If Bernie Sanders is for Peace...why did he....

[Fogdog]

You're working the "let's talk about child molesters" thing a little too hard. But if you insist...

I never said there can or should be no protection for ANY person, man, woman or child if somebody has placed them in a situation they didn't or couldn't agree to. You're making shit up. Where the protection comes from is where we differ. You think coercive situations can be solved by people that are paid thru coercive situations. Which is of course, absurd and illogical.


Government IS a monopoly on force in a given geographical area. In fact, their entire business model relies upon placing people in situations they don't agree to or couldn't have agreed to.

Consistency and logic would necessitate condemning ANY person or group of people (like government) when they forcibly place people in situations they didn't or couldn't agree to.

You turn a blind eye to coercion when it gets you what you want, that's the same thing a child molester does.

Never mind for the moment how the world is supposed to change into your ideal. Of course, this is a pretty big sticking point but let's just put off discussing this part of your fairy tale. What I'd like to know is where does the protection for the weak -- in this case a child that is the target of a child sexual predator -- come from in the absence of government.

 

[Rob Roy]

You advocate to remove laws that parents use to keep predators away their children. How is that not enabling pedophiles?

You don't support any candidate currently running for presidential nomination. Based upon what they've said or voted for, you can say the same things about all of them. Do you hate Bernie in particular or are you just using him as a straw man?

Keep predators away? Yes, that's the whole point isn't it?

I advocate the dissolution of coercion based governments. Do you even know why? Because (for the millionth time) coercion is wrong. It's wrong for me to do, it's wrong for you to do. It can't become right to do, simply because it's government doing the predatory act.

On one hand we agree that a person who uses threats to engage a person unwilling or unable to consent to something is in the wrong. Why do we agree they are wrong ? It's because their method is coercive.

Then the minute government unzips and tells you, "you're going down on your knees whether you like it or not". (there's the coercion)...you drop to your knees. Your cognitive dissonance is overwhelming. You contradict yourself blatantly.

I support Vermin Supreme, he paid to be on the ballot. He's less of a clown than Bernie and I might get a free pony.




So do you support continuing to fund the military industrial complex like Bernie does?

 

[UncleBuck]

Keep predators away? Yes, that's the whole point isn't it?

I advocate the dissolution of coercion based governments. Do you even know why? Because (for the millionth time) coercion is wrong. It's wrong for me to do, it's wrong for you to do. It can't become right to do, simply because it's government doing the predatory act.

On one hand we agree that a person who uses threats to engage a person unwilling or unable to consent to something is in the wrong. Why do we agree they are wrong ? It's because their method is coercive.

Then the minute government unzips and tells you, "you're going down on your knees whether you like it or not". (there's the coercion)...you drop to your knees. Your cognitive dissonance is overwhelming. You contradict yourself blatantly.

I support Vermin Supreme, he paid to be on the ballot. He's less of a clown than Bernie and I might get a free pony.




So do you support continuing to fund the military industrial complex like Bernie does?

why don't you support laws against pedophilia?

the only reason i can come up with is that you must be a pedophile.

 

[Fogdog]

I submit your quoted post as evidence of your Military Industrial complex boot lickery. Don't be dense....Bernie voted to fund the Pentagon etc. Connect the dots.

Bernie the Bomber is what some people in Vermont still refer to him as....google it if you don't believe me.

You said he voted to authorize empire. Umm, no. Bernie voted to maintain our military. That's different from empire. Bernie did vote consistently against funding the horrendous war in Iraq, which was a step towards empire by the Republican administration. So, no, you are wrong there.

The "Bernie the bomber" tag was placed on him for his vote in 1999 to authorize the bombing of troops bent on genocide in Kosovo. You and I may or may not agree on this but it was definitely not about "empire".

 

[Fogdog]

Keep predators away? Yes, that's the whole point isn't it?

I advocate the dissolution of coercion based governments. Do you even know why? Because (for the millionth time) coercion is wrong. It's wrong for me to do, it's wrong for you to do. It can't become right to do, simply because it's government doing the predatory act.

On one hand we agree that a person who uses threats to engage a person unwilling or unable to consent to something is in the wrong. Why do we agree they are wrong ? It's because their method is coercive.

Then the minute government unzips and tells you, "you're going down on your knees whether you like it or not". (there's the coercion)...you drop to your knees. Your cognitive dissonance is overwhelming. You contradict yourself blatantly.

I support Vermin Supreme, he paid to be on the ballot. He's less of a clown than Bernie and I might get a free pony.




So do you support continuing to fund the military industrial complex like Bernie does?

Please, a straight answer for a straight question, OK? I asked: "You advocate to remove laws that parents use to keep predators away their children. How is that not enabling pedophiles?" Please tell me how the child will be protected under your "system". Stick to the subject man.

 

[Rob Roy]

Never mind for the moment how the world is supposed to change into your ideal. Of course, this is a pretty big sticking point but let's just put off discussing this part of your fairy tale. What I'd like to know is where does the protection for the weak -- in this case a child that is the target of a child sexual predator -- come from in the absence of government.

To be clear...Government has killed more children than individual predators have. Both are horrible.

In fact your friend Bernie the Bomber voted to continue killing them. You seem concerned about the well being of children, I commend you.

Why aren't you concerned about ALL the children, even the brown ones that will be blown up because of people like Bernie that voted to fund it?

 

[Fogdog]

Do you hate Bernie in particular or are you just using him as a straw man?

 

[Fogdog]

To be clear...Government has killed more children than individual predators have. Both are horrible.

In fact your friend Bernie the Bomber voted to continue killing them. You seem concerned about the well being of children, I commend you.

Why aren't you concerned about ALL the children, even the brown ones that will be blown up because of people like Bernie that voted to fund it?

What I'd like to know is where does the protection for the weak -- in this case a child that is the target of a child sexual predator -- come from in the absence of government.

 

[Rob Roy]

You said he voted to authorize empire. Umm, no. Bernie voted to maintain our military. That's different from empire. Bernie did vote consistently against funding the horrendous war in Iraq, which was a step towards empire by the Republican administration. So, no, you are wrong there.

The "Bernie the bomber" tag was placed on him for his vote in 1999 to authorize the bombing of troops bent on genocide in Kosovo. You and I may or may not agree on this but it was definitely not about "empire".

Your splitting hairs is pretty funny. Bernie voted to fund the continuation of the USA's foreign occupations, the military industrial complex and the continued killing of babies. Deal with it, but don't do such a lousy job of side stepping it, it makes you look silly.

Hey!! Doesn't your constitution forbid a standing army too? Why, yes it does. Bernie is a traitor to the constitution !!

So, why DO you support such a blood thirsty person ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Do you hate Bernie in particular or are you just using him as a straw man?

I dislike people that rely on threats to get their way. I believe all human interactions should be based in mutual consent. Bernie doesn't and apparently neither do you.

Bernie is just another politician thug and I'm tired of wanna-be phony peaceniks somehow claiming the moral high ground when they have no reason to claim it. It's equivalent to the stupidity of giving the thug Obama a peace prize.

 

[Rob Roy]

why don't you support laws against pedophilia?

the only reason i can come up with is that you must be a pedophile.

Yawn. Would you like fries with that Wendy?

 

[UncleBuck]

Yawn. Would you like fries with that Wendy?

in other words, you are still unwilling to say that pedophilia should be illegal, and that pedophiles should be punished.

probably because you are a pedo.

there's no other explanation.

 

[Rob Roy]

in other words, you are still unwilling to say that pedophilia should be illegal, and that pedophiles should be punished.

probably because you are a pedo.

there's no other explanation.

Your question to me is the equivalent of "Dorothy are you a good witch or a bad witch" ? The mechanism you propose isn't part of the solution, it's part of the problem on a grander scale.

I am unwilling to say that laws which are made by a coercion based entity are the basis for preventing the proliferation of coercive acts.

That doe not mean I disagree with the elimination of acts like pedoism. It means unlike you, I want to get rid of ALL the coercion, not just some of it. Having coercion embedded systemically as a cornerstone of government and then seeking solutions from THAT to make coercion go away is absurd.

 

[Uncle Ben]

in other words, you are still unwilling to say that pedophilia should be illegal, and that pedophiles should be punished.

probably because you are a pedo.

there's no other explanation.

How about taking your infatuations with some make believe "racism" and pepophillia crap and getting the hell out of RiU.

You're a fuckin' nutcase.

 

[Rob Roy]

Please, a straight answer for a straight question, OK? I asked: "You advocate to remove laws that parents use to keep predators away their children. How is that not enabling pedophiles?" Please tell me how the child will be protected under your "system". Stick to the subject man.

Maybe I will start a thread early in the coming year describing how non-coercive based means can answer your question. It is a good question and worthy of an answer.

 

[UncleBuck]

The mechanism you propose isn't part of the solution, it's part of the problem on a grander scale.

wow, you are calling laws against pedophilia "part of the problem".

amazing.

 

[UncleBuck]

your infatuations with some make believe "racism"

make believe?

your buddy rob roy said, and i quote, that it is "polite and reasonable" to hang a sign disallowing blacks and jews from your store.

is that make believe racism, or actual racism?

 

[Rob Roy]

wow, you are calling laws against pedophilia "part of the problem".

amazing.

No. I had thought you maxed out, but you continue to demonstrate your ignorance and lust for contradiction.

You asked if I thought something should be "illegal" . You should have asked if I thought it was offensive, which I do.

However, implied in your "solution" was the idea that a coercion based entity was the solution to coercive acts. Would you like more gasoline for putting out your fire sir ?

 

[Rob Roy]

make believe?

your buddy rob roy said, and i quote, that it is "polite and reasonable" to hang a sign disallowing blacks and jews from your store.

is that make believe racism, or actual racism?

Well there you go again, Poopy Pants.

You asked what was the least harmful way to let a person know they weren't welcome on another persons property. I said noticing somebody was polite and reasonable, as in the act of providing notice, rather than just kicking them in the balls or something.

That doesn't mean that I agree with WHY somebody would bar somebody from associating with them based on race though or that in a similar situation I would do the same thing.

 

[Fogdog]

Maybe I will start a thread early in the coming year describing how non-coercive based means can answer your question. It is a good question and worthy of an answer.

Don't bother. You are cornered by your own logic into deflecting rather than answering the question. This is boring.