Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Like your opinion even matter to anyone! LOL

OK, that was kind of a weird reply. I sense a degree of hostility.

LOL, what part of LOL don't you understand? You can only play dumb to a certain level, now are you N2Deep.

Symmetry wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Wasn't this thread locked?

Motion to have it re-locked.

The mods and my goodself had a chat and it was quickly unlocked on the basis that

a) There was no good reason for it to be locked
b) There was no good reason why it shouldn't be unlocked

Why do you you think it should be locked?

You already necro-bumped your other 'Jefferson raped slaves' troll thread.

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Like your opinion even matter to anyone! LOL

OK, that was kind of a weird reply. I sense a degree of hostility. Out of interest is there a situation where you consider a man having sex with a 14 year old girl kept as a slave in his house to be something other than rape and paedophilia?

Re the bold: did he rape her or have sex with her?
Re the underlined: I believe 14 was above the age of consent back then.

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I do wonder if the author of the OP realizes it was his own country that introduced and implemented and institutionalized slavery in the New World, as well as in India, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Nice tactics though Symm, really taps into and manipulates the emotions. Couldn't be more ignorant or hypocritical though.

It was also his own country that abolished it before the US did.

only when they had the rest of the world enslaved first.

The UK introduced Slavery to Africa...and Asia???You were actually winning this argument until you started making shit up and then denying revising history.

No, actually I used 3 separate words to indicate different levels at different places. You have to look at what I said, and show me where I said "England introduced slavery to Asia/Africa" I didn't say it. But, you completely ignore the word institutionalized, which England most certainly did institutionalize slavery in India and Asia. Why would you pick and choose words like that, or maybe it is asking too much for you to put the correct adjective with the correct continent. England most certainly introduced slavery in North America.

I didn't make anything up, you are just trying too hard.

Your words are quite clear,as is your refusal to 'fess up to using an historically inaccurate statement.Then you compound your error by saying 'England most certainly introduced slavery in North America.'
There really is no excuse in the internet age,especially if you have as poor an understanding of history as is demonstrated in your posts,for not doing a tiny amount of research prior to posting.
If you had you would know 'Many North American tribes practiced some form of slavery before the European introduction of African slavery into North America but none exploited slave labour on a large scale.'
I eagerly await your attempt to wriggle out of this..

Phatscotty wrote:I do wonder if the author of the OP realizes it was his own country that introduced and implemented and institutionalized slavery in the New World, as well as in India, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Nice tactics though Symm, really taps into and manipulates the emotions. Couldn't be more ignorant or hypocritical though.

That bumper sticker is beautiful, PS, hahaha...

Or conservative without the con.

avoid the therapist.

mrswdk wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Wasn't this thread locked?

Motion to have it re-locked.

The mods and my goodself had a chat and it was quickly unlocked on the basis that

a) There was no good reason for it to be locked
b) There was no good reason why it shouldn't be unlocked

Why do you you think it should be locked?

You already necro-bumped your other 'Jefferson raped slaves' troll thread.

I bumped it because this discussion was locked unfairly. It has now been unlocked because, as i mentioned earlier, there was no good reason for it to be locked.

mrswdk wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Like your opinion even matter to anyone! LOL

OK, that was kind of a weird reply. I sense a degree of hostility. Out of interest is there a situation where you consider a man having sex with a 14 year old girl kept as a slave in his house to be something other than rape and paedophilia?

Re the bold: did he rape her or have sex with her?
Re the underlined: I believe 14 was above the age of consent back then.

Freedom to consent kind of requires freedom. Is that a difficult concept? We are talking about a slave-master and his slave.

And anyway, if a country lowered the age of consent to 5, would you consider it consensual sex rather than rape if a man enslaved a kid that age and had sex with her?

Symmetry wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Like your opinion even matter to anyone! LOL

OK, that was kind of a weird reply. I sense a degree of hostility. Out of interest is there a situation where you consider a man having sex with a 14 year old girl kept as a slave in his house to be something other than rape and paedophilia?

Re the bold: did he rape her or have sex with her?
Re the underlined: I believe 14 was above the age of consent back then.

Freedom to consent kind of requires freedom. Is that a difficult concept? We are talking about a slave-master and his slave.

So if legal consent is not possible, then what are we even discussing here? Whether it should be considered rape to have sex with your legal property?

British owners of Fleshlights must surely dread the idea of Symmetry being appointed to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Like your opinion even matter to anyone! LOL

OK, that was kind of a weird reply. I sense a degree of hostility. Out of interest is there a situation where you consider a man having sex with a 14 year old girl kept as a slave in his house to be something other than rape and paedophilia?

Re the bold: did he rape her or have sex with her?
Re the underlined: I believe 14 was above the age of consent back then.

Freedom to consent kind of requires freedom. Is that a difficult concept? We are talking about a slave-master and his slave.

So if legal consent is not possible, then what are we even discussing here? Whether it should be considered rape to have sex with your legal property?

If consent is not possible, then we're discussing rape.

Symmetry wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Like your opinion even matter to anyone! LOL

OK, that was kind of a weird reply. I sense a degree of hostility. Out of interest is there a situation where you consider a man having sex with a 14 year old girl kept as a slave in his house to be something other than rape and paedophilia?

Re the bold: did he rape her or have sex with her?
Re the underlined: I believe 14 was above the age of consent back then.

Freedom to consent kind of requires freedom. Is that a difficult concept? We are talking about a slave-master and his slave.

So if legal consent is not possible, then what are we even discussing here? Whether it should be considered rape to have sex with your legal property?

If consent is not possible, then we're discussing rape.

How can you sleep at night knowing that so many fleshlights are raped at night?

Do you yourself rape one as well?

So 14 year old slaves should be considered ethically equivalent to objects in your mind?

There's a lot of talk here but no action. Let's form a mob and go get this guy.

2dimes wrote:There's a lot of talk here but no action. Let's form a mob and go get this guy.

2dimes is right, again.


--Andy

Symmetry wrote:So 14 year old slaves should be considered ethically equivalent to objects in your mind?

It doesn't matter whether they ought to be; they were certainly considered to be, at the time.

I'm inclined to agree with Symmetry. While I've never heard of a genealogist testifying in a rape case, if the allegations are true, it was an unforgivable moral transgression, regardless as to its legality.

However, I'm largely more concerned with the fact that Charles Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, the Assistant King of England and Jamaica, ass raped at least one minimum wage servant (George Smith) that we know of and probably more. I consider Mr Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg a bigger public danger than Jefferson for the following reasons:

• Time Since Last Rape
  Thomas Jefferson: 223 years
  Charles S-H-S-G: 17 years
  
  Type of Rape
  Thomas Jefferson: statutory
  Charles S-H-S-G: violent
  
  Size of Country Rapist Running
  Thomas Jefferson: 5 million
  Charles S-H-S-G: 60 million (2014), 55 million (2015)
  
  Public Discussion of Rape
  Thomas Jefferson: debated in media
  Charles S-H-S-G: banned; newspapers can be raided and shut-down by police if details are published
  
  Evidence of Rape
  Thomas Jefferson: genealogy
  Charles S-H-S-G: witness testimony

Symmetry wrote:So 14 year old slaves should be considered ethically equivalent to objects in your mind?

Depends on which century you are talking about.

STOP CONFUSING CENTURIES!

ITT: we determine that Symmetry is definitely not a legal professional.

mrswdk wrote:ITT: we determine that Symmetry is definitely not a legal professional.

maybe he is an amateur/volunteer for the Progressive death squads? It was recently reported that America's foreign enemies and enemies within, mainly those who are part of the progressive movement, are very close to their ultimate goal of the complete demise of the Republic has envisioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Today there is even more disturbing news.

An ex-spook stated concerning the effort to destroy the U.S., "You have no idea how bad it is." The enemies of freedom and the Constitution within the country, he said, have now succeeded in putting most of their goals in place. "Think of how far they have come since 2008," he continued, "Most Americans don't even recognize their own country anymore. They feel like foreigners in their own land."

"If we continue down the present path," he concluded, "Our liberties will be dust in the wind by 2016. These people are organized, relentless, persistent, and dangerous. And they have been at it since the early 1900s."

The former agent did not wish to be more specific about what he knows due to the fact that if he did so, it would be easy enough to figure out his identity based upon the in-depth knowledge he has of certain facts.

These enemies of Liberty are generally known as progressive death squads, although the term has fallen in and out of vogue based upon changing perceptions of the public. Progressives are known under a variety of names. Liberals, collectivists, statists, Marxists, neo-Marxists, socialists, and "democratic consensus builders" are some of the more common terms that people who stand for freedom and liberty have used to describe progressives. But it all boils down to the same thing. In order for them to achieve their self-described utopia, human freedom and liberty must be severely restricted and controlled, and the power of the centralized government must be greatly strengthened.

In the previous report issued Wednesday it was noted how the enemy within has gone about attempting to reach their goals. Today we go further in making some eye-opening disclosures that shed more light on this most dangerous scenario.

The progressives/Marxists/collectivists are willing to do anything to advance their agenda, even if it means lying incessantly.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So 14 year old slaves should be considered ethically equivalent to objects in your mind?

Depends on which century you are talking about.

STOP CONFUSING CENTURIES!

It's all relative,in other words..welcome to the ranks of moral relativism

saxitoxin wrote:I'm inclined to agree with Symmetry. While I've never heard of a genealogist testifying in a rape case, if the allegations are true, it was an unforgivable moral transgression, regardless as to its legality.

However, I'm largely more concerned with the fact that Charles Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, the Assistant King of England and Jamaica, ass raped at least one minimum wage servant (George Smith) that we know of and probably more. I consider Mr Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg a bigger public danger than Jefferson for the following reasons:

• Time Since Last Rape
  Thomas Jefferson: 223 years
  Charles S-H-S-G: 17 years
  
  Type of Rape
  Thomas Jefferson: statutory
  Charles S-H-S-G: violent
  
  Size of Country Rapist Running
  Thomas Jefferson: 5 million
  Charles S-H-S-G: 60 million (2014), 55 million (2015)
  
  Public Discussion of Rape
  Thomas Jefferson: debated in media
  Charles S-H-S-G: banned; newspapers can be raided and shut-down by police if details are published
  
  Evidence of Rape
  Thomas Jefferson: genealogy
  Charles S-H-S-G: witness testimony

You may be correct Saxi, but Charles Et Cetera isn't revered by Americans as a founding father and thus that story does not fit with what Symmetry is trying to do here.

17 years ago? Is this 'Prince Charles ass rape' story part of some Princess Diana conspiracy theory?

No, it's just a Daily Mail conspiracy theory.

mrswdk wrote:17 years ago? Is this 'Prince Charles ass rape' story part of some Princess Diana conspiracy theory?

Unclear. All we know is that (a) there are 100% more witnesses to the ass rape than there are to the Jefferson incident, and, (b) not many people have heard the details of the ass rape, see:

BBC wrote:A Scottish newspaper has printed a description of an alleged incident involving the Prince of Wales and named another person said to be involved. The Sunday Herald can print details because the injunction preventing publication of the story only applies in England and Wales. The story has not been published on the newspaper's website but editions can also be bought in parts of Northern England and London. In London, a spokesman for the prince said there was concern that full details of the allegations may appear.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3252911.stm

China Daily wrote:More than a week after the rumors became the subject of a legal case, few in Britain know details of the allegations made by former royal valet George Smith. A court order forbids reporting on the alleged incident involving Charles and a royal servant.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/200 ... 280476.htm

salon.com wrote:On Tuesday, Spain's El País reported that most foreign papers have been kept off English and Welsh newsstands to protect citizens from seeing the rumor in print. Wednesday's Le Monde said that since last Saturday, distributors have prevented 16 foreign papers from circulating in England and Wales. Seven thousand copies of Le Monde intended for distribution in England and Wales were withdrawn Tuesday.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... r_saw.html

Throne Out wrote:It is unprecedented for a court to grant such an injunction. Even more unprecedented is that much of the court's proceedings were held in private with the press and public excluded.

http://www.throneout.com/2003/11/royal- ... -tell.html

That said, another question should be asked: perhaps Jefferson has greater culpability than Charles due to a difference in maturity? Charles comes from a family widely believed to be clinically retarded due to the genetic effects of inbreeding. He was the first member of his family in 200 years to be admitted to a university, and then only under questionable circumstances, and he barely graduated with just a 2:2 degree (again under questionable circumstances). Jefferson finished his course at William & Mary at twice the normal speed, received an advanced degree, and spoke 5 languages fluently. If true that the Asst. King of England & Jamaica has the mind of a 5 year old, can he be held to the same level of responsibility as Jefferson? IMO, no. I think Charles has diminished ability to tell what is right and wrong. He may have thought what he was doing was "good touching."

At the end of the day, all we know is that you can't spell "Mountbatten" without "mount."