American History Is Not Libertarian History?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[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]

Are you being serious? Pedophilia is rare? I don’t even know what to say to you dude. The fact you can’t simply say you are for a law banning sex with children though, makes me want to stop interacting with you.

102

[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]

When a government becomes tyrannical(starts punishing victimless activities and taking from the people), it SHOULD be disbanded. As long as people exist, some form of government will. There will always be some form of law. When a tyrannical government exists, I support abolishing all laws that give it any air of legitimacy.

103

[quote]NickViar wrote:
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]

I would prefer six year olds being were they belong…

kindergarten.

104

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Thank God no one agrees with you Nick…[/quote]

I don’t follow. [/quote]

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Once more: I do NOT agree with laws prohibiting child labor.
[/quote]

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If a person can explain sex and its possible consequences, I’d say that person can consent to it. [/quote]

This whole scenario is down right ridiculous:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
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. [/quote]

105

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[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]

Are you being serious? Pedophilia is rare? I don’t even know what to say to you dude. The fact you can’t simply say you are for a law banning sex with children though, makes me want to stop interacting with you. [/quote]

In fact, I am in favor of killing men that rape children(the neighbor killing the man that rapes his daughter should have illustrated that, I thought). I do not believe that 18 is even close to the age at which a person can legitimately consent to sex. You are doing nothing more than trying to create inconsistencies so that you can exclaim, “Aha! I gotcha! Nothing Big Brother does is wrong, unless you believe that newborns should be vaginally penetrated by their uncles while exiting their mother’s vagina.”

106

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
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]

I would prefer six year olds being were they belong…

kindergarten. [/quote]

Yes, kindergarten/first grade is a fine place for a six year-old lucky enough to come from a family that can afford to feed him. It is not so fine a place for a six year-old who will starve without working. It would be a mighty fine thing for people to gather(not by robbery) the funds to feed that child AND allow him to attend school. It would also be a mighty fine thing for that child’s parent/s to allow someone capable of caring for the child to take him. It is not a fine thing when people who played no part in creating that child are told “Feed this child, leave this land, or go to a cell.”

107

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This whole scenario is down right ridiculous:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
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. [/quote][/quote]

I 110% agree. That’s the scenario I was asked about. The idea that allowing people freedom is going to make child molestation acceptable is fucking absurd. The suggestion that permitting children to work is the same as permitting child molestation is equally absurd.

108

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[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]

Are you being serious? Pedophilia is rare? I don’t even know what to say to you dude. The fact you can’t simply say you are for a law banning sex with children though, makes me want to stop interacting with you. [/quote]

In fact, I am in favor of killing men that rape children(the neighbor killing the man that rapes his daughter should have illustrated that, I thought). I do not believe that 18 is even close to the age at which a person can legitimately consent to sex. You are doing nothing more than trying to create inconsistencies so that you can exclaim, “Aha! I gotcha! Nothing Big Brother does is wrong, unless you believe that newborns should be vaginally penetrated by their uncles while exiting their mother’s vagina.”[/quote]

Yeah my asking you to say wether or not there should be laws to stop people having sex with children is because I am secretly a big brother supporter.
What on earth?

109

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This whole scenario is down right ridiculous:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
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. [/quote][/quote]

I 110% agree. That’s the scenario I was asked about. The idea that allowing people freedom is going to make child molestation acceptable is fucking absurd. [/quote]

If there is no moral reason to have a government law against sex with children it ceases to be molestation and becomes sex between consenting people. The law says children can’t consent thus it should be illegal and criminalised.

Should there be age of consent laws? You won’t say yes or no!

110

[quote]NickViar 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]

When a government becomes tyrannical(starts punishing victimless activities and taking from the people), it SHOULD be disbanded. As long as people exist, some form of government will. There will always be some form of law. When a tyrannical government exists, I support abolishing all laws that give it any air of legitimacy.[/quote]

Then, as I said, you seem to be shifting in your views.

111

H Factor,

Really, religion is the culprit? Back when people were materially poorer but held fast to traditional family norms, they were religious, were they not? Even more so than today, probably?

Birth control was also less available, too, right?

But fewer out of wedlock children and low divorce rates?

115

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
H Factor,

Really, religion is the culprit? Back when people were materially poorer but held fast to traditional family norms, they were religious, were they not? Even more so than today, probably?

Birth control was also less available, too, right?

But fewer out of wedlock children and low divorce rates?[/quote]

I don’t think religion helps anything. And you didn’t mention anything about it (single parent families) being higher in “traditional value” red states (who ironically are largely welfare recipients as well).

Fewer out of wedlock children: Because we forced marriage on those who had babies. Now we wait for something crazy like…love?

Low divorce rates: Because people didn’t get divorced even when they were being cheated on and abused.

Are things really worse because we encourage a woman now to leave a man when he beats her? Really?

116

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

I 110% agree. That’s the scenario I was asked about. The idea that allowing people freedom is going to make child molestation acceptable is fucking absurd. The suggestion that permitting children to work is the same as permitting child molestation is equally absurd.[/quote]

This.

One has to have a weak position to defend in order to pull out all the stops like this.

Dumb.[/quote]

So Push / Nick, you guys are okay with your neighbor coming onto your property, killing you (assuming they can), and claiming your kid if they think you’re molesting / raping them?

Am I following you both right?

117

[quote]pushharder wrote:

It happens to “traditional values” folks too.

It happens to non-traditional values folks MORE. That is inarguable.
[/quote]

Cite it then. Why don’t the states with large amounts of socially liberal people have higher single parent rates? All you’ve got is “well, blacks in red states.” The divorce rate is lower as well in those states where not as many people go to church. You really think it’s just blacks?

Franklin County Kansas where I am from has almost no minorities and is full of traditional values religious folks. And we have a lot of single parent families. Probably more percentage wise than many places that are more “progressive.”

This idea that the godless people who are ok with gays are leading to massive amounts of single parent families is patently absurd.

120

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
H Factor,

Really, religion is the culprit? Back when people were materially poorer but held fast to traditional family norms, they were religious, were they not? Even more so than today, probably?

Birth control was also less available, too, right?

But fewer out of wedlock children and low divorce rates?[/quote]

Back in the good old days when we had the rule of thumb?

Oppressive religion serves a vital role in repressing a woman’s sexuality. Call it what it is. You cannot have one with out the other. There is no “equality” between men and women AND a god fearing, low divorce rate, low child born out of wedlock rate.

If you remove the shame and oppression of women, YET RETAIN THE LAWS THAT INCENTIVIZE DIVORCE (life long alimony, child support, automatic custody of kids, etc…) you are going to have a high divorce rate. Family law sets it up for a woman perfectly:

  1. get married
  2. get knocked up
  3. get divorced
  4. PROFIT

OR, for out of wed lock babies:

  1. meet dude with assets
  2. get knocked up
  3. decide to keep it (her being in charge of HER body and all)
  4. paternity test
  5. PROFIT

Hell, that even works with guys with no assets. The only difference is the state will garnish all of their wages so that they have to live in a cardboard box, while they make monthly payments to support their offspring. If they fail to make payments, they are incarcerated and the woman gets welfare.

We are PAYING women to have kids out of wedlock and/or breaking up families. There is literally no downside for them.