another right wing white male goes on rampage of terrorism in colorado

[Padawanbater2]

I'm afraid this topic has wandered into an area that is less about what consent is or isn't and more into kiddie diddling. I'm not here to defend that, never have, never will, despite the attempts of the resident Prohibitionist to shackle me to his own demons.



Anyhow, the object of a law shouldn't be to penalize consensual activity, it should be to protect people from non consensual forcible activity, when it can be proven that is what occurred. You don't protect anyone when you take away their right of self determination and replace it with a standard you have already admitted is arbitrary or contradictory though.

Simply by making a law facts do not change to conform to the law. The law is either in agreement with natural law or not. If a person HAS the wherewithal to consent, preventing them from doing so then becomes the forcible act and not the act of protecting that it purports to be.

How do you prove non-consensual forcible activity occurred?

 

[Rob Roy]

How do you prove non-consensual forcible activity occurred?

In the case of government, it is omnipresent and obvious, they routinely engage people in non-consensual forcible activity.

In the case of human relations you first must have a person claiming they have been victimized, then begin an investigation.

In the case of Chesus Rice dog, I suggest a trip to the Veterinarian and a doggie rape kit.

 

[Padawanbater2]

In the case of government, it is omnipresent and obvious, they routinely engage people in non-consensual forcible activity.

In the case of human relations you first must have a person claiming they have been victimized, then begin an investigation.

In the case of Chesus Rice dog, I suggest a trip to the Veterinarian and a doggie rape kit.

How do you know if a person is giving their consent without duress? How do you know they're not just telling you they gave their consent so they don't get the other person in trouble even though they may not adequately understand the definition of consent?

If an 18-year-old man entices a 12-year-old girl into sleeping with him, how can you be sure, even though she may not complain or call for criminal charges, that she gave her consent willingly? Do you simply take the word of a 12-year-old girl?

 

[Rob Roy]

How do you know if a person is giving their consent without duress? How do you know they're not just telling you they gave their consent so they don't get the other person in trouble even though they may not adequately understand the definition of consent?

If an 18-year-old man entices a 12-year-old girl into sleeping with him, how can you be sure, even though she may not complain or call for criminal charges, that she gave her consent willingly? Do you simply take the word of a 12-year-old girl?

In the case of government, your consent isn't really needed. They have guns and cages and arbitrary rules.

In the case of two individuals, wouldn't one need to make a claim they were victimized at least to initiate any investigation? If a person isn't making that claim, how would you proceed?

Let's say the consenting interaction is a pot deal.... (I'm not going to feed Chesus perverted lustful thoughts and think the subject matter regarding consent should be more generic...sorry to disappoint you)


.... Would you intervene when both parties claim their interaction created no victims ? Why ?

 

[Padawanbater2]

In the case of government, your consent isn't really needed. They have guns and cages and arbitrary rules.

In the case of two individuals, wouldn't one need to make a claim they were victimized at least to initiate any investigation? If a person isn't making that claim, how would you proceed?

Let's say the consenting interaction is a pot deal.... (I'm not going to feed Chesus perverted lustful thoughts and think the subject matter regarding consent should be more generic...sorry to disappoint you)


.... Would you intervene when both parties claim their interaction created no victims ? Why ?

No, because either way, whether consent was legitimate or not, I can't identify any victims in an illegal pot transaction

That's not the case for the previous example I provided; the 18-year-old boy and the 12-year-old girl. In that scenario, there very well could be a victim that simply isn't willing to provide objection for any number of reasons; fear, guilt, intimidation, acceptance, etc. Using your system of consent relies on simply believing the word of those that may be victimized choose to provide.

I'm sorry man, I'm not comfortable with older people legally being able to take advantage of younger people because they found a way to trick them into giving their consent if any trouble should arise. We see this happen today, when the legal age of consent is 18 in most areas of the US, it would surely happen - and people would get away with it - without the laws we have in place. Sure, as you say, some bright kids above their age might have to give up a few years out of their entire life of being able to legally consent, and that might be wrong, but it's the price we have to pay as a society to ensure those that can't give their consent are protected.

 

[m4s73r]

Thanks for your polite response. I think we agree that nobody should tell anybody what to do with their OWN body.

As far as the gun discussion, I think we hold different view points.

Since nobody should tell anybody what to do with their OWN body, what if a larger stronger man is trying to assault a woman ? If the woman were armed or thought by the assailant to possibly be armed, wouldn't that ability to defend herself be a good thing ? Wouldn't the possibility of her being armed serve to deter would be assailants ?

I have always been a believer in the right to defend ones person. However, i do think that there are less then lethal means of said defense. Pepper spray/mace, taser gun/baton. I dont think that death should be our go to.

 

[m4s73r]

Now see? You're a little confused here, Prohibitionist. When I WAS 13, I wanted to have sex with an 18 year old chick (an "adult").

I would have consented to it with her, but alas it didn't happen. Does that answer your question?


Now, it's your turn...If a person advocates laws that prohibit something, oh I don't know like jailing people for cannabis related activity, like you have...are they a prohibitionist ? Yes or no, Prohibitionist.

Ill answer that. Yes. But why do you make that sound like a negative? See the issue I have is im not JUST a prohibitionist. Im also liberal, and conservative. Im also moderate and fanatical. I can be all those things.

That seems to be what we're missing here. We are complex. I think most everyone here is pretty liberal when it comes to cannabis. Im also very liberal when it comes to prostitution, speed limits, social programs and income equality. But im conservative when it comes to my freedom of speech. Due process. Miranda Rights. Moderate in the issues of military, foreign policy. And fanatical for my hatred of religions and their influence in my government. We are Americans. Not taxpayers. not democrats or republicans. If you were born in this country you are my people. if you come to this country you are a friend. Its called Patriotism and America is losing it.

 

[SamsonsRiddle]

I have always been a believer in the right to defend ones person. However, i do think that there are less then lethal means of said defense. Pepper spray/mace, taser gun/baton. I dont think that death should be our go to.

lol, do you live in a bubble? are you defending yourself against toddlers? If you really think that someone breaks into you house and you spray them with mace and everything is going to be ok then you need to get reality in check.

 

[m4s73r]

Toddlers really? and how many people have attacked you that you would need a gun? How many times has your home been robbed? And I promise you this, Come into my house and ive got 50million volts for you. I promise your not getting up from that. But you'll be alive.

Also we were talking about a large man attacking a woman. Not home invasion. And just so were clear, said person has a higher chance of using said gun on themselves then actually using it in self defense.

I think your the one that needs to pull your head from your dirt worshiper book and come up for some clean air. Religion will fuck you up.

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

 

[SamsonsRiddle]

Toddlers really? and how many people have attacked you that you would need a gun? How many times has your home been robbed? And I promise you this, Come into my house and ive got 50million volts for you. I promise your not getting up from that. But you'll be alive.

Also we were talking about a large man attacking a woman. Not home invasion. And just so were clear, said person has a higher chance of using said gun on themselves then actually using it in self defense.

I think your the one that needs to pull your head from your dirt worshiper book and come up for some clean air. Religion will fuck you up.

You need to pull you head out of where the sun don't shine and then maybe you'll be able to see the truth.

A woman has a better chance of using a gun on herself than mace? She has a better chance using a stun gun on a large man than a gun? Where do you get these ideas? For a liberal you sure are not going to make any women happy by making them out to be incapable of using firearms.

 

[m4s73r]

For a gun toting dirt worshiper you are part of why there are this many mass shooting in the country.

 

[SamsonsRiddle]

For a gun toting dirt worshiper you are part of why there are this many mass shooting in the country.

lol what???