[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Once more: I do NOT agree with laws prohibiting child labor.
[/quote]
Nor with laws prohibiting child rape, correct?[/quote]
Incorrect. “Child rape” is no different from any other form of rape.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Once more: I do NOT agree with laws prohibiting child labor.
[/quote]
Nor with laws prohibiting child rape, correct?[/quote]
Incorrect.[/quote]
You’re waking from your An-Cap fever-dream, then? Good. I always hoped you would.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Once more: I do NOT agree with laws prohibiting child labor.
[/quote]
Nor with laws prohibiting child rape, correct?[/quote]
Incorrect. “Child rape” is no different from any other form of rape. [/quote]
If children are old enough to enter the workforce can they also give consent to sex with an adult? If a six year old can work but not fuck that is hypocritical, no?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Once more: I do NOT agree with laws prohibiting child labor.
[/quote]
Nor with laws prohibiting child rape, correct?[/quote]
Incorrect.[/quote]
You’re waking from your An-Cap fever-dream, then? Good. I always hoped you would.[/quote]
I’m not sure that I follow. A child owns her body.
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Once more: I do NOT agree with laws prohibiting child labor.
[/quote]
Nor with laws prohibiting child rape, correct?[/quote]
Incorrect. “Child rape” is no different from any other form of rape. [/quote]
If children are old enough to enter the workforce can they also give consent to sex with an adult? If a six year old can work but not fuck that is hypocritical, no?[/quote]
I don’t know. If a three year-old can play with toys, can she also consent to sexual intercourse with an adult? If a six year-old consents to sexual intercourse with an adult in the United States of America in 2015, how can either be punished? Nobody will find out. If a woman can work, should raping her also be legal?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Once more: I do NOT agree with laws prohibiting child labor.
[/quote]
Nor with laws prohibiting child rape, correct?[/quote]
Incorrect. “Child rape” is no different from any other form of rape. [/quote]
If children are old enough to enter the workforce can they also give consent to sex with an adult? If a six year old can work but not fuck that is hypocritical, no?[/quote]
I don’t know. If a three year-old can play with toys, can she also consent to sexual intercourse with an adult? If a six year-old consents to sexual intercourse with an adult in the United States of America in 2015, how can either be punished? Nobody will find out. If a woman can work, should raping her also be legal? [/quote]
You are skirting the question. It would only be rape if you agree children can not consent to sex. We deem children unequipped of making these decisions so any sex with a child even if not forced upon them is rape. Just like we deem child labour inherently abusive and exploitative.
So can you ask without bringing up random other things, if a child is old enough to decide to work, are they old enough to decide to have sex? Should there be age of consent laws and child labour laws? How can you support one and not the other? Or are you just scared to admit you in true old fashioned libertarian fashion, are for the abolishment of the age of consent and child labour laws?
I was getting at this: You want to ban taxation and disband government, without which there is no law, without which there is no law against the rape of children. So, yes, you are anti-anti-child-rape legislation.
Edited.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Humans throughout history have been controlled and subjugated by religion. The “nuclear family” model was pretty much enforced by the “fact” that if you had sex before marriage, it was a “sin”. The population was much more ignorant. Despite the guarantees of the Constitution, women couldn’t vote until 1920 and black males couldn’t vote until 1870. Even today, despite the ruling of Lawrence vs. Texas, homosexuality remains “officially” illegal in many states and homosexuals are still being arrested for “crimes against nature”. Gay people are still being arrested for having consensual sex in some red states, like Louisiana.
That’s why we have a problem with the breakdown of the nuclear family. You religious folks went too far. If you had left gay people alone and not persecuted them by arresting them for pursuing their own happiness, they NEVER would have gained the power and influence that they have. The problem is this: persecuting two consenting adults for having sex violates their civil rights. It always has. ANYONE with a brain can figure that out. Seriously, take a moment and think about it. But religion twisted the common sense of the “authorities” and they unjustly persecuted them. So guess what happens when a minority is unjustly persecuted? THEY FIGHT BACK. And you stupid religious people, in your arrogance, CREATED a powerful “gay movement” that is now swaying the politics, civil rights and personal liberty for ALL of us.
If they had simply been left alone, they NEVER would have been motivated to unite and fight for “equality” the way they have. Now they have equality AND THEN SOME. Way to think it through. By denying gay people the right to marry and all of the entitlements that go along with that, you’ve motivated them to tear down the whole damn institution of marriage! Who do you think controls Hollywood? GAYS. Who do you think controls the fashion industry? GAYS Who do you think has MAJOR influence in the music industry and popular culture? GAYS Who sets the tone for what is “cool” and “hip”? GAYS
By trying to protect that which you hold so dear (traditional family values/culture) with ZERO tolerance for rights and freedoms of others, you have created and enemy who has set out to destroy you.
And honestly, can you blame them? What if the tables were turned? What if YOU could be arrested for having sex with the person YOU loved? What if YOU had to keep your sexuality a secret or you would be publicly shunned and possibly assaulted, or even murdered? Wouldn’t YOU fight to eradicate the forces that led to YOUR persecution? It’s common fucking sense…
Traditional values were doomed the day you used FORCE and INTOLERANCE to attack a small minority with a different opinion. America was built with checks and balances to PROTECT the minority from such abuse. It was only a matter of time before they gained enough power and precedent to protect themselves. And once they felt “safe”, they went for the jugular of the institutions that attacked them for so long.
How is this not obvious?
[/quote]
I read through this, thought about a substantive reply, read it again, chuckled, and decided not to.
So, over 70% of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock, and the reason is the gays are exacting their vengeance on an intolerant, overbearing religious society. Because the gays control all the things.
Brilliant.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I was talking about the institution of marriage. Which IS under assault by the LGBTQ(ABCDEFGLOL) Community. I don’t think any reasonable person can dispute this. And the rational for that is just as I said.
If you’d like to to talk about marriage rates in Black communities, how about we talk about poverty. You see, if you look at divorce statistics, one of the most common problems couples fight about is money. There are very few things in life that can emasculate a man than not being able to find a job and support his family. Black men HAVE faced institutionalized racism for a long time. If you take a second to be honest, one can almost imagine how that paradigm/reality may have influenced the self esteem of the average black person or the black community in general. Thankfully, we are beginning to turn a page on that institutionalized racism.
So when practices like segregation, red lining, un equal primary/secondary education, increased cost of goods and services and general racist policies are widely practiced for decades (if not over a century), what do you THINK the result will be? Happy, healthy families? LOL These practices were so pervasive that it was necessary to pass legislation (Community Reinvestment Act of 1977) WITHIN MY LIFETIME.
Now let’s bring the two arguments together (because you obviously need it spelled out for you). We have ANOTHER minority community of people who were brutally discriminated against up to the point of lynching by the KKK WITHIN MY LIFETIME http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Michael_Donald (1981 in case you are too lazy to click). Interracial marriage was not legal until 1967…
Again, why do you religious people care about who marries who so much? But I digress, the church was not so much the root of the discrimination as was the State. (as long as they kept to their own black churches)
So now we have another group of minorities who have been systematically discriminated against. Stop me now if you are going to argue that FACT…
So, just like I pointed out earlier, ANYONE with a brain can figure out that the civil rights of this community was being systematically VIOLATED. So, the Constitution allows for recourse and lo and behold, ta dah!!! They were RIGHT! So now that there was legal precedent set, the back lash was to sue for reparations and to try and make things “right”.
But you can’t make things “right”, now can you? You can’t raise the collective self esteem of an entire community of people who have been enslaved, beaten, whipped like animals, raped, arrested, imprisoned over bullshit, etc… in one fell swoop, can you?
So the well meaning among us decided to treat them SPECIALLY. They became ENTITLED to certain things because of what was done to them. Minority scholarships, guaranteed housing in affluent areas (subsidized, of course) Affirmative Action, etc… You know all of the entitlements as well as I do.
Now, instead of sending the message of :“you are black, there for you are evil”, the new message is: “you are black, and you can’t make it on your own”. How’s that for a mind fuck? This entire community has had to deal with those issues within one or two generations. And you WONDER about their marital problems?
Given the same set of circumstances, how healthy would YOUR marriage be?
Now people are people and like with ANY bell curve, there are those that will succeed no matter what, and those that will fail no matter how much “help” is given to them. And the black community reflects that. But in our (“our” meaning people who create public policy aka libtards) ignorance, we don’t recognize that there will always be SOME people who fail. It is impossible to guarantee the success of EVERYONE. Unless you lower the standard. Unless you MANDATE that “no child is left behind”. Which only serves to lower the bar and create a false “market” (if you will) of testing that serves only to meet a quota, and not to educate a human being. DESPITE all of these institutionalized setbacks (and I include special treatment of minorities among them) there are some PEOPLE (who happen to have more melatonin in their skin than others) who are wildly successful despite the odds stacked against them. But there are a far higher percentage who get trapped in the entitlement mentality (something that has NO racial bias whatsoever - plenty of poor white people live in JUST as fucked up communities) and the inevitable POVERTY that brings. And when people are poor, they look for an escape. That generally includes Sex, Drugs, Alcohol, Mischief (aka CRIME). How do those factors affect the fabric of relationships? Is that GOOD for marriage? No, not at all.
So again, if the powers that be had treated people (ALL people) fairly, and never violated their civil rights, they would not have had to fight back.
We (as a predominantly white society that until recently, clung to racist ideology) made our bed. Now we are laying in it. The question (which I see you’ve asked down there) is how to fix it. [quote]
The cultural rebellions like the sexual revolution, gay pride movement etc were about overthrowing the social relations that were forced upon people, by state force, for thousands of years. Women didn’t want to be domestic servants, they wanted the freedom to fuck like men do, party like men do, be autonomous like men are.
Gay people wanted to say fuck the notion of what a family has to be or what love constitutes,we can be a family, we can raise children, we are not criminals. Blacks had open and armed rebellions against the racist laws and culture that was backed by the ideological narrative of western racial and religious authority.
The repression that women faced as part of the nuclear family, the discrimination gays faced from a theocratic minded culture and institutions and the systemic racism blacks and minorities faced from the ideologically white supremacist culture, which was backed and parroted by religious figures, politicians and the state all caused the rejection of the values you talk about and wish we still had.
You talk about the good old days when people stayed married and kids had two parents. How many of those wives were beaten and lived a miserable life? Staying married and abused or just unhappy was not better for them.
As for the welfare issue. I think that has far more to do with industry being shipped to the third world than it does the dissolution of family life. Back in the day both my grandad, uncle and dad had jobs at factories earning very decent wages, straight from high school.
Today they would of been minimum wage workers or unemployed.
It is not as simple as you are making out.[/quote]
This is precisely the point, and you are making my argument for me. There absolutely was an assault on, really, all social institutions. The presumption was they were all constricting, social constructs depriving people of their individual liberty. Yes, yes, yes. Exactly. Even the nuclear family, which you even radically profess as inherently subjugatory to women. Yes, yes, yes.
But not every social institution was bad or conceived in bad faith. No matter - the social libertarians wanted to cut with a scythe, not a scalpel - remove them all from our society, none of them are good, they are presumed repressive.
A huge mistake. Jim Crow was bad, for example, but nuclear families are not. But the damage was done, and people began to buy into the message being preached about “liberation”.
Yep, exactly. You’ve crystallized the problem perfectly. And now that we are having to clean up the wreck made by such careless social choices, what do we do to fix it?
[/quote]
Get religion out of social policy. Seriously. It turns people off. The whole “abortion” issue, just needs to go away FOR NOW. You’ve empowered women and minorities too much to win that fight. Take a long term view and put it on the back burner. Revisit it when the special interests have lost their influence.
Same with gay marriage and legalization of Pot. Just STOP FIGHTING IT. That ship has sailed. That battle WILL be won. Start fighting battles of hearts and minds instead of trying to control peoples behavior with LAWS that end up incarcerating a disproportionate number of MINORITIES.
TRUE conservatism is the way back from this cliff. And by that, I mean get the government OUT OF the population control business and IN TO the fiscal responsibility, weening people off of entitlements (by creating welfare to work programs and child care for working people), creating jobs business.
If you give a man a fish, you’ve only fed him for a day, and my tax dollars are going to have to continue to feed him. If you TEACH a man to fish, using my tax dollars, I would consider that a worthwhile investment, because NOW, I NO LONGER HAVE TO FEED THAT MAN.
The way out is to enact policy that REALLY empowers people. Not by giving them free shit or lowered standards and opportunities with quotas, but by giving them skills to RAISE the bar so that they can compete effectively on a level playing field. Create an environment where there is a JOB surplus, not a competition for menial labor (that could be then taken over again by high school kids). The way to do that is to LOWER CORPORATE TAXES and get rid of shitty agreements like NAFTA. Tighten immigration policy and bring the hammer down on COMPANIES who employ illegal immigrants - they serve nothing but lower the average wage for AMERICANS. This topic could be it’s own thread, but you get the idea.
If you empower people, ALL PEOPLE, it will lead to prosperity. Prosperity will lead to stability. Stability will lead to success. And success will lead to people who WANT to raise good families and have the means to provide for their children.
THAT’S how you fix it. IMHO, of course. But what the fuck do I know, I’m only an ex felon with out a HS diploma who managed to overcome plenty of adversity and now makes 250K a year on my second career. And I managed to do it WITHOUT any special help, lowered standards or privileged status. I may not be very well educated, but I DO know what the fuck I’m talking about when it comes to working hard and getting ahead in life. And the first thing that has to happen is remove the safety net. When someone realizes that the buck stops here, you have true motivation. Anything less than complete responsibility for your outcomes will short change you for the rest of your life, robbing you of the chance to ever achieve your full potential. And that is true for ALL people of ALL races.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I was getting at this: You want to ban taxation and disband government, without which there is no law, without which there is no law against the rape of children. So, yes, you are anti-anti-child-rape legislation.
Edited.[/quote]
Limited government and anarchy are not the same thing. I consider myself a libertarian on most issues, but do not share a lot of the same views as Nick (though I learn something new almost every time Nick posts and value his opinion).
Some of the problems is with labels. All people do not think the same things in regards to government.
I would probably be for most child labor laws unless convinced otherwise. And I don’t believe a child can consent to sex.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I was getting at this: You want to ban taxation and disband government, without which there is no law, without which there is no law against the rape of children. So, yes, you are anti-anti-child-rape legislation.
Edited.[/quote]
Limited government and anarchy are not the same thing. I consider myself a libertarian on most issues, but do not share a lot of the same views as Nick (though I learn something new almost every time Nick posts and value his opinion).
Some of the problems is with labels. All people do not think the same things in regards to government. [/quote]
Certainly. But “anarchist” fits Nick perfectly, for which reason it is absolutely correct to say that he is against laws banning child rape. Unless he has changed positions.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Humans throughout history have been controlled and subjugated by religion. The “nuclear family” model was pretty much enforced by the “fact” that if you had sex before marriage, it was a “sin”. The population was much more ignorant. Despite the guarantees of the Constitution, women couldn’t vote until 1920 and black males couldn’t vote until 1870. Even today, despite the ruling of Lawrence vs. Texas, homosexuality remains “officially” illegal in many states and homosexuals are still being arrested for “crimes against nature”. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/05/gay_people_are_still_being_arrested_for_having_consensual_sex_in_some_red.html
That’s why we have a problem with the breakdown of the nuclear family. You religious folks went too far. If you had left gay people alone and not persecuted them by arresting them for pursuing their own happiness, they NEVER would have gained the power and influence that they have. The problem is this: persecuting two consenting adults for having sex violates their civil rights. It always has. ANYONE with a brain can figure that out. Seriously, take a moment and think about it. But religion twisted the common sense of the “authorities” and they unjustly persecuted them. So guess what happens when a minority is unjustly persecuted? THEY FIGHT BACK. And you stupid religious people, in your arrogance, CREATED a powerful “gay movement” that is now swaying the politics, civil rights and personal liberty for ALL of us.
If they had simply been left alone, they NEVER would have been motivated to unite and fight for “equality” the way they have. Now they have equality AND THEN SOME. Way to think it through. By denying gay people the right to marry and all of the entitlements that go along with that, you’ve motivated them to tear down the whole damn institution of marriage! Who do you think controls Hollywood? GAYS. Who do you think controls the fashion industry? GAYS Who do you think has MAJOR influence in the music industry and popular culture? GAYS Who sets the tone for what is “cool” and “hip”? GAYS
By trying to protect that which you hold so dear (traditional family values/culture) with ZERO tolerance for rights and freedoms of others, you have created and enemy who has set out to destroy you.
And honestly, can you blame them? What if the tables were turned? What if YOU could be arrested for having sex with the person YOU loved? What if YOU had to keep your sexuality a secret or you would be publicly shunned and possibly assaulted, or even murdered? Wouldn’t YOU fight to eradicate the forces that led to YOUR persecution? It’s common fucking sense…
Traditional values were doomed the day you used FORCE and INTOLERANCE to attack a small minority with a different opinion. America was built with checks and balances to PROTECT the minority from such abuse. It was only a matter of time before they gained enough power and precedent to protect themselves. And once they felt “safe”, they went for the jugular of the institutions that attacked them for so long.
How is this not obvious?
[/quote]
I read through this, thought about a substantive reply, read it again, chuckled, and decided not to.
So, over 70% of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock, and the reason is the gays are exacting their vengeance on an intolerant, overbearing religious society. Because the gays control all the things.
Brilliant.
[/quote]
I was talking about the institution of marriage. Which IS under assault by the LGBTQ(ABCDEFGLOL) Community. I don’t think any reasonable person can dispute this. And the rational for that is just as I said.
If you’d like to to talk about marriage rates in Black communities, how about we talk about poverty. You see, if you look at divorce statistics, one of the most common problems couples fight about is money. There are very few things in life that can emasculate a man than not being able to find a job and support his family. Black men HAVE faced institutionalized racism for a long time. If you take a second to be honest, one can almost imagine how that paradigm/reality may have influenced the self esteem of the average black person or the black community in general. Thankfully, we are beginning to turn a page on that institutionalized racism.
So when practices like segregation, red lining, un equal primary/secondary education, increased cost of goods and services and general racist policies are widely practiced for decades (if not over a century), what do you THINK the result will be? Happy, healthy families? LOL These practices were so pervasive that it was necessary to pass legislation (Community Reinvestment Act of 1977) WITHIN MY LIFETIME.
Now let’s bring the two arguments together (because you obviously need it spelled out for you). We have ANOTHER minority community of people who were brutally discriminated against up to the point of lynching by the KKK WITHIN MY LIFETIME http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Michael_Donald (1981 in case you are too lazy to click). Interracial marriage was not legal until 1967…
Again, why do you religious people care about who marries who so much? But I digress, the church was not so much the root of the discrimination as was the State. (as long as they kept to their own black churches)
So now we have another group of minorities who have been systematically discriminated against. Stop me now if you are going to argue that FACT…
So, just like I pointed out earlier, ANYONE with a brain can figure out that the civil rights of this community was being systematically VIOLATED. So, the Constitution allows for recourse and lo and behold, ta dah!!! They were RIGHT! So now that there was legal precedent set, the back lash was to sue for reparations and to try and make things “right”.
But you can’t make things “right”, now can you? You can’t raise the collective self esteem of an entire community of people who have been enslaved, beaten, whipped like animals, raped, arrested, imprisoned over bullshit, etc… in one fell swoop, can you?
So the well meaning among us decided to treat them SPECIALLY. They became ENTITLED to certain things because of what was done to them. Minority scholarships, guaranteed housing in affluent areas (subsidized, of course) Affirmative Action, etc… You know all of the entitlements as well as I do.
Now, instead of sending the message of :“you are black, there for you are evil”, the new message is: “you are black, and you can’t make it on your own”. How’s that for a mind fuck? This entire community has had to deal with those issues within one or two generations. And you WONDER about their marital problems?
Given the same set of circumstances, how healthy would YOUR marriage be?
Now people are people and like with ANY bell curve, there are those that will succeed no matter what, and those that will fail no matter how much “help” is given to them. And the black community reflects that. But in our (“our” meaning people who create public policy aka libtards) ignorance, we don’t recognize that there will always be SOME people who fail. It is impossible to guarantee the success of EVERYONE. Unless you lower the standard. Unless you MANDATE that “no child is left behind”. Which only serves to lower the bar and create a false “market” (if you will) of testing that serves only to meet a quota, and not to educate a human being. DESPITE all of these institutionalized setbacks (and I include special treatment of minorities among them) there are some PEOPLE (who happen to have more melatonin in their skin than others) who are wildly successful despite the odds stacked against them. But there are a far higher percentage who get trapped in the entitlement mentality (something that has NO racial bias whatsoever - plenty of poor white people live in JUST as fucked up communities) and the inevitable POVERTY that brings. And when people are poor, they look for an escape. That generally includes Sex, Drugs, Alcohol, Mischief (aka CRIME). How do those factors affect the fabric of relationships? Is that GOOD for marriage? No, not at all.
So again, if the powers that be had treated people (ALL people) fairly, and never violated their civil rights, they would not have had to fight back.
We (as a predominantly white society that until recently, clung to racist ideology) made our bed. Now we are laying in it. The question (which I see you’ve asked down there) is how to fix it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
…As for the welfare issue. I think that has far more to do with industry being shipped to the third world than it does the dissolution of family life. Back in the day both my grandad, uncle and dad had jobs at factories earning very decent wages, straight from high school.
Today they would of been minimum wage workers or unemployed.
[/quote]
I don’t have much use for the rest of your post but I do agree here. Maybe not “far more” but it was certainly a key factor.
[/quote]
I agree with this as well. I think “far more” overstates it - even materially poor people in the past tended to adhere to traditional family norms - but it unquestionably is having an impact.
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Once more: I do NOT agree with laws prohibiting child labor.
[/quote]
Nor with laws prohibiting child rape, correct?[/quote]
Incorrect. “Child rape” is no different from any other form of rape. [/quote]
If children are old enough to enter the workforce can they also give consent to sex with an adult? If a six year old can work but not fuck that is hypocritical, no?[/quote]
I don’t know. If a three year-old can play with toys, can she also consent to sexual intercourse with an adult? If a six year-old consents to sexual intercourse with an adult in the United States of America in 2015, how can either be punished? Nobody will find out. If a woman can work, should raping her also be legal? [/quote]
You are skirting the question. It would only be rape if you agree children can not consent to sex. We deem children unequipped of making these decisions so any sex with a child even if not forced upon them is rape. Just like we deem child labour inherently abusive and exploitative.
So can you ask without bringing up random other things, if a child is old enough to decide to work, are they old enough to decide to have sex? Should there be age of consent laws and child labour laws? How can you support one and not the other? Or are you just scared to admit you in true old fashioned libertarian fashion, are for the abolishment of the age of consent and child labour laws?[/quote]
Nobody is skirting anything. When “child rape” was brought up, I actually first assumed we were discussing forcible rape. Child rape can also be more a form of fraud. If a person can explain sex and its possible consequences, I’d say that person can consent to it. If a person can not explain sex, the person is obviously unable to consent to it. If a person can explain a job he has been hired for and understands its consequences, I’d say that he is old enough to work. If a person can’t explain a job, he is useless in that position and that person’s employment is charity.
I am certainly for the abolishment of age-of-consent. How many 14 year-olds don’t know exactly what sex entails? How many 14 year-olds’ bodies have not been prepared for sex by nature(whatever name you give it)? I am also, for about the third or fourth time in two days, in favor of abolishing child labor laws.
You, along with smh23(I know from experience), are going to keep throwing out extremely rare situations and refusing to answer(or saying, “but that’s not how this system is supppppppooooooossssssed to work”) to answer how our current system effectively handles those situations, so I’ll just leave it at this: Parents usually protect their children. If a parent fails to protect his children, it would be nice for that child to have a way out. What could provide that way out? A job.
If a parent is raping his child? What if that child tells his neighbor? In the United States of America in 2015, he may report that to the police and CPS, which may then launch a lengthy investigation, during which the child may be raped many additional times. In a free society, that neighbor may launch his own investigation. He may conclude that his neighbor did rape his child. He may then kill his neighbor and adopt the child. If a jury is gathered, finds that the dead neighbor DID rape his daughter, and then punishes the man who killed him, then that society is fucked. In other words, a free society carries many of the same risks(especially in extraordinarily rare circumstances) as Leviathan(namely: the people being pieces of shit). That’s how we have arrived where we are today.
The big problems come when people start believing that Leviathan decides what is right and wrong. When prohibiting child molestation becomes the income tax, something is wrong. When prohibiting murder becomes life sentences for selling cocaine, something is wrong. Without morality, no form of government can produce a decent result. That’s the problem in all of the mega-states throughout history: the state’s desire to become the arbiter of morality.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Once more: I do NOT agree with laws prohibiting child labor.
[/quote]
Nor with laws prohibiting child rape, correct?[/quote]
Incorrect. “Child rape” is no different from any other form of rape. [/quote]
If children are old enough to enter the workforce can they also give consent to sex with an adult? If a six year old can work but not fuck that is hypocritical, no?[/quote]
I don’t know. If a three year-old can play with toys, can she also consent to sexual intercourse with an adult? If a six year-old consents to sexual intercourse with an adult in the United States of America in 2015, how can either be punished? Nobody will find out. If a woman can work, should raping her also be legal? [/quote]
You are skirting the question. It would only be rape if you agree children can not consent to sex. We deem children unequipped of making these decisions so any sex with a child even if not forced upon them is rape. Just like we deem child labour inherently abusive and exploitative.
So can you ask without bringing up random other things, if a child is old enough to decide to work, are they old enough to decide to have sex? Should there be age of consent laws and child labour laws? How can you support one and not the other? Or are you just scared to admit you in true old fashioned libertarian fashion, are for the abolishment of the age of consent and child labour laws?[/quote]
Nobody is skirting anything. When “child rape” was brought up, I actually first assumed we were discussing forcible rape. Child rape can also be more a form of fraud. If a person can explain sex and its possible consequences, I’d say that person can consent to it. If a person can not explain sex, the person is obviously unable to consent to it. If a person can explain a job he has been hired for and understands its consequences, I’d say that he is old enough to work. If a person can’t explain a job, he is useless in that position and that person’s employment is charity.
I am certainly for the abolishment of age-of-consent. How many 14 year-olds don’t know exactly what sex entails? How many 14 year-olds’ bodies have not been prepared for sex by nature(whatever name you give it)? I am also, for about the third or fourth time in two days, in favor of abolishing child labor laws.
You, along with smh23(I know from experience), are going to keep throwing out extremely rare situations and refusing to answer(or saying, “but that’s not how this system is supppppppooooooossssssed to work”) to answer how our current system effectively handles those situations, so I’ll just leave it at this: Parents usually protect their children. If a parent fails to protect his children, it would be nice for that child to have a way out. What could provide that way out? A job.
If a parent is raping his child? What if that child tells his neighbor? In the United States of America in 2015, he may report that to the police and CPS, which may then launch a lengthy investigation, during which the child may be raped many additional times. In a free society, that neighbor may launch his own investigation. He may conclude that his neighbor did rape his child. He may then kill his neighbor and adopt the child. If a jury is gathered, finds that the dead neighbor DID rape his daughter, and then punishes the man who killed him, then that society is fucked. In other words, a free society carries many of the same risks(especially in extraordinarily rare circumstances) as Leviathan(namely: the people being pieces of shit). That’s how we have arrived where we are today.
The big problems come when people start believing that Leviathan decides what is right and wrong. When prohibiting child molestation becomes the income tax, something is wrong. When prohibiting murder becomes life sentences for selling cocaine, something is wrong. Without morality, no form of government can produce a decent result.[/quote]
I was not trying to be obnoxious, but I don’t understand your position. Do you think think there should be laws against grown men having sex with six year olds? Do you think six year olds should be able to work? If you support one how can you not support the other?
I think the idea of men having sex with children is vile and should be criminalised. I also think the idea that companies hire poor children to work in factories etc is vile and should be outlawed.
Do you agree?
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But not every social institution was bad or conceived in bad faith. No matter - the social libertarians wanted to cut with a scythe, not a scalpel - remove them all from our society, none of them are good, they are presumed repressive.
[/quote]
This is 100% conjecture. I have a hard time moving forward with the discussion when you seem convinced no other issues could have lead towards the current issues SOME families have.
Most notably the increased level of government involvement in the lives of Americans. The real big daddy who can make everything better and doesn’t let people be responsible for their own poor decisions economically.
No, the answer MUST be we let gay people come out of the closet? Or women have sex with more than one man? Come on T. [/quote]
I never said no other issues had an impact. Moreover, what does this have to do with changing norms re: gays, etc.? I have already said the issue was the attacks on monogamy and family life, which were thrown in (wrongly) as targets to be toppled during the 60s.
Point is - not all of the “liberalizing” that came out of the era was good or justified. It went too far and damaged critical social institutions. The social libertarianism that sought to undermine monogamy, traditional family, fidelity, etc. as outdated, restrictive prisons have led - not solely, but largely - to the demise of importance of essential institutions like family.
Thank God no one agrees with you Nick…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But not every social institution was bad or conceived in bad faith. No matter - the social libertarians wanted to cut with a scythe, not a scalpel - remove them all from our society, none of them are good, they are presumed repressive.
[/quote]
This is 100% conjecture. I have a hard time moving forward with the discussion when you seem convinced no other issues could have lead towards the current issues SOME families have.
Most notably the increased level of government involvement in the lives of Americans. The real big daddy who can make everything better and doesn’t let people be responsible for their own poor decisions economically.
No, the answer MUST be we let gay people come out of the closet? Or women have sex with more than one man? Come on T. [/quote]
I never said no other issues had an impact. Moreover, what does this have to do with changing norms re: gays, etc.? I have already said the issue was the attacks on monogamy and family life, which were thrown in (wrongly) as targets to be toppled during the 60s.
Point is - not all of the “liberalizing” that came out of the era was good or justified. It went too far and damaged critical social institutions. The social libertarianism that sought to undermine monogamy, traditional family, fidelity, etc. as outdated, restrictive prisons have led - not solely, but largely - to the demise of importance of essential institutions like family.
[/quote]
Liberty doesn’t lead to perfect outcomes.
It just beats having the state force you to do something.
Ironically religion has probably helped increase single parenthood by fighting against knowledge and access to contraceptives. Where I’m from the vast majority of people are die hard Christians (rural kansas). Guess what other huge problem we have? Young pregnant females who don’t stay with daddy and let daddy government take care of them.
Want to know another secret? One of the local schools doesn’t even bother to teach sex ed, yet has bible verses on the walls (and yes this is a public school). Want to take a guess where most of those young ladies went to school?
The red states that preach that tradition you long for? They have the highest rates of welfare, teenage parents, etc.
Didn’t traditional values Sarah Palin’s daughter get knocked up early?
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
I was not trying to be obnoxious, but I don’t understand your position. Do you think think there should be laws against grown men having sex with six year olds? Do you think six year olds should be able to work? If you support one how can you not support the other?
I think the idea of men having sex with children is vile and should be criminalised. I also think the idea that companies hire poor children to work in factories etc is vile and should be outlawed.
Do you agree?
[/quote]
I wonder how common it is for a grown man to have sexual intercourse with a six year-old without her asking him to stop? I have no experience with six year-olds, but I think I remember sex seeming pretty painful for teenagers at first. The idea that a child would consent to sex, have nobody around to say otherwise, and would not withdraw that consent immediately seems pretty absurd to me; and at that point, we are back to the sex being good, old-fashioned forcible rape.
I think six year-olds should be allowed to work. If a six year-old decides that he no longer wants to work, he should be allowed to leave.
I think the idea of grown men having sex with children is vile. I do not think the idea of poor children working, as opposed to either starving or freezing to death, is vile.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Thank God no one agrees with you Nick…[/quote]
I don’t follow.