the truest words ever spoken in american politics

[ChesusRice]

Speaking of espousing stupid, dangerous and perverted points of view, why would you propose making consensual trade in cannabis a criminal offense, Prohibitionist?

You can twist what I say any way you want. I don't care.
Why do you want it legal for adults to fuck children?

 

[Rob Roy]

You didn't answer the question

I know that I don't know everything.

 

[Rob Roy]

So your argument now is that since teenagers are not allowed to drink alchohol. Adults should legally be able to fuck 13 year olds

No, my argument is that since you have advanced ideas for laws that would jail people for cannabis related activity you are a Prohibitionist and consistently fail to comprehend what consent is or isn't.

 

[londonfog]

So, that seems kind of arbitrary doesn't it?

What if a person had not developed the wherewithal to consent but had surpassed your magical "age of consent", you are fine with bopping them anyway, because somebody told you it was okay?

Also, what if the person did consent, but was straddling a state line where two different states had two ages of consent and they were legal in only one of the states....would you only put your dick in half way?

WOW ...there you go making excuses for a pedophile
Also if a person of legal age has not developed the wherewithal to consent, that would mean no consent was given. In that case we call it rape. So now are you defending rapist as well ?

 

[ChesusRice]

Everybody on this forum has walked away from you for your belief that it should be legal for adults to have sex with children.
No matter how much you try to wiggle away by using strawnen, misdirection and lies.
The fact is you think it should be legal for adults to fuck kids. And you have never denied it .
FACT

 

[Rob Roy]

WOW ...there you go making excuses for a pedophile
Also if a person of legal age has not developed the wherewithal to consent, that would mean no consent was given. In that case we call it rape. So now are you defending rapist as well ?

You're funny. I was pointing out how you can try to legislate an arbitrary age of consent, but even the legislators from state to state and country to country can't come to agreement on a legal definition for consent. It obviously isn't a fixed age and depends upon the individual.

You do point out a good thing, (not that you were trying to or that you even agree with yourself)... there is no such thing as "tacit consent", you Anarchist you.

Only the individual can provide consent which makes the idea of a coercion based "everybody is included with or without their express individual consent government" a kind of rape. Now go fold some laundry.

 

[londonfog]

You're funny. I was pointing out how you can try to legislate an arbitrary age of consent, but even the legislators from state to state and country to country can't come to agreement on a legal definition for consent. It obviously isn't a fixed age and depends upon the individual.

You do point out a good thing, (not that you were trying to or that you even agree with yourself)... there is no such thing as "tacit consent", you Anarchist you.

Only the individual can provide consent which makes the idea of a coercion based "everybody is included with or without their express individual consent government" a kind of rape. Now go fold some laundry.

You sound like one of those parents that would let 12 year olds drink alcohol and smoke weed at a birthday party, with the excuse that the government can't tell you how old you should be to drink and smoke.
Stop defending pedophiles and stop comparing things like having to stop at a stop sign to actual sexual rape

 

[Rob Roy]

Everybody on this forum has walked away from you for your belief that it should be legal for adults to have sex with children.
No matter how much you try to wiggle away by using strawnen, misdirection and lies.
The fact is you think it should be legal for adults to fuck kids. And you have never denied it .
FACT

The intensity of your faulty belief in something does not create a truth, Prohibitionist.

I don't believe in the concepts of legality and illegality the way you do. They are arbitrary and flexible terms. That is proven by the fact that slavery remains legal, genocide of American Indians, Jews, Armenians, Cambodians etc. was all legal too. Of course none of it was ever right though.

I can honestly say sometimes I want to forgive you for your asininity, but then I am reminded of your Prohibitionist ideas and I return to my senses.

I think the relationships people engage in should be based on voluntary and peaceful
interactions, you do not.

 

[ChesusRice]

Keep digging

 

[Rob Roy]

You sound like one of those parents that would let 12 year olds drink alcohol and smoke weed at a birthday party, with the excuse that the government can't tell you how old you should be to drink and smoke.
Stop defending pedophiles and stop comparing things like having to stop at a stop sign to actual sexual rape

I haven't defended people that engage in nonconsensual relations with other people. In fact I've stated the opposite. I've said human relations should be based in consent. If a person has no ability to consent, then it can't be manufactured by somebody else now can it?

Yet the government you fervently believe in does exactly that...manufactures consent, for people where it doesn't exist.

Relying on the government for your moral compass, will crash your ship on the rocks.

 

[Rob Roy]

Keep digging

It's good that in your mind, you are "winning".

I'm happy that you are pleasuring yourself, please just don't do it in front of people that haven't consented to be part of it, Prohibitionist.

 

[londonfog]

I haven't defended people that engage in nonconsensual relations with other people. In fact I've stated the opposite. I've said human relations should be based in consent. If a person has no ability to consent, then it can't be manufactured by somebody else now can it?

Yet the government you fervently believe in does exactly that...manufactures consent, for people where it doesn't exist.

Relying on the government for your moral compass, will crash your ship on the rocks.

actually I don't need the government to tell me that a 31 year old should not be fucking a 12 year old, but I'm glad my government has laws against that shit. You won't find me trying to make excuse around that shit, unlike you. Now I'm off to empty coinage from some money making machines

 

[Rob Roy]

So you admit then that there's no way for a person to tell if a kid has developed the wherewithal to be able to morally consent to things we would normally reserve for adults using your reasoning

Hopefully that makes it clear to you why we need a line, as arbitrary as it may seem to you or me

Thanks for approaching this in a reasonable way.

No, I'm saying that the matter isn't one where it has universal application based on a given age. We probably agree though that the older an individual becomes the more likely that person has developed the wherewithal to consent. The younger an individual is the less likely.

A legislative line in the sand isn't the method I would advocate, since it creates unintended consequences. It's also worth pointing out legislators from state to state and country to country seem to establish the line at a different age.

I do have a personal and cultural bias against large discrepancies in ages of couples. That doesn't mean I have a right to prevent other people, who can and do consent to things from doing the things that I disapprove of though.

 

[Rob Roy]

actually I don't need the government to tell me that a 31 year old should not be fucking a 12 year old, but I'm glad my government has laws against that shit. You won't find me trying to make excuse around that shit, unlike you. Now I'm off to empty coinage from some money making machines

My personal and philosophic bias leads me to agree with you, that if a person is unable to consent to something or they haven't consented, they should be left alone.

Even if a 12 year old could or did consent to you when you were 31, it would have met with my disapproval as far as being something I could endorse.

As far as your being glad that there is a nanny state, I feel sorry that you are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Rob Roy]

So back to true words spoken, how does one reach a part of the population that's willingly swallowed the propaganda paradigm that is 'conservative' thinking? I mean, reach them, to say that radical change such as they keep being told is grand is 'conservative'? That it's okay to tell others how to live in a free country?

Once someone holds all these mutually conflicting ideas in one's head, logic creases to fit their version of 'facts', so using logic to refute it is ineffective.

Wtf?

You think you have it rough arguing "tastes great" is better than "less filling" ?


Logic? Okay. Try getting people to examine the erroneous idea that a coercion based government is needed to prevent people from being coercive.

 

[ChesusRice]

My personal and philosophic bias leads me to agree with you, that if a person is unable to consent to something or they haven't consented, they should be left alone.

Even if a 12 year old could or did consent to you when you were 31, it would have met with my disapproval as far as being something I could endorse.

As far as your being glad that there is a nanny state, I feel sorry that you are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome.

150 paragraphs of bullshit.
Rob Roy whether you approve or disapprove. Should it be illegal for a 13 year old to have sex with an adult?
Yes or No?
Is the question too hard for you to understand?
It's only been asked of you a 100 times?
I have never seen you answer no.

 

[Rob Roy]

150 paragraphs of bullshit.
Rob Roy whether you approve or disapprove. Should it be illegal for a 13 year old to have sex with an adult?
Yes or No?
Is the question too hard for you to understand?
It's only been asked of you a 100 times?
I have never seen you answer no.

 

[see4]

I thank your off your meds.

1. Learn to spell.
2. Your troll game is weak as fuck.
3. Try harder.

Have a nice day.

 

[see4]

My personal and philosophic bias leads me to agree with you, that if a person is unable to consent to something or they haven't consented, they should be left alone.

Even if a 12 year old could or did consent to you when you were 31, it would have met with my disapproval as far as being something I could endorse.

As far as your being glad that there is a nanny state, I feel sorry that you are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome.

So if there is no law to enforce that interaction, how is one punished for doing something wrong?

 

[londonfog]

My personal and philosophic bias leads me to agree with you, that if a person is unable to consent to something or they haven't consented, they should be left alone.

Even if a 12 year old could or did consent to you when you were 31, it would have met with my disapproval as far as being something I could endorse.

As far as your being glad that there is a nanny state, I feel sorry that you are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome.

Because I'm glad we have laws against statutory rape, you feel I'm experiencing Stockholm Syndrome. I guess you wish we didn't have laws against statutory rape. Why do you continue to defend pedophiles and object to laws against pedophiles ?