I'm a 14 yr old

[saxitoxin]

I rarely read Saxi's posts anymore, tbh. They mostly seem to be attempts to derail topics. So, let's just assume that I vehemently condemn whatever he was talking about and move back to the topic.

The topic being master-servant rape, I'd like everyone to register their opinion on my previously posited question: was the Asst. King of England & Jamaica less responsible for raping his servant than Jefferson due to his mental status, or was he equally responsible?

I have previously made the case Charles was less responsible. He is an older man, however, there is strong evidence - as I previously indicated - his family suffers from clinical retardation due to high levels of inbreeding. IMO we should judge people on mental capacity, not physical chronology. On the other hand, what are the rights of a victim to justice? Thoughts?

[Symmetry]

I vehemently condemn whatever Saxi was posting about, or support it, or whatever.

I think we've concluded that T-Jeff was a rapist anyway.

[saxitoxin]

I vehemently condemn whatever Saxi was posting about, or support it, or whatever.

You support the Assistant King raping his minimum-wage servants?

[Symmetry]

I vehemently condemn whatever Saxi was posting about, or support it, or whatever.

You support the Assistant King raping his minimum-wage servants?

I read this one- it didn't have pictures. So, we'll go with vehemently condemn.

[The Voice]

I rarely read Saxi's posts anymore, tbh. They mostly seem to be attempts to derail topics. So, let's just assume that I vehemently condemn whatever he was talking about and move back to the topic.

The topic being master-servant rape, I'd like everyone to register their opinion on my previously posited question: was the Asst. King of England & Jamaica less responsible for raping his servant than Jefferson due to his mental status, or was he equally responsible?

I have previously made the case Charles was less responsible. He is an older man, however, there is strong evidence - as I previously indicated - his family suffers from clinical retardation due to high levels of inbreeding. IMO we should judge people on mental capacity, not physical chronology. On the other hand, what are the rights of a victim to justice? Thoughts?

Saxi, if you're going for your troll medal, you should know that you need unique trolls. You can't just troll the same user over and over again. That's farming.

[thegreekdog]

I don't think it's weak, personally, to be uncomfortable with the idea of supporting a person's ideas while acknowledging moral depravity. I would say that's the most humane view. To accept that Jefferson was morally depraved, but still had good ideas is perhaps the most difficult point to reconcile.

I think it's difficult for people to differentiate the ideas from the people espousing them. I don't think it has to do with whether one is humane or not (although... nice one). It's possible to dislike someone personally while also agreeing with that person's ideas. For example, I don't find you particularly agreeable, and yet I agree with your point on Jefferson. If we determine the value of someone's arguments by whether that person possesses strength of character (or whatever), then I should devalue your arguments because I view you as a troll. But I can separate your point (Jefferson raped his slave) with the fact that I think you're a troll. And that's not because I'm inhumane.

[saxitoxin]

I vehemently condemn whatever Saxi was posting about, or support it, or whatever.

You support the Assistant King raping his minimum-wage servants?

I read this one- it didn't have pictures. So, we'll go with vehemently condemn.

OK, that's what I thought!

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread - do you think Charles was less responsible for anally penetrating his minimum-wage servant against said servant's will due to Charles' alleged mental retardation or does that not matter? What if he had a footman hold down the servant prior to entering him - would that dismiss his defense of mental incapacity?

[Symmetry]

I don't think it's weak, personally, to be uncomfortable with the idea of supporting a person's ideas while acknowledging moral depravity. I would say that's the most humane view. To accept that Jefferson was morally depraved, but still had good ideas is perhaps the most difficult point to reconcile.

I think it's difficult for people to differentiate the ideas from the people espousing them. I don't think it has to do with whether one is humane or not (although... nice one). It's possible to dislike someone personally while also agreeing with that person's ideas. For example, I don't find you particularly agreeable, and yet I agree with your point on Jefferson. If we determine the value of someone's arguments by whether that person possesses strength of character (or whatever), then I should devalue your arguments because I view you as a troll. But I can separate your point (Jefferson raped his slave) with the fact that I think you're a troll. And that's not because I'm inhumane.

You view me as a troll because I provoke you when we debate issues that we disagree on. You literally consider me inhuman- "a troll", a monster of sorts. I would certainly not consider you inhuman, though perhaps inhumane from time to time depending on your whims.

[thegreekdog]

I don't think it's weak, personally, to be uncomfortable with the idea of supporting a person's ideas while acknowledging moral depravity. I would say that's the most humane view. To accept that Jefferson was morally depraved, but still had good ideas is perhaps the most difficult point to reconcile.

I think it's difficult for people to differentiate the ideas from the people espousing them. I don't think it has to do with whether one is humane or not (although... nice one). It's possible to dislike someone personally while also agreeing with that person's ideas. For example, I don't find you particularly agreeable, and yet I agree with your point on Jefferson. If we determine the value of someone's arguments by whether that person possesses strength of character (or whatever), then I should devalue your arguments because I view you as a troll. But I can separate your point (Jefferson raped his slave) with the fact that I think you're a troll. And that's not because I'm inhumane.

You view me as a troll because I provoke you when we debate issues that we disagree on. You literally consider me inhuman- "a troll", a monster of sorts. I would certainly not consider you inhuman, though perhaps inhumane from time to time depending on your whims.

You must admit you walked right into that one. I suppose you could argue that rape and trolling are vastly different and thus my representation of you as the bad guy is misplaced. But really, if we used your logic, I should disagree with you simply because you're a troll and regardless of whether you have a valid point. Do you invalidate ideas based on the people that provide those ideas to you?

[Symmetry]

I don't think it's weak, personally, to be uncomfortable with the idea of supporting a person's ideas while acknowledging moral depravity. I would say that's the most humane view. To accept that Jefferson was morally depraved, but still had good ideas is perhaps the most difficult point to reconcile.

I think it's difficult for people to differentiate the ideas from the people espousing them. I don't think it has to do with whether one is humane or not (although... nice one). It's possible to dislike someone personally while also agreeing with that person's ideas. For example, I don't find you particularly agreeable, and yet I agree with your point on Jefferson. If we determine the value of someone's arguments by whether that person possesses strength of character (or whatever), then I should devalue your arguments because I view you as a troll. But I can separate your point (Jefferson raped his slave) with the fact that I think you're a troll. And that's not because I'm inhumane.

You view me as a troll because I provoke you when we debate issues that we disagree on. You literally consider me inhuman- "a troll", a monster of sorts. I would certainly not consider you inhuman, though perhaps inhumane from time to time depending on your whims.

You must admit you walked right into that one. I suppose you could argue that rape and trolling are vastly different and thus my representation of you as the bad guy is misplaced. But really, if we used your logic, I should disagree with you simply because you're a troll and regardless of whether you have a valid point. Do you invalidate ideas based on the people that provide those ideas to you?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It's only you who have suggested that Thomas Jefferson's ideas might be invalidated because of his historical crimes as far as I can tell.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm really unsure as to how discussing this constitutes trolling. Should it be off limits to reasonable debate? I think I've posited a fair set of reasons for why I take my stance, and have replied fairly to those who believe that having sex with a 14 year old girl that you keep as a slave is not rape.

What did I do wrong?

We've been through this.

In the context of slavery--that of a master-slave relationship, you will insist that any exchange between the two parties is Always nonconsensual.

I've argued that it is unknown. It could be either way--regardless of the meta-exchange being nonconsensual (duh, slavery itself doesn't have the consent of both parties). Obviously, there are exchanges within the master-slave relationship which can be consensual; however, it's difficult to tell because the slave might be agreeing simply because there's the implicit threat of punishment.

Whether or not that threat is believed, we don't know. We don't know a whole lot about that relationship because we have so little data. People like Symmetry inexplicably do know because (1) they enjoy trolling, which is what Sym does 85% of the time, or (2) they're not that bright because they'll substitute knowledge with very strong feelings.

It is (much?) more likely that the relationship was not consensual than was consensual given the master-slave relationship and it is more likely that the master-slave relationship created the requisite "duress" to meet the definition of rape provided by Mets. I support Symmetry's position on this issue precisely for that reason. Most of us know that he's trolling because that's what he does; it doesn't make his point wrong though.

Recall that Symmetry tried to make similar points with Ron Paul (arguing that he knowingly published a racist newsletter). It is up for debate whether he knowingly published racist comments in his newsletter, although if he did so unknowingly, it's also problematic. But what Symmetry has tried to do, essentially, is throw out the ideas proferred by Ron Paul because he published a racist newsletter or throw out the ideas expounded by Thomas Jefferson because he raped his slave. I think it's weak for people to get uncomfortable supporting the idea of small government because a guy talking about small government may have published a racist newsletter. I also think it's weak for people to get uncomfortable supporting the political genius of Thomas Jefferson because he raped a slave. Or people that don't like Remix to Ignition because R. Kelly peed on an underage girl. The actions of these individuals are unrelated to the quality of their ideas/politics/music. So, in sum, Jefferson raping a slave doesn't invalidate his contributions to US history, Symmetry just wants you to worry that it does. So ignore him.

Oh, I'm back to ignoring him, and good point about Sym's intentions. I was providing evidence for mrswdk's sake because it'll get the typical reactions from Symmetry (see: his newly created thread and probably his responses in this thread. Trolls Gone Wild).

As for the debate, thanks for the summary. We still disagree because of lack of evidence. I'd give ya a 50% chance that you're right.

[mrswdk]

you're positing the idea that rape is not possible if there are no laws against it?

No, I am not.

Then, if you're not answering my other question, are you saying that a 14 year old slave girl was free to consent to her owner?

Yes.

[Symmetry]

you're positing the idea that rape is not possible if there are no laws against it?

No, I am not.

Then, if you're not answering my other question, are you saying that a 14 year old slave girl was free to consent to her owner?

Yes.

In what way was she not a slave?

[mrswdk]

I said yes, she was free to give or not give consent.

[Symmetry]

I said yes, she was free to give or not give consent.

As a slave? To her owner? A slave-trader? Who enslaved his own kids? Who tortured his slaves?

[mrswdk]

We are all the captains of our own souls.

Anyway, it sounded like Jefferson and the little lady had a pretty good relationship.

[Metsfanmax]

So, anyway, you're positing the idea that rape is not possible if there are no laws against it?

According to dictionary.com,

rape: the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

Ah, dictionary.com. The dictionary of choice for people who can't use dictionaries.

OED: Originally and chiefly: the act or crime, committed by a man, of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse with him against her will, esp. by means of threats or violence. In later use more generally: the act of forced, non-consenting, or illegal sexual intercourse with another person; sexual violation or assault.

Merriam-Webster: to force (someone) to have sex with you by using violence or the threat of violence.

Would you like to provide a definition of rape, under which you believe TJ is guilty of committing rape? Or would you just like us all to dance around in circles?

[Symmetry]

So, anyway, you're positing the idea that rape is not possible if there are no laws against it?

According to dictionary.com,

rape: the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

Ah, dictionary.com. The dictionary of choice for people who can't use dictionaries.

OED: Originally and chiefly: the act or crime, committed by a man, of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse with him against her will, esp. by means of threats or violence. In later use more generally: the act of forced, non-consenting, or illegal sexual intercourse with another person; sexual violation or assault.

Merriam-Webster: to force (someone) to have sex with you by using violence or the threat of violence.

Would you like to provide a definition of rape, under which you believe TJ is guilty of committing rape? Or would you just like us all to dance around in circles?

Sex without freedom to consent. It's in your first definition. I've also reiterated the definition several times. Perhaps you can answer the question I've asked- is there a situation in which a man enslaves a small girl, keeps her in his house as a slave, and as her slave-master has sex with her, that you would consider rape, Mets?

[saxitoxin]

If Jefferson had sex with a slave, I agree with Symm, that sex was rape. Non-compliant slaves faced punishment so clearly Hemming had sex under duress (compulsion by threat or force) even if there was no overt threat made by Jefferson. The relationship was supposedly consummated in France, where slavery was legal, so the possibility of escape or flight by Hemming would not have been a realistic one.

All that said, the evidence for a sexual relationship - though interesting - is still hypothetical and substantially less than the evidence that England's current and living Assistant King raped his servants. We also know the Assistant King prefers a form of penetration more physically dangerous and painful for his victims, and so it takes on more directly violent and sadistic overtones. IMO, since Symmetry lives in the country where the Assistant King rules, he should take a greater concern as he is at risk of victimization by the Assistant King, the Assistant King's balding son, or the illegitimate child of the Assistant King's dead wife. It is a small country so it's possible Symmetry might catch the eye of the Assistant King or one the Assistant King's bald son during a parade or something, and be ordered taken to the palace for the royal recreation.

[Symmetry]

If Jefferson had sex with a slave, I agree with Symm, that sex was rape. Non-compliant slaves faced punishment so clearly Hemming had sex under duress (compulsion by threat or force) even if there was no overt threat made by Jefferson. The relationship was supposedly consummated in France, where slavery was legal, so the possibility of escape or flight by Hemming would not have been a realistic one.

Simple stuff really.

[Metsfanmax]

If Jefferson had sex with a slave, I agree with Symm, that sex was rape. Non-compliant slaves faced punishment so clearly Hemming had sex under duress (compulsion by threat or force) even if there was no overt threat made by Jefferson. The relationship was supposedly consummated in France, where slavery was legal, so the possibility of escape or flight by Hemming would not have been a realistic one.

Simple stuff really.

So if Thomas Jefferson made her dinner one night, would that count as force-feeding?

is there a situation in which a man enslaves a small girl, keeps her in his house as a slave, and as her slave-master has sex with her, that you would consider rape, Mets?

If the small girl did not desire to have sex at the time, then I would definitely consider it rape. In other circumstances it depends on how one defines rape -- that is the point of the discussion.

[Symmetry]

If Jefferson had sex with a slave, I agree with Symm, that sex was rape. Non-compliant slaves faced punishment so clearly Hemming had sex under duress (compulsion by threat or force) even if there was no overt threat made by Jefferson. The relationship was supposedly consummated in France, where slavery was legal, so the possibility of escape or flight by Hemming would not have been a realistic one.

Simple stuff really.

So if Thomas Jefferson made her dinner one night, would that count as force-feeding?

I would say that you missed the point on this one, but really, it would be more interesting for me to ask you to elaborate. So. please elaborate on your point.

[Metsfanmax]

If Jefferson had sex with a slave, I agree with Symm, that sex was rape. Non-compliant slaves faced punishment so clearly Hemming had sex under duress (compulsion by threat or force) even if there was no overt threat made by Jefferson. The relationship was supposedly consummated in France, where slavery was legal, so the possibility of escape or flight by Hemming would not have been a realistic one.

Simple stuff really.

So if Thomas Jefferson made her dinner one night, would that count as force-feeding?

I would say that you missed the point on this one, but really, it would be more interesting for me to ask you to elaborate. So. please elaborate on your point.

My point is that the logical conclusion of your argument is that because she is a slave, every action she takes is by construction forced, whether or not the threat of force is implied in any particular action. So making it a discussion about rape is a red herring, because every action she took had no possibility for consent.

[saxitoxin]

If Jefferson had sex with a slave, I agree with Symm, that sex was rape. Non-compliant slaves faced punishment so clearly Hemming had sex under duress (compulsion by threat or force) even if there was no overt threat made by Jefferson. The relationship was supposedly consummated in France, where slavery was legal, so the possibility of escape or flight by Hemming would not have been a realistic one.

Simple stuff really.

So if Thomas Jefferson made her dinner one night, would that count as force-feeding?

I would say that you missed the point on this one, but really, it would be more interesting for me to ask you to elaborate. So. please elaborate on your point.

My point is that the logical conclusion of your argument is that because she is a slave, every action she takes is by construction forced, whether or not the threat of force is implied in any particular action. So making it a discussion about rape is a red herring, because every action she took had no possibility for consent.

While it's true we can't say with scientific certainty that Hemming didn't feel genuine attraction - or even may have been the instigator of a relationship - with Jefferson, we could make a reasonable deduction that a 14 year-old would not be romantically interested in a 43 year-old. (That said, we also can't say with scientific certainty that this relationship even occurred, but that ship's already sailed it appears.)

On the other hand, however, according to descriptions on monticello.org, Jefferson reportedly had perfect teeth, delicate features, an aristocratic gait, dressed in fine clothes, spoke amorous languages like Greek and Latin, wore French perfumes, and had graceful manners. So maybe he was an ageless sex object, like a Brad Pitt.

We can test this theory pretty easily, though. Here's a portrait of Jefferson made in London in 1786, when he would have been 43 -



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.)

[Metsfanmax]

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.