Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So your argument is just based on what most people think?
To an extent, yes, but that's virtually everybody. In 1850, you say women should be allowed to vote to progressive anti slavery people, you get booed and kicked out. You say the opposite in 2020, people think you are a misogynist.
Everybody is a product of their culture on every issue (including yourself). You are a pedophilia supporter (not a knock btw) in a country where over 95% of people strongly disagree. In that society, you have to be much more pro free speech on the issue of Age of Consent. If alternatively, 90% of the US population believed there should not be an age of consent, then there would be a term, "pedophobic" that would be deemed to be an insult and there is a good chance that pedophobic views would be deemed hate speech and that you would agree with banning pedophobic views, whereas in our society, pedophobic views are just the normal views in society, so you have to at least respect pedophobia in a society where over 90% of the population is pedophobic, whereas you don't have to do this nearly as much in a society where 10% of the population is pedophobic.
Also, vote is irrelevant to sexual activities regarding consequences.
Not my point. My point is you don't get certain freedoms until you are old enough because otherwise it's a threat to safety. Otherwise we would have to let 5 year olds vote.
Can 12 year olds consent to go to school? If not, then how is going to school okay?
Lets define FGDB as "Feels Good Does Bad" and FBDG as, "Feels Bad Does Good".
School, especially for many young people FBDG. Sex is FGDB.
"Consent" implies the freedom to do something that FGDB or the freedom to not do something that FBDG.
Many 12 year olds do not consent to the FBDG activity of school. They still should be forced to go because the alternative is they are more fucked up as they age.
But its even worse with sex because most people over 12 have sexual urges, and it causes them stress if they cannot do anything sexual.
Sexual urges I believe are developed with sexual expierience, not just age. Nobody knows how good sex feels until they do it. There may be couriousity with leg caressing, but this isn't deemed to be sexual.
OIP.8_n-dZKnoCdG12HGQqu0pgHaE8 (474×316) (bing.com) shows a parent holding their child. It's not sexual, and it's legal to do.
Sex is not bad for health like drugs are, or like tobacco is.
I don't agree with this. I've mastrabated a lot since August of 2023 (when I was 21). I would have preferred it if I never started. It started out wonderful and I didn't think I would get addicted, but I did. I can only imagine how addictive sex is. I get courious about what sex is like, and I've also had couriousity with what weed is like. It doesn't mean I know what it's like. Abstaining from smoking weed may be bad for those already addicted, but it's not bad at all for those that aren't (except medical when this is unconditional). But the more you use weed, the more you develop a toleterance for it so when you actually get high, you aren't getting as much out of it. This is fine for those who start old enough, but it is very damaging for those that start too young.
I think sex is the same way.
Created:
Posted in:
Wrt the argument,
"If there is a kid and a Dad in a canoe and the kid has a contagious illness that has a .02% chance of killing the dad, then the dad isn't allowed to murder the kid to spare him the risk of death", the argument is correct, but only because there is a consented risk. If the Dad didn't want to be at risk for the illness, then he just maintains social distancing from his kid. If he doesn't want to ever be around his kid, then he should set the kid up for adoption.
Parents being around kids with a .02% chance of having a deadly illness consented to that risk, otherwise they would just not have the kid. Unwanted pregnancy is not a consented risk.
Because of this, abortion should be legal until the moment of birth, because there is no time where you get prosecuted by the state for failing to take a risk to your life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Only Carrot God is God.
Carrots taste good.
You are telling us to kill and eat God? Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
What is an explanation in premises or a consistent framework of decision making?
I would say it is an arbitrary ratio based on some precedence from other places.
When it suits you, you pick liberty? When it suits you, you pick security?
I think this is fair, but there are times when everyone I would imagine backs liberty and everyone backs security.
Like, should 25 year olds be allowed to vote? Virtually everyone says yes. Should 5 year olds be allowed to vote? Virtually everyone says no. Should 25 year olds be forced to go to school? Virtually everyone says yes. Should 5 year olds be forced to go to school? Virtually everyone says no. I think it's biting the bullet to argue that education for 5 year olds should be a choice, not an obligation (vice versa for 25 year olds). Same is true with voting rights. This is being arbitrary; the age that you are no longer forced to attend school is 18; I would be fine with making it 16 as this only effects really stupid people and really poor people; most people would stay in school at least as long as they are able to for free.
I would make the voting age 16 and the age of consent 16 to try and lean more into liberty (but I also know that it won't be fair to make the age 16 because it's obvious this would benefit the democrats and I don't want one party being too comfy with power, so maybe merge some small democrat states to reduce their senate influence while giving young people the right to vote which would make all the battleground states way more likely to be blue.)
So whats the basis for picking 18?
I would pick 16, but it's precedent.
If we look by mere nature, sexual urges begin to get strong at age 12 or 13, so why wouldnt that be the age of consent?
Because if 12 year olds can consent to sex, then they can consent as to whether or not they should attend school (6th grade). You definitely should be required to complete middle school to build up mental infrastructure. I think that's just the normie position.
Overprotective parents try to control child's life by taking away their choices and making choices for them as an effort to protect them, but all they get are dumber children which later make worse decisions because they had no early experience in making choices.
Being protective of your child to an extent prevents them from making very bad mistakes to begin with. Like, we tell kids to not smoke tobacco and to not smoke weed in school. Now, it's not 100% effective, but it's caused way less kids to smoke and do weed than if we never told them to not do it. I think the age to smoke tobacco and weed should be 16.
Its not exactly a discussion about pedophiles, since pedophiles are those attracted to under 11.
I thought the official cutoff was someone 20+ attracted to someone below the legal age of consent. If I (22 year old) had sex with a 17 year old, then most people would call it pedophillia.
I would say though that I have no hatred towards non offending pedophiles regardless of their age preference. Maybe I'm biased since I don't have any kids and never want them, but so would the people that do have kids. It's weird though just to tell some random person that you are a pedophile.
I'm only into adult women and sometimes adult dudes, but it goes against my morality to marry a guy; so I don't want to do that and I don't believe in premarital sex despite being an atheist, but others should have liberty if they aren't harming anyone else to a significant degree (sex with those under 16 inheritely harms them due to the addictive properties of sex is what I think the federal standard should be, but if states want to lower their Age of Consent (AOC) to 14, then that's fine if the state disagrees with the federal standard).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
If that’s your definition, then fine.
I have always thought it meant something of infinite value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If Trump’s father was still alive, then my claim is still true.
Greta Thumberg’s dad is alive. Anyone that goes after Thumberg is going after someone’s child. But the first amendment allows for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
The adult has transgressed against our civilized norms. If there were no consequences for that, society would quickly devolve into a hellhole.
Whether or not something is normal in society is irrelevant. But how would society devolve into a hellhole?
A 19 year old has less sense that dating a 17 year old is wrong than a 29 year old would.
Maybe, but people that play Russian Roulette have less sense than people that don’t play it. It’s still legal to do Russian Roulette, so lack of sense is irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
40 year old knows better than 25 year old, and 25 year old knows better than 18 year old.So why would age of consent be 18 instead of 25 or 40?
Because there should be a balance between liberty and security. I lean more on the liberty side, so my age of consent is a bit lower than the status quo in the US, but security always has a place at the table.
Also, would you argue that parents who let their kids eat junk food or candies should be arrested?
If it’s 2 Oreos here and there, then I wouldn’t arrest. If the parents fed their kid nothing except 50 Oreos a day, then I would call CPS.
So there is no point at which you can actually consent,
You need a certain amount of life experience (aka age) to consent to life altering things like sex.
So can you force an adult not to touch a hot stove?
No, but I would force a child to not touch a hot stove.
Well, there are some, uh, studies which happen to say circumcision has medical benefits. So why would you argue against infant circumcision if it has benefits?
1. I am skeptical of these studies. I’m not saying they are wrong; I’m just skeptical.
2. If the benefits exist for that particular infant, then I’m open to it. I know there are costs (like less sexual pleasure for the circumsized).
Also, I’m surprised you are getting so many likes when you defend pedophillia. I thought virtually everyone was against legalized pedophillia.
Created:
Posted in:
If you are a straight man who hates Trump, then who would you rather have sex with and start a family with:
- Margerie Taylor Greene
- Bernie Sanders
If you are a 100% straight man who hates Trump, then it doesn't matter how much you hate MTG and like Bernie Sanders, you would rather start a family with Jewish Space Laser MTG than Bernie Sanders.
If you are a straight man who likes/loves Trump, then who would you rather have sex with and start a family with:
- AOC
- Ron DeSantis
Same thing as the prior situation.
Most people aren't as straight as they like to admit.
Created:
Posted in:
A parent does not value anyone's life as priceless, not even their own kids.
If they did, then the parents would never go on vacations, never take time off. They would be willing to work 120 hours a week 7 days a week (about 17 hour days) (if it benefits their kids even slightly).
They value the lives of their kids as valuable, but not priceless.
It's a hard pill to swallow, but it's the truth.
I also don't understand it why parents take it hyper personally if you insult one of their kids even accidentally. People deliberately insult Donald Trump all of the time; it's not like Trump's dad is mad at democrats for hating his son and even going so far as to incarcerate his son.
People insult Hunter Biden all the time; Joe Biden doesn't care. Maybe there needs to be a maximum age for people to actually care; people insult Greta Thumberg when she was a minor; her parents don't care.
Everyone is fair game if society respects the 1st amendment, including other people's kids (which is everyone since we are all somebody's kid).
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Have you donated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If a 25 year old harms himself by eating junk food, thats not different from 10 year old harming himself by eating junk food.
The 10 year old is too naive to understand the long term effects of that eating habit; the 25 year old knows better and as a result, if they want to fuck up their own life, then they can do so.
So again, whats even your premise here?
My premise is the older you get, the more knowledge you have ingrained in you to where you can better make decisions. Like, is it ok for a 10 year old to smoke tobacco? NO!
Why is a 25 year old allowed to harm himself?
Because the 25 year old is responsible for themselves and a 10 year old is not.
which again brings you back to how you cant force benefits on children if forcing benefits without consent is wrong.
It's not a generic benefit as much as it is protection (a specific benefit). You can't force a kid to accept $5, but you can force them to not touch a hot stove even if they want to touch that hot stove.
So if I am an adult and circumcised, but dont want to be and never wanted to be, then circumcision was forced on me as an adult irrelevant of if it happened in adulthood or childhood, as consequences of either affect me as an adult.
I believe it should be illegal to circumcise infants (unless medical reason).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
However, forcing "benefits" on children also forces "benefits" on adults, since children become adults and the "benefits" affect them as adults.
There is a difference between a 25 year old eating 50 Oreos a day for Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner and a 9 year old doing the same. Kids are naive; they don’t know what’s good for them long term. It would be too dangerous to have kids learn about sex Ed at 9. I freaked out when I knew how kids were made when I was 11, and I got a very tough skin. A generic 9 year old would handle it even worse.
So if you think it’s okay to force benefits on adults, then you agree that it is okay to force adults to get circumcised, vaccinated, to wear masks...ect.
The premise is incorrect.
This discussion should be continued in the DMs because otherwise somebody (not me, but somebody) plausibly can report you and you can plausibly get banned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Also, Trump is a christian. Christians do tend to have much more delusions and mental illnesses than the atheists.
Religious views shouldn’t matter for the job.
He seduces masses with words, and masses with IQ under 120 believe him because he is funny.
The people with IQs under 120 are easily manipulated and either will agree or disagree with Trump on virtually everything. My IQ is 142; I view Trump as entertainment, but I’m not willing to vote for him although I try and give credit where it’s due even if it’s from the right wing perspective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
The older the adult, and the younger the minor, the more strict enforcement ought to be. Most people, I think, would call this a common sense approach.
If the issue is children’s consent, then why would the age of the adult matter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So if something benefits a person, that person's consent doesnt matter?
If it’s a young child, then correct. But sex doesn’t benefit 4 year olds; they get addicted pretty quickly (I believe sex is addictive).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Note that even if we lower the age to 13 or something, we'd still have the same hypothetical of Elon and a 14-year old vs a random 35-yr-old and a 13-yr-old.
If the age of consent is 13, then Elon Musk being into a 14 year old wouldn’t be pedophillia.
And you only need to pass a written test to drive with an adult. It's at least a step toward seeing how minors can handle responsibility.
Yeah; I think minors should handle more responsibility. I don’t like coddling kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
I think what most people object to is a perceived power dynamic between a 35-year-old and a 14-year-old.
Consider 2 hypothetical relationships:
1. Elon Musk and a broke 18 year old girl.
2. Broke 20 year old girl and broke 17 year old guy.
The first relationship has a much bigger power imbalance but that is the only relationship where it is legal for it to be sexual.
This is why I don’t like the, “power imbalance” argument.
Create a children's parliament where 14-year-olds can vote for people
This will bring disproportionately more democrat votes; Id rather not (same reason why I don’t want to raise the voting age to 21).
Lower the age at which minors can drive with an adult in the car.
I think you need to be able to pass the driving test to get to drive legally. Virtually no 8 year olds will pass the test, but the few that are able to I think should be allowed to drive.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I don’t have a computer science degree, although if I did, then I would consider it.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
But are you willing to pay to use this site? I’m not and I imagine most current users aren’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
If you actually poll people on whether a 35-year-old should be allowed to have sex with a 15-year-old, the majority answer will be "no" in most Western countries.
The same would be true for a 63 year old and a 19 year old.
If the sole issue is that young people can’t consent, then it wouldn’t matter how old the older person was. If a 13 year old is too young to consent, then that applies equally to sex with the 35 year old and sex with the 14 year old. If a 17 year old can consent, then that applies to sex with the 18 year old as much as the 20 year old.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
If a 35-year-old in France has sex with a 15-year-old, they will be called a pedophile by like 90% of people there.
I don’t think that’s true. I’ve met people in my life who have said the age of consent should be 13 but not lower.
Created:
Posted in:
What is your ideal age of consent? I’m just getting a poll. If Korea doesn’t respond, then it’s understandable because he would get banned if he said his honest answer.
Europe has really low ages of consent and nobody calls it pedophillia, so I think America can largely copy what Europe is doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
That’s hypocrisy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
To say the Harlem guy "likes" that the government feeds them would imply you've never actually interacted with people on government assistance.
Yeah, but my point was the Harlem guy doesn't want welfare eliminated; the Trailer Park guy does.
They may not like being on welfare, but they understand it's purpose and want it fully funded by raising taxes on the globlaists.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There used to be places where men could gather for a purpose. Those are dead now.
As of now, Boy Scout troops are still gender segregated. Hopefully it stays that way. People that would rather be with bears wouldn’t want to go camping with dudes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I made this thread because I am courious as to what the GOP consistently stands for. You are acting like what the left does when they can’t define what a woman consistently is.
The GOP should split up into multiple parties if they have multiple ethoses. Maybe do rank choice voting so you don’t have to worry about democrats winning by a plurality.
But I want parties to be ideologically consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Sure, it’s just that the current trend is for Democrats to emphasize areas of shame as opposed to pride. People on the left tend to like America most for how they are able to change it.
Changing America is not exclusively a left wing thing.
Anyway, your thread title is “What is a Republican?” not “Define a Republican.”
These are synonyms. If I ask you to what is a woman (to you, it’s chromosomes), then it would be the same thing as asking for a definition of a woman.
I have more, too, when you are ready.
You can state them if you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not sure "likes" is the right verb.
Which one of these groups complains about big government while being on welfare supplied only because our government is very big (at least economically)?
Created:
Posted in:
One of them actually likes the government feeding them. The other complains about "big government spending" as they are part of the reason why the government spends so much.
Hypocrites piss me off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Non Republicans have a hard time coming up with examples of things to be proud of.
Here are some things a democrat would be proud of America for:
- America's Pro Choice Majority
- America's President
- America's pro legal weed majority
- America's leftist majority
- America's racial diversity
- America's anti ICE majority
- America's pro LGBT majority
Democrats have their things that they are proud of America for.
You seem very closed off to the answers I provide to your questions.
I wouldn't say closed off; I would say more that if that's your definition, then it's not a good one. Otherwise someone can like Mount Rushmore and be left on every other issue and you would still say that they are a republican.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Well, I guess the ethos I have observed in the GOP as it currently stands is: “Despite its flaws currently and historically, there is much to be proud of in America.”
Like what? Is it:
- America's Pro Choice Majority
- America's President
- America's pro legal weed majority
- America's leftist majority
Because conservatives aren't proud of these aspect of America. Then they say:
Loving the country is different than loving the government
If they really believed this, then why don't they love California? Or NY? Or Chicago? It's because they don't like the government there. If Florida was ran by a leftist, then do you think conservatives would like Florida? No. They like Florida because of the GOP guy that is the governor.
Loving/hating the country = Loving/hating the government in a political context. In a generic electoral college matchup based on the elections from 2000 to 2020, the democrat wins 292 electoral votes. Loving America = Loving Democrat politicians, as it is who America is most likely to elect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Produce actual, real life people’s views
I'm saying those real life people's views are easily manipulated by whatever the GOP happens to say because there is no consistent ethos.
Lets say there is a future issue of whether or not the US should fund Taiwan if they get invaded by China. If the GOP says, "America first" (like they did with Ukraine), then the MAGA base will be against funding Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. If the GOP says, "Taiwan is our ally" (like they did with Israel), then the MAGA base will support us funding Taiwan against Chinese invasion.
I'm America first (and anti war) no matter the conflict because I actually believe stuff. The GOP base will follow whatever Tucker Carlson and Trump tell them to believe.
They are the real people that support the current thing. The left merely tries to reduce unwanted pain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Sorry, I don’t smoke pot.
Neither do I.
Many stoners are MAGA (and they should have the right to smoke weed). When you act high, you often vote for the candidate with a lot of energy (Trump).
But address my argument if you want to debate about it instead of being an SJW about it.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm saying this improvement here so it is more likely to actually happen
What if you had the top 20 most active users instead of top 10?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
They claim to believe in the US legal system, but they want to skip past the indictment, trial, verdict and go straight to the death penalty.
A trial would be implied. I believe in the 5th amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If your preferred punishment is prison, then your tax dollars are taking care of bad people because they are bad people. Spend that money on teachers; they actually deserve it. Not serial killers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Sure, but not republican.
So you might want to go back to the drawing board on the question, "What is a republican?". Keep in mind if you select any singular issue (or even multiple issues in many instances), I can do something similar. If you select all GOP beliefs, then you will get several contradictions.
This is not true for the democrats, they are anti unwanted pain. That, is their moral code whether or not they realize it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
A Republican is one who looks at Mount Rushmore and sees it as a monument to historic leaders who are worthy of respect. A Democrat looks at Mount Rushmore and sees a white supremacist monument built upon stolen land.
So if someone believed Mount Rushmore is a monument to historic leaders who are worthy of respect and is also pro choice until the moment of birth, wants to ban guns, give reparations for African Americans, wants to abolish ICE, wants to have drag queen story hour be an official subject in elementary school, but likes Mount Rushmore, then would you call that person a republican?
Created:
Posted in:
I'm ok with removing confederate history if it means removing black history as well.
Confederate history is enslaving people. FBA (Foundational Black American) history is freeing enslaved people. I know which one I prefer since I believe in a meritocracy and that people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
But the right is the party of sadistic ideology. The left is the party of reducing pain. It's why the riight supports confederate statues being up; slavery brought pain.
Created:
Posted in:
Jan 6 = Treason.
I believe in Law and Order and I support our Law Enforcement (defund the police is retarted).
Anyone that disagrees only supports Law and Order for the left, but Rebel Pride for the right and it's the move of a partisan hack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You don't need to fully solve the problem. You just have to keep the level of it being problematic to one low where one can live sustainably.
That would be solving the problem. If your problem is you are failing a class and you need a 70, solving the problem is having at least a 70; it's not having a 100. Either you have at least a 70 or you don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I mean we can't exactly cure the deadliest form of cancer, still doesn't stop us from wanting to suppress and treat the cancer so that it affects less of daily lives of people rather than killing them.
People argue that with enough funding that you can cure/treat cancer which saves people’s lives. By arguing climate change is unsolvable, you are saying no amount of money thrown at the problem will solve the problem. So why complain about it?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I do try and think about issues before stating them instead of just cheering for a party.
Created: