should sex be a right?

UncleBuck said:
not an option.

there is not enough private charity occurring right now to feed all the hungry children out there.

that means your future victims are gonna starve before they reach the age where you like to victimize them.

the only way for you to make sure these children get to your preferred victimization age of 10 years old is to enslave a whole bunch of folks with those argument winning "positive rights" to "labor property or earnings" that your fellow white supremacist babbled on about.

the ultimate libertarian dilemma, eh slavey McRapeface? let the children starve before you can pedo them, or enslave folks so that you can get your pedo on?

that's a tough one.
Click to expand...
Look... When the children who cannot be fed starve to death then we can feed all the children that need feeding and your argument falls apart.
 
shorelineOG said:
Give a million dollars to a poor person and they would be broke in a year.
Click to expand...
You hear talk of the working poor. Folks that make around 8 bucks an hour. I know people in that income range who own their own home. It isn't a mansion. But they own it. And Theyre not impovrished. They live simply. I know other people in that income range who are total leaches. They have the newest iPhone and the like.

Being poor is a mentality problem. Not an income problem.
 
Rob Roy said:
Forcible redistribution and voluntary giving can both satisfy hunger but they get there in two different ways. Sort of like raping your dog vs getting his loving consent.
Click to expand...

there really are no words for these analogies sometimes.

we are not talking about having sex with canines, robert.

we are talking about mundane reality. either we use "force" or kids starve.

you identified using force as slavery and rape (big surprise) and said not using it was the winning argument.

thus kids will starve and they will not get to the age where you like to victimize them.

i guess that's the best the free market can do.
 
ThickStemz said:
Look... When the children who cannot be fed starve to death then we can feed all the children that need feeding and your argument falls apart.
Click to expand...

actually, no.

my argument is in action right now. we use "positive rights" to "labor property or earnings" and we keep them fed at the expense of some raped slaves.

your argument is the one i am sarcastically mocking. your argument says that if food is a right, then earners like me are "slaves" who are getting "raped".

sorry, that just ain't the case.

#7 on rye with extra mustard please.
 
shorelineOG said:
Give a million dollars to a poor person and they would be broke in a year.
Click to expand...

a poor person?

ya mean, someone like you who can't even afford the bargain part of the state, so you settle for the dirt poor sticks of the bargain part of the state?

LOL
 
ThickStemz said:
You hear talk of the working poor. Folks that make around 8 bucks an hour. I know people in that income range who own their own home. It isn't a mansion. But they own it. And Theyre not impovrished. They live simply. I know other people in that income range who are total leaches. They have the newest iPhone and the like.

Being poor is a mentality problem. Not an income problem.
Click to expand...

sometimes it is a heroin problem, and you end up stealing from your parents and sucking dick to get your fix.

and i mean "your" in the literal sense here, bignbushy.
 
UncleBuck said:
there really are no words for these analogies sometimes.

we are not talking about having sex with canines, robert.

we are talking about mundane reality. either we use "force" or kids starve.

you identified using force as slavery and rape (big surprise) and said not using it was the winning argument.

thus kids will starve and they will not get to the age where you like to victimize them.

i guess that's the best the free market can do.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not as many kids as you think. The perpetual poverty class in this country use having children as a means to provide for themselves. They know if they have another child they'll get more money.
 
UncleBuck said:
there really are no words for these analogies sometimes.

we are not talking about having sex with canines, robert.

we are talking about mundane reality. either we use "force" or kids starve.

you identified using force as slavery and rape (big surprise) and said not using it was the winning argument.

thus kids will starve and they will not get to the age where you like to victimize them.

i guess that's the best the free market can do.
Click to expand...



Except you guessed wrong. The best that a free market can do is be consistent, you can't.

A free market uses a peaceful means, which is the only way that can be justified.


The Epistemological Argument
Violence is never a means to knowledge. As Isabel Paterson, explained in her book, The God of the Machine, "No edict of law can impart to an individual a faculty denied him by nature. A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence." Or, as Baldy Harper used to put it, "You cannot shoot a truth!" The advocate of any form of invasive violence is in a logically precarious situation. Coercion does not convince, nor is it any kind of argument. William Godwin pointed out that force "is contrary to the nature of the intellect, which cannot but be improved by conviction and persuasion," and "if he who employs coercion against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt, he would.. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because he is weak." Violence contains none of the energies that enhance a civilized human society. At best, it is only capable of expanding the material existence of a few individuals, while narrowing the opportunities of most others.
 
ThickStemz said:
The perpetual poverty class in this country use having children as a means to provide for themselves. They know if they have another child they'll get more money.
Click to expand...

so all i have to do is have a lot of kids and i'll be rich?

i'm not sure how your conspiracy theory is supposed to work. you white supremacists have lots of odd theories that you never seem to fully explain or support with evidence.
 
Rob Roy said:
Except you guessed wrong. The best that a free market can do is be consistent, you can't.

A free market uses a peaceful means, which is the only way that can be justified.
Click to expand...

if the free market could feed all the starving people, it would have already. there is literally nothing preventing me or you or anyone else from buying food and handing it out to people who are hungry.
 
UncleBuck said:
if the free market could feed all the starving people, it would have already. there is literally nothing preventing me or you or anyone else from buying food and handing it out to people who are hungry.
Click to expand...

That large basket of ignorant assumptions you carry around with you must get heavy.

First, a free market has mostly been outlawed. So that's another term you fling about but don't apply properly.

Also, a free market does not guarantee a specific outcome, or "end", it just guarantees which means are permissible (voluntary human interactions) and which are not (involuntary human interactions) .

Nothing should prevent you from doing charity and nothing should force you to work for another without your consent, otherwise you are endorsing slavery.
 
Rob Roy said:
That large basket of ignorant assumptions you carry around with you must get heavy.

First, a free market has mostly been outlawed. So that's another term you fling about but don't apply properly.

Also, a free market does not guarantee a specific outcome, or "end", it just guarantees which means are permissible (voluntary human interactions) and which are not (involuntary human interactions) .

Nothing should prevent you from doing charity
Click to expand...

nothing prevents anyone from doing charity. i just said that, dipshit.

despite this, people would still go hungry based on those free market, private, voluntary acts alone. so we need more, otherwise people starve and die.

this is not an assumption, this is fact.


Rob Roy said:
nothing should force you to work for another without your consent, otherwise you are endorsing slavery.
Click to expand...

good thing people sign withholding agreements, eh?
 
UncleBuck said:
if the free market could feed all the starving people, it would have already. there is literally nothing preventing me or you or anyone else from buying food and handing it out to people who are hungry.
Click to expand...
So why aren't you? You seem to think it's a major delimma of our time. Yet here you sit not doing shit about it.... Except saying we should take peoples money to do it.
 
ThickStemz said:
So why aren't you? You seem to think it's a major delimma of our time. Yet here you sit not doing shit about it.... Except saying we should take peoples money to do it.
Click to expand...

it would be a dilemma if we left it up to libertarian pixie dust, as you seem to want to. luckily, people like me pay taxes so that families can eat.

i don't think subway employees make enough to contribute to the effort, but that's OK.
 
Rob Roy said:
Just a bit off topic, but if you posted a couple of shots of the wife, we could all decide whether or not to "like" your post or call bullshit. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Or you can just admit you like eating pussy that's been beaten up by dick after dick day after day we might like your post but probably not.:spew:
 
ThickStemz said:
Seems like you have a very good understanding of the ugly man with a tiny penis that cat get laid.
Click to expand...
I do have some sympathy for you bignbushy I know you ain't really gay just only men will fuck you. That is why I call for legalization of prostitution so you don't have to settle for the brown eye.

Unless you truly love turning brown eyes blue then carry on. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top