 |
|
RE: You've swallowed the kool aid, ummm.
Posted on: July 28, 2019 at 09:35:34 CT
ummmm MU
Posts:
44902
Member For:
13.48 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
He's decided that under pickletopia, parents have the right to sell their children, or starve them. wanking in public parks is legit too, as well. He has no answer about handling criminals, other than write a check.
False. He's never said there is a "right" to sell children or starve them. With respect to selling children, I've never seen him talk about that issue at all, but I'm confident he is against the sale of human beings as being a form of forced slavery. As for starving children, his point isn't about the right to starve children but rather the right to not be forced by others to feed your children. It's a philosophical extension of his position; he's not saying that parents should or even would starve their children (but for govt laws forcing the contrary).
As for wanking in public parks, this has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, and if you don't understand his position by now, then I doubt you ever will. He's never said it was legit. He's never supported the act. He's simply asked whose "rights" are infringed upon by the act alone? And if no one's rights are infringed upon, then why should the act be considered criminal. That's it. He's not condoning the act. To say something shouldn't be a crime is not the same thing as saying that you want that act to occur.
False. He's never said there is a "right" to sell children or starve them. With respect to selling children, I've never seen him talk about that issue at all, but I'm confident he is against the sale of human beings as being a form of forced slavery. As for starving children, his point isn't about the right to starve children but rather the right to not be forced by others to feed your children. It's a philosophical extension of his position; he's not saying that parents should or even would starve their children (but for govt laws forcing the contrary).
As for wanking in public parks, this has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, and if you don't understand his position by now, then I doubt you ever will. He's never said it was legit. He's never supported the act. He's simply asked whose "rights" are infringed upon by the act alone? And if no one's rights are infringed upon, then why should the act be considered criminal. That's it. He's not condoning the act. To say something shouldn't be a crime is not the same thing as saying that you want that act to occur.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
RE: You've swallowed the kool aid, ummm. - ummmm MU - 7/28 09:35:34