You need to read those views, Grim, because you're wrong. Stox is here referring not only to the issue of the FLDS polygamy/pedophilia, but to Guerilla's views on child pornography, as well. A couple of simple questions, requiring only a couple of simple answers: Is there ever a situation where children making porn are "victimless?" Should child pornography be illegal? Easy enough to answer, it seems to me. "No." "Yes." But in Guerilla's world, the one enemy is law and the state, and the one savior is the free market; an absolutist, simplistic position. To child porn, children "consenting" are not victims, and Guerilla does not believe it should be made illegal. He will tell you he is a "minarchist," a "small government" kind of guy. From everything I've seen of his behavior and views on the forum, the truth is what he says in his profile - he is an agorist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism (Relatedly, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_anarchism) Anarcho-capitalism, no law, no state, and no talking to him, therefore, when it comes to an appeal to reason and the rule of law, however commonsensical. Anyone speaking to the need for reasonable law is therefore a "statist," an "enemy to liberty"; hence, impossible to have any kind of reasonable discussion. Absolutely correct, Stox. Though I've little hope it will be seen, or, if seen, whether it will be honorably acknowledged, you've mischaracterized nothing. Expect, of course, for Guerilla to claim agorism is only an "interest," and for others to ignore the reality and chime in. But your post was spot on, and well done.
When one group of people arbitrarily decides at what age consent occurs, and opinions on that age differ not only among the 50 states, but around the world, then clearly consent is not a simple question. I can only repeat so many times that I do not believe that anyone should force anyone to do anything by violence or coercion. However, that in order to have a crime, you must have a victim. Re: agorism, this is probably some attempt at cheap name calling on your part. 1. I think SEK3 was a quack 2. I think the New Libertarian Manifesto is idealistic nonsense 3. I believe in the political process Therefore, I cannot be an agorist. I am however a minarchist. As for stOx's comments, I will ask yet again. Where is the proof substantiating these claims of my position? People are so quick to attribute a position to me, and yet even the second best cutter paster in the forum (NPT) can't seem to post the smoking gun. More cheap slander and attacks. I'm anti-violence, anti-corruption, and pro-freedom and somehow, I'm the bad guy.
As I said, Stox, and any others with an ounce of reasonable material between the ears, expect denials and tap-dancing, into infinity. If you'll take a look at post #61, with an image bearing Guerilla's own "interests," Mr. "I'M NOT AN AGORIST" lists AGORISM as his interest. He has, over the course of time he's been on this forum, displayed his brand of "guerilla" tactics with respect to the purpose of law, or the state, in any capacity. Calling a spade a spade, well, you know. Or should know. And I can only repeat it so many times as well: We've heard it from Guerilla numerous times now. Since kids who "willingly" engage in porn are "not being coerced," following on his hero, Mary Ruwart (whom he praised as the beacon of libertarian virtue, specifically, relative to the following discussion on another thread): Well, hell, kiddies "choosing" to make porn? No victim, no crime, no law, presto! Utopia! Problem is (though of course, as he is wont to do, he denies it now), by his own profile, Guerilla is an agorist, an anarcho-capitalist. Hence, he isn't interested in a society of laws, in any way, shape, and form. It all makes perfect sense, now - returning to discussions that come immediately to mind with myself, Iul, Stox, on precisely this subject, we were discussing "law" and "society" with an anarchist. Hence, it is what I have said for months. A useless endeavour, but no one need be deceived - unless they'd like to be. Stox, reaffirming, you were spot on.
LMAO North. The amount of hyperbole in your posts now rivals GTech. I'm also interested in basketball, but I am not an NBA player. I like to eat and learn about Sushi, but I am not a Sushi chef. So much for calling a spade, a spade. Actually Ron Paul is my hero. Mary Ruwart is just a very knowledgeable radical libertarian who may win her party's nomination over more conventional candidates like Mike Gravel and Bob Barr. Hannah Montana chose to do her nude (covered with a blanket) photo spread. She also posted her own pictures of her flashing her bra on the internet. Did she not choose to do these things? And if so, is it rational to criminalize them? This has to be one of the most dishonest, or blatantly stupid things you have ever written, and you are up against tough competition in that regard. I argue for rights and natural law constantly. I argue for strict constitutional interpretation. I argue against corruption, and for sensible laws. So how you could come to the conclusion, that I don't support a society of laws, is ridiculous. An Ancap, or an anarchist doesn't believe in government. I'm a minarchist, I believe in minimal government. But even if I was an Ancap, they still believe in contract law, natural rights, and non-violent voluntarism. Now, if you believe in law or government by violence and coercion, that maybe that is why we see a disconnect. Government must always be at the consent of the governed, not the other way around.
Yes, I am aware you will alter your pitch, depending on the audience, but on balance, your views quite consistently exemplify your anarchism. At the end of the day, say what you will, is this not anarchy?: -and so on. Seems to me, pretty clear - someone who despises democracy, who despises any form of government outside of "self-government," whose view of law is as shown above, who believes that only a completely free capital market can cure all societal ills, well, this is the very poster imprint of agorism - his profile interest - and the anarcho-capitalism it embodies. Probably wouldn't hurt. *** Now, again, at the end of the day, seems REALLY difficult for at least one to answer: Equally again, seems easy enough to me:
Lmao, i was following you through your profile as you looked at my old posts. I like how you cherry picked whatever you could use out of context. Good one. Here are the threads for anyone who is curious, I've got nothing to hide, and in fact I think the posts make my position very clear and represent me well. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=658803 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=672672 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=807676 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=814050 There may have been another one, but I don't remember which it was, and as usual NPT doesn't provide source links, needless because he probably doesn't want anyone to see the context of the posts. You've got so many errors in this post, I've got to break it down. 1. I despise the tyranny of the majority ruling/punishing/murdering the minority. Democracy is not a cure all, or the 70% of Americans who want the war in Iran stopped, would have got some action out of Obama and Clinton, supposed democratic representatives. 2. Who in their right mind doesn't believe in self-government? Everyone who wants to be ruled by someone else, raise their hand. 3. Complete free market capitalism is the path to liberty, I truly believe that. We've all seen the horrors of fascism, socialism and communism. We've only tinkered around the edges of true free markets, but what could be more moral, than freedom of choice, and the right to own the fruits of your own labor? 4. AnCap, Agorism, bla blabla. In the threads sourced, I cover my minarchist views. Where you take my playing devil's advocate out of context and present it as my position, is dishonest. I think the question is very difficult to answer. Because according to you, Hannah Montana doing a photo spread for Vanity Fair is child porn. I think most rational, reasonable, intelligent, enlightened people would disagree with you. I hoped you would have learned your lesson in the polygamy thread. These aren't simple questions with simple answers. Particularly when you impose so much subjectivity and prejudgment on them.
Yes, "context," the old and tired battle cry. Problem is, this is what I have seen, wholly and consistently. I don't provide links because it's enough to spend the time refuting your misstatements here, without having to provide the links as well. I spent what time I did, and anyone interested is free to investigate by spending their time as well. Based on past performance, I doubt anyone will. I commended Stox on his apt and insightful appraisal. He is right, and the above is why. No it's not. Kids doing porn are always victims, and it should be illegal. Except to you, apparently. Well, since I never once said anything about Hannah Montana, much less anything about her doing the Vanity Fair cover, pretty hard for me to call it child porn; in fact, I've not made a single comment on the issue and in fact, I haven't seen the cover. I would expect I wouldn't really dig the idea, based on a conjecture of how I'd feel if she were my daughter, but, no, I wouldn't confuse this with common sense. The only lesson I learned in the polygamy thread is a better airing of your true views with respect to the notion of 12-14 year old girls "consenting" to marriage and impregnation by middle aged men. Actually, sometimes, they are. Kids having sex on camera are victims, and such crimes committed by adults holding sway or authority over them should be illegal, and prosecuted.
vB autolinks in quotes. The "spend the time" argument is as lame as you claiming to have me on ignore, then not knowing how ignore works. It's only child porn if you see it? Nice attempt at backtracking though. If I could be bothered, I could probably find numerous examples of child actors or entertainers showing skin in a professional role. So clearly, someone would have been able to give consent in those scenarios. Which defeats your "simple answer" mantra. 14 is legal in South Carolina. Remember? There is no global standard? Which was my argument. And continues to be my argument. Who has consent is the issue. And it is a tricky question. Which is why I had trouble understanding your rationale that the sentencing should be more harsh for an older person having sex with a juvenile than a younger adult. If the issue is the ability of the juvenile to consent, or that the juvenile it so emotionally and/or physically immature for sex, then what difference should it make who they had sex with? These sorts of intelligent questions, the sort that lead to meaningful discussions, except when you're flanked by your peanut gallery and resort to name calling and strawman arguments. What about their parents? You posted your son's photo on the net. As far as I am concerned, as his guardian, that was incredibly irresponsible not only because he is a child, but because he may regret your posting his picture when he becomes older. I mentioned it some time ago. You love to grill me. But at the end of the day, what you believe (dodging the Hannah Montana question, etc.) is so easily avoided. Which is convenient, because as I try to shape and sharpen my principles, you have none. Just reactionary behavior, playing to the masses, and seeking some sort of external validation.
I don't know what you're talking about. If there is a way to link to quotes made, I'd love to know how to do it. The ignore thing, as I explained and as you know, when viewing the site when one is not logged on, one can apparently see people one has on ignore. If you again need a mod to affirm this, let me know. No, it's not, but then, you know that, as I posted this - though I know continuing the lie will sway a person or two: Typical tactic, in my experience, along with diluting threads to infinity (requiring repeat coverage, as here) in the hope people don't realize what you're up to, but bullshit, again, all the same - in my opinion. Yes, I know, you repeatedly tried this one as well: Please also see, S.C. Code of Law, Section 16-3-655, B(2), posted above. It doesn't take genius to discern the difference between a 16-year old boyfriend and his girlfriend, on the one hand, and a 12-year old girl and a 50 year old man where the girl is indoctrinated in an environment from birth to believe her lot is precisely this function in life. It doesn't take more than a modicum of intelligence, actually. The rest, blah, blah, blah. As to parents who knowingly allow their kids to do porn, uh, yeah, arrest them and take their kids away. Need help to see the consistency of my view here, as well? As to your disgusting comparison of this with my son's photo, stop. Immediately. On another thread, Rebecca and I were engaged in a discussion of what we were going to do with our rebate money, we got into a discussion of digital photography, and I made a mistake in posting a couple of pics of my son, a boy I love and am proud of. Moments later, particularly when you posted your bile on what Rebecca and I should and should not be doing with our money, I realized my profound error - and, as I wrote to Rebecca, I removed it precisely because freaks like yourself would find a way to turn something nice into something trashy. I love my son, more than life itself, and I am warning you: you once made a series of fucked up statements, calling me psychotic, etc., and that my family should get me some help. I'd be very cautious about talking to me once again about my family to attempt to serve your flawed mindset, Guerilla. Now, I know from long practice it's your thing to dilute threads for pages upon pages, in the hope your flaw of the moment won't be found out, but I am not interested. Since discovering your anarchism, as illustrated in posts 61, 65, above, and in the light of your body of blather on the forum, it has all become quite clear.
Northpoint people can even cherrypick the bible and make it look bad , but that doesnt make it bad does it? It does seem like thats what your trying to do to guerilla. Guerilla has always been for true democracy or he wouldnt be supporting ron paul and the constitution, but what he also said is that democracy can be manipulated from within, as the present neocons are doing with the office of the presidency.
Pingpong, the post above yours is enough to speak volumes to what I am talking about, but I have no doubt under the sun, this is how you see it now, and how you will likely always see it. When you can't see, for instance, what's commonly called "a lie": Pretty hard for me to imagine you'll see anything else I raise here. Anyone actually open to evaluating what I have to say, I dunno, pick one, pick any. Just the tiniest bubble of problem between: and Etc., over and over again. In addition, he attempts to claim he is not what he says his "interest" is, from his own profile, an agorist, a type of anarcho-capitalist. Anyone - please distinguish anarchism from: -and this is but one. Anyone interested, take a look at what I am saying respecting the member's views as regularly espoused on the forum, and then take a close look once again at: Anyone interested in opening your eyes, feel free. Feel free to answer these apparently extraordinarily challenging questions while you're at it. Easiest thing would be to simply conclude, as Guerilla lately and regularly states, that I am some kind of psychotic stalker out for personal vengeance. The difficult thing is to take an honest look, and understand the reasons for bringing this out. On a host of issues, I have for too long heard from this member that those of us in disagreement with him and/or his views are simply "statist thugs," and all the variants. If nothing else, since discovering his ideology of anarchy, I better understand why Guerilla's methods and views are as they are. If interested, figure it out yourself.
Children are being tortured is the thread title. What did you expect ? People praising each other's moral standards or ethical approaches
As I recall, you both were going offtopic from the thread, and having a personal conversation (likely with the intent to goad me), something that should have been done by PM. And you should love and be proud of your boy, whatever your issues with me, I don't see a need to attack your family, certainly not the way you have attacked mine. But you clearly get my point re: being the guardian of the child. Seriously dude, you posted it and made a big deal about it. Turning that on me somehow shows not only a deep misunderstanding of the public nature of the interwebs (like the info has probably already been archived at archive.org or syndicated through RSS) and your own responsibilities. Don't make this about me. As you said, a profound error.
Friend, it's pointless. NPT will dig up quotes from the last 6 months, spin them how he wishes, and then try to confuse people by conflating a philosophy I'm interested in learning about, with my fundamental belief system. You only have to go up thread to my last post to Kaethy, to see my belief that the system can be changed politically and through legislation. Now anarchists believe that participating in politics actually strengthens the political system, and thus, they don't approve of it. As you mentioned, I've gone out of my way to support Ron Paul and to defend the legitimacy and original intent of the Constitution. These are not things that anarchists would be doing. It's all just nonsense. Good to see people are starting to wake up to the fact that NPT stalking me is destroying thread after thread on this forum, and turning people off. I know and I'm sorry. But I'm not about to let this guy run me off this forum. I still do business on here.
I never attacked your family (after your series of attacks re: my "psychosis," my status as a "class a nutjob," I recall something about my perception that you lived at home, with "mommy and daddy"), it was yourself who did it (literally calling me psychotic, and urging my family to commit me), and did it now, again - playing your usual twisted game. Warning you to cut the crap - do not go down this road again.
Uh, yeah - PingPong is a veritable army of cogent suasion. All others, I've provided the material; if interested, evaluate for yourself. This was triggered, here, when Stox rightly named Guerilla's crap for what it is, and instead Stox's position was all named as "twisting" G's p.o.v. - something G returns to with any member not holding his anarcho-capitalist vision. Frankly, no one but G and his acolytes are twisting anything. If people are so gullible as to buy it, or so dishonorable as to ignore it, that can't be helped, but things are what they are, and his anarchism now explains a good deal.
It shocked me to the core as well, Lightless, but figured after being characterized as a stalking psychotic, to deal with this egregious falsehood would truly tilt the boat.
Anti-Torture Activists Convicted, Jailed for Protesting Gitmo Outside Supreme Court Thirty-four anti-torture activists have been convicted for protesting the Guantanamo Bay prison outside the Supreme Court. Twelve are now serving jail sentences. During the trial, protesters gave their names and those of Guantanamo prisoners and dressed in orange jumpsuits and black hoods. We speak to Matt Daloisio of Witness Against Torture, who gave the opening statement at the trial. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/3/anti_torture_activists_convicted_jailed_for If that news is correct , then It must be a democracy, and freedom