Indictment Countdown...

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Do you deny that you have expressed the belief that if gov't interfered with an adult having sex with a child, that it would be against your nonaggression principal?
You're flailing in the branches now phony anarchist.

Might I suggest you find a way to get some consistency in your arguments?

An entity, your benefactor, ("them"..."the government" ) which exists due to an involuntary hold on people is hardly the best arbiter of proper human relations, so your question is malformed.

If a person cannot or doesn't consent, then defending them against an assailant is a just action. That falls under a defensive action.

If a person can and does consent, how is it your business to prevent them from exercising domain over themselves or freely associating with another person who is also capable of making an informed choice? It sounds like you are trying to justify offensive force. Why?
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Do you deny that you have expressed the belief that if gov't interfered with an adult having sex with a child, that it would be against your nonaggression principal?
 

Michael Huntherz

Well-Known Member
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.

Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.

Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!

It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.

But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.

A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.

From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!

Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.

A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.

http://russp.us/racism.htm
The flip-side of this sort of thing is evident in the idea that there's a "liberal media bias" - and certainly there once was, but those days are decades in the past. Your statements are based strongly in historical fact, and I respect the shit out of that. You let your bias in there, but I can easily parse your opinions from the science you're dropping, so it doesn't bother me. I'm as opinionated as a boy can be. Both of the ideologies have their propaganda. There's so much disinformation, misinformation, and mind-fuckery from both sides of the aisle that we should all be wary of thinking we have the answers. I don't mean you, @OneStonedPony, I mean generally.

We, the people, need to drop red vs blue competition, stop behaving as if they are sports teams (manifested as jingoistic adherence to the flawed notion of ideological purity) and try to foster a reasonable amount of representation for everyone. This will require compromise. Ideological purity is a destructive force and a myth, all good leaders (whether CEOs, elected officials, or military) know this is true. If we can't find some common ground, and we have only to look, then I'm afraid the United States is headed for civil war and balkanization.

Why the fuck are we still discussing if sex with kids is OK? I'm pretty sure there's a strong societal agreement on that one. If you don't like it, move to Thailand or something. I don't think that single subject should drive so many posts, on either side.

Trolling fucking trolls trolling trolling trolls in a sea of trolling trolls.
 
Last edited:

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
The flip-side of this sort of thing is evident in the idea that there's a "liberal media bias" - and certainly there once was, but those days are decades in the past. Your statements are based strongly in historical fact, and I respect the shit out of that. You let your bias in there, but I can easily parse your opinions from the science you're dropping, so it doesn't bother me. I'm as opinionated as a boy can be. Both of the ideologies have their propaganda. There's so much disinformation, misinformation, and mind-fuckery from both sides of the aisle that we should all be wary of thinking we have the answers. I don't mean you, @OneStonedPony, I mean generally.

We, the people, need to drop red vs blue competition, stop behaving as if they are sports teams (manifested as jingoistic adherence to the flawed notion of ideological purity) and try to foster a reasonable amount of representation for everyone. This will require compromise. Ideological purity is a destructive force and a myth, all good leaders (whether CEOs, elected officials, or military) know this is true. If we can't find some common ground, and we have only to look, then I'm afraid the United States is headed for civil war and balkanization.

Why the fuck are we still discussing if sex with kids is OK? I'm pretty sure there's a strong societal agreement on that one. If you don't like it, move to Thailand or something. I don't think that single subject should drive so many posts, on either side.

Trolling fucking trolls trolling trolling trolls in a sea of trolling trolls.
All Rob Roy needs to do is answer this question with a yes or no.
Can a child of 13 consent to sex with a adult?
He won't answer it, without resorting to a 3 paragraph word salad that comes down to it depends on the child.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
All Rob Roy needs to do is answer this question with a yes or no.
Can a child of 13 consent to sex with a adult?
He won't answer it, without resorting to a 3 paragraph word salad that comes down to it depends on the child.

Define consent please.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The flip-side of this sort of thing is evident in the idea that there's a "liberal media bias" - and certainly there once was, but those days are decades in the past. Your statements are based strongly in historical fact, and I respect the shit out of that. You let your bias in there, but I can easily parse your opinions from the science you're dropping, so it doesn't bother me. I'm as opinionated as a boy can be. Both of the ideologies have their propaganda. There's so much disinformation, misinformation, and mind-fuckery from both sides of the aisle that we should all be wary of thinking we have the answers. I don't mean you, @OneStonedPony, I mean generally.

We, the people, need to drop red vs blue competition, stop behaving as if they are sports teams (manifested as jingoistic adherence to the flawed notion of ideological purity) and try to foster a reasonable amount of representation for everyone. This will require compromise. Ideological purity is a destructive force and a myth, all good leaders (whether CEOs, elected officials, or military) know this is true. If we can't find some common ground, and we have only to look, then I'm afraid the United States is headed for civil war and balkanization.

Why the fuck are we still discussing if sex with kids is OK? I'm pretty sure there's a strong societal agreement on that one. If you don't like it, move to Thailand or something. I don't think that single subject should drive so many posts, on either side.

Trolling fucking trolls trolling trolling trolls in a sea of trolling trolls.
Your terminology is suspect though and smells a bit like false dichotomy.

Imposing compromise over otherwise peaceful people makes the word "compromise" the wrong one to use, since it is rendered inaccurate by the presence of the offensive forcible imposition that nearly all governments use.

A more reasonable and realistic compromise would be a better understanding and application of what offensive force is and what defensive force is at the individual person level.

Also, the "side of the aisle" rhetoric is a distraction, and somewhat meaningless, when both sides of the aisle consolidate their power using the same kind of forcible means.

The questions shouldn't be which "side of the aisle" will prevail in how the loot is spent, or "how can they compromise on deciding how to spend the loot " the question should be, "why is the looting allowed in the first place" ?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Do you deny that you have expressed the belief that if gov't interfered with an adult having sex with a child, that it would be against your nonaggression principal?

Context is always important when discussing something.

A government which arises as a result of demanding people have an involuntary relationship with it, is hardly the entity which can then out of the other side of its mouth claim to be the protector of a persons right to control themselves.

How's that garden answer coming along ?

Pro -tip for you here - You cannot garden cheetohs, in case you were considering it.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
The flip-side of this sort of thing is evident in the idea that there's a "liberal media bias" - and certainly there once was, but those days are decades in the past. Your statements are based strongly in historical fact, and I respect the shit out of that. You let your bias in there, but I can easily parse your opinions from the science you're dropping, so it doesn't bother me. I'm as opinionated as a boy can be. Both of the ideologies have their propaganda. There's so much disinformation, misinformation, and mind-fuckery from both sides of the aisle that we should all be wary of thinking we have the answers. I don't mean you, @OneStonedPony, I mean generally.

We, the people, need to drop red vs blue competition, stop behaving as if they are sports teams (manifested as jingoistic adherence to the flawed notion of ideological purity) and try to foster a reasonable amount of representation for everyone. This will require compromise. Ideological purity is a destructive force and a myth, all good leaders (whether CEOs, elected officials, or military) know this is true. If we can't find some common ground, and we have only to look, then I'm afraid the United States is headed for civil war and balkanization.

Why the fuck are we still discussing if sex with kids is OK? I'm pretty sure there's a strong societal agreement on that one. If you don't like it, move to Thailand or something. I don't think that single subject should drive so many posts, on either side.

Trolling fucking trolls trolling trolling trolls in a sea of trolling trolls.
Regarding the shit surrounding Rob, I just put him on ignore and scan past all the pedo stuff. They use it because there is only one answer and Rob can't say it. It sends a very clear message that Rob is disturbed.

Regarding the red, blue stuff. There are studies that show very different communication styles in people that lean red or lean blue. I'm not sure we'll ever find a middle ground. For example, Trump said, "California is not in a drought, OK?". What do you think about that? Is compromise possible with this person?
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
The flip-side of this sort of thing is evident in the idea that there's a "liberal media bias" - and certainly there once was, but those days are decades in the past. Your statements are based strongly in historical fact, and I respect the shit out of that. You let your bias in there, but I can easily parse your opinions from the science you're dropping, so it doesn't bother me. I'm as opinionated as a boy can be. Both of the ideologies have their propaganda. There's so much disinformation, misinformation, and mind-fuckery from both sides of the aisle that we should all be wary of thinking we have the answers. I don't mean you, @OneStonedPony, I mean generally.

We, the people, need to drop red vs blue competition, stop behaving as if they are sports teams (manifested as jingoistic adherence to the flawed notion of ideological purity) and try to foster a reasonable amount of representation for everyone. This will require compromise. Ideological purity is a destructive force and a myth, all good leaders (whether CEOs, elected officials, or military) know this is true. If we can't find some common ground, and we have only to look, then I'm afraid the United States is headed for civil war and balkanization.

Why the fuck are we still discussing if sex with kids is OK? I'm pretty sure there's a strong societal agreement on that one. If you don't like it, move to Thailand or something. I don't think that single subject should drive so many posts, on either side.

Trolling fucking trolls trolling trolling trolls in a sea of trolling trolls.
Rob Jumps into every single thread with his dumbass ideology. We just want him to go away. Not troll him
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Rob Jumps into every single thread with his dumbass ideology. We just want him to go away. Not troll him

I understand. It must be difficult for you being a prohibitionist on a pot website and having it called out.

Make you a deal, if you admit you were wrong for proposing prohibitionist legislation, I'll stop calling you a prohibitionist.
 
Last edited:

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
I understand. It must be difficult for you being a prohibitionist on a pot website and having it called out.

Make you deal, if you admit you were wrong for proposing prohibitionist legislation, I'll stop calling you a prohibitionist.
Why do you want to make it legal for adults to fuck kids?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Why do you want to make it legal for adults to fuck kids?
A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of the false alternative) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.




I don't want the prevailing and forcibly imposed legal structure in the USA to make determinations for peaceful people or keep peaceful people from choosing or rejecting their human interactions. That should be left up to the involved people, not a controlling third party.

You seem fixated on the idea, because I don't hold the same superstitions that you do, (YOU think government can have rights which normal people do not) that I endorse kiddie diddling. You sure like to talk about it too, which is kind of creepy.

How come you think some people should have the right to prevent other people who wish to interact from doing so? You clearly think that, since you have advocated for forms of cannabis prohibition and think a person who possesses the wherewithal to consent should be denied control over their own body.

The hardest thing about engaging you, is despite my efforts I can't quite seem to dumb down my arguments enough to where they are comprehensible to you.

What do you take to maintain your stupid ? Can it be had on the free market or is it illegal to sell, Prohibitionist?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fuck off Dave.
I was a member that actually tried to help out your family before you went in. You came out being a total racist douche bag.
How many black dicks did you take up your ass to turn out to be such a prick?
And what kind of person goes on the internet and pretends to be a woman?
Answer. Someone who was never a man to begin with.


Your proposal making cannabis illegal to be used in person to person commerce would ensure more people are jailed.


...and why is it always "black dicks" ?
 

nitro harley

Well-Known Member
Why do you want to make it legal for adults to fuck children?
It would be very easy for you to say you don't want to make it legal
But you wont
Chesus, What the fuck is up with our school system? This kind of shit happens to make the news dam near every month.

 
Top