abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Right, you described pedophilia as consensual.
Public Schools
- Thread starter londonfog
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Nope. An agreement made under duress is hardly an agreement, nor is a "uni-lateral agreement" which is imposed on you really an agreement.
If you borrow from somebody, a friend, a neighbor or a lender in the business of lending money, you were not under duress and neither were they. You have created an agreement / obligation in a bi-lateral and consensual way. Those agreements are not imposed on you with or without your consent. There is a huge difference.
You haven't smoked enough weed yet, and the Mongolian Beef was very good.
The state is a legal fiction, everything it purports to own came from force or the threat of it. They don't create value or protect it, they steal shit as part of their business model...plus they shoot women, children and dogs.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Shouldn't you be stealing oranges now ?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Ut oh, police on the lookout for serial pooper
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/a...ovement_bandit
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/a...ovement_bandit
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Nope. I described interactions where both parties consent as consensual. I also said people can consent to things that you or I wouldn't and the nature of the act alone isn't enough to declare whether the actors consented to it or not.
Are you saying that because you disagree with an act, that your disagreement alone means that the consenting parties didn't consent?
Because you're such a shitty debater you ran with that and tried to conflate it into something else.
I hope the stolen oranges sustain you until somebody consents to providing you some charity.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You described pedophilia as consensual.
Last edited:
Hazydat620
Well-Known Member
You've watched and listened to too much Larken Rose propaganda.
If you consider this very good... you should get out more often.
NAMBLA
Member
I agree emphatically with your definition of consent! You're such a smart young man!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are you actually comparing buying a house to being sold into slavery?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you also agreed to the property taxes knowingly and without duress.
you consented to slavery, now enjoy the rape.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you said you bought your house without coercion or duress though, slave.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Reported as rape.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
It was in the example I portrayed Uncle Buck in, with the bad man...because in that scenario they were in consensual agreement. That doesn't mean it is in all circumstances does it?
You are trying hard to conflate recognition of something to endorsement of that same something....you might fool some people, Abandon Responsibility, but not everybody. It's evidence of your inability to debate without distraction. You've never addressed why you think a heinous action can't be consensual, if the participants consented. So rather than examine things in a detached and logical way, you're running with something in an attempt to label me as a deviant because you can't hold your own unless you use distractions. That means I'm winning.
I think you'd like to be a Masterdebater but you always end up getting cheetoh crumbs all over your ninja turtle bedspread in your haste to coverup when you hear your mom coming down the basement stairs.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I didn't buy my house from the coercive government....yet they insert themselves into the equation (using force), what's wrong with that picture? You run with the automatic assumption that they are by some magical right "included" in every transaction and that since they always do that, it must be accepted. When a person transacts with another entity and an unwanted and unneeded third party inserts itself without permission from the first two individual participants, what just happened? Can I do that, intervene in others transactions? Can you do that? Why can "they" do that? Do they own a piece of everything?
You have a slave mindset Toby, now go rub the dirt of the license on the badmans bicycle for him and don't forget to send money to your masters for the privilege of doing so,
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No I just pointed out that you described pedophilia as consensual.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No. The transaction between a consenting buyer and seller isn't a form of slavery, if it remains only between them, the involved parties.
The forceful intervention of a third party to it in which that third party demands that you work for them and pay them or suffer harm though, is a kind of slavery of degrees.
This is evidenced by using a comparative example. If the badman said every time Abandon Responsibility and London Head in a Fog stole oranges , he automatically got a cut or he would kick their asses he has in some way enslaved them. Are you saying that exceptions to the meanings of words is acceptable whenever coercive government enters the equation? Stolkholm Syndrome much there Patty Hearst?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Should Uncle Buck not have consented to the badman? Do you think he was coerced? People that do that aren't very nice are they?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You've watched and listened to too much Larken Rose propaganda.
If you consider this very good... you should get out more often.
Thanks for the suggestion, but how do they fit the cow in that little cardboard box?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm not young, now get out of my yard...pervert!
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Such a sound model our public schools operate under. At least this judge sees the bigger picture.
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf...t_river_mobile
A Staten Island judge late Thursday denied a motion to dismiss a historic lawsuit that aims to revise New York state's teacher tenure rules. Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Philip Minardo ruled in St. George that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit -- who include a Castleton Corners father and his two children -- "clearly have standing" to assert their claims as students who have been deprived of their right to a sound, basic education. "With this trial, parents intend to prove that the current framework of bad laws, many children -- especially low income and minority children from our poorest communities -- are denied their right to a sound, basic education." The plaintiffs in the lawsuit known as Davids vs. New York argue that teacher tenure and layoffs by seniority deprive students of the sound, basic education they are guaranteed under the state constitution.
In b4 the "but you went to public school, therefore you should think it's awesome" argument.
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf...t_river_mobile
A Staten Island judge late Thursday denied a motion to dismiss a historic lawsuit that aims to revise New York state's teacher tenure rules. Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Philip Minardo ruled in St. George that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit -- who include a Castleton Corners father and his two children -- "clearly have standing" to assert their claims as students who have been deprived of their right to a sound, basic education. "With this trial, parents intend to prove that the current framework of bad laws, many children -- especially low income and minority children from our poorest communities -- are denied their right to a sound, basic education." The plaintiffs in the lawsuit known as Davids vs. New York argue that teacher tenure and layoffs by seniority deprive students of the sound, basic education they are guaranteed under the state constitution.
In b4 the "but you went to public school, therefore you should think it's awesome" argument.
Similar threads
