Conquer Club

Thomas Jefferson is a pretty controversial figure- obviously he's well liked and respected, but he was also a slave owner who raped a 14 year old girl and kept her as his property. What do you think?

Students and other University of Virginia community members shrouded a statue of Thomas Jefferson in black Tuesday night during a rally criticizing the university’s response to recent white nationalist demonstrations that unfolded on and near the campus.

About 100 people gathered for the protest Tuesday night, according to the Daily Progress. They covered the statue of the university’s founder, and signs reading “racist” and “rapist” were placed on it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/09/13/thomas-jefferson-statue-at-u-va-shrouded-in-black

lol

mrswdk wrote:lol

Not really a "lol" thing- it's kind of the point. A lot of people genuinely believe that he was a rapist. I do, personally. A lot of other people think that he wasn't.

What's worse than necrobumping? Re-hashing an old thread that was already beaten to death the first time around.

Dukasaur wrote:What's worse than necrobumping? Re-hashing an old thread that was already beaten to death the first time around.

What utter BS, Duk. If you don't like the topic and want to dodge, just say so.

Thomas Jefferson being a rapist or not doesn't go away as a topic whenever CC purges its servers.

Apparently neither does our need to be regaled with another diatribe on the subject.

ALL moral claims are subjective and self-serving, even ones that aren't materially self-serving.

..but judging anybody under legal/moral/ethical standards from another time/place/culture is just manipulative BS 101.

Dukasaur wrote:Apparently neither does our need to be regaled with another diatribe on the subject.

Meh- sorry, apparently some people find it important, me included. Others find it inconvenient, I guess.

I'm no king, nor am I posting in any mod regalia, but I do have an opinion and I'll post it.

I've tried to keep the poll neutral, so that people can make their own choice.

Oh, absolutely. Feel free to post your opinion, that's what the forum is here for. I was just expressing my opinion, too.

Sadly, there's no button we can use to indicate when we're being mods and when we're being just ordinary inmates. Rest assured that my opinion wasn't anything official.

Dukasaur wrote:Oh, absolutely. Feel free to post your opinion, that's what the forum is here for. I was just expressing my opinion, too.

Sadly, there's no button we can use to indicate when we're being mods and when we're being just ordinary inmates. Rest assured that my opinion wasn't anything official.

That's fine- you kind of sounded like you thought that this shouldn't be discussed because it was in a thread that was deleted.

Obviously this is still something that's relevant though. It'd not as if these discussions have some kind of time limit, right?

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Oh, absolutely. Feel free to post your opinion, that's what the forum is here for. I was just expressing my opinion, too.

Sadly, there's no button we can use to indicate when we're being mods and when we're being just ordinary inmates. Rest assured that my opinion wasn't anything official.

That's fine- you kind of sounded like you thought that this shouldn't be discussed because it was in a thread that was deleted.

Obviously this is still something that's relevant though. It'd not as if these discussions have some kind of time limit, right?

Well, it's obviously relevant to you. I'm not sure it was ever relevant to anyone else.

Symmetry wrote:

mrswdk wrote:lol

Not really a "lol" thing- it's kind of the point. A lot of people genuinely believe that he was a rapist. I do, personally. A lot of other people think that he wasn't.

Now if only those people were more concerned with the abductions, slavery, and forced "marriage" of girls in wide swathes of the middle east, instead of criticizing the actions of someone 250 years ago. If they're going to impose their morals on someone, maybe they should do so in a manner that actually benefits someone, no?

Oh, wait, it's blm, so they don't actually give a shit, they're just racist against white people. Nvm.

-TG

Dukasaur wrote:Well, it's obviously relevant to you. I'm not sure it was ever relevant to anyone else.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Now if only those people were more concerned with the abductions, slavery, and forced "marriage" of girls in wide swathes of the middle east, instead of criticizing the actions of someone 250 years ago. If they're going to impose their morals on someone, maybe they should do so in a manner that actually benefits someone, no?

Oh, wait, it's blm, so they don't actually give a shit, they're just racist against white people. Nvm.

-TG

I don't agree that opposing slavery needs to be specified to a certain time. If you can find it to be wrong, you can take issue with it now, in the past and in the future.

Duk, obviously the point is relevant beyond your goodself.

TG- maybe you should consider the idea that Black Lives Matter.

Great rebuttal. I'm now convinced they aren't racists.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Great rebuttal. I'm now convinced they aren't racists.

-TG

I'm still kind of confused about how you think BLM relates to the OP, to be fair.

I guess it would be clearer if you stated whether you thought Thomas Jefferson was a rapist or not.

The protest in op was led by blm members. The person with the "TJ is a racist and rapist" sign is black and presumably of blm.

-TG

Do you think that if someone advocates for Black Lives Matter now, that invalidates Jefferson being a rapist?

No, not in any objective sense. laws and 'morals' only apply within a defined time/space/government/culture, and even then are always open for debate, despite censorship and 'censureship'.

Even in our current age, the morality of slavery, age of consent and definition of rape, vary widely and subjectively.

All definitions of right and wrong are subjective.

Anyone who claims otherwise on any religious*/metaphysical/philosophical grounds is being unscientific and non-objective, either intentionally (liars) or naively (misled/stupid/confused).

*modern western Humanism is basically a religion, in that it is maintained on subjective and unproveable tenets.

Why don't you instead talk about the inconsistency/hypocrisy of a group of people both criticizing/name-calling others while simultaneously outlawing criticism/name-calling of themselves.

btw, that word I coined, 'censureship' is pure gold. You heard it HERE FIRST!

This is a rip off from another thread from a few years ago.

Symmetry wrote:Thomas Jefferson is a pretty controversial figure- obviously he's well liked and respected, but he was also a slave owner who raped a 14 year old girl and kept her as his property. What do you think?

Students and other University of Virginia community members shrouded a statue of Thomas Jefferson in black Tuesday night during a rally criticizing the university’s response to recent white nationalist demonstrations that unfolded on and near the campus.

About 100 people gathered for the protest Tuesday night, according to the Daily Progress. They covered the statue of the university’s founder, and signs reading “racist” and “rapist” were placed on it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/09/13/thomas-jefferson-statue-at-u-va-shrouded-in-black

I'm pretty sure it's not rape if you legally own the 14-year old girl in question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partus_sequitur_ventrem

DY makes a good point.

The Great White Father loves all of his children.

The laws at the time, allows you to rape your possessions.

.....so, now it's illegal. Not all laws, rules and regulations are good for the welfare of the poor

I guess a few people have brought up the same point- that what Jefferson did was not a crime in his era. It's a fair point to a certain extent. It falls down when people say that it wasn't rape (DY/MR).

It's not as if he's on trial here. This isn't Russia where you can prosecute dead people, after all.