Jump to content

bad_teammate

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    20319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by bad_teammate

  1. 26 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

    No more bullshit than what you keep posting. 'Mr. I have semi-automatic rifles, but don't want anyone else to have them'. 

    I am happy to follow all of the laws I advocate.

  2. 14 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

    How the fuck do you draw that conclusion from "16-18: 4 year age gap"?

    He doesn't genuinely believe that, he's just angry and trying to throw shit into the air.

    25 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    You're amazing you should work for Trump.  Crow about answering questions while not answering the questions.  So me answering 15 because that's when I had sex was arbitrary and not answering the question, but you saying "I'd do it like Canada" is somehow answering questions (plural) below and not at all arbitrary? Also, I find it disturbing that under your rules, a 17 year old could fuck a toddler.  That's sick bro.

    I apologize for leaving you with the impression that I think it should be legally allowed for a 17-year-old to fuck a toddler. I do not think an honest person would get that impression, but my lack of specificity allowed you an in for obfuscation and that is my fault.

    18+: free-for-all
    16-18: 4 year age gap
    <16: no sex with 18+, 2-year age gap
    <14: no sex with anyone at all for any reason

    Nowhere did I state that Canada's laws were a sufficient cause to justify my view, I merely pointed to Canada as an existing set that looks similar to what I would find morally conscionable ("Roughly like Canada's.")

    That is extremely different from your stated rationale ("That said, I was 15 the first time, so I guess I'll go with 15.") You're being characteristically dishonest.

    My views on age of consent have entirely to do with power dynamics and how there are categories of people, either for biological or sociological reasons, that are power inequal to many others and cannot enter into consensual agreements or fair contracts. There are categories of people who, either for biological or sociological reasons, need the protection of the collective via popular act or legislation or other government intervention.

    Quote

    Yes, a legislative process ingrained in the constitution. If you have a point, make it.

    Your disdain for the use of legislative processes seems to be inconsistent at best.

    Quote

    Do you know what the phrase "more effective" means?  What I did say is the I think congress should stick to Section 8 of Article 1 when making laws.  And low and behold, there's a duty outlined in there that could have been used against the slave states...

    " To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes "

    Here's a crazy idea...how about ban the interstate commerce and exportation of slave made goods.  Think that would have gotten their attention?

    A Libertarian arguing for an extremely broad interpretation of Congress's power with regard to the Commerce Clause. That's amazing.

  3. Quote

    So answer your own question.  What you do you think the age of consent should be and why?  Do you know how many different age of consent laws we have in the US alone?  Which is the right one?  Why?

    18+: free-for-all
    16-18: 4 year age gap
    <16: no sex with 18+

    Roughly like Canada's.

    You see, this is how intellectually honest people work: They answer questions when asked. I'm open to discussion, of course.

    Can you answer? Why do you run in chicken-without-a-head circles when asked basic questions?

    I'm going to ask these two questions again, but I'll modify them slightly to make them less vexatious for you:

    How do you feel about the idea of a state deciding to eliminate an age of consent law and allow sex and/or marriage between a 50-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl? In a larger sense, absent the existence of the current U.S. Constitution, should it be allowed?

    How do you feel about the idea of a 16-year-old black boy in the ghetto deciding to sell himself into slavery to a suburban white family in a signed contract? In a larger sense, absent the existence of the current U.S. Constitution, should it be allowed?

    Quote

    Did we just go through a worm hole or something?  I'm pretty sure you've answered your own question.  We needed an amendment to the constitution because under the original constitution slavery was legal...the Dred Scott out front should have told ya. 

    Another fun fact, did you know women can vote now too?  Yep, totally unconstitutional not to let women vote...which is weird because under the original they couldn't.  You see, Johnny, that's why the framers included rules to amend the constitution

    Do you know how the 13th Amendment came about? Congress. Through the legislative process.

    I remember when a guy called "DixonHur" said:
    The entirety of my argument can be summed up in the idea that the combination of societal, judicial, and economic pressure is a more effective means of effecting civil change, then legislation.

    You might have heard of him.
     

  4. 1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

    A lot of truth bombs.  

    If by "truth bombs" you mean "mostly a bunch of blustering bullshit", sure.

    Around a minute in, our very large friends sets up the premise of his argument with some very dumb statements:

    - No one wants to put the blame on the shooters
    - Everyone wants to blame me
    (I'm assuming he doesn't mean himself personally, but the general idea of the law-abiding citizen which he, of course, feels that he typifies)

    Both of those statements are ridiculous and have no connection to reality.

    - You want to turn around and restrict my rights.

    OK this is true. But that's not a "punishment" so it doesn't fit with your setup. You're whining. One half of a LEGIT tag.

    - We're the first ones taxed.

    Yeah, that's how taxes work. This gets a LEGIT tag.

    - And the last ones considered.

    What?

    - And the first ones punished when things like this happen?

    What? People talking about relatively minor gun control matters that wouldn't impact you at all is a punishment? Just how fucking fragile are you, big man?

    - Because our rights are the ones being taken away.

    Which ones? What? If we agree on gun control legislation, it applies to everyone equally. What special group is being "punished" here?

    - I'll turn my guns in.

    No one is asking you to. I cannot think of a single person who is saying you should have to. Sir, what are you talking about?

    - The Crips and Bloods won't turn their guns in.

    True. Very true. I give this a LEGIT tag.

    - We demonize, criminalize, and villify the police.

    No we don't, what the hell are you talking about?

    - And we make the criminals into victims.

    What the fuck are you talking about?

    - An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon.

    Sir, what the fuck are you talking about?

    - It's a .22, you'd get killed in 15 minutes.

    lol wut?

    - We need to drop all this division.

    Weren't you just ranting about the loonies in the left? OK bud.

  5. 25 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Project much?  You asked, and are still asking, about age of consent LAWS not about my feelings toward what the age of consent should be.  I'm not a pedophile, nor do I have kids, so I don't spend much time thinking about how old someone should be before having sex. 

    That said, I was 15 the first time, so I guess I'll go with 15. 

    What the fuck kind of logic is this?

    I swear to Christ, Libertarians are literally the most useless branch of the political thought tree in all of fucking existence. 

    "Uhh, facts don't care about your feelings!" - "Uhhh, use some LOGIC for once."

    *simple policy question appears*

    "Oh, I don't know, I don't think about anything that doesn't directly affect me, so I guess I'll stake my position on my own personal experience!"

    Quote

    As for your other question, I'm really not sure why every discussion with you morphs into a debate about race...did you bully black kids when you were younger and now feel bad about it?  Why does your hypothetical 16 year old boy have to be black and living in the ghetto?  Are you saying that you'd be ok with a Native American from the Reservation selling himself into slavery?  It's a stupid question.  Personally, I'm anti-slavery....but slavery is also un-fucking constitutional, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

    When someone can't answer a question, this is what they say. Christ you're all tied in knots by your own stupid worldview. You get simple yes/no questions and you spin like a fucking top.

    Simple questions:

    How do you feel about the idea of a state deciding to eliminate an age of consent law and allow sex and/or marriage between a 50-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl? Should it be allowed?

    How do you feel about the idea of a 16-year-old black boy in the ghetto deciding to sell himself into slavery to a suburban white family in a signed contract? Should it be allowed?

    Quote

    I don't know, perhaps they would have seceded and started a Civil War.  Oh, wait, they already did that...

    Then why are you so confident that it all would have worked itself out? Do you literally believe in magic?

    Quote

    My personal opinion, is that the Feds should have combined what Great Britain did with their Caribbean territories...and what Gen. Sherman suggested.  Great Britain paid the plantation owners for their slaves and we all know about Gen. Sherman's famous 40 acres promise.  I think that would have been vastly superior to what did happen or has happened since.

    Oh, what Great Britain did... which was pass anti-slavery legislation and then pay the slave owners?

    And if slavery is UN-FUCKING-CONSTITUTIONAL, why did we need to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery? Why did the courts, which you have said is the proper venue for these questions, uphold the Constitutionality of slavery over and over again (Dred Scott, etc...)?

    Libertarianism is a refuge for unremarkable people with little social awareness and mediocre intellect.

  6. 49 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    You're using the modern connotation of Libertarian that is really just another term for Far-Right Christian Conservative...

    Nope, not at all.

    I understand very well the difference between conservatives and libertarians, namely that conservatives at least vaguely attempt to align themselves with so-called Christian values. As you mention, Libertarians are atheistic in their worldview and, as such, have no real mooring with which to deal with moral questions as, in addition to their atheism, they tend to be traditionalist regressives. It's really the worst of all worlds.

    I wouldn't ask a conservative Christian how they feel about age of consent laws, because I know that their opinions would be based, at least in part, on their moral worldview. Libertarians actively attempt to push away morality as a concept, which is exactly what you attempt to do constantly when facing questions of racial discrimination and, this latest question, age of consent.

    I did not ask you how you felt about age of consent laws being national, I asked how you felt about age of consent laws. How do you feel about the idea of a state deciding to eliminate an age of consent law and allow sex and/or marriage between a 50-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl? Should it be allowed?

    How do you feel about the idea of a 16-year-old black boy in the ghetto deciding to sell himself into slavery to a suburban white family in a signed contract? Should it be allowed?

    If a worldview cannot deal with answering simple questions, of what use is it?

    Quote

    And no, for me it's not about race, the discussion devolved into a discussion about the CRA (which also is not specific to race), because I hurt BT's feelings by disagreeing with him about giving special gun ownership rights to active duty military and vets should an age restriction be put in place.

    Attempting to figure out your extremely bizarre worldview is not a matter of hurt feelings.

    I'm not the one who sent angry PMs, little buddy, that was you. Hurt feelings, indeed.

    Quote

    My opinion is simply that we'd have likely come further as a nation had these issues continued to be litigated...as was already happening.

    What case was working its way through the court system that would have eliminated slavery in the American South?

    How would the American South have reacted to a federal court in the North striking down slavery in all states?

    Libertarians have an extremely ill-considered and ignorant view of both the modern world and of history. It is an inch deep and bears zero probing.

  7. 22 minutes ago, Dr Fear said:

    Slavery is the absolute antithesis of Libertarianism.

    That's a strong statement, and one that is difficult to swallow given the reality of historical slavery and political ideology of the slave-holding class. It might be held that non-contracted slavery is the absolute antithesis of Libertarianism, but what about contracted?

    - Should I be able to sell myself into slavery? For instance, let's say I am deeply in debt and I offer my unpaid work to a rich man in exchange for him allowing my wife and children to avoid eviction from our home. Our contract is that he will note foreclose on our home and I will do his bidding without payment of any kind for the rest of my life. Should the government not allow the enforcement of that contract? If not, why not?

    - Should a person under 18 be able to sell his or her body for sex? If not, why not?

    Quote

    It is the socialists that all want us to be slaves.

    Explain.

    Quote

    As far as the topic of the post, I think a better question is whether the Civil Rights act has outlived its usefulness and is even counterproductive today.

    I would be interested to hear any argument as to a real and demonstrable problem with the CRA today. The most I can gather is that it makes some white people mad.

    Quote

    - Building and maintaining infrastructure - This is debatable 

    It's really not. Essentially every important piece of infrastructure in this nation was built either entirely or partly with public funds. You would literally be unable to live your modern life in any recognizable way without government-funded infrastructure projects.

    It is actually kind of funny anyone would try to argue otherwise. It shows how deep into our own asses we get online that we would even entertain the notion that government-funded infrastructure is anything but a massive positive.

    Quote

    - National and international defense - First class soldiers and equipment, massive amounts of mismanagement and wasted $$$

    Inefficiency is a characteristic of any organization of sufficient size, public or private. The only people who think the private sector is more efficient, more effectively managed, and wastes less money are people who have never worked in the private sector or are willfully blind.

  8. 4 minutes ago, Dr Fear said:

    This is completely absurd.  Why do you make a list of things you think the government does very well and get back to me? 

    - Building and maintaining infrastructure
    - National and international defense
    - National, state, and local parks
    - Universal access to sanitation and water
    - Electronic and communication infrastructure
    - Ensuring free and fair elections
    - Maintenance of peaceful social order

    The reality is that America, on the whole, runs very well. Obviously there are major problems, but there are many things the government does extremely well that the private sector would have zero incentive to involve itself in (care of mentally ill/poor veterans, ensuring utilities to rural citizens, feeding starving children).

    And anyway, how the hell is that a response to what I said? Did you even understand it?

  9. 2 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

    My solutions focus on people, not guns.  I have a number of solutions.  The two biggest focus on the mentally ill and small children with, practically speaking, no parenting.

     

    I think an expert could look at 1,000 elementary school children and find the 25 or so that are a serious risk to society.  Almost all the problems (e.g. mass shootings) from that cohort will come from those 25 kids.  My solutions start dealing with those kids very, very differently. 

    A stitch in time saves nine.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  There are some kids who are six years old we KNOW will be trouble.  We KNOW it but we wait and deal with them when they're 16 and have committed a felony.  Insanity.

    Ooh, is this where you talk about putting kids into state-run orphanages? I love this part of the story.

    I absolutely agree that we actually can identify the problem kids well in advance of their most heinous crimes. I think the necessary interventions should be 100% positive and supportive (guaranteed free-at-point-of-use physical and mental healthcare for parents and kids, free-at-the-point-of-use healthy food, ample time off work for parents to spend time with kids, high-quality schooling guaranteed to all children, free-at-the-point-of-use enrichment activities for all kids, etc...).

  10. 18 hours ago, DixonHur said:

    I think the congress should stick to it's Section 8 duties...and stop trying to legislate morality. 

    Mr. Libertarian, how do you feel about age of consent laws?

    It may seem off topic, but I find libertarians to be extremely fuzzy once their "don't legislate morality!" stance extends beyond the completely coincidental reality of them as a legion of white men with racially problematic views. It's almost like they understand that government needs to protect the powerless, but some mysterious and completely and unknowable prejudice makes them resistant to the idea of government protecting blacks.

    • Like 1
  11. Roll him on what? He was a drunk, entitled piece of shit from an American royalty family of douchebags who didn't give a shit about the life of a peasant. Fuck the Kennedys all day, but come on, this isn't some grand fucking conspiracy. It's a powerful family of narcissistic assholes protecting their own.

×
×
  • Create New...