president backs immoral seizure of property by law enforcement

Rob Roy said:

Not really. You are buying into the distractions and the shiny "options" one brand claims over another, how they'll steal better for you than the other guys.

All of the various major forms of government around today and in the past were based in the same thing. Your individual consent is assumed. In other words they all think they own you as a default assumption.

The dividing line isn't how one form of tyrannical government treats you or not, the dividing line is; are the subjects of a given government free to decline membership or not ? Voluntary or involuntary ? Don't buy in. ~ facts.

Click to expand...

Noone has ever read one of your posts without rolling their eyes and thinking "Oh Rob, get some new material".

whitebb2727 said:

We get that point. 18 is an arbitrary age. I understand what you are getting at. I wouldn't throw an 18 year old in jail for having sex with an 17 year old. I had sex with a 19 year old at 15.

We should be able to agree there is no circumstance that a 12 year old can consent to sex.

If you think there is one can you elaborate?

Click to expand...

Thank you for asking a reasonable question. I will elaborate on my rationale.

First, what is a fact?
We can both have an opinion, but neither of us can take a thing unproven and claim it as fact. Even if we both share the same opinion on something, because we prefer it to be so, it isn't our agreement alone which makes something a fact or not.

In other words a thing unproven or untrue can't be voted to be proven or true simply because we prefer it as an outcome. Even if something is true MOST of the time, if there are some, even a very few instances of exceptions, it can't then be said to be a fact that X cannot happen, ever.

We likely both agree that most 12 year olds have not developed the wherewithal to consent and we both seem to dislike the idea of a 12 year old having sex in any circumstances. How does our dislike prove that ALL 12 year olds CAN'T consent though ? I've maintained that the younger a person is, the less likely they are to have developed the wherewithal to consent to sex. I'd prefer they didn't, but again, my preferences can't create a fact from something which isn't a universal fact.

Some people would claim that no 15 year olds are capable of consenting or 14 year olds etc. How does their opinion make that a fact is the question. Were you capable of giving consent at 15? Are some 15 year olds incapable ?

Also as a disclaimer, long ago when this topic originally came up, it was a generic discussion about what is consent and who can give it? It wasn't me advocating for people to bang their babysitters. But...the jackals.

SneekyNinja said:

Noone has ever read one of your posts without rolling their eyes and thinking "Oh Rob, get some new material".

Click to expand...

Then it should be easy for you to rebut the things I say without resorting to distraction, innuendo or claims which cannot be substantiated. You can't though.

Your aversion to an intelligent discussion rears up when things you think you know are proven false. Rather then discuss consent in a generic way, you'd prefer to sling innuendo, which tells me you aren't willing to question your own faulty and contradictory belief system.

Rob Roy said:

No, your point was to devolve any potential discussion into an infantile shit slinging session. My point was that's apparently the height of your intellect, since the evidence doesn't indicate otherwise.

So, what exactly fuels your angst? Unhappy with your physical form? Laughed at by the pretty girl in junior high? Got caught eating boogers? What is it ?

Click to expand...

You've been proven to be ignorant time and time again. You're not worth the time, hence no rebuttals, derp.

Justin-case said:

You've been proven to be ignorant time and time again. You're not worth the time, hence no rebuttals, derp.

Click to expand...

Well, that was weak.

Rob Roy said:

Well, that was weak.

Click to expand...

@choomer

Rob Roy said:

Thank you for asking a reasonable question. I will elaborate on my rationale.

First, what is a fact?
We can both have an opinion, but neither of us can take a thing unproven and claim it as fact. Even if we both share the same opinion on something, because we prefer it to be so, it isn't our agreement alone which makes something a fact or not.

In other words a thing unproven or untrue can't be voted to be proven or true simply because we prefer it as an outcome. Even if something is true MOST of the time, if there are some, even a very few instances of exceptions, it can't then be said to be a fact that X cannot happen, ever.

We likely both agree that most 12 year olds have not developed the wherewithal to consent and we both seem to dislike the idea of a 12 year old having sex in any circumstances. How does our dislike prove that ALL 12 year olds CAN'T consent though ? I've maintained that the younger a person is, the less likely they are to have developed the wherewithal to consent to sex. I'd prefer they didn't, but again, my preferences can't create a fact from something which isn't a universal fact.

Some people would claim that no 15 year olds are capable of consenting or 14 year olds etc. How does their opinion make that a fact is the question. Were you capable of giving consent at 15? Are some 15 year olds incapable ?

Also as a disclaimer, long ago when this topic originally came up, it was a generic discussion about what is consent and who can give it? It wasn't me advocating for people to bang their babysitters. But...the jackals.

Click to expand...

I agree about what is a fact.

I also agree about 18 being arbitrary.

I also understand character assassination but you make.it easy.

Just saying it should be easy to say "it is wrong for an adult to bang a 12 year old."

A couple of pre teens having sex is something different.

We are talking about some 18+ having sex with a 12 year old.

You would allow your 12 year old girl to have sex with a 30 year old man if she had the wherewithal to do so?

whitebb2727 said:

I agree about what is a fact.

I also agree about 18 being arbitrary.

I also understand character assassination but you make.it easy.

Just saying it should be easy to say "it is wrong for an adult to bang a 12 year old."

A couple of pre teens having sex is something different.

We are talking about some 18+ having sex with a 12 year old.

You would allow your 12 year old girl to have sex with a 30 year old man if she had the wherewithal to do so?

Click to expand...

The character assassinations are part of the fun of this forum, it gives the droolers something to do.

I don't have a daughter but I would have a difficult time "allowing" that to happen, especially if the hypothetical daughter fell into the norm physically, psychologically and emotionally for that age group.

However, If she had the mental acuity to make those kinds of choices (the great majority don't in my opinion) and had the physical development then how would it be my business to make another independent persons choices for them ? I find it highly unlikely that even in that event, I would like those choices, but it's probably because like most people I have my own personal and cultural bias against it.

So the answer is, I would have a problem with it and wouldn't like it, would most likely take actions to prevent it, unless it was evidenced that my hypothetical daughter were an exception, both physically and mentally, ie a "Mozart" .

About which age do you think people develop the wherewithal to give consent, both generically and to engage in sex? At which age would you say it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to have that wherewithal?

SneekyNinja said:

So you'd let someone molest your hypothetical daughter?

You're a sick fuck, dude.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. A molester is a person who forces themselves on the unwilling or unable to give consent. I strongly disapprove of that.

But, on the positive side, at least you're not talking about wanking your dog anymore.

Rob Roy said:

No, not at all. A molester is a person who forces themselves on the unwilling or unable to give consent. I strongly disapprove of that.

But, on the positive side, at least you're not talking about wanking your dog anymore.

Click to expand...

CHILD MOLESTER^^^^^^

Rob Roy said:

Not really. You are buying into the distractions and the shiny "options" one brand claims over another, how they'll steal better for you than the other guys.

All of the various major forms of government around today and in the past were based in the same thing. Your individual consent is assumed. In other words they all think they own you as a default assumption.


The dividing line isn't how one form of tyrannical government treats you or not, the dividing line is; are the subjects of a given government free to decline membership or not ? Voluntary or involuntary ? Don't buy in. ~ facts.


"The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open. The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal." ~ Ayn Rand

Click to expand...

†*‡★********************************************************************************
First i how am i buying into shiny objects by recognizing basic differences and the lies told about them? (Rhetorical)
You said it in the next line , all major forms of government are based on concent , thats what i said.
As to the dividing line ; that is a good observation. It is all about how much control we give our leaders and how they use it. -also what i was saying (couldn't find the scwiggily line) fact as for membership it' should be the people who elect members of government not the other way around. Nothing in general socialism says that can't be the case.
Socialism run by faccists will be facicst. Socialism means more local gov. The local gov. Has more power in the central government then in our system in the usa today. Socialism can be done with democracy insuring the people a say. (Arguably more say, but it depends) socialism is a form of government. communisum is a more loaded word with multiple meaning like capitalism , it can be a system of government and or of economics. Most current governments run by communisum or capitalism are really run by an oligarchy but that doesn't have to be the case it just is because some people want complete control. This is true with republics as well oligarchy out for control.
In the usa there is debate going on above most citezens heads as to wheather the countries and the world should be run as businesses or governments and for the people or for the few. All four realitys are in play now mostly competing.

Anne rand was talking about the russian empire and back then i am talking about the world now and for all time.

Rob Roy said:

Thank you for asking a reasonable question. I will elaborate on my rationale.

First, what is a fact?
We can both have an opinion, but neither of us can take a thing unproven and claim it as fact. Even if we both share the same opinion on something, because we prefer it to be so, it isn't our agreement alone which makes something a fact or not.

In other words a thing unproven or untrue can't be voted to be proven or true simply because we prefer it as an outcome. Even if something is true MOST of the time, if there are some, even a very few instances of exceptions, it can't then be said to be a fact that X cannot happen, ever.

We likely both agree that most 12 year olds have not developed the wherewithal to consent and we both seem to dislike the idea of a 12 year old having sex in any circumstances. How does our dislike prove that ALL 12 year olds CAN'T consent though ? I've maintained that the younger a person is, the less likely they are to have developed the wherewithal to consent to sex. I'd prefer they didn't, but again, my preferences can't create a fact from something which isn't a universal fact.

Some people would claim that no 15 year olds are capable of consenting or 14 year olds etc. How does their opinion make that a fact is the question. Were you capable of giving consent at 15? Are some 15 year olds incapable ?

Also as a disclaimer, long ago when this topic originally came up, it was a generic discussion about what is consent and who can give it? It wasn't me advocating for people to bang their babysitters. But...the jackals.

Click to expand...

So you are arguing semantics ?. To be clear maybe they shouldn't be in the position to give consent . Or we can establish what we mean by can't. The answer is in psychology and in human development and in the modern world there is no edit shit tabletccircumcercercumstascercerccercercumcecercercucer circumstances where it is ok for a 12 year old to be in a position to consent to sex with an adult. Personally I think if 2 kids 12 and up want to have sex that none of my business. I would question if they where if fact the same age or if ,..i mean and or maturity level. But the later is a matter for parents and big sisters not ththe gov.

Do you agree rob ?

Rob Roy said:

The character assassinations are part of the fun of this forum, it gives the droolers something to do.

I don't have a daughter but I would have a difficult time "allowing" that to happen, especially if the hypothetical daughter fell into the norm physically, psychologically and emotionally for that age group.

However, If she had the mental acuity to make those kinds of choices (the great majority don't in my opinion) and had the physical development then how would it be my business to make another independent persons choices for them ? I find it highly unlikely that even in that event, I would like those choices, but it's probably because like most people I have my own personal and cultural bias against it.

So the answer is, I would have a problem with it and wouldn't like it, would most likely take actions to prevent it, unless it was evidenced that my hypothetical daughter were an exception, both physically and mentally, ie a "Mozart" .

About which age do you think people develop the wherewithal to give consent, both generically and to engage in sex? At which age would you say it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to have that wherewithal?

Click to expand...

Prodigys are exeptional but that does not mean that they are emotionally mature by the time theybare smart or tallented.
Sure hunnie if you do well in piano you can fuck your teacher

esh dov ets said:

Prodigys are exeptional but that does not mean that they are emotionally mature by the time theybare smart or tallented.
Sure hunnie if you do well in piano you can fuck your teacher

Click to expand...

He even had one of my posts deleted.

Paedo-hide tactics.

You gota work to get your posts deleted here. Musta' hurt some feelings

Rob Roy said:

Not really. You are buying into the distractions and the shiny "options" one brand claims over another, how they'll steal better for you than the other guys.

All of the various major forms of government around today and in the past were based in the same thing. Your individual consent is assumed. In other words they all think they own you as a default assumption.

The dividing line isn't how one form of tyrannical government treats you or not, the dividing line is; are the subjects of a given government free to decline membership or not ? Voluntary or involuntary ? Don't buy in. ~ facts.



"The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open. The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal." ~ Ayn Rand

Click to expand...

Have you been editing this ?

esh dov ets said:

Prodigys are exeptional but that does not mean that they are emotionally mature by the time theybare smart or tallented.
Sure hunnie if you do well in piano you can fuck your teacher

Click to expand...

^^ LOL. Your exaggeration makes a good point.

Roy continually searches for the exception to disprove a general rule. In this case, there is no exception to be found. 12 year old kids, no matter how exceptional haven't yet fully developed their brain. The areas of the brain associated with decision making and understanding future consequences aren't physically fully developed until the ages of 20 to 22. Which is why parents have the role of guiding the kid and responsibility for that kid's choices until they reach the age of majority.

Societies fall apart when they don't raise children into healthy adults. Sex at an early age affects development of the child's brain and can really fuck up that kid's life as an adult especially if the sexual relationship was abusive. Couple that with the early teen or child's poor ability to make decisions and recognize consequences and it becomes clear that society has a vested interest in protecting children and young adults from abuse. In most cases, the responsibility to protect and guide a child's development falls on the parents but other agencies are empowered to step in, especially when abuse is evident. Counter to Roy's strange and unnatural ideas about human social systems, protecting children from abuse is a necessary value in modern society.

Rob Roy said:

The character assassinations are part of the fun of this forum, it gives the droolers something to do.

I don't have a daughter but I would have a difficult time "allowing" that to happen, especially if the hypothetical daughter fell into the norm physically, psychologically and emotionally for that age group.

However, If she had the mental acuity to make those kinds of choices (the great majority don't in my opinion) and had the physical development then how would it be my business to make another independent persons choices for them ? I find it highly unlikely that even in that event, I would like those choices, but it's probably because like most people I have my own personal and cultural bias against it.

So the answer is, I would have a problem with it and wouldn't like it, would most likely take actions to prevent it, unless it was evidenced that my hypothetical daughter were an exception, both physically and mentally, ie a "Mozart" .

About which age do you think people develop the wherewithal to give consent, both generically and to engage in sex? At which age would you say it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to have that wherewithal?

Click to expand...

I beat the brakes off a guy for just saying my daughter was pretty after finding out he was a sex offender.

I wouldn't let my 12 year old have sex. Period. Doesn't matter how mature he/she is.

I dont think I would allow my children to have sex before the age of 18. I might not be able to stop it. A couple of teenagers being teenagers is something different.

Sorry, I just don't see any situation a 12 year could consent to sex.

No long answer needed.

Bob Zmuda said:

CHILD MOLESTER^^^^^^

Click to expand...

You could be a little more creative than that.

Rob Roy said:

You could be a little more creative than that.

Click to expand...

Milo^^^^^^^^