I'm a 14 yr old

[thegreekdog]

In a weird ironic twist (in my opinion), as I typed the post above I was listening to R. Kelly's Remix to Ignition. I really do enjoy that song and can differentiate the work of R. Kelly (excellent) from his statutory rape (disgusting and illegal).



Symm - I hope you can stand to listen.

[Metsfanmax]

In a weird ironic twist (in my opinion), as I typed the post above I was listening to R. Kelly's Remix to Ignition. I really do enjoy that song and can differentiate the work of R. Kelly (excellent) from his statutory rape (disgusting and illegal).



Symm - I hope you can stand to listen.

Don't be silly. Obviously America -- and democracy in general, by extension -- is soiled by this incident.

[PLAYER57832]

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

All you show by this post is YOUR inability to comprehend other people's lives. Sorry, but that is the truth.

There is nothing in the account to suggest your description is what happened and a lot to suggest a very, very different version. You refuse to accept that because you think that if you even hint that slavery is not the worst thing to befall every human enslaved, it somehow means slavery is OK.

This is not just about the US, and blacks, by-the-way. A lot of erroneous information regarding Greeks, other societies is perpetuated because of distortions about slavery. Slavery was bad, is bad, but it was, by most accounts, an improvement over things that came before. Also, there were many times when people in slavery fared better than supposedly "free" people.
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. On top of that, you have the question of how much "freedom" is really involved when soemone "chooses" to work at a low-end, dead-end job, instead of launching out into the "freedom" of an enterprise that takes more money to start up than a person has and that might well put kids and family at risk.

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

Your idea of freedom is the illusion, not those suggesting Sally was not raped.
You have a distorted idea of freedom, a freedom that does not truly exist at all for most people.

Further, a 14 year old was considered an adult in Jefferson's age. A young adult, but a adult -- a man was able to marry, support hisself, etc. In fact, women of that age were very much considered "of age" -- marriagable. However, the issue of consent was largely irrelevant, because "free" or not, women did not generally have the right to refuse. Even when truly raped, marriage was often considered the "fix".

I have a very hard time believing that marriage to a true rapist was somehow inferior to what, by all accounts, was a caring relationship, just with a different title.

[saxitoxin]

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.

[2dimes]

Poor ignorant uneducated Saxi. Science!

[PLAYER57832]

I accept my country's role in it, just not your account of it. Can you accept that your country was founded by a slave-trader, a paedophile and a rapist?

No... at least not the ones to which you point.

In general.. yes. Most wealthy white men of that time and age would have fit those descriptions.

This is what is truly ironic about your version of events. The reason we know so much about Sally and Jefferson is because he treated her WELL, because he had a true relationship, which was unusual at that time. If he had truly acted as you claim.. then it would not even have been a blip in history.

A wealthy man of that time could utilize black slaves without engendering notice. He could avail himself of prostitutes with little more notice and certainly many of them would have been underage white girls, much as today.

So, while your statement is true, it is not true because of Jefferson, but other men. Moreovere, it was men, who were encultured by English/European values and mores.

[Jmac1026]

In a weird ironic twist (in my opinion), as I typed the post above I was listening to R. Kelly's Remix to Ignition. I really do enjoy that song and can differentiate the work of R. Kelly (excellent) from his statutory rape (disgusting and illegal).



Symm - I hope you can stand to listen.

Don't be silly. Obviously America -- and democracy in general, by extension -- is soiled by this incident.

Aha. I get it.










Because he pee'd on her.

[mrswdk]

Slavery was... an improvement over things that came before.

Feel free to elaborate on this point.

[BigBallinStalin]

Slavery was... an improvement over things that came before.

Feel free to elaborate on this point.

Well, way back in the day, having more male labor was too costly, so it was cheaper to slaughter them.

[Symmetry]

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

Were you under the impression that I thought he could be legally charged with something?

[mrswdk]

You mean you haven't been arguing that he was guilty of rape, which is now and was back then an indictable offense? Assuming he was actually indulging in rape and not a consensual sexual relationship with someone over the age of legal consent, of course.

I'd like you to address saxi's post. Why are you so venomous in your condemnation of Jefferson's mixed-race relationship while gladly over-looking the behavior of the serving Prince of Wales, who raped a member of his staff and then used his power to block coverage of the incident from the national media?

[Symmetry]

You mean you haven't been arguing that he was guilty of rape, which is now and was back then an indictable offense? Assuming he was actually indulging in rape and not a consensual sexual relationship with someone over the age of legal consent, of course.

I'd like you to address saxi's post. Why are you so venomous in your condemnation of Jefferson's mixed-race relationship while gladly over-looking the behavior of the serving Prince of Wales, who raped a member of his staff and then used his power to block coverage of the incident from the national media?

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.

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

[Symmetry]

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?

[mrswdk]

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

No, I am not.

[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?

[The Voice]

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

[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.

[Symmetry]

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?

[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.

[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.

[Symmetry]

We do know that Jefferson employed brutality against disobedient slaves, and indeed, that he enslaved his own children from the rapes. And indeed that he provided no provisions to free her from slavery in his will. She would be his slave even after death.

[thegreekdog]

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.

[Symmetry]

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.

I agree with much of TGD's post, which is a shock as much to me as it is to anyone else reading this

For those who are unfamiliar with our discussions, we rarely agree and frequently he suggests that by pointing out the flaws of political idols I am somehow trolling.

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.

[Jmac1026]

I'm legitimately surprised that anyone would attempt to defend what Jefferson was doing as not rape. By the majority of the world's modern definition, it was rape. She was under age of consent, she was a slave, there was really no way it could be considered legal.

That being said, it most definitively was not considered rape in the 1700s. She was his "property," and legally he could do what he wanted with her.

[Symmetry]

I'm legitimately surprised that anyone would attempt to defend what Jefferson was doing as not rape. By the majority of the world's modern definition, it was rape. She was under age of consent, she was a slave, there was really no way it could be considered legal.

That being said, it most definitively was not considered rape in the 1700s. She was his "property," and legally he could do what he wanted with her.

Aye, if he'd had her beaten, as he did with many of his slaves, it wouldn't legally have been assault. Nor the more obvious slavery charges have had legal merit. It would still have been assault, and his slaves were still slaves.

This line of argument seems morally bankrupt to me.