should sex be a right?

ColoHead said:
The fact that you view sex as an object that can be distributed to the masses is telling. You really should talk to someone about that before you hurt some young man/lady.

As another member said so eloquently, you have every right to go fuck yourself!

Edited for accuracy, since I don't know your sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
Looks like you have zero appreciation for irony and satire.

If you cant tell this is a (to use the modern vernacular) a troll post at the typical posts of padawabater then you're not intelligent enough to insult me.
 
ThickStemz said:
Looks like you have zero appreciation for irony and satire.

If you cant tell this is a (to use the modern vernacular) a troll post at the typical posts of padawabater then you're not intelligent enough to insult me.
Click to expand...
Bro there are very, very few who fit the category "not intelligent enough to insult you". @nitro harley , @shorelineOG , @ky man seem to be duller than you but those louts share your juvenile fantasies and warped 'understandings'.
 
ThickStemz said:
Looks like you have zero appreciation for irony and satire.

If you cant tell this is a (to use the modern vernacular) a troll post at the typical posts of padawabater then you're not intelligent enough to insult me.
Click to expand...

Your troll post was neither, so there really wasn't much to appreciate.

You find It humorous calling out some ironic equivalence between one's right to food and water and their right to sex, which involves another consenting party. You could have called out all sorts of objects and been satirical! But you're either a dunce or you've got some issues with sex you need to talk to someone about.
 
ColoHead said:
Your troll post was neither, so there really wasn't much to appreciate.

You find It humorous calling out some ironic equivalence between one's right to food and water and their right to sex, which involves another consenting party. You could have called out all sorts of objects and been satirical! But you're either a dunce or you've got some issues with sex you need to talk to someone about.
Click to expand...
So food doesn't involve another consenting party?

Did you discover the means by which Moses called forth mana from heaven?
 
ThickStemz said:
So food doesn't involve another consenting party?

Did you discover the means by which Moses called forth mana from heaven?
Click to expand...
You really don't realize how bad you are at this?

Edible animal and plant life grows quite readily on natural land, here on earth. Poor folk often don't have access to said life sustaining land. Therefore the government that robs their access to said resources, most would agree, has some duty to provide for those in need.

Moses didn't call forth any manna, dumb shit. The Israelites were provided for though, in their time of need, so somehow related, but not in the stupid way you thought.
 
ColoHead said:
You really don't realize how bad you are at this?

Edible animal and plant life grows quite readily on natural land, here on earth. Poor folk often don't have access to said life sustaining land. Therefore the government that robs their access to said resources, most would agree, has some duty to provide for those in need.

Moses didn't call forth any manna, dumb shit. The Israelites were provided for though, in their time of need, so somehow related, but not in the stupid way you thought.
Click to expand...
My apologies If I didn't have the made up fairy tale story perfectly correct. But you got the point.

Land is owned. Animals are owned. Taking these to feed the poor violates the owners consent.

Purchasing the food from it's owners with tax money violates the consent of the tax base who might not feel like paying for the meals of everyone else.

Are you suggesting camps where we can send poor people onto public land where they can farm and raise animals to feed themselves?

That is the only way the government can feed the poor without violating everyone's or at least someone's consent.
 
ThickStemz said:
My apologies If I didn't have the made up fairy tale story perfectly correct. But you got the point.

Land is owned. Animals are owned. Taking these to feed the poor violates the owners consent.

Purchasing the food from it's owners with tax money violates the consent of the tax base who might not feel like paying for the meals of everyone else.

Are you suggesting camps where we can send poor people onto public land where they can farm and raise animals to feed themselves?

That is the only way the government can feed the poor without violating everyone's or at least someone's consent.
Click to expand...

Since these are more modern times and most aren't staking out land claims anymore I was thinking a more modern solution like public welfare seems ideal!

It's sad that you want to put poor people in concentration camps.
 
ColoHead said:
Since these are more modern times and most aren't staking out land claims anymore I was thinking a more modern solution like public welfare seems ideal!

It's sad that you want to put poor people in concentration camps.
Click to expand...
Do you not have the ability to be intellectually honest?

If you've ever heard of character assassination, you might want to look into a form of it called character suicide.

Did you really just imply I wanted to make concentration camps for the poor when all I did was ask you if that is what you were contemplating?

We already have public welfare. We have had even more robust forms of it in the past and we were still left with hungry children.

It might be that hunger is a problem you can't solve with food. There are no societies that don't have hungry and very few societies who have very few hungry.

Here are some facts. And these facts come from the left side of politics. The climate is changing threatening the habitats that support the food chain, and the efficiency of agriculture. Over fishing is depleating the world's oceans.

And in this moment you want to make the problem of hunger worse by feeding the hungry. Hungry people breed when you feed them. This means more people consuming more resources making those problems I just outlined worse.

C'mon, man, I thought you wanted to fight climate change
 
I responded in a way that I hoped would illustrate how ridiculous I think the question is.
Nevermind...
you can't make this shIt up:
ThickStemz said:
Did you really just imply I wanted to make concentration camps for the poor when all I did was ask you if that is what you were contemplating?
Click to expand...

ThickStemz said:
And in this moment you want to make the problem of hunger worse by feeding the hungry. Hungry people breed when you feed them. This means more people consuming more resources making those problems I just outlined worse.

C'mon, man, I thought you wanted to fight climate change
Click to expand...
 
Keep it up y'all

I've got a treasure trove of perverse quotes from which to choose a sig from.

MV5BMTkxNDc3MzMwOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzY1Mjk3OA@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg



150717_gostream_iowa1_16x9_992.jpg
 
ColoHead said:
I responded in a way that I hoped would illustrate how ridiculous I think the question is.
Nevermind...
you can't make this shIt up:
Click to expand...
Something isnt ridiculous just because you say it is. You actually need to explain how that is wrong.

If you started feeding the world's poor, their birth rate would increase.

More people put more pressure on the structure that supports them. That structure relies upon the earth's resources.

You're in check mate on this argument and do not even realize it.
 
abandonconflict said:
Actually, populations have mushroomed during the period in history with the greatest strife, the most wars and the most famines and epidemics. You have it backwards, human nature is to procreate more in response to strife.
Click to expand...

Populations mushroom during famine... WTF??? The propaganda is getting ridiculous.

Feed everyone and have perpetual peace and populations will go down. NO, REALLY!!! (THAT WAS SARCASM FOR THOSE WHO CANT READ)
 
ThickStemz said:
Purchasing the food from it's owners with tax money violates the consent of the tax base who might not feel like paying for the meals of everyone else.
Click to expand...

nope.

when you sign a withholding agreement, you do not get a line item veto on it.

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