Are there any smart Trump supporters?

[UncleBuck]

Your inability / unwillingness to answer the simple questions I posed is an indictment of your intentions and exonerates mine.

i've been asking you to show me one historian who agrees with you that segregation was harmless for years now.

 

[Rob Roy]

i've been asking you to show me one historian who agrees with you that segregation was harmless for years now.

I never said government imposing forced segregation or forced integration was harmless did I ?

Human interactions between people or the lack of them shouldn't be dictated by a third party via force should they ?

I DID say the involved parties to an interaction should be in agreement or the interaction should be avoided, not dictated by one party or the other.




So, what is the universal age when ALL people gain the wherewithal to consent ? (by the way you suck at arguing a point effectively)


.

 

[UncleBuck]

I never said government imposing forced segregation

government did not force segregation. you have tried citing that before and failed miserably.

more revisionist history.

and yes, you did say that it did not cause harm. you said it was "indifferent".

now you're even revising your own bullshit.

 

[Rob Roy]

government did not force segregation. you have tried citing that before and failed miserably.

more revisionist history.

and yes, you did say that it did not cause harm. you said it was "indifferent".

now you're even revising your own bullshit.

It really looks like you are afraid to answer my questions.



Did you know I have some family friends of Japanese ethnicity who lived or were born in the concentration camps that FDR (your hero) put them in when he erm "wasn't enforcing segregation" ?

 

[UncleBuck]

It really looks like you are afraid to answer my questions.



Did you know I have some family friends of Japanese ethnicity who lived or were born in the concentration camps that FDR (your hero) put them in when he erm "wasn't enforcing segregation" ?

i can start answering your questions, but you have a backlog to get through first.

you said that denial of service to blacks never caused harm, merely indifference.

care to name a single historian who agrees with you on that?

 

[FauxRoux]

I prefer this version...

"A person with a conscience doesn't worry about being "caught", be your own keeper and try to do the right thing, even when nobody is watching".

It is wrong to run others lives for them.

Sure...in a perfect world. But kind of a contradiction as you seem to "worry" about that system yourself, quite a bit.

When me and mine refer to being "criminals and outlaws" we are referring to the same issues that you have been complaining about. Im no outlaw due to a lack of morality, I have been labeled such by a hypocritical government.

If the system requires subservience for you to be an upstanding citizen, then I reject it out of hand and will live my life according to my own best morality. But that doesn't mean im foolish enough not to take the potential consequences for my actions seriously.

While being forced into that position certainly isn't my ideal, at the end of the day how I choose to respond to those requirements are ALL my choice and If you're personal morality rejects even those premises, then either you have one hell of a fight ahead of you or you're going to live a very "repressed" life.

I agree with you on this. I do. But the reason im not arguing right along side you is the same reason I haven't the countless other times I have heard this idealist view. Namely that no one who touts it ever seems to have an idea of something better to replace our current system with. The argument is always to move to some form of utopian society where everybody magically gets along and has the choice to live the life they want while somehow maintaining anything even remotely considered a society. We're simply not there yet.

If that were possible so far I think people would have stuck with that model as opposed to moving on to organized religion and then a system of laws. History as usual shows the error (or at least the lack of feasibility) in alot of idealism. The proof is in our past.

Its not like this is a new premise either.....just look at the 50's beatniks or the real hippy movement that officially ended in the 60's. This is all ground that has been covered in countless places by countless groups over our recent and not so recent history.

But you keep believing what you do. I think its people like you that help us remember whats important as we shape the future. Best thing we can do is try to accept that time doesn't move at the pace of a single life of generation, but by generations. Then try to leave the world better then we find it and hope someone down the road finishes the job.

 

[see4]

That's a lot of questions sir. I'll answer them for you.

1) Not a Nanny state ? A country that respects freedom, which could only mean a country that doesn't use an involuntary means to grow its membership.

2) No coercive taxation? Those in the future, which arise from voluntary cooperation and peace, rather than those which use a different business model

3) You having sex with your paper boy? I think you should leave him alone. However if he's capable of forming actual consent, that would be a matter that isn't my business. I tend to think the younger an individual is, the less likely they've developed the wherewithal to consent, so you might want to leave the grammar school kids alone and fish in a different pond.

Hope that answers your questions, Citizen Subject see4.

You managed to completely avoid the questions entirely. But I expected that, thanks for playing.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You managed to completely avoid the questions entirely. But I expected that, thanks for playing.

He does that a lot

 

[Rob Roy]

i can start answering your questions, but you have a backlog to get through first.

you said that denial of service to blacks never caused harm, merely indifference.

care to name a single historian who agrees with you on that?

Out of context sir.

I said a person can hold a position of indifference which is different than an actionable harm.

Causing an actionable harm would be like going to another persons property and defecating on it, even when they didn't want you there.

Indifference could mean you saw a person defecating on another persons property, and did nothing to facilitate it or stop it. You were a nonparticipant in a physical presence kind of way, etc.



So, what is your claimed universal age wherein all people gain the ability to consent ? Or are you still afraid to answer?

 

[Rob Roy]

You managed to completely avoid the questions entirely. But I expected that, thanks for playing.

You're welcome.

 

[Rob Roy]

Sure...in a perfect world. But kind of a contradiction as you seem to "worry" about that system yourself, quite a bit.

When me and mine refer to being "criminals and outlaws" we are referring to the same issues that you have been complaining about. Im no outlaw due to a lack of morality, I have been labeled such by a hypocritical government.

If the system requires subservience for you to be an upstanding citizen, then I reject it out of hand and will live my life according to my own best morality. But that doesn't mean im foolish enough not to take the potential consequences for my actions seriously.

While being forced into that position certainly isn't my ideal, at the end of the day how I choose to respond to those requirements are ALL my choice and If you're personal morality rejects even those premises, then either you have one hell of a fight ahead of you or you're going to live a very "repressed" life.

I agree with you on this. I do. But the reason im not arguing right along side you is the same reason I haven't the countless other times I have heard this idealist view. Namely that no one who touts it ever seems to have an idea of something better to replace our current system with. The argument is always to move to some form of utopian society where everybody magically gets along and has the choice to live the life they want while somehow maintaining anything even remotely considered a society. We're simply not there yet.

If that were possible so far I think people would have stuck with that model as opposed to moving on to organized religion and then a system of laws. History as usual shows the error (or at least the lack of feasibility) in alot of idealism. The proof is in our past.

Its not like this is a new premise either.....just look at the 50's beatniks or the real hippy movement that officially ended in the 60's. This is all ground that has been covered in countless places by countless groups over our recent and not so recent history.

But you keep believing what you do. I think its people like you that help us remember whats important as we shape the future. Best thing we can do is try to accept that time doesn't move at the pace of a single life of generation, but by generations. Then try to leave the world better then we find it and hope someone down the road finishes the job.

Systems which are designed to use non defensive force to impose a human hierarchy rather than ones which rely on voluntarily derived associations are inherently flawed. Using a design flawed from the onset won't yield the results you seek and will forever lead to putting out fires of unintended consequences.

How familiar are you with a concept, known as the "non aggression principle"?

 

[see4]

So, what is your claimed universal age wherein all people gain the ability to consent ?

Loaded question. Please try again.

 

[Rob Roy]

Loaded question. Please try again.

At which age would you say you reached the wherewithal to consent ?

Do you think all people arrive at that wherewithal at the same chronological age?

Can a person give consent for another person or must that come from the individual ?

 

[Tangerine_]

Curious, since you're hell-bent on demanding an answer to this obtuse question, what is your belief on age of consent? I mean, can you actually answer the question directly with a number without all the pseudo-intellectual rationalization and dubious conjecture?

 

[see4]

At which age would you say you reached the wherewithal to consent ?

18.

Do you think all people arrive at that wherewithal at the same chronological age?

No, I don't.

Can a person give consent for another person or must that come from the individual ?

Depends.

 

[Rob Roy]

18.


No, I don't.


Depends.

Thank you for the answers. My, you were a late bloomer. You weren't shitting on floors for fun at 17 were you?



Could you give an example of how another person could give your consent, when you don't want them to?

 

[Rob Roy]

Curious, since you're hell-bent on demanding an answer to this obtuse question, what is your belief on age of consent? I mean, can you actually answer the question directly with a number without all the pseudo-intellectual rationalization and dubious conjecture?

It varies from person to person, therefore a fixed number for everyone can only be correct in a blind squirrel sort of way.

 

[Blunted 4 lyfe]

Curious, since you're hell-bent on demanding an answer to this obtuse question, what is your belief on age of consent? I mean, can you actually answer the question directly with a number without all the pseudo-intellectual rationalization and dubious conjecture?

Trust me, he's going to take you down that road of dazzle you with brilliance while he baffles you with bullshit.

B4L

 

[see4]

Thank you for the answers.

That's what reasonable people do. They give direct answers to direct questions.

Could you give an example of how another person could give your consent, when you don't want them to?

Stop being silly.

Could you give an example of how another person could give your consent, when you don't want them to?

That is not what you asked me.

You asked me, "Can a person give consent for another person or must that come from the individual?" -- You've now added the clause, "when you don't want them to".

Please try again.

 

[Rob Roy]

That's what reasonable people do. They give direct answers to direct questions.


Stop being silly.


That is not what you asked me.

You asked me, "Can a person give consent for another person or must that come from the individual?" -- You've now added the clause, "when you don't want them to".

Please try again.

Just because you are afraid to answer the question, doesn't mean it's an invalid question.