is this the middle ages?

[Sir Napsalot]

*Eminent*

 

[TacoMac]

My fault.

 

[Rob Roy]

No, we don't agree because you're an idiot.

Imminent domain only succeeds in the most obvious of cases and it almost always comes into court because of the simple greed of the subject at hand.

Layman's Example: I own 1000 acres of land under which lies a massive oil deposit. The Shell oil company comes to me and offers me a half billion dollars for the drilling rights.

I refuse, saying I want 5 billion dollars which is about double what the deposits are worth.

So Shell oil files a grievance with the federal government for imminent domain.

It goes to court. I will lose my ass.

It is factually inevitable that at some point my oil reserves will be required. That is beyond any doubt contrary to the bullshit in your head.

I was also offered a very fair price for the drilling rights, I simply was a greedy asshole.

So what the government will apply for is minimally invasive rights. What that mean is the government will take only the land required to gain access to the oil reserves and will only pay me for access.

So rather than making a half billion dollars and buying myself an island and a yacht, I'll be lucky to make about 5 million dollars and be looking out my window at oil rigs.

The key to imminent domain is to not be a greedy asshole. If you're not, you'll in all likelihood never face it.

There is, rarely, the other side of that.

If Shell offered me only 5 million when a fair offer would be far more, then it would work the other way. The government would determine what the value really is and offer Shell the chance to pay up.

If Shell refused, then the government would offer the rights to the highest bidder with that amount as the opening bid.

So, again, don't be a greedy asshole. In imminent domain cases, whoever's the greedy asshole is going to lose.

Except, I'm not the idiot in this discussion. You'll run away crying before long, but consider this...

If the person(s) that owns land refuses to go along with the nonconsensual exchange of their land, and the court gets involved, the court magically provides the nonconsenting land owners consent for them ?

Just like if you were raping somebody and they didn't consent, if you got a third party to write some words on a piece of paper declaring your rape victim's consent doesn't matter, you would magically not be raping somebody now ?

If I offered you market price to let a herd of albino Wildebeest gang rape your nether regions and you didn't consent, would the "greater good" be served by the gang rape, since you are a single individual and a herd of gang raping wildebeest could number in the hundreds? Is that how it works?

 

[Rob Roy]

Ask him can a girl of 12 consent to sex with a 30 year old

I thought you were older than 30?

 

[Rob Roy]

Who would hold them responsible and what would be the punishment for murdering you and your family, then taking your land ?

So, you're saying in the absence of a central coercion based authority, if your neighbors who you knew quite well, were murdered and somebody else stole their house, there couldn't possibly be any way to hold the murderer responsible ?

Is that because you would be cowering behind your wife or because you can't imagine any other way of doing things than what other people tell you you're allowed to do ?

 

[londonfog]

So, you're saying in the absence of a central coercion based authority, if your neighbors who you knew quite well, were murdered and somebody else stole their house, there couldn't possibly be any way to hold the murderer responsible ?

Is that because you would be cowering behind your wife or because you can't imagine any other way of doing things than what other people tell you you're allowed to do ?

I asked YOU the question. When you answer with another question, it simple means you don't have an answer.
Once more.
Who would hold them responsible and what would be the punishment for murdering you and your family, then taking your land ? Try to answer how this would work in your utopia.

 

[londonfog]

I thought you were older than 30?

I'm not the one saying a 12 year old can consent to sex with an adult, that would be you.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm not the one saying a 12 year old can consent to sex with an adult, that would be you.

Only because he’s a pedophile though

 

[Budley Doright]

Only because he’s a pedophile though

Sure would point in that direction and if not, defending is just as repulsive. And “liking” his crap is repulsive as well.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

View attachment 4246809

"Hello? FCC? My name is Schuylaar and there is this guy online who is stalking me. Will you help me please?

Also, Publix owes me half a nugget.

I am a very stable genius with an IQ higher than yours.

What? I am currently unemployed but people are throwing six figure jobs at me because my resume is impeccable. Um, yes, I did go on record as selling sub-mid grams to the old people in my complex. What does that have to do with anything? Did you even hear me? Somebody is being mean to me! I pay taxes... well, I sort of don't - but it is better to beg forgiveness than ask for permission... and I demand that you do your job of stopping people from being mean to me!"

 

[Rob Roy]

I asked YOU the question. When you answer with another question, it simple means you don't have an answer.
Once more.
Who would hold them responsible and what would be the punishment for murdering you and your family, then taking your land ? Try to answer how this would work in your utopia.

It depends on the circumstances and not each circumstance for everybody is necessarily the same. Motivations to seek justice could be family ties, friendship, formal written alliances, informal alliances or fulfillment of a business contract etc.

For instance, if a person had a secured loan against their property, and the new murderous occupant killed the person who had been paying a loan and seized the collateral too, that would be an instance of a party who might seek restitution from the murderer.


Speaking of answering questions...
You've never really proven how a person can delegate a right they don't possess, using math, which you claimed to be proficient at.

I'd like to challenge you (again) to demonstrate how a person can delegate a right they don't possess, by using your math skills.
I've proven it's impossible, by using math, you've never refuted it.

 

[Rob Roy]

Only because he’s a pedophile though

Observing and discussing things we don't like isn't the same thing as endorsing the thing being discussed as a personal preference.

For instance, I've discussed your bathroom etiquette several times, pointing out my concerns about it, but that shouldn't be construed as my endorsing your frequent flippant felonious filthy fecal forays.

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm not the one saying a 12 year old can consent to sex with an adult, that would be you.

If you don't mind, proving, using math, how what you claim is impossible, is actually impossible ?

I'm sure you've just overlooked this and have every intention of displaying the simple arithmetic that will allow you to finally best me in an argument. Thanks.

 

[Rob Roy]

Sure would point in that direction and if not, defending is just as repulsive. And “liking” his crap is repulsive as well.

 

[londonfog]

It depends on the circumstances and not each circumstance for everybody is necessarily the same. Motivations to seek justice could be family ties, friendship, formal written alliances, informal alliances or fulfillment of a business contract etc.

For instance, if a person had a secured loan against their property, and the new murderous occupant killed the person who had been paying a loan and seized the collateral too, that would be an instance of a party who might seek restitution from the murderer.

.

how would they seek restitution ? and when you say they secured a loan, is this loan from a private individual? In which case would not the murder kill him/her as well when they came to collect. Now he/she has her property and land as well. but back to how would they seek restitution.
Also what would stop arm robbery in your utopia or guns not allowed ? Thanks

 

[londonfog]

If you don't mind, proving, using math, how what you claim is impossible, is actually impossible ?

I'm sure you've just overlooked this and have every intention of displaying the simple arithmetic that will allow you to finally best me in an argument. Thanks.

easy .
one 12 year old + one 31 year old x one sexual relationship = 10 to 15 years penitentiary or

12 is < than 31 = 1 pedophile

 

[Rob Roy]

how would they seek restitution ? and when you say they secured a loan, is this loan from a private individual? In which case would not the murder kill him/her as well when they came to collect. Now he/she has her property and land as well. but back to how would they seek restitution.
Also what would stop arm robbery in your utopia or guns not allowed ? Thanks

If I were seeking restitution the first thing I would do is gather sufficient evidence to demonstrate the guilt or culpability of the wrong doer to a third party(s) .

You're asking reasonable questions now, but I'd like to point out, AGAIN, that you've failed to demonstrate, using math, how a person can delegate a right they do not possess. I'm beginning to think your boast of being a math wizard falls short of the truth.

 

[londonfog]

If I were seeking restitution the first thing I would do is gather sufficient evidence to demonstrate the guilt or culpability of the wrong doer to a third party(s) .

You're asking reasonable questions now, but I'd like to point out, AGAIN, that you've failed to demonstrate, using math, how a person can delegate a right they do not possess. I'm beginning to think your boast of being a math wizard fall short of the truth.

and exactly who is this third party ? How do you select who would be this third party ? and who gave this third party the power or RIGHT to hold any judgments. Thanks

 

[Rob Roy]

easy .
one 12 year old + one 31 year old x one sexual relationship = 10 to 15 years penitentiary or

12 is < than 31 = 1 pedophile

I'm afraid that's not the equation though. I know you'd like to discuss your junior high fantasies, but here let me refresh your dull memory. We can return to your favorite topic, before you lose your pedo boner, don't worry.



A person does not possess a right to do something. That is expressed as zero.

Several other people also do not possess that right. That is expressed as more zeroes.


When we aggregate all those zero rights, the sum can never be anything but zero.

0+ 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 (ad finitum) = 0


So, if you don't have a right to do X, you cannot combine your zero right with a bunch of other people (even if those people superstitiously believe they have magical "government powers" ) and come up with a positive sum. Therefore, you CANNOT delegate a right you do not possess.

Now, I'm going to have to assume you can't disprove my simple equation above, since you haven't.

Let's try another question, maybe you'll do better.

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right? (L.Rose variant of question)

 

[Rob Roy]

and exactly who is this third party ? How do you select who would be this third party ? and who gave this third party the power or RIGHT to hold any judgments. Thanks

Since we know we can't delegate rights we don't possess, the answer is obvious, but I'll wait a bit so you have time to answer my second question. (hold onto to your pedo boner just a bit longer...you can do it)