- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 35,181
- Reaction score
- 15,236
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or are you saying itake the morals of then and apply it to today to claim most everybody is a debased horrible human being?
That is a lot of nonsense.
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.
3. What you are now trying to do with your introduction of pedophilia is compare incomparable issues.
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.
So you have this pretty backasswards.
Wrong.All that the "courts proved" was that the rape of slaves was not illegal.
Wrong. You could not rape your slave.It is still rape,
Wrong. You could not rape your slave.You are talking the legal system. I am talking the action, per se.
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.Yes, you showed me ONE example of a white supremacist supporting Biden, and I retorted that it was most probably a false flag.
What actual support over the past four years?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.
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 I notice that you don't even address the scourge of land being taken from the Palestinians,
:lamoAnd 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.....
And you are still wrong. You could not rape your slave.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.
:lamo Show you research? iLOL How absurd.Show me the research that says that ownership makes rape okay.
Me and my fellow right-wing racists? :lamoI 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.
Wrong.Arguing such a point is idiotic because it is a red herring
:lamoWhich 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.
And without caveat, is asinine., using contemporary moral standards is not to “define” their “time frame.” It is to judge their time frame. Vast difference.
iLOL I did not speak to his judging.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.
:lamo I seized upon a false statement. I do not need too make comment on anything else unless I choose to do so.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.
Wrong. It literally was not rape. You could not rape your slave., and it’s because that was never the point being made. It’s a red herring. A tangent.
iLOL You are doing the arguing here. That is your side. Duh!My side? Pay attention. There isn’t any “my side.” I stand alone and so does my view.
So you think you are white knighting? iLOLThird, 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.
Yep. That's what it was alright. Doh!That’s my point and use of the analogy.
Yes, it is.The asininity is not automatic.
Your argument is also what is asinine. You continually conflate their opinion with the standards of the time.First, your claim its “asininity” is subjective. [...]
Not without caveat. Which should not have to be pointed out to you.Yet, there does exist a reasonable argument for the very judgment at issue, eroding any notion of asininity.
Oy vey!You think a different morality is being used to judge? Jefferson acknowledged slavery was immoral. [...]
Says you, the one having things backasswards and engaging in a red herring and tangent.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?