Conquer Club

jonesthecurl wrote:I honestly suspect that there was love and respect mutually involved here.
Not gonna do massive research on this at this time of night. this is usually when I do my writing, which is currently how I earn my living.
But you caught my attention with a question that I'm currently interested in.
Unfortunately, unlike the creationist threads that I often post in late at night, I'm not expecting anything to leak over into my standup routine from this thread.

I am sure there was mutual love and respect from my own reading,however this is irrelevant to the OP.Children are judged incapable of giving informed consent..

Sym makes a good point, but context still matters. Today, we have millions who support theft if the government does it in order to 'help' others. They even go to the extent of supporting the state--knowing that it murders people.

Or, consider how almost everyone today uses fiat currency, which enables governments to incur significant debt so that they can spend irresponsibly, while dumping the negative consequences on future generations. The acceptance of fiat currency also promotes government-induced inflation through increasing the money supply--which undermines the value of that currency, thus robbing those people of that value.

Perhaps in 200 years, those supporters and users of fiat currency will all be viewed as evil--from a non-contextual perspective, of course.

jonesthecurl wrote:I honestly suspect that there was love and respect mutually involved here.
Not gonna do massive research on this at this time of night. this is usually when I do my writing, which is currently how I earn my living.
But you caught my attention with a question that I'm currently interested in.
Unfortunately, unlike the creationist threads that I often post in late at night, I'm not expecting anything to leak over into my standup routine from this thread.

Then why didn't he free her? Even in his will? I don't see much respect in slavery.

chang50 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:I honestly suspect that there was love and respect mutually involved here.
Not gonna do massive research on this at this time of night. this is usually when I do my writing, which is currently how I earn my living.
But you caught my attention with a question that I'm currently interested in.
Unfortunately, unlike the creationist threads that I often post in late at night, I'm not expecting anything to leak over into my standup routine from this thread.

I am sure there was mutual love and respect from my own reading,however this is irrelevant to the OP.Children are judged incapable of giving informed consent..

Grrr, let me get on with what I'm supposed to be doing...
OK one last comment: "child" is culturally defined.

I think at 14 you are able to give sexual consent especially in the 19th century

how do you know that this was "rape"?

jonesthecurl wrote:

chang50 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:I honestly suspect that there was love and respect mutually involved here.
Not gonna do massive research on this at this time of night. this is usually when I do my writing, which is currently how I earn my living.
But you caught my attention with a question that I'm currently interested in.
Unfortunately, unlike the creationist threads that I often post in late at night, I'm not expecting anything to leak over into my standup routine from this thread.

I am sure there was mutual love and respect from my own reading,however this is irrelevant to the OP.Children are judged incapable of giving informed consent..

Grrr, let me get on with what I'm supposed to be doing...
OK one last comment: "child" is culturally defined.

Sure, to an extent, although the question really is, "Where do you set your boundaries?"

john9blue wrote:how do you know that this was "rape"?

This is the point I was getting at essentially

john9blue wrote:how do you know that this was "rape"?

she was not able to freely consent.

john9blue wrote:how do you know that this was "rape"?

By applying 21st century understanding of that word,
then eliminate the context of the past,
substitute it with a 21st century context
and make a conclusion.


Centuries ago, a tyrant killing his people was justified--in that those people deserve it since they must've sinned at some time (either Aquinas or St. Aug was making that argument).

Centuries ago, monarchy by divine right was legit and morally good. Opinions to the contrary be damned--couldn't have a tyranny of the majority! And how could those silly peasants be able to govern themselves??

The concept of universal rights changes over time. It's not as universal as we sometimes think it to be--or wish it to be.


This thread reminds me of what Bastiat once said,

“The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended.”

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:how do you know that this was "rape"?

she was not able to freely consent.

interesting. does free will develop during late puberty?

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:how do you know that this was "rape"?

she was not able to freely consent.

interesting. does free will develop during late puberty?

She was a slave.

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:how do you know that this was "rape"?

she was not able to freely consent.

interesting. does free will develop during late puberty?

She was a slave.

what did jefferson (or other slave owners of that time period) do to slaves that did not consent to sex? how much coercion occurred?

you can't just assume it was rape (which is already a vaguely defined word due to the lack of a clear-cut distinction between voluntary and involuntary, which i discussed in another thread), more context is required. he may have been a rapist, but again, that hardly speaks to the morality of his actions, especially considering (as bbs said) the time period.

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:how do you know that this was "rape"?

she was not able to freely consent.

interesting. does free will develop during late puberty?

She was a slave.

what did jefferson (or other slave owners of that time period) do to slaves that did not consent to sex? how much coercion occurred?

you can't just assume it was rape (which is already a vaguely defined word due to the lack of a clear-cut distinction between voluntary and involuntary, which i discussed in another thread), more context is required. he may have been a rapist, but again, that hardly speaks to the morality of his actions, especially considering (as bbs said) the time period.

If she could not freely consent, then it was rape.

To claim that he was a rapist because she was 14 years old is pretty dubious considering adulthood was much earlier than it is today.

You have a marginally more convincing case with the fact she was a slave, but considering that Jefferson is known to have been a genial slave owner (versus an abusive/violent) one, the implication that this was a forcible relationship would probably be unfounded.

Night Strike wrote:To claim that he was a rapist because she was 14 years old is pretty dubious considering adulthood was much earlier than it is today.

You have a marginally more convincing case with the fact she was a slave, but considering that Jefferson is known to have been a genial slave owner (versus an abusive/violent) one, the implication that this was a forcible relationship would probably be unfounded.

I'm not sure if Sym could understand such a nuanced position. For him, it's a black-and-white issue.

so you're just going to keep making absolute statements using vague terminology, sym? i don't like that. in fact i think i'm going to be very explicit about your thought process here, since you aren't willing to:

SYMMETRY'S ARGUMENT:
- TJ had sex with an underage slave, therefore he must be a rapist.
- TJ is a rapist, therefore he has questionable moral character.
- TJ has QMC, therefore he is an untrustworthy and unsavory person.
- TJ is a UUP, therefore we should not give very much credit to his ideas.

i leave it as an exercise to the reader to find the fallacies in this line of argument. unless you disagree with any of the above, sym?

Night Strike wrote:To claim that he was a rapist because she was 14 years old is pretty dubious considering adulthood was much earlier than it is today.

You have a marginally more convincing case with the fact she was a slave, but considering that Jefferson is known to have been a genial slave owner (versus an abusive/violent) one, the implication that this was a forcible relationship would probably be unfounded.

Genial slave owner???The very fact she was a slave is a forcible relationship,and actually adulthood as in the onset of puberty occurred much later then.

Night Strike wrote:To claim that he was a rapist because she was 14 years old is pretty dubious considering adulthood was much earlier than it is today.

You have a marginally more convincing case with the fact she was a slave, but considering that Jefferson is known to have been a genial slave owner (versus an abusive/violent) one, the implication that this was a forcible relationship would probably be unfounded.

If you could go back in time, would you have sex with a 14 year old girl?

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:To claim that he was a rapist because she was 14 years old is pretty dubious considering adulthood was much earlier than it is today.

You have a marginally more convincing case with the fact she was a slave, but considering that Jefferson is known to have been a genial slave owner (versus an abusive/violent) one, the implication that this was a forcible relationship would probably be unfounded.

If you could go back in time, would you have sex with a 14 year old girl?

people are products of their environment. even you and your morals. don't you understand this?

i'm not trying to argue for total moral relativism/nihilism here, but you really need to put things into perspective.

john9blue wrote:so you're just going to keep making absolute statements using vague terminology, sym? i don't like that. in fact i think i'm going to be very explicit about your thought process here, since you aren't willing to:

SYMMETRY'S ARGUMENT:
- TJ had sex with an underage slave, therefore he must be a rapist.
- TJ is a rapist, therefore he has questionable moral character.
- TJ has QMC, therefore he is an untrustworthy and unsavory person.
- TJ is a UUP, therefore we should not give very much credit to his ideas.

i leave it as an exercise to the reader to find the fallacies in this line of argument. unless you disagree with any of the above, sym?

That is an almost perfect illustration of a strawman argument..

chang50 wrote:

john9blue wrote:so you're just going to keep making absolute statements using vague terminology, sym? i don't like that. in fact i think i'm going to be very explicit about your thought process here, since you aren't willing to:

SYMMETRY'S ARGUMENT:
- TJ had sex with an underage slave, therefore he must be a rapist.
- TJ is a rapist, therefore he has questionable moral character.
- TJ has QMC, therefore he is an untrustworthy and unsavory person.
- TJ is a UUP, therefore we should not give very much credit to his ideas.

i leave it as an exercise to the reader to find the fallacies in this line of argument. unless you disagree with any of the above, sym?

That is an almost perfect illustration of a strawman argument..

which is why i asked symmetry whether it was accurate or not, a luxury not afforded to me when my opponents make straw man arguments out of my positions (which happens somewhat frequently)

Not my line of thinking John. Chang was sharp to point out that the strawman here is yours, not mine.

- TJ had sex with an underage slave, therefore he must be a rapist.
- TJ is a rapist, therefore he has questionable moral character.
- TJ has QMC, therefore he is an untrustworthy and unsavory person.

These however, I can agree with.

Symmetry wrote:Not my line of thinking John. Chang was sharp to point out that the strawman here is yours, not mine.

- TJ had sex with an underage slave, therefore he must be a rapist.
- TJ is a rapist, therefore he has questionable moral character.
- TJ has QMC, therefore he is an untrustworthy and unsavory person.

These however, I can agree with.

so it is true that you think TJ having sex with an underage slave means he must have been an untrustworthy person? even considering the environment in which he lived? if so then i don't think this thread is going to convince anyone of anything.

On a related note, when do you all think girls peak in beauty?