I'm a 14 yr old

[Phatscotty]

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.

[mrswdk]

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.

[mrswdk]

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.

[chang50]

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..

[Maugena]

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...

[oVo]

Or conservative without the con.

avoid the therapist.

[Symmetry]

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.

[Symmetry]

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?

[Metsfanmax]

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?

[mrswdk]

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

[Symmetry]

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.

[BigBallinStalin]

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?

[Symmetry]

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

[2dimes]

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

[AndyDufresne]

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

[Metsfanmax]

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.

[saxitoxin]

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

[Phatscotty]

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!

[mrswdk]

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

[chang50]

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

[thegreekdog]

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.

[mrswdk]

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

[Metsfanmax]

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

[saxitoxin]

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:

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

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

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

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."