New York rules its cool to look at kiddie porn

Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers. It is an act unaffected by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake when these factors are not the reason for the consent. Consent is implied in every agreement.

thats the same definition courts would use to institutionalize you because you dont want to give up your gold/weapons/etc because "the dollar is defaulting (lol)"

enjoy it while it works in your favor


morals are nothing but the mental excrements of an elitist few which is employed by the government to legitimize the governments actions. theyre called philisophers.
 


guerilla said:
If there is consent, what is the crime?
Click to expand...

You are assuming that consent can be given by all beings. I disagree. If you have some evidence that a 3 year old, for example, can consent to sex, please show it (I mean a study etc, not child porn obviously).

Laws are made by societies. You have the option of moving to a society that better agrees with your views, yet you prefer to put words in my mouth, like in your last post.
 
guerilla said:
I haven't dodged the question at all. There is no crime, and hence no domain for the courts if there is consent. This is a fact.

Whether or not someone is a "child" capable of rendering consent is an opinion.
Click to expand...

The laws are on the books, they are not opinions, they are laws. Consent is defined, and according to the definition a child is incapable of consenting. They can make a decision, but that is different from the legal definition of consent. I've asked you to give your definition of "consent" but you have declined to do so. Therefore, we will use the legal definition which I provided, and according to that you are wrong.

clyde said:
You have proof for this assertion?
Click to expand...

Do I have proof that traffic has value on the Internet? Yes, I happen to earn my living online. Traffic has value.

clyde said:
Indeed. In most EU countries it's 14, in Saudi Arabia it's 0, various states in the US have different consent age as well. 16-18.
Click to expand...

You're confusing the age at which someone can consent to have sex, versus when they can consent to be used in porn. We're talking about children being used in porn, not whether or not a high school girl can fuck her boyfriend.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
The laws are on the books, they are not opinions, they are laws.
Click to expand...
Please keep posting, this shit is too funny.

Unarmed Gunman said:
The law is the law because it's the law and you gotta follow the law because it's the law YA KNOW!!!
Click to expand...
_
_

Unarmed Gunman said:
You're confusing the age at which someone can consent to have sex, versus when they can consent to be used in porn.
Click to expand...
Right, because if you have the capacity to consent to one act, you probably don't have the capacity to consent to another...

This thread is filled with epic cognitive fail. I love it.
 
guerilla said:
Right, because if you have the capacity to consent to one act, you probably don't have the capacity to consent to another...
Click to expand...

That is correct. If you disagree, define consent. Your argument is incorrect unless you offer a different definition than the one everyone else is using.

Again, you are confusing "making a decision" with "consent". They are not the same thing.

Guerilla, your changing of people's words in quotes shows a tremendous lack or maturity. It's hard to take you seriously when you behave like that.

Define consent.
*snip*

Once you do that, you'll see why your entire argument is flawed.
 
guerilla said:
Why can't it be genuinely given?
Click to expand...

Read the definition of "consent" and that should answer your question.

"Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers. It is an act unaffected by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake when these factors are not the reason for the consent. Consent is implied in every agreement."

Making a decision is not the same thing as consenting to an act.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
That is correct. If you disagree, define consent. Your argument is incorrect unless you offer a different definition than the one everyone else is using.
Click to expand...
Everyone else?

Clyde and wayn3 are both using the same definition I am.

You and mattseh are not.

Any conventional dictionary definition of consent will do, although we could use a legal dictionary opinion like Black's.

Everyone understand consent. You're the one trying to claim that a court can decide whether others are capable of consent, and your only argument thus far has been a court can decide because it's a court.

Which is of course, a non-argument.

Not that it will stop you and give pause, cause you to think for a minute and actually analyze whether your position makes any sense logically...
 
A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent
Click to expand...
Who has the authority to determine what is sufficient?

(Hint: this is the part where you and mattseh run into the brick walls of your conditioning and insist there is an authority which is authoritative because... well because IT IS!)
 
If a court has enough military power (Behind it) it can decide anything it wants to.
If a nation gives a court the power, it can even kill you.


The people can decide to give courts "powers", they can even give the power to take ones life.
Talking us..... The authority from the people to the court... they dont like it.... change the court.
 
guerilla said:
Who has the authority to determine what is sufficient?

(Hint: this is the part where you and mattseh run into the brick walls of your conditioning and insist there is an authority which is authoritative because... well because IT IS!)
Click to expand...

The courts of course. Or do they not have authority simply because you don't want them to? That's cute, but they can still lock your ass up for it. Your anarchist dreamland where people are free to sexually victimize children doesn't exist in real life. The courts have the authority to determine consent and they have determined that children do not possess the mental capacity to consent. Deal with it, or don't but the reality is what it is.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
The courts of course.
Click to expand...
Why?

Unarmed Gunman said:
Or do they not have authority simply because you don't want them to?
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is on you to prove why they are authoritative, not on me to prove why they are not.

This is where understanding logic would help you.

(The burden of proof is on the believer, the burden of proof is on the accuser etc etc.)

Unarmed Gunman said:
That's cute, but they can still lock your ass up for it.
Click to expand...
So you're saying they are an authority because they use violence against people who disagree with them?

Unarmed Gunman said:
Your anarchist dreamland where people are free to sexually victimize children doesn't exist in real life.
Click to expand...
Now we get to the crux of it. The moralizing.

Unarmed Gunman said:
The courts have the authority to determine consent and they have determined that children do not possess the mental capacity to make those decisions. Deal with it, or don't but the reality is what it is.
Click to expand...
This is an assertion, not a proof or statement of facts.

I could do the same thing and post the opposite. It wouldn't make me right.

Try again UG.
 
I'm quite enjoying this thread, because it offers an opportunity to demonstrate how flawed the thought processes of many people are with regards to matters of law, justice, fairness etc.

How we all have cognitive dissonance, some much more pronounced than others.

Here we have me, making a simple statement about consent, that riles up the other side, because the system they are talking about and actually endorse, doesn't work on consent, but on overwhelming violence to compel people to do things.

And such is the mind of the hardened statist. He believes that he is right, and he has the right to compel others, and that right makes it ok for him to use violence against anyone who disagrees with him.

Beware the moralizer. Anyone who would project their morals onto your behavior is probably very confused, and potentially very dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom