You obviously don't know many 18-year-olds, but otherwise your point is fair enough. We don't know how many 7-12 year olds were raped 200 years ago. All we know is it was legal to do so. When an adult would have sex with a child, I doubt it made people in that day throw up in their mouths and wish a fate worse than death on the rapist. In fact, it appears it was just fine with them, so in my* book that makes them all scum.

* okay, I stole it from DS

I think everyone understands what you're saying here, microbet, the bottleneck seems to be that you have provided literally no evidence for it.

i mean this might just be me, but trying to characterize a time period when black people were the literal property of white people as any bit "more liberal" than a time when black people actually had a few rights, seems pretty ridiculous.

but if we're comparing like 1770 to 1830, idk man, i guess you could be right, i'm not really that well versed in american history.

what was your point again?

Oh yeah, that's the bigger point. Thanks to our emissaries from SMP, this thread has become a ****ing morass of navel gazing semantics and dudes spitballing about nonsense.

CONTENT.

Hey at least we ran Jibninjas right off again. Little victories.

The biggest thing is not related to race, but religion. The founders were way more liberal/open-minded about religion than political leaders ever since, maybe all the way up to today.

As far as race goes, perhaps it was more of a polarization than shift against being open to equality.

Well, I guess if they would have tolerated the good atheists of 2+2, we should look past the slave raping.

lolololo, listen to William Buckley spit out the same "why don't black people just try harder at school?" bull**** that jb & friends have been workshopping (skip to 0:43):

Trolly,

I think the prevailing opinion is that too many people agree with that sentiment for it to be racist. After all, the world was indeed flat when everyone thought it was.

How is that possibly what I said? You're talking about Thomas Jefferson and here's my post, not far back about him.

If Jonas Salk was a serial killer would that overshadow his accomplishments? Technically no. And I don't think I ever said Jefferson's accomplishments were overshadowed either. I said he was a bad person. Doing good things is not always correlated with being good.

Well that's a strange conclusion to draw, since we do in fact get pretty damn upset these days when we here about guys (say older than about 18) banging 16 year olds.

It's technically legal but totally not acceptable.

That statement is insane.

Wookie,

Here's another one. Wtf?

And yet, when you're considering the most liberal times in American history, you're putting slave rapers up against non-slave-rapers.

Again, wtf? In regards to Black rights, I'm comparing it to the civil war era at the latest. Not, one of the most liberal times in American history.

Like, I compared them to Andrew Jackson, not Noam Chomsky.

Wookie, William F Buckley was deeply concerned with racism in America (6:30)

And again, that was to make the point that TJ was responsible for his actions and not just helplessly destined to rape blacks.

Being a serial killer has been considered morally reprehensible for most of written history, with the obvious exception of rationalizing war. If Jonas Salk cured polio in 1800, he'd be a hero and few people would remember if he owned slaves, just like Ghandi is a hero and his terrible stance on women and gays are a footnote. I thought your whole point was to make out TJ as not worthy of any praise for all he did for the country, democracy, etc., because he was a big hypocrite who owned slaves.

I don't think so. People back then thought blacks were genetically inferior to whites, even subhuman, not much higher than the animals God gave man to rule over and exploit.

The idea that racism is over in any sense is just fundamentally discrediting. At best that makes you too unaware to engage in meaningful discourse.

i still don't understand how times were more liberal in 1776 when president-to-be thomas jefferson was raping slaves on the reg, compared to 1830 when president andrew jackson was most likely raping slaves/indians on the reg, or compared to 1860, when there was at least some public outcry against raping slaves and abraham lincoln probably wasn't raping any slaves, or any time thereafter when there weren't any slaves to rape.

maybe microbet got his dates confused because he cant do math

Chiefsplanet vacillates back and forth between declaring racism dead and calling black people apes (then pontificating about how maybe that's not really always racist).

I think it's more like your views on racism are apparently in the minority, so perhaps you ought to explain them better, speak a little slower, and maybe even be happy that people who disagree with you are even willing to argue the subject, because most just shrug and ignore you.

Well rep, you certainly don't know much about Andrew Jackson. And TJ was already going in the wrong direction in regards to slave rape from Washington and Adams.

lol Dids, did you not watch the yootubes I posted? Alex Baldwin came to Harvard and he was the toast of the town! Sure maybe in 1860 there was racism, but by 1968 that **** had clearly been sorted out.