• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taking down statues

Wrong.
I had just showed you one example, and yet you want to deny reality about this as well. That's just dumb.

iLOL Is that what you think? Interesting. Yet the republican Party was sure able to tell the difference and so were most of the voters, especially as he received less than 1% of the vote.

:lamo
A plethora? iLOL
I have no doubt that some are supporting Trump. That is becasue he wants to achieve similar things, but the motivation behind wanting to achieve those things are completely different.
eg: Would the white supremacists support building a wall? Of course they would, but it is not the same reason those on the right support building the wall.

Spencer leans left as I showed you. He just does not want to include other races in his ideal leftist/socialistic/marxist society. Hate to break it to you, but that is not being on the right.

No matter how many times you try to assert it was, it still factually wasn't.
Get over it.

Besides being wrong, that is a stupid dismissive nonsense, designed to deflect for lack of having a valid argument.
You could not rape a slave.

No. Fox has not been on my tv for about 15 years. Nor have any other of the networks. I just don't watch the tv anymore.
But I have seen some Fox reports on the internet, as well as other networks, but it is not a regular thing for any of them.

That is an opinion, not fact.

Your projection is hilarious, as well as your citing posted forum topics from equally biased sources to back up that bias. That is called being in La la land.

Ask me if I care about her ignorance in calling something other than it was?
You could not rape your slave.
Even the courts proved that at the time.

iLOL
Imaginary brainwashed leftest bs.
Jews do not fit in to the leftist white nationalist or KKK groups.


All that the "courts proved" was that the rape of slaves was not illegal. It is still rape, which is forcible or coerced or unwanted sex. You are talking the legal system. I am talking the action, per se. As I said before, this is not the first time that I have heard this excuse, that it is not rape because it was not illegal. It is a common refrain among you right-wing racist Republicans. I have no idea why. Perhaps you are trying to show that Southern slavery was "just not that bad". Here's a hint: it was. In addition to rape, slaves were subjected to being killed by their owners (murder) and to being whipped (assault) and just because it was supposedly "legal" did not change the FACT that the ACTIONS were rape, murder, and assault.

Yes, you showed me ONE example of a white supremacist supporting Biden, and I retorted that it was most probably a false flag. And how can you not understand the support that Trump has received from David Duke and his fellow white supremacists over the past four years unless you are doing a Rip Van Winkle and just not paying attention to reality.

And I notice that you don't even address the scourge of land being taken from the Palestinians, which is illegal by any modern standard, and being supported by right-wing Jews both in Israel and the US. Once again, Trump makes the problem worse by supporting the most extremist part of the Israeli population, to include moving the embassy to Jerusalem and thereby once again spitting in the faces of the Palestinians.

And as for not watching FOX, the vast right-wing echo machine has many other outlets, and all of them lead to the very same talking points as you readily post. Perhaps you listen to right-wing hate radio, or you get your "information" through the Web from email or blogs or "new" collators. It all ends up being the same--talking points for those who can't think on their own. Like you.....
 
I actually did address that point. That is not something one should engage in.

No it is not misguided.
You should seek to understand that time frame and not define it by current standards.
That in no way means you should not use it as an example of conduct we do not approve of now.
But it still remains that it was not rape then.

Wrong.
As I said in another post; "Their standards applied to what was going on at the time, not ours."

Which is irrelevant to the standards they had at that time.
Or are you saying it would be okay to take the morals of then and apply it to today to claim most everybody is a debased horrible human being?

You want to do a comparative analysis between yesterday's morals and today's? Great. But don't say something is what it wasn't
It was not rape.
You could not rape your slave.
For most of this country's history a man could not rape his wife. It literally was not rape, during that time and in those jurisdictions. Ffs, in one jurisdiction, adultery was considered rape.

Morals are subjective, in flux, and such arguments are invalid.
You want to judge instead of compare? Do so by their morals, or caveat it, otherwise you are engaged in asininity.


That is a lot of nonsense packed into so few words.

1. Semantics? Hilarious. You could not rape your slave. That is objective and factual, not semantics. Your side is using semantics to say it was rape then as well.

2. No one said you individually could not judge it, but you would also have to add in a caveat to do so. What was said was a statement of fact that required no caveat. You could not rape your slave. It wasn't rape.

3. What you are now trying to do with your introduction of pedophilia is compare incomparable issues. Try something actually comparable eg: You could not rape your wife either back then. It matters not if we today would consider it rape. It was not rape then.

4. As for pedophilia. A primary sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
That is a modern diagnosis of an individual's pattern of behavior. I am pretty sure you have no such diagnosis to rely on in regards to any far gone historical figure and thus would just be assuming, which of course would not be valid argumentation.

Societal morals change. They will continue to change.
But you still haven't shown a valid reason to judge the past by today's standards.


Or how about you try something from more recent history?
To me, and becasue of my societal indoctrination, and I hope to most, this past behavior was reprehensible, but it was not to them at the time they were engaging in it.
Which is exactly how it should be viewed. It was not to them at the time, which is factual.


Wrong. Stating a fact is not irrelevant.
Bloviation? Wrong. It literally could not be becasue of it's shortness.

You on the other hand are bloviating in opposition to factual information and I am finding myself in a position that requires me to respond to your bloviation becasue of it's absurdity. And claiming something was rape when it factually was not, is logically irrelevant.
So you have this pretty backasswards.


iLOL Judging it my your standards, or by today's standards, does not preclude or prevent recognition that it indeed was not rape back them.

Arguing otherwise is idiotic.


It is you who is redefining. Rape is a forceful and unwanted sexual episode. You are talking about LAW, not about a standard of ethics or morality.

I have already said, in my very first OP, that we are all victims of our cultures and that there is a need to understand why certain "customs" seemed to be okay in the past, such as the common use of the n-word, but that does not mean that those customs should be carried forward to today.

Rape is rape, whether it was committed by a Roman soldier 2000 years ago or a Southern slave owner 200 years ago. Whether it was "illegal" or not is a totally different matter.

Show me the research that says that ownership makes rape okay. I can show you plenty of articles that talk about the RAPE of Southern women slaves by their owners. Are they all wrong while you and your fellow right-wing racists are right? I don't think so.
 
Jefferson raped a slave and then enslaved the children that were the result.

Not as bad as Columbus' genocidal tendencies, but it's not exactly good.

Agreed... I would add that he did far more than Columbus ever even thought of though doing though. The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights alone make him one of the most influential people in human history.
 
I

iLOL Judging it my your standards, or by today's standards, does not preclude or prevent recognition that it indeed was not rape back them.

Arguing otherwise is idiotic.

Arguing such a point is idiotic because it is a red herring and Deuce wasn’t making a legal assertion.

No it is not misguided.
You should seek to understand that time frame and not define it by current standards.

I understand very well the time frame. The “time frame” include Jefferson’s own recognition slavery was wrong and contrary to their own notions of liberty. He wasn’t alone. Madison, Washington, snd abolitionists at the time believed slavery to be immoral and contrary to their own notions of liberty. That’s what perhaps makes judging Jefferson and others all the more easy.

Which brings me to my next point. I’ve not defined the time frame by current standards. I’ve used their own standards, although they acted hypocritically.

But, to take up the gauntlet, using contemporary moral standards is not to “define” their “time frame.” It is to judge their time frame. Vast difference.

That in no way means you should not use it as an example of conduct we do not approve of now.
But it still remains that it was not rape then.

This misses the point Deuce was making. Deuce wasn’t asserting it was rape under the law at the time. Deuce was asserting what was legal at the time doesn’t preclude judging the behavior today. And he’s right. There’s been no compelling logic or reasoning for the proposition what was lawful back then precludes judging the behavior today.

You want to do a comparative analysis between yesterday's morals and today's? Great. But don't say something is what it wasn't
It was not rape.

First, let’s set the record straight, I NEVER said it was rape. Got it! Some one else made the remark.

Second, I’m not defending the misstatement.

Third, maybe Deuce misspoke as a matter of law at the time regarding rape. He says he wasn’t making a legal assertion of rape. But whether the conduct was rape under the law at the time wasn’t his point. You seized upon a misstatement while saying nothing about his point that we can judge that behavior today, and on a basis other than legality.

You could not rape your slave.
For most of this country's history a man could not rape his wife. It literally was not rape, during that time and in those jurisdictions. Ffs, in one jurisdiction, adultery was considered rape.

I’m familiar with the law buddy. There’s a reason
I’m not trying for the ostentatious route and wow people with the legal history above, and it’s because that was never the point being made. It’s a red herring. A tangent.

Or are you saying itake the morals of then and apply it to today to claim most everybody is a debased horrible human being?

This does happen. Whether it is “foolish” is to be determined by the rationale for doing so. It is not automatically asinine.

That is a lot of nonsense.

If only thou sayeth made it so.

1.You could not rape your slave. That is objective and factual....Your side is using semantics to say it was rape then as well.

My side? Pay attention. There isn’t any “my side.” I stand alone and so does my view. This isn’t a herd argument.

Second, I didn’t make that claim it was rape under the law.

Third, your claim is too broad. “You could not rape your slave” as a matter of law. That is objective and factual. But Deuce said he isn’t pigeon holing himself to a legal meaning. He is instead, as far as I can tell, invoking a moral meaning of rape, specifically done without consent or by force, or consent wasn’t voluntary.

3. What you are now trying to do with your introduction of pedophilia is compare incomparable issues.

A few points. First, I apparently did not do an adequate job of explaining how I was using the analogy. I wasn’t using it merely for rape but slavery.

If Jefferson and others engaged in pedophilia, and it was lawful, the fact it was lawful isn’t sufficient to preclude condemnation today. That is parallel to slavery, where today we condemn slavery, including the past, and those engaged in it, and the fact it was legal doesn’t preclude such judgment.

As it pertains to rape, let’s suppose the practice of pedophilia mirrors the Ancient Greeks. It wasn’t illegal. This doesn’t preclude judging that conduct although it wasn’t illegal. Just as forced sex with a slave wasn’t illegal doesn’t precluding judging it today.

That’s my point and use of the analogy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I actually did address that point.

Morals are subjective, in flux, and such arguments are invalid.
You want to judge instead of compare? Do so by their morals, or caveat it, otherwise you are engaged in asininity.

A few points. The asininity is not automatic.

First, your claim its “asininity” is subjective. There certainly is no objective rule, objective principle, like the laws of nature, such as gravity, speed of light, etcetera. It’s your personal belief it is asininity and its subjective. So, to express a subjective belief to deride what you believe is asinine because of, in part, subjectivity, is ironic.

And that’s really the issue, whether it is asinine to use the morals of today to evaluate the actions of the framers and founders in regards to slavery. Some are of the opinion it isn’t asinine to do so. Claiming what is in dispute is circular logic. What you’ve said here is asinine.

This isn’t to suggest I do not believe there may cannot be a rational argument to support a subjective point of view in such a way as it isn’t asinine. To the contrary, there is an entire field in philosophy, moral philosophy, where philosophers articulate what they personally believe to be a preferred or beneficial moral code, and it isn’t asinine because of the rational arguments made.

In saying that, I also say using today’s morals to judge Jefferson, and others, isn’t not necessarily asinine. Rather, there exists a rational argument for doing so. Sure, some are doing so based on nothing more than claiming because they can, or assuming a superior morality and nothing else. Yet, there does exist a reasonable argument for the very judgment at issue, eroding any notion of asininity.

You think a different morality is being used to judge? Jefferson acknowledged slavery was immoral. In a letter to Thomas Copper, Jefferson claimed slavery to be “moral and political depravity.” Indeed, he said, more exactly, “[t]here is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity.” Jefferson, acknowledges slavery is “oppression” as he says, “but I am at present comparing the condition & degree of suffering to which oppression has reduced the man of one color, with the condition and degree of suffering to which oppression has reduced the man of another color; equally condemning both.” Madison, Washington, and others acknowledged slavery was immoral or contrary to their ideal of liberty.

They can be judged by their own acknowledgement of the moral ineptitude of slavery, a moral precept very pervasive in America today.


So you have this pretty backasswards.

How enlightening! Especially from you, who relies upon his own subjective belief and perception to allege asininity for some conduct where that conduct is based in part on being subject. That is backasswards.

In addition, focusing upon a red herring, a tangent, while missing Deuce’s point is backasswards.

Being lectured by someone who spews subjectivity from their fingers to deride subjectivity, and obsesses on red herrings, as being backasswards is in dire need of a mirror and should relocate from their glass house.

Sent from my iPhone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
All that the "courts proved" was that the rape of slaves was not illegal.
Wrong.


It is still rape,
Wrong. You could not rape your slave.



You are talking the legal system. I am talking the action, per se.
Wrong. You could not rape your slave.
It was literally impossible to rape your slave.
A slave had no such capacity or consideration.
Whether you like it or not, that was fact, not just a legal argument.


Yes, you showed me ONE example of a white supremacist supporting Biden, and I retorted that it was most probably a false flag.
iLOL I showed you someone who leans left supporting someone on the left and yet you somehow think it is a false flag with no evidence to support such a stance.
:lamo


And how can you not understand the support that Trump has received from David Duke and his fellow white supremacists over the past four years unless you are doing a Rip Van Winkle and just not paying attention to reality.
What actual support over the past four years?
iLOL Huh?
And what did you not understand about supporting the same thing for different reasons?


And I notice that you don't even address the scourge of land being taken from the Palestinians,
How cute. You think I have to address your deflective and irrelevant nonsense that has not a damn thing to do with the specifics we are discussing.


And as for not watching FOX, the vast right-wing echo machine has many other outlets, and all of them lead to the very same talking points as you readily post. Perhaps you listen to right-wing hate radio, or you get your "information" through the Web from email or blogs or "new" collators. It all ends up being the same--talking points for those who can't think on their own. Like you.....
:lamo
That is the crap that resides in your head.
Thinking someone else is posting talking points is likely because that is what you do.


It is you who is redefining. Rape is a forceful and unwanted sexual episode. You are talking about LAW, not about a standard of ethics or morality.
And you are still wrong. You could not rape your slave.
It was literally impossible to rape your slave.
A slave had no such capacity or consideration.
Whether you like it or not, that was fact, not just a legal argument and was a standard of ethics and morality that existed at the time.
Ffs, those ethics and morality still exist in African and Arab nations to this day.


Show me the research that says that ownership makes rape okay.
:lamo Show you research? iLOL How absurd.
It wasn't rape. It was a right to use our property as you saw fit. That is a fact, not a legal argument.
You could not rape your slave.
It was literally impossible to rape your slave.
A slave had no such capacity or consideration.
Whether you like it or not, that was fact, not just a legal argument.


I can show you plenty of articles that talk about the RAPE of Southern women slaves by their owners. Are they all wrong while you and your fellow right-wing racists are right? I don't think so.
Me and my fellow right-wing racists? :lamo
You certainly like engaging in make believe.

An article describing it as rape, for lack of a better term, does not make it rape.


You can not show any article that makes it rape as you literally could not rape your slave.
A slave had no such capacity or consideration.
Whether you like it or not, that was fact, not just a legal argument.
 
Arguing such a point is idiotic because it is a red herring
Wrong.


Which brings me to my next point. I’ve not defined the time frame by current standards. I’ve used their own standards, although they acted hypocritically.
:lamo
Their personal opinions vs the standards of the time, are two different things.
Unlike many today, they were able to distinguish between the two,


, using contemporary moral standards is not to “define” their “time frame.” It is to judge their time frame. Vast difference.
And without caveat, is asinine.


This misses the point Deuce was making. Deuce wasn’t asserting it was rape under the law at the time. Deuce was asserting what was legal at the time doesn’t preclude judging the behavior today. And he’s right. There’s been no compelling logic or reasoning for the proposition what was lawful back then precludes judging the behavior today.
iLOL I did not speak to his judging.


You seized upon a misstatement while saying nothing about his point that we can judge that behavior today, and on a basis other than legality.
:lamo I seized upon a false statement. I do not need too make comment on anything else unless I choose to do so.
But way to White Night with a red herring fallacy. :thumbs:


, and it’s because that was never the point being made. It’s a red herring. A tangent.
Wrong. It literally was not rape. You could not rape your slave.
And btw, that is not just a legal argument.


My side? Pay attention. There isn’t any “my side.” I stand alone and so does my view.
iLOL You are doing the arguing here. That is your side. Duh!


Third, your claim is too broad. “You could not rape your slave” as a matter of law. That is objective and factual. But Deuce said he isn’t pigeon holing himself to a legal meaning. He is instead, as far as I can tell, invoking a moral meaning of rape, specifically done without consent or by force, or consent wasn’t voluntary.
So you think you are white knighting? iLOL
Deuce is capable of making it's own argument.
And your bs is taking us astray from the actual argument made.
It was not too broad. It is factual.
Slaves where not given any such consideration as a person would.

When a rancher breeds his female cattle is he raping them? Of course not. The rancher is engaging in a right as the owner.


That’s my point and use of the analogy.
Yep. That's what it was alright. Doh!


The asininity is not automatic.
Yes, it is.


First, your claim its “asininity” is subjective. [...]
Your argument is also what is asinine. You continually conflate their opinion with the standards of the time.
The standards at the time were what was.
Their opinions in regards to those standards are irrelevant and are not the topic.


Yet, there does exist a reasonable argument for the very judgment at issue, eroding any notion of asininity.
Not without caveat. Which should not have to be pointed out to you.


You think a different morality is being used to judge? Jefferson acknowledged slavery was immoral. [...]
Oy vey!
Jefferson's opinion was not the standard at the time.
Do you or do you not understand that?
And that too is a caveated argument if one wants to make it, which has no relevance to that which was at the time.
You could not rape your slave. Which needs no caveat, as that was the reality at the time.


How enlightening! Especially from you, who relies upon his own subjective belief and perception to allege asininity for some conduct where that conduct is based in part on being subject. That is backasswards.

In addition, focusing upon a red herring, a tangent, while missing Deuce’s point is backasswards.
Says you, the one having things backasswards and engaging in a red herring and tangent.

At no point did I argue to "Outer space potato man" anything about his comment about judging, and yet here you are White Knighting. iLOL
 
Back
Top Bottom