Government claims it owns children, threatens 2nd mom with jail

PCXV

PCXV

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
To prevent a person from consuming something they'd like to consume is simply the inverse of insisting a person consume something they don't want to. Naming which regulatory agency holds the whip doesn't address the idea that in either case it's wrong.

If there is no forcible injection, how would you propose instituting vaccines, on a voluntary basis ?
Click to expand...
They aren't directly preventing a person from consuming, only possessing, manufacturing, and distributing. It is not about the agency, it is about the means of controlling dangerous substances. Are you saying we should let Russia and North Korea have access to all the uranium they want because if we don't we are unrightfully infringing on their sovereignty and autonomy?

The current vaccine system we have isn't forced vaccinations, it is informed consent. It has already been enacted making a proposal moot.

It is incorrect to look at a society of people that have sacrificed some rights in exchange for quality of life, safety, justice and order, and view them as slaves. They are acting in their best interest and explicitly consenting in word and/or action. What is good for someone may restrict their freedom, but they will choose it anyway.

My belief system revolves around helping people, what is good for people, not what allows them the most possible freedom no matter what the negative consequences.
 
Last edited:
PCXV

PCXV

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
So, I hear you talking, and I think we agree that we'd not like the actions you describe above, but the question you seem to have failed to address is what do you think makes that so ?

It seems you are saying the ability to consent to something is somehow external from the individual person and coincides with some kind of arbitrary number determined by some kind of statute which varies from location to location. How is that possible ?
Click to expand...
We as a society have observed the negative effects of statutory rape; the negative psychological effects on the victim, the lack of rationalizing ability in underdeveloped brains, the sociopathy of those that commit statutory rape, the abuse of authority in most instances. The reasoning is pretty simple. To prevent harm we create laws. The government has a legitimate interest in defending those that cannot adequately defend themselves.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
PCXV said:
We as a society have observed the negative effects of statutory rape; the negative psychological effects on the victim, the lack of rationalizing ability in underdeveloped brains, the sociopathy of those that commit statutory rape, the abuse of authority in most instances. The reasoning is pretty simple. To prevent harm we create laws. The government has a legitimate interest in defending those that cannot adequately defend themselves.
Click to expand...


If nobody has any authority over other persons bodies, absent that persons consent, how can you aggregate something nonexistent into "authority" by a group of people?
 
PCXV

PCXV

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
If nobody has any authority over other persons bodies, absent that persons consent, how can you aggregate something nonexistent into "authority" by a group of people?
Click to expand...
That person or their parents have consented and subscribed them to the authority of the law. A society of law might limit bodily autonomy in cases where bodily autonomy results in the hurting of oneself directly and others indirectly, or when it directly affects others.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
PCXV said:
That person or their parents have consented and subscribed them to the authority of the law. A society of law might limit bodily autonomy in cases where bodily autonomy results in the hurting of oneself directly and others indirectly, or when it directly affects others.
Click to expand...

That's an answer that implies consent can be given, when it actually hasn't been.

You seem to either be avoiding answering my question or unable to. Or possibly you misunderstand it.

I think consent to be real, must be given by the individual. Are you saying that the acquiescence of a person to an entity claiming to be their authority is the same as actual consent ? Isn't that an instance of phony consent, if the "authority" has placed somebody under duress, to gain their acquiescence how can that still be termed "consent" ?


So, are you saying that a person can have their right to determine the use of their own body removed by other people and you go along with that as an acceptable societal norm?
 
PCXV

PCXV

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
That's an answer that implies consent can be given, when it actually hasn't been.

You seem to either be avoiding answering my question or unable to. Or possibly you misunderstand it.

I think consent to be real, must be given by the individual. Are you saying that the acquiescence of a person to an entity claiming to be their authority is the same as actual consent ? Isn't that an instance of phony consent, if the "authority" has placed somebody under duress, to gain their acquiescence how can that still be termed "consent" ?


So, are you saying that a person can have their right to determine the use of their own body removed by other people and you go along with that as an acceptable societal norm?
Click to expand...
Your first sentence/paragraph doesn't make sense. Maybe you meant "was" instead of "can." Why do you think consent has not been given? What do you qualify as "real consent?"

I think I understand your question and am addressing it. IMO, you are not confronting my argument directly and instead repeat your claim that a) consent has not been given and b) government is coercing people, but you refuse to submit real evidence for either.

I haven't been arguing acquiescence, I have been arguing affirmed consent. Once you accept and utilize the benefits of a society, you have affirmed your consent to the law of that society. There is no coercion because you have a choice. Even after you consent you can withdraw your consent if you refuse all entailments of that society.

In the instance of affirmed consent, there are relatively rare instances where bodily autonomy will be limited. Luckily, in a democracy, the people theoretically have the power to check authority and prevent abuse of authority. Authority must be balanced with democracy.

I think your arguments rest heavily on hyperbole. You are making it out to be much worse than it actually is in reality. Authority has the potential to be abused, but that does not mean that any use of authority is abuse. Until you prove coercion and duress those claims are both hyperbolic and untrue.
 
Last edited:
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
So, I hear you talking, and I think we agree that we'd not like the actions you describe above, but the question you seem to have failed to address is what do you think makes that so ?

It seems you are saying the ability to consent to something is somehow external from the individual person and coincides with some kind of arbitrary number determined by some kind of statute which varies from location to location. How is that possible ?
Click to expand...
We have established a set of laws to protect minors from pedos who otherwise would and could take advantage of them. Know if you do it...YOU GO TO JAIL.
Stop trying to make it so they think they have a loop hole.

Pedophile Defendant - I'm not guilty based on who is to say the age of consent.

Judge- Sir Roy this young child found in the backseat of your car is only 12

Pedophile Defendant- She is very mature for her age. She can handle her liquor

Judge- Sir Roy it is against the law to have sexual relation with a minor and provide said minor with alcohol.

Pedophile Defendant- Who is to say the age of consent

Judge- BAILIFF LOCK THIS FOOL AWAY !!!! NO BAIL
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
We have established a set of laws to protect minors from pedos who otherwise would and could take advantage of them. Know if you do it...YOU GO TO JAIL.
Stop trying to make it so they think they have a loop hole.

Pedophile Defendant - I'm not guilty based on who is to say the age of consent.

Judge- Sir Roy this young child found in the backseat of your car is only 12

Pedophile Defendant- She is very mature for her age. She can handle her liquor

Judge- Sir Roy it is against the law to have sexual relation with a minor and provide said minor with alcohol.

Pedophile Defendant- Who is to say the age of consent

Judge- BAILIFF LOCK THIS FOOL AWAY !!!! NO BAIL
Click to expand...
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
curious2garden said:
LOL as if that invalidates anything I said. Adolescent technical correctness is what someone who can not make a logical argument resorts to. Your agenda is obvious. I'm done speaking with a NAMBLA pedo, Abe.
Click to expand...
Your first post in this exchange was kind of douchy and falsely suggestive, So what was that you were saying about agendas again?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
PCXV said:
Your first sentence/paragraph doesn't make sense. Maybe you meant "was" instead of "can." Why do you think consent has not been given? What do you qualify as "real consent?"

I think I understand your question and am addressing it. IMO, you are not confronting my argument directly and instead repeat your claim that a) consent has not been given and b) government is coercing people, but you refuse to submit real evidence for either.

I haven't been arguing acquiescence, I have been arguing affirmed consent. Once you accept and utilize the benefits of a society, you have affirmed your consent to the law of that society. There is no coercion because you have a choice. Even after you consent you can withdraw your consent if you refuse all entailments of that society.

In the instance of affirmed consent, there are relatively rare instances where bodily autonomy will be limited. Luckily, in a democracy, the people theoretically have the power to check authority and prevent abuse of authority. Authority must be balanced with democracy.

I think your arguments rest heavily on hyperbole. You are making it out to be much worse than it actually is in reality. Authority has the potential to be abused, but that does not mean that any use of authority is abuse. Until you prove coercion and duress those claims are both hyperbolic and untrue.
Click to expand...
If a child is injected and is unable to consent, wouldn't you say that consent hasn't been given ? If one of the parents doesn't want the child injected
and it is ordered by a judge instead, was consent given ?

Your third paragraph is based in tacit consent ? Which is to say it relies on something other than actual consent. Even if tacit consent were real, (it isn't) it wouldn't apply if the child and a parent hadn't given consent.

Your 4th paragraph assumes there is such a thing as "the people" , and this thing somehow has a singular mindset. Silly Silly boy.

Your last paragraph ignores the fact that a woman is threatened with jail, if she doesn't comply with a judge, I think that is self evident that coercion and duress is present.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
We have established a set of laws to protect minors from pedos who otherwise would and could take advantage of them. Know if you do it...YOU GO TO JAIL.
Stop trying to make it so they think they have a loop hole.

Pedophile Defendant - I'm not guilty based on who is to say the age of consent.

Judge- Sir Roy this young child found in the backseat of your car is only 12

Pedophile Defendant- She is very mature for her age. She can handle her liquor

Judge- Sir Roy it is against the law to have sexual relation with a minor and provide said minor with alcohol.

Pedophile Defendant- Who is to say the age of consent

Judge- BAILIFF LOCK THIS FOOL AWAY !!!! NO BAIL
Click to expand...

I knew it! You're not really a laundry man are you ? You're a writer!
 
PCXV

PCXV

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
If a child is injected and is unable to consent, wouldn't you say that consent hasn't been given ? If one of the parents doesn't want the child injected
and it is ordered by a judge instead, was consent given ?

Your third paragraph is based in tacit consent ? Which is to say it relies on something other than actual consent. Even if tacit consent were real, (it isn't) it wouldn't apply if the child and a parent hadn't given consent.

Your 4th paragraph assumes there is such a thing as "the people" , and this thing somehow has a singular mindset. Silly Silly boy.

Your last paragraph ignores the fact that a woman is threatened with jail, if she doesn't comply with a judge, I think that is self evident that coercion and duress is present.
Click to expand...
One did give consent, wouldn't you say consent has been given?

How is tacit consent not real consent? Again, a parent did give consent.

She is threatened with jail because she did not follow a court order where she lost. If both parents hadn't consented, no court order, no jail time.
 
curious2garden

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
PCXV said:
One did give consent, wouldn't you say consent has been given?

How is tacit consent not real consent? Again, a parent did give consent.

She is threatened with jail because she did not follow a court order where she lost. If both parents hadn't consented, no court order, no jail time.
Click to expand...
Precisely, the government does not force vaccination.

londonfog said:
We have established a set of laws to protect minors from pedos who otherwise would and could take advantage of them. ....snip.....
Click to expand...
Yup, it's called statutory rape, for a reason, because the minor is below the legal age of consent for engaging in an act they can not fully comprehend the ramifications of.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
PCXV said:
One did give consent, wouldn't you say consent has been given?

How is tacit consent not real consent? Again, a parent did give consent.

She is threatened with jail because she did not follow a court order where she lost. If both parents hadn't consented, no court order, no jail time.
Click to expand...

Taken from a passage of the frequently asked questions section of a Voluntaryist website. Enjoy...


Objection: You preach one thing and practice something else. You’ve spent your whole life obeying the state’s authority by paying your taxes. Doesn’t that show you’ve given your tacit consent to government?

Reply: The notion of tacit consent goes at least as far back as John Locke, but it didn’t make sense in the seventeenth century, and it still doesn’t make sense today. What would tacit dissent be like? Moreover, when I hand my wallet over to a crook who threatens to blow me away with a .38 if I refuse, I’m not giving my tacit consent that robbery is morally acceptable. So when I pay my taxes to a government that threatens to imprison me if I don’t comply, it’s hard to see how I’m giving my tacit consent–whatever that is–that state coercion is morally acceptable. Just because many of us have spent our lives following the dictates of the state, it doesn’t follow that we believe in the legitimacy of government. Maybe there are lots of closet voluntaryists!
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
curious2garden said:
Precisely, the government does not force vaccination.


Yup, it's called statutory rape, for a reason, because the minor is below the legal age of consent for engaging in an act they can not fully comprehend the ramifications of.
Click to expand...

Without the threat of force for noncompliance, all government policies would then be reduced to mere suggestions wouldn't they ?
 
SunnyJim

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Without the threat of force for noncompliance, all government policies would then be reduced to mere suggestions wouldn't they ?
Click to expand...
You're suggesting we should have no laws whatsoever? Perfect. You wouldn't have any issues with a group of 'foreigners' coming into your house and setting up camp, because they have implicit freedom to do as they please without 'the threat of force for noncompliance' to nonexistent laws.

Preemptively, your response will somehow place your 'freedoms' above someone else's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top