Sheriffs sue Colorado over legal marijuana

Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Says the guy who described pedophilia as consensual...

Inb4 this post is compared to rape.
Click to expand...
Dude, you called yourself Anti-Statist and Socialist in the same breath.

That's far more retarded than RR's technical assertion that while a child can consent to a paedophile, legally it counts for nothing.

(And rightly so, I'd support the return of capital punishment for paedos)
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Says the guy who described pedophilia as consensual...

Inb4 this post is compared to rape.
Click to expand...

If Uncle Buck consented in the example I used with him in it and the bad man did too, what would have made it non consensual?

You seem to have a hard time presenting your reasoning and instead rely on assigning positions the other person doesn't hold. That makes me think you might be a cry baby and your big boy words have failed you..

You see, in order to present a good argument, you would address what the other guy said and expose the flaw in his argument. When you whine incessantly and flounder around for the last stale cheetoh on the floor of your basement room, you aren't presenting an argument, you are just whining and eating shit off the floor.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
George Orwell, Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakunin, Rudolph Rocker, Murray Bookchin, Erico Malatesta, Emiliano Zapata...

Could go on and on.
Click to expand...
Make a list of all the people that have consented to fund you. Then make a list of those individuals that haven't and are compelled to under threat of force.


Then sneak upstairs to the pantry and get the last bag of cheetohs your mom is hiding from you. They're in the bottom cabinet , behind the large pots and pans, where she correctly figured you were too lazy to look. Go ahead take 'em, she won't know until later. You deserve them.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Socialism is defined as a system wherein the State controls the "means of production" and almost all property.

Note the word State.

^^Up there^^

EDIT: You're an idiot, so I boled it too.
Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think he's an idiot. Spoiled probably, but idiot no.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I'm happy to engage you in conversation, despite your inability to respond in a reasonable way and answer my questions intelligently.

The most peaceful way to create a human interaction, is to have the consent of both parties, or all parties involved, if more than two parties. Failing that, the most peaceful way is to leave others alone and not force an interaction or impose on somebody else or their property. Do you agree with that ? Can you refute it?


If you assert that reduced competition can hamper things, why do you believe in a monopolistic central authority and Nanny State ?
It seems like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. That's not a good argument method.

Some people could certainly be harmed when racists act in an actionable way and go to somebodies property and misbehave, it works the same way when a central authority or a person forcing a human interaction goes to property that they don't own and usurps the rights of the owner. You fail to see that, because you cede ultimate authority to your Nanny State, even when it becomes contradictory. Your default position is contradiction.

You also fail to differentiate or address in your weak ass argument that there are two separate things going on.

One thing, is when anybody goes to property they don't own and forces an interaction. This could be a racist, a floor shitter or Martin Luther King or the Nanny State. In all of those instances, the person forcing the interaction on property that they don't own is an aggressor and is wrong. Again, we agree it's wrong when a racist does it, you fail to address when another entity does it...again a contradictory argument on your part.

The other thing is, it isn't an actionable harm when the only thing going on is what a person thinks or doesn't think, if they are remaining on their own property. You and your policies advocate victimizing that person by encouraging another person or entity (Nanny State) coming to that property and assuming some form of unjust ownership over it.
You advocate the initiation of aggression in that instance. You sure are inconsistent.

I also realize you won't address my points ,because you can't. Good luck.
Click to expand...
nice mental breakdown.

you did not answer a singl one of the questions, spaMBLA.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
If Uncle Buck consented in the example I used with him in it and the bad man did too, what would have made it non consensual?

You seem to have a hard time presenting your reasoning and instead rely on assigning positions the other person doesn't hold. That makes me think you might be a cry baby and your big boy words have failed you..

You see, in order to present a good argument, you would address what the other guy said and expose the flaw in his argument. When you whine incessantly and flounder around for the last stale cheetoh on the floor of your basement room, you aren't presenting an argument, you are just whining and eating shit off the floor.
Click to expand...
are you still arguing that small children can consent to being paid for sex, spaMBLA?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
are you still arguing that small children can consent to being paid for sex, spaMBLA?
Click to expand...
No, I'm asking you to tell me how the nature of an act can change whether or not the participants consented.

You are avoiding that question, because you can't answer it.

Although, I really wish you hadn't consented to the bad man, I think it might explain some of your teen age deviant behavior.
 
NAMBLA

NAMBLA

Member
Rob Roy said:
No, I'm asking you to tell me how the nature of an act can change whether or not the participants consented.

You are avoiding that question, because you can't answer it.

Although, I really wish you hadn't consented to the bad man, I think it might explain some of your teen age deviant behavior.
Click to expand...
I did some "deviant behavior" ( ;) ) as a young teen and pre-teen, and I turned out just fine.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i am not going to even humor you on this concept of yours that fucking small children can ever be consensual or voluntary, you sick pedo fuck.
Click to expand...
I'm as repulsed by it as most other people would be to find a turd on the floor of a rest room.

However, how does our repulsion of something mean that other people didn't consent to a repulsive act?

Again, you've dodged the question and use distractions and false allegations. You also didn't even use crayon, I'm very disappointed.
 
NAMBLA

NAMBLA

Member
Rob Roy said:
I'm as repulsed by it as most other people would be to find a turd on the floor of a rest room.

However, how does our repulsion of something mean that other people didn't consent to a repulsive act?

Again, you've dodged the question and use distractions and false allegations. You also didn't even use crayon, I'm very disappointed.
Click to expand...
I agree, children can consent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top