American History Is Not Libertarian History?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Push throws out another insult and exits thread.

Why don’t you just leave so everyone who was talking can go back to it? [/quote]

Haven’t exited the thread. Still here.

Not gonna let a crying schoolgirl cause me to leave either.

YOU initially trotted out the bullshit that religion and traditional values are a prime motivator in causing society’s moral related problems. I challenge that preposterous notion and the sand in your vagina becomes unbearable for you.

You can’t throw sand in people’s faces and then tell them they HAVE to leave because you’re offended at their reactions to your offensive behavior.

Your John Lennon “Imagine” ethos is laughable.[/quote]

I never said anything of the sort. I said religion doesn’t help by being against one of the best ways to avoid unwanted pregnancies which is contraceptives.

You decided to ignore that and go off on a tangent about strawmen and say things you can’t prove then get offended when I asked for proof.

How many times are you going to misquote me or make positions that I don’t make. All you have to do is read. Maybe if you weren’t so busy with your attempt at witty insults you’d have more time for ACTUALLY responding to posts.

The notion is only preposterous because you won’t read people’s posts so you can’t figure out what they are saying.

142

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[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!
[/quote]

No, there should not be blanket age of consent laws. Some 13 year-olds are capable of consenting, while some 30 year-olds are not. If two eight year-olds manage to have sex, should they be imprisoned? Parents should be responsible for their children. Government should not be expected to have an answer for everything.[/quote]

Two eight year olds wouldn’t be imprisoned. My god.

You are just going off topic because you don’t want to say you would abolish the age of consent, because we all know what that actually means.

143

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[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? [/quote]

You said religion contributes to/causes out of wedlock births. So, no, you didn’t say religion was neutral. But if what you say was true, religion would have caused a lot more back when people were more religious. But that didn’t happen.

And the explanation cant be the number of “trapped” spouses that weren’t fee to leave the marriage. While that no doubt happened some, it isn’t reasonable to think that is the reason marriage rates were so high then and so low now.
[/quote]

False. I said religion doesn’t help anything by fighting against our best defense against unwanted pregnancies. I never said it caused them. I said (similar to what I say in regards to abortion) that our best weapon is contraceptives and many religious people fight against them.

144

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Just want to add one to the list:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Some 13 year-olds are capable of consenting, while some 30 year-olds are not. [/quote][/quote]

You believe in God, right? [/quote]
I do.

[quote]
Do you think puberty is an accidental and meaningless process? [/quote]

No, it obviously serves a purpose.

[quote]
Some 13 year-olds are also smarter and more knowledgable than a large number of adults. [/quote]

You’re talking about outliers here and I’m more concerned with how mature they are and if they understand the long term ramifications of their actions.

[quote]
Some 30 year-olds are mentally retarded and totally incapable of truly consenting to anything.[/quote]

But they went through puberty so they’re good right?

145

Religion is the problem because it will not agree to the gentle and friendly sterilization and contracepting away of the lower and lower-middle income folk. Today’s secretly desired remedy. Funny thing is, while they would be cutting away their descendents, the more educated woman has already been doing so to achieve “freedom.” I think it’s like 50% (possibly above, at this point) today are childless up into their 40’s.

A Darwinistic dead-end. In the end the ever increasing welfare state that must play absent daddy in our youth, and our absent children/grandchildren in our old age, will run out of the youthful workers to sustain it. Yet, so many will absolutely NEED it, and won’t let it go.

146

The sin today isn’t the having of casual sex, its not being on the pill.

147

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Sloth:

When in your opinion is divorce acceptable?
[/quote]

When the vows made by each to the other are broken. Abuse and adultery. That’s it.[/quote]

Patently unfair. What if someone gets bored and wants to, you know, dip their stinger in different honey, despite the three kids that are relying on the home being provided? What do you hate freedom? :slight_smile:

(Btw, wondering when you would drop by - this topic is right in your wheelhouse.)

148

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Religion is the problem because it will not agree to the gentle and friendly sterilization and contracepting away of the lower and lower-middle income folk. Today’s secretly desired remedy.[/quote]

It’s a secretly desired remedy that people wait until they want kids to have them?

People are not going to just not have sex. That is a pipe dream. Condoms and birth controls can limit the amounts of unwanted pregnancies and decrease the need for the welfare state. People can wait to have children when they are financially and emotionally ready. Instead of forcing them to be financially and emotionally ready because they had bad luck doing something every human has a drive to do which is sex.

And yet the religious are against these things.

I know we have danced this dance many times Sloth!

149

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Sloth:

When in your opinion is divorce acceptable?
[/quote]

When the vows made by each to the other are broken. Abuse and adultery. That’s it.[/quote]

Patently unfair. What if someone gets bored and wants to, you know, dip their stinger in different honey, despite the three kids that are relying on the home being provided? What do you hate freedom? :slight_smile:

(Btw, wondering when you would drop by - this topic is right in your wheelhouse.)
[/quote]

The idea that someone who is for liberty is for someone not raising their kids is simply untrue.

You think people were faithful back when divorce wasn’t socially allowed? Ha, women just put up with it. You really think the 60’s invented infidelity?

Again T what is your solution? I agree that Dad’s not raising kids is bad. How do we fix it when the government will solve the issue by using your tax dollars to provide for the kid anyways.

150

[quote]H factor wrote:

False. I said religion doesn’t help anything by fighting against our best defense against unwanted pregnancies. I never said it caused them. I said (similar to what I say in regards to abortion) that our best weapon is contraceptives and many religious people fight against them. [/quote]

You mean you didn’t say:

Ironically religion has probably helped increase single parenthood by fighting against knowledge and access to contraceptives.

…two pages ago?

“Helped increase single parenthood” isn’t contributing to or causing?

Really?

152

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The sin today isn’t the having of casual sex, its not being on the pill.[/quote]

I prefer IUD’s :wink:

153

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Sloth:

When in your opinion is divorce acceptable?
[/quote]

When the vows made by each to the other are broken. Abuse and adultery. That’s it.[/quote]

Patently unfair. What if someone gets bored and wants to, you know, dip their stinger in different honey, despite the three kids that are relying on the home being provided? What do you hate freedom? :slight_smile:

(Btw, wondering when you would drop by - this topic is right in your wheelhouse.)
[/quote]

Here’s the difference with me, I could care less that society today wants marriage to be some extension of their individualistic expression, to jump in and out of “no fault.”

You want to approach the state with the promise that you two are life-long committed (at least implied, if barely these days) for whatever benefits and features the title “married” bestows? Then you’ll be held to it.

155

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

False. I said religion doesn’t help anything by fighting against our best defense against unwanted pregnancies. I never said it caused them. I said (similar to what I say in regards to abortion) that our best weapon is contraceptives and many religious people fight against them. [/quote]

You mean you didn’t say:

Ironically religion has probably helped increase single parenthood by fighting against knowledge and access to contraceptives.

…two pages ago?

“Helped increase single parenthood” isn’t contributing to or causing?

Really?
[/quote]

I never said causing alone which is where you and Push seem to want to drive my argument. I said it doesn’t help by fighting against some of the very things that prevent unwanted pregnancies. So contributing? Sure. Anything that increases unwanted pregnancies is contributing to the single parent problem.

Do you disagree proper contraceptive use prevents unwanted pregnancies?

156

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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? [/quote]

I believe that if he was correct and any jury found him guilty of something, that society is fucked(in America, he would likely be found guilty of something). [/quote]

How or what can a jury (how ever that would work) find him guilty of if there are no laws? Or vice versa, how can you be guilt of child molestation if there is no legal definition of child molestation?

Incorrect about what? His definition of abuse, societies definition, a legal definition? I honestly can not follow your position.

[/quote]

Hell, I don’t know. Remember when I said something like, “an immoral society is fucked?” This thread is proof. Allowing children to work is the same as permitting child molestation. Look to your left, look to your right, look behind you, and look straight ahead: believe that it all belongs to an earthly governor if you want. There is no right and wrong, and without Leader there would certainly be no way to determine which is which.

158

Question.

Which will contribute the most in consuming the entire budget (besides paying interest) of the US.

Feeding and providing healthcare to children with absent fathers?

Or,

Feeding and providing healthcare to the elderly and adult affirm?

159

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
No, there should not be blanket age of consent laws. Some 13 year-olds are capable of consenting, while some 30 year-olds are not. If two eight year-olds manage to have sex, should they be imprisoned? Parents should be responsible for their children. Government should not be expected to have an answer for everything.[/quote]

Two eight year olds wouldn’t be imprisoned. My god.

You are just going off topic because you don’t want to say you would abolish the age of consent, because we all know what that actually means.[/quote]

The fact that you keep responding to my posts leads me to believe that you can read, but your last statement indicates that you can’t. The very first sentence of my post read, “No, there should not be blanket age of consent laws.”

160

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
No, there should not be blanket age of consent laws. Some 13 year-olds are capable of consenting, while some 30 year-olds are not. If two eight year-olds manage to have sex, should they be imprisoned? Parents should be responsible for their children. Government should not be expected to have an answer for everything.[/quote]

Two eight year olds wouldn’t be imprisoned. My god.

You are just going off topic because you don’t want to say you would abolish the age of consent, because we all know what that actually means.[/quote]

The fact that you keep responding to my posts leads me to believe that you can read, but your last statement indicates that you can’t. The very first sentence of my post read, “No, there should not be blanket age of consent laws.”[/quote]

So legally a grown man should be able to have sex with a 4 year old child? OK.