Are there any smart Trump supporters?

[see4]

Just because you are afraid to answer the question, doesn't mean it's an invalid question.

You are not good at debate.

Which question would you like to ask me?
Option 1:
"Can a person give consent for another person or must that come from the individual?"
Option 2:
"Could you give an example of how another person could give your consent, when you don't want them to?"
Option 3:
Both Option 1 & 2

Please let me know which option you would like me to answer.

I can't believe I have to speak to you like a 5 year old.

 

[Rob Roy]

You are not good at debate.

Which question would you like to ask me?
Option 1:
"Can a person give consent for another person or must that come from the individual?"
Option 2:
"Could you give an example of how another person could give your consent, when you don't want them to?"
Option 3:
Both Option 1 & 2

Please let me know which option you would like me to answer.

I can't believe I have to speak to you like a 5 year old.

Could you give an example of how another person could give your consent, when you don't want them to ?


Thank you for your patience. I'll try harder.

 

[see4]

Could you give an example of how another person could give your consent, when you don't want them to ?


Thank you for your patience. I'll try harder.

Ok. So you want me to only answer referred Option 2 question?

Unfortunately, your question remains loaded.

However, rape would be an example as you have posed the question.

 

[Rob Roy]

Ok. So you want me to only answer referred Option 2 question?

Unfortunately, your question remains loaded.

However, rape would be an example as you have posed the question.

No my question isn't loaded and your answer is wrong.

It COULDN'T BE rape if both parties consented.

You are stumbling....grasshopper.

 

[see4]

No my question isn't loaded and your answer is wrong.

It COULDN'T BE rape if both parties consented.

You are stumbling....grasshopper.

You smoke too much weed old man. Your delusions are getting the best of you.

Lets recap, shall we?

You first asked me; "Can a person give consent for another person or must that come from the individual?"

You then changed your question to something more loaded; "Could you give an example of how another person could give your consent, when you don't want them to?"

You then claimed I was avoiding your "question".

When you finally decided on which question you wanted to officially ask me, I answered it.

You then claimed my answer was wrong. The reason why you are claiming such thing is because you are confused by your own premise. Why? Because you talk in circles, and you've confused yourself.

Let me reiterate; do you want me to answer your question, "Could you give an example of how another person could give your consent, when you don't want them to"?

If so, the answer is, rape.

Your question does not preclude the notion that both parties need to consent.

Good game, thanks for playing. Next time try harder, and don't talk in circles.

 

[Rob Roy]

You smoke too much weed old man. Your delusions are getting the best of you.

Lets recap, shall we?

You first asked me; "Can a person give consent for another person or must that come from the individual?"

You then changed your question to something more loaded; "Could you give an example of how another person could give your consent, when you don't want them to?"

You then claimed I was avoiding your "question".

When you finally decided on which question you wanted to officially ask me, I answered it.

You then claimed my answer was wrong. The reason why you are claiming such thing is because you are confused by your own premise. Why? Because you talk in circles, and you've confused yourself.

Let me reiterate; do you want me to answer your question, "Could you give an example of how another person could give your consent, when you don't want them to"?

If so, the answer is, rape.

Your question does not preclude the notion that both parties need to consent.

Good game, thanks for playing. Next time try harder, and don't talk in circles.

You have confused the words "give" and "take".

A rapists takes, without the other persons consent. THAT is what makes the act rape.

So, you haven't given a CORRECT answer to the question.



Could you please define what consent is when it applies to human actions?

 

[Tangerine_]

At which age would you say you reached the wherewithal to consent ?

Do you think all people arrive at that wherewithal at the same chronological age?

Can a person give consent for another person or must that come from the individual ?

Curious, since you're hell-bent on demanding an answer to this obtuse question, what is your belief on age of consent? I mean, can you actually answer the question directly with a number without all the pseudo-intellectual rationalization and dubious conjecture?

Thank you for the answers. My, you were a late bloomer. You weren't shitting on floors for fun at 17 were you?

Could you give an example of how another person could give your consent, when you don't want them to?

A rapists takes, without the other persons consent. THAT is what makes the act rape.

So, you haven't given a CORRECT answer to the question.



Could you please define what consent is when it applies to human actions?

Could you please give a specific minimum age of consent? Enough with the rhetoric. Its become redundant. None of your nonsensical rants or failed attempt at a philosophical debate is relevant if YOU cant even give your position on it without dancing around the question.

 

[see4]

You have confused the words "give" and "take".

A rapists takes, without the other persons consent. THAT is what makes the act rape.

So, you haven't given a CORRECT answer to the question.



Could you please define what consent is when it applies to human actions?

Ok, let's continue with your rule changes.

Another example(s), as you've redefined the question: ward of state and trust funds.

I assume you'll want to redefine your premise again. I welcome it, your game is kinda fun. Round and round we go.

 

[Tangerine_]

Trust me, he's going to take you down that road of dazzle you with brilliance while he baffles you with bullshit.

B4L

Its OK. I've been smited with the sword of retarded righteousness before. I mean, c'mon... I am not the brightest star in the sky by any means...but don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.

 

[Rob Roy]

Could you please give a specific minimum age of consent? Enough with the rhetoric. Its become redundant. None of your nonsensical rants or failed attempt at a philosophical debate is relevant if YOU cant even give your position on it without dancing question.

Sure.

Since the ability to give consent arises at different ages depending upon the individual, it logically follows that the answer is,
the age at which a given individual person achieves the wherewithal and not a minute before!

 

[Rob Roy]

Ok, let's continue with your rule changes.

Another example(s), as you've redefined the question: ward of state and trust funds.

I assume you'll want to redefine your premise again. I welcome it, your game is kinda fun. Round and round we go.

Wrong again. Your latest failed answer relies on a contradiction. A "ward of the state" is in that status because they are unable to give consent, as in they do not possess the wherewithal. A person lacking the capacity to consent, cannot logically give it can they?


Okay, despite your valiant, but erroneous attempts, you've failed to provide the answer, but the answer is obvious...

Consent is an individual thing and one person cannot provide it for another if the "consent" obtained involves duress rather than actual agreement.

 

[Rob Roy]

Its OK. I've been smited with the sword of retarded righteousness before. I mean, c'mon... I am not the brightest star in the sky by any means...but don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.

I would never dream of pissing on your shoes even if you consented to it.

 

[Tangerine_]

Sure.

Since the ability to give consent arises at different ages depending upon the individual, it logically follows that the answer is,
the age at which a given individual person achieves the wherewithal and not a minute before!

So your non-answer is your answer. Got it. I ask for a specific age and for some unknown reason you've once again refused to answer directly. Its OK. I'll ask yet again. In your opinion, what is the minimum age of consent. Anything other than a number is creepily evasive.

 

[Tangerine_]

Consent is an individual thing and one person cannot provide it for another if the "consent" obtained involves duress rather than actual agreement.

In what context? Where do you stand on implied consent?

 

[see4]

Wrong again. Your latest failed answer relies on a contradiction. A "ward of the state" is in that status because they are unable to give consent, as in they do not possess the wherewithal. A person lacking the capacity to consent, cannot logically give it can they?


Okay, despite your valiant, but erroneous attempts, you've failed to provide the answer, but the answer is obvious...

Consent is an individual thing and one person cannot provide it for another if the "consent" obtained involves duress rather than actual agreement.

Ok Rob. You win. Clearly, in your mind, it's ok to have sex with 10 year olds. I just happen to disagree.

Or perhaps, a better example, it's ok, in your mind, to have sex with a consenting adult, who happens to be mentally handicapped. Again, I happen to disagree. For the same reasons, why drunks and children aren't able to enter into legally binding contracts.

I am giving you consent to enjoy the rest of your [delusional] day.

 

[FauxRoux]

Again

Systems which are designed to use non defensive force to impose a human hierarchy rather than ones which rely on voluntarily derived associations are inherently flawed. Using a design flawed from the onset won't yield the results you seek and will forever lead to putting out fires of unintended consequences.

How familiar are you with a concept, known as the "non aggression principle"?

Yes I'm familiar and while I am a fan of John Locke I'm not so thrilled about Ayn Rand.

But again it comes down to one simple truth. You don't like the system we have but I'm guessing have no relevant alternative. (I feel ya).

So its all kind of moot if you're not willing to participate.

I'll keep making the small difference I can in my community and with the people I interact with.

So...while I'm not religous or big on platitudes ....
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

P.S. We all see your point in your age of consent views...obviously people all mature differently....but making a standard age is obviously done because a case by case basis would be massively impractical given the same reason most laws have general all encompassing applicability.....population size.

It sounds to me like you would be happier in Iceland or someplace where the population is so small that their bureaucracies still have some semblance of functionality and where an individual can still be heard.

 

[Rob Roy]

So your non-answer is your answer. Got it. I ask for a specific age and for some unknown reason you've once again refused to answer directly. Its OK. I'll ask yet again. In your opinion, what is the minimum age of consent. Anything other than a number is creepily evasive.

Here let me help you ask your question better, rude person.

What you meant to ask is where do I THINK the line should be agewise? I have a cultural and personal bias against mismatched age couples but if a person CAN consent and does I have no right to impose my bias on them. My partner is probably older than your mother.





My previous answers DID answer the question you DID ask. Go back and read it. It is self evident that since the onset of the wherewithal to consent arrives at different ages for different people, there CANNOT be a one size fits all number.

Since you imply there is, which age do YOU think the age of consent arrives for everyone?

 

[Rob Roy]

Ok Rob. You win. Clearly, in your mind, it's ok to have sex with 10 year olds. I just happen to disagree.

Or perhaps, a better example, it's ok, in your mind, to have sex with a consenting adult, who happens to be mentally handicapped. Again, I happen to disagree. For the same reasons, why drunks and children aren't able to enter into legally binding contracts.

I am giving you consent to enjoy the rest of your [delusional] day.

The only thing correct in your quoted post was..."Ok Rob. You win. " You conflated the rest as if they were my points and stated beliefs, they weren't.



Also, you made another error, you can't give me consent to have a delusional day or otherwise, only we, as individuals can provide our own consent.

 

[FauxRoux]

Also...food for thought. I hear California is passing a law that sex without verbal consent can be considered rape. This is amending the current standard that a woman must verbally say no for it to be rape to account for woman being drugged or blackout drunk and such.

But again, the argument that maturity is subjective thus a general age is invalid is foolish. Every 13-15 year old on the planet (pretty much) will claim emotional maturity. Very few have any concept as to what that really entails. How are we to know the difference and how would you judge a situation like that in a court of law? Especially in the case that a child was conned, which certainly happens.

 

[Rob Roy]

Again

Yes I'm familiar and while I am a fan of John Locke I'm not so thrilled about Ayn Rand.

But again it comes down to one simple truth. You don't like the system we have but I'm guessing have no relevant alternative. (I feel ya).

So its all kind of moot if you're not willing to participate.

I'll keep making the small difference I can in my community and with the people I interact with.

So...while I'm not religous or big on platitudes ....
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

P.S. We all see your point in your age of consent views...obviously people all mature differently....but making a standard age is obviously done because a case by case basis would be massively impractical given the same reason most laws have general all encompassing applicability.....population size.

It sounds to me like you would be happier in Iceland or someplace where the population is so small that their bureaucracies still have some semblance of functionality and where an individual can still be heard.

Thank you for your reasonable response. I'm pretty happy wherever I am, so Iceland is probably not in my future.

So. for practicality sake some peoples rights should be trampled on ?

Your "solution" contradicts the intended purpose of your law which is to protect people from having another provide their consent for them. In other words your "practical solution" deprives at least some people of that which you had hoped to protect...the ability to exercise their individual consent...or not.