Legal to grow and possess illegal to sell

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Okay, I think we agree that creating victims is a bad thing. We may disagree on the ultimate best solution on how to prevent and resolve that though. Let's see if we can hold a conversation about our different approaches to lessening coercion based human interactions.

We could detail lots of scenarios and include interesting circumstances, ages of the involved etc, but I think we agree using the element of nondefensive force, duress etc. to ensure person(s) A gets what he wants even when person(s) B hasn't or can't consent to the interaction is wrong. I'd go so far as to say it might be a universal wrong.

The particular circumstances of who did what to whom can change, but the above philosophy of "do not force human relations" is the crux of the issue, right? We want to prevent person A from coercing person B, that is the goal, right?

Your suggested way to ensure that goal of "no use of coercion" is to then use as the arbitrator of those forced situations an entity (coercive government) that gains its authority and maintains its being THRU the systemic use of coercion. How does using systemic force to ensure the elimination of force work? Isn't that a contradiction?

Again, we agree that ending forced human relations is the big picture goal, right?

You asked if those kinds of acts should be "illegal" etc. ? You asked it in more specific terms, etc., but I think as I mentioned already above, the question is generic and more universal. I'd boil it down to, "should human interactions be on a peaceful and voluntary basis" as the core question. The answer is yes, they should, but you already knew that, I think.

That's where the irony comes in, the people that you would use to form and enforce the law have power over others which arises, not from consent, instead that power arises in a nonconsensual and forceful way. While I'm in favor of ending the problems created by using force to create a human interaction, I'm not in favor of applying a contradictory "solution" using the same method, force, which we are trying to eliminate.

So how do you use a coercion based entity to eliminate coercion is the question we SHOULD be asking, but is very seldom contemplated.




Note - If a predator came to to take my child I'd probably use DEFENSIVE force to stop it. If you agree that is an appropriate behavior, should a person then have the right to keep his children from being placed in a government school and try to avoid being forced to pay for that same school which the child doesn't use? Isn't that a use of defensive force?
Click to expand...
I was addressing your original question regarding consent of a child to agree to sexual relations with an adult in the U.S.. My answer was basically, the child can't consent and the adult must leave that child alone. No "shoulds" or "I believes" here. There is no situation where sexual relations between a child and an adult is acceptable. Do you agree or do you disagree?

Specifically:
Do you think that an adult (age > 21) that has sex with a young adult (age <17 ) is doing anything wrong? Should they be held responsible if there is finding of harm?
 
Last edited:
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I was addressing your original question regarding consent of a child to agree to sexual relations with an adult in the U.S.. My answer was basically, the child can't consent and the adult must leave that child alone. No "shoulds" or "I believes" here. There is no situation where sexual relations between a child and an adult is acceptable. Do you agree or do you disagree?

Specifically:
Do you think that an adult (age > 21) that has sex with a young adult (age <17 ) is doing anything wrong? Should they be held responsible if there is finding of harm?
Click to expand...
I'll have to point out again, Rob Roys original point was that despite the legal age of consent being X that a 17 year old can still "agree to sexual relations" despite the law saying they can't.

I banged a 21 year old chick when I was 17, I not only consented but was very eager...does that make her a pedophile?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I was addressing your original question regarding consent of a child to agree to sexual relations with an adult in the U.S.. My answer was basically, the child can't consent and the adult must leave that child alone. No "shoulds" or "I believes" here. There is no situation where sexual relations between a child and an adult is acceptable. Do you agree or do you disagree?

Specifically:
Do you think that an adult (age > 21) that has sex with a young adult (age <17 ) is doing anything wrong? Should they be held responsible if there is finding of harm?
Click to expand...


You never addressed my assertion that if you use an entity based in coercion in an attempt to correct coercion, that it is really not a correction, just a rearranging of furniture. I'd like to get back to that....are you capable of that discussion or is it over your head?


To answer your question. I think what other people who are capable of consenting, consent to, is not for me (or others) to intervene in, if the involved parties agreement does not create a victim. So when you use the word "harm" please explain how a person capable of consenting to something is harmed when they engage in consensual behavior that doesn't abridge another persons rights.

If you are assigning a fixed age at which you believe people can consent to a given act, does that take into account that people are variable or do you think there is a fixed age for people to be able to consent to things and there is never any deviation from that?

Specifically, to better answer your question, in your scenario was duress involved and how was it involved? If there was no duress, what is the nature of the harm you suggest? How do you "restitute" a person for engaging in something they were capable of consenting to and did in fact consent to? It seems like you want to impose your values on other people that don't share them...isn't that what prohibitionists do?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
god1 said:
Rob,

The reason nobody but Rob can live in your world is that you have no means of universal resolution of conflict.
Human interactions are filled with conflict.

You can attempt to use your Defensive force tactic, but the only way you can be successful is if your "might" is greater than your opponents.

You really want to live in a world of "might makes right"?

Great idealism, but it ain't going to fly. The system we have ain't the best, but at times universal governmental coercion is the best tool for the job.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
Thanks for engaging politely.
I am not ignoring your response. I want to contemplate it and hope to address it in a day or two. Peace.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
I'll have to point out again, Rob Roys original point was that despite the legal age of consent being X that a 17 year old can still "agree to sexual relations" despite the law saying they can't.

I banged a 21 year old chick when I was 17, I not only consented but was very eager...does that make her a pedophile?
Click to expand...
nope, pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children. You banged her before you reached the legal age of consent in the US, I don't know if Ireland has these laws but if you were in the US. In certain states she would have been taking a risk of legal issues. There are people that are attracted only to people that are under 17 but post-prepubescent. This attraction is not pedophilia but it is still considered a perversion.

Statutory rape laws in the US differ by state and generally scale the citation from misdemeanor to federal offense based upon the age of the minor. In your case, the offense would not be very severe. The laws are basically there to give parents leverage. In the sort of situation you describe, assuming they didn't want you to get involved with an older woman, a threat of legal action might have been the only thing they could have done.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
nope, pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children. You banged her before you reached the legal age of consent in the US, I don't know if Ireland has these laws but if you were in the US. In certain states she would have been taking a risk of legal issues. There are people that are attracted only to people that are under 17 but post-prepubescent. This attraction is not pedophilia but it is still considered a perversion.

Statutory rape laws in the US differ by state and generally scale the citation from misdemeanor to federal offense based upon the age of the minor. In your case, the offense would not be very severe. The laws are basically there to give parents leverage. In the sort of situation you describe, assuming they didn't want you to get involved with an older woman, a threat of legal action might have been the only thing they could have done.
Click to expand...
But do you see Rob Roys point now?

He's not saying he agrees with teenagers fucking adults, only that despite legal consent not being possible that an underage could still "consent" in the "This is what I want, I agree" fashion.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I'm happy to discuss this with you and think we may agree on some wrongful behavior, I'm not so confident we will share the same thoughts on solutions though, we can get to that...

First off, let's see if we agree -

People who use nondefensive force on others to create a nonconsenting relationship are victimizing somebody and their behavior is wrong, whether or not any existing law agrees or exists to address that behavior. Do we agree on that point?
Click to expand...
Dude your question is so loaded and nothing but words of distractions

Bottom line in our current conversation is convicted pedophiles are not allowed to live next to schools. They lost that right to decide where they can live, when they fucked with a child.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Dude your question is so loaded and nothing but words of distractions

Bottom line in our current conversation is convicted pedophiles are not allowed to live next to schools. They lost that right to decide where they can live, when they fucked with a child.
Click to expand...
I notice you didn't (couldn't?) answer my question though. It was asked to set up the context of where we agree and where we disagree.

If a person has created a victim, would you say the corrective action should be the criminal needs to restitute the person(s) he victimized, as far as is practicably possible, in order to resolve the problem ?


Also, before you go foaming at the mouth, I wouldn't be comfortable living next to a known abusive person. Of course, hypocritically, the concept of a school which is funded via abuse or the threat of it seems okay with you.
 
ohnothimagin

ohnothimagin

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
AK48 is nice, but not great.

Has a good high, but none of the desirable flavour or smell when you're smoking it.

Try other strains too, I spent too long taking up too much space with AK48.
Click to expand...
Oh, I also grow Jock Horror and White Widow. I just like AK48 because it gives me a very uplifting high and I really enjoy listening to my vinyl recordings. I'm not really interested in smell or flavour that much.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You never addressed my assertion that if you use an entity based in coercion in an attempt to correct coercion, that it is really not a correction, just a rearranging of furniture. I'd like to get back to that....are you capable of that discussion or is it over your head?


To answer your question. I think what other people who are capable of consenting, consent to, is not for me (or others) to intervene in, if the involved parties agreement does not create a victim. So when you use the word "harm" please explain how a person capable of consenting to something is harmed when they engage in consensual behavior that doesn't abridge another persons rights.

If you are assigning a fixed age at which you believe people can consent to a given act, does that take into account that people are variable or do you think there is a fixed age for people to be able to consent to things and there is never any deviation from that?

Specifically, to better answer your question, in your scenario was duress involved and how was it involved? If there was no duress, what is the nature of the harm you suggest? How do you "restitute" a person for engaging in something they were capable of consenting to and did in fact consent to? It seems like you want to impose your values on other people that don't share them...isn't that what prohibitionists do?
Click to expand...
You and I have talked enough about your philosophy and I get it. I don't have any more need to discuss it. Its pretty simple actually. I also reject it as being baseless, too simplistic and am bored by the repetition.

One party you are ignoring in your statement regarding consent are parents. They have a role in raising their baby into a healthy well adjusted adult don't they? As Harrekin points out, he was quite eager to bang an older woman. Just about any teenage heterosexual male nearing the age of 18 would be eager to do so. At every age, children recognize what they want and they insist upon having it. One of the roles of a parent is to guide choices and sometimes prevent the child from acting on their wishes for the good of the child.

Statutory rape laws and the justice system gives parents a way to protect their eager little rooster or beaver. The justice system maintains that these decisions are best made by adults. The law puts the responsibility for making the decision on the adult that wants to roll in the hay with the youngster and gives the parent a way to threaten that adult in case they make a bad choice. It also gives parents recourse in case their child is harmed by an adult through a sexual act.

Harrekin said:
But do you see Rob Roys point now?

He's not saying he agrees with teenagers fucking adults, only that despite legal consent not being possible that an underage could still "consent" in the "This is what I want, I agree" fashion.
Click to expand...
Statutory rape laws are all about protecting and raising healthy children and giving parents control of a situation so that they make the decisions, not the child. Referring to my reply to Rob, whether or not the kid chose to have sex is irrelevant. Under the legal system of the US, children cannot legally consent to have sex with an adult. This system is put in place to protect the child and its enforcement is guided by the wishes of the child's parents.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I notice you didn't (couldn't?) answer my question though. It was asked to set up the context of where we agree and where we disagree.

If a person has created a victim, would you say the corrective action should be the criminal needs to restitute the person(s) he victimized, as far as is practicably possible, in order to resolve the problem ?


Also, before you go foaming at the mouth, I wouldn't be comfortable living next to a known abusive person. Of course, hypocritically, the concept of a school which is funded via abuse or the threat of it seems okay with you.
Click to expand...
How can you provide restitution to a victim of molestation and pedophilia ? That child can never be made the same again.
Why do you feel a convicted pedo should have the right to live next to a school ? Screw being uncomfortable...he/she should not be allowed
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
You and I have talked enough about your philosophy and I get it. I don't have any more need to discuss it. Its pretty simple actually. I also reject it as being baseless, too simplistic and am bored by the repetition.

One party you are ignoring in your statement regarding consent are parents. They have a role in raising their baby into a healthy well adjusted adult don't they? As Harrekin points out, he was quite eager to bang an older woman. Just about any teenage heterosexual male nearing the age of 18 would be eager to do so. At every age, children recognize what they want and they insist upon having it. One of the roles of a parent is to guide choices and sometimes prevent the child from acting on their wishes for the good of the child.

Statutory rape laws and the justice system gives parents a way to protect their eager little rooster or beaver. The justice system maintains that these decisions are best made by adults. The law puts the responsibility for making the decision on the adult that wants to roll in the hay with the youngster and gives the parent a way to threaten that adult in case they make a bad choice. It also gives parents recourse in case their child is harmed by an adult through a sexual act.



Statutory rape laws are all about protecting and raising healthy children and giving parents control of a situation so that they make the decisions, not the child. Referring to my reply to Rob, whether or not the kid chose to have sex is irrelevant. Under the legal system of the US, children cannot legally consent to have sex with an adult. This system is put in place to protect the child and its enforcement is guided by the wishes of the child's parents.
Click to expand...
Nice preachy diversion from the questions I asked you. I was pretty sure you couldn't handle them. At least you didn't join others in making absurd and erroneous allegations about me, I appreciate that.

You did try to assign some thoughts to me though... I haven't ignored the parents, if the person having sex is capable of consenting, the parents aren't a relevant part of the discussion about who is capable of consenting. That's already been determined. Or should a 17 year old male say to a chick he's about to have sex with, "hang on a minute, I'm fine with this act Ms. 21 year old lady, but I have to check with my mom first" . Funny how the military thinks a 17 year old is old enough to kill and you don't think the poor fucker can get laid on a consensual basis without somehow engaging in a crime.

Speaking of core philosophies...
You don't have a consistent philosophy., On one hand you correctly acknowledge people should not engage others in a relationship wherein one party doesn't or hasn't or is unable to consent. Then on the other hand, you put your blinders on super tight when it comes to any discussion of why having a system which RELIES on coercion being used as the sole arbiter of what consent is and under which circumstances it can occur is contradictory and also is a bad idea. You are like many people in that you unquestioningly grant an exception to government to coerce people and then expect by using them as a referee, that coercion can somehow cease. That's logically impossible.

You claim you are rejecting my philosophy as baseless. Then in some instances you actually adopt my philosophy, for instance we agree people that haven't or can't consent to sex should be left alone. Then when you don't like how somebody else is exercising their freedom on a consenting basis, you claim my philosophy which says human interactions should be consensual and voluntary is baseless. Interesting.

I think you are avoiding some discussion because I would be able to prove you are engaging in cognitive dissonance, but you aren't alone.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
How can you provide restitution to a victim of molestation and pedophilia ? That child can never be made the same again.
Why do you feel a convicted pedo should have the right to live next to a school ? Screw being uncomfortable...he/she should not be allowed
Click to expand...
One way to provide restitution to somebody is to ask them what would settle the issue. How would you do it, boil the molester? Draw and quarter the molester? How does that do anything to help the victim?

Also, you are trying hard to put words in my mouth, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop that. I pointed out I'm not comfortable with people that abuse others, but I don't limit that discomfort like you do. I stated in BOTH instances, child abuse and the coercive funding of government schools force is used or threatened. You correctly abhor one and then embrace the other....why?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Someone edited my sig.

I was going to change it anyways cos the joke was over, but it was already gone...
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Someone edited my sig.

I was going to change it anyways cos the joke was over, but it was already gone...
Click to expand...
Yes, funny things going on here....I have an avatar stealing Prohibitionist attempting to rattle my cage by pretending HE is the resident bigfoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top