Who did you put your creepy paws on Rob?
Hard to make a moral argument eh?
I mean an honest moral argument, not bullshit rationalizations either. She was a child Rob and you a grown man who behaved shamefully and are rejected by decent people everywhere because of it. It must be painful indeed, and I'm sure it was for her too and her parents were devastated as well.
What if this child had become pregnant Rob, did you really think through the consequences of your actions?
Did you even care?
If nobody else can tell ya right from wrong Rob, there's a pretty good chance you can't either. This indicates an antisocial pathology and that can't be good cause it would mean there's no hope and you'll never drink from the cup of human happiness. Others will be mere objects to you for the fulfillment of your selfish needs and not a source of joy and comfort. and I don't figure ya got the mental equipment to know what I'm talking about.
Others might wants to copy the above text Rob and keep it handy and if they are offended by child sexual abuse, they are free to use it, no attribution required. They can throw it yer face Rob every time ya make a stupid post, which is always and I hope folks spread the word around these parts about a varmint on the loose and this is the cure.
I am here to end suffering, why don't you end yours Rob?
Oh dear, I know you went to a lot of trouble to write the preceding mountains of horse shit, but you're still wrong.
So you've posted several times, created a volume of conflated nonanswers and included an erroneous innuendo laden perv accusation and yet you
STILL haven't shown me how a group of people can have any greater right than any of the individuals within it.
The reason why you haven't shown me is simple. A group of people doesn't have greater rights than any individual within it. It's impossible.
Rights are concepts that human beings are equal, not in the sense that most people misuse, but in the sense that means every peaceable person has the right of
self determination.
What you described, hierarchies, is based in the idea that rights come from other people or "the group", which would make them revocable privileges or customs, subject to change based on the whims of the hierarchy or a democratic process etc. , therefore they are not rights. Without using a strawman, try to make your point, using an example that is an on point refutation to my declaration. You can't.
As an aside, would you like me to mathematically prove my point ? It's quite simple to do so. You do believe that math is a good way to prove something, right, err, correct ?
I think you own yourself, but you and your friends can't rightfully own other people, why are you arguing for a process that aligns itself with slavery ? That's what a democracy does or an ingrained custom does. Pointing to customs (which you did) as "proof" that rights can be aggregated doesn't disprove my point, it simply shows the ways rights have been abridged by groups historically. In other words, because a thing occurs on routine and regular basis isn't proof that it is right, it could be that wrong has simply been normalized.
So how about some mathematical proofs instead of volumes of horse shit? (I like this part)
