Let me know when you want to have an actual conversation Daniel.
lolol
I was under the impression we could speak English on the internet, although this newspeak of yours does make it convenient to sort out when one is addressing children or adults. (How topical!)
I don’t bother reading most of your posts. It is apparent you have no interest in an honest discussion.
The statement is nonesensical. The self-owner was always able to decide. In fact they made a conscious decision every day NOT to have sex, until one final day where they changed their mind. This is praxeologically self evident. Human action, and inaction.
So for me to point out the specific time and reasoning for why a self-owner suddenly decided they wanted to have sex I would again have to assume a roll of omniscience. You seem to be going in circles with this.
Perhaps the self-owner fell in love? Who knows? I cannot read the minds of others.
I do. But it is hard when you try to turn the tables on us, when the inquisition is on you.
Then having sex with a toddler is not rape. Just ask a toddler if she will have sex with you. I am sure you can get her to say yes (without using threats).
I didn’t mean to treat you like a child.
Explain to me how this is being honest? Right after you accused ERO and myself of being dishonest? You would obviously be duping the child. To answer your question, I ask another question. Is the child actually consenting to sex? Yes or no? If you answer yes, how do you know?
Likewise if I propose to have sex with a foreigner who does not speak English. How do I know if I have consent or not? Does the inability to communicate or comprehend the request mean that they auto-consent? IS that what you believe?
Any one who assumes that a toddler is agreeing or actually comprehends your question is blatantly being dishonest. I cannot think of a more clear example.
You also diliberately ignored my earlier question.
Guess that means your homesteadable Daniel.
So everything I do to my toddler (like lock her in her room at night) is a rights violation? That’s just dumb.
Locking the child in their room is negligence.
There is an implied contract in a parent/child relationship. A guardianship relationship.
I personally would definitely send my child to their room, but never lock them up so that they could not get out
What a profound, well thought out assessment. So I can expect this level of intellectual rigor when ERO and I are allegedly being dishonest eh?
Only in your crazy world. I don’t know of a single law ever proposed suggesting that locking your child in their room at night is negligent. Apparently, most statists understand parent’s rights much better than a lot of supposed libertarians.
It is an opinion. I’m sorry you have such a hard time with them.
Laws don’t make right or wrong. Do you understand what legal positivism is? Before you can argue what are rights you should perhaps spend a few minutes learning what a right is.
3 times now you refuse to answer the following question
Law should be based on logic, not opinion.
I didn’t say they do.
Do I have an obligation to answer every little question you ask? If so where is the evidence? If not, then why would I answer it? Just because you ask me my address, age, dob, ssn, etc. doesn’t mean I am going to give it to you. Cops think that way though.
Spidey, here is a recap of what’s been going this year:
Us: Do children have rights?
You: No, because they cannot reason.
Us: Prove that they cannot not reason.
You: You are asking me to prove a negative.
Us: What evidence do you require to prove that children can reason?
You: At what age can a child chose to have sex?
So, please stop saying that we’re being intellectually dishonest.
Anyone can play make believe.
Immaterial.
It’s implied in your statement that you take a legal positivist approach. When i said negligence I was simply sharing my opinion, something I am entitled to do. That doesn’t equate to me saying I am going to call the police.
Laws do not make rights. Legal action is just one path we can take for detirmining who has more of a claim to action. There are other avenue’s we can take, we are not limited to legal recourse alone. We have reason, logic, and argumentation among other things.
As opposed to
You don’t have to do anything, but please out of respect don’t accuse me and others of being evasive then. [:)]
The problem is you can deduce anything logically when your premise is flawed, and your conclusion will likewise also be flawed, even if the steps you followed were logically sound. It’s like me taking a premise that there is no gravity, well I can deduce logically that we can fly. But my premise is apparently flawed.
The issue is your premise.
Mon. 10/03/22 17:36 EDT
.post #21
I suspect that this is a rhetorical question, but let me treat it as an interrogative question.
One answer is: If, at some point, the foreigner wants (you) to stop, then you know you do not have consent.
Since there is no contract, there is neither right nor obligation to continue.