the arms and legs, preferring to penalize the lazy and reward the industrious, however his instructions were often ignored by overseers during his long absences.