Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For most of history, consummation at the onset of female puberty was considered normal.
During colonial days, in Delaware, a female had reached the age of consent at 7.
In Alabama, the age of consent for a female was age 14 up to the 90’s.
Hawaii did not get around to raising age from 14 to 16 until 2001.
The concept of childhood is a relatively new social construct. Public opinion and laws about most things have and will continue to evolve, over time.
I agree with your point that opinions and laws change over time, and they have to be viewed in their time, but they don't always change for the better or right. About the age of consent at 7 in Delaware well after the colonial era, I think it was lowered related to the penalty for statutory rape being increased to death penalty. The traditional common law age of consent 10 or 12, had to do with statutory rape more than marriage.
In order to convict a man of rape, both force and lack of consent had to be proved, except in the case of a girl under the age of consent who was considered to not know right from wrong and was therefore incapable of consenting. . The traditional common law age of consent was 10 or 12. In Delaware the age of consent was 10 until 1871 when it was lowered to seven. 14 Del. Laws 105 (1871) The same law instituted the death penalty for sex with a girl below the age of consent, before that the penalty had been up to 10 years in prison. It was probably the increase in the penalty which caused the age to be lowered, although reticence at the time to even discuss rape, means there is little mention of the change in law in the newspapers of 1871 and no legislative history.
Nice deflection. The thread may have started with that question but quickly devolved into your standard pitch that liberal Jews are not real Jews. The truth is that most Americans at the time (regardless of political identity) didn't care about the situation of Jews in Europe and that is the real tragedy. Of course, you're just using this thread to forward your political hit job on modern Democrats, just like 95 percent of your posts on this site.
Not at all. If you'll notice my disaffection with FDR dates to 1973. I cast my first GOP vote in 1984, and continue to be active in the Democratic Party.
im sorry other than the Japanese camps i am unaware of any other i don't suppose you could clarify for us non mind readers? Roosevelt himself said his left hand did not know what his right was doing he constantly lied...i know all that
No shortage of US people thought it appropriate to round up, lock up, and somehow deport all of Muslims faith, after 9/11. Some continue to express the view that the faith is not compatible with US values and Muslims should be rounded up and deported.
Obviously, the US has learned from prior mistakes.
No shortage of US people thought it appropriate to round up, lock up, and somehow deport all of Muslims faith, after 9/11. Some continue to express the view that the faith is not compatible with US values and Muslims should be rounded up and deported.
Obviously, the US has learned from prior mistakes.
I've heard it said that Jews are the only group who will vote against their own self-interest. It's "liberalism....onward march" and forget about antisemitism, on the rise worldwide.
There was a liberal Jewish professor (that's redundant, isn't it?) who recently wrote an article advising Jews to forget about fighting antisemitism and instead focus all their energy on fighting racism. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Funny! The OP is a white conservative of some type,
Not at all. If you'll notice my disaffection with FDR dates to 1973. I cast my first GOP vote in 1984, and continue to be active in the Democratic Party.
He was addressing that to me. Apparently, he is unhappy that a Republican is consistently expressing dismay with the Democratic Party.
I've heard it said that Jews are the only group who will vote against their own self-interest. It's "liberalism....onward march" and forget about antisemitism, on the rise worldwide.
There was a liberal Jewish professor (that's redundant, isn't it?) who recently wrote an article advising Jews to forget about fighting antisemitism and instead focus all their energy on fighting racism. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile
Funny! The OP is a white conservative of some type,
OP is a Jewish Democrat who is daring to express dismay with FDR's antisemitism and the fact that even Jews continue to hold him up as beacon of light despite that. Why would liberals have a problem with that? It's true: FDR's antisemitism revealed itself numerous times, and his negativity toward Jews unfortunately influenced his decision to do nothing as they were led to slaughter....or gassing.
Seems to me that liberals are all to quick to label President Trump an anti-Semite, which is untrue, while coming down hard on any Jew who criticizes true anti-Semites holding elected position IF they are Democrats. That's why brought about this entire topic: why are Jews (and others) so forgiving of antisemitism among liberal leaders?
The answer is simple - all historical figures need to be looked at in the context of their time.
Period.
In the big picture, Democracy and self-determination were his goals...as well as fairness (inside our nation) to all. If not for FDR Israel might not exist...the Arabs and Nazis were buddies.
FDR aide David Niles, who was a Zionist, or at least Zionist-sympathetic, said that he doubted Israel would have come about had FDR not died in 1945, leaving VP Truman at the helm. It was Truman who pushed for the creation of a Jewish state.
David Niles, a close adviser to FDR, once remarked that if Roosevelt had lived longer (and thus Harry Truman remained vice president), he probably would not have supported the creation of Israel, and as a result the Jewish state might never have been established.
No shortage of US people thought it appropriate to round up, lock up, and somehow deport all of Muslims faith, after 9/11. Some continue to express the view that the faith is not compatible with US values and Muslims should be rounded up and deported.
Obviously, the US has learned from prior mistakes.
You're comparing the thought, by some, of deporting all Muslims (which of course never happened) to the actual mass murder of 6 million Jews (which did happen)?
You're comparing the thought, by some, of deporting all Muslims (which of course never happened) to the actual mass murder of 6 million Jews (which did happen)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP is a white conservative of some type,
