Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You owe me $2.17 royalty fees.
Please respect my nuts more than that. I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
You owe me $2.17 royalty fees.
It's my royalty fee, nothing to do with your ball bags.Please respect my nuts more than that. I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
You assumed in the absence of a single monopolistic and coercive government that there would be some kind of chaotic situation.Rob, if we all chose to live without rules and governance, you would likely be dead.
did you not just read what i wrote?If government sets the expectation and governments business model includes using initiatory force to make others comply, does that mean you should to?
I'm glad this didn't devolve into an AC/DC song about big balls etc.It's my royalty fee, nothing to do with your ball bags.
The one where you said your mind was closed to questioning authority, despite your presenting ideas that people should question authority?did you not just read what i wrote?
Well no, because you would be forcefully coercing the institutions to not be forcefully coercive.Also I never said I am opposed to rules, shouldn't the first rule be that institutions and people that rely on coercion to exist are frowned on or disallowed?
aren't you the sick fuck who says children can consent to being paid for sex?The point was to have an honest discussion about what actual consent means.
yeah, somalia and somalian warlords totally show that that's not the case.You assumed in the absence of a single monopolistic and coercive government that there would be some kind of chaotic situation.
You also assume that without a single monopolistic coercive government to use force to tell you what to do, that somebody else would come along and tell you what to do.
he's also ignoring that government only exists by consent of the governed.Well no, because you would be forcefully coercing the institutions to not be forcefully coercive.
The relationship between an individual and the government is consenting, simply because there is no force impeding you from leaving the jurisdiction of that government.I am starting this thread to encourage a conversation about the meaning of consent.
Below is an excerpt from an editorial by Will Tippens. The full editorial is available at Strike the Root published 4/20.
Have at it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does it mean to "consent" to something? Thanks to the increasing, if often misplaced concern over sexual assault and rape, this important question is being posed now more than ever. One recent article went viral by aptly comparing sexual consent to offering someone a "cup of tea." According to this analogy, consent is as simple as offering someone a cup of tea; if they accept, they will drink the tea. If they decline or lose capacity to consent (lose consciousness), the tea party host cannot pour it down their throat. A simple yet effective analogy.
However, the topic of consent is an extremely important legal concept, as it is not only the key element in differenting between sex and rape, but the difference between all aggression and voluntary agreements. Without the concept of 'consent,' we cannot determine if someone is going on a date or being kidnapped, loaning $20 to a friend or having it stolen, or fighting in a boxing match or being assaulted by Mike Tyson.
But the elephant in the room that no one seems to mention is that this simple yet effective definition of consent raises a far more deeply reaching question: Is our relationship with government consensual?
So, consent or die?government sets the expectation and we agree to it, by living in society.
So. consent or leave?The relationship between an individual and the government is consenting, simply because there is no force impeding you from leaving the jurisdiction of that government.
In extreme cases, sure. Or you can elect officials who shape the government in a way you feel is more to your tastes.So. consent or leave?
Rob doesn't consider it rape, because when the young boys say "No! Stop! Don't", he yells back, "Stop forcefully coercing me into not having sex with you!", and according to him, that's against the law.he's also ignoring that government only exists by consent of the governed.
does that mean he is a rape fetishist?
The problem with your statement is it doesn't consider the difference between defensive force or offensive force.Well no, because you would be forcefully coercing the institutions to not be forcefully coercive.
Or do it the old fashion way and chop off their heads. Gee, you complain about the money in politics, then uphold it as a virtue.In extreme cases, sure. Or you can elect officials who shape the government in a way you feel is more to your tastes.
This is a false assumption you have made.The relationship between an individual and the government is consenting, simply because there is no force impeding you from leaving the jurisdiction of that government.
This is unnecessary. You seem to be able to carry on a conversation when you want to, without resorting to this kind of stuff. You're free to do what you like, but I'll ask you to consider not being such an asshole with your false allegations. Thanks.Rob doesn't consider it rape, because when the young boys say "No! Stop! Don't", he yells back, "Stop forcefully coercing me into not having sex with you!", and according to him, that's against the law.