Legal to grow and possess illegal to sell

Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Do you also feel a pedophile still has the right to live next to a elementary, middle or high school
Click to expand...
Hell no, unless it was one of those "I statutorily raped my girlfriend of 5 years (despite both being in a loving and consensual sexual relationship) just because I turned 18" situations.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
Why do you refuse to say that 9 year olds cannot consent to sex with an adult?
Click to expand...
I'm not positive, but I think you already mentioned 9 year olds Poopy Pants. Please have your research department review the records. I thought you had counted down to at least 7 or 8 by now. Thank you.

Why do you refuse to have a straight up (generic) discussion of what consent is ? Are you afraid you will then have to admit you advocate nonconsensual human relations all the time as part of your beliefs and practices?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
you do realize that was a yes or no question.
Do you think a pedophile has the right to live next to a elementary, middle, or high school
Click to expand...
Does the pedophile own the property or have a valid agreement with the property owner where he/she is current in whatever was agreed to?

Also, I think we agree that a pedophile is a potentially dangerous person based on their behavior...should other people that run roughshod over people without the consent of those being abused be stopped?

How would you deal with a group of thugs that said "give me money for things I like, if you don't pay up, we'll steal your house"? Would you oppose those thugs or would you join them? If you joined them, should YOU have the right to live next to a school?
 
Last edited:
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Does the pedophile own the property or have a valid agreement with the property owner where he/she is current in whatever was agreed to?

Also, I think we agree that a pedophile is a potentially dangerous person based on their behavior...should other people that run roughshod over others without the consent of those being abused be stopped?

How would you deal with a group of thugs that said "give me money for things I like, if you don't pay up, we'll steal your house"? Would you oppose those thugs or would you join them? If you joined them, should YOU have the right to live next to a school?
Click to expand...
What if I lived upstream from you and dammed the water that irrigated your crops?
What then Rob?
Stop fucking up everyone's threads with your insanity. Start your own threads.
Oh Wait no one wants to really deal with your stupid shit
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
What if I lived upstream from you and dammed the water that irrigated your crops?
What then Rob?
Stop fucking up everyone's threads with your insanity. Start your own threads.
Oh Wait no one wants to really deal with your stupid shit
Click to expand...
If you didn't eventually release some of the water, you might turn your land into a lake is one of my first observations.

Also, I'd be happy to leave you alone, I'll remind you in our history, it was you that first spoke impolitely and became a dick and have maintained that behavior. You seem a little like you want to "prohibit" people from taking defensive actions when you behave like an ass. I'd suggest concepts which might appear stupid to you, could be poor comprehension on your part.

I see you didn't address my question asking if you had modified your law proposal, is that because you are saying you haven't modified it or because you had hoped nobody would ask?
 
ohnothimagin

ohnothimagin

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Agreed about the price and safety issues as reasons for home growing. At this time, if you are going to smoke very much, it makes sense to grow, especially if legal issues are eliminated.

Data reported from OR labs in recent articles showed at least half OR MMJ sold today contains potentially harmful pesticide residues. As a non-medical user, this means that I just say no to commercial MJ when it goes on sale for recreational use in October. I have no reason to expose myself to the risk of an ignorant grower poisoning me just so that I can get high every now and then.

Have there been any issues with complaints from neighbors of home growers in DC? Or other problems?
Click to expand...
In our Condo, management sent around a notice asking owners and tenants to have some consideration of other owners and tenants who don't grow or smoke. That's about it. My DWC in in a walk in closet. I have a 5 gallon reservoir and that's about all I can manage easily. I'm currently growing AK-48 which is my favorite.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
If you want to discuss consent that's fine. Sooner or later I'd rather return the conversation to a more generic discussion of consent in terms of what consent itself is and not the various acts that seem to remain in the minds of the trolling jackals and prohibitionists etc.
The original diversion here, has been entertaining, but it's getting a little weather beaten. When the topic first came up a few months back when Uncle Buck and I were fucking with each other I had a point to make about consent in general, but again the topic ran a little off course. I am partially to blame for that.


To answer your question, I do not think a child possesses the wherewithal that they will likely develop later on in life. So in that regard, generally speaking the younger a person is, the more likely that individual is unable to fully understand the consequences or particulars of what they might be agreeing to or engaging in. I say agreeing, because if they are young enough that they are unable to understand the consequences, their "agreement" may not be actual consent.

If you were asking about when a person can consent to a sexual relation, I'd say the older a person is the more likely they can give real and bonafide consent. I do not think that age is universal for everyone as some people remain in a retarded or undeveloped physical and mental state longer than others, . My personal feelings are I am uncomfortable with a large age discrepancy among people in sexual relationships, but that may be due, at least in part, by cultural learned behavior.

What do you think? Does the ability to consent happen magically at the same time for every person or does it develop at different rates in individual people?

When do you think you acquired the wherewithal to consent to a sexual relationship, how old were you?
Click to expand...
If adolescent partners are close to the same age and nobody was pressured into having sex, by some definitions, this is a negotiated consent. Statutory rape law applies when one of the partners is much older than a teenage partner and that person does not restrain themself from sexual relations. My focus therefore is on the adult, not the kid. Teenagers are legally under the protective custody of their guardians, usually their parents, who in most cases have the best interests of the young adult at heart. When statutory rape occurs, its usually up to the parents whether or not pressing charges will harm the child more than simply letting the matter pass. Top priority is the health of the developing person. If my child were involved, I would not take into account what they said about their consent. I would hold the molesting adult responsible for harm to my child whether or not I pressed charges.

Sexual experiences release a number of hormones that alter the brain and stimulate emotional attachment to their partner. Young or old, this is pretty much universal but to the adolescent this attachment can be intense. The adolescent is pretty much defenseless to manipulation and coercion from an adult sexual predator. Is a young adult ready to handle the emotions of rejection when the predator moves on? There is a large body of case studies that show the outcome for that young adult is more likely to be impaired (depression, suicide, lack of self worth, sexual problems, etc.) compared to young adults that were not molested. So, sexual predators cause harm.

Knowing this, would you sanction putting a developing young adult in the care of a sexual predator that cares nothing for the health and well being of their object of satisfaction?

Do you think that an adult (age > 21) that has sex with a young adult (age <18 against the wishes of the youngster's parents is doing anything wrong? Should they be held responsible if there is finding of harm?

It seems that at least for children that are two years of age you are willing to concede that they aren't able to understand and consent in the same way that an adult can. You are unwilling to put a limit on an age of consent above that. From what I understand of your writing, you say that it depends on the individual. You seem willing to throw out any current laws regarding statutory rape.

Do you care to protect the young of this society from harm from sexual predators? If so, how would you protect the youth of this society from sexual predators? Would you involve the legal system or just handle it individually.

And finally, what if the predator and your adolescent child ran away together. What would you do?
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ohnothimagin said:
In our Condo, management sent around a notice asking owners and tenants to have some consideration of other owners and tenants who don't grow or smoke. That's about it. My DWC in in a walk in closet. I have a 5 gallon reservoir and that's about all I can manage easily. I'm currently growing AK-48 which is my favorite.
Click to expand...
But so far, no complaints, it seems. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
ohnothimagin said:
In our Condo, management sent around a notice asking owners and tenants to have some consideration of other owners and tenants who don't grow or smoke. That's about it. My DWC in in a walk in closet. I have a 5 gallon reservoir and that's about all I can manage easily. I'm currently growing AK-48 which is my favorite.
Click to expand...
AK48 is nice, but not great.

Has a good high, but none of the desirable flavour or smell when you're smoking it.

Try other strains too, I spent too long taking up too much space with AK48.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Hell no, unless it was one of those "I statutorily raped my girlfriend of 5 years (despite both being in a loving and consensual sexual relationship) just because I turned 18" situations.
Click to expand...
Could you please explain to @Rob Roy why a convicted pedophile is not allowed to live next to a school. Why he should not defend a convicted pedophile wanting to live next to schools
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
AK48 is nice, but not great.

Has a good high, but none of the desirable flavour or smell when you're smoking it.

Try other strains too, I spent too long taking up too much space with AK48.
Click to expand...
might I ask what is your current favorite? Beginner grower here and always interested in what the experienced growers are liking.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
might I ask what is your current favorite? Beginner grower here and always interested in what the experienced growers are liking.
Click to expand...
My current favourite is the Skunk #5.

Danky dank and nice uppity high, solid as fuck buds and good yield per plant in 8-10 (max) weeks flowering.

If it's part of your shtick, its got good bag appeal too.

I prefer variety tho, good to have strains to fall back on as old reliables but I find if you smoke too much of one kind your tolerance shoots up.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member

Those were a batch of my AK48, I don't post anything more recent anymoar cos I don't think it's wise to collect a book of evidence ;)

EDIT: I hit report by mistake on this post and decided to go through with it cos I've never reported anything before, lol.
 
Last edited:
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Here is a picture of my grow.

What you don't see any?

That's because it is super illegal to grow here. So I don't
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
If adolescent partners are close to the same age and nobody was pressured into having sex, by some definitions, this is a negotiated consent. Statutory rape law applies when one of the partners is much older than a teenage partner and that person does not restrain themself from sexual relations. My focus therefore is on the adult, not the kid. Teenagers are legally under the protective custody of their guardians, usually their parents, who in most cases have the best interests of the young adult at heart. When statutory rape occurs, its usually up to the parents whether or not pressing charges will harm the child more than simply letting the matter pass. Top priority is the health of the developing person. If my child were involved, I would not take into account what they said about their consent. I would hold the molesting adult responsible for harm to my child whether or not I pressed charges.

Sexual experiences release a number of hormones that alter the brain and stimulate emotional attachment to their partner. Young or old, this is pretty much universal but to the adolescent this attachment can be intense. The adolescent is pretty much defenseless to manipulation and coercion from an adult sexual predator. Is a young adult ready to handle the emotions of rejection when the predator moves on? There is a large body of case studies that show the outcome for that young adult is more likely to be impaired (depression, suicide, lack of self worth, sexual problems, etc.) compared to young adults that were not molested. So, sexual predators cause harm.

Knowing this, would you sanction putting a developing young adult in the care of a sexual predator that cares nothing for the health and well being of their object of satisfaction?

Do you think that an adult (age > 21) that has sex with a young adult (age <18 against the wishes of the youngster's parents is doing anything wrong? Should they be held responsible if there is finding of harm?

It seems that at least for children that are two years of age you are willing to concede that they aren't able to understand and consent in the same way that an adult can. You are unwilling to put a limit on an age of consent above that. From what I understand of your writing, you say that it depends on the individual. You seem willing to throw out any current laws regarding statutory rape.

Do you care to protect the young of this society from harm from sexual predators? If so, how would you protect the youth of this society from sexual predators? Would you involve the legal system or just handle it individually.

And finally, what if the predator and your adolescent child ran away together. What would you do?
Click to expand...

Okay, I think we agree that creating victims is a bad thing. We may disagree on the ultimate best solution on how to prevent and resolve that though. Let's see if we can hold a conversation about our different approaches to lessening coercion based human interactions.

We could detail lots of scenarios and include interesting circumstances, ages of the involved etc, but I think we agree using the element of nondefensive force, duress etc. to ensure person(s) A gets what he wants even when person(s) B hasn't or can't consent to the interaction is wrong. I'd go so far as to say it might be a universal wrong.

The particular circumstances of who did what to whom can change, but the above philosophy of "do not force human relations" is the crux of the issue, right? We want to prevent person A from coercing person B, that is the goal, right?

Your suggested way to ensure that goal of "no use of coercion" is to then use as the arbitrator of those forced situations an entity (coercive government) that gains its authority and maintains its being THRU the systemic use of coercion. How does using systemic force to ensure the elimination of force work? Isn't that a contradiction?

Again, we agree that ending forced human relations is the big picture goal, right?

You asked if those kinds of acts should be "illegal" etc. ? You asked it in more specific terms, etc., but I think as I mentioned already above, the question is generic and more universal. I'd boil it down to, "should human interactions be on a peaceful and voluntary basis" as the core question. The answer is yes, they should, but you already knew that, I think.

That's where the irony comes in, the people that you would use to form and enforce the law have power over others which arises, not from consent, instead that power arises in a nonconsensual and forceful way. While I'm in favor of ending the problems created by using force to create a human interaction, I'm not in favor of applying a contradictory "solution" using the same method, force, which we are trying to eliminate.

So how do you use a coercion based entity to eliminate coercion is the question we SHOULD be asking, but is very seldom contemplated.




Note - If a predator came to to take my child I'd probably use DEFENSIVE force to stop it. If you agree that is an appropriate behavior, should a person then have the right to keep his children from being placed in a government school and try to avoid being forced to pay for that same school which the child doesn't use? Isn't that a use of defensive force?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Could you please explain to @Rob Roy why a convicted pedophile is not allowed to live next to a school. Why he should not defend a convicted pedophile wanting to live next to schools
Click to expand...
I'm happy to discuss this with you and think we may agree on some wrongful behavior, I'm not so confident we will share the same thoughts on solutions though, we can get to that...

First off, let's see if we agree -

People who use nondefensive force on others to create a nonconsenting relationship are victimizing somebody and their behavior is wrong, whether or not any existing law agrees or exists to address that behavior. Do we agree on that point?
 
G

god1

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Okay, I think we agree that creating victims is a bad thing. We may disagree on the ultimate best solution on how to prevent and resolve that though. Let's see if we can hold a conversation about our different approaches to lessening coercion based human interactions.

We could detail lots of scenarios and include interesting circumstances, ages of the involved etc, but I think we agree using the element of nondefensive force, duress etc. to ensure person(s) A gets what he wants even when person(s) B hasn't or can't consent to the interaction is wrong. I'd go so far as to say it might be a universal wrong.

The particular circumstances of who did what to whom can change, but the above philosophy of "do not force human relations" is the crux of the issue, right? We want to prevent person A from coercing person B, that is the goal, right?

Your suggested way to ensure that goal of "no use of coercion" is to then use as the arbitrator of those forced situations an entity (coercive government) that gains its authority and maintains its being THRU the systemic use of coercion. How does using systemic force to ensure the elimination of force work? Isn't that a contradiction?

Again, we agree that ending forced human relations is the big picture goal, right?

You asked if those kinds of acts should be "illegal" etc. ? You asked it in more specific terms, etc., but I think as I mentioned already above, the question is generic and more universal. I'd boil it down to, "should human interactions be on a peaceful and voluntary basis" as the core question. The answer is yes, they should, but you already knew that, I think.

That's where the irony comes in, the people that you would use to form and enforce the law have power over others which arises, not from consent, instead that power arises in a nonconsensual and forceful way. While I'm in favor of ending the problems created by using force to create a human interaction, I'm not in favor of applying a contradictory "solution" using the same method, force, which we are trying to eliminate.

So how do you use a coercion based entity to eliminate coercion is the question we SHOULD be asking, but is very seldom contemplated.




Note - If a predator came to to take my child I'd probably use DEFENSIVE force to stop it. If you agree that is an appropriate behavior, should a person then have the right to keep his children from being placed in a government school and try to avoid being forced to pay for that same school which the child doesn't use? Isn't that a use of defensive force?
Click to expand...

Rob,

The reason nobody but Rob can live in your world is that you have no means of universal resolution of conflict.
Human interactions are filled with conflict.

You can attempt to use your Defensive force tactic, but the only way you can be successful is if your "might" is greater than your opponents.

You really want to live in a world of "might makes right"?

Great idealism, but it ain't going to fly. The system we have ain't the best, but at times universal governmental coercion is the best tool for the job.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top