Conquer Club

The Voice wrote:

Symmetry wrote:If I may ask my own question, are there circumstances where enslaving a child, keeping her a slave in your house, and having sex with her when she's 14, would be considered rape to you if it were legal to do so?

Hello Symmetry,

Congratulations!



You have been awarded the medal "Troll - Platinum," for trolling 500 unique users. Check it out on your profile.

Regards,
The Conquer Club

Post of the year!

Even if Symmetry were a legitimate user of this site, it wouldn't change the special honor.

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry has many of the same mannerisms of a 14 year old girl so I'll pose the question to him: Symm, does this picture give you a boner? (If Symm says no, then we can be reasonably certain Hemmings did not have a genuine attraction to Jefferson.)

I have no objection to this test.

Nope, although I note that Jefferson's secretary at the time pointed out that that portrait looked nothing like him.

Why do you have the throw pillow in your lap?

2dimes wrote:Why do you have the throw pillow in your lap?

Is that what it's supposed to be? It looked like documents in the portrait.

He must not have had a throw pillow to hide his boner.

2dimes wrote:He must not have had a throw pillow to hide his boner.

Maybe it was the Constitution.

Symmetry wrote: Maybe it was the Constitution.

Probably, he likely would keep it in his wallet during travel.

2dimes wrote:

Symmetry wrote: Maybe it was the Constitution.

Probably, he likely would keep it in his wallet during travel.

I can say with certainty that a person of any sex or gender would be unattractive to me if they kept a copy of the US constitution in their wallet in order to hide their erections on seeing teenage slave girls.

That's just the way I roll.

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:

Symmetry wrote: Maybe it was the Constitution.

Probably, he likely would keep it in his wallet during travel.

I can say with certainty that a person of any sex or gender would be unattractive to me if they kept a copy of the US constitution in their wallet in order to hide their erections on seeing teenage slave girls.

That's just the way I roll.

That's a suspiciously specific denial.

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:

Symmetry wrote: Maybe it was the Constitution.

Probably, he likely would keep it in his wallet during travel.

I can say with certainty that a person of any sex or gender would be unattractive to me if they kept a copy of the US constitution in their wallet in order to hide their erections on seeing teenage slave girls.

That's just the way I roll.

win.

saxitoxin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:It is analogous to how some people prefer to be entrepreneurs, even at great risk, but others prefer a salary with benefits, even if the job is not one they enjoy well.

No. That is absolutely not an analogy to black slavery.

Not in the Simon Legree, Uncle Tom's Cabin version, no. However, that was as much a distortion, probably more than the polyanna southern story that slaves were merely "servants" and/or even "bettered" (through contact with whites) -- a repulsive idea. I am not suggesting slavery was good, but nothing is 100% bad or 100% good, particularly not institutions that survive for such long periods. However, in the historical reality of all types of slavery -- yes.

In this particular isolated situation, it was analogous. Sally fared better by all accounts being a slave to Jefferson than she would have been "free". There was no such thing as real freedom for any women back then, never mind black women. Ignoring that and pretending that Jeffersion, on his own, had the ability to go against society and immediately make changes, instead of working toward a gradual outcome that DID wind up with legal slavery eliminated in the US, is distorting history. We need truth.. the good, the ugly, the bad AND the good if we are to truly move forward and not repeat past mistakes.

mrswdk wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Slavery was... an improvement over things that came before.

Feel free to elaborate on this point.

Simple murder was the prior institution.

I understand that some people say they choose death over slavery, but while that might be true and make senes on an individual basis, societally, it does not. Death means the complete end of the culture. Slavery often means the culture infiltrating the owners, allows cultures to perpetuate (albiet in distorted form).

Also, remember Simon Legree was an extreme, and not the norm. I am sure there was someone like that in the south, but the real tragedy was more insiduous and subtle. This is part of what is wrong with such blatant extreme categorizations. When you don't have to look at what actually happened, when you get to just label everyone involved as monsters, it means you can pretend you yourself have no part, are nothing like those individuals.... and thus begins the risk of repetition.

So, assuming the only alternative that previously existed was the slaughter of every single person in a society, slavery was better because it allowed a culture to survive?

I don't know who Simon Legree is but that sounds like an enormous red herring so never mind.

mrswdk wrote:So, assuming the only alternative that previously existed was the slaughter of every single person in a society, slavery was better because it allowed a culture to survive?

Yes, although individuals may choose death over slavery, not all do. Many prefer life, in whatever form.

mrswdk wrote:I don't know who Simon Legree is but that sounds like an enormous red herring so never mind.

If you wish to dismiss history, sure.

History is not about what we wish had happened or would have liked to have happen. It is about what DID happen. Because it was done by humans, it is naturally very messy.

Player, are you trying to make a case that he was doing her a favour when he raped her?

Symmetry wrote:Player, are you trying to make a case that he was doing her a favour when he raped her?

Oh give it a rest already.

Your assertion that her being 14 and a slave AUTOMATICALLY makes it rape is ridiculous. Today.. sure. Then, not in any way, shape or form.

I don't know if you are just so set on the victim mentality that dictates that white males are the cause of all ills in the world or just so afraid to acknowledge understanding of bad behavior. That is a big fear, because understanding means you have to accept that you could act as he did, given the right circumstances.

I think that is the real problem.. the best defense is an offense, after all. By declaring him this heneous ogre, you get to pretend you are utterly and completely different than him.

PLAYER57832 wrote:By declaring him this heneous ogre, you get to pretend you are utterly and completely different than him.

Actually, by declaring him a heinous ogre, he gets to invalidate Jefferson's work and troll you.

Has Jimmy Page been mentioned here?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Player, are you trying to make a case that he was doing her a favour when he raped her?

Oh give it a rest already.

Your assertion that her being 14 and a slave AUTOMATICALLY makes it rape is ridiculous. Today.. sure. Then, not in any way, shape or form.

This moral relativism is really taking off.Strangely the two posters who have took the 'it's relative to the historical time setting' line,are not atheists,the group normally given the label of moral relativists.
Personally I have no problem with this,unless they switch to absolute morality when it suits..

Symmetry wrote:I'm also a slave to Thomas Jefferson, it feels so nice to have a 44 year old with a filthy beard slobbering all over me. What could be more natural? And to those that disagree, just shut up ok I'm a slave and know exactly what I want out of life! So there

Why don't all you foreigners accept the will of the founding fathers? Pre pubescant girls are more than welcome

I agree with you. I can't believe some people actually try to judge the past with our time's moral values, what a bunch of loons!

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Player, are you trying to make a case that he was doing her a favour when he raped her?

Oh give it a rest already.

Your assertion that her being 14 and a slave AUTOMATICALLY makes it rape is ridiculous. Today.. sure. Then, not in any way, shape or form.

I don't know if you are just so set on the victim mentality that dictates that white males are the cause of all ills in the world or just so afraid to acknowledge understanding of bad behavior. That is a big fear, because understanding means you have to accept that you could act as he did, given the right circumstances.

I think that is the real problem.. the best defense is an offense, after all. By declaring him this heneous ogre, you get to pretend you are utterly and completely different than him.

Surely she was a victim of slavery, and of rape. I don't understand your point on this. You're certainly right that I would like to be different from him though.