Gay Forum

waytoogay wrote:

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.

Well, guess it depends on how one defines "private property" and I'm not sure "state of perpetual war of all against all" was a universal experience, especially in terms of the millennia in which they lived here before the arrival of avaricious Europeans. The Amerindian experience varies widely: as widely as the land varies between Tierra del Fuego and The North Slope. However, I'm unclear how we could convince people who currently are used to taking whatever they want to forego that option with a simple pronouncement of "private property and nonaggression." After all, even with land surveys, public records, and deeds, we aren't free from such disagreements and even under threat of imprisonment, people still act out on such disagreements in ways that may ultimately result in violence.

Is "primordial communism" something different than cooperation, that is, until one is elevated above the others?

See, one of the issues I have with the concept of libertarian private property is that one has the 'right' to do whatever one wants with the property one has title to. So, if I want to torch it during the height of the dry season, why wouldn't that be my right? It's my land, and what's on it is mine, no? If the stream crosses my land, would I not have the right to dam it completely or locate a livestock breeding facility along or astride its banks? What if I dam it to extract minerals and only allow contaminated water to leave the property? What if I own a hill or mountain and decide to strip mine it?

Secondly, if we're all just agreeing to accept a system where we hand the rights of property we currently control to someone else, 1) how do we insure such transfer of title isn't coercive? and 2) how do we settle a disagreement like when a river is listed as a property line and a 500 year flood comes along and the river changes course in a dramatic fashion? After generations of title transfer from parents to offspring, they claim the original river course while those on the adjoining lands say it's the present course. I'm pretty confident that more than one dispute amongst primordial communists started in just such a fashion, especially if the resulting change lead to the unwitting transfer of land needed to feed the community.

Next, what happens to nonaggression when I transfer ownership to someone who is NOT welcome in the community, like the livestock farmer or strip miner? Would it be nonaggressive to refuse the newcomer access to a resource like water or refuse them the right to travel across adjoining properties to get to and from their property?

Last, for now, what happens when one member of the community no longer wishes to be nonaggressive? Is it nonaggressive for the community to say, we are joining together in common defense and the best defense is to eliminate the one we feel is being aggressive?

Okay, while I see the allure of a system like you suggest, I'm just not sure we, as a species, are or ever will be evolved enough to live in peace and harmony either with or without private property, especially when the only thing protecting that ownership is everyone else's good will.

First of all, I don't presume to know all the details of the immense complexity of how billions of people might or should interact in a free society. The point of having a market is to give them freedom and see what solutions they arrive at through competition and selection. Objectively beneficial ideas bring prosperity to those who follow them. What those ideas might be is for the market to find out.

pozzie wrote:I'm unclear how we could convince people who currently are used to taking whatever they want to forego that option with a simple pronouncement of "private property and nonaggression." ...if we're all just agreeing to accept a system where we hand the rights of property we currently control to someone else, 1) how do we insure such transfer of title isn't coercive? ... especially when the only thing protecting that ownership is everyone else's good will.

And we wouldn't rely on good will and reputation alone of course. Owners could defend their property themselves, by purchasing the protection of private defense agencies, and by appealing to the governing bodies of a contractual jurisdiction.

After all, even with land surveys, public records, and deeds, we aren't free from such disagreements and even under threat of imprisonment, people still act out on such disagreements in ways that may ultimately result in violence. ... how do we settle a disagreement like when a river is listed as a property line and a 500 year flood comes along and the river changes course in a dramatic fashion? After generations of title transfer from parents to offspring, they claim the original river course while those on the adjoining lands say it's the present course. I'm pretty confident that more than one dispute amongst primordial communists started in just such a fashion, especially if the resulting change lead to the unwitting transfer of land needed to feed the community.

Indeed, there are plenty of such conflicts in the statist system, both between private individuals and between different states, so the state is not a panacea for ambiguity and conflict, on the contrary it starts with creating such a conflict. A market of competing private law systems guided by a general principle of reducing violence is far more likely to figure out the optimal practical rules of how property is allocated, used, and transferred, than a violent monopoly.

See, one of the issues I have with the concept of libertarian private property is that one has the 'right' to do whatever one wants with the property one has title to. So, if I want to torch it during the height of the dry season, why wouldn't that be my right? It's my land, and what's on it is mine, no? If the stream crosses my land, would I not have the right to dam it completely or locate a livestock breeding facility along or astride its banks? What if I dam it to extract minerals and only allow contaminated water to leave the property? What if I own a hill or mountain and decide to strip mine it?

All very good questions. The important thing to keep in mind here is the principle of reciprocity. By default you have no right to damage or pollute other people's property whatsoever, not only by toxic waste but even by playing music where your neighbors can hear it. However, it's obvious that it's practically impossible to use one's property without such violations to one degree or another. We would then end up in a situation where no one can use their property at all, or there is perpetual war. Any vibration or radio wave originating from my property that reaches your property would be aggression and you can then use retaliatory force. But that works both ways: if I can't use my property, you can't use yours, because the second that you shine a light through my window, that's aggression. What do we do? We either 1)stop breathing, or 2) engage in perpetual war that bankrupts and eliminates both of us 3)agree on common mutual rules of neighborly conduct that delineate which trespassing is inevitable, acceptable and compensable for both of us and which is not. Some easy ways to do this are by us both signing up for the rules of the same legal agency to resolve our disputes, or by joining a contractual community.

Next, what happens to nonaggression when I transfer ownership to someone who is NOT welcome in the community, like the livestock farmer or strip miner? Would it be nonaggressive to refuse the newcomer access to a resource like water or refuse them the right to travel across adjoining properties to get to and from their property? Last, for now, what happens when one member of the community no longer wishes to be nonaggressive? Is it nonaggressive for the community to say, we are joining together in common defense and the best defense is to eliminate the one we feel is being aggressive?

The rules of the private community can restrict access to any individuals or groups, including by sale, so them being on the property in violation of those rules would be aggressive. Same if the community contract is violated by a resident, so they can be expelled or punished in other ways set by it.

Is "primordial communism" something different than cooperation, that is, until one is elevated above the others?

Primordial communism is a system of little to no private property where everyone takes whatever they desire by force, usually arising in hunter-gatherer societies with no agriculture (which would be practically impossible without some for of land titles). You have a point about not all pre-Columbian societies being like this.

Okay, while I see the allure of a system like you suggest, I'm just not sure we, as a species, are or ever will be evolved enough to live in peace and harmony either with or without private property

I appreciate that you like the idea of making society less violent at least. But we can already see from human history that freedom works, because the societies that chose the least violent modes of interaction and the highest degree of respect for private property are the ones which do have the most peace, harmony, and socio-economic development. It only makes sense then to maximize the application of those well proven voluntaryist ethics.

I've been morally condemned by a pedophile

Derek wrote:I've been morally condemned by a pedophile

Well you did fail to engage with his pseudo intellectual moral rationalising of his lust for kids, you know, in the spirit of free love and liberating children from the "possession" of their parents, to his kiddy dungeon.

You bully.

I'm too intimidated by the Rand 101 ramblings to engage with him in good faith. A more courageous person might be able to convince him of the error of his ways, instead of just feeding into the attention-seeking of an asshole who wants his beliefs validated by the supposition that they're worth debating. Now excuse me while I go read 4chan posts and jerk off to loli hentai.

Derek wrote:I'm too intimidated by the Rand 101 ramblings to engage with him in good faith. A more courageous person might be able to convince him of the error of his ways, instead of just feeding into the attention-seeking of an asshole who wants his beliefs validated by the supposition that they're worth debating. Now excuse me while I go read 4chan posts and jerk off to loli hentai.

Setting aside the possibility of a 10 year old, or 3 year old for that matter, being able to consent to much of anything 'important' (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more), what percentage of the populace in our aggressive nation-states do you think share his love of all things private: private property and private security being two items mentioned recently?

While I've either listened to or read the beliefs of people in both the US and UK who espouse a similar belief set, this is the first time I read such coming from a resident of a former Communist state. I find the evangelical zeal particularly interesting given such a limited time to spread and take hold on the imagination. However, given the excesses of the former Soviet system, is it any wonder that such might prove interesting or even popular?

Let me tell you a secret. They're not pedophiles because they're libertarians, they're libertarians because they're pedophiles. If you want to understand this guy, spend some time with sociopaths on 8kun and jack off to something so questionable it changes your worldview. You don't have to actually indulge him on a public forum.

not sure I'll ever be able to shake a libertarian's hand in the future

That's a wise decision regardless, anytime you shake a libertarian's hand you risk inadvertently communicating that you consent to having your organs harvested.

Call me a pedophile more, I don't care. It's not true or relevant as my personal characteristics or motive have no reflection on the validity of my argument. You know your advocacy of slavery and putting peaceful people in cages is logically and morally indefensible when all you can throw in its support is an ad hominem. When you're a corrupt person you must avoid a rational public examination of your evil beliefs at all costs, which is why of course you run from debate.

Truth and morality are on my side. You are going to lose and human ownership will fail and people will be able to not hand over their money to you at gunpoint and to have consensual sex with whoever the fuck they want, you vile slavers.

No, truth and morality is not on your side, since it is demonstrably true, that many paedophiles procure children for their predilection, through actual child sex slavery, paedophiles demonstrably abduct innocent, non consenting children and put them in literal cages, not just allegorical or euphemistic ones.

So what you are doing, is supporting those that actually partake of, endorse and support slavery and deprive innocent young people of their free will and self determination. While accusing those that seek to defend and protect those same exploited people, of the very crimes you advocate for.

So not only are you disingenuous, you're blatantly stupid.

It is demonstrably true that some gay men abduct other men for their predilection. Therefore all gays are abductors and rapists.

Notice how I said consensual sex? You are the one depriving people of their free will and self determination and being able to make consensual choices, because you are too dishonest or stupid not to lump them together with precisely the people who violate those choices, aka rapists or I-will-control-your-body slavers like you.

waytoogay wrote:Notice how I said consensual sex? You are the one depriving people of their free will and self determination and being able to make consensual choices, because you are too dishonest or stupid not to lump them together with precisely the people who violate those choices, aka slavers like you.

You keep having to revise what you say, because you're making it up as you go along. You put rapist, but realised that such an ad hominem attack, would be hypocritical of you, so you changed it to slaver

Even though demonstrable fact shows that paedophiles participate in modern day slavery and human trafficking (of children no less) far more than other denomination of alternative sexual identity.

You've had to go back and retcon your own arguments in retrospect, to make them look better and appear more favourable towards you. If that isn't the hallmark of a slippery conniving mind, who can't stick to what he originally said, I don't know what is.

You've even renamed the thread, to portray yourself as some valiant outsider, fighting the ignorance of the world.

But you're not. You're a misguided, child rape apologist who is desperate for attention.

What did I not stick to that I said, liar? You must change the topic to me editing my posts to polish my phrasing, because that's the damning moral fault, not how you falsely lump together rapists and non-rapists and use that lie to justify your violence against other people!!!

See, I edited it again to elaborate that both a rapist and an age of consent slaver use violence to achieve their control of another person's body and thus violate their free will. You obviously have no response to that so I suggest bringing up my spelling next.

Even though demonstrable fact shows that paedophiles participate in modern day slavery and human trafficking (of children no less) far more than other denomination of alternative sexual identity.

Can you show me this demonstrable fact? How did you get such statistics? It's more likely you're judging a demographic that's been forced underground and whose actual everyday lives you know nothing about by police reports and other self-selecting samples. A fake-news newspaper headline never told you about such consensual relationships, so that must mean they are not as common as any others (or would be if they were not persecuted)? And even if true, why wouldn't mental sickness and crime not be higher in a hunted criminalized demographic? It's also not like the Prohibition aka coercive state control over what people could put in their bodies led to gang violence!

Regardless, even if that were true, assigning guilt by association is false and unfair. Demonstrable fact shows that blacks participate in rape and murder far more than any other race in the US. Does that fact mean all blacks are rapists and murderers? Answer!

Will you stop lumping different individuals together and accusing them of some class crime to justify your lust for power and violence, you lying collectivist slaver scumbag?

waytoogay wrote:YES, you must change the topic to me editing my posts to polish my language

If you were simply revising spelling mistakes, that would be one thing, but your outright editing, after the fact, the substance of your posts. If you can't stand by your original statements (to which other people have responded in good faith) you can not be expected to discuss in good faith, indeed, you will and have sought to slip out of pitfalls and holes in your own reasoning and hoping to do the same for other peoples perception of your arguments as they read them after the fact. This speaks to your disingenuous or mercurial nature. This is about what manner of person you reveal yourself to be, in the manner by which you conduct yourself.

I dont trust people, who go back over what they have said and prune their statements for appearance.

waytoogay wrote:because that's the important moral question, not how you falsely lump together rapists and non-rapists and use that lie to justify your violent control over other people!

You missed the part where I explained that it doesn't matter if child molesters aren't a monolith, the reason for laws against child sex abuse, exist to protect the most vulnerable, from the most depraved. No minority of fantasists, who never act on their urges or well intentioned adults with no I'll will towards children, who have sex with them and leave them unscathed (debateable) can change the outcome and the harms done, by those that Do do harm, that are predatory, abusive and cruel. A blanket ban, is both essential and desirable, just as the ban on murder is the same, even if there are instances in which, I believe murder can be morally or ethically justified.
So there goes that part of your argument.

waytoogay wrote:See, I edited it again to reflect that both a rapist and an age of consent slaver use violence to achieve their control of another person's body. You obviously have no response to that so I suggest bringing up my spelling next.

whatever rationalisation you need to make.

waytoogay wrote:Can you show me those demonstrable facts? Where did you get such statistics?

Child Sexual Abuse Facts

Find a ton of statistics here, happy reading cretin

All these facts must be wrong, paedos are just misunderstood

waytoogay wrote:You're judging a hunted demographic that's been forced underground, and whose actual lives you know nothing about, by police reports and newspaper headlines. A newspaper never told you about such consensual relationships, so that must mean they don't exist. And gosh, why could crime be higher in a criminalized environment? It's not like banning drugs led to gang violence.

You shit heels are hunted for a reason, take a look. Those abuses aren't the result of policy. They are the result of the kinds of people, who place their own self gratification above that of innocent peoples who can't say no, or that can't understand what they consent too.

12 year old boys don't know what a true emotional commitment is, you can't have a "loving, sexual relationship" with someone who doesn't have the emotional maturity to make such connections in anything but the most infantile ways. It is doomed to be exploitative and you ramble on about freedom?

waytoogay wrote:Regardless, even if that were true, guilt by association is false and unfair. Demonstrable fact shows that blacks participate in rape and murder more than any other race. Does that fact mean all blacks are rapists and murderers? Answer!

Regaedless if it is true or not? You already know it's true and thats why you so readily concede this point and seek to make another argument by trying to shift the discussion to something else. Twat.

waytoogay wrote:Will you stop lumping different individuals together

In everything I have said, I have acknowledged, whether your too fucking dumb to notice or not, that there is no monolith, that the harms outweigh any potential, situational goods. That there is no justification, no argument that outways the horrors that are inflicted against people who can't protect themselves.

waytoogay wrote:accusing them of some class crime, you lying collectivist shitbag?

Make up you're mind, fucknut, am I a "collectivist" or do I believe in the kind of heirarchical structures that give rise to class? As I said, making it up as you go along.

Editted for the Quote tree mess.

Philosophers and scientists go back and retrospectively correct and revise language to make it sound better and more accurate. That means they're conniving and can't stick to what they originally said. IF A BOOKS HAS MULTIPLE EDITIONS IT MUST BE BURNED.



That said I should stop editing so much out of perfectionism if only because it costs me so much time.

Edit: holy fuck, you edited your post, you conniving hypocrite.

waytoogay wrote:Philosophers and scientists go back and retrospectively correct and revise language to make it sound better

So do liars, thieves and child molest... oh wait... my bad nvm.

You missed the part where I explained that it doesn't matter if child molesters aren't a monolith

Regaedless if it is true or not? You already know it's true and thats why you so readily concede this point and seek to make another argument by trying to shift the discussion to something else. Twat.

Yeah, I don't remember that part at all. Where did you explain how one one Jew, or black, or pedophile is responsible for the actions of another? Then you are guilty for the actions of all gays who are terrorists. A blanket ban on all homosexuality is both essential and desirable. Also, ALL the people who are murderers breathe oxygen. A blanket ban on people who breathe oxygen is both essential and desirable.

Oh by the way, in all seriousness I never doubted that you actually support murder and hunting innocent people down because that's what happens when sick psychopaths like you try to encage people, should they try to defend themselves from state gangs. We need private armies to rid the world of the absolute evil that you are.

just as the ban on murder is the same

All murder (as opposed to self-defense) is aggressive, whereas all consensual sex by definition is not aggressive. Morally opposite behaviors, so nnno, it's not the same.

Make up you're mind, fucknut, am I a "collectivist" or do I believe in the kind of heirarchical structures that give rise to class?

There is no contradiction. Collectivism makes up abstract concepts such as class, race, or people of similar sexual orientation, and then ascribes moral characteristics to them, ignoring the fact that they don't exist in reality. Only individuals exist and so share no common responsibility for each other. It's the same fallacy that is the basis of Nazism, or Marxist mental tricks that pretend there is a "social property." This mistake is perhaps one reason child slavers and statists are often (it can be argued always) the same people.

Child Sexual Abuse Facts

Find a ton of statistics here, happy reading cretin

All these facts must be wrong, paedos are just misunderstood

I searched the two of those links that work for "slavery" and "human trafficking" and couldn't find anything resembling your claim that "paedophiles participate in modern day slavery and human trafficking (of children no less) far more." Like I said, if you must resort to faking evidence to cheat and bullshit your way through a debate, you know your position is indefensible.

innocent peoples who can't say no, or that can't understand what they consent too.

Sure they can consent or refuse, just like they can accept or refuse food or playing ball. Whether they understand the implications or whether it's beneficial to have sex early is completely irrelevant to the fact that children own themselves and you don't have a slaver's right to control them.

but your outright editing, after the fact, the substance of your posts. If you can't stand by your original statements (to which other people have responded in good faith)

I made the edit because rapist does specifically refer to sexual violence whereas slaver is more general. But the important thing is morally you're just as bad as a rapist since you use violence to control other people. Do you have a response to that or are you going to desperately try and change the topic from your being violent to my penchant for editing? I'm just going to ignore your diversion tactics from now on.

The fallacies, moral equivocations and self serving arguments you make to justify your faulty and objectionable beliefs, are plain to see.

I have no more to say on the matter, having put forward my beliefs on the matter and ample evidence that backs those beliefs. Where you have offered nothing but double speak, false equivelances and flat out nonense.

You literally came here, begging for attention, no doubt having found no receptive audience elsewhere, you come here. And Derek is right, you neither deserve welcome nor attention.