Conquer Club

Also, he probably is a rapist, but I don't think that's as bad as owning slaves.

Anyone who thinks Jefferson was a god is an idiot. Everyone is human and would chose evil if it suited us.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Haha, wow. I can't believe how absolutist he is. You'd think he'd stop being an avid supporter of the government--with such inflexible morals.

A draft requires the use of force for involuntarily forcing people into a particular field of labor: the military. This is essentially slavery because:

(1) no consent was given,
(2) the slave/'new recruit' is coerced into working and becomes the property of someone else/an organization,
(3) the Social Contract is a bunch of rubbish.
(4) and contracts involving coercion are not legitimate.

Therefore, Sym would have to conclude that anyone who supported any draft is untrustworthy for they are slavers and/or are abetting slavers--which makes little difference.


I wonder if Sym favors any politicians who supported a draft...
(At least the anarchists are morally sound on this one).

That connection's a stretch with what the implied definition of 'slave', 'slavery', etc. was within the context of this thread. That's an unfair statement, BBS.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I can be pretty absolute when it comes to the enslavement and rape of kids. I finds it evil, and wrong.

But the slavery of adults is morally acceptable to you?

This is also an unfair statement. It's like if I say "I like dogs" and you follow up with "why don't you like cats?".

BMO

Sexual slavery sounds hot!! Mmmm, I want myself a little sex slave hehe. Or maybe I could be one??

rdsrds2120 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I can be pretty absolute when it comes to the enslavement and rape of kids. I finds it evil, and wrong.

But the slavery of adults is morally acceptable to you?

This is also an unfair statement. It's like if I say "I like dogs" and you follow up with "why don't you like cats?".

BMO

This is a poor analogy. The proper analogy is "You shouldn't kill puppies" and the BBS follow up is "but you're okay with killing adult dogs?"

rdsrds2120 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Haha, wow. I can't believe how absolutist he is. You'd think he'd stop being an avid supporter of the government--with such inflexible morals.

A draft requires the use of force for involuntarily forcing people into a particular field of labor: the military. This is essentially slavery because:

(1) no consent was given,
(2) the slave/'new recruit' is coerced into working and becomes the property of someone else/an organization,
(3) the Social Contract is a bunch of rubbish.
(4) and contracts involving coercion are not legitimate.

Therefore, Sym would have to conclude that anyone who supported any draft is untrustworthy for they are slavers and/or are abetting slavers--which makes little difference.


I wonder if Sym favors any politicians who supported a draft...
(At least the anarchists are morally sound on this one).

That connection's a stretch with what the implied definition of 'slave', 'slavery', etc. was within the context of this thread. That's an unfair statement, BBS.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I can be pretty absolute when it comes to the enslavement and rape of kids. I finds it evil, and wrong.

But the slavery of adults is morally acceptable to you?

This is also an unfair statement. It's like if I say "I like dogs" and you follow up with "why don't you like cats?".

BMO

I completely disagree. If you run with Sym's context-free logic, you get silly conclusions. (reductio ad absurdum).

The second response is tongue-and-cheek because Sym's simply dodging the issue--like Phatscotty, so it's only fair to supply him with the crap he offers.

Symmetry wrote: If she couldn't freely consent, even within the narrow strictures of the time? It was certainly within his power to make her free.

Yes, but would her life truly have been better? We tend to glamourize the issue today, but while I in no way shape or form justify slavery as OK, to pretend that the standards of a non slave society are the same as they were then is just wrong. A freed person who was black had few real options. In many cases, they had more opportunities and were just plain safer, both physically and financially in slavery.

The argument is always "but they were not free..." or "but he could have freed her and still kept her". But in truth, given the mores of the time, he probably could not have done so. His having her as a slave was "permissable". Keeping her as free would not have been. Even the case of the children.. not freeing them until they were "of age" was reasonable, given the mores of the day.

There are a lot of things that were wrong back then. That is why its called "progress". However, to expect one man, even a great thinker, to have just changed all of that is to expect too much. Jefferson was an intelligent man who set forth the stage that eventually did lead to the end of slavery, but it took time .... and a big, nasty war. Personally, I am grateful that we have the country we have today. That it came to be imperfectly is a reflection of us being human.


OH... and here is another point you sidestep. To be truly fair, you would have to compare how she was treated to how a white wife would have been treated. The truth, again, is that she was treated pretty well, given the standards of the say. Again, you want to take today's standards and apply it to what happened then. That is not a reasonable thing to do.

I mean the whole "I am OK with sexual slavery" is no more "objective" than Viceroy's evolution pole... truly. The idea of "sexual slavery" as you put forward was not even considered then as it is today. The fact is that many legal wives were essentially "sexual slaves".. not entitled to any rights. In many cases children had more rights than adult women, particularly male children. As much as I would definitely not want to have been in her position back then, (would not have wanted to live back then period!), if I had to be a woman in that time, to have been her would not have been that bad of a choice.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote: If she couldn't freely consent, even within the narrow strictures of the time? It was certainly within his power to make her free.

Yes, but would her life truly have been better? We tend to glamourize the issue today, but while I in no way shape or form justify slavery as OK, to pretend that the standards of a non slave society are the same as they were then is just wrong. A freed person who was black had few real options. In many cases, they had more opportunities and were just plain safer, both physically and financially in slavery.

The argument is always "but they were not free..." or "but he could have freed her and still kept her". But in truth, given the mores of the time, he probably could not have done so. His having her as a slave was "permissable". Keeping her as free would not have been. Even the case of the children.. not freeing them until they were "of age" was reasonable, given the mores of the day.

There are a lot of things that were wrong back then. That is why its called "progress". However, to expect one man, even a great thinker, to have just changed all of that is to expect too much. Jefferson was an intelligent man who set forth the stage that eventually did lead to the end of slavery, but it took time .... and a big, nasty war. Personally, I am grateful that we have the country we have today. That it came to be imperfectly is a reflection of us being human.


OH... and here is another point you sidestep. To be truly fair, you would have to compare how she was treated to how a white wife would have been treated. The truth, again, is that she was treated pretty well, given the standards of the say. Again, you want to take today's standards and apply it to what happened then. That is not a reasonable thing to do.

I mean the whole "I am OK with sexual slavery" is no more "objective" than Viceroy's evolution pole... truly. The idea of "sexual slavery" as you put forward was not even considered then as it is today. The fact is that many legal wives were essentially "sexual slaves".. not entitled to any rights. In many cases children had more rights than adult women, particularly male children. As much as I would definitely not want to have been in her position back then, (would not have wanted to live back then period!), if I had to be a woman in that time, to have been her would not have been that bad of a choice.

Are you suggesting that not freeing her was an act of kindness? Or that granting freedom to some of his slaves was misguided, or even cruel? I would disagree with that line of thought.

If he was, I say we abolish the presidency in favor of a new system.

pimpdave wrote:If he was, I say we abolish the presidency in favor of a new system.

Well said! I suggest the person with biggest hands is to be declared president. Large hands will make other nations leaders feel small when they shake hands with your president.

Gillipig wrote:

pimpdave wrote:If he was, I say we abolish the presidency in favor of a new system.

Well said! I suggest the person with biggest hands is to be declared president. Large hands will make other nations leaders feel small when they shake hands with your president.

And he'd always go first when he plaed Mole in the Hole.

Well, she got pregnant so it must not have been a legitimate rape. /Akin
The current poll results seem to correlate well with the popularity of "50 shades of Grey."

/ wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Legal rape is rape.

Then I suppose yes, under that definition Thomas Jefferson probably did rape her.

BTW, just to clarify my position. I'm not trying to do some knee-jerk reaction patriot routine here, I'm honestly interested in the discussion from a thought-exercise perspective.

Insufficient information to determine whether she was raped.

If she would have preferred to say no, you could argue it was rape.

If she would have preferred to say "yes" but was under age, you could argue it was statutory rape.

If she was within the age of consent and would have preferred to say "yes" then it was not rape at all.

For the guy who thinks that anything done when it was legal then makes it illegal now, does that mean that anyone who ever wed when ages of consents were lower, were also rapists? Does that mean the male spouse in an "arranged marriage" as was fashionable for centuries, are all rapists?

Can you know for sure that if the woman had not been a slave, Jefferson would not have pursued the relationship, and can you know for sure that she wouldn't have welcomed being his mistress?

So, insufficient information to determine whether he was a rapist.

However, since he did free her children as they became of age, he doesn't sound like a typical rapist (most rapists are doing it for power, and wouldn't easily relinquish power over her or any children.) Especially when he could have sold them for profit at any time. Given this, I'd say, he was not a rapist.

Excuse me, ma'am. Can you please stop being so reasonable? Some people here are trying to troll.

show

stahrgazer wrote:

/ wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Legal rape is rape.

Then I suppose yes, under that definition Thomas Jefferson probably did rape her.

BTW, just to clarify my position. I'm not trying to do some knee-jerk reaction patriot routine here, I'm honestly interested in the discussion from a thought-exercise perspective.

Insufficient information to determine whether she was raped.

If she would have preferred to say no, you could argue it was rape.

If she would have preferred to say "yes" but was under age, you could argue it was statutory rape.

If she was within the age of consent and would have preferred to say "yes" then it was not rape at all.

For the guy who thinks that anything done when it was legal then makes it illegal now, does that mean that anyone who ever wed when ages of consents were lower, were also rapists? Does that mean the male spouse in an "arranged marriage" as was fashionable for centuries, are all rapists?

Can you know for sure that if the woman had not been a slave, Jefferson would not have pursued the relationship, and can you know for sure that she wouldn't have welcomed being his mistress?

So, insufficient information to determine whether he was a rapist.

However, since he did free her children as they became of age, he doesn't sound like a typical rapist (most rapists are doing it for power, and wouldn't easily relinquish power over her or any children.) Especially when he could have sold them for profit at any time. Given this, I'd say, he was not a rapist.

Nonsense. An atypical rapist is still a rapist.

0/10, Sym. Troll harder.

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: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"

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.

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.

can you rape a possession?

if someone had sex with a teddy bear would that be rape? the teddy bear cant give consent.

if someone had sex with a cow would that be rape? sure those big brown eyes seem to be saying 'give it to me hard' but will that really pass as consenting?

a slave is a possession. a possession that performs the duties of a kitchen hand, a maid, and/or breeding stock.

Not caring about consent is in my DNA!

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.

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: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.

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?

What gives you the right to judge people in the past, who lived under very different standards and morals?

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.