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

why are white males so prone to terrorism and gun massacres of innocents?

  • Total voters
    24
Padawanbater2 said:
When wages rise, people have more disposable income, when people have more disposable income they buy things, when they buy things businesses make more money, when businesses make more money, they hire more people to meet the demand
Click to expand...

Nice story. Except you forgot the other side of the equation. Wages are a cost increase and cost increases are usually passed on to the consumers aren't they?
 
Rob Roy said:
Nice story. Except you forgot the other side of the equation. Wages are a cost increase and cost increases are usually passed on to the consumers aren't they?
Click to expand...
Marginal rises in price don't outweigh the benefits of higher wages

If your claim is true, unemployment should rise as wages rise, right?
 
Rob Roy said:
Ask the government...they know everything.
Click to expand...
That single question is what your entire premise relies on, if you can't explain in simple enough terms how someone gains the "wherewithal" to engage in something like a consensual sex act, how can you expect anyone to take it seriously?

Unless you specifically outline how someone does that the conversation can't move forward

I feel like it's a pretty straightforward question
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Marginal rises in price don't outweigh the benefits of higher wages

If your claim is true, unemployment should rise as wages rise, right?
Click to expand...

Are you saying if costs to produce or acquire goods and services for resale rise there will be no corresponding rise in the price to the consumer?
 
Rob Roy said:
If a person has the wherewithal to consent to things, what would the specific act(s) they consent to or don't consent to have to do with whether or not that person CAN or CANNOT consent?

Let's say your neighbor owns a dog and you consent to letting it chase a ball in your yard. We could say you then have the wherewithal to consent to actions pertaining to the dog and your property.

Now, let's say the dog starts humping your leg and you enthusiastically consent to that heinous act, how does the nature of your engaging in a consensual, yet heinous act with your neighbor's dog, change the fact that you possess the wherewithal to consent to the leg humping?

Now for the record, while I'm not in favor of you humping the leg of a 13 year old dog, I can see how you'd feel cheated if you didn't get your turn.
Click to expand...
Still no answer
Its either yes or no.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
That single question is what your entire premise relies on, if you can't explain in simple enough terms how someone gains the "wherewithal" to engage in something like a consensual sex act, how can you expect anyone to take it seriously?

Unless you specifically outline how someone does that the conversation can't move forward

I feel like it's a pretty straightforward question
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Do all people achieve the same things and abilities at the same exact chronological age?
 
ChesusRice said:
So You are saying a child's ability to consent to having sex with you (Rob roy) is determined by how much you want to fuck them
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying you shouldn't hump the dogs leg unless the dog consents. No matter how much you want to hump the dogs leg if old Rex ain't having it, please leave him alone.

Please say you don't have any cats, please.
 
Rob Roy said:
Why DO prices rise ? What prevents them from remaining low ?
Click to expand...
Like you said, because businesses would rather the customer pick up the tab than their profits take the hit. But if you implement an increase in wages over a stretch of time it decreases the immediate impact of paying for labor
 
It's kind of a balancing act, you have to steadily increase wages until they reach a point where people are comfortable spending the extra money they have, when they do that, businesses have more money to pay for labor

Like an economic chicken and egg equation
 
Padawanbater2 said:
No
Click to expand...

So by extrapolating your answer of no, you agree that a law which applies a universal standard based on a chronological age creates a situation where at least SOME people could be penalized for engaging in things they have the wherewithal to consent to.

If forcibly overriding a persons consent is something you wish to prevent, (at least I hope you do) .... why would you statutorily embrace something that can result in the opposite thing happening?
 
Rob Roy said:
So by extrapolating your answer of no, you agree that a law which applies a universal standard based on a chronological age creates a situation where at least SOME people could be penalized for engaging in things they have the wherewithal to consent to.

If forcibly overriding a persons consent is something you wish to prevent, (at least I hope you do) .... why would you statutorily embrace something that can result in the opposite thing happening?
Click to expand...
We have to have some objective standard to measure when a person can give their consent without being under duress, right? Otherwise how would we be able to prosecute adults who truly do take advantage of kids that did give their consent under duress? We couldn't, and that's the problem.

How would you address that problem?

There would be no way to tell if the consent was genuine or if it was only given because the person didn't want to get the adult they're with in trouble, even if they were coerced into doing something they didn't want to do
 
Padawanbater2 said:
We have to have some objective standard to measure when a person can give their consent without being under duress, right? Otherwise how would we be able to prosecute adults who truly do take advantage of kids that did give their consent under duress? We couldn't, and that's the problem.

How would you address that problem?

There would be no way to tell if the consent was genuine or if it was only given because the person didn't want to get the adult they're with in trouble, even if they were coerced into doing something they didn't want to do
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top