Are there any smart Trump supporters?

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
to deny service to black people at their store?

nope.

just call yourself a private store.

how are you so fucking stupid that you can't get this?
Click to expand...

How are you so stupid to think that I don't understand that's what happens ?

You are refuting a point I didn't make.

The point I DID make is the idea that if a person MUST declare what their private property is from a list of options made up by somebody else, that force is present. You haven't refuted THAT, nor can you.


Sometimes I get bored slapping you around, I even wish you had a little more gray matter sometimes. Could you bring back Abandon Conflict for a cameo, he at least could stay on task for awhile before I defeated him and sent him scurrying back to his mothers basement.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
if a person MUST declare what their private property is from a list of options made up by somebody else, that force is present.
Click to expand...
you don't have to declare your private property to be anything, unless you want to open a store and deny service to black people, as you so clearly want to.

you have to declare what your dinner is from a list of options made up by somebody else. is your dinner force too?

you're a fucking retard. go away.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you don't have to declare your private property to be anything, unless you want to open a store and deny service to black people, as you so clearly want to.

you have to declare what your dinner is from a list of options made up by somebody else. is your dinner force too?

you're a fucking retard. go away.
Click to expand...

Isn't the property ALREADY private ? Why does the owner "have to" declare it anything if they wish to conduct commerce there? Is that "have to" enforced some how? Why yes, it is.

Good night, Poopy Pants.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Isn't the property ALREADY private ? Why does the owner "have to" declare it anything if they wish to conduct commerce there? Is that "have to" enforced some how? Why yes, it is.

Good night, Poopy Pants.
Click to expand...
you have to declare what your sleep is from a list of options made up by somebody else.

is sleep force?
 
FauxRoux

FauxRoux

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Actually my ideals are the only thing that can logically work, what hasn't ever worked is the idea that thru a system based in coercion and violence you can somehow eliminate coercion and violence. Logically that is impossible, therefore if you believe different, you're wrong. Logic insists that is so.


You asked for a "better way" and I provided you with a link to a Voluntaryist site. I take it the concepts presented there didn't make sense to you or you closed your mind to the possibility and didn't bother with reading it?

I share your concern for people that engage other people in a nonconsensual way, which is exactly what you propose doing to a person that COULD consent and was prevented from running their own life forcibly by others. You are holding two opposing points of view at once when you do that.

You can join the sock puppet / jackal gang and erroneously conflate my argument into an endorsement of kiddie diddling or you can attempt to refute what I said using your intellect. Contrary to what some people have posited, I'm not endorsing people do anything, but leave others alone or engage with others only on a mutual and consensual basis.

My personal thoughts on how people should form relationships, ages of partners etc. is pretty traditional, but I recognize my thoughts on how others ought to live don't empower me with any right to inflict my view on others who think differently.

Any person that keeps a person who has the wherewithal to exercise consent from doing so....is doing what ?
Click to expand...
Your entire world view depends on everyone including a 10 year old being capable of making mature decisions for themselves and for no one to have the ability to con another. Good luck.

The fact that you think so highly of your own opinion and take a stance of ultimate truth would put most rational people to pause.

Also while at first I figured you were playing devils advocate the way you seem to adamantly fight for a 10 year olds ability to make rational mature and educated decisions for themselves in the context of sexuality, is now starting to make you look like someone who wants it to be true more then it is.

Dude...you're making unclebucks jokes true...

The whole point im making is that this....
Rob Roy said:
Any person that keeps a person who has the wherewithal to exercise consent from doing so....is doing what ?
Click to expand...
depends on the individual ACTUALLY having said wherewithal. If we were able to do that from birth we would come out the womb with a resume and prepared to get a job and pay some bills. But I think we can all agree that kids need time to develop and learn.

Maybe you would give your kid candy for every meal because he said he wants it. But I know that's fucking retarded because HES A FUCKING CHILD!...and I am not.

Something tells me if you had a 10 year old daughter and she said she had been having sex with Mr Smith down the block you would be singing a different tune. At least I fucking hope so.

Its pretty obvious to anyone objective that general rules are set up precisely because people are all different and cant be expected to all have "common sense" (at least in regards to things like age of consent).
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
FauxRoux said:
Your entire world view depends on everyone including a 10 year old being capable of making mature decisions for themselves and for no one to have the ability to con another. Good luck.

The fact that you think so highly of your own opinion and take a stance of ultimate truth would put most rational people to pause.

Also while at first I figured you were playing devils advocate the way you seem to adamantly fight for a 10 year olds ability to make rational mature and educated decisions for themselves in the context of sexuality, is now starting to make you look like a lunatic and deviant who really wants it to be true more then it is.

Dude...you're making unclebucks jokes true...

The whole point im making is that this....

depends on the individual ACTUALLY having said wherewithal. If we were able to do that from birth we would come out the womb with a resume and prepared to get a job and pay some bills. But go figure kids need time to develop and learn.

Maybe you would give your kid candy for every meal because he said he wants it. But I know that's fucking retarded because HES A FUCKING CHILD!
Click to expand...
No, part of my world view includes the idea that no person(s) can provide another persons consent for them against the wishes of the first person or it can't really BE consent. It also includes that if a person CAN consent, they can, and if they don't have the wherewithal, they can't. Generally the younger a person is, the less likely they have developed the wherewithal to consent.

Cute how you used a strawman like argument too, regarding your allusion to my defending actions which I haven't defended.
I never said there was a universal age where I think people reach the ability to consent, but any fool can see that age is not the same for everyone.

At any rate, I have a cultural and personal bias against kiddie diddling, but when does my bias empower me to stop people who CAN consent to something that doesn't involve me, from doing it ? That sounds very prohibitionist.

Uncle Bucks joke is in his Poopy Pants...both the front and the back.



So did you check out the Voluntaryist site I provided to you ? Do you think human interactions should arise from voluntary consent or involuntarily is a question you might consider.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
It also includes that if a person CAN consent, they can, and if they don't have the wherewithal, they can't. Generally the younger a person is, the less likely they have developed the wherewithal to consent.
Click to expand...
In other words, "They can't give consent until they can give consent"

Do you not see how that is painfully circular reasoning?
 
FauxRoux

FauxRoux

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No, part of my world view includes the idea that no person(s) can provide another persons consent for them against the wishes of the first person or it can't really BE consent. It also includes that if a person CAN consent, they can, and if they don't have the wherewithal, they can't. Generally the younger a person is, the less likely they have developed the wherewithal to consent.

Cute how you used a strawman like argument too, regarding your allusion to my defending actions which I haven't defended.
I never said there was a universal age where I think people reach the ability to consent, but any fool can see that age is not the same for everyone.


So did you check out the Voluntaryist site I provided to you ? Do you think human interactions should arise from voluntary consent or involuntarily is a question you might consider.
Click to expand...
I never said or tried to imply that you gave a universal age of consent....that is, in my opinion part of the problem...their should be one, as in this particular I would rather deny a young persons rights to sex temporarily if it will help prevent sexual abuse (and it does). For example I have a friend going through EXACTLY this issue with their 13 year old who's waaaay too big for her britches. Her "maturity" is putting herself, her father and her mother at risk and to say she has a clue what shes doing is giving porno way to much credit as a teacher. Unless you think.....

"condoms are only for vaginal sex...cause you cant get prego though the butt".... because that's the only thing to worry about..... right? (that's a quote by the way).

And before its said...her mothers a nurse...they are responsible parents. Being a good parent is no guarantee your child wont be obstinant or think they know better. The smart ones typically are and do.

P.S. I did not check out the site, but in the interest of open-mindedness and good faith I will do so as soon as I get a chance. Promise.

Rob Roy said:
If somebody, an aggressor, is in the act of killing you, would it be permissible for you to defend yourself?
Click to expand...
Where exactly are you trying to go with this? and yes....it was.

Rob Roy said:
It also includes that if a person CAN consent, they can, and if they don't have the wherewithal, they can't. Generally the younger a person is, the less likely they have developed the wherewithal to consent.
Click to expand...
yeahhhh......so you say that not everybody has said "wherewithal" but by this definition, consent is anyone of any age/walk of life simply saying "yes".

That is a very literal and frightening view. If I put my mind to it I could get alot of people to agree to shit they dont understand. And no amount of stating they didn't have wherewithal could prove they didn't or change their compliance. (look at Trump supporters).

Sounds like some other countries Ive lived in...and who sets the standard of "moral"? Or is that an after thought to personal freedom?

So....how exactly does your utopian world not turn into a free for all? Or does this require everyone to magically be a moral upright person to function? Cause that would be great.....but...

You show me a place where all people treat each other like that in the context of a society and ill show you a pleasant dream.
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
In other words, "They can't give consent until they can give consent"

Do you not see how that is painfully circular reasoning?
Click to expand...

It IS painfully obvious. Which adds to the point that a one size fits all age can't be based in PROTECTING everyone, as it also strips at least SOME people of their ability to self determine.

If a person CAN consent, the person(s) who forcibly deprives them of the ability to consent using legislation is doing the kind of harm they thought they were preventing. Which should also be painfully obvious, but has escaped the less astute members of this forum, who in their zeal to cry "pedo" are unable to discuss consent in a generic fashion.

By the way, which age do you think ALL people reach the age of consent ?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
FauxRoux said:
I never said or tried to imply that you gave a universal age of consent....that is, in my opinion part of the problem...their should be one, as in this particular I would rather deny a young persons rights to sex temporarily if it will help prevent sexual abuse (and it does). For example I have a friend going through EXACTLY this issue with their 13 year old who's waaaay too big for her britches. Her "maturity" is putting herself, her father and her mother at risk and to say she has a clue what shes doing is giving porno way to much credit as a teacher. Unless you think.....

"condoms are only for vaginal sex...cause you cant get prego though the butt".... because that's the only thing to worry about..... right? (that's a quote by the way).

And before its said...her mothers a nurse...they are responsible parents. Being a good parent is no guarantee your child wont be obstinant or think they know better. The smart ones typically are and do.

P.S. I did not check out the site, but in the interest of open-mindedness and good faith I will do so as soon as I get a chance. Promise.


Where exactly are you trying to go with this? and yes....it was.


yeahhhh......so you say that not everybody has said "wherewithal" but by this definition, consent is anyone of any age/walk of life simply saying "yes".

That is a very literal and frightening view. If I put my mind to it I could get alot of people to agree to shit they dont understand. And no amount of stating they didn't have wherewithal could prove they didn't or change their compliance. (look at Trump supporters).

Sounds like some other countries Ive lived in...and who sets the standard of "moral"? Or is that an after thought to personal freedom?

So....how exactly does your utopian world not turn into a free for all? Or does this require everyone to magically be a moral upright person to function? Cause that would be great.....but...

You show me a place where all people treat each other like that in the context of a society and ill show you a pleasant dream.
Click to expand...

This whole ridiculous discussion began months ago when I was trying to engage Uncle Buck in a serious conversation about consent in a generic way. It morphed into quite a back and forth and I'm at least partly responsible for playing along.

In order to protect some peoples rights, it shouldn't be necessary to strip others rights. It is a bad precedent.

Thanks for considering checking out the website. Many of your questions are covered there.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I like Bernie because he's "against big banks and the military industrial complex" ...

No wait, why did he continuously vote to support them?


upload_2016-4-7_8-52-31.png
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
It IS painfully obvious. Which adds to the point that a one size fits all age can't be based in PROTECTING everyone, as it also strips at least SOME people of their ability to self determine.

If a person CAN consent, the person(s) who forcibly deprives them of the ability to consent using legislation is doing the kind of harm they thought they were preventing. Which should also be painfully obvious, but has escaped the less astute members of this forum, who in their zeal to cry "pedo" are unable to discuss consent in a generic fashion.

By the way, which age do you think ALL people reach the age of consent ?
Click to expand...
seriously, stop trying to justify pedophilia.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
It IS painfully obvious. Which adds to the point that a one size fits all age can't be based in PROTECTING everyone, as it also strips at least SOME people of their ability to self determine.
Click to expand...
You can't even explain how someone could determine if a person under the age of 18 has developed the wherewithal to give consent, so how could you possibly determine if anyone has been harmed by having their consent that you have no way of determining is legitimate delegitimized?
Rob Roy said:
If a person CAN consent, the person(s) who forcibly deprives them of the ability to consent using legislation is doing the kind of harm they thought they were preventing. Which should also be painfully obvious, but has escaped the less astute members of this forum, who in their zeal to cry "pedo" are unable to discuss consent in a generic fashion.
Click to expand...
Yes, 'if' they can, but how can someone determine the 'if' part? You yourself argue the wherewithal to give consent arrives at different people at different ages, so how is any third party to know for sure if that moment has arrived for a 16 year old that engages in sex with a 30 year old? Are we just expected to take the 16 year old's word for it? How do we know he/she wasn't coerced into it by the 30 year old?
Rob Roy said:
By the way, which age do you think ALL people reach the age of consent ?
Click to expand...
It's likely different for different people, just as you say, but by having no legal definition (18 ), there is no way to prosecute those individuals that coerce kids into things through manipulative means.

So what's worse, in your opinion; A. a 17 year old who has developed the wherewithal to give their consent being restricted until they turn 18 from the things their consent requires, or B. a 16 year old who has not developed the wherewithal to give their consent being coerced into sex by an adult?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top