Will Congress act now?

[Rob Roy]

You are the king of dishonesty.
And someone who advocates adults having the legal right to fuck children.

Rights aren't legal or illegal. What you should have said in your fallacious vapid comment was the legal privilege, Prohibitionist.

 

[Rob Roy]

Predictably, you're against any form of government (elected or otherwise) restrictions placed on the age at which minors can consent to sexual activity with adults.

Not good.

Could you point out how you inferred that? Thanks.

 

[Rob Roy]

I guess he would view it as such.
@Rob Roy would you have peacefully protested with MLK at a lunch counter for not serving blacks ?

I understand and appreciate what MLK was doing and have great respect for what MLK. tried to do.

However, I would have protested the laws which insisted on people being forcibly segregated or forcibly integrated. As far as the racist property owners, I would have disavowed them and given my business to nonracists, but I would not have forcibly insisted somebody serve me. Isn't that a form of slavery ?

My default position isn't that the choice of who must or must not associate should be a government choice, instead it is a choice that individual people should decide.

When you said "peacefuly protest" at someone else property you may have been confused. How would you occupy another persons property if they didn't want you there and still be remaining peaceful ? Isn't trespass a kind of aggression ?

 

[twostrokenut]

The reload time silly. Big difference when you have to take time to reload. Understandable on the battlefield, but when hiking the need for a 30 round mag is ridiculous and you would be better off keeping your fragile tiny dick ass in the house or trailer . Good morning

So you are going to dictate what I need when hiking? What gives you that right special one? I'm going to carry 30 regardless tyvm, bears head is pretty big and the cats are pretty thin skinned so one spare clip is pretty comfy.

So now that we have established how huge you think my dick and house are, and that I'm going to carry 30 rounds and there's absolutely jack shit that you or the Democratic Party is going to do about it except possibly attempt to make me carry 2 spare clips instead of 1.......whats the point considering its a state issue anyways?

 

[twostrokenut]

9mm for bear and cougars?
Good luck

Theyre both really small around here. I've sent bears running in fear by opening my front door at night but the cats are out of hand. There's a lot of them because they're "protected" and theyre really aggressive.

9mm will kill a med sized cat no problem, or bears with head shots; what planet you on?

 

[twostrokenut]

True that. The only Grizzlies left in California are on the state's flag.

The only time a Black Bear is dangerous is when people try to scare it away AFTER it's gotten into their camping food.
Since 1986, there have been 14 verified Mountain Lion attacks on humans. In other words, it's not something to worry about.
Criminals are mostly found in the city. They might be found at trail heads. Even in those places, people are less safe with a gun than without one. LOL at the idea a criminal would be a mile or so on foot in the wilderness, looking for a victim. Also, LOL at the idea that he would just stand and watch you reach for your weapon.

@twostrokenut , you carry a 9 mm Browning because you are fearful of very rare events. With your demonstrably bad judgement, you and people you care about are less safe when you carry that gun than when you don't. Gun owners like you are cowards.

9mm vs a grizzly? you are dumb. I would carry my 44 in Alaska but this is Cali. I said "bears, cats and tweekers" and then you come up with this dumb shit.

 

[SunnyJim]

Could you point out how you inferred that? Thanks.

Gladly. A quick Google of rollitup.org: rob roy consent returns some of your gems from last year(!!). You've been at this for over a year? Alarming.

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!

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

It COULDN'T BE rape if both parties consented.

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 ?

You contend that consent can be given for any activity at any age depending on the individual. Full 'ownership' of one's self. Once 'consent' is granted, there should be zero [involuntary] governmental interference in that interaction, lest we return back to the days of slavery.

You would therefore theoretically support a 12 year old girl giving consent to engaging in sexual activity with a 50 year old man. The 50 year old man certainly wouldn't have to answer to any criminal charges, specifically statutory rape, and that child protection laws be damned in favor of your version of 'self-governance'.

Savage stuff here, Abe.

 

[Justin-case]

9mm vs a grizzly? you are dumb. I would carry my 44 in Alaska but this is Cali. I said "bears, cats and tweekers" and then you come up with this dumb shit.

You're the only pussy I know that's scared of black bears, lol.

Tweakers don't hike.

Have you ever even seen a mountain lion while hiking?

 

[Rob Roy]

Gladly. A quick Google of rollitup.org: rob roy consent returns some of your gems from last year(!!). You've been at this for over a year? Alarming.









You contend that consent can be given for any activity at any age depending on the individual. Full 'ownership' of one's self. Once 'consent' is granted, there should be zero [involuntary] governmental interference in that interaction, lest we return back to the days of slavery.

You would therefore theoretically support a 12 year old girl giving consent to engaging in sexual activity with a 50 year old man. The 50 year old man certainly wouldn't have to answer to any criminal charges, specifically statutory rape, and that child protection laws be damned in favor of your version of 'self-governance'.

Savage stuff here, Abe.

Is it possible that you use the word "support" erroneously ? I think it might be.

You imply that if I wouldn't intervene in something other people who are capable of consenting to something do, that it's the same as me supporting it / liking it.

For instance, I think it's your business to decide to sit in your mom's basement in the same dirty sweat pants you've had on all week, feasting on junk food and fondling yourself. However that doesn't mean I think you should spend your time doing that or would want you to do that.

The onus of proving why I would have a right to prevent you from doing something, if you have the capacity to consent to it and it doesn't involve me, is on you. Can you tell me where I would get the right to demand you cease your basement behaviors if you have the capacity to consent and decide that's what you want to do ?

 

[Chezus]

Is it possible that you use the word "support" erroneously ? I think it might be.

You imply that if I wouldn't intervene in something other people who are capable of consenting to something do, that it's the same as me supporting it / liking it.

For instance, I think it's your business to decide to sit in your mom's basement in the same dirty sweat pants you've had on all week, feasting on junk food and fondling yourself. However that doesn't mean I think you should spend your time doing that or would want you to do that.

The onus of proving why I would have a right to prevent you from doing something, if you have the capacity to consent to it and it doesn't involve me, is on you. Can you tell me where I would get the right to demand you cease your basement behaviors if you have the capacity to consent and decide that's what you want to do ?

Why do you think it should be legal for adults to fuck children?

 

[Rob Roy]

Why do you think it should be legal for adults to fuck children?

You are persistently obtuse Prohibitionist.

Where does anyone get the right to determine what another person will or won't do with their own body, if that person is capable of making decisions regarding themselves ? Could you tell me why you agree with rapist policies which disregard other persons rights to make their own choices about their body ?

 

[SunnyJim]

Is it possible that you use the word "support" erroneously ? I think it might be.

You imply that if I wouldn't intervene in something other people who are capable of consenting to something do, that it's the same as me supporting it / liking it.

For instance, I think it's your business to decide to sit in your mom's basement in the same dirty sweat pants you've had on all week, feasting on junk food and fondling yourself. However that doesn't mean I think you should spend your time doing that or would want you to do that.

The onus of proving why I would have a right to prevent you from doing something, if you have the capacity to consent to it and it doesn't involve me, is on you. Can you tell me where I would get the right to demand you cease your basement behaviors if you have the capacity to consent and decide that's what you want to do ?

It is not possible that I am using the word 'support' erroneously.

Evidently, you believe a 12 year old girl, in some instances, can give consent to engage in sexual activity with a 50 year old man, and that government policy should not prevent that interaction from taking place as a matter of principle. You therefore support the possibility of that interaction taking place, irrespective of whether you're personally interested in engaging in such activities. Staggering.

 

[Rob Roy]

It is not possible that I am using the word 'support' erroneously.

Evidently, you believe a 12 year old girl, in some instances, can give consent to engage in sexual activity with a 50 year old man, and that government policy should not prevent that interaction from taking place as a matter of principle. You therefore support the possibility of that interaction taking place, irrespective of whether you're personally interested in engaging in such activities. Staggering.

So, are you saying that you support a government policy preventing persons who are capable of consenting to something regarding their own bodies from doing so? Isn't that a prohibitionist view ?

Staggering.


I don't think governments (as in a central coercion based entity as presently exists ) are a good arbiter of who can do things with their own body since they IGNORE individual consent as being a necessary component of whether or not they claim somebody as their own subject / serf. So they lose any moral highground in my eyes when they contradict themselves systemically.

Also, doesn't your mom have a washing machine down in that basement ? I mean, c'mon, the same sweats 6 days in a row ?

 

[SunnyJim]

So, are you saying that you support a government policy preventing persons who are capable of consenting to something regarding their own bodies from doing so? Isn't that a prohibitionist view ?

Staggering.


I don't think governments (as in a central coercion based entity as presently exists ) are a good arbiter of who can do things with their own body since they IGNORE individual consent as being a necessary component of whether or not they claim somebody as their own subject / serf. So they lose any moral highground in my eyes when they contradict themselves systemically.

Also, doesn't your mom have a washing machine down in that basement ? I mean, c'mon, the same sweats 6 days in a row ?

Reading some of your old posts, your style hasn't changed. You are cornered into trying to defend the indefensible, so you shift the goalposts and ask a different question.

You believe a 12 year old girl, given certain circumstances, should be able to consent to sexual activity with a 50 year old man, provided she 'gives that consent'. I can't imagine you have a daughter.

 

[Rob Roy]

Reading some of your old posts, your style hasn't changed. You are cornered into trying to defend the indefensible, so you shift the goalposts and ask a different question.

You believe a 12 year old girl, given certain circumstances, should be able to consent to sexual activity with a 50 year old man, provided she 'gives that consent'. I can't imagine you have a daughter.

I believe only people who have the capability to consent to something, can consent to something. Do you believe differently from that ?

 

[SunnyJim]

I believe only people who have the capability to consent to something, can consent to something. Do you believe differently from that ?

Yes. I believe people can consent to something without having considered the potential implications of following through with the act. This is particularly true in the case of children, those with learning difficulties, those whose judgement has been impaired for whatever reason. You leave it to the other person(s) involved in the act to decide whether the consent they have received is legitimate.

Do you believe a 12 year old girl has the 'capability to consent' to having a sexual relationship with a 50 year old man?

 

[Chezus]

Yes. I believe people can consent to something without having considered the potential implications of following through with the act. This is particularly true in the case of children, those with learning difficulties, those whose judgement has been impaired for whatever reason. You leave it to the other person(s) involved in the act to decide whether the consent they have received is legitimate.

Do you believe a 12 year old girl has the 'capability to consent' to having a sexual relationship with a 50 year old man?

Yes he does.

 

[Jimdamick]

9mm will kill a med sized cat no problem, or bears with head shots; what planet you on?

Might kill my cat, if you could hit it, but a cougar? It would be eating your balls before it died. And a 9mm head shot to a bear charging? What planet do you live on?

 

[SneekyNinja]

Might kill my cat, if you could hit it, but a cougar? It would be eating your balls before it died. And a 9mm head shot to a bear charging? What planet do you live on?

This is why these idiots need ARs with bump-stocks...

Cos they're stupid as fuck.

I wouldn't face a bear or a mountain lion with anything less than a .45 ...but on second thought any pistol tbh seems kinda retarded.

Especially with a bear, all that fur, it's just a big weaved mess of matted keratin... acts similar to a natural kevlar.

 

[londonfog]

I understand and appreciate what MLK was doing and have great respect for what MLK. tried to do.

However, I would have protested the laws which insisted on people being forcibly segregated or forcibly integrated. As far as the racist property owners, I would have disavowed them and given my business to nonracists, but I would not have forcibly insisted somebody serve me. Isn't that a form of slavery ?

My default position isn't that the choice of who must or must not associate should be a government choice, instead it is a choice that individual people should decide.

When you said "peacefuly protest" at someone else property you may have been confused. How would you occupy another persons property if they didn't want you there and still be remaining peaceful ? Isn't trespass a kind of aggression ?

So you basically would have told MLK that he should sit in the back of the bus and not protest it. He should not expect to get served at the same lunch counter you can eat at. He should also continue to drink at a different water fountain than you. You see how fucked your thinking is.