Can anyone passionately and intelligently explain what Southern pride in relation to the Rebel flag

whitebb2727 said:
So we don't ignore but can't control people on their property, what do we do?

By you very argument, if we can't control someone on their own property, they are free to do anything? Including diddling children.

You and I have both drawn a line in the sand. We are just arguing where to place it.
Click to expand...

Except the person "controlling their own property" has ceased to control only "their own property" if they are applying offensive force to another person, who they do not own and should not own.

So your statement doesn't lessen the idea that clearly defined property rights can act as solutions, it strengthens it.
 
ChesusRice said:
Your answer is very clear
You think it should be legal for adults to fuck kids
Click to expand...

I don't hold the same superstition that you do, where all things can be reduced to "legal or illegal" as the parameters for acceptable and unacceptable. So the context of your claim is skewed, when applied to me, I don't assign legality the same status you do, slave.

For instance, while we both personally oppose large age differences among people who engage in sex. I don't see what the harm is if all parties involved have the wherewithal to consent and do consent to an encounter.

Perhaps you could explain where you get the right to apply a forcible intervention into what other people capable of consenting to something do if it involves only them ? I ask that in a generic way, Prohibitionist. You seem to have lots of ideas how other people should run their lives, so I'd like to hear where you get the authority to intervene from....Can you answer?
 
UncleBuck said:
the law says you were raped by a pedophile.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. Since "the law" varies from place to place and is as inconsistent as government itself. Maybe I can claim some kind of victim status and get some "government money" * ?

The term "rape" to be meaningful, needs some consistency in how it is applied. When defining rape, the act or threat of force should be present.... Which is ironic, since when government arbitrarily sets boundaries based on what they think and not what the participants think, they are engaging in a form of rape by their forcible inclusion of themselves.


* more irony, Poopy Pants
 
Rob Roy said:
Except the person "controlling their own property" has ceased to control only "their own property" if they are applying offensive force to another person, who they do not own and should not own.

So your statement doesn't lessen the idea that clearly defined property rights can act as solutions, it strengthens it.
Click to expand...

oh shit. he's using bold now. the racist pedo is upset.
 
14260303699344_zpstahd9xdu.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Padawanbater2
David Swanson: War is a Lie
Replies
3
Views
1K
poonjoon
P
Finshaggy
  • Locked
What's good on Netflix?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
7K
Samwell Seed Well
Samwell Seed Well
Finshaggy
Occupy
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
Finshaggy
Finshaggy
P
The Most Iconic Photographs Ever Taken
2
Replies
24
Views
17K
alloutofpaper
A
couchlock907
Get Ready Thanks Obama in BP
Replies
1
Views
1K
NoDrama
N
Back
Top