Why did President Lincoln violate freedom of the press laws if he wanted to "free the slaves" ?

[Rob Roy]

bla bla bla...

You say you're not arguing for or against but then you compose yet another whiney bullshit diatribe pro-racism. We get it, giving people rights goes against the liberty of their oppressors to enslave them.

Funny, you always cry about gov't force, but never when it benefits you. "Property rights" are derived from gov't force.

Also, I'm sure you simply forgot, but you omitted to deny being a pedophile, yet again.

So you're saying that you, "an anarchist", are advocating for government to force people who are willing to leave others alone into a human interaction they prefer not to have ? That sounds a lot like it has similar elements as slavery, by virtue of there being a forced human interaction.

Also, it sounds like you are saying two opposing things at once, one that you are an Anarchist and the other that you advocate for a central authority, thus you are NOT an anarchist and simply confused.


And, no, property rights are not derived from government in the common sense of that word, they predate a centralized government. I could discuss that with you, but you'll need to stop crying first.

Pedo? Oh thanks for the reminder. I do not endorse severe age discrepant partners, but I don't know where I would get any authority to stop people who have the wherewithal to consent to something which doesn't involve me from doing so. Would you call in more government to enforce your will on others... Fake Anarchist ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Bingo!

Dingo !

 

[abandonconflict]

So you're saying that you, "an anarchist", are advocating for government to force people who are willing to leave others alone into a human interaction they prefer not to have ?

TL;DR You're a boring ancap pedo.

To answer this question though, no, you are advocating that. Since all land property rights are derived from gov't force and are the basis for any of those interactions you speak of, it is you who advocate gov't force upon people who are unwilling to interact with others. Just because the gov't stipulates that you must use the property they grant you to trade equally with all, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or gender, you suddenly have a problem with gov't involvement.

Actually, I'm sick of getting alerts from an ancap pedophile on this site, so on the ignore list you go.

 

[Rob Roy]

TL;DR You're a boring ancap pedo.

To answer this question though, no, you are advocating that. Since all land property rights are derived from gov't force and are the basis for any of those interactions you speak of, it is you who advocate gov't force upon people who are unwilling to interact with others. Just because the gov't stipulates that you must use the property they grant you to trade equally with all, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or gender, you suddenly have a problem with gov't involvement.

Actually, I'm sick of getting alerts from an ancap pedophile on this site, so on the ignore list you go.

Well, actually you're wrong.

Since humans are physical beings, they MUST exist in a physical realm. Since no TWO humans can occupy the same physical space, it is natural for the first person occupying a given space who improves it to claim THAT space as theirs.

You will secretly read my posts.

Are you running away because I called you out on your Fake Anarchism or did you get a new Jill Stein poster to drool over?

 

[UncleBuck]

Well, actually you're wrong.

Since humans are physical beings, they MUST exist in a physical realm. Since no TWO humans can occupy the same physical space, it is natural for the first person occupying a given space who improves it to claim THAT space as theirs.

You will secretly read my posts.

Are you running away because I called you out on your Fake Anarchism or did you get a new Jill Stein poster to drool over?

i just left a subtle message in your failure of a thread lightly insinuating that you are a pedophile.

 

[Rob Roy]

L

Dammit man, spit it out!!!!

 

[Rob Roy]

i just left a subtle message in your failure of a thread lightly insinuating that you are a pedophile.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not fluent in Pedo talk. Perhaps you could translate it for me, you being a skilled writer in pedo speak ?

 

[UncleBuck]

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not fluent in Pedo talk. Perhaps you could translate it for me, you being a skilled writer in pedo speak ?

you claim it is OK for adults to have sex with children because you are a pedophile.

 

[Rob Roy]

you claim it is OK for adults to have sex with children because you are a pedophile.

Oh thanks for translating that Poopy Pants. No, it's not okay with me for adults to boink kids. I'm opposed to people engaging others in a nonconsensual way.

I know that you support nonconsensual human interactions though, since you are fine with using government force to make a black man use his body and his property to serve a white man against his will.



(I'm winning by the way...Could you go console Abandon Conflict for me please? He ran away crying again)

 

[UncleBuck]

it's not okay with me for adults to boink kids.

you literally said it was OK for a 31 year old to have sex with a 12 year old, because you are a pedophile.

 

[Rob Roy]

you literally said it was OK for a 31 year old to have sex with a 12 year old, because you are a pedophile.

No, I didn't.

If two people CAN consent, I may not like what they consent to, but for me to impose my wishes on them is beyond my view of what my rights are.

If people don't or can't consent to something, then it becomes an involuntary human interaction. You are on record as SUPPORTING involuntary human interactions.

Funny how those clown shoes you are wearing fit you so good.

(Did you check on Abandon Conflict yet? I think he's down in his mom's basement holding his breath until he gets his way)

 

[UncleBuck]

No, I didn't.

yes you did, pedophile.

Would you approve of a 31 year old teacher having sex with you grandson when he turns 12.

I'd have to see pictures of the 31 year old first to say if I approved or not.

 

[Rob Roy]

yes you did, pedophile.

Clearly you are unable to discern comments made in jest from an honest opinion. Your smoking gun is a pea shooter. Now dig deeper and come up with something better than that.


So anyway, why do you endorse forcing black people to serve white people against their will ? Has a large black man ever hurt you ? Were you spurned at the Jr High dance by a black girl who wouldn't dance with you because she heard you like to crap on floors ? Did your family own slaves?

Really ,WHAT has caused you to want to force black people to serve whites against their will?

 

[UncleBuck]

comments made in jest

so should a 31 year old be allowed to have sex with a 12 year old?

 

[Rob Roy]

so should a 31 year old be allowed to have sex with a 12 year old?

I'm not in favor of it, but I'm philosophically opposed to intervening in what other people do as long as what they are doing is consensual. So you'd need to qualify your question first, are either or both of the people in your query unable to give valid consent ?



Now I know you have endorsed nonconsensual human interactions in the past, so are you consistently in opposition to them or do you flip flop around depending on what you personally approve of ?

Also, you've never told me why you endorse nonconsensual interactions if the persons enforcing the interaction are designated as "government" . It seems that you are believing in two opposing things at once, gee what a surprise.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm philosophically opposed to intervening in what other people do as long as what they are doing is consensual.

you think 12 year old chidren can consent to sex, which makes you a pedophile.

 

[Rob Roy]

you think 12 year old chidren can consent to sex, which makes you a pedophile.

You think forced human interactions are okay, which makes you a rapist.

 

[londonfog]

I'm not in favor of it, but I'm philosophically opposed to intervening in what other people do as long as what they are doing is consensual. So you'd need to qualify your question first, are either or both of the people in your query unable to give valid consent ?



Now I know you have endorsed nonconsensual human interactions in the past, so are you consistently in opposition to them or do you flip flop around depending on what you personally approve of ?

Also, you've never told me why you endorse nonconsensual interactions if the persons enforcing the interaction are designated as "government" . It seems that you are believing in two opposing things at once, gee what a surprise.

stop just stop.
there are no buts

 

[Rob Roy]

stop just stop.
there are no buts

What would you say is the universal age when all people gain the wherewithal to form consent ? (trick question, which you will not answer, pointing out the absurdity of your views)

If people are capable of forming consenting to something which doesn't involve others, but you don't like what they are doing, are you willing to threaten them with force to make them stop?

Why are you in favor of forcing black people to serve white people against their will ?

 

[Rob Roy]

stop just stop.
there are no buts