Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Fair enough.
Although I think you are being optimistic when you say you run the vast majority of things in your life.
Take this survey (Isidewith.com), post your results
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Fair enough.
Although I think you are being optimistic when you say you run the vast majority of things in your life.
NewtoMJ
Well-Known Member
Lol, I know that before I said I believe most people are good, but I should have said I WANT to believe most people are good, but really we are mostly made up of violent greedy assholes. I go into further detail in our other conversation over at the other thread.
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective. I don't ask anybody permission to do things in my daily life.
At the same time, I'm perfectly fine with letting other people manage certain aspects. Taxes, for example. I have no interest what-so-ever in deciding exactly how my taxes are spent. I'm not going to appropriate .10 for nasa, .35 for something else, blah blah blah. I just want it to get done.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
When some people take your money do they ask your permission?
When some people tell you what you can or cannot put into your own body, do they ask your permission?
When some people tell you can't travel without their permission is that a matter of perspective?
Not trying to be a dick here...just wondering if you've ever considered what is "normal" might be wrong?
No, I simply give it to them. Usually in exchange for something, but not always.
Why would they? I usually go to them. Since I never order off menu, I only ever hear that I can't have something when they are out of it.
Money is the only thing that has ever stopped me from travel.
All the time, but not in the sense you mean. I think governments can be good things. I have no illusion that there is some simple, grand unification law or idea that solves anything by removing everything.
Your idea is great for small groups of people but the reality is we live in a society of billions.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so why do you think paying children for sex is a voluntary and consensual act?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Reported as having one hand in your pants while typing.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Your first three statements are a little bit of a stretch and seem to contradict your last statement. On the one hand you seem to think individual freedom is a good thing, but then on the other you seem to think that there must exist an institution that has a foundation of restricting individual freedom to the point of killing people if they fail to comply.
I have no illusion that thru a coercion based system, peace can somehow arise. However that is what people that think government can be good things are asking for.
"My idea", is not really mine in the sense that I invented it, it is a truth that exists whether I believe it or not.
The number of people that practice / believe in a false thing, doesn't change whether or not the thing is false or true.
Peace and travel safely.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you're the one who keeps saying that paying children for sex is a consensual and voluntary act. i just want to know why you think that sick pedo shit, rob.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I don't say an act itself IS or ISN'T consensual. Any act itself, even if it is heinous, doesn't tell us whether or not the act was consensual does it?
I just want to know why your deductive reasoning skills fall into the category of an armadillo?
Also, what are you doing up so early, don't you usually sleep off the previous nights binge drinking?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
paying children for sex is never consensual you sick pedo fuck.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I hear you that it is heinous, but your failure to answer my questions is very telling.
Can you explain how a person capable of consenting to one thing that is heinous, can't then consent to something else that is also heinous?
You seem to be stumped there and your legendary record of answering questions seems a little tarnished.
How does the nature of an act, even a heinous one, change whether or not the act was consented to?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
get it through your thick pedo skull, you sick fuck: children cannot consent to having sex with you.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Well that's true, because in order for that act to be consensual it would require my consent, which isn't available in that situation.
So, you found a nut blind squirrel, because it fell on your head.
Can you tell me why you think consent is impossible when you disagree with a particular act? What makes that so?
Also, when typing you should take that other hand out of your pants, it's a little creepy.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so you're saying that the child can consent to having sex with you?
you sick pedo fuck.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No, since I would not be consenting it would be rape.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yeah, explain it to the judge that way, spaMBLA.
"no, your honor. that child raped me!"
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I don't view centralized governments as some ultimate answer to peace, I view them as a better answer than yours. Given mans current propensity for greed and violence, I don't believe for one second that your (and I only say it's yours because you advocate it) idea could ever work with 6+ billion people as it sits now.
It's just not realistic at all to me. Your idea is so full of loop holes that it'd be a criminals wet dream.
Criminal: I didn't consent to this arbitration. Your ruling means nothing to me.
"Govt": Touche.
How could you ever resolve that situation properly without coercion?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You might be failing to differentiate between defensive force and offensive force.
Coercion is a kind of offensive force.
If a person or group of people calling themselves "government" uses offensive force are they in the right or in the wrong?
Similar threads
