You seem to have gotten confused. I'm not the one claiming the ability to do something grants a right to do it
Advertisement
by WestRedMaple » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:33 pm
by Ifreann » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:33 pm
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:34 pm
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Fartsniffage » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:35 pm
by WestRedMaple » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:35 pm
Ifreann wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
You seem to be confusing the ability to do something with a right to do it
You seem to be desperately waffling rather than defending your position.WestRedMaple wrote:
Your inability to follow the discussion does not make my statement stupid.
That's cute, keep trying to shift the focus away from what you've said and your inability to defend it.
by WestRedMaple » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:36 pm
Soldati senza confini wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
Obviously not. The mafia harms other people. There is every right for us to protect ourselves from them.
Did you really miss the part about people deciding and consenting?
Did you miss that you never said that there can be more than two parties involved in any transaction's procedures or effects?
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:37 pm
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:37 pm
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by WestRedMaple » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:38 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
Your inability to follow the discussion does not make my statement stupid.
No, the fact your statement was stupid is what makes your statement stupid.
I even gave you a polite heads up that you'd said something completely dumb. You decided to come out all guns blazing rather than just take a moment to reflect. Although, I am pleased to see that you finally remembered the consensual part of the issue.
It's still a dumb statement, but at least you're not openly advocating slavery any more. Baby steps and all that.
by Fartsniffage » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:38 pm
by Britanno » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:39 pm
Xianlong wrote:It's a delicate issue, but tarring every southeast Asian (they were Pakistanis, weren't they?) with a rapist/groomer/pedophile brush is just bloody stupid.
by WestRedMaple » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:39 pm
Soldati senza confini wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
You seem to have gotten confused. I'm not the one claiming the ability to do something grants a right to do it
You're saying that being able to have consensual transactions should be unlimited, from what I'm understanding; and from what I am understanding you're also saying every transaction should be legal.
So, that being said, care to frame your argument to not make it sound like you want unlimited freedom for people to engage in transactions regardless of how ethical they are if that's not what you're saying?
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:40 pm
WestRedMaple wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
No, the fact your statement was stupid is what makes your statement stupid.
I even gave you a polite heads up that you'd said something completely dumb. You decided to come out all guns blazing rather than just take a moment to reflect. Although, I am pleased to see that you finally remembered the consensual part of the issue.
It's still a dumb statement, but at least you're not openly advocating slavery any more. Baby steps and all that.
So you still refuse to make any actual contribution. There is no honestly denying the fact that the slavery part is all you. A slave, by definition, is not choosing to engage in the transaction. Once you actually learn what the word means, you'll understand that.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:41 pm
WestRedMaple wrote:Soldati senza confini wrote:
You're saying that being able to have consensual transactions should be unlimited, from what I'm understanding; and from what I am understanding you're also saying every transaction should be legal.
So, that being said, care to frame your argument to not make it sound like you want unlimited freedom for people to engage in transactions regardless of how ethical they are if that's not what you're saying?
Maybe you should take a minute to actually read what I posted before responding.
Nothing in your post mentions anything I haven't already covered.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by WestRedMaple » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:42 pm
by Fartsniffage » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:42 pm
WestRedMaple wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
No, the fact your statement was stupid is what makes your statement stupid.
I even gave you a polite heads up that you'd said something completely dumb. You decided to come out all guns blazing rather than just take a moment to reflect. Although, I am pleased to see that you finally remembered the consensual part of the issue.
It's still a dumb statement, but at least you're not openly advocating slavery any more. Baby steps and all that.
So you still refuse to make any actual contribution. There is no honestly denying the fact that the slavery part is all you. A slave, by definition, is not choosing to engage in the transaction. Once you actually learn what the word means, you'll understand that.
by Ifreann » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:43 pm
WestRedMaple wrote:Ifreann wrote:You seem to be desperately waffling rather than defending your position.
That's cute, keep trying to shift the focus away from what you've said and your inability to defend it.
I see you were utterly incapable of providing any backing for your nonsensical attacks. Come on back if you'd ever prefer to discuss the topic over this whining of yours
by Atlanticatia » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:45 pm
by Planeia » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:46 pm
by Ifreann » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:50 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
So you still refuse to make any actual contribution. There is no honestly denying the fact that the slavery part is all you. A slave, by definition, is not choosing to engage in the transaction. Once you actually learn what the word means, you'll understand that.
A slave, by definition is property. It has no say in the transaction, no right to choose. Unless, of course, we have laws in place limiting the types of private transactions that are allowed.
by Themiclesia » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:51 pm
Greater-London wrote:I for one think is absolutely appalling and you shouldn't request drivers by the colour of their skin or cultural heritage. Although if the Cab company decides to fulfill the wishes of people who do then that's their decision and as far as I'm aware no law has been broken.
NS stats not in effect
(except in F7)
Gameside factbooks not canon
Sample military factbook
Nations:
• Themiclesia
• Camia
• Antari
>>>Member of Septentrion, Atlas, Alithea, Tyran<<<Left-of-centre, multiple home countries and native languages, socially and fiscally liberal; he/him/his
Pro: diversity, choice, liberty, democracy, equality | Anti: racism, sexism, nationalism, dictatorship, war
News | Court of Appeal overturns Sgt. Ker conviction for larceny in quartermaster's pantry | TNS Hat runs aground in foreign harbour, hull unhurt | House of Lords passes Stamp Collection Act, counterfeiting used stamps now a crime | New bicycle lanes under the elevated railways | Demonstration against rights abuses in Menghe in Crystal Park, MoD: parade to be postponed for civic activity
by Ifreann » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:51 pm
by WestRedMaple » Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:03 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
So you still refuse to make any actual contribution. There is no honestly denying the fact that the slavery part is all you. A slave, by definition, is not choosing to engage in the transaction. Once you actually learn what the word means, you'll understand that.
A slave, by definition is property. It has no say in the transaction, no right to choose. Unless, of course, we have laws in place limiting the types of private transactions that are allowed.
But you know that. You're just far to entrenched in defending an ideology to consider the actually ramifications of said ideology.
by WestRedMaple » Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:06 pm
Ifreann wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
A slave, by definition is property. It has no say in the transaction, no right to choose. Unless, of course, we have laws in place limiting the types of private transactions that are allowed.
Maybe so, but he contends that there is no need to defend the supporting of rights. Presumably this includes the right to trade humans as property, free of government interference.
by WestRedMaple » Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:09 pm
Soldati senza confini wrote:WestRedMaple wrote:
So you still refuse to make any actual contribution. There is no honestly denying the fact that the slavery part is all you. A slave, by definition, is not choosing to engage in the transaction. Once you actually learn what the word means, you'll understand that.
A slave, by definition, can be anyone who we choose to not acknowledge the rights of.
That being said, it is really easy then to dehumanize a part of the population and since they're not human we can use them as slaves; and the transactions of two individuals based upon their desirability of said person turned into an "object" is now a private transaction, the voice of the other person doesn't come into play at all, and why should it? It's not relevant anyhow to their private transaction.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Anarcopia, Cannot think of a name, Emotional Support Crocodile, Philjia, Senkaku
Advertisement