Are there any smart Trump supporters?

[UncleBuck]

Except, you're wrong.


View attachment 3651032

no, i'm not.

whoever owns the business determines whether it is open to the public, or just to private members.

and with that simple fact, your entire racist philosophy is exposed for the racist, segregationist, hateful, intolerant pile of shit it is.

we can now move on to why you refuse to state that it should be illegal for you to have sex with 10 year olds.

 

[Rob Roy]

no, i'm not.

whoever owns the business determines whether it is open to the public, or just to private members.

and with that simple fact, your entire racist philosophy is exposed for the racist, segregationist, hateful, intolerant pile of shit it is.

we can now move on to why you refuse to state that it should be illegal for you to have sex with 10 year olds.

So anybody can just open a business on their own property and not interact in anyway with the government to do so?


Checkmate. (again)

 

[UncleBuck]

So anybody can just open a business on their own property and not interact in anyway with the government to do so?

it took me about 4 minutes to register mine with the secretary of state.

that doesn't mean the government controls my business though.

and that is what we were arguing. recall, dumb racist idiot:

The term "public store" is a contradiction if it purports to be owned by one entity, yet is controlled by another. You conveniently ignore that relevant detail.

ya see, dumb racist moron, the person who owns the business is the one who determines whether it is open to the public, or a private club.

this almost insignificant detail undermines your entire delusion of persecution.

care to run around in this circle again, or shall we move on to the fact that you refuse to state that it should be illegal for you to have sex with 10 year old children?

 

[OddBall1st]

So you are saying that physiologically and psychologically a persons ability to interact with another person is limited to a range of ages which is close to their own ? A consenting 43 year old should be prevented by a third party from banging a consenting 89 year old? (please no vaseline jokes)

How did you derive that ?

No, absolutely not. I`m saying that teens can experiment with sex between teens but adults cannot. The age difference lies within brain development ages. Adult with adult is cool, teen with teen is cool, adult teen is not and you go to jail.

The restrictions apply to youth.

 

[OddBall1st]

Is that clear enough or shall I explain more rob ?

 

[FauxRoux]

So you are saying that physiologically and psychologically a persons ability to interact with another person is limited to a range of ages which is close to their own ? A consenting 43 year old should be prevented by a third party from banging a consenting 89 year old? (please no vaseline jokes)

How did you derive that ?

Look....if (for arguments sake) SOME 10 yr olds were mature enough to make the decision to be sexually active....how in fucks name would anyone be able to tell those from the rest?

Just cause the 10 year old said so?

Cause id say half of the statutory rape cases out there involving 16-17yr old girls start that way. Funny how often it turns out they werent as ready as they thought they were a little down the road....for any number of reasons. And while 18 is no guarentee of maturity it is considered generally a safer age given the individual has had a decent enough period of time to develop frame of reference and enough life experience to learn the difference.


Your views seem steeped in idealism in a completely unrealistic way.

We have all of human history that shows us why your ideals dont work bro.

Pipe dreams contrary to our nature.

Just because sally is the 1 ten year old smart enough to figure out how the "magic coin from your ear" trick works, doesnt mean shes emotionally mature enough for sex...or that she understands the implications of those actions.

And I'm sorry but any person who touches a "child" and validates that decision by claiming a child as a mature autonomous decision maker is at best lying to themselves and taking advantage of that child.

Period.

And before I get a "well define "child" then" responce....if someone doesnt know the difference they have no business being sexually active themselves.

 

[Rob Roy]

Look....if (for arguments sake) SOME 10 yr olds were mature enough to make the decision to be sexually active....how in fucks name would anyone be able to tell those from the rest?

Just cause the 10 year old said so?

Cause id say half of the statutory rape cases out there involving 16-17yr old girls start that way. Funny how often it turns out they werent as ready as they thought they were a little down the road....for any number of reasons. And while 18 is no guarentee of maturity it is considered generally a safer age given the individual has had a decent enough period of time to develop frame of reference and enough life experience to learn the difference.


Your views seem steeped in idealism in a completely unrealistic way.

We have all of human history that shows us why your ideals dont work bro.

Pipe dreams contrary to our nature.

Just because sally is the 1 ten year old smart enough to figure out how the "magic coin from your ear" trick works, doesnt mean shes emotionally mature enough for sex...or that she understands the implications of those actions.

And I'm sorry but any person who touches a child and validates that decision by claiming a child as a mature autonomous decision maker is at best lying to themselves and taking advantage of that child.

Period.

Actually my ideals are the only thing that can logically work, what hasn't ever worked is the idea that thru a system based in coercion and violence you can somehow eliminate coercion and violence. Logically that is impossible, therefore if you believe different, you're wrong. Logic insists that is so.


You asked for a "better way" and I provided you with a link to a Voluntaryist site. I take it the concepts presented there didn't make sense to you or you closed your mind to the possibility and didn't bother with reading it?

I share your concern for people that engage other people in a nonconsensual way, which is exactly what you propose doing to a person that COULD consent and was prevented from running their own life forcibly by others. You are holding two opposing points of view at once when you do that.

You can join the sock puppet / jackal gang and erroneously conflate my argument into an endorsement of kiddie diddling or you can attempt to refute what I said using your intellect. Contrary to what some people have posited, I'm not endorsing people do anything, but leave others alone or engage with others only on a mutual and consensual basis.

My personal thoughts on how people should form relationships, ages of partners etc. is pretty traditional, but I recognize my thoughts on how others ought to live don't empower me with any right to inflict my view on others who think differently.

Any person that keeps a person who has the wherewithal to exercise consent from doing so....is doing what ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Is that clear enough or shall I explain more rob ?

So, should teens in the military be unable to kill "adults" because their brains are different or is that okay with you?

 

[OddBall1st]

So, should teens in the military be unable to kill "adults" because their brains are different or is that okay with you?

Over 18 is military grade, under 18 is military school. you wont find a 16yr. old soldier killing or in combat.

 

[Rob Roy]

Over 18 is military grade, under 18 is military school. you wont find a 16yr. old soldier killing or in combat.

So any adult that kills a child is a murderer?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Look....if (for arguments sake) SOME 10 yr olds were mature enough to make the decision to be sexually active....how in fucks name would anyone be able to tell those from the rest?

Just cause the 10 year old said so?

Been down this exact same path with Rob before. This might save you some time

The truest words ever spoken in American politics

 

[OddBall1st]

So any adult that kills a child is a murderer?

We were talking about sex laws. Where did you associate that post from sex laws ?

 

[Rob Roy]

We were talking about sex laws. Where did you associate that post from sex laws ?

No WE weren't.

You may have been, but I was talking about what consent is and isn't. It's what I've been talking about all along.

 

[OddBall1st]

No WE weren't.

You may have been, but I was talking about what consent is and isn't. It's what I've been talking about all along.

Yes we were. Even if we weren`t, consent is by definition a "permission". As long as that permission is within written laws, there`s nothing to talk about.

The discussion starts with "permissions" that are not within the law. So if a 16 year old consents to sex with an adult,...it is illegal for the adult and jail will follow. You do live in the U.S.

 

[Rob Roy]

Been down this exact same path with Rob before. This might save you some time

The truest words ever spoken in American politics

I like you and think you mean well, but when you deny a person the right of peaceful self determination using force as your means, you are being inconsistent to anything well intended, since the means is part of the process.

Also, your claim that a group of people can somehow acquire rights which none of them possess as individual people is fraught with contradiction and dissonance.

 

[Rob Roy]

Yes we were. Even if we weren`t, consent is by definition a "permission". As long as that permission is within written laws, there`s nothing to talk about.

The discussion starts with "permissions" that are not within the law. So if a 16 year old consents to sex with an adult,...it is illegal for the adult and jail will follow. You do live in the U.S.

So your default positon is that peaceful individuals do not and should not own themselves and whatever law makers say must be followed blindly and slavishly.

Did they whip you and make you say your name is "Toby" too ?

 

[UncleBuck]

Actually my ideals are the only thing that can logically work

too cult-like to even mock.

 

[OddBall1st]

So your default positon is that peaceful individuals do not and should not own themselves and whatever law makers say must be followed blindly and slavishly.

Did they whip you and make you say your name is "Toby" too ?

See rob you had it right, then you added blindly and slavishly,...If you know the laws you are not blindly led, if you don`t like America, you may leave at will. So where is this blindly and slavishly you put down?

 

[UncleBuck]

I was talking about what consent is

are you finally ready to state that 10 year olds cannot consent to have sex with you?

 

[Rob Roy]

it took me about 4 minutes to register mine with the secretary of state.

that doesn't mean the government controls my business though.

and that is what we were arguing. recall, dumb racist idiot:



ya see, dumb racist moron, the person who owns the business is the one who determines whether it is open to the public, or a private club.

this almost insignificant detail undermines your entire delusion of persecution.

care to run around in this circle again, or shall we move on to the fact that you refuse to state that it should be illegal for you to have sex with 10 year old children?

So a person doesn't need to interact with the government in any way on their own property to open a business or is there some element of force applied to them if they don't get "permission" from the government first?

Or do your blinders prevent you from seeing the obvious Mr. Cognitive Dissonant Psychophant? (sic on purpose and for effect)