FSP & Age of Consent - split thread

[hankrichter12]

more:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/print/WSJ_-A011-20160319.pdf


FSP, the supporters of having sex with children, as young as 6, maybe younger, not exactly my type of society.

[jct74]

FSP, the supporters of having sex with children, as young as 6, maybe younger, not exactly my type of society.

Uh, no you are full of shit with your baseless smear. They really don't take any official political positions on anything, but as far as age of consent laws they recently distanced themselves from one of their members that made some controversial comments... and as a result he is no longer a member of the Free State Project.

https://freestateproject.org/blogs/free-state-project-statement-regarding-ian-freeman-and-free-talk-live
http://freekeene.com/2016/03/17/im-no-longer-a-free-stater-but-you-should-go-to-porcfest-and-definitely-move-to-nh-if-you-love-liberty/

[hankrichter12]

Uh, no you are full of $#@! with your baseless smear. They really don't take any official political positions on anything, but as far as age of consent laws they recently distanced themselves from one of their members that made some controversial comments... and as a result he is no longer a member of the Free State Project.

https://freestateproject.org/blogs/free-state-project-statement-regarding-ian-freeman-and-free-talk-live
http://freekeene.com/2016/03/17/im-no-longer-a-free-stater-but-you-should-go-to-porcfest-and-definitely-move-to-nh-if-you-love-liberty/

Actually, there are two - that we currently know of - guess you didn't hear about the guy who got arrested trying to hook up with a 14yr old, and don't give me that crap, they only "distanced" themselves when the moron said it boldly on air and they got a huge backlash from it, don't even tell me that is the first time they heard that story, listen to his co-host, he was not shocked at all and did not even condemn it.

[jct74]

Actually, there are two - that we currently know of - guess you didn't hear about the guy who got arrested trying to hook up with a 14yr old, and don't give me that crap, they only "distanced" themselves when the moron said it boldly on air and they got a huge backlash from it, don't even tell me that is the first time they heard that story, listen to his co-host, he was not shocked at all and did not even condemn it.

I'm pretty sure that guy was not even a member of the Free State Project. Can you find any confirmation that he was? Even if so, your statement about the FSP is completely idiotic based on the actions/words of 1 or 2 members (out of 2,000 currently living in New Hampshire).

[hankrichter12]

I'm pretty sure that guy was not even a member of the Free State Project. Can you find any confirmation that he was? Even if so, your statement about the FSP is completely idiotic based on the actions/words of 1 or 2 members (out of 2,000 currently living in New Hampshire).

Kyle Tasker is the other, he was supported by, and owes his election to FSP. How about their alliance with "Center For a Stateless Society" founded by child molester Brad ********? I suppose it isn't the FSP trying to fight for the "right" of transexuals and lesbians to be naked on the beach rubbing lotion on each other in front of families trying to have a day at the beach? You are really going to tell me no one knew about Ian and his views? They couldn't even get 200 signatures to kick him out, I'm glad to hear the FBI is investigating him now.

You mentioned Porcfest, oh yeah, sounds real wholesome, their disclaimer:



I understand that some attendees of the Event may engage in expressive activity and dress, which may include partial or full nudity and other types of expressive activity. I agree that such expressive activity and dress is not indecent nor offensive to me, and that I have decided to attend the Event with full knowledge that such expressive activity and dress may occur. If I am accompanied by minors at the Event, I acknowledge that I have made a choice that the minors may be exposed to the expressive activities and dress that take place at the Event, and that I have exercised parental responsibility and control in bringing the minors to the Event. Should I find that any activity at the Event is offensive to me, or to any minors accompanying me, I acknowledge that I can avoid such activity by, among other things, leaving the vicinity of the activity or leaving the Event.


There’s a geodesic dome nicknamed the “orgy tent,” but the biggest party at Porcfest takes place near the end of the week-long gathering. It’s Buzz’s Big Gay Dance Party, put on by Buzz Webb, 47, who goes by the “Duchess of Dykedom,” wears combat boots and has close-cropped, dyed-white hair.

Then there's their whole "polyamory parties" - granted, not saying that's illegal, but it is just further evidence there seems to be no sexual appetite these people are shocked by or against, and children being exposed to sex is not exactly something they consider a big deal.

[jct74]

[blah blah blah]

Wrong again. The Free State Project does not support/endorse any candidates for office. You seem to have a problem with being truthful. I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your drivel, you aren't convincing anyone.

[hankrichter12]

Wrong again. The Free State Project does not support/endorse any candidates for office. You seem to have a problem with being truthful. I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your drivel, you aren't convincing anyone.


Got plenty of links, want to see them? You are just doing damage control.

[Roxi]

I see a whole lot of pointing fingers, and zero evidence to support this diatribe against Ian. I'm not saying I support or agree with his ideologies on the matter, but from what I've seen (which isn't much, I'm not willing to expend my mental energy to look that far into it), Ian merely doesn't agree with blanket age of consent laws because of situations where a 17 year old boy can go to prison for 10 years for having a 16 year old girlfriend (yes this happens) and was not at all claiming to support having any kind of physical contact with children. If I'm wrong, I of course do not support such things, but I also don't support demonizing an otherwise awesome person for remarks taken out of context.

SO, if you have proof that Ian does actually support such things, by all means, please provide sources.

[Anti Federalist]

I see a whole lot of pointing fingers, and zero evidence to support this diatribe against Ian. I'm not saying I support or agree with his ideologies on the matter, but from what I've seen (which isn't much, I'm not willing to expend my mental energy to look that far into it), Ian merely doesn't agree with blanket age of consent laws because of situations where a 17 year old boy can go to prison for 10 years for having a 16 year old girlfriend (yes this happens) and was not at all claiming to support having any kind of physical contact with children. If I'm wrong, I of course do not support such things, but I also don't support demonizing an otherwise awesome person for remarks taken out of context.

SO, if you have proof that Ian does actually support such things, by all means, please provide sources.

Nuance, context and true meaning always tend to get lost once the mob gets roiled up.

What you explained is my understanding of the controversy as well.

Regardless, I live here, I have children and grandchildren, and I would welcome 1000 free staters to NH before one more Marxist Masshole or GOP "law and order" authoritarian.

[hankrichter12]

I see a whole lot of pointing fingers, and zero evidence to support this diatribe against Ian. I'm not saying I support or agree with his ideologies on the matter, but from what I've seen (which isn't much, I'm not willing to expend my mental energy to look that far into it), Ian merely doesn't agree with blanket age of consent laws because of situations where a 17 year old boy can go to prison for 10 years for having a 16 year old girlfriend (yes this happens) and was not at all claiming to support having any kind of physical contact with children. If I'm wrong, I of course do not support such things, but I also don't support demonizing an otherwise awesome person for remarks taken out of context.

SO, if you have proof that Ian does actually support such things, by all means, please provide sources.


He said 6yrs old - he was asked about it, and said "that is not my business" when asked if a 6yr old is old enough to consent he said yes. I guess if his own words don't convince you I don't know what to tell you, and I'm not sure what other context I could have taken this in.

https://www.change.org/p/people-against-pedophile-defenders-get-ian-freeman-off-free-talk-live


Here's Tasker and Ian defending him:

http://freekeene.com/2016/03/03/state-rep-kyle-tasker-arrested-for-victimless-crimes-facing-60-years-in-prison/


Here's ********: Not sure why this site keeps blotting out his name.

http://christophercantwell.com/2015/01/23/brad-********-lefty-kid-toucher/




Nuance, context and true meaning always tend to get lost once the mob gets roiled up.

What you explained is my understanding of the controversy as well.

Regardless, I live here, I have children and grandchildren, and I would welcome 1000 free staters to NH before one more Marxist Masshole or GOP "law and order" authoritarian.


Funny you say that considering FSP is aligning itself more and more every day with far left marxists.

You guys believe what you want, but stuff like this is why more and more I'm saying my stint as a libertarian in 2011/12 was a passing phase.

[caracoid]

Ah, yes, the old "find some nut in the audience and connect everyone in the room to him" routine. Name your politics and I'll find an ax murderer who's a card-carrying member.

And then you go on with "It's for the children." Remember that one out of Janet Reno's playbook? Got her promoted all the way to the White House by creating a horror show of witch trials that effectively ended the Big Brothers program and scared every man from ever glancing at or even tussle up the hair of a kid for fear of being labeled a pervert.

You're attacking an ideology you neither understand nor probably even have the ability to understand with the self-righteousness that only the ignorant can muster.

[ProIndividual]

Guilt by association isn't an argument...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

[angelatc]

Nuance, context and true meaning always tend to get lost once the mob gets roiled up.

What you explained is my understanding of the controversy as well.

Regardless, I live here, I have children and grandchildren, and I would welcome 1000 free staters to NH before one more Marxist Masshole or GOP "law and order" authoritarian.


Me too. I have to get my kids out of school before we move again, but New Hampshire is beginning to look necessary to me.

[hankrichter12]

Ah, yes, the old "find some nut in the audience and connect everyone in the room to him" routine. Name your politics and I'll find an ax murderer who's a card-carrying member.

And then you go on with "It's for the children." Remember that one out of Janet Reno's playbook? Got her promoted all the way to the White House by creating a horror show of witch trials that effectively ended the Big Brothers program and scared every man from ever glancing at or even tussle up the hair of a kid for fear of being labeled a pervert.

You're attacking an ideology you neither understand nor probably even have the ability to understand with the self-righteousness that only the ignorant can muster.


Guilt by association isn't an argument...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy



Yeah, nice cop out there by the both of you. It's not just 1 idiot in the crowd, this is someone who is a public figure, has been in the "movement" for years, has expressed these views for years, NO ONE said anything until word of it spread outside the FSP and authorities were getting involved, prior to that, everyone knew his views and did and said nothing, and that is likely because a good number of them either agree with him or don't see it as a problem.

So spare me your pathetic attempts to try and paint this as something other than what it is. These are people who had no issue with it's members blatantly promoting the notion of child sex until it became a PR problem.

[Anti Federalist]

Me too. I have to get my kids out of school before we move again, but New Hampshire is beginning to look necessary to me.

It's a great place to live.

[caracoid]

Yeah, nice cop out there by the both of you. It's not just 1 idiot in the crowd, this is someone who is a public figure, has been in the "movement" for years, has expressed these views for years, NO ONE said anything until word of it spread outside the FSP and authorities were getting involved, prior to that, everyone knew his views and did and said nothing, and that is likely because a good number of them either agree with him or don't see it as a problem.

So spare me your pathetic attempts to try and paint this as something other than what it is. These are people who had no issue with it's members blatantly promoting the notion of child sex until it became a PR problem.

Everybody knew about it? Well I sure didn't hear about it.

Did anybody else?

[Danke]

It's a great place to live.

I can see why you'd say that, looks like there is a lot of Walmarts there.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT8QiwitYoCdS84cOfFjx2dmKOmbDGqX Vi9pt-skAX-AxMsYvy-AQ

[caracoid]

And by the way, libertarians can at least agree that the ONE legitimate government function is to protect the week from the predations of the stronger. And children would certainly fit into that former category. If you were once the libertarian you claim, you would have recognized that and seen any deviation from it as anything but normal or representative.

[hankrichter12]

Everybody knew about it? Well I sure didn't hear about it.

Did anybody else?


It's an expression, I didn't literally mean every last person, gosh, I keep forgetting I have to speak to people as if they are children on these boards.

So let me rephrase "many people in the FSP knew about it and said and did nothing" - there, is that better?



And by the way, libertarians can at least agree that the ONE legitimate government function is to protect the week from the predations of the stronger. And children would certainly fit into that former category. If you were once the libertarian you claim, you would have recognized that and seen any deviation from it as anything but normal or representative.


Huh? I guess this is all going over your head - he doesn't think it is a predation, and he presented these views in public and on his show for years and the community as a whole said nothing, so obviously it's a topic that is up for debate in more than a few people's minds.

So why don't you just stop with your absurd Janet Reno nonsense and all that other crap, save your cue card talking points for someone else, I'm obviously far more informed on this than you are.

[caracoid]

Well, congratulations for being up-to-date on all the gossip. But I'll look into it and see what's up. Admittedly I have no idea who this guy is or how he's connected to a movement that has nothing to do with what you're describing.

[caracoid]

"FSP, the supporters of having sex with children, as young as 6, maybe younger, not exactly my type of society."

Okay, I've initially looked into what you've got, and what I found was that--first of all--your above quote is about as inflammatory and inaccurate a statement as anyone can open with. The guy was thrown out of FSP; and from the information you've provided nobody else has ever "supported" what he said. (Although I can imagine someone supporting his right to say it.)

As far as the other guy hitting on a 14-year-old, sounds a little creepy but then again it was probably the age most of our great-grandparents were getting married and he's now facing a life-long sentence for something that was not long ago completely okayed by society. Sounds a bit harsh.

NOT that I'm advocating it, but the ridiculousness of society's connecting a six-year-old with somebody who is seventeen and developmentally a 17-year-old probably has a lot more to do with people's own obsessions, hidden titillations and subsequent guilt than the act itself.

Of course, in my day as a teenager (and being male), having slept with an older woman would undoubtedly have been bragged about and then cherished amongst our fondest memories. While I certainly can't speak for women, are you as a male really going to claim that you would have been scarred for life? And that the woman should have been jailed for life? If so, you're lying to us and yourself.

[angelatc]

So let me rephrase "many people in the FSP knew about it and said and did nothing".

My guess would be none.

[TheTexan]

This thread is why we can't have nice things.

[Origanalist]

It's an expression, I didn't literally mean every last person, gosh, I keep forgetting I have to speak to people as if they are children on these boards.

So let me rephrase "many people in the FSP knew about it and said and did nothing" - there, is that better?





Huh? I guess this is all going over your head - he doesn't think it is a predation, and he presented these views in public and on his show for years and the community as a whole said nothing, so obviously it's a topic that is up for debate in more than a few people's minds.

So why don't you just stop with your absurd Janet Reno nonsense and all that other crap, save your cue card talking points for someone else, I'm obviously far more informed on this than you are.

Do you have any idea how much you sound like Trump? Claiming to be a cut above while sounding like a complete idiot is no way to go through life Hank.

[angelatc]

As far as the other guy hitting on a 14-year-old, sounds a little creepy but then again it was probably the age most of our great-grandparents were getting married and he's now facing a life-long sentence for something that was not long ago completely okayed by society. Sounds a bit harsh.

I think it's an american thing but we might be spreading it like Democracy. About 15 years ago I was in a playgroup with a German ex-pat. The local news was talking about a male teacher who was aggressively pursuing a 15 year old student. My friend was baffled as to why it was a big deal here. She said that in Germany, boys were boys and girls were girls....and things always just went from there.

[hankrichter12]

"FSP, the supporters of having sex with children, as young as 6, maybe younger, not exactly my type of society."

Okay, I've initially looked into what you've got, and what I found was that--first of all--your above quote is about as inflammatory and inaccurate a statement as anyone can open with. The guy was thrown out of FSP; and from the information you've provided nobody else has ever "supported" what he said. (Although I can imagine someone supporting his right to say it.)

As far as the other guy hitting on a 14-year-old, sounds a little creepy but then again it was probably the age most of our great-grandparents were getting married and he's now facing a life-long sentence for something that was not long ago completely okayed by society. Sounds a bit harsh.

NOT that I'm advocating it, but the ridiculousness of society's connecting a six-year-old with somebody who is seventeen and developmentally a 17-year-old probably has a lot more to do with people's own obsessions, hidden titillations and subsequent guilt than the act itself.

Of course, in my day as a teenager (and being male), having slept with an older woman would undoubtedly have been bragged about and then cherished amongst our fondest memories. While I certainly can't speak for women, are you as a male really going to claim that you would have been scarred for life? And that the woman should have been jailed for life? If so, you're lying to us and yourself.

Haha, exactly what the pedo said, 17 is not 14, and it is certainly not 6, nice try. Again, he said this crap - on the air - as early as 2010, likely before, it's not as if this is some new revelation. I can't think of any radio host who would say anything remotely like that in my town and still be on the air 6yrs later, but then, that's my town.


Do you have any idea how much you sound like Trump? Claiming to be a cut above while sounding like a complete idiot is no way to go through life Hank.



Ah, another one of your brilliant posts, you seem to find some bizarre way of bringing up Trump in any conversation.

[Origanalist]

Haha, exactly what the pedo said, 17 is not 14, and it is certainly not 6, nice try. Again, he said this crap - on the air - as early as 2010, likely before, it's not as if this is some new revelation. I can't think of any radio host who would say anything remotely like that in my town and still be on the air 6yrs later, but then, that's my town.





Ah, another one of your brilliant posts, you seem to find some bizarre way of bringing up Trump in any conversation.

Ya, bizarre.

[caracoid]

Haha, exactly what the pedo said, 17 is not 14, and it is certainly not 6, nice try. Again, he said this crap - on the air - as early as 2010, likely before, it's not as if this is some new revelation. I can't think of any radio host who would say anything remotely like that in my town and still be on the air 6yrs later, but then, that's my town.




Even at 14 I would still be holding annual candlelight vigils to this day.

[hankrichter12]

Even at 14 I would still be holding annual candlelight vigils to this day.

Yeah, well, I'm 40, you got a hot 14yr old daughter? Can I come have a romp with her?

It's funny to me how you all at first are suggesting this was stuff I was just making up and I was branding the whole group based on 1 person, now you're all agreeing with that 1 person, so seems my initial statement was correct and that pedophilia is an issue that is on the table in the FSP.

Heard the guy just got raided by the FBI, hope it's the first of many.

[caracoid]

Yeah, well, I'm 40, you got a hot 14yr old daughter? Can I come have a romp with her?

It's funny to me how you all at first are suggesting this was stuff I was just making up and I was branding the whole group based on 1 person, now you're all agreeing with that 1 person, so seems my initial statement was correct and that pedophilia is an issue that is on the table in the FSP.

Heard the guy just got raided by the FBI, hope it's the first of many.

Funny how your brain works in "all in"-"all out" mode. Excuse me if it takes a minute to readjust my thinking to where you're coming from. That "one person" you are referring to is the one that said sex with a 6-year-old might be okay. As a response to which, FSP chucked him out with no quibbles from anyone that I'm aware of. The other guy I really can't defend either--if for no other reason--enticing her with the promise of drugs (the morality of which not having seemed to affect you much seeing as you never mentioned it). Taking on the responsibility of legalizing drugs carries with it a corresponding responsibility to warn kids of their dangers and certainly not to be making drugs available for sexual favors. I could certainly see him being prosecuted for that.

Now on to what I actually did say, which was that I would have died to have the opportunity to have sex with an older woman when I was 14. I suppose out of desperation you tried to tie that into my supporting having nonconsensual sex with 6-year-olds. Yet another one of your "gotcha!" tactics. Pretty slimy move but with a brain limited to "all in-"all out" thinking I guess it's understandable.

I know my hormones as well as my friends' were raging at that age, and I've never heard anyone claim that to be anything other than the norm. Of course there are those with low sex drives who would find all this talk incomprehensible. And I have no problem with this type of person (having probably been genetically predisposed to this) feeling strange about sex at this age (or any age, for that matter). Some people might unfeelingly refer to them as "dead fish." Now I would never go so far as to condemn someone for that. You are what you are, uh . . . Hank. But please understand that others experienced strong compulsions at that time (given to us by Mother Nature, and for good reason) as opposed to the "dead fish" who I'm sure have a purpose in the grand scheme of things. The problem is is that "dead fish" have this strange proclivity of accusing others of UN-natural behavior. Odd for the minority, but I'm sure it all makes sense to a "dead fish." Are you with me on this, Hank?

[hankrichter12]

Funny how your brain works in "all in"-"all out" mode. Excuse me if it takes a minute to readjust my thinking to where you're coming from. That "one person" you are referring to is the one that said sex with a 6-year-old might be okay. As a response to which, FSP chucked him out with no quibbles from anyone that I'm aware of. The other guy I really can't defend either--if for no other reason--enticing her with the promise of drugs (the morality of which not having seemed to affect you much seeing as you never mentioned it). Taking on the responsibility of legalizing drugs carries with it a corresponding responsibility to warn kids of their dangers and certainly not to be making drugs available for sexual favors. I could certainly see him being prosecuted for that.

They chucked him out after 6yrs of him saying it, because suddenly it was getting outside attention and was becoming a PR and likely even legal problem, oh, bravo to them.


Now on to what I actually did say, which was that I would have died to have the opportunity to have sex with an older woman when I was 14. I suppose out of desperation you tried to tie that into my supporting having nonconsensual sex with 6-year-olds. Yet another one of your "gotcha!" tactics. Pretty slimy move but with a brain limited to "all in-"all out" thinking I guess it's understandable.

I very clearly responded to your comment about being 14, so WTF are you talking about? So 14 you say "maybe", 6 is a no way, so what is the line for you? 10? 8? 12? just curious. I'm at least willing to acknowledge perhaps there are some grey areas, a 19yr old with a 17yr old, but honestly, I'd say if anything the age of consent should raised not lowered in our day, to suggest a 17yr old today is even remotely as "wise to the world" as a 17yr old a 100yrs ago is ludicrous.


I know my hormones as well as my friends' were raging at that age, and I've never heard anyone claim that to be anything other than the norm. Of course there are those with low sex drives who would find all this talk incomprehensible. And I have no problem with this type of person (having probably been genetically predisposed to this) feeling strange about sex at this age (or any age, for that matter). Some people might unfeelingly refer to them as "dead fish." Now I would never go so far as to condemn someone for that. You are what you are, uh . . . Hank. But please understand that others experienced strong compulsions at that time (given to us by Mother Nature, and for good reason) as opposed to the "dead fish" who I'm sure have a purpose in the grand scheme of things. The problem is is that "dead fish" have this strange proclivity of accusing others of UN-natural behavior. Odd for the minority, but I'm sure it all makes sense to a "dead fish." Are you with me on this, Hank?


...and you're accusing me of "slimy moves" and having "a brain limited to "all in-"all out" thinkin"

[tod evans]

They chucked him out after 6yrs of him saying it, because suddenly it was getting outside attention and was becoming a PR and likely even legal problem, oh, bravo to them.



I very clearly responded to your comment about being 14, so WTF are you talking about? So 14 you say "maybe", 6 is a no way, so what is the line for you? 10? 8? 12? just curious. I'm at least willing to acknowledge perhaps there are some grey areas, a 19yr old with a 17yr old, but honestly, I'd say if anything the age of consent should raised not lowered in our day, to suggest a 17yr old today is even remotely as "wise to the world" as a 17yr old a 100yrs ago is ludicrous.




...and you're accusing me of "slimy moves" and having "a brain limited to "all in-"all out" thinkin"

Raised by whom?

Surely not government and her stooges...

Between religious leaders and government functionaries very few children are actually "safe".......

Parents being involved with their kids and having the freedom to actually stop foul play is a much better solution.......

[TheTexan]

They chucked him out after 6yrs of him saying it, because suddenly it was getting outside attention and was becoming a PR and likely even legal problem, oh, bravo to them.



I very clearly responded to your comment about being 14, so WTF are you talking about? So 14 you say "maybe", 6 is a no way, so what is the line for you? 10? 8? 12? just curious. I'm at least willing to acknowledge perhaps there are some grey areas, a 19yr old with a 17yr old, but honestly, I'd say if anything the age of consent should raised not lowered in our day, to suggest a 17yr old today is even remotely as "wise to the world" as a 17yr old a 100yrs ago is ludicrous.




...and you're accusing me of "slimy moves" and having "a brain limited to "all in-"all out" thinkin"

17 year old is a "gray area" for you? What the fuck is wrong with you, the age of consent is 18, anything lower than that is pedophilia.

You're no better than the rest of these pedophiles.

[caracoid]

"I very clearly responded to your comment about being 14, so WTF are you talking about?"

Yes, you did respond to what I said with the brilliant rejoinder: "Haha, exactly what the pedo said." And somehow that's supposed to cover what I wrote in return?

"So 14 you say "maybe", 6 is a no way, so what is the line for you? 10? 8? 12? just curious. I'm at least willing to acknowledge perhaps there are some grey areas, a 19yr old with a 17yr old,"

I'm sure not going to get into that game with you. All I can say is what would have been good for me (and in this particular case it would have been GREAT for me). I'm not trying to cover ALL people with my personal views. And that is a good example of being a libertarian. I'll be damned if I know what you were in it for.

"I'd say if anything the age of consent should raised not lowered in our day, to suggest a 17yr old today is even remotely as "wise to the world" as a 17yr old a 100yrs ago is ludicrous."

Wow! There's a whopper. Now you're increasing the age of consent FOR EVERYBODY based on all the knowledge you've amassed in your 40 years of existence that a 17-year-old today is less worldly than a seventeen-year-old a hundred years ago? Seriously, where is this town you live in? The Ozarks? Other than how to wring a chicken's neck, how do you see teenagers as more worldly then than they are today?

I mean obviously today you've made it into the big town's library where they've taught you how to type on the computer ("It's just like huntin' n' peckin', Hank!") and I'm sure your first move was to download the "Sobbin' Women" song from Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, followed up by two hours of "Pong,".--but other than that--you just haven't gotten around much, have you? Why not step into a moving picture show house for the matinee and then tell me what you think when you come out.


"and you are accusin' me of "slimy moves" with 'a havin' "a brane limideded to "all in-"all out" thinkin?"'

Uh, . . . yes.

[hankrichter12]

Raised by whom?

Surely not government and her stooges...

Between religious leaders and government functionaries very few children are actually "safe".......

Parents being involved with their kids and having the freedom to actually stop foul play is a much better solution.......

Oh, a priest joke, how original. I'm not religious myself so if that was your gig sorry to disappoint you, I do know however that was Catholics and a very small number at that. But your statement is completely contradictory, if there is no age of consent set and enforced how can any parent "stop the foul play" when it is perfectly legal?


17 year old is a "gray area" for you? What the $#@! is wrong with you, the age of consent is 18, anything lower than that is pedophilia.

You're no better than the rest of these pedophiles.


Oooh, that's a good one. Maybe next time, post the whole sentence instead of the part you took out of context.



"I very clearly responded to your comment about being 14, so WTF are you talking about?"

Yes, you did respond to what I said with the brilliant rejoinder: "Haha, exactly what the pedo said." And somehow that's supposed to cover what I wrote in return?

"So 14 you say "maybe", 6 is a no way, so what is the line for you? 10? 8? 12? just curious. I'm at least willing to acknowledge perhaps there are some grey areas, a 19yr old with a 17yr old,"

I'm sure not going to get into that game with you. All I can say is what would have been good for me (and in this particular case it would have been GREAT for me). I'm not trying to cover ALL people with my personal views. And that is a good example of being a libertarian. I'll be damned if I know what you were in it for.

"I'd say if anything the age of consent should raised not lowered in our day, to suggest a 17yr old today is even remotely as "wise to the world" as a 17yr old a 100yrs ago is ludicrous."

Wow! There's a whopper. Now you're increasing the age of consent FOR EVERYBODY based on all the knowledge you've amassed in your 40 years of existence that a 17-year-old today is less worldly than a seventeen-year-old a hundred years ago? Seriously, where is this town you live in? The Ozarks? Other than how to wring a chicken's neck, how do you see teenagers as more worldly then than they are today?

I mean obviously today you've made it into the big town's library where they've taught you how to type on the computer ("It's just like huntin' n' peckin', Hank!") and I'm sure your first move was to download the "Sobbin' Women" song from Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, followed up by two hours of "Pong,".--but other than that--you just haven't gotten around much, have you? Why not step into a moving picture show house for the matinee and then tell me what you think when you come out.


"and you are accusin' me of "slimy moves" with 'a havin' "a brane limideded to "all in-"all out" thinkin?"'

Uh, . . . yes.



Do you actually have anything relevant to say on this topic or just more of your childish bombast? If 14 would have been "good for you", then who are you to say 6 isn't good for someone else?

Again, it's funny how you're all trying to prove me wrong and actually doing the exact opposite. It's obvious you sympathize with the pedo arguments. Anyone can see where it's all leading:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCUjZzuMQq8

[TheTexan]

Oooh, that's a good one. Maybe next time, post the whole sentence instead of the part you took out of context.


I quoted your entire post... Now you're just dodging because youve been called out for what you are, a pedo.

You and these other pedos make me sick. Disgusting.

[tod evans]

Oh, a priest joke, how original. I'm not religious myself so if that was your gig sorry to disappoint you, I do know however that was Catholics and a very small number at that. But your statement is completely contradictory, if there is no age of consent set and enforced how can any parent "stop the foul play" when it is perfectly legal?

I'm of the opinion that you really are as ignorant and dense as you come across in type......

That wasn't a "priest" joke you imbecile, I specifically typed religious leaders for a reason.

And then your assertion that legality has anything to do with parents protecting their progeny? There's nothing I can type that'll register with you.

You've gone and done it Hank, convinced me that you're posting from a group homes computer in the day-room... When does the med cart make the rounds? I'll try again when you're able to focus....

[caracoid]

"Again, it's funny how you're all trying to prove me wrong and actually doing the exact opposite. It's obvious you sympathize with the pedo arguments. Anyone can see where it's all leading"

Still trying to flog that one, huh?

[hankrichter12]

I'm of the opinion that you really are as ignorant and dense as you come across in type......

That wasn't a "priest" joke you imbecile, I specifically typed religious leaders for a reason.

And then your assertion that legality has anything to do with parents protecting their progeny? There's nothing I can type that'll register with you.

You've gone and done it Hank, convinced me that you're posting from a group homes computer in the day-room... When does the med cart make the rounds? I'll try again when you're able to focus....


"Again, it's funny how you're all trying to prove me wrong and actually doing the exact opposite. It's obvious you sympathize with the pedo arguments. Anyone can see where it's all leading"

Still trying to flog that one, huh?


No you guys are playing the cop out game, let's go back to my first post. I say FSP is suggesting pedophilia is not their business

Oh no, that's crazy, no we don't

OK, well here's this Ian guy

I want proof

OK, here's the proof

OK, well that's, just one idiot

I provide more examples

Well, alright, a few idiots, but still you can't blame everyone for a few idiots, and anyway, 17.....err, yaknow, even 14, that's not so bad, I wanted to bang my teacher when I was 14 and it would have been awesome, who are you to judge?

So, 17 slash 14, is OK, or at least up for debate, how about 6?

Oh no, not 6, definitely not

Alright, so what is the age then?

I'm not going there

So it's somewhere between 6-14, can I set an age?

No way, you're forcing your view on others, it's up to the parents in some vague sort of way

So what do the parents do if there is no law against it and no age set?

You're ignorant, parents can protect their progeny

OK fine, but since there is no legal age imposed when exactly is someone no longer a child and no longer under their parents rules? Can I tell my 17yrd old they aren't allowed to date a 30yr old? Can I tell my 14yr old they aren't allowed to date a 30yr old? When are they allowed to make that choice on their own?

Go take your meds Hank

So you all agree pedophilia is wrong, yet refuse to define what it actually is, which doesn't matter anyway since you don't think there should be any legal punishment for someone who engages in your undefined pedophilia because that would be bad to impose your views on someone else with force which is what those bad govts and religions do - so, you agree with Ian, which is what I said from the start.

[tod evans]

Proof's in the pudding, quoted to prevent editing.........



I'm of the opinion that you really are as ignorant and dense as you come across in type......

That wasn't a "priest" joke you imbecile, I specifically typed religious leaders for a reason.

And then your assertion that legality has anything to do with parents protecting their progeny? There's nothing I can type that'll register with you.

You've gone and done it Hank, convinced me that you're posting from a group homes computer in the day-room... When does the med cart make the rounds? I'll try again when you're able to focus....


No you guys are playing the cop out game, let's go back to my first post. I say FSP is suggesting pedophilia is not their business

Oh no, that's crazy, no we don't

OK, well here's this Ian guy

I want proof

OK, here's the proof

OK, well that's, just one idiot

I provide more examples

Well, alright, a few idiots, but still you can't blame everyone for a few idiots, and anyway, 17.....err, yaknow, even 14, that's not so bad, I wanted to bang my teacher when I was 14 and it would have been awesome, who are you to judge?

So, 17 slash 14, is OK, or at least up for debate, how about 6?

Oh no, not 6, definitely not

Alright, so what is the age then?

I'm not going there

So it's somewhere between 6-14, can I set an age?

No way, you're forcing your view on others, it's up to the parents in some vague sort of way

So what do the parents do if there is no law against it and no age set?

You're ignorant, parents can protect their progeny

OK fine, but since there is no legal age imposed when exactly is someone no longer a child and no longer under their parents rules? Can I tell my 17yrd old they aren't allowed to date a 30yr old? Can I tell my 14yr old they aren't allowed to date a 30yr old? When are they allowed to make that choice on their own?

Go take your meds Hank

So you all agree pedophilia is wrong, yet refuse to define what it actually is, which doesn't matter anyway since you don't think there should be any legal punishment for someone who engages in your undefined pedophilia because that would be bad to impose your views on someone else with force which is what those bad govts and religions do - so, you agree with Ian, which is what I said from the start.

[hankrichter12]

Proof's in the pudding, quoted to prevent editing.........


Editing? What would I edit? I said what I said, you and the others said what you said.

[caracoid]

No you guys are playing the cop out game, let's go back to my first post. I say FSP is suggesting pedophilia is not their business

Oh no, that's crazy, no we don't

OK, well here's this Ian guy

I want proof

OK, here's the proof

OK, well that's, just one idiot

I provide more examples

Well, alright, a few idiots, but still you can't blame everyone for a few idiots, and anyway, 17.....err, yaknow, even 14, that's not so bad, I wanted to bang my teacher when I was 14 and it would have been awesome, who are you to judge?

So, 17 slash 14, is OK, or at least up for debate, how about 6?

Oh no, not 6, definitely not

Alright, so what is the age then?

I'm not going there

So it's somewhere between 6-14, can I set an age?

No way, you're forcing your view on others, it's up to the parents in some vague sort of way

So what do the parents do if there is no law against it and no age set?

You're ignorant, parents can protect their progeny

OK fine, but since there is no legal age imposed when exactly is someone no longer a child and no longer under their parents rules? Can I tell my 17yrd old they aren't allowed to date a 30yr old? Can I tell my 14yr old they aren't allowed to date a 30yr old? When are they allowed to make that choice on their own?

Go take your meds Hank

So you all agree pedophilia is wrong, yet refuse to define what it actually is, which doesn't matter anyway since you don't think there should be any legal punishment for someone who engages in your undefined pedophilia because that would be bad to impose your views on someone else with force which is what those bad govts and religions do - so, you agree with Ian, which is what I said from the start.


Thank you for telling me what I think.

We're pretty much answering your question with an "it depends." To ask for a hard and fast rule is for people with binary minds. Nor have you answered my questions: Would you honestly have felt violated at 14 if some older woman had come along? Answer that. And what would you do with my dream woman if she had come along when I was 14? Do you throw her in jail for life for something that obviously hadn't harmed me but on the contrary made me feel a lot better about life in general?

If you were truely one of those few nonsexual boys, there's going to be no way to explain this to you. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I mean nonsexual boys grow up to be uncles that can throw on an apron when the parents need a break to "reconnect." Mother Nature has given you your uses. And we appreciate that.

[hankrichter12]

Thank you for telling me what I think.

We're pretty much answering your question with an "it depends." To ask for a hard and fast rule is for people with binary minds. Nor have you answered my questions: Would you honestly have felt violated at 14 if some older woman had come along? Answer that. And what would you do with my dream woman if she had come along when I was 14? Do you throw her in jail for life for something that obviously hadn't harmed me but on the contrary made me feel a lot better about life in general?

If you were truely one of those few nonsexual boys, there's going to be no way to explain this to you. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I mean nonsexual boys grow up to be uncles that can throw on an apron when the parents need a break to "reconnect." Mother Nature has given you your uses. And we appreciate that.


Was gonna answer till I got here. Really?

[tod evans]

Editing? What would I edit? I said what I said, you and the others said what you said.

Yes Hank, I did type what I typed, then you went on to accredit me with things I didn't type..

Is there a cognizant person who could help you process information before you type?

[Anti Federalist]

I agree with Ian in this regard:

It is a matter that should be decided among families and parents, not by setting arbitrary criminal rules by a disconnected, authoritarian and unresponsive government.

[Anti Federalist]

Raised by whom?

Surely not government and her stooges...

Between religious leaders and government functionaries very few children are actually "safe".......

Parents being involved with their kids and having the freedom to actually stop foul play is a much better solution.......

And to what?

21?

25?

Never?

[hankrichter12]

Yes Hank, I did type what I typed, then you went on to accredit me with things I didn't type..

Is there a cognizant person who could help you process information before you type?

I was not just replying to you, I was replying to this topic as a whole, if you got mixed up in that, my apologies, I guess I just can't even believe this a topic that is on the table, I mean, maybe I could understand a 17yr old who was legally dating a 16yr old, now one of them turns 18, and the other is 17, OK, that is a bit of a grey area, but to me, 30 and 14? 6yrs old?!?! Not even remotely negotiable.

[LibertyEagle]

I was not just replying to you, I was replying to this topic as a whole, if you got mixed up in that, my apologies, I guess I just can't even believe this a topic that is on the table, I mean, maybe I could understand a 17yr old who was legally dating a 16yr old, now one of them turns 18, and the other is 17, OK, that is a bit of a grey area, but to me, 30 and 14? 6yrs old?!?! Not even remotely negotiable.

Yup and it is one of many reasons why we cannot have nice things.

[LibertyEagle]

Raised by whom?

Surely not government and her stooges...

Between religious leaders and government functionaries very few children are actually "safe".......

Parents being involved with their kids and having the freedom to actually stop foul play is a much better solution.......

I agree. But, what is with all the beating around the bush by everyone on this thread? I would imagine (I hope) everyone here is against a 30 year old having sex with a 6 year old little girl. So, why not say it at the very beginning and then bring up the gray area, 19 vs. 17, etc, and discuss the best ways to deal with the whole issue.

[hankrichter12]

I agree. But, what is with all the beating around the bush by everyone on this thread? I would imagine (I hope) everyone here is against a 30 year old having sex with a 6 year old little girl. So, why not say it at the very beginning and then bring up the gray area, 19 vs. 17, etc, and discuss the best ways to deal with the whole issue.


THANK YOU! That is what I'm saying. These people are making me pretty nervous. Everyone always asks me "Where is that line when you would finally pick up a gun and rebel" - I don't know man, if our society has gotten to the point where having sex with kids is now a valid topic worthy of discussion, this might just be it for me.

[tod evans]

I agree. But, what is with all the beating around the bush by everyone on this thread? I would imagine (I hope) everyone here is against a 30 year old having sex with a 6 year old little girl. So, why not say it at the very beginning and then bring up the gray area, 19 vs. 17, etc, and discuss the best ways to deal with the whole issue.

I can't speak for everyone......:o

I've been quite clear about my position....

[Danke]

17 year old is a "gray area" for you? What the fuck is wrong with you, the age of consent is 18, anything lower than that is pedophilia.

You're no better than the rest of these pedophiles.

All the 17 year olds I have known had no "gray areas."

[TheTexan]

All the 17 year olds I have known had no "gray areas."

In states where 17 is legal I presume. Otherwise you're a pedo like Hank and the others.

But if its legal its fine.

[caracoid]

I agree. But, what is with all the beating around the bush by everyone on this thread? I would imagine (I hope) everyone here is against a 30 year old having sex with a 6 year old little girl. So, why not say it at the very beginning and then bring up the gray area, 19 vs. 17, etc, and discuss the best ways to deal with the whole issue.

Okay, Einstein. You answer some of these questions that were brought up. And of course we can all draw the line somewhere, but it's going to be the finer points that become nearly impossible to answer without some kind of head-in-the-sand answer, like: No sex unless you're over 25 (or whatever Hank Slap-'n-tickle is pushing). And don't tell me you're one of these zombies who claim that when they were a 14-years-old they didn't dream about sleeping with a real woman.

I'm probably older than most of you, but when I was 14 there certainly was no controversy in saying that. Have we really succumbed to the PC fantasy world or Christian conservative religious dogma? Is it any wonder libertarians are trying to get out of this nightmare where you're forced to say things that are obviously not true in order to placate the witch hunters like Slap-'n-tickle over there?

[Anti Federalist]

THANK YOU! That is what I'm saying. These people are making me pretty nervous. Everyone always asks me "Where is that line when you would finally pick up a gun and rebel" - I don't know man, if our society has gotten to the point where having sex with kids is now a valid topic worthy of discussion, this might just be it for me.

Good grief...you don't have to be in favor of shooting up heroin, to be in favor of ending the drug war and legalizing all drugs.

[LibertyEagle]

Okay, Einstein. You answer some of these questions that were brought up. And of course we can all draw the line somewhere, but it's going to be the finer points that become nearly impossible to answer without some kind of head-in-the-sand answer, like: No sex unless you're over 25 (or whatever Hank Slap-'n-tickle is pushing). And don't tell me you're one of these zombies who claim that when they were a 14-years-old they didn't dream about sleeping with a real woman.

I'm probably older than most of you, but when I was 14 there certainly was no controversy in saying that.
And I think there was always more latitude when it was a boy at that age, as opposed to a girl. For obvious reasons.


Have we really succumbed to the PC fantasy world or Christian conservative religious dogma? Is it any wonder libertarians are trying to get out of this nightmare where you're forced to say things that are obviously not true in order to placate the witch hunters like Slap-'n-tickle over there?

He initially brought up a 30 year old man having sex with a 6 year old little girl. If we cannot reach consensus that this is not acceptable, then something is very wrong.

[hankrichter12]

Okay, Einstein. You answer some of these questions that were brought up. And of course we can all draw the line somewhere, but it's going to be the finer points that become nearly impossible to answer without some kind of head-in-the-sand answer, like: No sex unless you're over 25 (or whatever Hank Slap-'n-tickle is pushing). And don't tell me you're one of these zombies who claim that when they were a 14-years-old they didn't dream about sleeping with a real woman.

I'm probably older than most of you, but when I was 14 there certainly was no controversy in saying that. Have we really succumbed to the PC fantasy world or Christian conservative religious dogma? Is it any wonder libertarians are trying to get out of this nightmare where you're forced to say things that are obviously not true in order to placate the witch hunters like Slap-'n-tickle over there?


So once again - you agree with Ian, nice to know. Are you this guy? You sure sound like him there fruity.

http://freekeene.com/2016/03/18/ian-freemans-fsp-shunning-considered-as-victim-blaming/



(http://freekeene.com/2016/03/18/ian-freemans-fsp-shunning-considered-as-victim-blaming/)
And I think there was always more latitude when it was a boy at that age, as opposed to a girl. For obvious reasons.

He initially brought up a 30 year old man having sex with a 6 year old little girl. If we cannot reach consensus that this is not acceptable, then something is very wrong.

It's not really a debate about as to whether or not 14yr old boys have hormones or fantasies, the debate is whether or not they are old enough to make that kind of decision and act on them, the kid aside, goodness, what kind of 30-40yr old woman would be pursuing someone in Jr High? This sicko doesn't seem to understand the difference.



Good grief...you don't have to be in favor of shooting up heroin, to be in favor of ending the drug war and legalizing all drugs.


OK man, I've been pretty respectful of many of your opinions even if I've not agreed all the time, but you are totally losing me here, I fail to see the correlation, are you equating drug use to screwing children?

[Anti Federalist]

OK man, I've been pretty respectful of many of your opinions even if I've not agreed all the time, but you are totally losing me here, I fail to see the correlation, are you equating drug use to screwing children?

Both are negative social behaviours, that arbitrary criminal rules tend to make the situation worse rather than better and increase the size and scope and power of government.

Should there be a federal "war on pedophelia"?

If not, why not?

[hankrichter12]

Both are negative social behaviours, that arbitrary criminal rules tend to make the situation worse rather than better and increase the size and scope and power of government.

Should there be a federal "war on pedophelia"?

If not, why not?


You guys always have to go into hysterics, OK, fine, take the federal govt out of it, me personally, with no fear of govt retribution, I, no joke, would cut off this (mod edit), he is free to go live his life as he sees fit after that, so, absent, the state, that would be Ian's fate if guys like me were free to do as we please.

There are pricks on these boards - not saying you, not quite sure your angle just yet - who have mentioned they are open to the idea of 14yr olds with 30yr olds, I would treat them the same as Ian.

Now, I know the internet is full of "keyboard warriors" but I will happily give anyone the address to my MMA gym if they want to come call my bluff, even at 40 I'm sure I could still whoop most people out there, and my town is certainly pretty "old school", we have men out here who still believe men should be "masculine" and I can assure you a guy who says 14yr old sex is acceptable, or that a 6yr old can consent will not have a pleasant day here.

So, I'd say for these sick freaks, many of whom are libertarian and hate the state, they should be thanking their lucky stars for the state, because I cannot think of any private property society that would tolerate their sick deviant mentalities for a second.

It's kinda funny seeing people on here advocate for "free societies" when fact of the matter is, without state protection 90% of what they do end up with them swinging from a tree.

[tod evans]

You guys always have to go into hysterics, OK, fine, take the federal govt out of it, me personally, with no fear of govt retribution, I, no joke, would cut off this (mod edit), he is free to go live his life as he sees fit after that, so, absent, the state, that would be Ian's fate if guys like me were free to do as we please.

There are pricks on these boards - not saying you, not quite sure your angle just yet - who have mentioned they are open to the idea of 14yr olds with 30yr olds, I would treat them the same as Ian.

Now, I know the internet is full of "keyboard warriors" but I will happily give anyone the address to my MMA gym if they want to come call my bluff, even at 40 I'm sure I could still whoop most people out there, and my town is certainly pretty "old school", we have men out here who still believe men should be "masculine" and I can assure you a guy who says 14yr old sex is acceptable, or that a 6yr old can consent will not have a pleasant day here.

So, I'd say for these sick freaks, many of whom are libertarian and hate the state, they should be thanking their lucky stars for the state, because I cannot think of any private property society that would tolerate their sick deviant mentalities for a second.

It's kinda funny seeing people on here advocate for "free societies" when fact of the matter is, without state protection 90% of what they do end up with them swinging from a tree.


WTF is an "MMA gym?

Is that some kind of tuff-guy hangout where ya'll penis gaze in the showers?

Real men work, they don't work out, real men don't profess to want to cripple others for their ideas or thoughts, real men do take care of business when children are messed with and.............Real men don't cry to government to handle things in their stead.

[Origanalist]

WTF is an "MMA gym?

Is that some kind of tuff-guy hangout where ya'll penis gaze in the showers?

Real men work, they don't work out, real men don't profess to want to cripple others for their ideas or thoughts, real men do take care of business when children are messed with and.............Real men don't cry to government to handle things in their stead.

Lol hankrichter, the new RPF tough guy. :D

[tod evans]

Lol hankrichter, the new RPF tough guy. :D

Folks who waste precious time picking up chunks of metal only to put them back in the same place baffle me......

Almost as much as those who run when nothing is chasing them.....

It must be some malady associated with the unproductive lifestyle so many live today....

I'm exhausted by the end of the day, at my age schlepping around 90# sheets of plywood or 8/4 oak tends to kick my ass after 8-10 hours.......:o

[caracoid]

You guys always have to go into hysterics, OK, fine, take the federal govt out of it, me personally, with no fear of govt retribution, I, no joke, would cut off this (mod edit of graphically detailed coercion), he is free to go live his life as he sees fit after that, so, absent, the state, that would be Ian's fate if guys like me were free to do as we please.

There are pricks on these boards - not saying you, not quite sure your angle just yet - who have mentioned they are open to the idea of 14yr olds with 30yr olds, I would treat them the same as Ian.

Now, I know the internet is full of "keyboard warriors" but I will happily give anyone the address to my MMA gym if they want to come call my bluff, even at 40 I'm sure I could still whoop most people out there, and my town is certainly pretty "old school", we have men out here who still believe men should be "masculine" and I can assure you a guy who says 14yr old sex is acceptable, or that a 6yr old can consent will not have a pleasant day here.

So, I'd say for these sick freaks, many of whom are libertarian and hate the state, they should be thanking their lucky stars for the state, because I cannot think of any private property society that would tolerate their sick deviant mentalities for a second.

It's kinda funny seeing people on here advocate for "free societies" when fact of the matter is, without state protection 90% of what they do end up with them swinging from a tree.


Oh boy. You go away to get some shut eye and guys like you start bulldozing around like mad elephants.

Now you're telling me how to raise my own son with your tiny-minded values? But it's worse than that because you're looking to impose your will through physical coercion (legal or otherwise and graphically detailed). If you had shown up at my high school sex ed class and started lecturing the boys about your "enlightened" ideas, you would have been met with a low rumble of snickers followed by the the male teacher slapping your ass on the way out the door and saying, "So long, tootsie."

I've spent my entire adult life living in liberal neighborhoods and have come to the conclusion that there is no fascist like a liberal fascist. But you've got me rethinking that. You've come to a libertarian website and--through coercion--are trying to get people to say what you want them to say. You come on that strong to a libertarian and by nature they'll even start defending Hitler.

As far as what women think, well I'm smart enough to know not to begin to tell them that. And if you had been on a single solitary date with any woman (who wasn't your sister) you would know that any attempt to tell them what's good for them would be met with your head served up to you on your salad dish. I wish some libertarian women reading this right now would pipe up. Is it okay for fourteen-year-old males to sleep with older women but not fourteen-year-old females like your friend just suggested?

And yes, I would certainly be afraid if you and your two toothless friends showed up while I was on a canoeing trip in the Ozarks. Plenty scared. Here's the thing. Before all the smart people left town for the cities, small towns like yours were run by the smart guys. A (mod edit) like you and your pals throwing your weight around would have been dealt with early--and if that didn't work--you would have been met with your own tactics and found yourselves (mod edit) somewhere just to bring peace back to the town. Now there's nobody left to reel you in. So off you go prancing around on your ponies telling people what's good for them--or else.

[tod evans]

And yes, I would certainly be afraid if you and your two toothless friends showed up while I was on a canoeing trip in the Ozarks. .


Just back the fuck off the Ozarks there boy...........

[NewRightLibertarian]

Actually, there are two - that we currently know of - guess you didn't hear about the guy who got arrested trying to hook up with a 14yr old, and don't give me that crap, they only "distanced" themselves when the moron said it boldly on air and they got a huge backlash from it, don't even tell me that is the first time they heard that story, listen to his co-host, he was not shocked at all and did not even condemn it.

My suggestion: Stay in Alabama with the rest of your toothless hick puritanical liberty-hating redneck buddies, (mod edit). We don't need you nor want someone like you in New Hampshire or in the liberty movement at all, for that matter.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I see a whole lot of pointing fingers, and zero evidence to support this diatribe against Ian. I'm not saying I support or agree with his ideologies on the matter, but from what I've seen (which isn't much, I'm not willing to expend my mental energy to look that far into it), Ian merely doesn't agree with blanket age of consent laws because of situations where a 17 year old boy can go to prison for 10 years for having a 16 year old girlfriend (yes this happens) and was not at all claiming to support having any kind of physical contact with children. If I'm wrong, I of course do not support such things, but I also don't support demonizing an otherwise awesome person for remarks taken out of context.

SO, if you have proof that Ian does actually support such things, by all means, please provide sources.

It's a railroading. And similar to the way the SJWs call someone a racist and every worthless putrid coward in society immediately piles on, that is exactly what the opportunists and the enemies of liberty are doing here with this witch hunt of Ian.

It's a tremendous shame, but it doesn't surprise me. That is what our society has degraded to, and that's the way it is. I just hope this BS doesn't ruin the FSP. It seems like the board is either going along with it or actively working to purge anti-statists from NH.

[Anti Federalist]

So, I post a calm, rational, and even keeled response, you reply with how you want to dismember people and kick their ass at your MMA gym...and I'm "hysterical"?

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure that specific threats against a person, by name, constitute a number of felony crimes as well as a violation of forum policy.

FFS, nobody I know in FSP, NH or anywhere else is advocating for sex with six year olds.

All we are saying is that, as is always the case, the government solution is more likely to be worse than the condition it is trying to solve.

And no, I don't wan't to fight about it, so hoot and holler at somebody else.

I carry guns so I don't have to pick things up and put them down in every minute of my free time.


You guys always have to go into hysterics, OK, fine, take the federal govt out of it, me personally, with no fear of govt retribution, I, no joke, would (mod edit), he is free to go live his life as he sees fit after that, so, absent, the state, that would be Ian's fate if guys like me were free to do as we please.

There are pricks on these boards - not saying you, not quite sure your angle just yet - who have mentioned they are open to the idea of 14yr olds with 30yr olds, I would treat them the same as Ian.

Now, I know the internet is full of "keyboard warriors" but I will happily give anyone the address to my MMA gym if they want to come call my bluff, even at 40 I'm sure I could still whoop most people out there, and my town is certainly pretty "old school", we have men out here who still believe men should be "masculine" and I can assure you a guy who says 14yr old sex is acceptable, or that a 6yr old can consent will not have a pleasant day here.

So, I'd say for these sick freaks, many of whom are libertarian and hate the state, they should be thanking their lucky stars for the state, because I cannot think of any private property society that would tolerate their sick deviant mentalities for a second.

It's kinda funny seeing people on here advocate for "free societies" when fact of the matter is, without state protection 90% of what they do end up with them swinging from a tree.

[misterx]

Lived there before all the Massholes moved there and the FSP people. I don't know if I ever want to go back now with how it's changed. Especially if there are a lot of people who are against age of consent laws. Please tells me it's just one or two people they are using to make the movement look bad.

[misterx]

WTF is an "MMA gym?

Is that some kind of tuff-guy hangout where ya'll penis gaze in the showers?

Real men work, they don't work out, real men don't profess to want to cripple others for their ideas or thoughts, real men do take care of business when children are messed with and.............Real men don't cry to government to handle things in their stead.

I've never been to an MMA gym, so I have no opinion on it, but I have a home gym. Real men keep themselves in shape. I don't care how physical your job is, it can't compare to the benefits of a good workout.

[acptulsa]

Please tells me it's just one or two people they are using to make the movement look bad.

It has already been stated that it's just one or two people.

And congratulations on having brains enough to realize that the federal government is not hardly above planting a couple of these in order to make the whole bunch look bad.

[misterx]

It has already been stated that it's just one or two people.

And congratulations on having brains enough to realize that the federal government is not hardly above planting a couple of these in order to make the whole bunch look bad.

I figured that. I don't have time to read through the whole article and thread right now. I am leery of the FSP people though. NH has always been full of highly educated, intelligent, respectful, thoughtful, and moral people. I worry about a bunch of southern bubbas and New York Aholes moving there on top of all the Massholes.

[Dr.3D]

I've never been to an MMA gym, so I have no opinion on it, but I have a home gym. Real men keep themselves in shape. I don't care how physical your job is, it can't compare to the benefits of a good workout.
Yep, a good set of free weights and a bench along with an Exercycle is all that's needed to stay in shape. What is MMA... is that Mucho Macho A hole?

[caracoid]

I worry about a bunch of southern bubbas . . . moving there on top of all the Massholes.

Yeah, well I don't think you'll have to worry about seeing Hank up there anytime soon.

[tod evans]

I've never been to an MMA gym, so I have no opinion on it, but I have a home gym. Real men keep themselves in shape. I don't care how physical your job is, it can't compare to the benefits of a good workout.

Office job eh?

[misterx]

Office job eh?

I've done everything. I've worked the most physically demanding jobs in the past, and I can tell you they didn't keep me in shape the way free weights and laps around the track do.

[erowe1]

FSP, the supporters of having sex with children, as young as 6, maybe younger, not exactly my type of society.

What's your source for the claim that they support that?

[Rothbardian Girl]

What's your source for the claim that they support that?
Here's something Ian Freeman wrote a little over a week ago proclaiming his belief that adults having sex with teenagers, 13 year olds, is fine as long as said teen affirms their desire to have sex with the adult. It's funny how this is his response to people claiming he thinks sex with 6-year olds is OK - "No, no, but sex with 13 year olds is fine." Keep in mind, also, that this is one of the main geniuses behind plugging people's parking meters for them. Adults having sex with children isn't any of his business, but parking meters are. What a mess.

http://freekeene.com/2016/03/19/response-to-dishonest-hitpiece-flyer-being-posted-downtown/

In another smear campaign against me, local haters have concocted yet another dishonest attack flyer and littered it all over downtown Keene. This unsigned, un-cited flyer accuses me of using my radio show to propagate the opinion that, “children as young or younger than six years old have the right and ability to consent to sexual acts with adults” and further claims that I have said that “children have the right to consent, and parents, the community and the state should not intervene”.

Those are the rumors, now here are the facts: In the video made by a local hater from clips of a discussion on my radio show from years ago, it is a caller who asks if I support sex with a six-year old. To which I say twice that sex with children is reprehensible, but that what people do is none of my business. Somehow that conversation gets spun as me supporting sex with children, which I do not, and never have. Here’s a much more detailed discussion about age of consent that explains why I don’t consider what people do in their homes any of my business.

Even if a child could somehow be mentally ready for sex, they are not physically ready for it, so it’s not okay in my book. So, no, I don’t support sex with children, but I don’t consider teens who decide they are ready for sex to be children. Some people do consider teenagers to be children, and I find that to be insulting to young people. It’s also a view that doesn’t hold up against history, where many people consented to sex and marriage at ages as young as 13. Nor does it hold up if you bother to actually read the definition of “child”, which is a person between birth and puberty.

So while I don’t believe people should have sex with children, I do support young people who are physically able to have sex being able to decide when they are mentally ready to be adults and take on responsibility for their actions, including sex.


Many people are very uncomfortable around the idea of sex in general, as they come from the belief that sex is bad and naughty. Rather than have honest conversations about age of consent, they jump to extremes, make up lies, and call names, because everyone must have as repressive of views as they do, so anyone who doesn’t must support sex with children.

I support young people being able to emancipate themselves, not sex with children. I support each individual being judged by their actions and words, not arbitrary ages. Government “statutory rape” laws have destroyed countless innocent lives and are an insult to real rape victims.

Some thoughts: sex between kids of the same age is sex between equals. Children are naturally and socially significantly lacking in power in relation to adults. They are not developed sexually. Their first sexual encounters should not be in the early stages of their development with someone who can so thoroughly overpower them. To not recognize the predatory behavior inherent in adults trying to sexually dominate children indicates a lack of knowledge of what adults and children even are, or a total lack of concern for the safety of children.

[hankrichter12]

WTF is an "MMA gym?

Is that some kind of tuff-guy hangout where ya'll penis gaze in the showers?

Real men work, they don't work out, real men don't profess to want to cripple others for their ideas or thoughts, real men do take care of business when children are messed with and.............Real men don't cry to government to handle things in their stead.


Lol hankrichter, the new RPF tough guy. :D


Folks who waste precious time picking up chunks of metal only to put them back in the same place baffle me......

Almost as much as those who run when nothing is chasing them.....

It must be some malady associated with the unproductive lifestyle so many live today....

I'm exhausted by the end of the day, at my age schlepping around 90# sheets of plywood or 8/4 oak tends to kick my ass after 8-10 hours.......:o


So, I post a calm, rational, and even keeled response, you reply with how you want to dismember people and kick their ass at your MMA gym...and I'm "hysterical"?

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure that specific threats against a person, by name, constitute a number of felony crimes as well as a violation of forum policy.

FFS, nobody I know in FSP, NH or anywhere else is advocating for sex with six year olds.

All we are saying is that, as is always the case, the government solution is more likely to be worse than the condition it is trying to solve.

And no, I don't wan't to fight about it, so hoot and holler at somebody else.

I carry guns so I don't have to pick things up and put them down in every minute of my free time.



Too funny. No, clowns, I was merely pointing out how stupid your concept of "freedom" is. If you are going to say let's have no state, OK, fine, what do you think is going to be the response when you as a 30, 40 or whatever year old show up at someone's house courting their 16yr old daughter? Hate to break it to you but I don't think that is going to be allowed. The only thing even making it possible for you to make these absurd notions, is the state, no private community would tolerate it for a second.

[hankrichter12]

Oh boy. You go away to get some shut eye and guys like you start bulldozing around like mad elephants.

Now you're telling me how to raise my own son with your tiny-minded values? But it's worse than that because you're looking to impose your will through physical coercion (legal or otherwise and graphically detailed). If you had shown up at my high school sex ed class and started lecturing the boys about your "enlightened" ideas, you would have been met with a low rumble of snickers followed by the the male teacher slapping your ass on the way out the door and saying, "So long, tootsie."

I've spent my entire adult life living in liberal neighborhoods and have come to the conclusion that there is no fascist like a liberal fascist. But you've got me rethinking that. You've come to a libertarian website and--through coercion--are trying to get people to say what you want them to say. You come on that strong to a libertarian and by nature they'll even start defending Hitler.

As far as what women think, well I'm smart enough to know not to begin to tell them that. And if you had been on a single solitary date with any woman (who wasn't your sister) you would know that any attempt to tell them what's good for them would be met with your head served up to you on your salad dish. I wish some libertarian women reading this right now would pipe up. Is it okay for fourteen-year-old males to sleep with older women but not fourteen-year-old females like your friend just suggested?

And yes, I would certainly be afraid if you and your two toothless friends showed up while I was on a canoeing trip in the Ozarks. Plenty scared. Here's the thing. Before all the smart people left town for the cities, small towns like yours were run by the smart guys. A (mod edit) like you and your pals throwing your weight around would have been dealt with early--and if that didn't work--you would have been met with your own tactics and found yourselves (mod edit) somewhere just to bring peace back to the town. Now there's nobody left to reel you in. So off you go prancing around on your ponies telling people what's good for them--or else.


My suggestion: Stay in Alabama with the rest of your toothless hick puritanical liberty-hating redneck buddies, (mod edit). We don't need you nor want someone like you in New Hampshire or in the liberty movement at all, for that matter.



Oh, so original, erp derp "Redneck", erp derp "Alabama", erp derp "Sister", erp derp "toothless"

OK friend, you've figured out the complex process of having sex, let me bow to your awesomeness. I've had sex bud, and..yeah, whatever, it's a wet hole, don't exactly revolve my whole existence around it. Can think of any number of things in my life that top it.

All of that is beside the point. Going back to what started all of this: Are libertarians and the FSP trying to monkey with the age of consent laws - seems to me they are.

[Anti Federalist]

Too funny. No, clowns, I was merely pointing out how stupid your concept of "freedom" is. If you are going to say let's have no state, OK, fine, what do you think is going to be the response when you as a 30, 40 or whatever year old show up at someone's house courting their 16yr old daughter? Hate to break it to you but I don't think that is going to be allowed. The only thing even making it possible for you to make these absurd notions, is the state, no private community would tolerate it for a second.

So, fine, they wouldn't.

So then what is your issue, other than the need to puff up and show how tough you are and drag down an organization you don't have to deal with or have anything to do with?

I live in NH, let me worry about FSP, and you mind your own business, how about that?

[NewRightLibertarian]

Oh, so original, erp derp "Redneck", erp derp "Alabama", erp derp "Sister", erp derp "toothless"

OK friend, you've figured the complex process of having sex, let me bow to your awesomeness. I've had sex bud, and..yeah, whatever, it's a wet hole, don't exactly revolve my whole existence around it. Can think of any number of things in my life that top it.

All of that is beside the point. Going back to what started all of this: Are libertarians and the FSP trying to monkey with the age of consent laws - seems to me they are.

I think a sizable chunk of libertarians involved the FSP would like to monkey around with as many laws as possible, for the purposes of getting rid of them entirely.

[Anti Federalist]

All of that is beside the point. Going back to what started all of this: Are libertarians and the FSP trying to monkey with the age of consent laws - seems to me they are.

Good god, I thought that was pretty clear, that there shouldn't even be such a thing, at least not one mandated by government and enforced by the police state.

If there is, then everybody better start being consistent: you have to 18 to enter into any other contract, so, no sex before 18.

Need some special tactical officers to enforce that as well.

[Danke]

Oh, so original, erp derp "Redneck", erp derp "Alabama", erp derp "Sister", erp derp "toothless"

OK friend, you've figured the complex process of having sex, let me bow to your awesomeness. I've had sex bud, and..yeah, whatever, it's a wet hole, don't exactly revolve my whole existence around it. Can think of any number of things in my life that top it.

All of that is beside the point. Going back to what started all of this: Are libertarians and the FSP trying to monkey with the age of consent laws - seems to me they are.

In the Air Force I was going to a weather lesson class. The instructor brought up the topic of relative humidity. My classmate from Alabama raised his hand. He Seemed confused as that was not what was taught growing up.

He said in Allabama, relative humidity is understood as the sweat rolling down your sisters back as you are getting her from behind.

[hankrichter12]

So, fine, they wouldn't.

So then what is your issue, other than the need to puff up and show how tough you are and drag down an organization you don't have to deal with or have anything to do with?

I live in NH, let me worry about FSP, and you mind your own business, how about that?

"Puff Up?" Not trying to show how tough I am, just making a point. All of you are so concerned about these dangers to the liberty movement and it's message yet you don't think someone proclaiming boldly on the air that 6yr olds can consent to sex is an issue? I've been scolded for not being like Ron Paul or agreeing with his views, OK, so is this Ron's view?

You don't think that is something people should be aware of if they are going to move to this community, and don't give me this crap that this was "one guy" I've gone round in that circle over and over, it is not just one guy as these comments show, and this one guy was saying it for years and no one seemed to care until it became a PR issue.

I'll "mind my own business", but I was even considering moving there, however I look into a place before I do, and when I heard of this crap and that it's been a well known issue for years and no one had a problem with it that made my mind up for me, and I decided maybe I should let others know as well and that maybe the FSP isn't what it is portraying itself to be, in the end, people can make up their own mind, isn't that fair?


I think a sizable chunk of libertarians involved the FSP would like to monkey around with as many laws as possible, for the purposes of getting rid of them entirely.


OK then, so what is the argument? I said in my original post, FSP wants to get rid of pedophilia laws, or at least change them - so why am I being attacked when it seems I am correct in what I stated????


Good god, I thought that was pretty clear, that there shouldn't even be such a thing, at least not one mandated by government and enforced by the police state.

If there is, then everybody better start being consistent: you have to 18 to enter into any other contract, so, no sex before 18.

Need some special tactical officers to enforce that as well.


OK chicken little, so now we're back to the ole semantics game?

[tod evans]

Too funny. No, clowns, I was merely pointing out how stupid your concept of "freedom" is. If you are going to say let's have no state, OK, fine, what do you think is going to be the response when you as a 30, 40 or whatever year old show up at someone's house courting their 16yr old daughter? Hate to break it to you but I don't think that is going to be allowed. The only thing even making it possible for you to make these absurd notions, is the state, no private community would tolerate it for a second.

Is reading and comprehension really so difficult?

The only "absurd notions" I've read about have been spouted by you, to wit; That government is the correct entity to set and enforce age restrictions on sexual behavior.


I keep pointing out the sheer number of governments functionaries who have been convicted of crimes against children and for some reason you keep calling for government to be involved.................Why is that Hank?

[otherone]

It's an expression,

:rolleyes:
It's not an expression... it's hyperbole, which is literally in every one of your arguments.

[hankrichter12]

Is reading and comprehension really so difficult?

The only "absurd notions" I've read about have been spouted by you, to wit; That government is the correct entity to set and enforce age restrictions on sexual behavior.


I keep pointing out the sheer number of governments functionaries who have been convicted of crimes against children and for some reason you keep calling for government to be involved.................Why is that Hank?


:rolleyes:
It's not an expression... it's hyperbole, which is literally in every one of your arguments.



More of the same. What is govt Ted? What is it tell me? See, I think I finally have figured out all of you and what your gig is. It's like how many of you say "I'm not going to vote, I'm not going validate their authority".

Fact is, none of you have any real ideas and you know it, you just want to sit on the sidelines, criticizing everyone else then when someone turns to you all they get is a bunch of vague soundbites about "freedom" and "liberty".

You don't want a "state" so let's get rid of all these things you consider a "state".

-You won't have judges or courthouses, disputes will be "brought before your peers" and they will decide - hmmm, sounds and awful lot like a jury and court to me

-When this group of peers decides, what then? What will make sure that decision is honored? Some kind of force.

-This decision, backed by force, well, you won't call it a law, but seems the message will get around town that people who commit that particular act will not be tolerated in your society, which sounds like a law to me.

-You won't have cops, you'll have private security who will use force to make sure people follow the rules - sounds like cops to me

-When asked what will happen if a wealthy business owner hires numerous security forces and tries to impose his will on others, I'm told those others will band together to stop him - sounds quite a bit like an army to me, and if those two sides fight over the territory, well, sounds awfully familiar to a war.

-You hate speed limits, drunk driving laws and the like, so you want private roads - and I agree with having private roads - but fact is you're a fool if you believe private roads won't have speed limits and such, heck, it's entirely possible you will have to take a breathalyzer before they even let you on their road, but just so long as you don't call the person doing it a "cop" - it's all good.

So how nice, all of you get to sit here on your soapboxes, perpetually talking down to everyone else, feeling so smug and morally superior knowing full well you will never actually have to walk any of your talk.

[otherone]

you just want to sit on the sidelines, criticizing everyone else then when someone turns to you all they get is a bunch of vague soundbites about "freedom" and "liberty".//
So how nice, all of you get to sit here on your soapboxes, perpetually talking down to everyone else

Which is it? Sideline or soapbox?
And how is your "approach" more productive? Do you figure you'll get better food at the FEMA camp if the state approves of your oral skills?

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/229/files/2014/05/ncaa-football-arkansas-mississippi-state-590x900.jpg

[tod evans]

Well Frank, (if I'm going to be Ted, you can be Frank)...

Maybe you could point to where I've set forth the positions you've chosen to accredit to me?

Regardless I'll engage your delusions to a point.......

Government as it sits isn't representative of the people, the disconnect is beyond repair. Courts and kops specifically (since you brought them up) must abide by a hierarchy that even their employees don't agree with. Ask several if you don't believe me. They must enforce laws that run contrary to common sense in order to suck a pension check out of the taxpayers.......Small towns like where I live and the surrounding counties don't generate enough revenue to support the kops-n-court employees on their payroll let alone the pensions they pay so state and federal coffers are tapped which makes the tax-ticks beholden to folks hundreds, or thousands of miles away...And the lowlife scum you'd deffer to will whore out their morals and ethics for state and federal money.

So go ahead and keep claiming that these people represent you if you'd like, they sure as hell don't represent me!

If you ever have call to be judged in one of their courtrooms you'll understand exactly how wrong you are with your assertion about a jury of your peers.

You're repeating approved rhetoric that has absolutely no factual basis in reality.

Once again I'll type; "Government is the problem, not the solution."

[tod evans]

Which is it? Sideline or soapbox?
And how is your "approach" more productive? Do you figure you'll get better food at the FEMA camp if the state approves of your oral skills?


http://s30.postimg.org/ovjq1ln65/cs2.gif

Copsucker ;)

[caracoid]

Oh, so original, erp derp "Redneck", erp derp "Alabama", erp derp "Sister", erp derp "toothless"

OK friend, you've figured out the complex process of having sex, let me bow to your awesomeness. I've had sex bud, and..yeah, whatever, it's a wet hole, don't exactly revolve my whole existence around it. Can think of any number of things in my life that top it.

All of that is beside the point. Going back to what started all of this: Are libertarians and the FSP trying to monkey with the age of consent laws - seems to me they are.

No Hank, what you said when you started this was:

"FSP, the supporters of having sex with children, as young as 6, maybe younger, not exactly my type of society."

To which I stated:

"And by the way, libertarians can at least agree that the ONE legitimate government function is to protect the week from the predations of the stronger. And children would certainly fit into that former category. If you were once the libertarian you claim, you would have recognized that and seen any deviation from it as anything but normal or representative."

I then went on to say however that if I were fourteen and an older woman slept with me I would have felt about the opposite of "victimized." And that the woman should not be prosecuted for something that did me no harm--and, in fact, something that actually made me a whole lot happier for. This is a case where blanket underage laws trample the rights of individuals and a clear example of how unchecked government will inevitably move toward unwieldy gigantism and clumsily begin to step on the very people it was originally designed to serve.

We've created a monster that is out of our control. And that I have to sit here and explain that to you makes me wonder how you could ever have thought about being a libertarian. What exactly were you thinking? I sure don't want to convince you to be a libertarian, obviously you don't "get it," nor will you ever. And in that semi-mythical future where we may have a place to live in under the tenants of our own values I sure do not want to have to be dragging guys like you along with me.

Since then you've attempted to pull every trick in the book, including misquoting, misrepresentation, convolution of intent of statement, and finally out-and-out physical harm in order to bully people into bowing to your self-righteousness. You insist on reading people's minds and then telling them that what they're REALLY thinking is that they would approve of the most deviant behavior that can be cooked up in some demented person's mind (uh, Hank) and refuse to acknowledge that in some cases the blanket laws as they are can result in tragic consequences.

The basis of your argument is taken right out of Alinski's liberal handbook, which has been used to paint Republicans as racist and which goes something like: if you don't agree with government handouts and government handouts are given disproportionately to minorities then you must hate minorities. You've turned a deaf ear to people's suggestions about more case-specific decision making and continued to flog your simple-minded insistence that if it's not your way you're a paedophile.

How in the world do you even sleep at night?

[hankrichter12]

Well Frank, (if I'm going to be Ted, you can be Frank)...

Yes, I noticed that misspelling, my apologies, you can still call me Frank if you like.


Maybe you could point to where I've set forth the positions you've chosen to accredit to me?

My response was not just to you, but what you said is my point, very few of you will ever set forth any positions, you only present criticisms.


Government as it sits isn't representative of the people,

Never claimed it was. If I was happy with state of affairs in this country I likely wouldn't on these boards would I?


the disconnect is beyond repair. Courts and kops specifically (since you brought them up) must abide by a hierarchy that even their employees don't agree with. Ask several if you don't believe me. They must enforce laws that run contrary to common sense in order to suck a pension check out of the taxpayers.......

Some will agree with the laws, some won't, this will always be the case, and what is your solution to this???


Small towns like where I live and the surrounding counties don't generate enough revenue to support the kops-n-court employees on their payroll let alone the pensions they pay so state and federal coffers are tapped which makes the tax-ticks beholden to folks hundreds, or thousands of miles away...And the lowlife scum you'd deffer to will whore out their morals and ethics for state and federal money.

What "low-life" scum would that be? Who is the one putting words in people's mouth here? - and once again, what is your solution to this?


So go ahead and keep claiming that these people represent you if you'd like, they sure as hell don't represent me!

I'd love for you to show me where I said "these people" represent me.


If you ever have call to be judged in one of their courtrooms you'll understand exactly how wrong you are with your assertion about a jury of your peers.


What assertion?


You're repeating approved rhetoric that has absolutely no factual basis in reality.

What rhetoric am I repeating and who approved it? What factual basis in reality is there for any of the stuff I hear on these boards?


Once again I'll type; "Government is the problem, not the solution."

Depends what you consider "government" and what the circumstances of the problem are. Thanks for trying, but your reply, like all the others, is just full of more criticisms and no suggestions.

[tod evans]

Yes, I noticed that misspelling, my apologies, you can still call me Frank if you like.

Apology accepted.



My response was not just to you, but what you said is my point, very few of you will ever set forth any positions, you only present criticisms.

Very few of whom?
I'm just one guy, not some part of a collective.
And you quoted me specifically didn't you?



Never claimed it was. If I was happy with state of affairs in this country I likely wouldn't on these boards would I?

I have no idea why you're "on these boards"...
From here you promote more of the same big government behaviors that Ron Paul fought against.



Some will agree with the laws, some won't, this will always be the case, and what is your solution to this???

Simple, no more federal money for law enforcement or courts.



What "low-life" scum would that be? Who is the one putting words in people's mouth here? - and once again, what is your solution to this?

Any and all employees of any "Just-Us" department or organization are low life scum, from the kops and judges to every one drawing a check from government in order to even remotely support sitting in judgement of another. These people are who whore out their morals and ethics, the same people you have supported throughout the discussion taking place in two threads now.

The solution is simple, no federal money.



I'd love for you to show me where I said "these people" represent me.

I quoted you yesterday posting in support of the FBI.




What assertion?

Your words below;




-You won't have judges or courthouses, disputes will be "brought before your peers" and they will decide - hmmm, sounds and awful lot like a jury and court to me

-



Depends what you consider "government" and what the circumstances of the problem are. Thanks for trying, but your reply, like all the others, is just full of more criticisms and no suggestions.

"Government" in the context I use it is a group of people who claim authority over me and mine who I cannot approach in their home on a Sunday afternoon.

The solution I keep offering is to cut all federal funding of all law enforcement, courts, kops and legislators.

[hankrichter12]

No Hank, what you said when you started this was:

"FSP, the supporters of having sex with children, as young as 6, maybe younger, not exactly my type of society."


OK, fine I guess I should have said: "FSP, while they may not endorse sex with children, they won't specifically define what having sex with a child is and further they have no laws against it or punishment for it, because even tho they don't personally agree with it, it is not their place judge or force their "Puritan" values on anyone else" ---Is that better?


To which I stated:

"And by the way, libertarians can at least agree that the ONE legitimate government function is to protect the week from the predations of the stronger. And children would certainly fit into that former category. If you were once the libertarian you claim, you would have recognized that and seen any deviation from it as anything but normal or representative."

Yet you refuse to define what a child is.


I then went on to say however that if I were fourteen and an older woman slept with me I would have felt about the opposite of "victimized." And that the woman should not be prosecuted for something that did me no harm--and, in fact, something that actually made me a whole lot happier for. This is a case where blanket underage laws trample the rights of individuals and a clear example of how unchecked government will inevitably move toward unwieldy gigantism and clumsily begin to step on the very people it was originally designed to serve.

Whether or not it would have made you happier is irrelevant. You don't know it would have made you happier, she could have been some psycho who did things to you didn't want, she could have given you a disease, you could have gotten her pregnant - that is not a decision for a 14yr old to be making. Sure, plenty of 18yr olds do stupid things too, once again, I don't claim a perfect age, but I most definitely would lock that sick bitch up and if you were ever putting the moves on a 14yr old I'd say do the same to you.


We've created a monster that is out of our control. And that I have to sit here and explain that to you makes me wonder how you could ever have thought about being a libertarian. What exactly were you thinking? I sure don't want to convince you to be a libertarian, obviously you don't "get it," nor will you ever. And in that semi-mythical future where we may have a place to live in under the tenants of our own values I sure do not want to have to be dragging guys like you along with me.

Boinking 14yr olds is "one of our values", funny, I've never heard Ron Paul say that one, and if that is the kind of shit you guys are selling then yeah, I'm not with you and never will be.


Since then you've attempted to pull every trick in the book, including misquoting, misrepresentation, convolution of intent of statement, and finally out-and-out physical harm in order to bully people into bowing to your self-righteousness.

When? You've clearly stated you feel a woman who sleeps with a 14yr should not be punished, you further refused to state an age where you feel no way no how should it be allowed - do tell how I've misquoted you or any of that other stuff you claim.


You insist on reading people's minds and then telling them that what they're REALLY thinking is that they would approve of the most deviant behavior that can be cooked up in some demented person's mind (uh, Hank) and refuse to acknowledge that in some cases the blanket laws as they are can result in tragic consequences.

Again, when was this? Wasn't it you talking about screwing people's sisters and what not? I never made any statement relating to blanket laws, I suggested 18 was a good number, I left the floor open for other opinions, I fully stated some common sense should be used as in an 18yr old and a 17yr old type situation, and I certainly never tried any violence on anyone. I was pointing out what would happen in a private society if 30yr olds were trying to get with 16yr olds or younger.


The basis of your argument is taken right out of Alinski's liberal handbook, which has been used to paint Republicans as racist and which goes something like: if you don't agree with government handouts and government handouts are given disproportionately to minorities then you must hate minorities. You've turned a deaf ear to people's suggestions about more case-specific decision making and continued to flog your simple-minded insistence that if it's not your way you're a paedophile

Not what I said at all, and you flat out said you agreed with pedophilia, such as in your childhood fantasy that you keep bringing up over and over, so how exactly do I have it wrong?


How in the world do you even sleep at night?

How do you, you sick bastard?




Very few of whom?
I'm just one guy, not some part of a collective.
And you quoted me specifically didn't you?

Yes, I quoted you, I also quoted someone else, and as I said, you as well have made criticisms, no suggestions.


I have no idea why you're "on these boards"...
From here you promote more of the same big government behaviors that Ron Paul fought against.

Oh, OK, so Ron Paul fought to get rid of age of consent laws? Must have missed that one. I do confess I don't agree with Ron on everything but I'd hardly say he and I oceans apart in our views.


Simple, no more federal money for law enforcement or courts.

OK, fine, I'm game, then what?



Any and all employees of any "Just-Us" department or organization are low life scum, from the kops and judges to every one drawing a check from government in order to even remotely support sitting in judgement of another. These people are who whore out their morals and ethics, the same people you have supported throughout the discussion taking place in two threads now.

I support having age of consent laws, I support enforcing those laws, I say that with no shame, you disagree, don't really care.


The solution is simple, no federal money.

Again, great, and then what?



I quoted you yesterday posting in support of the FBI.

No, you quoted me saying I don't care if the FBI raids pedophiles. I don't support the Latin Counts, but the other day they beat the shit out of some guy who tried to steal a March of Dimes donation box, so, in that instance, I say Bravo to them.



"Government" in the context I use it is a group of people who claim authority over me and mine who I cannot approach in their home on a Sunday afternoon.

The solution I keep offering is to cut all federal funding of all law enforcement, courts, kops and legislators.

Go ahead and cut the funding - something else will just pop up in it's place, you will never change that, you will always have someone who "claims authority over you" regarding certain matters. You can have more or less of that type of thing, but you will never have none, that is a just a fact of life.

[Anti Federalist]

Go ahead and cut the funding - something else will just pop up in it's place, you will never change that, you will always have someone who "claims authority over you" regarding certain matters. You can have more or less of that type of thing, but you will never have none, that is a just a fact of life.

Yup, couldn't agree more.

There are millions of people out there, just like you, morally outraged at this or that, and more than happy to see government issue a fatwa condemning whatever the outrage of the day is.

As long as this is the case, government will forever have a hold over all of us.

[jmdrake]

Yup, couldn't agree more.

There are millions of people out there, just like you, morally outraged at this or that, and more than happy to see government issue a fatwa condemning whatever the outrage of the day is.

As long as this is the case, government will forever have a hold over all of us.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

[tod evans]

Admit it Hank, you actually like having people you don't know and can't access lording over you and your family.

You do have a family don't you?

The way laws and courts are today, odds are if you do have a family (and you're not a kop) you too will have occasion to experience "Just-Us" up close and personal....

Did you see the thread earlier about the kop who molested kids and killed himself in jail? There's another one of your heroes down in flames....

You keep asking "then what" when I state cut federal funding, self sufficiency and personal responsibility of course, the way men behaved when this country was founded.

Government has caused these troubles, more government isn't going to fix them.......

[heavenlyboy34]

Yup, couldn't agree more.

There are millions of people out there, just like you, morally outraged at this or that, and more than happy to see government issue a fatwa condemning whatever the outrage of the day is.

As long as this is the case, government will forever have a hold over all of us.
+rep
And a sizeable chunk of those millions are Constittuionalists of some sort or another. SMH. :(

[jmdrake]

Here's something Ian Freeman wrote a little over a week ago proclaiming his belief that adults having sex with teenagers, 13 year olds, is fine as long as said teen affirms their desire to have sex with the adult. It's funny how this is his response to people claiming he thinks sex with 6-year olds is OK - "No, no, but sex with 13 year olds is fine." Keep in mind, also, that this is one of the main geniuses behind plugging people's parking meters for them. Adults having sex with children isn't any of his business, but parking meters are. What a mess.

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You actually think it's wrong for a good Samaritan to go around and feed parking meters to save people from getting tickets? Are you trolling or just stupid? The issue is not whether or not it's his "business" to feed parking meters. It's a nice thing to do. It's like feeding the homeless. You don't have to do it if you don't want to, but there's certainly nothing wrong with doing it. Seriously, if someone fed your parking meter would you be like "Damn you! I wanted that parking ticket!"

[hankrichter12]

Yup, couldn't agree more.

There are millions of people out there, just like you, morally outraged at this or that, and more than happy to see government issue a fatwa condemning whatever the outrage of the day is.

As long as this is the case, government will forever have a hold over all of us.


Yeah, nice straw man there, come on man, you used to at least post some half way intelligent stuff. So I guess playing by your rules I can say you agree with boinking 6yr olds since you don't want any laws against it right? Or would that be putting words in your mouth?


Admit it Hank, you actually like having people you don't know and can't access lording over you and your family.

You do have a family don't you?

The way laws and courts are today, odds are if you do have a family (and you're not a kop) you too will have occasion to experience "Just-Us" up close and personal....

Did you see the thread earlier about the kop who molested kids and killed himself in jail? There's another one of your heroes down in flames....

You keep asking "then what" when I state cut federal funding, self sufficiency and personal responsibility of course, the way men behaved when this country was founded.

Government has caused these troubles, more government isn't going to fix them.......


How is enforcing a law already on the books "more government". How exactly did govt create pedophiles? If a cop molested a child I'd say he was already a pedo prior to that, people in all types of professions molest children, what you said is simply stupid.


You keep asking "then what" when I state cut federal funding, self sufficiency and personal responsibility of course, the way men behaved when this country was founded.

Is this a joke? Right out of the starting gate Washington violated the Constitution during the Whiskey Rebellion. Slavery was legal. There was corruption between local sheriffs and wealthy land owners, it was legal for a man to beat his wife, I could go on and on.

You could argue that maybe in certain areas of life there was more freedom, I don't disagree with that, but it only goes to show what I already said: You can have more or less "govt", you will never have none.

As for all that other horse shit, I never said any of those things, but obviously you can't refute anything I actually said so you have to keep responding to things I didn't say so you can go into your little speeches.

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, nice straw man there, come on man, you used to at least post some half way intelligent stuff. So I guess playing by your rules I can say you agree with boinking 6yr olds since you don't want any laws against it right? Or would that be putting words in your mouth?

I've already explained my position, numerous times.

How is it a straw man argument when I am agreeing with you?

What you're doing is all old hat, by the way:

Noob strolls in, sees libertarian "X" is in favor of abolishing government fatwas against some morally or socially unacceptable behavior, based on the fact that government intervention usually makes the problem worse or makes government worse.

Noob proceeds to run around with hair on fire: "ON NOES!!! OMFG!!! LIBERTARIANS ARE IN FAVOR OF SHOOTING HEROIN - SEX WITH KIDS - BOILING CATS!!!"

...or whatever.

Yawn...

[otherone]

"ON NOES!!! OMFG!!! LIBERTARIANS ARE IN FAVOR OF SHOOTING HEROIN - SEX WITH KIDS - BOILING CATS!!!"


I'm pretty open-minded...but I draw the line at underage sex with boiling cats...

https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M67377886887b188d380fe89951db4916H1&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300

https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M3e85c56c1908e31eb5b1aec20f7e1d40o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300

https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/iZT11rbiCNp6S1nDARDa3w--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NDI5O3E9OTU7dz02MDA-/http://hellogiggles.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/08/smiling-cat.jpg

https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.Mff7d2fe80cd82e08dd1c9f140fa84fa0o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTI2albcBh4

[tod evans]

How is enforcing a law already on the books "more government". How exactly did govt create pedophiles? If a cop molested a child I'd say he was already a pedo prior to that, people in all types of professions molest children, what you said is simply stupid.

No Hank what I've written isn't stupid, with more people alone more government is required to enforce the laws on the books and that doesn't account for the countless new laws and edicts enacted every day.

Again "stupidity" reigns in the assertion that "government creates pedophiles".......A logical man would conclude that government is interfering with families who could and would address these type of individuals themselves at no more cost than a bullet.... Obviously logic isn't your strong suit is it? Yet earlier you claimed that it was only by leave of government that pedophiles could exist? This must be really difficult for you, wanting to support government and her laws on one hand yet having that same government support those you disagree with on the other............Vote harder!

What I actually typed was that there's a disproportionate number of government employees and church leaders who have been convicted of child crimes compared to the general populace. The government you advocate for to enforce laws you agree with........Yet whine when they enforce those you don't.



Is this a joke? Right out of the starting gate Washington violated the Constitution during the Whiskey Rebellion. Slavery was legal. There was corruption between local sheriffs and wealthy land owners, it was legal for a man to beat his wife, I could go on and on.

Give me wealthy land owners, slaves and wife beaters over 24/7 busybodies who want to fine and imprison anyone for anything at a cost to the average man that's astronomical.


You could argue that maybe in certain areas of life there was more freedom, I don't disagree with that, but it only goes to show what I already said: You can have more or less "govt", you will never have none.

Maybe you'd be so kind as to point out where I have called for anything but no federal funding for legislators, courts and kops?
Have a go at it..........


As for all that other horse shit, I never said any of those things, but obviously you can't refute anything I actually said so you have to keep responding to things I didn't say so you can go into your little speeches.

Fun having somebody type your opinions for you isn't it?

Say something worthy of refuting if you'd like to be refuted..........Or keep on being obnoxious and telling others what they think and expect the courtesy returned..

[hankrichter12]

I've already explained my position, numerous times.

How is it a straw man argument when I am agreeing with you?

What you're doing is all old hat, by the way:

Noob strolls in, sees libertarian "X" is in favor of abolishing government fatwas against some morally or socially unacceptable behavior, based on the fact that government intervention usually makes the problem worse or makes government worse.

Noob proceeds to run around with hair on fire: "ON NOES!!! OMFG!!! LIBERTARIANS ARE IN FAVOR OF SHOOTING HEROIN - SEX WITH KIDS - BOILING CATS!!!"

...or whatever.

Yawn...


Not a noob, and not what I said, but again....why reply to what I said? You "agreed" with me in a sarcastic manner, taking a jab at me, that is what I replied to.


No Hank what I've written isn't stupid, with more people alone more government is required to enforce the laws on the books and that doesn't account for the countless new laws and edicts enacted every day.

I've never advocated for any new law, ever, I'd like to repeal many, but laws against screwing kids is not one of them.


Again "stupidity" reigns in the assertion that "government creates pedophiles".......A logical man would conclude that government is interfering with families who could and would address these type of individuals themselves at no more cost than a bullet.... Obviously logic isn't your strong suit is it?

I'd agree with letting the community handle it, however, at what point is someone no longer a kid and free to make their own decisions? Ages of Consent vary around the world from as low as 12 to I believe as high as 24, so if we just remain vague and set no age, can I still shoot a 28yr old who is trying to date my 23yr old daughter?


Yet earlier you claimed that it was only by leave of government that pedophiles could exist? This must be really difficult for you, wanting to support government and her laws on one hand yet having that same government support those you disagree with on the other............Vote harder!

No, I said there would never be no govt, I said with the current govt we have a pedo, or suspected pedo is allowed a trial and due process, I said in a private property society a pedo would get strung up by his buster browns, so in other words - getting rid of this current govt will not produce what any of you want, there will be new rules, and consequences for breaking those rules, so trying to claim any of you have some system that is otherwise is just false, get it?


What I actually typed was that there's a disproportionate number of government employees and church leaders who have been convicted of child crimes compared to the general populace. The government you advocate for to enforce laws you agree with........Yet whine when they enforce those you don't.

Once again, never said any of that. I don't like our current govt and I don't pretend there will ever be this silly utopic society you dream of.

I said what I've said countless times - you can erase every govt on this planet, disband every army and police force - in the immediate you will have chaos, but then people will naturally band together into new groups, leaders/power structures will form in those groups, rules will be made, and they will be violently enforced, and not a single one of you can paint me any scenario where this same thing will not happen and we will not wind up right back where we are now or worse, is that clear enough for you?



Give me wealthy land owners, slaves and wife beaters over 24/7 busybodies who want to fine and imprison anyone for anything at a cost to the average man that's astronomical.

Oh brother. I have issues with the govt as a whole, but amazingly I don't seem to be running into these types of cops all of you describe. Most cops I know are lazy as shit and hate getting out of their cars and doing paperwork. Don't know too many who go around trying to create incidents where there are none. I'd be curious to know the details.



Maybe you'd be so kind as to point out where I have called for anything but no federal funding for legislators, courts and kops?
Have a go at it..........


You said we need to go back to how it was at the founding, and I addressed that, and I'll say it all once again, this world all of you dream of does not exist, it never has and never will. All anyone can do is to try and have a govt as small as possible, but I have no shame in saying getting rid of laws that prohibit sex with children is not one of the areas I'd cut, so if that makes me a "statist", well so be it.

[MelissaWV]

Yet you refuse to define what a child is.

It's been defined in two threads. The question here isn't really one of sex with children. The question is one of people who do not have the mental capacity to consent to sexual acts. There's already a crime on the books called "rape" that has this pretty well covered, with room for prosecutors to bring in aggravating circumstances. If you are too young, too old, or otherwise unable to consent, then there is no consent, and the activity is likely provable as rape.

What you have been doggedly arguing and gotten upset about is that you want more. You want someone who is demonstrably ABLE TO CONSENT to still be considered a victim and for others to bring charges on their behalf, based on an arbitrary age (which is so common sense that it varies from state to state). Fundamentally, you've expressed disbelief that a teen can consent to sex, but also then stated that you believe they have the mental capacity to consent --- but only at certain ages.

If they're a teen boinking another teen, then they're mentally capable.

If they're a teen boinking an "adult," then they're mentally incapable (in most cases).

If they're a teen boinking an adult... but they slide past that magical AOC line... then all the boinking that occurs after that line is okay, but all that occurred before is not, regardless of the age of the partner.

That's where AOC falls the hell apart.

[MelissaWV]

can I still shoot a 28yr old who is trying to date my 23yr old daughter?

If he's trying to rape her, you might have a case.

If she's unable to consent due to mental deficiency (temporary or otherwise), you'd have a good case.

And you wouldn't even have to mention their ages to do it.

[tod evans]

You said we need to go back to how it was at the founding, and I addressed that, and I'll say it all once again, this world all of you dream of does not exist, it never has and never will. All anyone can do is to try and have a govt as small as possible, but I have no shame in saying getting rid of laws that prohibit sex with children is not one of the areas I'd cut, so if that makes me a "statist", well so be it.

I actually need to build some doors today, and I honestly believe that what I've been typing is going off in left field somewhere where it's not registering...

You're still telling me "this world all of you dream of" and other such choice tidbits that only point to some type of inability to engage in sane discourse...(There's only one of me)

So how about focusing on one of your logical utterances....
All anyone can do is to try and have a govt as small as possible Too me, small is as I described, being able to go to the home of he who would govern me on a Sunday afternoon....

Any bigger, or further removed is unacceptable.

I want no part of either coasts politics, I want no part of big city politics.

Off to produce something for a client who appreciates my labors........


[edit before shop work]

The laws you'd keep come with the enforcement, kops/courts and prisons that are all so objectionable, I have no problem with you and your community writing and enforcing laws ya'll like.

I have a big problem with other communities insisting that their laws are enforced in my community and expecting me to pay for the privilege...

[Rothbardian Girl]

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You actually think it's wrong for a good Samaritan to go around and feed parking meters to save people from getting tickets? Are you trolling or just stupid? The issue is not whether or not it's his "business" to feed parking meters. It's a nice thing to do. It's like feeding the homeless. You don't have to do it if you don't want to, but there's certainly nothing wrong with doing it. Seriously, if someone fed your parking meter would you be like "Damn you! I wanted that parking ticket!"

No, I don't think it's wrong. I think the "it's reprehensible, but it's none of my business" line regarding child molestation is made considerably skeevier by his apparent willingness to fight trivial battles. To most observers, it's evidence of misplaced priorities.

[jmdrake]

No, I don't think it's wrong. I think the "it's reprehensible, but it's none of my business" line regarding child molestation is made considerably skeevier by his apparent willingness to fight trivial battles. To most observers, it's evidence of misplaced priorities.

Oooookaaaay. So if someone doesn't agree with a particular solution to a particular problem that means they don't think the problem is important?

Ron Paul doesn't want U.S. troops to go to Syria. That means he doesn't care about Christians being beheaded? I've heard that argument.

No libertarian or conservative republican is in favor of Obamacare or Sanderscare. That means they think people without enough money should just die? I've heard that argument as well.

If someone is against statist coercion in all its forms, then it makes perfect sense for that person to say a 14 y/o having sex, whether it's with another 14 y/o or a 40 y/o, is not his business while at the same time being for paying parking meters. Paying parking meters is a non-statist, non-coercive solution to a problem. Do you have a non-statist, non-coercive solution to the problem of 14 year olds having consensual sex with 40 year olds? I'm not saying that should be legal. I'm saying your argument in this instance lacks logic or understanding of the principle being advocated by the person you are criticizing.

And...FWIW....as others have pointed out repeatedly, 100 years ago this wasn't even a problem in most states. Please read:

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24
Information on the ages used historically in western age of consent laws is not readily available. This table has been compiled from a combination of historical and contemporary sources. By 1880, the first date chosen, many western nations had established an age of consent for the first time, typically of 12 or 13 years. By 1920, when the influence of reform campaigns that established a new link between the age of consent and prostitution had run its course, most had revised their age upward, to 14 or 15 in European nations, and 16 in the Anglo-American world. In the last decades of the 20th century, states and nations with ages below those averages amended their laws to move closer to them. In Europe that growing conformity owed much to moves toward greater European integration. Given that the rationale for the age of consent has remained essentially unchanged in its emphasis on the need to protect 'immature' children, the table highlights the shifting and various definitions of childhood employed across time and cultures.

Edit: So here's a question for you. Earlier you said this:

It's funny how this is his response to people claiming he thinks sex with 6-year olds is OK - "No, no, but sex with 13 year olds is fine."

Considering that, up until the 20th century, most countries agreed with Ian's position that sex with 12 or 13 year olds was okay but not for 6 year olds, why do you find his position "funny?" I don't agree with it, but it is rational.

[Anti Federalist]

Once again, never said any of that. I don't like our current govt and I don't pretend there will ever be this silly utopic society you dream of.

I said what I've said countless times - you can erase every govt on this planet, disband every army and police force - in the immediate you will have chaos, but then people will naturally band together into new groups, leaders/power structures will form in those groups, rules will be made, and they will be violently enforced, and not a single one of you can paint me any scenario where this same thing will not happen and we will not wind up right back where we are now or worse, is that clear enough for you?

To imagine a new world, where that is not the case, requires some vision and courage.

I guess you're not up to it.


Oh brother. I have issues with the govt as a whole, but amazingly I don't seem to be running into these types of cops all of you describe. Most cops I know are lazy as shit and hate getting out of their cars and doing paperwork. Don't know too many who go around trying to create incidents where there are none. I'd be curious to know the details.

Oh, now I remember you. We went round and round in the Fergerson threads.

[Anti Federalist]

Once again, never said any of that. I don't like our current govt and I don't pretend there will ever be this silly utopic society you dream of.

I said what I've said countless times - you can erase every govt on this planet, disband every army and police force - in the immediate you will have chaos, but then people will naturally band together into new groups, leaders/power structures will form in those groups, rules will be made, and they will be violently enforced, and not a single one of you can paint me any scenario where this same thing will not happen and we will not wind up right back where we are now or worse, is that clear enough for you?

To imagine a new world, where that is not the case, requires some vision and courage.

I guess you're not up to it.


Oh brother. I have issues with the govt as a whole, but amazingly I don't seem to be running into these types of cops all of you describe. Most cops I know are lazy as shit and hate getting out of their cars and doing paperwork. Don't know too many who go around trying to create incidents where there are none. I'd be curious to know the details.

Oh, now I remember you. We went round and round in the Fergerson threads.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Oooookaaaay. So if someone doesn't agree with a particular solution to a particular problem that means they don't think the problem is important?
Where does Freeman say anything about "not agreeing with a particular solution to a particular problem?" I'm taking issue with the fact that he prioritizes parking meters (the general principle of those things, by the way, is probably not going away in a stateless society) over calling out child molesters. Modern "voluntaryism": taxation is theft, voting is aggression, sex with children is A-OK. The best way to expand the liberty movement is to constantly discuss the right to screw children. And people wonder why libertarianism isn't more popular. It's ridiculous for someone like Ian Freeman to plead apathy on this issue when the chances are statistically very good that either his own child or the child of someone he knows will be a victim of assault.


If someone is against statist coercion in all its forms, then it makes perfect sense for that person to say a 14 y/o having sex, whether it's with another 14 y/o or a 40 y/o, is not his business while at the same time being for paying parking meters. Paying parking meters is a non-statist, non-coercive solution to a problem. Do you have a non-statist, non-coercive solution to the problem of 14 year olds having consensual sex with 40 year olds? I'm not saying that should be legal. I'm saying your argument in this instance lacks logic or understanding of the principle being advocated by the person you are criticizing.
Age of consent laws are imperfect solutions to a thorny issue. The government is guilty of essentially offending the individual by defining minimum ages for people interested in having sex, where the intent of these definitions is the prevention of mentally-scarring repercussions to a minor because said minor is unable to fully consent at the time of the sexual experience and/or unable to revoke consent once the act has begun because of brain-chemistry related factors. If one accepts that the minor is statistically more likely to emerge with a negative experience that impacts them for the rest of their natural lives, robbing them of self-agency that might otherwise had been afforded to them, versus waiting a couple more years and emerging from it relatively unscathed, does the end result justify the means required to achieve it? Defenders of AOC laws might reasonably say yes - the laws aren't about denying people autonomy, and they certainly don't make sex between adults any more prohibited. The law is designed to regulate the patience of children, young adults, and adults, and the time they spend waiting will pale in comparison to the time they spend making up for it. That's how the general defense of AOC laws reads, and although I don't believe it is necessary for the state to enforce such a law, it's a reasonably good one. It's not the hill I would choose to die on as an anarchist.


And...FWIW....as others have pointed out repeatedly, 100 years ago this wasn't even a problem in most states. Please read:

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24
Information on the ages used historically in western age of consent laws is not readily available. This table has been compiled from a combination of historical and contemporary sources. By 1880, the first date chosen, many western nations had established an age of consent for the first time, typically of 12 or 13 years. By 1920, when the influence of reform campaigns that established a new link between the age of consent and prostitution had run its course, most had revised their age upward, to 14 or 15 in European nations, and 16 in the Anglo-American world. In the last decades of the 20th century, states and nations with ages below those averages amended their laws to move closer to them. In Europe that growing conformity owed much to moves toward greater European integration. Given that the rationale for the age of consent has remained essentially unchanged in its emphasis on the need to protect 'immature' children, the table highlights the shifting and various definitions of childhood employed across time and cultures.
Right, families used to marry their daughters off as soon as they got their periods (that would mean as early as 10 years old nowadays). 12-year old moms used to barely live through childbirth. What's your point?


Edit: So here's a question for you. Earlier you said this:

It's funny how this is his response to people claiming he thinks sex with 6-year olds is OK - "No, no, but sex with 13 year olds is fine."

Considering that, up until the 20th century, most countries agreed with Ian's position that sex with 12 or 13 year olds was okay but not for 6 year olds, why do you find his position "funny?" I don't agree with it, but it is rational.
Emphasis being "up until the 20th century." Here's another FSPer spewing filth:
https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/10565029_10207201072879953_1572546066032554456_n.j pg?oh=4c49cd9364d8011da2fa8f969b134b37&oe=5792561C
I mean, it's just comical that these people would pick this issue, that's all. Chris Cantwell is wrong about 99% of the time, but I'll quote him approvingly here -
"I'm gonna go ahead and posit that if your vision of a free society is one where a junior high school girl walks out and gets a train run on her by Ian Freeman and Brad ********, then a lot of people are gonna be happy to pay taxes to avoid that so you might want to work on your marketing."

[caracoid]

OK, fine I guess I should have said: "FSP, while they may not endorse sex with children, they won't specifically define what having sex with a child is and further they have no laws against it or punishment for it, because even tho they don't personally agree with it, it is not their place judge or force their "Puritan" values on anyone else" ---Is that better?

I never said I wouldn't specifically define what having sex with a child is. I haven't so far because I've been enjoying watching a control freak wiggle around insanely. But okay, obviously prior to when Mother Nature designed us to have sex is off limits--boys or girls--and should be illegal. But as for boys, how am I supposed to honestly say without being a total hypocrite that I would be looking to press charges as a father if my teenage son had been totally willing when I would have done the same thing at that age and LOVED it? As for girls? Who knows? Ask them.


Whether or not it would have made you happier is irrelevant. You don't know it would have made you happier, she could have been some psycho who did things to you didn't want, she could have given you a disease, you could have gotten her pregnant - that is not a decision for a 14yr old to be making. Sure, plenty of 18yr olds do stupid things too, once again, I don't claim a perfect age, but I most definitely would lock that sick bitch up and if you were ever putting the moves on a 14yr old I'd say do the same to you.

You're now telling ME that I don't know whether it would have made ME happy? I can't even begin to explain how pathological that sounds. And again your warped mind moves into converting the woman into a psycho "who did things you didn't want." You can't seem to get your mind around the fact that one person imposing their will on another unwillingly is perhaps the number one crime of all in a libertarian society. On this we need to move backwards into our former conversation when I presumed you to be someone with a low sex drive, which--honorably and with my full respect--you acknowledged when you said:

". . . whatever, it's a wet hole, don't exactly revolve my whole existence around it. Can think of any number of things in my life that top it."

That puts us all in a place today where it's the guy who has little-to-no sex drive as being our go-to for defining for us our morality. Hank, if you've never experienced the raging hormones of youth, how can you ever judge a boy for going for it and then being damn thankful in the long-shot chance it should ever happen? Let's face it, there simply aren't enough older women snorting around for boys to make this scenario impact society whatsoever. It's your obsessional, innate controlling nature that attempts to define a world full of worst-case scenarios that will give you "just cause" for your self-righteous invasiveness.

You huh-rumphed when I compared you to Janet Reno, but you tell me how your methods ensure that we will never return to the witch hunts she created twenty years ago--never rectified by law probably because it's impossible to do so without creating innate contradictions in our litigious, unwieldy government--or the actual witch hunts of yore? You give one sexless person enough power with no idea what others are going through but with a mandate from God or government to do what's "right" and then through their "divinations" allow them to tell us all about our "disgusting selves," you end up with a lot of collateral damage including either innocent people eternally locked up in jail (a fate worse than death) or your great-great-great grandfather's preference of consuming them in fire and then merrily watching them burn to death.

What was the ultimate outcome of your hooded crony Janet Reno's actions? You think the end result of your status quo is without cost? You're worried about some poor boy having the opportunity to experience some modicum of joy in his otherwise miserable coming-of-age so much you think it warrants the pulverizing effect that your outcome has already created in society. Think about it. From time immemorial men have instinctively wanted to play with kids by tossing them up in the air, tickling and teasing them (get your mind out of the gutter), and rough-housing until mom shouts "No more!" Now other than with their direct father this is considered threatening to a child's welfare. Not knowing how the mother may react, no man is ever again going to step up and be willing to present that sort of an open arms, life-affirming welcoming to a child. Even the kid's uncle has that going through the back of his mind. What effect has THAT had on society? Certainly anything way beyond any indeterminate scars that may have come about by "all those crazy lusty women" hunting for our teenage boys in school. And this is why I hope never again to allow guys like you and Reno the mandate to determine my world or that of my son.

"You've clearly stated you feel a woman who sleeps with a 14yr should not be punished"

No, once again psychic Hank is putting words in my mouth. By law she should not be automatically punished.

"do tell how I've misquoted you or any of that other stuff you claim."

You mean other than the multitude of deceptive misrepresentations you just committed in this one reply alone? How about the time you slithered sideways yesterday, opened up a new thread without anybody here knowing and lit the fire with this "well-balanced, highly representative line":

"when it comes to boinking kids the answer better be an immediate "Hell No!" Yet, the answer I was given [in this thread] went: We're pretty much answering your question with an "it depends." To ask for a hard and fast rule is for people with binary minds."

Never once explaining the restrictions that we've been covering and finer points and without doing so leading some unknowing person to interpreting them as a full-blown endorsement of pedaphilia at any age, willing or not. Recklessly and inflammatorily you left out statements by me right at the beginning (as well as those of others) like:

"And by the way, libertarians can at least agree that the ONE legitimate government function is to protect the weak from the predations of the stronger. And children would certainly fit into that former category. If you were once the libertarian you claim, you would have recognized that and seen any deviation from it as anything but normal or representative."

You then huff and puff:

". . . aside from my own personal disgust in all this, if this is something that is now coming under the eye of the FBI and there are people here who are sympathetic to this sick crap, I don't want my name anywhere near it, I'd imagine others here might feel the same and not want to be drug down with this."

You just can't help your nature, can you? Christ! If this isn't using a direct threat through intimidation in lieu of a winning argument I don't know what is. First you conjure up the image of black-gloved FBI agents standing behind you and then you say, "you agree with me, right? . . . RIGHT?"

Harmonizing with your previous bombs, like:

"I certainly never tried any violence on anyone."

preceded by:

I will happily give anyone the address to my MMA gym if they want to come call my bluff, even at 40 I'm sure I could still whoop most people out there, and my town is certainly pretty "old school", we have men out here who still believe men should be "masculine" and I can assure you a guy who says 14yr old sex is acceptable, or that a 6yr old can consent will not have a pleasant day here.

and

"I, no joke, would cut off this (mod edit), he is free to go live his life as he sees fit after that, so, absent, the state, that would be Ian's fate if guys like me were free to do as we please."


(Saved by the moderator from your grizzly explanation of body parts selectively removed, by what means and in which order.)

I was pointing out what would happen in a private society if 30yr olds were trying to get with 16yr olds or younger.

You mean, like in a libertarian society?

"Not what I said at all, and you flat out said you agreed with pedophilia, such as in your childhood fantasy that you keep bringing up over and over, so how exactly do I have it wrong?"


Again, your psychotic mind places any movement from your personal standards into full-blown pedophilia. There is nothing to do to stop you from your wild-eyed delusions. They are innate in your psychological makeup. I've tried time and again to point this out to you but--like any psychiatric disorder--you refuse to consciously absorb it. So again and again we get into the daisy chain of you calling us pedophiles implying advocating sex with kids of any age under any condition and us having to repeat ourselves to correct your libels over and over.

[jmdrake]

Where does Freeman say anything about "not agreeing with a particular solution to a particular problem?"

Are you serious? I pointed out that he came up with a solution to a problem for parking meters. I asked you for a stateless solution to something that Germany doesn't even consider a crime. Hmmm...since this is such a priority for you what are you going to do about 14 year olds having sex with adults in Germany? Or are you only looking for a cheap excuse to bitch at Ian?



I'm taking issue with the fact that he prioritizes parking meters (the general principle of those things, by the way, is probably not going away in a stateless society) over calling out child molesters.

1) Just because something isn't "going away" doesn't mean you shouldn't do something constructive to alleviate it.
2) Considering that in 2016 Germany, an adult who has sex with a 14 year old isn't a "child molester", it's silly of you to attack Ian on that point unless you are doing something about Germany.




Age of consent laws are imperfect solutions to a thorny issue. The government is guilty of essentially offending the individual by defining minimum ages for people interested in having sex, where the intent of these definitions is the prevention of mentally-scarring repercussions to a minor because said minor is unable to fully consent at the time of the sexual experience and/or unable to revoke consent once the act has begun because of brain-chemistry related factors. If one accepts that the minor is statistically more likely to emerge with a negative experience that impacts them for the rest of their natural lives, robbing them of self-agency that might otherwise had been afforded to them, versus waiting a couple more years and emerging from it relatively unscathed, does the end result justify the means required to achieve it? Defenders of AOC laws might reasonably say yes - the laws aren't about denying people autonomy, and they certainly don't make sex between adults any more prohibited. The law is designed to regulate the patience of children, young adults, and adults, and the time they spend waiting will pale in comparison to the time they spend making up for it. That's how the general defense of AOC laws reads, and although I don't believe it is necessary for the state to enforce such a law, it's a reasonably good one. It's not the hill I would choose to die on as an anarchist.

Gee. You're sounding like Ian now. :rolleyes:



Right, families used to marry their daughters off as soon as they got their periods (that would mean as early as 10 years old nowadays). 12-year old moms used to barely live through childbirth. What's your point?

14 year olds can legally have sex and marry off in Germany now. So...what's your point?

[Origanalist]

I'm pretty open-minded...but I draw the line at underage sex with boiling cats...


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/customavatars/avatar40014_29.gif

[Rothbardian Girl]

Are you serious? I pointed out that he came up with a solution to a problem for parking meters. I asked you for a stateless solution to something that Germany doesn't even consider a crime. Hmmm...since this is such a priority for you what are you going to do about 14 year olds having sex with adults in Germany? Or are you only looking for a cheap excuse to bitch at Ian?




1) Just because something isn't "going away" doesn't mean you shouldn't do something constructive to alleviate it.
2) Considering that in 2016 Germany, an adult who has sex with a 14 year old isn't a "child molester", it's silly of you to attack Ian on that point unless you are doing something about Germany.





Gee. You're sounding like Ian now. :rolleyes:



14 year olds can legally have sex and marry off in Germany now. So...what's your point?

Actually, in Germany the full AOC for all sexual activity is eighteen. Fourteen and fifteen year-olds can consent to sexual activity, but if their partner is over 21, the standard assumption (decided on a case-by-case basis) is that the adult is exploiting the minor's lack of maturity - which happens to be a crime in Germany. 16 and 17-year olds can only consent to sexual activity if it doesn't involve prostitution or porn. Any sex with relatives, teachers, therapists, etc. is also a crime at these ages because of the obvious power dynamic.

Like I've said earlier - I have no problem with kids having sex with partners reasonably close in age (within a few years). The FSP situation where a gaggle of dudes who are 30+ years old are talking about banging a 15-year old on a radio show - bad press.


Are you serious? I pointed out that he came up with a solution to a problem for parking meters. I asked you for a stateless solution to something that Germany doesn't even consider a crime. Hmmm...since this is such a priority for you what are you going to do about 14 year olds having sex with adults in Germany? Or are you only looking for a cheap excuse to bitch at Ian?
Apparently it's too difficult for these guys to disavow talking about having sex with children and teenagers. The first question should have been "Why the f**k are a group of adult men talking about a f**king 15 year old girl on a radio show?" Like, isn't that a warning flag right there? (http://stopfreekeene.com/2015/01/26/did-free-talk-live-defend-brad-********/) No one's talking about "stateless solutions" to anything - but a form of vigilance to keep people with odious views from poisoning the well. Basic PR strategy. You want to know part of the reason why libertarians very rarely enjoy electoral success? Because even the greenest politician knows you should probably avoid using "6/10/15 year old" and "sex" in the same sentence. The same applies for just talking to people about libertarianism outside of a voting/explicitly political context.

[Origanalist]

To imagine a new world, where that is not the case, requires some vision and courage.

I guess you're not up to it.



Oh, now I remember you. We went round and round in the Fergerson threads.

Yep, him and Slutter make a good pair.

[Christian Liberty]

Has anyone actually said that it should be legal to have sex with a 6 year old, or is this just a massive strawman? So far I havent seen anyone say it. Tod Evans seems to think the solution is effectively vigilantism, which I don't think is the ideal or moral solution, but that's still not the same thing as putting up with it.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Has anyone actually said that it should be legal to have sex with a 6 year old, or is this just a massive strawman? So far I havent seen anyone say it. Tod Evans seems to think the solution is effectively vigilantism, which I don't think is the ideal or moral solution, but that's still not the same thing as putting up with it.

Yes, there are statements to this effect floating around Facebook (and other websites).


https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/10565029_10207201072879953_1572546066032554456_n.j pg?oh=4c49cd9364d8011da2fa8f969b134b37&oe=5792561C

[Danke]

Actually, in Germany the full AOC for all sexual activity is eighteen. Fourteen and fifteen year-olds can consent to sexual activity, but if their partner is over 21, the standard assumption (decided on a case-by-case basis) is that the adult is exploiting the minor's lack of maturity - which happens to be a crime in Germany. 16 and 17-year olds can only consent to sexual activity if it doesn't involve prostitution or porn. Any sex with relatives, teachers, therapists, etc. is also a crime at these ages because of the obvious power dynamic.

Like I've said earlier - I have no problem with kids having sex with partners reasonably close in age (within a few years). The FSP situation where a gaggle of dudes who are 30+ years old are talking about banging a 15-year old on a radio show - bad press.

You can really get some valuable information on RPFs.

[Origanalist]

You can really get some valuable information on RPFs.

OK dannno.

[HVACTech]

+rep
And a sizeable chunk of those millions are Constittuionalists of some sort or another. SMH. :(

source? :confused:

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yes, there are statements to this effect floating around Facebook (and other websites).

To Christian Liberty's point, Ian Freeman said that if a parent of the 6 year old decided to retaliate against the person who [insert sexual activity with 6 year old here], that that was also 'none of his business'.

[angelatc]

Actually, in Germany the full AOC for all sexual activity is eighteen.

Uh, it's actually 14.
The age of consent in Germany is 14, as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14- to 15-year-old person's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination, in which case a conviction of an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual; being over 21 and engaging in sexual relations with a minor of that age does not constitute an offense by itself.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Germany

Which sort of supports what my German friend said about the male teacher pursuing the 15 year old student .... they didn't consider it a big deal and were sort of baffled about why it was all over the newspapers in our town.

I'm one of the reasons we can't have nice things, I guess. I'm certainly not going to lobby for sexual freedom, but there's a difference between pre and post-pubescent. A 6 year old is not sexually mature in any definition of the word, but a 14 year old female usually is.

[FSP-Rebel]

Seriously tho, what happened here?

[Rothbardian Girl]

Uh, it's actually 14.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Germany

Which sort of supports what my German friend said about the male teacher pursuing the 15 year old student .... they didn't consider it a big deal and were sort of baffled about why it was all over the newspapers in our town.


...You misread/are selectively reading my comment, and Wikipedia isn't the best source. There are three "tiers" for AOC in Germany.

14 years old - may have sex with other youths under age 18.

16 years old - may have sex with adults of any age, provided these adults aren't in a position of temporary or legal guardianship and/or aren't gifting the teenager with money, favors, etc.

18 - full "legalization" (allowed to work as a prostitute or in porn).

Where things become confusing is this: if the 14-year old is in a relationship with an 18-21 year old, the adult is not automatically guilty of statutory rape as he/she would be in the US. The German authorities only become involved if a complaint is filed by either the minor or their guardians. If the guardians file a report and the minor objects to this report (claims it was consensual), the outcome of the report hinges on whether the minor is found to be psychologically mature enough. If that is indeed the case, then the judge will typically side with the minor. However, a judge may decide differently if the adult is not 21 but rather 30-40. (Which, incidentally, is the scenario I am railing against in this topic. All of these FSP degenerates are in their 30s.) In other words, it's culturally frowned upon for adults to chase kids, but there isn't automatic hand-wringing at a 14 and an 18-19 year old being involved with each other, like there would likely be in the US.

The German penal code is available online in English if you google it.

[tod evans]

Has anyone actually said that it should be legal to have sex with a 6 year old, or is this just a massive strawman? So far I havent seen anyone say it. Tod Evans seems to think the solution is effectively vigilantism, which I don't think is the ideal or moral solution, but that's still not the same thing as putting up with it.

I'm of the opinion that federal money and the goons it buys should not be involved in any criminal prosecutions.

Your reading of that opinion as vigilantism is wrong both in theory and on its face.

Federal monies have permitted the entire legal system to be corrupted, a minimal amount of study should lead you to the same conclusion.

[osan]

FSP, the supporters of having sex with children, as young as 6, maybe younger, not exactly my type of society.

Where'd you read/hear this? I cannot imagine too many free staters being on board with this.

[pcosmar]

A 6 year old is not sexually mature in any definition of the word, but a 14 year old female usually is.

And yet,,continually when a young adult (Teen) is having sex it is referred to as Pedophilia even in these forums.

and any and all discussion devolves from that point.

AGE OF CONSENT LAWS ARE BOTH UNNECESSARY AND RIDICULOUS.

Removing Pedophiles when found should be a case of Justifiable homicide.

Punishing people for having normal sex is not the role of government.

[angelatc]

...You misread/are selectively reading my comment, and Wikipedia isn't the best source. There are three "tiers" for AOC in Germany.

14 years old - may have sex with other youths under age 18.

16 years old - may have sex with adults of any age, provided these adults aren't in a position of temporary or legal guardianship and/or aren't gifting the teenager with money, favors, etc.

18 - full "legalization" (allowed to work as a prostitute or in porn).

Where things become confusing is this: if the 14-year old is in a relationship with an 18-21 year old, the adult is not automatically guilty of statutory rape as he/she would be in the US. The German authorities only become involved if a complaint is filed by either the minor or their guardians. If the guardians file a report and the minor objects to this report (claims it was consensual), the outcome of the report hinges on whether the minor is found to be psychologically mature enough. If that is indeed the case, then the judge will typically side with the minor. However, a judge may decide differently if the adult is not 21 but rather 30-40. (Which, incidentally, is the scenario I am railing against in this topic. All of these FSP degenerates are in their 30s.) In other words, it's culturally frowned upon for adults to chase kids, but there isn't automatic hand-wringing at a 14 and an 18-19 year old being involved with each other, like there would likely be in the US.

The German penal code is available online in English if you google it.


That's about what I said. There is no crime at all until somebody complains.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm of the opinion that federal money and the goons it buys should not be involved in any criminal prosecutions.

Your reading of that opinion as vigilantism is wrong both in theory and on its face.

Federal monies have permitted the entire legal system to be corrupted, a minimal amount of study should lead you to the same conclusion.

I'm cool with getting rid of the federal government entirely :p Crime should be prosecuted at the state level at highest, preferably county or city.