dsayers

From the opening post: This thread is about consent of the rapist. Also, 50% of rape victims are male.

This actually lends credence to my suspicion. What they're saying to you is that they're okay with the initiation of the use of force as long they agree with how it's used. I hope such a person isn't somebody you'd call friend or is in your life at all. Because when people tell you something like that, they are dead serious. And part of the reason they're able to get away with it is because good people just assume that nobody could be so blatantly parasitic.

Might be easier to just add to the conversation on the topic already under way just below this one: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45471-do-you-like-tattoos/

If you weren't putting words into my mouth, you might be able to address what was actually said. If you choose to partake of an intoxicant, you don't get to later rape and use the excuse that you were not in full possession of your faculties in the moment because the reason you weren't was a direct result of a choice you made. I can't tell if you are lacking in cognitive skills or so eager to defend the drunk rapist that a simple A then B then C timeline eludes you.

Don't need to. The first time you tried this approach, I pointed out: "You pointing out what happens AFTER the drinks are imbibed doesn't challenge the claim that choosing to imbibe BEFORE doing so is voluntary." If you feel this is inaccurate in some way, I would prefer you address it rather than carry on as if the clarification hadn't been provided.

This isn't an argument against what was said as it doesn't assail what was said. rottenx51 pointed out that the choice to imbibe is voluntary. That's true whether you have 1 or 51 drinks. You pointing out what happens AFTER the drinks are imbibed doesn't challenge the claim that choosing to imbibe BEFORE doing so is voluntary. This thread also needs a (pre-emptive) debunking of voodoo pharmacology. The fallacy that drugs have the ability to make you do things you wouldn't otherwise do. If you respect property rights, you're not going to rape just because you're intoxicated. If you raped while you were intoxicated, you don't get a pass because alcohol isn't responsible for the behavior and even if it were, the rapist chose to imbibe. Self-ownership requires control and understanding. So in the absolute, yes, rape requires the consent of the rapist. It's just that alcohol doesn't remove this consent.

I think you fail the 5 year old test. I don't know what scarcity imposed rent means. I do know that you said something that was possible was impossible and when corrected, you resort to obfuscations instead acknowledging your error or even the correction offered. If you are involved in a trade, you have the ability to negotiate and decline the exchange. If you are not party to a trade, it is none of your business what, how, or why they trade so long as they both are free to decline. In a free market, all exchanges are voluntary and I've debunked the "people gotta eat, so all labor is slavery" myth so many times that I can't be bothered to again here when you don't have the integrity to just say that's what you mean, stay in the conversation, or acknowledge other people and their corrections instead of repeating the same tripe, over and over, as confusingly as possible.

I'm with Mr. Chapman. The concept that NOTHING is free seems so axiomatic, I literally have a hard time believing people don't actually realize this. I'm more inclined to believe that they feign ignorance in order to not face the guilt associated with being a voluntary parasite.

As others have pointed out, I think self-ownership is axiomatic. You continue to engage in with the very action of imagining that you don't, as I've already pointed out. I literally see no way of escaping this, hence the axiomatic categorization. However, if a way of more accurately describing the real world were presented, of course what we currently hold as true would be superseded. Here's the problem though. "Theft, assault, rape, and murder." Considering we're talking about the sum of human history, behavior, and potential, that phrase is EXTREMELY concise. I personally do not see how any moral theory can include that, include more stuff, yet somehow be more efficient. This is really important to understand and why you might here me often reference humanity's prior belief in the Earth being the center of the universe. As I understand it, in order to make that conclusion fit, they had to come up with all kinds of exceptions and addendums. The moment you point out the sun is the center of our solar system, everything else fits. I grew up same as many: parents who used aggression in lieu of reason, religion that used aggression in lieu of reason, government schools that used aggression in lieu of reason, governments that used aggression in lieu of reason. And in each case of artificial authority, elaborate systems of explanation as to how all that aggression was justified were present. Then you look at self-ownership, universalizing that, and how it boils everything down to "theft, assault, rape, and murder," EVERYTHING becomes SO clear. So clear that you can see right through everything people say to try and resist this and WHY. In a world where everybody subscribes to all the various narrative that's been piled onto everything, it's like being superhuman by comparison, and so much easier. Since I've accepted reality, I've been happier, my relationships have been more fruitful, the amount of suffering I experience at the hands of my aggressors is reduced, any lack of sleep I encounter is easier to work with, I even have a new found resistance to cold and over all higher constitution health-wise. It's because my conscious is freed up from having to go through all the fluff to make Earth the center. My subconscious is freed up from having to show me all the ways my conscious isn't processing these things accurately. None of that last paragraph is a proof of any kind. But it should help to explain why I'm married to simplicity when it comes to determining what is truth. If you can beat "theft, assault, rape, and murder," by all means, lay it on us. If you can't, then you either have to accept it or reveal that the truth isn't what you seek at all. In which case, we have nothing to discuss since I'll be speaking from reality while you're speaking from a fantasy world.

Let's not forget that very view people "find" religion. Most of them have it inflicted upon them as a child, before they're able to mount a counter-argument in their own mind. It's primary use is control. So these are almost entirely abused people. Which I think is important to keep in mind because I think it helps explain why they would continue to hold onto it later in life (beyond not thinking to question it since it was presented as a given during the formative years). Namely that it provides an escape from their abuse. A parental figure to take the place of the ones they never got. A community to share in the suffering without having to process it since that community focuses on superstition instead of themselves and each other. I too am victim of parents that didn't feel thy had to control themselves because no matter what they did, all they had to do was tell some unaffected 3rd person that they were sorry. By pointing to a concept (Church), you're failing to hold the human beings who made voluntary choices accountable.

I didn't get that from what he wrote. I think it would be a waste of time to discuss beliefs at all.

That didn't answer my question. In fact, it just raises a similar question: In what way does this challenge that theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent? It was once believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Then we had better technology and found a more accurate way to describe reality. That possibility is always there. This doesn't change the fact that you accept property rights in the mere contemplation that property rights might not be accurate. To that end, you seem to make a great deal of effort in this regard. Have you stopped for a moment to reflect on why that might be?

Great post overall. I just wanted to add something that some people might not be aware of. I can't say for sure with piercings, but a tattoo is essentially a voluntary wound, potentially of considerable proportion. The brain treats it as such and there are endorphins released to compensate for the injury. This is why some people, after getting a single tattoo, may be eager to have more. It's no different from say drugs and alcohol, though the chemicals are natural/internal. I ended up with 7. I enjoyed the warmth of the wound along with the red glow of flesh around the injury site that one of my tattoos, I actually had the artist use ink to make this appearance seem fresh: The Kanji says victim. To give an idea of the dysfunction behind the decision, I WANTED to be branded a victim by a succubus as an acknowledgement of my victim status at the hands of women and my belief that this was an inescapable fate I lived in. Considering how far this predated self-knowledge, I was remarkably close! (artwork is not mine; I only added the Kanji and everything that appears red)

I can't even tell if this has anything to do with what I said as your quoting implies. Could you elaborate please?

If by accident of nature, you mean that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, then I think that's a fair assessment. However, in what way is this useful in identifying that controlling one's self while denying control to another is internally inconsistent?

Can you elaborate please? Friendships aren't mutually exclusive. In the strict sense, no, humans do not possess the apparatus to see into the future. That said, there may have been things about yourself, A, or your shared friendship that consciously you weren't aware of that your unconscious was processing. The proximity of the dream and "break up" would be coincidental if anything. Rather than trying to find meaning in the coincidence, I'd look into what about them made them such a fleeting friend and what were the warning signs to avoid this happening in the future.

At this point, your claim of indefinite amount of time is inaccurate as denoted by finite amount of time Y. Each interval, consent would have to be secured once again. Present day, this CAN happen implicitly as a feature of the inaction of not cancelling the service in question. However, since in this example, consent is not possible, the contract would likely be set up in such a way as you can control my body for 3 weeks, then I get a week to consult with people I trust to re-evaluate whether I wish to continue our arrangement or not. And of course since control is fully relinquished, we could expect that the process would be subject to 3rd party oversight, as well as A assigning a power of attorney to somebody who would remain conscious and withdraw consent by proxy. Which leads to: There is no valid contract that doesn't have clauses for pre-mature termination. Just as it would have a clause for the hypothetical scenario whereby B didn't honor the contract and continued to control A as outline above. Which I hope did a sufficient job of outlining how such an arrangement might look like. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that there would have to be parameters in place as to what actions were allowable while control was temporarily relinquished. Obviously you wouldn't consent to somebody using your body to rob a bank. So I'd even go so far as to say, in the context of 3rd party oversight and external PoA mentioned above, and also in the context of a world where remote control humans is possible, that the 3rd party/PoA would have the ability to track your body and see what you see in order to ensure there was no breach of such parameters. Just to be clear, I don't think that having a sound grasp of property rights makes any of this far-fetched or challenging. Me saying it doesn't make it correct obviously. My point is that I think it's more beneficial to focus on property rights in the absolute. Then various "what ifs" become clearer.

It doesn't and for every reason I've already mentioned (longer, surrounded by more text, unnecessarily vague, pretends paper can prevent property violations, calls itself a law, predicts more laws will come...). I'm not sure why you keep posting it as if the problem isn't that I don't think it accurately describes the real world for valid reasons I have articulated, but that I just haven't seen it yet. I never used DRO. I did use an auto loan as an example. I pointed out that the involved parties owned and/or consented to that which was being negotiated. Do you feel this differentiation for some reason would not apply to a DRO? Anthropomorphism aside, yes it does. Picture any scenario that you can where somebody decreeing "No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes" make sense. Does it make sense for me as a stranger to come up to you and say this? If you were already a tenant in an abode I owned, would it make sense for me to say this? Of course not because while I own the abode, I don't own you. It only "makes sense" in the context of owning all things within the boundaries it's describing. Besides, it doesn't even matter if the government claims to own all of the land. Earlier, I had pointed out, "In the real world, theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent. Everything else is preference. So either the Constitution is verbose and opinion or it is superfluous." Do you accept this? It appears as if you don't, so could you kindly point out where I erred?

I understand and thank you for addressing that. I look forward to your response.

"Of every objective claim I've made, which ones do you find to be false and why?" I don't feel you've addressed this even though those objective claims addressed what you said. If you won't address this, then I won't be able to have a conversation with somebody who is output only. I've also asked a few more question that largely went unanswered. Is this what you meant by same page? Or did you mean that we exist in different realities where paper might have the capability of protecting property rights in one but not the other? While DRO is undefined, I think I have a pretty good idea what is meant by it. Would it be fair to say that a comparable question would be how can one agree to terms for an auto loan without writing words on paper? The difference is that in the context of an auto loan, I own myself, the person I'm borrowing money from owns the money, and the person I'm buying the car from owns the car. In order for what you continue to call a "law" to be valid, the person making it would have to own every person and thing within the boundaries they're pretending they rule over. The difference is consent. See, when a person commits theft, assault, rape, or murder, they are consenting while depriving others of consent. This is how you know the actions are (in the context of what you're saying) "illegal." Any "law" that says something other than don't steal, assault, rape, or murder has disposed of consent entirely, making it's claim of binding upon people unethical. In a world where property rights cannot be protected by paper as supported by empirical evidence, how do you think this question is relevant? There's a reason why you're enthusiastically avoiding this. I hope you'll do yourself the favor of exploring why that is.

If I was her employer, I would now find her more valuable for accurately understanding and describing the nature of our relationship. I love the comment about her pay NOT being a favor to women.

I can DEFINITELY appreciate this. I remember when I was new to some of the ideas, I took a lot of time to chew on them before I starting speaking outwardly about them. Even then (and still today), I'm learning new ways to communicate them more precisely and with less distraction. So going back to the point of contention, can you see how "person A relinquishes motor and speech control to person B willingly for an undisclosed period of time" is different from "rent my car for an indefinite period for x amount of dollars to be paid each time y amount of time elapses" in the ways I mentioned? (vague vs specific, 1 sided vs 2 sided) On what basis would you assume they wouldn't have control over their own body, yet possess the means to control yours? Take matter out of the equation if it's easier: By controlling you, they are CHOOSING to take CHOICE from you. Same contradiction.

2+2=4 whether I read a math book or not. Of every objective claim I've made, which ones do you find to be false and why? We already have a universal and impartial arbiter: reality. In the real world, theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent. Everything else is preference. So either the Constitution is verbose and opinion or it is superfluous. Perhaps it is you that didn't read what I wrote. "A piece of paper is not binding. History is rife with empirical evidence of a piece of paper being unable to protect property rights." The US Constitution guarantees self-defense against the State, but doesn't honor it. The problem with trusting a piece of paper and/or what people write down is that people can later write down that taking stuff that belongs to others is taxation and eminent domain if it's done in the name of the State. So you see, it wouldn't be defending yourself against the State, it would be you initiating the use of force against the State. That's why we need to have people representing the State, pulling you over against your will for doing things they say you can't. It's not defense if you resist because they're operating in the name of the State, it's assault and they need to escalate. "it's like rewinding Titanic and thinking that THIS time it won't sink." "This is like opening a hotel that patterns itself after prisons." For that matter, what good is fooling a few statists if you alienate rational thinkers? It seems as if what I posted addressed everything you've just said while everything you've just said does nothing to address what I said. You asked why people aren't talking about this. I'm trying to talk about this. How about instead of cutting me out, try to have a conversation with me? In history, when people get this stuff wrong, it leads to millions of humans getting killed and many more harmed. Don't those stakes make it worth trying to get right? I think I put forth some valid challenges. Can you show me where I erred?

I pointed to something vague and called it vague. You added in specifics and said it's not vague. I pointed to something 1 sided and said it isn't a contract. You added in a 2nd side and said that's a contract. It's appalling after all the interaction you and I have had that you think I can be bowled over so easily that this bullshit would go unnoticed.

My favorite part so far: https://youtu.be/4u1J6EEhkyM?t=23m33s