It appears that Barbie has found religion. After rebelling with Harley Davidson Barbie and bikini Barbie. There is even an S & M Barbie in all leather and fishnet stockings. Now, however, there is Burka Barbie.
Of course, this could be a surplus GI Joe in a Burka but the covered Barbie is on display with 500 other Barbies at the Salone dei Cinquecento, in Florence, Italy. To complete the image of subjugation for feminists, Burka Barbie will be auctioned off to the highest bidder as part of the fundraiser by Sotheby’s.
For many, the doll teaches girls to accept an obnoxious practice of women covering themselves — a practice common in areas where girls as young as ten are routinely married off. Then again, many Muslims would likely argue that, if Mattel markets kinky Barbie, why shouldn’t it also make Barbies for conservative Islamic families?
Would do you think?
For the picture of Burka Barbie and full story, click here.
bdaman:
as evidenced by this thread, they don’t care if the thread diverges on it’s own but you just pull stuff out of thin cold air (AGW reference) and paste without the slightest regard for content of the existing thread.
Someone:
Thomas Jefferson raped Sally Hemmings.
Bdman:
He raped Polar Bears too and here is the proof:
http://www.tjrapedpolarbears.com (web site about veracity of AGW)
Bdaman:
and another: http://www.jamesmadisonrapedeskimos.com
bdaman:
http://www.georgemasonfreedthepolarbears.com
Bdaman,
Why don’t you?
bdaman–
“BTW it’s important to get 8 hours of sleep, DURING THE NIGHT.”
Not if you’re a vampire!
bdaman–
Sometimes a person makes a comment as part of a discussion that another person picks up on and comments upon. Then the discussion might veer of in a different direction. There are those–with ulterior motives–who hijack threads on purpose. There is a difference.
Of course, you–or anyone else–can always start your own blogs if there are particular subjects that you’d like to discuss with others via the Internet. It’s really easy to do.
Thats Ok they accuse me of being a bad spiller, I mean speller to.
I could open mozilla they have auto spell check, but who cares. People that point out that you missed spelled a word are just nit pickin.
Just throwin it back at them. Slart posted yesterday that I hijack threads, which is factual, but everybody does it. It’s like taking a dump. Everybody does it some just stink when they do it.
gripe/griping
although Bdaman could be gripping something as he writes.
bdaman:
why the gripping?
Maybe you can ask for your own personal thread to talk about rape. It’s such an interesting subject to begin with. I know Slartsafart asked for one on climategate but the door is still closed. Wonder if she will just pick an old thread like Tinky Winky Teletubbies gone wild. There was only three comments on that great story. Maybe one of the thousand threads of cops gone mad. That would work. Oh but don’t hijack threads.
Mr. Lincoln: “It is said that the slaveholder has the same [political] (sic) right to take his negroes to Kansas that a freeman has to take his hogs or his horses. This would be true if negroes were property in the same sense that hogs and horses are.
“But is this the case? It is notoriously not so. Southern men do not treat their negroes as they do their horses. There are 400,000 free negroes in the United States. All the race came to this country as slaves. How came these negroes free? At $500 each, their value is $2,000,000. Can you find two million dollars worth of any other kind of property running about without an owner?
“These negroes are free, because their owners, in some way and at some time, felt satisfied that the creatures had mind, feeling, souls, family affections, hopes, joys, sorrows—something that made them more than hogs or horses.
“Shall the Slaveholders require us to be more heartless and mean than they, and treat those beings as property which they themselves have never been able to treat so?” Pages 245-46.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idxhttp://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/01/bill-russell-constitutional.html?c=lincoln;rgn=div1;view=text;idno=lincoln2;node=lincoln2%3A281;cc=lincoln
BTW it’s important to get 8 hours of sleep, DURING THE NIGHT.
It’s interesting how the discussions on one subject can veer off in all kinds of directions at the Turley blog–even without trolls hijacking the threads.
Yes it is now isn’t it. oh the hypocrisy. Good for you Ms M. for seeing that it’s just not me. Everyone hijacks threads 128 comments on this thread, Dolly Parton Glass Stegall Act Buddah attacking Jill, then rape. Tisk Tisk I say. You all should be ashamed of yourself.
Buddha: “That the law was so primitive to consider her property is another consideration. You may be a Kantian, but foremost I’m a humanist. Sally Hemmings was a person. That’s the reality.”
Ex post facto. You have to apply the law as it existed in that time. And seeing that you brought Kant into it, I’d also let you know that if I were prosecuting Jefferson for rape in that time, I’d shove the second paragraph of the Declaration down his throat in such a clean, abstract & purely clinical manner as to make him sob. You know; the whole idea of race and gender being non-existent and irrelevant from a non-spacio-temporal perspective; i.e. in the eyes of Divine Providence, etc., etc.
BIL–
Rape is rape…no matter what you call it. You can call a chicken a turkey–but it’s still a chicken.
I was wondering how this Jefferson/Hemings thread got started on the Burka Barbie post. Just a simple little comment: “We’ve had presidents who owned slaves. Was that moral?” It’s interesting how the discussions on one subject can veer off in all kinds of directions at the Turley blog–even without trolls hijacking the threads.
BTW, thank you all for a thoroughly enjoyable thread.
pardon, instead of immoral, substitute unethical. It has been a long day and my word choice function is going to bed before I am.
Yes, Bob, she was a person.
Real. She was born. She lived. She loved. She hated. She died. Her mitochondrial DNA walks the Earth today. Part of her is now other persons.
That the law was so primitive to consider her property is another consideration. You may be a Kantian, but foremost I’m a humanist. Sally Hemmings was a person. That’s the reality.
I appreciate the point you were making about her not being a legal person in Jefferson’s time. I think my comments about the term rape answer that. By your own logic, if she’s property, she can’t be raped. It has to be called something else. Rape is inaccurate and untruthful absent further data.
Lotta,
No, but it’s an argument I’d make against metaphysics, which are not law. Metaphysical arguments are also not law for a reason. It’s a different set of abstractions. Defining the nature of reality and the nature of law is exactly the crux here. One can remain a theoretical and observational exercise and the other has to deal with how people really act and it does so without much grace at times. Drafters are human and humans are imperfect. That’s why we discard outmoded practices like slavery. Not every idea is a winner out of the gate. The difference between metaphysics and law is analogous to the relation between pure science and engineering. One seeks basic principles but the other must (try) to apply them to an often much messier human dynamic. But in your version of reality, the range of human sexual responses to each other is limited by a legal construct. Okay. I’ll bet my 250,000 years of evolution against your 2,000 years of philosophy and law and raise you a Darwin. Once again: coffee colored people. They were around then too. Not all of them the product of rape. Your observation, and the law, are not in sync with the reality of human nature when applied to groups and pair bonding. People will hook up. They will hook up inappropriately and across what are considered normal social and sometimes legal boundaries. It’s our nature. Forbidden fruit and all that. What the legal situation surrounding them and how it defines their relationship is not indicative of individual actual consent to intercourse. At the bottom line, intercourse is a binary transaction totally devoid of legal consideration. If the answer is 1/1, then it’s never rape. If it’s 1/0, it’s always rape. It’s only when free will, choice, is violated that rape occurs and the law becomes involved. But if law and desire are moving in the same direction, it cannot be rape by definition. You cannot know Sally’s desires without asking her. Inexact language is the enemy of truth. The truth of human nature tells me that without testimony to state of mind, a charge of rape is unprovable. If you want to stipulate that having sex with slaves is immoral and should be criminal, fine. That I’ll buy. But you can’t call it rape without proof of the lack of actual consent. By your own argument, property can’t be raped. The term is bad. Imputed lack of consent distorts the reality of human sexuality.
If you want another example of the law doing this exact same thing, I submit DADT, anti-abortion laws and any state that still considers sex between an 18 year old and 17 year old statutory rape. Not realistic. Ergo, less functional.
“No matter what the damn law said, she was a person. With free will.”
She was a person? Really? Not even a hundred years later would Sally be considered a “person.”
“4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a “citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its “people or citizens.” Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html
The ‘will’ of property is legally irrelevant and for all intents and purposes completely non-existent.
When I said earlier that you were attempting to predicate non-existence, I meant that you were attempting to apply a “person-predicate” to a piece of property. In the time of Jefferson, Sally was not a person in any legal sense of the term.
Thus when you said: “Her chattel status does not preclude her giving actual consent. Just because legally she had no legal recourse to refuse does not mean that she refused. That’s just logic.”
You’re providing a contradictory definition of Sally, i.e. one definition necessarily precluding the other, and attempting to apply law (i.e. the predicate) to both. The law saw her as property and continued to see all ‘Negros’ as such for nearly a century after Sally passed on.
Accordingly, the whole IRAC (‘Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion’) rap reserved for legal analysis, e.g. “is this a rape?”, does not apply to the relationship between an owner and his property.
On a Lockean level, Sally was raped with or without her consent simply by virtue of being the Jefferson’s property during intercourse.
Within the American legal system, i.e. ignoring the founding and simply taking a positivist view of the constitution, the rape never happened.
BIL, were this an arbitration I would raise a threshold question. I would that your argument regarding consent was premature and in all likelihood moot because the threshold issue that first needs to be determined is if the nature of the relationship precludes any discussion of consent as a standard. Hemming’s state of mind is not dispositive if as a matter of law she was not considered an individual or citizen and/or did not have the legal rights, (specifically to refuse to have sex) normally accorded same.
The nature of a choice (Hemming’s state of mind) to mitigate or excuse an allegation of rape can only be considered if the possibility of a choice is present. If a choice to refuse to have sex with someone is precluded by the nature of the relationship, then the act must be called rape by any legal definition. The only relevant legal question is the threshold question on the nature of the relationship.
(That’s why one can not divorce the subject of slavery from the allegation of rape whenever one discusses a slave-owner having sex with a slave. The topics can not be severed.)
—
Byron, “Jefferson in particular” can not be divorced from the class of owners if the threshold question is considered.
—
Bob,esq: “Alternatively, the exercise of power over the inalienable right of self-ownership (viz slavery) is tyranny per se AND THEREFORE the person being treated as property is metaphysically incapable of giving consent to intercourse–thus necessitating the lesser included offense (to slavery/tyranny) of rape.”
Exactly, Slavery is an absolutely coercive relationship for the slave characterized by a complete lack of choice in any regard.
—
BIL: “Just because legally she had no legal recourse to refuse does not mean that she refused. That’s just logic. ”
Is that the argument you as a defense attorney would make to a jury regarding a plaintiff that was slipped a ruffie and raped? Of course not. The law provides that when one is too incapacitated to give consent then consent can’t be inferred. Slavery is an incapacity of self determination for the slave.