Total posts: 4,340
Lets say you have a dad and he murders and rapes a bunch of women. Should you be punished for his crimes in any significant way? No! You are not your dad.
Lets say you have a great great grandparent and he enslaves a bunch of blacks. Should you be punished for his crimes in any significant way? No! You are not your ancestor.
But all the pro black people won't change their minds because they have a party to stick too. My mind is free!
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I would say that infant circumcision shouldnt be done even if there is a medical reason, unless medical reason is strong enough and there are no other ways to cure a condition.
There was this person I know who had this condition were erections were very painful for him, almost traumatizing in fact, and his only cure was circumcision. In that case, I think if the infant has a decent chance of having that condition, they should get circumcised (along with people who have a similar exception).
But religious circumcision should only be allowed to be performed on individuals with enough mental capacity to consent, however that is determined.
About smokers. Smokers have terrible habit to smoke in my presence. It isnt enough that they are killing themselves and their brain cells. They are also trying to kill me and my brain cells.
One in Four Americans Support Total Smoking Ban (gallup.com) states the following as of 2018:
1. 24% of Americans support a total ban on smoking (which technically includes people currently addicted to tobacco).
2. 60% of Americans support a total ban on smoking in public places.
Now, what do I think of this? I think smoking tobacco is horrible, I don't smoke it and I think people that smoke it should break their addictions. However, I really don't think it is moral at all to ban tobacco for people who are already addicted to tobacco. I don't know what it's like to be a tobacco addict, so I'm not going to judge someone for not breaking an addiction when I don't know how difficult it is.
Now should people be allowed to smoke in public? If the answer is no, I really don't think it should be a state law that enforces it. Yeah, people who smoke tobacco smell pretty horribly, but so do people that haven't showered in 2 days. The government can't just arrest people for being in public without showering for 2 days; it just seems too nanny state to do that. I guarantee you, there are way more businesses that have signs like, "no smoking allowed" then, "no body odor allowed".
If someone's body odor or tobacco odor really annoys you that much, walk away from them; you don't have to interact with them.
Created:
If you have any disagreement and you want to state it, you are free to do so. I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
College costs rose probably because the government subsidized it less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You took the total cost of policing and courts(alot) and divided it by the prisoners (not many compared to the general population)
In terms of merely corrections cost, it costs about $90 billion/2.2 million prisoners= $41000/prisoner.
It's still way more expensive than welfare.
You could pay for neither and just let the undocumented exist in society while giving them no government benefits even if it means their children starve. Low taxes means some poor people are going to starve, and I'm ok with that. It doesn't matter if they are poor hippies or poor rednecks. I prefer the top 1% to the bottom 1%; the top 1% actually makes society better by innovation.
That is the status quo for San Francisco where massive tent cities are allowed to exist. But police and courts still have to be paid, regardless.
San Fran doesn't go after Fetanyl.
Replacing ICE with FCE goes after the undocumented less and goes after Fetanyl more because if ICE goes into an immigrant heavy neighborhood, they aren't deporting anyone. If FCE does the same thing (and they advertise they are only going after Fetanyl dealers), then they will have an easier time finding people who are bringing in pure Fetanyl and killing unsuspecting children for advertising purposes and behead them in public painkiler free with their blood and organs being donated to save the lives of American Patriots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You included the costs of policing and courts. We already pay for border patrol and ICE and courts,
The $300 billion figure I cited was for all prisoners in the US.
If you only look at the cost of the facilities, they are far cheaper than putting illegals in hotel rooms.
Or you could do neither and have the government have a hands off approach and not deport anybody under any circumstances.
Created:
Posted in:
Trumper: Donald Trump is awesome!
Me: Why?
Trumper: He increased funding for HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities).
Me: So you like the fact that Trump increased government spending?
Trumper: Yes... no... (and then diverges to another topic)
We talked about politics for a while. I could only ask questions because I was at work. I asked him if he was pro free speech, and he said yes, but I still had to moderate myself because I was at work.
Me: I don't think it's fair that elderly people when they were my age got to go to college for $50 a semester and I have to pay $5K a semester.
Trumper: That's because the government spends too much money subsidizing colleges.
Me (after thinking about it; I didn't tell him this at the time): Didn't you just praise Trump for subsidizing HBCUs?
Trump can do pretty much anything and his base would eat it up or be like, "Well, um, I mean ..." and still vote for him anyways (like when Trump said he wants to be a dictator).
Conservatives accuse liberals of wanting to get rid of the constitution (me personally; I don't like the 16th amendment, but other than that, I love the 1st and 2nd amendment, as well as the 5th, 8th, 13-15th, and the 19th (this is not an exhaustive list)). So it's implied that conservatives like the constitution.
A quote from Trump:
So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great "Founders" did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!
And his base will twiddle their thumbs because they don't have a good response (but they will vote for him anyways).
Trump can literally advocate nuking Manhattan and San Fransisco and Chicago to destroy the woke left and his base wouldn't be upset enough to vote against him for it; to them, it helps the right win elections. However, if Trump said we should legalize abortion, even though aborted babies (if born) would be more likely to be non-white, poor, entirely gen alpha (which I can assume will be more left wing than Gen Z), and future democrat voters in 18 years, the MAGA base would get angry at him for wanting to legalize what they believe is murder.
Legalizing abortions to prevent more democrat voters from being born? No; it's murder regardless of political ideology.
Actually NUKING left wing strongholds? Hell Yeah! Owning the LIBS!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The United States spends nearly $300 billion annually to police communities and incarcerate 2.2 million people
This is over $135,000 per prisoner per year.
No person in this country gets $135K a year as a welfare payment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
So just do rank choice voting then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
Comparing circumcision to trans ideology and pedophilia is an apple to oranges argument.
How? It sounds like you are party cheering.
Ban genital mutilation of young people, whether gender surgeries or circumcision (medical exceptions are fine if they can be proven).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
except, it's fair to remember that those murderers are US citizens and there are rights that we say should go along with being a US citizen.
Which particular rights? The right to vote? There are some American Citizen adults that I think are too stupid to vote. I'll show you what I mean:
I had to vacation in the Ozarks. There I meet a woman from Arkansas. I tell her to guess what state I'm from based on my accent (I'm from CT, but she doesn't know that yet). Her 1st guess is Massachusetts. I tell her I'm from a state that borders Massachusetts.
Her next guess is Michigan.
I know she is an adult American Citizen and I don't know what party she more strongly affiliates with. It doesn't matter. That person is too stupid to be allowed to vote I think.
If she guessed Maine, that would be fair (Maine doesn't border Massachusetts, but it would be close). She guesses fucking Michigan.
I think everyone should be able to pass the citizenship test to vote whether immigrant or Citizen.
if anything though, if we wanna be more consistent, it shouldn't be treating illegal immigrants better... it should be treating murderers worse.
This approach I agree with. Murderers should get death; harmless undocumented immigrants shouldn't have their liberties treaded on by the state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So jail all illegal migrants and provide them with "jail welfare?"I am OK with that. It's a lot cheaper than the current system.
It won't be cheaper and that's free housing, healthcare, and food, all paid for by the taxpayer. Libertarians are against this.
Created:
Posted in:
Me: Should undocumented immigrants who don't murder get government paid for healthcare?
LP: NO! THAT IS BIG GOVERNMENT SOCIALISM!
Me: Should American Citizens who do murder get government paid for healthcare?
LP: Yes. The State should take care of all prisoners in jail at the taxpayer's expense because we believe the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.
Me: How about lets treat undocumented immigrants who don't murder better than American Citizens that do murder. I'm anti UHC and pro death penalty.
U=Undocumented immigrants getting government paid for healthcare.
M=Murderers getting government paid for healthcare.
\cap=Intersection
^C=Opposite
All of the following combinations make sense of who gets government paid for healthcare even if I don't personally agree with it:
1. U \cap M
2. U \cap M^C
3. U^C \cap M^C
My ideal is bolded.
This option does not (but it's the status quo of our country):
U^C \cap M
It's what the libertarians back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Honestly, I think the biggest difference is intent. One is a malicious intent to cause harm. The other is a good intent to bring holiness.
There are 2 possibilities; the kid grows up to be religious in a religion where circumcision is required, or not. If the first, then the kid gets circumcised when they are an adult; they endure pain, but God rewards them for it. If it's the 2nd, then they wouldn't get circumcised and would enjoy sex more.
Only consenting adults should get circumcised unless good evidence that a medical reason would be necessary.
Well... the false equivalency of fucking someone in the ass and removing a piece of flesh that causes a higher chance of contracting an STD and also rotting your penis aside...
Where is the evidence for this? I would rather get raped (assuming no STI) than lose a piece of flesh if that piece of flesh is my dick when I am 18. I'll recover from the rape; but I won't recover from losing my manhood.
Created:
Posted in:
Me: Can children consent?
Society: NO!!!
Me: So why is circumcision of babies a thing (or as I like to call it; chopping off penis foreskin)? The kids can't consent to that.
Society: Because the kid won't remember it (or parental rights).
Me: So your saying it's okay for a parent to have the right to have sex with their baby boy if the baby boy won't remember it?
Society: NO!!! Children can't consent as BABIES!!
Me: You need to pick one argument.
Either pick:
1. "Babies can't consent to (sex, genital mutilation)" so this would mean you advocate for keeping it illegal to having sex with babies AND you would want it to be illegal to do ANY form of genital mutilation on those who are too young to consent (whether you call this genital mutilation a gender surgery or cutting off dick foreskin). This means that religious officials and doctors who do dick foreskin chopping off get prosecuted by the police and tried the same as someone for raping a baby (so I would do the death penalty for that). It also means ANYONE that has cut the foreskin off of babies before the baby is a consenting adult is a groomer and would face the same penalty as child rape (which SHOULD mean death) if they do it beyond a legally established date. People that chop baby foreskin off before the date wouldn't be facing punishment, but people who do that after the date (a date I would want to make pretty soon) would be put to death for doing something as bad to a baby as raping them while they are a baby.
Or pick:
2. "The baby won't remember it and parental rights". So this means circumcision (and gender surgeries) are allowed to do on a baby that can't even consent yet because of parental rights, AND that it would be okay to have sex with your newborn on the grounds that they won't remember it.
I pick #1
If your religion tells you to do something as bad to a baby as raping them, you need to find a different religion. It doesn't matter if this religion is Christianity, Judaism, or Transgenderism.
LEAVE THE BABIES ALONE!!!
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The idea of being a governor is to serve the needs of your residents, not to encourage them to leave.
If he wants democrats to easily win many battleground states, it makes sense for him to do this.
I prefer to just be on the right side of an issue.
I do as well (assuming you mean correct and not right wing when you said right), but that means being a little edgy. Like my state banned polygamy and I'm like, "What if we legalized it in the name of freedom?"
I wouldn't be as contrarian as to defend the KKK or Nazis, but you know, "What if we did this, what if we did that?"
It's because of that that I like conspiracy theorists. They challenge authority and you need people like that.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
And it would be coordinated by Newsom.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Sure bud.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Nobody serious would advocate for abolishing the electoral college.
Why? The electoral college is Affirmative action for states that couldn't attract a lot of people to them.
The United States created a system meant to get equal representation and making the voted of rural America not count wouldn't accomplish that.
The rural vote still counts; 19% of Americans live in rural areas (29% live in urban areas). The majority lives in the suburbs, which are persuadable.
The primaries help with representation a bit because then democrats in red areas and Republicans in blue areas can make sure the presidential candidate they help get elected will have their interests in mind
The primaries make politicians initially appeal only to their base if they want to win. Realistically, the person that spends the most amount on the primary almost always wins due to name recognition. But primaries shouldn't exist because they only give voters 2 options; voters should have many options, all listed on a website stating the candidate's main policies that they would want if they got elected, and rank choice voting is used if no candidate gets 50%.
but electing a presidential candidate that can literally only tour big cities and ignore the needs of rural areas isn't going to be fair.
Democrats AND republicans pretty much only tour big and small cities (defined as at least 20,000 people); that's where most of the people are; people from rural areas that want to go to a rally can go anytime they want. And due to television, rural Americans can see what politicians advocate for and either like it or don't. They can send an email to a politician's campaign. If Trump wanted to make rural America better, he would do town halls, where voters ask him a question and he responds honestly. He does rallies (and I don't have an issue with this) and he could advocate a lot of things and his base loves him so much to where they would eat it up. Trump could say something like, "Don't get me started on Woke Big Tech. Woke Big Tech has too much power over our free speech; they are too big! Tax woke big Tech and these globalist Silicon Valley oligarchs and use the money to fund healthcare for the American Patriots! Copy ISRAEL; fund healthcare for American Patriots and COPY then on abortion; we are with the beloved nation of ISRAEL on abortion!" and his base would eat it up (even though he advocated for Universal healthcare and legalized abortion). If Bernie Sanders does the same thing, the GOP hates him for it. If Trump does it, they all love him, provided he uses right wing ethos already established to make his point and the base eats it up not realizing they agreed with Bernie Sanders (who IS Jewish, just like Israel is). Israel compared to Palestine is a very leftist country on LGBT, abortion, and Medicare for all. When the right gave up on the homosexuality debate temporarily, they praised Israel for being pro LGBT and not Palestine/Arabs. If the right wing matrix wanted to concede the abortion debate as well, they could point to how ISRAEL is leading the way on western values/leftist values in the middle east by legalizing abortion; the matrix could promote women that got abortions that are big supporters of Israel and western civilization and "building the wall" and even though the GOP believes they committed murder right now, they would eat that coverage up. They don't even have to regret their abortion; Arielle Scarcella isn't ashamed to be lesbian; she wears that on her sleeve and she touts other right wing talking points that make the GOP base not care that she is a lesbian (even though 10 years ago, they were claiming LGBT people were going to hell). If you say your one left wing thing and a bunch of right wing things and you look good while doing it, the right doesn't care because they don't have principles; they just follow the vibes.
Besides that there are pragmatic challenges in close elections as well. A close election nationwide would require a ridiculous nationwide recount, while an electoral system can limit the recounts and other nightmares to an isolated area.
Recounts are easy to do; machines do them.
If republicans ever support a popular vote than they are either evil or stupid
Is it just because you want the GOP to win elections? What party benefits SHOULDN'T MATTER!
If there are no primaries and it's just one general election of 20 or so candidates with their top stances on a government website, it would be virtually impossible to win without appealing to people who aren't your #1, #2, or even #3 voters. We may get someone like Rand Paul or Andrew Yang instead of Trump or Biden.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And that will then be the end of the Republic of States, as America would also eventually abolish the Senate for the same exact reasons for abolishing the electoral college.
I think the senate should be proportional to population as well; it is already proportional to population in all of the states; it's not like every county within a state has exactly the same amount of senators.
California has expressed a desire to balkanize for decades.
California, Maricopa County, and Los Angelos County should all balkanize.
California should split up into the state of Silicon (North of the 36 parallel) and the state of Holly (short for Hollywood, which would be the rest of the state). They are just different areas and they both have a population comparable to NY state EACH. I think South New England (CT, MA, RI) should merge to be the state of New England. They are too small I think by land area and their combined population is about half that of NY state.
I'm glad we agree on that.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
So then encouraging them to leave California and turn other states blue.
I like being an ideological minority in my state; it makes me feel edgy as hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Hence, my point about Christianity being perverted and used as a veneer.
Alright; so you don't like Christianity.
Without any sexual contact.
The main reasons why women don't consent to sex is the fear of pregnancy and STIs.
A little more than a century ago, the age of consent in the United States--throughout most states--was 12.
So then it shouldn't have gotten raised if it meant God would be a child rapist by the new definition. The people then should have either denounced Christainiy because then God would be a child rapist or kept the age of consent 12 so God is not a child rapist.
No one else is responsible for one's own drunken decisions. Unless one is under duress, or is being coerced, one is responsible for one's own decisions, inebriated or not; legal or not.
I've never been drunk, but if all the people who have been drunk argue that drunk people can't consent to sex, I got to believe them.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
How exactly can a Governor “send” american citizens to other states?
With their consent.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
People are leaving California in droves because of all the scoundrels, the high price of homes and because it is just too hot. They are going to parts of the country with good policies such as Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada
The only Californians who think Texas, Oklahoma, and Nevada have good policies are right wing and libertarian Californians.
I'm talking about Gavin Newsom turning battleground states and states with small populations blue by sending hardcore blue California voters to these states.
In his interests, why doesn't he do that? Then the GOP would have to advocate for abolishing the electoral college; because the person with the most votes should win no matter where those voters are located.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
After all, a murderer might have lived an impeccable life except for one minor moment of rage. Why would that make them extraordinary?
I was using the term, "ordinary" as just normal, not in contrast to "extraordinary". Murderers are horrible people that should face the death penalty. Burning them in hell FOREVER is against the 8th amendment (and the constitution is much better than the bible as a source of legal morality).
Rebellion is an ACT of Treason.
You speeding 1 mph above the speed limit is rebellion. I'm pretty sure the state shouldn't put you to death for it.
Would you care to articulate what you mean by those who worship God are bootlickers in this scenario?
Bootlicking means that they love a god who burns normal people in hell (not just murderers and rapists, but normal people).
To love such a God is to love Kim Jun Un willingly; it's bootlicking.
You suggested in the previous answer that people like murderers and rapists ought to be burnt in hell
Temporarily; but not permanently.
Created:
Gavin Newsom can in theory send blue voters from California into battleground states for the pourpose of turning them blue while still giving California be fairly blue (because it is one of the bluest and the biggest state in the country). These people would be American Citizens, so they can’t be sent back to California. There are probably some hardcore blue California voters that would be happy to move to battleground states to turn them blue in exchange for financial compensation. Move them to slightly red districts to turn them blue.
Every red state either doesn’t have a lot of people (North Dakota, Wyoming) or is not very red (Texas, Florida) and if they aren’t too red, then sending red voters into states to make them redder would possibly cause their state to turn blue. California and NY don’t have this problem.
Newsom runs for POTUS and the left base gives him credit for it.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
“While running hard to the right on issues such as vaccines and by using violent rhetoric, he has clearly and unambiguously alienated middle-of-the-road voters.“
I would like to know how the Washington Post defines a middle of the road voter. Surely they must have a different definition for a middle of the road voter than a democrat voter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
America was founded by Witches and Wizards, a.k.a. Free Masons. Christianity is just being perverted and used as a cover.
That’s not accurate. Christainity wouldn’t be nearly as common here.
Again, substantiate that God is a pedophile.
He impregnated a girl that in the modern day is underage. Change the definition for the age of consent to 13, and God is no longer legally a pedophille.
But unless forcibly inebriated, the responsibility for drunken decisions befalls those who choose to get drunk.
So if you choose to get drunk and agree to sex when your drunk, you would want that to be legal?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
What is ordinary? And why should God make a determination to burn people in Hell on the delineation of ordinary?
In this context, ordinary is anybody who is not a murderer, rapist, or similar.
I could say - God burns sinners in Hell or God does not burn sinners in Hell.If the first is true, then we are all in trouble except Jesus.If the second is true, then who does God burn in hell?
If the first is true, then people who willingly worship God are bootlickers. If the 2nd is true, then worshipping God won’t save you from hell, so what’s the point?
Created:
There are 2 possibilities: God burns ordinary people in hell for God does not burn ordinary people in hell.
If the 1st is true, then Christains are bootlickers for worshipping a God that enacts cruel and unusual punishment, and I worship tyrants; the constitution is a better source of legal ideology than the bible and all constitutional conservatives agree with this.
If the 2nd is true, I don't have to worship him because I'm not going to hell if I don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
"Sarah was childless until she was 90 years old. God promised Abraham that she would be “a mother of nations” (Genesis 17:16) and that she would conceive and bear a son, but Sarah did not believe. Isaac, born to Sarah and Abraham in their old age, was the fulfillment of God’s promise to them."Does such mean that God had sex with Sarah?I wouldn't say so myself.
I thought Abraham had sex with Sarah in that story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I know. But that isn't necessarily because of Christians. I would state that it's more a coalition of different political factions which included so-called Christian denominations (namely Roman Catholic women.)
If America was founded by atheists and our age of consent was 16, it wouldn't be hypocrisy. But since our country was founded by Christians and our age of consent is higher, it is hypocrisy because those Christians worship a pedophille.
She accepted because she was a child of Israel.
Israel never reproduced. It is a piece of land.
Jesus is a descendant of David, as were both his parents Joseph and Mary, and his siblings.
What's the relevance? Jesus is descended from a rape victim.
Substantiate that God has a sexual attraction and/or has had sexual contact with children ages under 11. Note Mary's age isn't explicitly mentioned.
claims her age was 12 to 14.
Pro-pedophilia individuals tend to be more versed or educated in what?
Their idea that the age of consent should be reduced. The more anti status quo and the more despised your position is by most of society, the more the people who have those views have to think about those views. It's why a Trump supporter in Manhattan can come up with better arguments for Trump than a Trump supporter in Alabama; they've thought of those views more throughout their lives.
Your position is that children can't consent (I would assume), which was one of my options.
That's not my position at all
So then if you think children can consent, what about drunk people? Can they consent?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The above conception is capable of matching most of the majority's moral conclusions without the contradictions introduced by trying to stretch and tear the concept of consent and rape till they fit.
This is assuming the government knows the majority consensus. I don't think they did a poll among their voters that asked them:
Check off all the following that you think are too young to consent:
Under 13 years old
13 years old
14 years old
15 years old16 years old
17 years old
18 years old
19 years old
20 years old
21 years old
And some places disagree on the age of consent (even ideologically similar places). In NY, the age of consent is 18; in CT, it's 16. They both vote blue by comparable margins, but their age of consent is about as different as you can be by the standards of the US. Do we let the whole country decide the age of consent, the individual states, the individual counties, the voting districts (which change in area with time because people move), the precincts, the individual people (which would basically mean there would be no age of consent because if even one person says it's okay to have sex with 8 year olds, everyone else is banned from doing it if they vote for a higher age, but the person who voted for no age of consent would be allowed to do that even if they personally wouldn't have sex with an 8 year old, but they were fine with other people doing it). If you let precincts decide, all the pedophiles could move to some random location in the US and have those precincts have no age of consent; they could do the same thing for a county with small amounts of people; it's harder to do that for a district, state, or nation because you would need about 700,000 pedophiles to settle all with each other in the same voting district or county so they could make their age of consent for their county 0.
But people disagree on the age of consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
They don't have to be Christian. The disparate ages of consent among states would indicate that.
Every state in the US has an age of consent at least 16.
God didn't have sex with Mary. Which Bible/Torah/Qu'ran have you read?
He got her pregnant, and the fear of pregnancy is why women tend to not be as sex positive as men are.
I mean, pedophilia or atheism, you decide bud.Are those really the only options?
I guess non Christianity theism is an option. But I don't see how someone can be against pedophilia and worship a pedophile.
A flat earther can make better arguments justifying a flat earth than a random person that thinks the earth is spherical because the flat earther thought about their position way more. I believe the earth is spherical, but I don't think I could win a debate with a flat earther on the earth's shape because they've thought their position on this issue through much more than I could. The same thing would apply for pro pedophilia people vs your typical anti pedophilia person.What?!
Flat earthers thought more about the shape of the earth than regular people did; so flat earthers would make better arguments, even if those arguments are wrong.
I suppose that the position maintains that the "diminished reasoning" as a result of inebriation nullifies valid consent. Of course, this is indeed hypocritical when one can easily put forth that children have "diminished reasoning" as a result of their physical and emotional immaturity. Just to point out: I maintain neither.
Your position is that children can't consent (I would assume), which was one of my options.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Sophistry is no reason to allow another dumbass to win a debate that is so patently obviously WRONG!!!!
I think flat earthers are wrong about earth's shape. But, they know my arguments better than I know theirs, and earth's shape isn't really a topic I'm interested in studying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
In some countries, age of consent is 13 or 14.
This may be true, but in America, most Christains don't want to lower the age of consent to 13 (so they believe violating this is child rape). So by their standards, they worship a child rapist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Maybe many Christians don't think Mary was 13 when she conceived.
Where is their evidence for this? https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=41&q=how+old+was+mary+when+she+had+jesus&cvid=826b920eb0b94701b5355e49c1e42160&aqs=edge.0.0l9j69i11004.3229j0j1&FORM=ANNAB1&PC=DCTS claims it's 12 to 14.
Maybe many Christians don't think God had 'sex with Mary.
Well, Christians believe Mary was impregnated by God, and a big reason why women are less likely to consent to sex is they are worried about pregnancy (which is why when the man has a vasectomy or the woman gets her tubes tied or uterus removed, the woman is way more likely to be sex positive scientifically speaking). But honestly, it's pretty good at least women are gatekeepers to sex; if there were no gatekeepers to sex, it would mean there would be either (so many kids made out of wedlock (or abortions, neither of which is good)) and virtually every person would have so many STIs in their body.
Created:
Posted in:
On one hand, most Americans are hypocrites on the age of consent (if they are Christain).
Christain Americans: 13 YEAR OLDS CAN'T CONSENT!!
Me: Don't you worship a God that had sex with a 13 year old girl (Mary)? I mean, pedophilia or atheism, you decide bud.
But also if young people are allowed to legally consent to sex (Korea was the first person I met that defended pedophillia, so it's a new view to me and I kinda have to play Devils Advocate because when virtually everybody agrees with you, you don't come up with as good of arguments as someone that is in the ideological minority because the ideological minority thinks about the majority's positions way more than the other way around). A flat earther can make better arguments justifying a flat earth than a random person that thinks the earth is spherical because the flat earther thought about their position way more. I believe the earth is spherical, but I don't think I could win a debate with a flat earther on the earth's shape because they've thought their position on this issue through much more than I could. The same thing would apply for pro pedophilia people vs your typical anti pedophilia person.
Korea's argument: Children can consent.
Me response: What about drunk people? Can they consent?
His response: No; drunk people might regret the sex they have.
I don't think this is a good response. If sober adults consent to have sex and enjoy it the full time, but the woman regrets it an hour later (lets say she was a virgin and her hymen broke, so she regrets it an hour later), the man is not a rapist. If the woman gets an unintended pregnancy, she regrets that sex. But if a drunk person regrets sex 5 hours later, it's viewed as rape done by the sober party. So I don't think the fear of sexual regret is a good enough reason to charge someone with rape.
So either drunk people can consent (not Korea's position if I understand it correctly) or children can't consent (not Korea's position if I understand it correctly), or there is some other reason why drunk people can't consent but children can with Korea's logic.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
When was this book made? If it was made any time after 2005, there would probably be a video about it. Especially since we live in a digitalized world. Pretty much everyone was against gay marriage until the internet, and exposure to gay people was more prevalent.
If Nick Fuentes can get big enough for people to at least know who he is and what he stood for, the same can be said I think for pro pedophillia organizations.
If children actually got harmed by their adult lovers getting prosecuted, then I don’t think pedophillia would be illegal.
But the child YOU had sex with (if you did; I don’t know if you did this. I don’t think non offending pedophilles are currently prosecuted) , probably was significantly harmed. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have reported you to the police.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, do you agree that age of consent should be 14?
I think every county should make their own age of consent laws. It’s better to let local authorities decide what counts as legal to consent and what counts as too young to consent.
Also, have you read The Trauma Myth?
No. I should read a lot more, but it’s tough since it takes a lot of time. Some people perfer books. I perfer articles.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If child likes being with an adult and never regrets it, should that adult be punished?
In the extremely rare event that the child never regrets it, the adult should not be punished. However, these situations are extremely rare and if the child NEVER regrets it, they aren’t going to court over it. It’s like speeding (kind of). Don’t let officers know what you’re doing by getting into a car crash and you could break the law and get away with it. A therapist I talked to argued 8 year olds would NEVER consent to sex. He’s the medical expert; he knows better than most would.
If we look at example of Afghanistan where child marriages are common, but also where marriage is valued, we see that Afghanistan has lower amount of STI, STD, lower amount of divorce and lower amount of suicides than USA.
They also have a much more religious society than the US where divorce and sex outside of marriage is less accepted than it is here. I even think it’s illegal and you get whipped for it. We should not be copying Afghanistan.
Marriage would likely not end in divorce. There is an attachment that grows over time between an adult and a child. It doesnt stop when child becomes adult.
If this was the case, then the adult would ALSO have an attraction to adults. Usually, the age range people are attracted to is close to their age. You see old men with old women and young men with young women. It’s very rare for old men to be with young women or vice versa. This is because as a man ages, the women he’s attracted too age at a similar rate.
If the adult is kind and friendly to the child and doesnt force a child to anything, then child will like that adult.
If an adult wants to hang out with a kid he’s not related to, it is what it is. However, I think less than .1% of 8 year olds like giving head to adult men.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is absolutely possible to believe both on personal property and bodily autonomy.
Oh, ABSOLUTELY! But the issue is when FA and BA are competing for prevalence, which one prevails.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You need that 3rd variable in there to kinda see which value outweighs the other value in a certain context. People with the abortion debate can (without biting the bullet) believe RTL>BA or BA>RTL. You need FA in there to see what prevails.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Statistically, 90% of adult-child relationships dont include any pain, threats or violence.
I don’t think the figure is that high. I would need reliable evidence to change my mind on this.
True. However, children usually get sexual urges at age 12-14.
This would be an argument to make the age of consent 12-14, not 3.
I believe legally allowing children to marry would be beneficial.The best way to prevent STI is marriage. Children cannot be protected from sex, since some of them actively seek sex.However, they can be educated, guided and being allowed to marry.
There are 2 scanareaos with how someone can be attracted to children. They are attracted to:
1) Adults and children virtually equally. If this is the case, these people would just be with an adult to not get prosecuted.
2) Be significantly more attracted to children than adults. If this is the case, when that child grows up to be an adult, a divorce is inevitable, making the marriage not permanent, leading to the body count of the child skyrocketing after marriage.
There are monsters among straight people. There are monsters among gay people. There are monsters among MAP. There is no denying that.
The monsters among adult to adult make up a very small proportion of all sex they endure (monster being defined strictly as rapist/murderer or similar). The monster rate among pedophilles is virtually all cases.
About 15% of MAP are children and teenagers who feel pressure because of society's judgment.
I don’t think the figure is that high. If a 13 year old says they have a crush on a 12 year old, nobody cares. But if they have sex and there is a pregnancy, that’s going to create either a child giving birth or causing an unborn child to die. Even a 21 year old can find a 10 year old attractive legally. But if they rape the 10 year old, there should be legal prosecution.
There are plenty of stories about children loving their adult partner. However, those stories dont make it to the mainstream media.
They would I think if there was a court case over it. Every convict gets due process. If the child was screaming to not prosecute their adult mate, not all of society would be against pedophillia.
Autonomy is not just about person's current choices, but also about his future choices. So if we know that a person will regret something, then better not do that.
This same argument can be used to ban adult sex with minors.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The abortion debate/discussion regarding the “right to life” has nothing to do with ‘fiscal autonomy.’
With abortion, some people prioritize RTL > BA and some people do BA > RTL. But you need a 3rd value in there (FA) to see where some values fall relative to FA and then use the transitivity property to figure out if RTL>BA or vice versa.
That is FACTUAL analysis.
Factual analysis = positive analysis. But I’m more concerned with what SHOULD be. That’s the point of debating policy; to figure out what SHOULD be.
I don’t care what pro lifers argue because it’s entirely based in emotional outrage and zero logical/rationality
An article from the CDC states that 96% of biologists believe a zygote is a human being. So from that angle, climate change is real and a zygote is a human being; the consistent pro science position.
There are emotional and logical pro choicers and pro lifers. I try to be logical and emotional free no matter what side I take.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Taxation is not theft. They're categorically different things.
It’s legalized theft.
No, RTL is specifically about abortion. The only thing it stands against is BA.FA is an entirely sperate issue.
It’s not.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It includes stories about children who liked being in relationships with adults.
The children and their adult partners would have brought their case to court if that was the case. You could assemble a group of 100 pedos and their kids to make a court more likely to rule in their favor. But it hasn’t happened yet, so I’m going to assume that kids don’t enjoy being in relationships with adults.
Statistically, 90% of adult-child relationships dont include any pain, threats or violence.
I don’t think this is accurate. There are so many traumatized children who get raped at the southern border.
However, children usually get sexual urges at age 12-14.
This is an argument to make the age of consent 12, not 0. Some Mexican states have the age of consent at 12. But America views things differently.
If you want to be strategic, the pedophilles and their children partners could collectively move to the Baja Californian states and Sonora where their relationships are legal, create an anglophone majority population in these states, and join the US under the condition that the US let’s them have an age of consent really low; that’s what happened with Wyoming with letting women vote (when the US was against it). Or if that doesn’t happen, Mexico becomes more bilingual (which can help Mexico be more influenced by America.). Pedophilles from the world would move to this area (kinda like Israel). English would be the de facto language of the area (the original founders of the nation would be anglophones) and this would either mean the area would break away from Mexico (it may or may not join the USA) or it would cause more Mexicans to learn English, making them easier for America to influence and maybe even annex.
The best way to prevent STI is marriage.
If you’re a pedophille, you are pretty much only attracted to children (if you were also attracted to adults, you wouldn’t make a big fuss and just date adults). That means when these 12 year old kids become adults (or even not their age type anymore), a divorce is inevitable.
There are monsters in every group. There are monsters among straight people. There are monsters among gay people. There are monsters among MAP. There is no denying that.
Yeah, but I think at age 7, no kid is going to consent to what happened to me.
MAP is name to decrease stigma. About 15% of MAP are children and teenagers who feel pressure because of society's judgment.
I consider pedophille to be a neutral term. Groomer and sex abuser are negative. The term MAP tries to promote adult children relationships. Pedo is short for pedophille.
However, those stories dont make it to the mainstream media.
They would. If random homicides make mainstream media, then a story of a child who was in a relationship with an adult and is traumatized because their lover got killed would also make the news.
So if we know that a person will regret something, then better not do that.
What if the child regrets sex with an adult?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You are yet again trying to bootstrap the ‘right to theft’ as inherent to the right to fiscal autonomy. These are entirely separate things.
If the right to fiscal autonomy was absolute, then there would be no legal theft, not even from the government (taxation). The right to fiscal autonomy is not absolute, so there is taxation that people are fine with. Taxation is (sometimes) justified theft because the right to fiscal autonomy is not absolute.
The right to bodily autonomy is about choices, not ability.
Like the choice to whether or not to do crack, even if others have to sacrifice as a result of it (theft to maintain a drug addiction). If a zygote was not a human being and nobody believed a zygote was a human being, you would be allowed to abort at least zygotes. If you want to not exercise because of bodily autonomy(BA), nobody else is being harmed from that, so nobody is going to force you to exercise. The issue is when BA comes into conflict with other rights (Right to life (RTL) and Fiscal Autonomy (FA)).
First of all, the right to life is specifically about abortion. Medicare, food stamps, etc. is a completely different issue.
The RTL just means that you have the right to be alive. With abortion, it’s RTL vs BA. With social programs that cost money, it’s RTL vs FA.
Second, I’m not a socialist.
YOU’VE changed!
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that most who adopt an unchanging political label do it for reasons other than policy. That is to say that they will always vote for the label irrespective of the policy.
Bruh, it’s only POLICY that should matter when selecting politicians.
Created: