BigBallinStalin wrote:You're just jealous that you're not owned by your wife.
Hmm... I'm not sure it's accurate that I'm not owned by my wife.
Moderator: Community Team
BigBallinStalin wrote:You're just jealous that you're not owned by your wife.
Symmetry wrote:
On the choice front, we can know- she was a slave. It's genuinely odd to me that you avoided mentioning slavery in that long reply.
PLAYER57832 wrote:This is part of what makes Sally Hemmings truly remarkable and the story of such note, that it WAS an exception and did happen despite all of the "mores" of the time. When you call Jefferson a rapist, you diminish not just Jefferson, but Sally as well. And, I would say many other women as well.
Part of what always distinguishes women of note versus men of "note" historically is how they are able to find ways to break the bounds that very much existed. Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white. If she were white, the dalliance would have been looked far more askance thant it was, because a white woman "visiting" Jefferson would have been "noticed", even if done in secret. With Sally, there was no need for any such pretense.
Oh PLEASE. I specifically did no such thing.Symmetry wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:This is part of what makes Sally Hemmings truly remarkable and the story of such note, that it WAS an exception and did happen despite all of the "mores" of the time. When you call Jefferson a rapist, you diminish not just Jefferson, but Sally as well. And, I would say many other women as well.
Part of what always distinguishes women of note versus men of "note" historically is how they are able to find ways to break the bounds that very much existed. Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white. If she were white, the dalliance would have been looked far more askance thant it was, because a white woman "visiting" Jefferson would have been "noticed", even if done in secret. With Sally, there was no need for any such pretense.
I'm genuinely amazed that you're now arguing that slavery was a good thing. Also, "Hemings".
PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh PLEASE. I specifically did no such thing.Symmetry wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:This is part of what makes Sally Hemmings truly remarkable and the story of such note, that it WAS an exception and did happen despite all of the "mores" of the time. When you call Jefferson a rapist, you diminish not just Jefferson, but Sally as well. And, I would say many other women as well.
Part of what always distinguishes women of note versus men of "note" historically is how they are able to find ways to break the bounds that very much existed. Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white. If she were white, the dalliance would have been looked far more askance thant it was, because a white woman "visiting" Jefferson would have been "noticed", even if done in secret. With Sally, there was no need for any such pretense.
I'm genuinely amazed that you're now arguing that slavery was a good thing. Also, "Hemings".
Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white.
Symmetry wrote:john9blue wrote:hey sym, do you think it's even POSSIBLE for two people that the state recognizes as master and slave to have a mutually consenting sexual relationship?
No, I think that the very nature of slavery rules out the idea of mutual consent when it comes to a master and his slave.
Symmetry wrote:Now, will you answer my my question about how you define rape?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Symmetry wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh PLEASE. I specifically did no such thing.Symmetry wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:This is part of what makes Sally Hemmings truly remarkable and the story of such note, that it WAS an exception and did happen despite all of the "mores" of the time. When you call Jefferson a rapist, you diminish not just Jefferson, but Sally as well. And, I would say many other women as well.
Part of what always distinguishes women of note versus men of "note" historically is how they are able to find ways to break the bounds that very much existed. Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white. If she were white, the dalliance would have been looked far more askance thant it was, because a white woman "visiting" Jefferson would have been "noticed", even if done in secret. With Sally, there was no need for any such pretense.
I'm genuinely amazed that you're now arguing that slavery was a good thing. Also, "Hemings".Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white.
Care to walk that back?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:Symmetry wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh PLEASE. I specifically did no such thing.Symmetry wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:This is part of what makes Sally Hemmings truly remarkable and the story of such note, that it WAS an exception and did happen despite all of the "mores" of the time. When you call Jefferson a rapist, you diminish not just Jefferson, but Sally as well. And, I would say many other women as well.
Part of what always distinguishes women of note versus men of "note" historically is how they are able to find ways to break the bounds that very much existed. Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white. If she were white, the dalliance would have been looked far more askance thant it was, because a white woman "visiting" Jefferson would have been "noticed", even if done in secret. With Sally, there was no need for any such pretense.
I'm genuinely amazed that you're now arguing that slavery was a good thing. Also, "Hemings".Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white.
Care to walk that back?
oh for f*ck's sake LOL.
there is literally no way you are this dense.
you think EVERYTHING that resulted from slavery was bad?
every action that was ever performed due to slavery was morally wrong?
and if we say that any result wasn't morally wrong, then we are condoning slavery as a whole?
i just can't believe the magnitude of your idiocy. you have to be trolling.
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:You're just jealous that you're not owned by your wife.
Hmm... I'm not sure it's accurate that I'm not owned by my wife.
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!Now you are the one being truly objectionable.Symmetry wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh PLEASE. I specifically did no such thing.Symmetry wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:This is part of what makes Sally Hemmings truly remarkable and the story of such note, that it WAS an exception and did happen despite all of the "mores" of the time. When you call Jefferson a rapist, you diminish not just Jefferson, but Sally as well. And, I would say many other women as well.
Part of what always distinguishes women of note versus men of "note" historically is how they are able to find ways to break the bounds that very much existed. Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white. If she were white, the dalliance would have been looked far more askance thant it was, because a white woman "visiting" Jefferson would have been "noticed", even if done in secret. With Sally, there was no need for any such pretense.
I'm genuinely amazed that you're now arguing that slavery was a good thing. Also, "Hemings".Ironically, the fact of slavery would have provided Sally far more of a "cover" and protection than if she were white.
Care to walk that back?
Symmetry wrote:If you want me to argue in line with your agenda, you'll be disappointed. Nevertheless, in your scenario, do you thinks she was free?
Phatscotty wrote:There are records that Jefferson gave Hemmings an allowance and paid a very high price for her and her brothers tutoring.
I thought the secret to slavery was refusing the slave an education?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Symmetry wrote:If you want me to argue in line with your agenda, you'll be disappointed. Nevertheless, in your scenario, do you thinks she was free?
Too bad, because my "agenda" is nothing more or less than truth and real understanding of history as opposed to your pretense of passing judgement without really bothering with more than the most superificial of survey of terms.
Phatscotty wrote:I thought the secret to slavery was refusing the slave an education?
Symmetry wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Symmetry wrote:If you want me to argue in line with your agenda, you'll be disappointed. Nevertheless, in your scenario, do you thinks she was free?
Too bad, because my "agenda" is nothing more or less than truth and real understanding of history as opposed to your pretense of passing judgement without really bothering with more than the most superificial of survey of terms.
So, do think she was free? I'd say that was pretty key to her situation.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Symmetry wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Symmetry wrote:If you want me to argue in line with your agenda, you'll be disappointed. Nevertheless, in your scenario, do you thinks she was free?
Too bad, because my "agenda" is nothing more or less than truth and real understanding of history as opposed to your pretense of passing judgement without really bothering with more than the most superificial of survey of terms.
So, do think she was free? I'd say that was pretty key to her situation.
No, there is a LOT of grey area in between. In fact, as I said before NO woman of that time was truly "free" as you seem to think, and, frankly, neither were many men. THAT is the crux of it.
We are lucky to be born into an age and place where we really do have freedom, but even so, many of our choices are subscribed. Some by merit, which most would say are irrelevant to this discussion, but many are factors of birth and position. You assume that there are only 2 options, basically slavery or free. The reality for most, even today is much, much, much more complex than that.
Symmetry wrote:
You've equaled the conditions of slaves with those of free women several times in this thread, do you truly not see a difference?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Symmetry wrote:
You've equaled the conditions of slaves with those of free women several times in this thread, do you truly not see a difference?
Probably better than you. I ALSO understand the difference between lliving in the 1700's and 2000's, something you clearly do not.
The point here is not whether Jefferson deserves sainthood for his actions. Of course, he does not. The question is whether his actions merit the term "rapist", a crime on the par with murder when it comes to penalties. I have no idea why you think there is some gain in labeling accomplished people from the past with derogatory labels, but I have been hearing this garbage all my life, AND I have heard the contrary arguments. Your "point" is nothing more than back-handed justification and anger. It is not reality, nor truth.
Keep believing that condemning others unreasonably makes you a better person, I won't.
Symmetry wrote:I' confess to being slightly baffled as to why the other thread was locked.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I' confess to being slightly baffled as to why the other thread was locked.
Because the thread that billy07's multi created was locked?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=203287#p4446228
Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I' confess to being slightly baffled as to why the other thread was locked.
Because the thread that billy07's multi created was locked?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=203287#p4446228
Is Thomas Jefferson an equivalent of the Prophet now?
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I' confess to being slightly baffled as to why the other thread was locked.
Because the thread that billy07's multi created was locked?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=203287#p4446228
Is Thomas Jefferson an equivalent of the Prophet now?
I would think not. I suppose some hardcore folks would think Jefferson was a prophet, although many historians think he was agnostic (or atheist). I don't pretend to know why the thread was locked (or why you created the thread in the first place), I was just offering a theory. Your thread looked like a parody thread of a thread that was locked, so I guess the moderators assumed it was a safe bet to lock it. Plus you have this thread.
Symmetry wrote:it's a parody thread.
john9blue wrote:Symmetry wrote:john9blue wrote:hey sym, do you think it's even POSSIBLE for two people that the state recognizes as master and slave to have a mutually consenting sexual relationship?
No, I think that the very nature of slavery rules out the idea of mutual consent when it comes to a master and his slave.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: denominator, mookiemcgee