Are there any smart Trump supporters?

FauxRoux · Apr 10, 2016

Rob Roy said:
Except you're lying. I never said the age should be fixed, since the age ISN'T fixed in reality, only legislatively. You already agreed to that. If you fix an age you then OMIT at least some people, you are also then admitting that you think it's okay to control some people via legislation who ARE capable of making those determinations themselves.

In other words, you took the PROHIBITIONIST STANCE.

Also, I'll remind you that your idea these things MUST be legislated and that is the only way to conduct things like this, is a contradiction and proves you believe in two opposing things at once.

First you say you want to protect people who don't have the ability to consent. Then the first thing you do is use a system, which ISN'T based in consent to pass a law, PREVENTING some people, who by your admission who CAN consent from doing so....

It's so cute when both sides of your mouth move at once like that.

Rob...dude....you're stretching here....you're using 10 kinds of logical fallacy to defend a view none of us care about.

We all agree the government is dysfunctional to one degree or another...kind of beside the point.

The part we can't wrap our noodles around is how you feel it should apply to children...

As shown here...

Rob Roy said:
I would prefer any unintended consequences default to the liberty of the person who CAN consent. To do otherwise violates THOSE individuals rights, that's a certainty.

(you still haven't been able to define what indicates a mature ability to consent as a child)

No system is perfect or without flaws, they all have a weak spot that absorbs more then its fair share of whatever the shortcomings of the system in place are. But its awful that yours would sacrifice children as that crux on the alter of your anarchistic worldview ...its deplorable in the extreme.

Of all the anarchistic views I've heard over the years this is the first that takes that stance.

P.S. Food for thought Rob. I posed the question of "age of consent" to my wife whom is wrapping up a master's degree in childhood development and she was quite disturbed ...after she almost pissed herself laughing and realized you were serious. She points out that there is literally a library full of books on the subject in psychology, human biology, sociology and others that all agree 18 is the physiological and psychological median and best age to begin making rational decisions for oneself. This number was not pulled out of a hat at random.

So no offense, but I would take the empirical evidence of countless scientific groups on this specific subject over someones "ideal political ideology" any day.

FauxRoux · Apr 10, 2016

Also since this IS true for you...

Rob Roy said:
I would prefer any unintended consequences default to the liberty of the person who CAN consent. To do otherwise violates THOSE individuals rights, that's a certainty.

...then you are saying that you understand your system doesn't really address the issue at hand (being predatory behavior towards children or their potential for bad judgment through inexperience) but you still find that preferable. So why are we to believe this system is better for US? I get that you feel it would be better for YOU...but it sounds like you're more concerned with the principle itself then who or how it effects.

Padawanbater2 · Apr 10, 2016

Rob Roy said:
You can't objectively determine something to be a constant for everyone when the subjects (people) are variable.*

If you can't objectively determine if a person has developed the wherewithal to give their consent, how can you then conclude that they have been harmed by restricting their consent?

Rob Roy said:
Your point about protecting people is well intended, but I would prefer any unintended consequences default to the liberty of the person who CAN consent. To do otherwise violates THOSE individuals rights, that's a certainty.

You don't know if it violates anyone's rights because you don't know if the person can consent

Rob Roy said:
The first flaw is the system you use in order to allegedly "protect" people from coercion, uses coercion as a primary means to operate. That is undeniable and contradictory.

"Because the state uses coercion, everything the state does is wrong"

This might help you - List of logical fallacies

Whether or not the state uses coercion is irrelevant to the point about how you can't tell me how you can determine if a person has developed the wherewithal to give their consent outside of asking them directly, therefore, you can't conclude that any harm has been caused by having their consent restricted

Rob Roy said:
The second flaw is we know if you set an arbitrary age limit, that at least some people who can consent are not permited to. Denying a person WITH the wherewithal control of their own body and choices, is a form of institutionalized slavery.

The age limit is not arbitrary, it's based on science and medical research. The legal limit is set at 18 because people have to be able to make decisions that will affect them their entire lives and parents can't be held legally accountable for their kids forever, at some point, simply for utility, people have to become legally responsible for themselves. There are a lot of good reasons to have a defined age of an adult that's based in actual science

Rob Roy said:
It's not up to me to set a standard for how other people will live. I don't have that right. I only have a right to use defensive force if other people try to control my life. That is true for everyone.

* I can think of an exception, which is that it is constant that none of us have the right to run others lives for them.

You're saying that by setting the age of consent at 18, some people, who may be 17 or 16, lose their ability to give their consent. I'm asking you how do you, as a third party, know for sure if they have developed the wherewithal to give their consent? How would you be able to tell? What kind of tests would you run or what kind of questions would you ask them? It seems incredibly stupid to rely on such a subjective form of reasoning when the implications if it could mean putting innocent people behind bars for decades or letting guilty people go completely free.

Rob Roy said:
2) Was force or duress involved would be a good place to start. Why is a third party involved in the first place....did somebody invite them, or did they intervene forcibly?

"How can you determine if force or duress was involved if you can't determine if the 16 year old can give their consent?

Say the third party was the 16 year old's parents, they caught their kid with a 30 year old having sex in their room. The father want's to press charges, but the 16 year old said it was all consentual. Does the father have any legal course of action to take against the 30 year old?"

Rob Roy said:
As far as answering your "what if" legal scenarios, I don't care. It was once legal to buy and sell human beings, so seeking answers to moral dilemmas from arbitrary legal scribblings is hoping your pet blind squirrel can bring you home some nuts.

Lol...

Sure looked like you cared before I trapped you into another logical corner..

Now that you can't answer it, "I don't care about your "what if" scenarios!"... :roll:

Rob Roy · Apr 11, 2016

FauxRoux said:
Rob...dude....you're stretching here....you're using 10 kinds of logical fallacy to defend a view none of us care about.

We all agree the government is dysfunctional to one degree or another...kind of beside the point.

The part we can't wrap our noodles around is how you feel it should apply to children...

As shown here...
(you still haven't been able to define what indicates a mature ability to consent as a child)

No system is perfect or without flaws, they all have a weak spot that absorbs more then its fair share of whatever the shortcomings of the system in place are. But its awful that yours would sacrifice children as that crux on the alter of your anarchistic worldview ...its deplorable in the extreme.

Of all the anarchistic views I've heard over the years this is the first that takes that stance.

P.S. Food for thought Rob. I posed the question of "age of consent" to my wife whom is wrapping up a master's degree in childhood development and she was quite disturbed ...after she almost pissed herself laughing and realized you were serious. She points out that there is literally a library full of books on the subject in psychology, human biology, sociology and others that all agree 18 is the physiological and psychological median and best age to begin making rational decisions for oneself. This number was not pulled out of a hat at random.

So no offense, but I would take the empirical evidence of countless scientific groups on this specific subject over someones "ideal political ideology" any day.

Yet, you nor your wife can refute the fact that the age of consent is not a constant. You both probably agree it isn't a fixed age FOR EVERYONE.

Nor can either of you refute the fact that if a person is capable of consenting and is prevented by a statute from doing so, that INDIVIDUAL has been forcibly deprived of self determination.

So if on one hand your policy seeks to protect EVERY individuals right to self determination....it has demonstrably failed in at least some of the situations.

So, no offense but I would ask you who has the right to delegate another individuals right without that persons consent ?

Rob Roy · Apr 11, 2016

FauxRoux said:
Also since this IS true for you...
...then you are saying that you understand your system doesn't really address the issue at hand (being predatory behavior towards children or their potential for bad judgment through inexperience) but you still find that preferable. So why are we to believe this system is better for US? I get that you feel it would be better for YOU...but it sounds like you're more concerned with the principle itself then who or how it effects.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood. I don't believe in a one size fits all "system". That's contrary to voluntary human interactions.

I believe in self determination of the peaceful person. You do not. That is clear when you advocate a policy which clearly deprives at least SOME people of that ability.

As far as how would people who are assaulted be protected that is a different question. Your "system" INCLUDES from the get go the idea that some people will be deprived of their ability to exercise consent (they will be "assaulted" by your method ) . The burden of proof is on you, to disprove THAT.

Rob Roy · Apr 11, 2016

Padawanbater2 said:
If you can't objectively determine if a person has developed the wherewithal to give their consent, how can you then conclude that they have been harmed by restricting their consent?

You don't know if it violates anyone's rights because you don't know if the person can consent

"Because the state uses coercion, everything the state does is wrong"

This might help you - List of logical fallacies

Whether or not the state uses coercion is irrelevant to the point about how you can't tell me how you can determine if a person has developed the wherewithal to give their consent outside of asking them directly, therefore, you can't conclude that any harm has been caused by having their consent restricted

The age limit is not arbitrary, it's based on science and medical research. The legal limit is set at 18 because people have to be able to make decisions that will affect them their entire lives and parents can't be held legally accountable for their kids forever, at some point, simply for utility, people have to become legally responsible for themselves. There are a lot of good reasons to have a defined age of an adult that's based in actual science

You're saying that by setting the age of consent at 18, some people, who may be 17 or 16, lose their ability to give their consent. I'm asking you how do you, as a third party, know for sure if they have developed the wherewithal to give their consent? How would you be able to tell? What kind of tests would you run or what kind of questions would you ask them? It seems incredibly stupid to rely on such a subjective form of reasoning when the implications if it could mean putting innocent people behind bars for decades or letting guilty people go completely free.

"How can you determine if force or duress was involved if you can't determine if the 16 year old can give their consent?

Say the third party was the 16 year old's parents, they caught their kid with a 30 year old having sex in their room. The father want's to press charges, but the 16 year old said it was all consentual. Does the father have any legal course of action to take against the 30 year old?"

Lol...

Sure looked like you cared before I trapped you into another logical corner..

Now that you can't answer it, "I don't care about your "what if" scenarios!"...

Speaking of logical corners.....Can a person delegate a right they do not possess?

You are asking me to design or explain a system which ensures people won't be assaulted, then you advocate for one WHICH already INCLUDES the deprivation of at least some peoples rights as a component and integral part of it. (which is a form of an assault) That is clear when you admit some people who ARE capable of consenting will be "restricted" from doing so.

I'm not stating I know the perfect system "for everybody". Clearly you don't either, since "your system" includes as a cornerstone of policy the AUTOMATIC DEPRIVATION OF A RIGHT of at least some people.

I do know I have no right to delegate another persons right without their consent. Do you admit that or not?

Rob Roy · Apr 11, 2016

Blunted 4 lyfe said:
Don't bother, Rob Roy just wants to fuck 10 year olds anytime he feels like it.

N4L

The asininity of your statement is blatant. Not even good innuendo or trolling.

I've down graded your status to tiny teddy bear.

schuylaar · Apr 11, 2016

FauxRoux said:
Rob...dude....you're stretching here....you're using 10 kinds of logical fallacy to defend a view none of us care about.

We all agree the government is dysfunctional to one degree or another...kind of beside the point.

The part we can't wrap our noodles around is how you feel it should apply to children...

As shown here...
(you still haven't been able to define what indicates a mature ability to consent as a child)

No system is perfect or without flaws, they all have a weak spot that absorbs more then its fair share of whatever the shortcomings of the system in place are. But its awful that yours would sacrifice children as that crux on the alter of your anarchistic worldview ...its deplorable in the extreme.

Of all the anarchistic views I've heard over the years this is the first that takes that stance.

P.S. Food for thought Rob. I posed the question of "age of consent" to my wife whom is wrapping up a master's degree in childhood development and she was quite disturbed ...after she almost pissed herself laughing and realized you were serious. She points out that there is literally a library full of books on the subject in psychology, human biology, sociology and others that all agree 18 is the physiological and psychological median and best age to begin making rational decisions for oneself. This number was not pulled out of a hat at random.

So no offense, but I would take the empirical evidence of countless scientific groups on this specific subject over someones "ideal political ideology" any day.

here! here! to your wife..even then reasoning ability is not fully developed until mid-twenties for women and around 30 for men.

personally, i was very different at 18 than i was at 28..i took a lot of unnecessary risks..made a lot of bad decisions because i didn't have the ability to weigh the good v. bad..even age 21 is not enough..adulthood should truly be 25.

schuylaar · Apr 11, 2016

Rob Roy said:
Speaking of logical corners.....Can a person delegate a right they do not possess?

You are asking me to design or explain a system which ensures people won't be assaulted, then you advocate for one WHICH already INCLUDES the deprivation of at least some peoples rights as a component and integral part of it. (which is a form of an assault) That is clear when you admit some people who ARE capable of consenting will be "restricted" from doing so.

I'm not stating I know the perfect system "for everybody". Clearly you don't either, since "your system" includes as a cornerstone of policy the AUTOMATIC DEPRIVATION OF A RIGHT of at least some people.

I do know I have no right to delegate another persons right without their consent. Do you admit that or not?

but rob..what are rights? and who has 'authority' to determine? and what do you mean about delegating a right? do you mean AUTHORITY..i just know how much you love that word :lol:

Rob Roy · Apr 11, 2016

schuylaar said:
but rob..what are rights? and who has 'authority' to determine? and what do you mean about delegating a right? do you mean AUTHORITY..i just know how much you love that word

Rights are the opposite of lefts.

I only have a right to authority over my own life.

FauxRoux · Apr 11, 2016

Rob Roy said:
Yet, you nor your wife can refute the fact that the age of consent is not a constant. You both probably agree it isn't a fixed age FOR EVERYONE.

Nor can either of you refute the fact that if a person is capable of consenting and is prevented by a statute from doing so, that INDIVIDUAL has been forcibly deprived of self determination.

So if on one hand your policy seeks to protect EVERY individuals right to self determination....it has demonstrably failed in at least some of the situations.

So, no offense but I would ask you who has the right to delegate another individuals right without that persons consent ?

Actually my wife and I agree its 18. For the reasons that have been listed. We believe in science.

And YOU can't refudiate that even in your system SOMEONE is still getting shafted (pun only slightly intended)...personally I'll take the system that is unfair in the kids favor since that's the focus of the debate.

So thx, I appreciate the viewpoint but I think its not for me. Seems an unpolished idea at this point.

Rob Roy · Apr 11, 2016

FauxRoux said:
Actually my wife and I agree its 18. For the reasons that have been listed. We believe in science.

And YOU can't refudiate that even in your system SOMEONE is still getting shafted (pun only slightly intended)...personally I'll take the system that is unfair in the kids favor since that's the focus of the debate.

So thx, I appreciate the viewpoint but I think its not for me. Seems an unpolished idea at this point.

In the way you would have it, some people who ARE capable are CERTAIN to be DEPRIVED of self determination, by your own admission.

Your belief isn't based in science though, it's based in the indoctrinated idea that SOME people possess the right to delegate or remove another persons right of self determination. THAT is what the real debate is.

You are also making your argument as if there is a solution and it relies on an either / or proposal which only legislation can solve, when it isn't that it all.

It is a matter of defining WHO has the right to delegate a right they do not possess.

You are essentially arguing that people do not have individual rights and that a collective of people can take a thing which is wrong, (depriving an individual of a right) and by a consensus alone, it somehow becomes acceptable.

Can a person delegate a right they do not possess?

Rob Roy · Apr 11, 2016

schuylaar said:
here! here! to your wife..even then reasoning ability is not fully developed until mid-twenties for women and around 30 for men.

personally, i was very different at 18 than i was at 28..i took a lot of unnecessary risks..made a lot of bad decisions because i didn't have the ability to weigh the good v. bad..even age 21 is not enough..adulthood should truly be 25.

Peter Pan is that you?

schuylaar · Apr 11, 2016

Rob Roy said:
Peter Pan is that you?

i'm wendy.

Rob Roy · Apr 11, 2016

FauxRoux said:
Also since this IS true for you...
...then you are saying that you understand your system doesn't really address the issue at hand (being predatory behavior towards children or their potential for bad judgment through inexperience) but you still find that preferable. So why are we to believe this system is better for US? I get that you feel it would be better for YOU...but it sounds like you're more concerned with the principle itself then who or how it effects.

I don't have a system that dictates your behavior, that's the point. I only have authority over ME. Of course everyone has the right to defend themselves, when another person usurps their rights or steals their property etc.

Why is my belief "better" than yours? That's easy, yours has a built in contradiction, my belief does not.

A person who holds two opposing views at once, you, has a philosophy which is at odds with itself.

Your contradiction says in order to protect peoples rights, you have to violate at least some peoples rights. That is an obvious contradiction. I do appreciate the reasonable discourse though, Peace.

By the way, you never answered if a person can delegate a right they do not possess?

FauxRoux · Apr 11, 2016

Yea

Rob Roy said:
I don't have a system that dictates your behavior, that's the point. I only have authority over ME. Of course everyone has the right to defend themselves, when another person usurps their rights or steals their property etc.

Why is my belief "better" than yours? That's easy, yours has a built in contradiction, my belief does not.

A person who holds two opposing views at once, you, has a philosophy which is at odds with itself.

Your contradiction says in order to protect peoples rights, you have to violate at least some peoples rights. That is an obvious contradiction. I do appreciate the reasonable discourse though, Peace.

By the way, you never answered if a person can delegate a right they do not possess?

Yeahhh....you havnt shown any of that to be true.

And you're still using 10 types of logical fallacy... Just because i believe "x" does not automatically mean i believe "y".....nor is the reversal true ...And while you may not see the contridiction in your system i sure do...Just because you decriminalize drugs it may mean drug users are no longer criminals...but they still do drugs. So calling sexually abused minors "consenting" may make you feel better but it in no way addresses the root of the problem...being the issue of those minor's maturity and ABILITY to consent (and yes that means more then litterally verbalising the word "yes").....I guess im more objective. Doesnt sound great to me.

Not buying into your trip doesnt mean I approve of the current system....it just means I have no faith in yours. Thats all it means.

And you can dispute science all you want. But simply dismissing it as if it were some form of systematic conspiricy is certainly not lending weight to ANYTHING you have to say.

So...enjoy your point of view. I have, although I wont be addopting it any time soon.

P.S. Yes...there are a number of times a person can and should deligate a right for another imo. But im not foolish enough to think the world is simply (or even often) black and white.

Padawanbater2 · Apr 11, 2016

Rob Roy said:
Speaking of logical corners.....Can a person delegate a right they do not possess?

You are asking me to design or explain a system which ensures people won't be assaulted, then you advocate for one WHICH already INCLUDES the deprivation of at least some peoples rights as a component and integral part of it. (which is a form of an assault) That is clear when you admit some people who ARE capable of consenting will be "restricted" from doing so.

I'm not stating I know the perfect system "for everybody". Clearly you don't either, since "your system" includes as a cornerstone of policy the AUTOMATIC DEPRIVATION OF A RIGHT of at least some people.

I do know I have no right to delegate another persons right without their consent. Do you admit that or not?

You don't know if a person's consent has been restricted unless you can explain how you would objectively determine if a person has developed the wherewithal to consent in the first place

And you can't get past that because it requires recognizing the legitimacy of the state

Faux and I just showed everyone reading this another way in which your worldview is wrong

I'm content with that

Rob Roy · Apr 11, 2016

FauxRoux said:
Yea

Yeahhh....you havnt shown any of that to be true.

And you're still using 10 types of logical fallacy... Just because i believe "x" does not automatically mean i believe "y".....nor is the reversal true ...And while you may not see the contridiction in your system i sure do...Just because you decriminalize drugs it may mean drug users are no longer criminals...but they still do drugs. So calling sexually abused minors "consenting" may make you feel better but I guess im more objective. Doesnt sound great to me.

Not buying into your trip doesnt mean I approve of the current system....it just means I have no faith in yours. Thats all it means.

And you can dispute science all you want. But simply dismissing it as if it were some form of systematic conspiricy is certainly not lending weight to ANYTHING you have to say.

So...enjoy your point of view. I have, although I wont be addopting it any time soon.

Except....

You DO believe in x because you already admitted that you believe it is acceptable to deprive at least some people who can consent of their ability to do so.

So, your argument isn't with me, it is with yourself and the fact you are espousing two contradictory things at once.

One belief you've stated is that it is wrong for a person to determine anothers consent for them. That's why you seek to protect a child from an aggressor. We agree on that.

Then you become the aggressor of at least some people when you DENY a person who HAS the ability to consent from doing so. We don't agree on that and neither does logic.

Can a person delegate a right they do not possess? The answer is OBVIOUSLY, no. You and many others fear answering that question, because it points out the mass cognitive dissonance most people have.

FauxRoux · Apr 11, 2016

Rob Roy said:
Except....

You DO believe in x because you already admitted that you believe it is acceptable to deprive at least some people who can consent of their ability to do so.

So, your argument isn't with me, it is with yourself and the fact you are espousing two contradictory things at once.

One belief you've stated is that it is wrong for a person to determine anothers consent for them. That's why you seek to protect a child from an aggressor. We agree on that.

Then you become the aggressor of at least some people when you DENY a person who HAS the ability to consent from doing so. We don't agree on that and neither does logic.

Can a person delegate a right they do not possess? The answer is OBVIOUSLY, no. You and many others fear answering that question, because it points out the mass cognitive dissonance most people have.

I have also stated i dont believe children have the wherewithal to make adult decisions. They are not adults.

Stop thinking like this is math dude. What you say when taken into a literal context is asinine.

Your political views are not the laws of physics.

NO ONE....fears your question. We already answered yes. You just dont listen.

We have also pointed out the ways you are right...and at the same time still wrong because you seem to think the square box fitting in a square hole must also mean it fits in the round hole...while just not getting that not everything is the same and cant all be treated by some magical universal rule.

Rob Roy · Apr 11, 2016

Padawanbater2 said:
You don't know if a person's consent has been restricted unless you can explain how you would objectively determine if a person has developed the wherewithal to consent in the first place

And you can't get past that because it requires recognizing the legitimacy of the state

Faux and I just showed everyone reading this another way in which your worldview is wrong

I'm content with that

No.

The basis of this discussion I was having with Faux included his admission that SOME people who he admitted could consent, needed to be deprived of that ability in order to protect others. Thus he was a proponent of a fixed age.

The State is not legitimate. Since it doesn't arise from individual voluntary consent of its serfs.

It uses the EXACT same method, you attempt to prevent a kiddie diddler from using. Offensive Force.

Can a person delegate a right they do not possess? You first argue they can't, when you correctly abhor the kiddie diddler, but then you say they can when you speak of the State.

The contradiction lies within YOU.

Are there any smart Trump supporters?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member