Me vs. the World

Talk about anything and everything.

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby Derek » 12 January 2022, 01:59

I should take screenshots. I can think of like 20 different subreddits that would love this.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 7153
+1s received: 2824
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby PopTart » 12 January 2022, 05:50

waytoogay wrote:Oh and by the way, it's your forum and you set the rules so go ahead and ban me because I will never stop talking about it. You will always know you resorted to censorship because you're wrong and your ideas can't stand in a debate.

Yeah, there isn't any defending child molestation.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4030
+1s received: 2999
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby René » 12 January 2022, 15:14

waytoogay wrote:Oh and by the way, it's your forum and you set the rules so go ahead and ban me because I will never stop talking about it. You will always know you resorted to censorship because you're wrong and your ideas can't stand in a debate.

I'm all for open debate. The trouble is that some things that might be said in certain debates may endanger the site itself, either through law enforcement or through hosting providers banning us. I can't risk the site getting shut down.

For what it's worth, I fundamentally like you (in some ways :P) and think you definitely offer added value to the site at times. I really don't want to ban you. Therefore I would like to ask that you work with me in enabling your continued presence here without endangering the site. I think we all know your opinion on various topics and so there is no need to raise them again. I will value your opinions on other topics, and I'm sure others will too (not all of course, but we can't expect that). I hope to hear them here in the years to come.

I hope that makes sense. :hug:
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 7857
+1s received: 2904
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland / Maryland, USA
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby waytoogay » 12 January 2022, 17:13

René wrote:
waytoogay wrote:Oh and by the way, it's your forum and you set the rules so go ahead and ban me because I will never stop talking about it. You will always know you resorted to censorship because you're wrong and your ideas can't stand in a debate.

I'm all for open debate. The trouble is that some things that might be said in certain debates may endanger the site itself, either through law enforcement or through hosting providers banning us. I can't risk the site getting shut down.

For what it's worth, I fundamentally like you (in some ways :P) and think you definitely offer added value to the site at times. I really don't want to ban you. Therefore I would like to ask that you work with me in enabling your continued presence here without endangering the site. I think we all know your opinion on various topics and so there is no need to raise them again. I will value your opinions on other topics, and I'm sure others will too (not all of course, but we can't expect that). I hope to hear them here in the years to come.

I hope that makes sense. :hug:

I fucking love you dude. I understand your not wanting to get the site shut down so I'll behave in the way you want me to. At the end of the day I value truth and logic more that that particular topic (hard as that may be to believe :D) so I appreciate my opportunity to express my views on other topics so long as I get to make the world better through debate. I wish I wasn't so drunk right now (we were just hanging out with my BF, and we've already promised each other to never drink again :P) so I could write a more coherent reply but I think your forums are awesome because they attract intelligent cock-loving people. :3
User avatar
waytoogay
 
Posts: 125
+1s received: 3
Joined: 26 May 2013, 07:17

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby pozzie » 12 January 2022, 21:13

I'd like to invite you to partake in this thread general-discussions/alcohol-how-much-is-too-much-t20426/

On the earlier topic raised, I'm going to try and talk around it just a bit. The basic theory behind minority/majority in the US is that an individual is incapable of offering consent before they attain majority but this varies based on the issue (tobacco purchasing, for example). At one point, majority could range from 14 - 25 depending on the issue and the state. Yes, it's an arbitrary line in the sand, but aren't many laws? It's also worth noting that minors aren't able to enter into contracts, or more correctly, they can't be forced to comply with the terms of the contracts.

(Sorry, but I've made little to no effort to understand such laws in the other countries in which I've lived, so I can only speak about their application in the jurisdiction I know.)

If we were completely free from laws and rules, not only would one be able to take a stop sign as advice when driving (not a requirement), wouldn't a child be able to drive as soon as he was able to reach the peddles? I'm not sure how well adults are doing behind the wheel, would it make things better adding ten year olds to the highways?

Human sexuality isn't something that stays off until one hits that magic moment when one reaches the age of consent. I freely admit I was sexually active before I reached that age though I say that with neither pride nor consternation: it is only a statement of fact. Technically, legally, I was unable to offer consent though clearly I consented to most of the things I did. This has always left me feeling rather uncharitable towards "Age of Consent" laws in the US, especially when parents can consent to marry off a underage daughter to a man four times her age - without her consent. And clearly there is a strong puritanical tradition in this country which thinks such laws dissuade people from choosing to be sexually active and that's mostly nonsense though I'm sure some adults remember "jail bait" when presented with an opportunity. Even with all that, I am unable to find a better alternative than the arbitrary line in the sand - over this age, consent can be offered. That's it.

However, many jurisdictions have recognized there is a painful downside to this approach. Dad is angry now that his 17 year old daughter is pregnant. She admits she slept with her 18 year old boyfriend. Dad goes to the cops and Bob's your uncle, the boyfriend is a life-long sex offender. STUPID! Many states have modified such laws to decriminalize such relations if the parties are within a certain age range. Again, not perfect, but better. I say not perfect because if a hypothetical law said the participants had to be within twenty-four months of age (of each other), then one day, there will be a couple who is twenty-FIVE months different in age and again, Bob's your uncle - silver bracelets ... Is anything perfect?
pozzie
 
Posts: 879
+1s received: 226
Joined: 4 June 2021, 20:43

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby waytoogay » 13 January 2022, 07:34

pozzie wrote:If we were completely free from laws and rules, not only would one be able to take a stop sign as advice when driving (not a requirement), wouldn't a child be able to drive as soon as he was able to reach the peddles? I'm not sure how well adults are doing behind the wheel, would it make things better adding ten year olds to the highways?

Human sexuality isn't something that stays off until one hits that magic moment when one reaches the age of consent. I freely admit I was sexually active before I reached that age though I say that with neither pride nor consternation: it is only a statement of fact. Technically, legally, I was unable to offer consent though clearly I consented to most of the things I did. This has always left me feeling rather uncharitable towards "Age of Consent" laws in the US…

Without going into the topic of when one should start being sexually active, I’ll just say the people who make up governments are subject to the same moral rules as everyone else and do not own other people. They also don’t rightly own any territory or property since everything they control is gained through forceful takeover and looting. The state therefore has no business setting majority criteria or any other laws whatsoever. Only the individual owns their body and has a legitimate right to decide whether or not to consent to sex.

(Of course if you live on other people’s property, such as your parents’, you must obey their private law, but you should also be free to leave.)
User avatar
waytoogay
 
Posts: 125
+1s received: 3
Joined: 26 May 2013, 07:17

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby Brenden » 13 January 2022, 15:45

waytoogay wrote:They also don’t rightly own any territory or property since everything they control is gained through forceful takeover and looting.

[…]

(Of course if you live on other people’s property, such as your parents’, you must obey their private law, but you should also be free to leave.)

How does anyone legitimately own portions of the earth, then? It was all originally claimed or taken by force and is held by force (via the state in most cases, yes, but on behalf of individuals who would otherwise have to take up arms themselves or hire mercenaries to hold their property).
Disclaimer: All views expressed in my posts are my own and do not reflect the views of this forum except when otherwise stated or this signature is not present.

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 9160
+1s received: 3531
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Maryland
Country: United States (us)

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby waytoogay » 13 January 2022, 17:11

Brenden wrote:How does anyone legitimately own portions of the earth, then?

Nonviolently. By original appropriation from nature or by contract with the previous owner.

Of course it's a mess right now. The difficulties of untangling that mess are reason to get rid of the state who created it through conquest and coercive wealth redistribution and by failing to protect property with the inefficient government police and court monopoly.

A lot of people had their property stolen but most of those people are dead, and we can usually figure out who is the last/most nonviolent appropriator among the living. I purchased my home from the developer so I own it, a guy sitting in Moscow or Washington whose only claim on ownership is holding a gun to my head did not.

I'm not a lawyer or a central planner so I don't know the exact technical details of how private firms and jurisdictions in a free society will handle the law. The practical purpose of the free market is having specialists compete on who comes up with the best ideas and products and figures out the most workable principles of peaceful resource allocation. We need to understand that the initiation of violence is immoral and counterproductive and work from that first principle.
User avatar
waytoogay
 
Posts: 125
+1s received: 3
Joined: 26 May 2013, 07:17

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby Brenden » 13 January 2022, 17:59

I'm personally keen on the ideology of Henry George, which would maintain a state but only allows it the taxation of land and natural resources (on extraction and initial entrance to the market) as legitimate, since land and its fruits are the common inheritance of all and are only being held by individuals today due to the unfortunately-violent past state of affairs (which can't be untangled), with absolutely no taxation of labour or the fruits of the mind or other higher-level activities of a free market.

It seems to me more of a workable middle way with less disruption.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in my posts are my own and do not reflect the views of this forum except when otherwise stated or this signature is not present.

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 9160
+1s received: 3531
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Maryland
Country: United States (us)

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby waytoogay » 13 January 2022, 20:13

Brenden wrote:maintain a state but only allows it the taxation of land and natural resources (on extraction and initial entrance to the market) as legitimate, since land and its fruits are the common inheritance of all and are only being held by individuals today due to the unfortunately-violent past state of affairs

If you find this violent past state of affairs unfortunate, why do you then counterintuitively propose more violence? How can the confusion and conflict caused by property violations be solved by a further abrogation of private property rights on land? I've mentioned before that I own my home based on the fact I purchased it from the company that built it. What, on the other hand, makes my home the property of all? What makes it the property of the state? You seem to be implying that the state represents everyone in their desires regarding this supposedly communally owned property. But that is evidently false since for example it does not represent my opposition to taxation. The state is just a group of people who have a monopoly to exercise violence against everyone else. What gives them moral characteristics opposite to those of all the other individuals of the same species? What gives them special rights to extort money and redistribute it for "social" goals as they see them? If they can tax land, can I? If any communal property exists at all, it cannot be managed by the state since the whole society does not have a unified opinion on what to do with it. It must then be divided and privatized to prevent violent conflict as well as to allocate resources to peaceful productive actors. Which is the reason private property rights are needed in the first place: private farms produce food and peace, collectivized farms create dekulakization and starvation. State-controlled assets should be auctioned off and the victims of taxation compensated with the proceeds.
User avatar
waytoogay
 
Posts: 125
+1s received: 3
Joined: 26 May 2013, 07:17

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby PopTart » 13 January 2022, 20:29

pozzie wrote:I'd like to invite you to partake in this thread general-discussions/alcohol-how-much-is-too-much-t20426/

On the earlier topic raised, I'm going to try and talk around it just a bit. The basic theory behind minority/majority in the US is that an individual is incapable of offering consent before they attain majority but this varies based on the issue (tobacco purchasing, for example). At one point, majority could range from 14 - 25 depending on the issue and the state. Yes, it's an arbitrary line in the sand, but aren't many laws? It's also worth noting that minors aren't able to enter into contracts, or more correctly, they can't be forced to comply with the terms of the contracts.

(Sorry, but I've made little to no effort to understand such laws in the other countries in which I've lived, so I can only speak about their application in the jurisdiction I know.)

If we were completely free from laws and rules, not only would one be able to take a stop sign as advice when driving (not a requirement), wouldn't a child be able to drive as soon as he was able to reach the peddles? I'm not sure how well adults are doing behind the wheel, would it make things better adding ten year olds to the highways?

Human sexuality isn't something that stays off until one hits that magic moment when one reaches the age of consent. I freely admit I was sexually active before I reached that age though I say that with neither pride nor consternation: it is only a statement of fact. Technically, legally, I was unable to offer consent though clearly I consented to most of the things I did. This has always left me feeling rather uncharitable towards "Age of Consent" laws in the US, especially when parents can consent to marry off a underage daughter to a man four times her age - without her consent. And clearly there is a strong puritanical tradition in this country which thinks such laws dissuade people from choosing to be sexually active and that's mostly nonsense though I'm sure some adults remember "jail bait" when presented with an opportunity. Even with all that, I am unable to find a better alternative than the arbitrary line in the sand - over this age, consent can be offered. That's it.

However, many jurisdictions have recognized there is a painful downside to this approach. Dad is angry now that his 17 year old daughter is pregnant. She admits she slept with her 18 year old boyfriend. Dad goes to the cops and Bob's your uncle, the boyfriend is a life-long sex offender. STUPID! Many states have modified such laws to decriminalize such relations if the parties are within a certain age range. Again, not perfect, but better. I say not perfect because if a hypothetical law said the participants had to be within twenty-four months of age (of each other), then one day, there will be a couple who is twenty-FIVE months different in age and again, Bob's your uncle - silver bracelets ... Is anything perfect?

While I don't disagree with much of what you say, the reality remains, that for a significant number of people below the age of consent, the full understanding of what they might be consenting to, just isn't there.

Leaving out emotional and mental maturity, many lack the necessary life experience to appreciate and properly evaluate relationships, sexual or otherwise, in the same way as older people, with more experience do and even those in their 20's can get into viciously unhealthy relationships, that leave mental and emotional scars for years to follow.

This leaves those same people, extremely vulnerable to manipulation and being led, by more mature adults that would take advantage of them, for their own sexual satisfaction.

I too was one of those who became sexually active below the age of consent and sought out people for sex. Like you I am neither proud nor ashamed, but I was worldly enough to avoid those that not so clearly, posed a danger or a threat. By intuition or innate instinct, I avoided the predatory types and was fortunate. That isn't true for many.

The laws as they exist are there, predominantly to protect, they may at times be abused, as all laws tend to be at some point, but the reality is, they protect those who are most unable to protect themselves.

That wins out over any other argument on my book.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4030
+1s received: 2999
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby pozzie » 13 January 2022, 21:42

That all makes perfect sense to me, PopTart, but I think we are coming from a very different place than our Russian friend. We seem to attribute a certain level of legitimacy to the state that isn't shared by our libertarian friends - and I'm guessing such belief sets are seen regardless of which state one find oneself living in/under. Have such thoughts universalized or simply accelerated thanks to the Internet?

I'm also unclear how universal the arguments provided on the issue of "Age of Consent" would be: clearly I've come in contact with many who say they a libertarian (and thus antigovernment) who believe that parents own/control/provide consent for their children (maybe only until the offspring move out of the family home). It's not such a stretch to see such parents taking great umbrage over someone agreeing to accept the consent of their 14 year old WITHOUT parental agreement. Clearly some parents will happily consent to heterosexual activity but won't countenance the homosexual equivalent.

So that raises an issue for Our Glorious Friend: If a parent says they have the right to refuse their child's consent to - let's make this 'safe' - to take an expenses-paid trip to Disneyland with a person the child met on the Internet and the child says "I'm an individual. I own my own body. Only I have the right to decide what I want to do with it." Who will arbitrate the dispute between the parent and the child? I ask because I'm very interested in exploring how such would play out as a thought experiment. (I like to think through alternative ways of organizing society since clearly our current and previous methods have had clear failings.)
pozzie
 
Posts: 879
+1s received: 226
Joined: 4 June 2021, 20:43

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby Brenden » 13 January 2022, 22:55

waytoogay wrote:
Brenden wrote:maintain a state but only allows it the taxation of land and natural resources (on extraction and initial entrance to the market) as legitimate, since land and its fruits are the common inheritance of all and are only being held by individuals today due to the unfortunately-violent past state of affairs

If you find this violent past state of affairs unfortunate, why do you then counterintuitively propose more violence? How can the confusion and conflict caused by property violations be solved by a further abrogation of private property rights on land? I've mentioned before that I own my home based on the fact I purchased it from the company that built it. What, on the other hand, makes my home the property of all? What makes it the property of the state? You seem to be implying that the state represents everyone in their desires regarding this supposedly communally owned property. But that is evidently false since for example it does not represent my opposition to taxation. The state is just a group of people who have a monopoly to exercise violence against everyone else. What gives them moral characteristics opposite to those of all the other individuals of the same species? What gives them special rights to extort money and redistribute it for "social" goals as they see them? If they can tax land, can I? If any communal property exists at all, it cannot be managed by the state since the whole society does not have a unified opinion on what to do with it. It must then be divided and privatized to prevent violent conflict as well as to allocate resources to peaceful productive actors. Which is the reason private property rights are needed in the first place: private farms produce food and peace, collectivized farms create dekulakization and starvation. State-controlled assets should be auctioned off and the victims of taxation compensated with the proceeds.

So how do you maintain your right to the land on which your home is built is at all legitimate, protected as it has been and continues to be by the threat of violence against anyone who opposes that supposed right?

The point of a simple tax on the value of land is exactly so that the state isn't managing it but rather allowing individuals who happen to maintain possession of it the freedom to do with it as they see fit so long as everyone (to whom the land belongs) benefits from it.

Your system would basically freeze into place all the violence-begotten iniquities of millennia and create winners (the current haves) and losers (the have-nots).

Now, I agree that taxation is indeed theft, when it is taking from someone that which they themselves created: the value of their labour (physical or intellectual). It is not theft when it is taking from someone that which is not rightfully theirs to begin with.

You can't claim to be against violence but A-OK with the accumulated proceeds of millennia of violence.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in my posts are my own and do not reflect the views of this forum except when otherwise stated or this signature is not present.

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 9160
+1s received: 3531
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Maryland
Country: United States (us)

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby waytoogay » 13 January 2022, 22:55

Good question, pozzie.

Someone said there is no greater power disparity than that between the parent and the child. Unfortunately until the child moves out they are in a very weak position and vulnerable to parental tyranny ('my roof, my rules' is a valid argument from a private property standpoint).

In a free society however, where that tyranny is not enforced by the state and kids are not legally seen as de facto chattel slaves, they would be free to move out at any age, as well as settle rights disputes and get protection from their parents, by seeking outside help from private defense agencies and dispute resolution organizations. (Yes, kids don't have money, but a lot of people are very concerned with children's welfare, as evidenced by this thread or people's willingness to donate to charities or pay taxes in hopes of helping children. In the absence of the inefficient* coercively funded state agencies, which exist to make immoral people rich and not actually help anyone, people would have that much more money to give.)

(It should be noted also that people are unlikely to live in isolation. Most of the time you would see them entering agreements and forming private cities and contract jurisdictions by accepting common rules, including for resolving such parent-child disagreements. A free society is not going to be a uniform global regime, but a vast number and variety of diverse communities. Many of them are likely to have age of consent rules initially, some may ban sex outside of marriage or homosexuality. I don't think such communities will survive however because recognizing people's autonomy and using persuasion to help your child make choices is more conducive to the socioeconomic success of the community than putting people who engage in peaceful activity in cages at gunpoint. Competition will weed out bad ideas.)

*When I was 14 and my mom's boyfriend beat me up for the first time and she did nothing, I called the police and they told me if it was happening then I must have deserved it and if I called again they would send cops after me. Worst day of my life and a big reason I no longer associate with my mom, and why I hate the state. Lol. Sorry for my dry and awkward English phrasing, also I'm hungover and tired of arguing online, may take a break for a few days).
User avatar
waytoogay
 
Posts: 125
+1s received: 3
Joined: 26 May 2013, 07:17

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby waytoogay » 13 January 2022, 23:25

Brenden wrote:So how do you maintain your right to the land on which your home is built is at all legitimate, protected as it has been and continues to be by the threat of violence against anyone who opposes that supposed right?

My claim to property is based on me acquiring it through peaceful productive activity. I may employ retaliatory force in response to aggression to physically defend it, but that is not where my right originates.
Your system would basically freeze into place all the violence-begotten iniquities of millennia and create winners (the current haves) and losers (the have-nots).

I repeat I never acquired my property through violence. Most people didn't either, unless they work for the government or the mafia. You're trying to accuse me of something I didn't do by some collective guilt association. You're also trying to ascribe ownership to people (state officials and welfare recipients) who had zero to do with that property's origin or subsequent maintenance. It's the societies with the most stringent private property rules that have the most have's, i.e. the Western ones, not the societies where they were violated the most, i.e. communist ones. That is proof that the haves are ones mostly because of their own productivity.
Now, I agree that taxation is indeed theft, when it is taking from someone that which they themselves created: the value of their labour (physical or intellectual). It is not theft when it is taking from someone that which is not rightfully theirs to begin with.

Whether or not someone is the legitimate owner is actually completely irrelevant to the state's right to control or tax that property. If the property is stolen it does not follow that the state now gets a right to it. Only the original owner, if they are living, does. If not then whoever most recently gained it through peaceful means. Most of the people who were stolen from over millennia are dead and there is absolutely no reason for the state to get a cut of something that has been peacefully owned and maintained over millennia. Let's go back to pre-human primates and say that because they stole bananas from each other, because they at the time did not understand and follow nonaggression and private property rules, that all bananas are now communist property and the primates who are in the government now get a right to tax bananas. Basically, let's continue acting like them instead of being civilized. A total non-sequitur.
Just the opposite follows - we need to stop stealing from each other and start by abolishing the organization of institutionalized theft.
I've already made my case for privatization.
User avatar
waytoogay
 
Posts: 125
+1s received: 3
Joined: 26 May 2013, 07:17

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby Derek » 14 January 2022, 01:27

It's nice that you guys are giving the pedophile such a warm welcome. It really takes me back to my teenage years when I was emotionally stunted enough to believe many of same things.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 7153
+1s received: 2824
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby pozzie » 14 January 2022, 07:58

Is it me or does the world envisioned by wtg seem awfully reminiscent of the Americas before those pesky, pesty Europeans showed up?
pozzie
 
Posts: 879
+1s received: 226
Joined: 4 June 2021, 20:43

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby waytoogay » 14 January 2022, 08:02

pozzie wrote:Is it me or does the world envisioned by wtg seem awfully reminiscent of the Americas before those pesky, pesty Europeans showed up?

The Amerindians mostly existed in a state of primordial communism with no property rights and a perpetual war of all against all. It's interesting how you got that from private property and nonaggression.
User avatar
waytoogay
 
Posts: 125
+1s received: 3
Joined: 26 May 2013, 07:17

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby waytoogay » 14 January 2022, 08:10

Derek wrote:It's nice that you guys are giving the pedophile such a warm welcome. It really takes me back to my teenage years when I was emotionally stunted enough to believe many of same things.

You support literal child slavery and using violence against people with sexual preferences you don't like. Of the several posts you've made in this thread not a single one contains an argument, you are just a bully. And you dare call anyone but yourself emotionally stunted?! I am sorry that your parents beat you.
User avatar
waytoogay
 
Posts: 125
+1s received: 3
Joined: 26 May 2013, 07:17

Re: The Glorious One returns

Unread postby waytoogay » 14 January 2022, 09:18

On a more positive note, have I already told you guys about my crazy theory that an advanced future human civilization or an alien one might find a way to reconstruct the past and resurrect every sentient being that's ever lived? They might not want to resurrect evildoers, though, but only the individuals who contributed to the advent of such a civilization through virtuous behavior. It may turn out that religions have been onto something all along, with their ideas of an all-seeing eye watching us to reward or punish later. :bowdown: I have zero idea whether this is technologically feasible. But just in case, don't do evil.
User avatar
waytoogay
 
Posts: 125
+1s received: 3
Joined: 26 May 2013, 07:17

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Facebook [Bot], Seznam [Bot] and 72 guests