Hawker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
 |
October 12, 2011, 05:19:52 PM |
|
...snip...
Where do you think little Tommy should get his rights from, and why is him wanting to make money by giving blowjobs not a right he is allowed to have, if he does it willingly, consentually, and is aware enough of the risks to do it safely? (<- Since you've proven yourself an idiot at taking my words out of context before, I am forced to point out here that I don't necessarily hold the view that little kids should be giving blowjobs. Please note the "consentually" and "aware of the risks," which likely makes little Tommy above 14)
You are backing off your starting position. Really? So one person sees a right to sex at the age of 12; another sees it at 16; yet another sees it only within marriage. How do you decide between them? Its all consensual in that the kid goes along with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 12, 2011, 05:24:02 PM
Last edit: October 12, 2011, 05:47:10 PM by Rassah |
|
The question was about little Tommy's parents selling his services.
As I said, i have an issue with someone selling someone else's services without their consent. That's literally slavery. But if you believe that's ok, then why should they stop selling any of his services at some randomly picked age? Tommy is 50, his parents need some money for pills, they sell him to their neighmor who needs his car washed. What's wrong or inconsistent with that? ...snip...
Where do you think little Tommy should get his rights from, and why is him wanting to make money by giving blowjobs not a right he is allowed to have, if he does it willingly, consentually, and is aware enough of the risks to do it safely? (<- Since you've proven yourself an idiot at taking my words out of context before, I am forced to point out here that I don't necessarily hold the view that little kids should be giving blowjobs. Please note the "consentually" and "aware of the risks," which likely makes little Tommy above 14)
You are backing off your starting position. Really? So one person sees a right to sex at the age of 12; another sees it at 16; yet another sees it only within marriage. How do you decide between them? Its all consensual in that the kid goes along with it. Their right is to make personal decisions about when they want to do things with their own bodies. One person's right in that respect is not infringing on anyone else's. Where is the conflict between those three that needs to be resolved or decided on? The 12yo can go off and have sex, the 16yo can wait till they are 16, and the last one can wait till they are married. Why is it any of their or our business what they want to do? More so, why do you believe this isn't the way things already happen? Why bring up a hypothetical world where such a decision has been made? P. S. Sorry, but there's really no topic that I find taboo, so, apologies if your "Oh think of the children!" tactic isn't persuading me. |
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 12, 2011, 05:51:55 PM |
|
Being forced or sold into sex is not a decision the child him/herself makes, and is not right regardless of vhe age. This is a straw an that goes completely against everything libertarianis, and the whole idea of rights, stand for.
I don't think society should ever intervene if the decision was not coerced. And should always try to intervene if anything is coerced.
If little Tommy learns how to give blowjobs, and uses that to make some extra income for himself, I personally don't see that as being worse that little Tommy going around cutting peoples lawns with a lawnmower to make extra cash. Both jobs are dangerous, one just has a stupid sexual taboo associated with it.
Where do you think little Tommy should get his rights from, and why is him wanting to make money by giving blowjobs not a right he is allowed to have, if he does it willingly, consentually, and safely?
The question was about little Tommy's parents selling his services. Little Tommy's parents do not own him, he is not property. They have an obligation to prevent harm from coming to him until he is able to make rational decisions for himself. They are not justified in doing whatever they want with him. If Tommy doesn't like his parents, he can run away to someone that will take better care of him, or confront another individual with his problems and ask that they help him. In today's world, the only entity that is legally allowed to protect children in this way is the state. If you can keep your child abuse hidden from the state, or abuse your child in a way permitted by the state, there is no recourse available to the child or others. How is this a better system? |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 12, 2011, 05:55:20 PM |
|
...snip...
Their right is to make personal decisions about when they want to do things with their own bodies. One person's right in that respect is not infringing on anyone else's. Where is the conflict between those three that needs to be resolved or decided on? The 12yo can go off and have sex, the 16yo can wait till they are 16, and the last one can wait till they are married. Why is it any of their or our business what they want to do? More so, why do you believe this isn't the way things already happen? Why bring up a hypothetical world where such a decision has been made?
P. S. Sorry, but there's really no topic that I find taboo, so, apologies if your "Oh think of the children!" tactic isn't persuading me.
No its not the way things already happen. If a 12 year old has a drugs habit and is selling herself for drugs money, anyone who pays for that gets locked up. Even if they go to Thailand for it. OK we have established that if someone is selling their 12 year old for sex, you are perfectly happy with it provided the child consents. How low are you happy to go before you decide that a child with a drugs habit is not qualified to decide if she should or should not consent to sex? |
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 12, 2011, 05:58:01 PM |
|
...snip...
Their right is to make personal decisions about when they want to do things with their own bodies. One person's right in that respect is not infringing on anyone else's. Where is the conflict between those three that needs to be resolved or decided on? The 12yo can go off and have sex, the 16yo can wait till they are 16, and the last one can wait till they are married. Why is it any of their or our business what they want to do? More so, why do you believe this isn't the way things already happen? Why bring up a hypothetical world where such a decision has been made?
P. S. Sorry, but there's really no topic that I find taboo, so, apologies if your "Oh think of the children!" tactic isn't persuading me.
No its not the way things already happen. If a 12 year old has a drugs habit and is selling herself for drugs money, anyone who pays for that gets locked up. Even if they go to Thailand for it. OK we have established that if someone is selling their 12 year old for sex, you are perfectly happy with it provided the child consents. How low are you happy to go before you decide that a child with a drugs habit is not qualified to decide if she should or should not consent to sex? You've got some weird fetishes, Hawker. That's all I've got to say about that... |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 12, 2011, 06:14:38 PM
Last edit: October 12, 2011, 06:27:49 PM by Rassah |
|
No its not the way things already happen. If a 12 year old has a drugs habit and is selling herself for drugs money, anyone who pays for that gets locked up. Even if they go to Thailand for it.
But the 12 year old isn't locked up, or stopped. They get chastised, or punished by their parents, but as far as I know, there are no legal reprecussions for the 12 year old. And if that 12 year old has sex with another 12 year old, who is going to jail? Please tell me. OK we have established that if someone is selling their 12 year old for sex, you are perfectly happy with it provided the child consents.
Oh my god! Even if I point out that saying this crap is totally idiotic and completely out of context, you still do it. If anything, since you were specifically explained a position, told that you would be an idiot for taking it out of contect to make it seem like it's something else, and then you went and did just that, the only thing we have established is that you are an idiot (or someone who specifically twists other peoples words with bad intention, but I don't think you're that mean/evil, yet). You keep throwing away important parts, like being sold into is NOT consenting, and that I specifically said "informed." Though, I guess, yes, if the 12 year old is somehow fully informed about sex (before puberty?), and if the parents just help them find clients but allow them to make all the decisions themselves, including what to do with the cash received, then yeah, I think it would be ok. It's a help of a lot better than how things were just 300 years ago, when that 12 year old girl would be sold to another family in "marriage" for some land or cows, when that 12 year old didn't know what sex was, did not consent to it, and was still forced to have sex (raped) and make babies. Do you support that good wholesome system? How low are you happy to go before you decide that a child with a drugs habit is not qualified to decide if she should or should not consent to sex?
Down to the point where the child is no longer able to make informed decisions. Getting into a drug habit and getting addicted was not a very informed decision to begin with. Give me a better example. |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 12, 2011, 06:19:47 PM |
|
By the way, in some US states, the minimum age at which a girl is allowed to strip for money is around 12 to 14. I guess since that's a law, and since rights come from law, 12 year olds have a right to strip for money, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 12, 2011, 06:22:27 PM |
|
By the way, in some US states, the minimum age at which a girl is allowed to strip for money is around 12 to 14. I guess since that's a law, and since rights come from law, 12 year olds have a right to strip for money, right?
If you disagree with The Law, that's just like, your opinion, man. The Law is The Law (because The Law says so). |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 12, 2011, 06:24:42 PM |
|
...snip... How low are you happy to go before you decide that a child with a drugs habit is not qualified to decide if she should or should not consent to sex?
Down to the point where the child is no longer able to make informed decisions. Getting into a drug habit and getting addicted was not a very informed decision to begin with. Give me a better example. OK you are happy for a child of any age to have sex with an adult provided they make an informed decision. As you probably know, a lot of priests in Ireland had consensual sex with children in ages from about 5 to 15. Even though they consented at the time, later on the kids changed their minds and said they were damaged by the experience of sex with an adult at such young ages. Is it your position that they consented so should shut up? Or is it your position that there is a point where a person does not have the right to consent to sex? Obviously at that point, society has a right to intervene and rescue the child. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 12, 2011, 06:26:04 PM |
|
By the way, in some US states, the minimum age at which a girl is allowed to strip for money is around 12 to 14. I guess since that's a law, and since rights come from law, 12 year olds have a right to strip for money, right?
If you disagree with The Law, that's just like, your opinion, man. The Law is The Law (because The Law says so). You still haven't answered my question. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.msg570269#msg570269If rights are what "ought" rather than what "is," where does your "ought" come from? |
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 12, 2011, 06:26:21 PM |
|
...snip... How low are you happy to go before you decide that a child with a drugs habit is not qualified to decide if she should or should not consent to sex?
Down to the point where the child is no longer able to make informed decisions. Getting into a drug habit and getting addicted was not a very informed decision to begin with. Give me a better example. OK you are happy for a child of any age to have sex with an adult provided they make an informed decision. As you probably know, a lot of priests in Ireland had consensual sex with children in ages from about 5 to 15. Even though they consented at the time, later on the kids changed their minds and said they were damaged by the experience of sex with an adult at such young ages. Is it your position that they consented so should shut up? Or is it your position that there is a point where a person does not have the right to consent to sex? Obviously at that point, society has a right to intervene and rescue the child. It's not that they don't have a right to consent to sex. It's that they are unable to make an informed decision to do so. If someone does something that they have no right to do, they should be punished. Children who have sex with adults because the adults convinced them to should not be punished, in fact, the adults should. Seriously, why are you so obsessed with adult-on-child sex? You're creeping me out, man. |
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 12, 2011, 06:32:55 PM |
|
If I provide you with an answer, do you promise to read and try to understand it? If so, then please read this blog post. It's by a friend of mine, and I cannot summarize the issue any more than he has. If you are unwilling to read this, then you are unwilling to have your question answered. By the way, due to your hypocrisy, I'm going to be calling you out every I see that you don't answer a question or respond to a point. |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 12, 2011, 06:36:35 PM |
|
OK you are happy for a child of any age to have sex with an adult provided they make an informed decision.
Yes As you probably know, a lot of priests in Ireland had consensual sex with children in ages from about 5 to 15. Even though they consented at the time, later on the kids changed their minds and said they were damaged by the experience of sex with an adult at such young ages.
Is it your position that they consented so should shut up?
I think that since the kids broke the law by having sex at 5 to 15, it is your position that they should be fined or jailed. Or is it your position that there is a point where a person does not have the right to consent to sex? Obviously at that point, society has a right to intervene and rescue the child.
It doesn't have anything to do with rights. Everyone has a right to consent at any age. Not everyone has the ABILITY to consent. And a state can't determine when someone can consent, either. That is different for each individual. Let me ask you something. Why do you believe that sex is harmful, at any age, if done with consent? Just curious. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 12, 2011, 06:38:32 PM |
|
This thread has seriously wandered off topic, and has entered deep into Valley Creepy.
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 12, 2011, 06:47:53 PM |
|
This thread has seriously wandered off topic, and has entered deep into Valley Creepy.
Mmmm.. rights are rights. If these guys can't understand that your rights don't come from your parents or your politician, no point in trying to explain IP rights. Though the "gotcha" question attempts do seem to end up being creepy. Still waiting for Hawker to swing this over into rape, or incest territory. Anything to make the other side lose by feeling uncomfortable I guess. Sometimes I'm honestly tempted to troll hard in reply... |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 12, 2011, 06:48:06 PM |
|
...snip... Or is it your position that there is a point where a person does not have the right to consent to sex? Obviously at that point, society has a right to intervene and rescue the child.
It doesn't have anything to do with rights. Everyone has a right to consent at any age. Not everyone has the ABILITY to consent. And a state can't determine when someone can consent, either. That is different for each individual. Let me ask you something. Why do you believe that sex is harmful, at any age, if done with consent? Just curious. So you acknowledge that there are times when a person consents but really we have to overlook it as they did not have the capacity to consent. Under those circumstances, society has a right to intervene doesn't it? For example, if a man is proposing having sex with a seven year old who has verbally consented? Or do you let it happen? |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 12, 2011, 06:52:18 PM |
|
It doesn't have anything to do with rights. Everyone has a right to consent at any age. Not everyone has the ABILITY to consent. And a state can't determine when someone can consent, either. That is different for each individual.
Let me ask you something. Why do you believe that sex is harmful, at any age, if done with consent? Just curious.
So you acknowledge that there are times when a person consents but really we have to overlook it as they did not have the capacity to consent. Under those circumstances, society has a right to intervene doesn't it? For example, if a man is proposing having sex with a seven year old who has verbally consented? Or do you let it happen? You didn't answer my question. Why is sex harmful? I can't answer your question without knowing where you stand on this (were you one of those priests ot 7 year olds)? |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 12, 2011, 06:54:56 PM |
|
It doesn't have anything to do with rights. Everyone has a right to consent at any age. Not everyone has the ABILITY to consent. And a state can't determine when someone can consent, either. That is different for each individual.
Let me ask you something. Why do you believe that sex is harmful, at any age, if done with consent? Just curious.
So you acknowledge that there are times when a person consents but really we have to overlook it as they did not have the capacity to consent. Under those circumstances, society has a right to intervene doesn't it? For example, if a man is proposing having sex with a seven year old who has verbally consented? Or do you let it happen? You didn't answer my question. Why is sex harmful? I can't answer your question without knowing where you stand on this (were you one of those priests ot 7 year olds)? That isn't the issue. The issue is at what point society has a right to intervene. For example, if a man is proposing having sex with a seven year old who has verbally consented? Or do you let it happen? |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 12, 2011, 07:00:43 PM |
|
It doesn't have anything to do with rights. Everyone has a right to consent at any age. Not everyone has the ABILITY to consent. And a state can't determine when someone can consent, either. That is different for each individual.
Let me ask you something. Why do you believe that sex is harmful, at any age, if done with consent? Just curious.
So you acknowledge that there are times when a person consents but really we have to overlook it as they did not have the capacity to consent. Under those circumstances, society has a right to intervene doesn't it? For example, if a man is proposing having sex with a seven year old who has verbally consented? Or do you let it happen? You didn't answer my question. Why is sex harmful? I can't answer your question without knowing where you stand on this (were you one of those priests ot 7 year olds)? That isn't the issue. The issue is at what point society has a right to intervene. For example, if a man is proposing having sex with a seven year old who has verbally consented? Or do you let it happen? That is the issue, because if there is absolutely no harm in it, then why stop it? And if there is harm in it, then probably yes, intervene. Thus the answer depends on you answering what you believe the harm in that situation to be. And by the way, neither you nor society can answer your question decisively (14? 16? 18? Marriage?) so why are you expecting me to? But, again, why do you believe sex is harmful? |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 12, 2011, 07:38:49 PM |
|
...snip...
That is the issue, because if there is absolutely no harm in it, then why stop it? And if there is harm in it, then probably yes, intervene. Thus the answer depends on you answering what you believe the harm in that situation to be.
And by the way, neither you nor society can answer your question decisively (14? 16? 18? Marriage?) so why are you expecting me to?
But, again, why do you believe sex is harmful?
So you accept that society has a right to intervene to prevent harm. Society feels that the loss of Intellectual Property would do harm. Just as it has a right to intervene when it sees damage due to sex abuse of minors, it has a right to intervene to prevent damage by loss of IP. On your own logic IP laws are well within society's rights. |
|
|
|
|
|
