Opportunity vs Outcome

[Universe Prince]

edit

[Universe Prince]

edit

[Universe Prince]

I lead my list with Incest , you left it out of your reply.

Actually, I lumped it together with homosexuality, prostitution and pornography.

Do you agree with a state intrest in prevention of incest?

That depends on what sort of incest we are talking about. A father forcibly having sex with his daughter, yes, the state has an interest in banning that as a matter of protecting the rights of the daughter. On the other hand, an of age brother and sister consensually engaging in sex, while I find it morally reprehensible, is not the business of the state, no.

[Universe Prince]

proof of actual purposeful lies

Which has been provided, here, here and multiple other times in other threads.

NO, I DON'T KNOW you've said something else, since I concluded you said what you said.

I repeat: If you are going to claim you don't know that I've said or meant something else even though I've said exactly that about a hundred thousand times (give or take a few), you're only lying more.

Going to address the question posed in the prior post, or the original point of the thread??

Sure. Just as soon as you get serious about honest debate. I won't hold my breath.

I didn't think you would.  Thanks for helping to make my point  *sigh*

Actually, I think you proved mine. You're not interested in honest debate.

[sirs]

And yet again your supposed "proof" is nothing more than my conclusions of both your meaning & intent, of YOUR words.  My hyperbole & sarcasm aside, there's nothing nefarious or deceitful here, which is what's required for your continued kneejerk cries of lying, and now let's add "not interested in honest debate"

Sure. Just as soon as you get serious about honest debate. I won't hold my breath.

I didn't think you would.  Thanks for helping to make my point  *sigh*

Actually, I think you proved mine. You're not interested in honest debate.

Says the man that has invested responses contributing to 4 pages, yet is there even 1 or 2 addressing the original point of the thread??  Outside of the LIE that sirs was equating right with liberty, as interchangible, nary a peep about the honest debate that was attempted, nor any responses to the substantive questions posed.  Might want to check that mirror, Prince

[Universe Prince]

And yet again your supposed "proof" is nothing more than my conclusions of both your meaning & intent, of YOUR words.

See? You ask for proof, I give you proof, and you just deny it. The thing is, Sirs, you don't ask what I mean, or state a conclusion and then allow me to correct you if your conclusion about what I mean is incorrect. You just make untrue statements about what I say or mean, and then no matter what else I say, you insist your untrue statements are true. You are not being honest. You have not made honest mistakes. You have lied. And then you lie about the lying, claiming things such as that you don't know I have said or meant something else, despite the fact that I have explained I meant and/or said something else many, many times. Or you lie and say your lies are just conclusions of my meaning and intent as if somehow you know what I mean and intend while I do not. No matter how you spin this, you lied.

My hyperbole & sarcasm aside, there's nothing nefarious or deceitful here

Except for the part where you claim I said or meant things I did not say or mean regardless of any correction I provide. Nefarious, no, but then I never said it was. Deceitful, yes, most definitely.

Says the man that has invested responses contributing to 4 pages, yet is there even 1 or 2 addressing the original point of the thread??

Says the man who lied almost immediately about my initial reply to his initial post.

Outside of the LIE that sirs was equating right with liberty, as interchangible,

You made the statement, "That's really what it comes down to between this polar battle of right vs left, liberty vs control, Capitalism vs Socialism." You said "polar battle" and listed a set of what apparently consider points in polar opposition to one another, "right vs left, liberty vs control, Capitalism vs Socialism." Your language does not indicate you think this is a battle of 6 or 8 different sides. Your language indicates you are aligning specifically opportunity, right, liberty and capitalism together against an alignment of outcome, left, control and socialism. No one has at any time prevented you from explaining your list further or explaining why my comment about the list is wrong. Instead, all you did was lie about what I said. You have no one to blame for that but yourself.

nary a peep about the honest debate that was attempted,

That assumes I believed you were attempting honest debate. Your record on this does not indicate to me that you were attempting such.

nor any responses to the substantive questions posed.

Which would be pointless if you are not going to engage in honest debate. In fact, given an opportunity for honest debate, you instead lied about what I said.

[sirs]

Gonna give you a couple of more recommendations, Prince.

- Rather than inaccurately, and flagrantly at that I might add, about my supposed non-intentions at "serious debate", take a moment to simply answer the question(s) being posed, vs the hour+ to date, of claiming how poorly you're being treated by sirs supposed lying about what you say you said.  It is a debate forum, not a venting forum.  I demonstrated the fallacy of the lying claim and the deceit required for its validation.  No need to perseverate on it

- If you feel (again often wrongly when the subject of immigration comes up) that someone is lying about what you say you said, instead of spending countless bandwith in complaining about it, and waiting for that someone to either ask the right question, or demonstrate some equivalent point you were supposedly trying to make, take a moment and say something like "No, that's not what I meant to say, if that's what you thought.  For clarity purposes, this is what I clearly meant to say......."

Hope that helped

[Universe Prince]

If you feel (again often wrongly when the subject of immigration comes up) that someone is lying about what you say you said, instead of spending countless bandwith in complaining about it, and waiting for that someone to either ask the right question, or demonstrate some equivalent point you were supposedly trying to make, take a moment and say something like "No, that's not what I meant to say, if that's what you thought.  For clarity purposes, this is what I clearly meant to say......."

Hope that helped

Sirs, having explained for you and expounded for you and clarified for you what I did say and meant to say many times, only to have you continue to lie about my position, I find your suggestion laughable. Clarifying works when the other person reads it and accepts it. When the other person insists on continuing with the untrue assertions regardless of correction, as you have, clarification is in vain. And if after plenty of clarification the other person still insists he does not know one said or meant something else, then other person is simply lying.

And any time you feel like going back and saying, "No, equating political 'right' with 'liberty' is not what I meant to say; and for clarity purposes what I meant to say was..." by all means do so. Watching you follow your own advice might be instructive.

[sirs]

And having done prescious little of this supposed explaining for me and expounding for me and clarifying for me what you did say and meant to say many times, but truckloads of apparent grief placed upon you, and what you didn't mean to say, as well as minus the necessary deceit required for upwards of 90+% of your postings in this and other such "responses" aimed at me, we will agree to disagree. 

It was a pleasure enduring this "serious debate" of yours

[Plane]

I lead my list with Incest , you left it out of your reply.

Actually, I lumped it together with homosexuality, prostitution and pornography.

Do you agree with a state intrest in prevention of incest?

That depends on what sort of incest we are talking about. A father forcibly having sex with his daughter, yes, the state has an interest in banning that as a matter of protecting the rights of the daughter. On the other hand, an of age brother and sister consensually engaging in sex, while I find it morally reprehensible, is not the business of the state, no.

Eeeww... this is begining to get unpleasant.

The state may prohibit open pit toilets in densely populated areas , and for much the same reason it may prop up the anchient taboo on incest.

Human beings came to the realisation that incest bred troubble long before it understood germ theroy.

Gregor Mendel would be a good one to explain to you the peril of incestous reproduction , Odepus rex would be a good one to explain to you the social cost.

In any case I don't think that I am proveing much to you , it is very simple to merely say that all evidence presented is imperfect in some way. This is an explanation for us all here for why we beat the dead horses so fruitlessly , I never expected to change your mind that is a rare event in this venue , even in this medium.

Yet look now at what it is that keeps the Libertarian cause from growing much. Your arguements could easily be misconstrued as advocacy of haveing sex with everything , tho I presented a very long list of sexual deviances you came down in favor of all of them. Nothing need be forbidden.

Right?

[Plane]

Hahahaha, you have done it again.

Yes, I pointed out that polyandry is not defined as a sex act, again.

"(though I am sure sex is involved somewhere along the way)" I also am sure that sex is involved somewhere , as in it is in the purpose of such a compact, shall we say, more often than not?

A handfasting or sexless relationship of any sort would not be within the scope of this discussion would it?

My question was, "What sort of sex between consenting adults do you think the government needs to prevent?" Polyandry is not sex. If your objection is sex with multiple partners, then you should say so. Do you find having multiple spouses acceptable so long as they don't have sex?

Spouces that are consensually not haveing sex are called business partners. I wonder why you are quibbleing so much , yes it is the sex that makes the relationship either important or dangerous , especially in context as we are discussing it. If six brothers  four sisters and a horse join their efforts and pool their recorces, it is not bigamy , not polyandry , not beastiality not homosexuality nor even incest untill penetration occurs.
   Quit stalling and advocate free sex of any imagineable sort , are you not a Libertarian?

As a Christian I belong to God , as an American Citizen I belong mostly but not entirely to myself.

As an American citizen, who else owns you? And upon what is this partial ownership based?

My consent to be governed , in theroy and idealy we have a government of the people by the people and of the people , this more than just implys a lot of mutual obligation.

Do you actually not draw any distinction between plumbing and prostitution? Let me help you with that, lots of skilled plumbers in a community can reduce the incidence of disease.

So can skilled, healthy prostitutes.

You are highly prone to wishfull thinking , what measures to prevent the spread of STDs are more than 80% effective?

[Universe Prince]

And having done prescious little of this supposed explaining for me and expounding for me and clarifying for me what you did say and meant to say many times, but truckloads of apparent grief placed upon you, and what you didn't mean to say, as well as minus the necessary deceit required for upwards of 90+% of your postings in this and other such "responses" aimed at me, we will agree to disagree. 

It was a pleasure enduring this "serious debate" of yours

So you're not going to follow your own advice. That is the evidence of the extent of your desire for honest debate.

[Universe Prince]

In any case I don't think that I am proveing much to you , it is very simple to merely say that all evidence presented is imperfect in some way.

I'm sure most evidence is imperfect, but when are you going to present some?

I never expected to change your mind

I don't expect to change your mind. But that doesn't prevent us from having a discussion.

Yet look now at what it is that keeps the Libertarian cause from growing much. Your arguements could easily be misconstrued as advocacy of haveing sex with everything , tho I presented a very long list of sexual deviances you came down in favor of all of them. Nothing need be forbidden.

Right?

Wrong. I did not come down in favor of any of them. At least half of them I have not even addressed yet. And while a discussion about sex between connecting human adults might be misconstrued to endorse "sex with everything" it would take some pretty erroneous thinking to get there. Actually, what keeps the (small 'l') libertarian cause from growing is not enough discussion of the ideas in the public arena. That is slowly changing. Though you do illustrate one problem some people have. They conflate libertarian ideas about law with personal beliefs about morality. If you allow this legally, then you approve of it. That is not the case, though seemingly you think so.

[sirs]

And having done prescious little of this supposed explaining for me and expounding for me and clarifying for me what you did say and meant to say many times, but truckloads of apparent grief placed upon you, and what you didn't mean to say, as well as minus the necessary deceit required for upwards of 90+% of your postings in this and other such "responses" aimed at me, we will agree to disagree. 

It was a pleasure enduring this "serious debate" of yours

So you're not going to follow your own advice. That is the evidence of the extent of your desire for honest debate.

I tried.  Rather than jumping up and down calling you a liar in every other sentence (Oh god, now he's going to say that was a lie, because he never called me a liar in every other sentence.  The irony of the hyperbole will yet again be ignored, I'm sure) I tried serious debate forum questions.  You refused, pleading something along the lines that you just couldn't allow yourself, with such a sinister shister, like myself, asking them.  End of story.  If you must have the last word, the floor is yours

[Universe Prince]

Spouces that are consensually not haveing sex are called business partners. I wonder why you are quibbleing so much , yes it is the sex that makes the relationship either important or dangerous , especially in context as we are discussing it.

That doesn't answer my question.

I wonder why you are quibbleing so much

Because words matter.

If six brothers  four sisters and a horse join their efforts and pool their recorces, it is not bigamy , not polyandry , not beastiality not homosexuality nor even incest untill penetration occurs.
   Quit stalling and advocate free sex of any imagineable sort , are you not a Libertarian?

Why do I need to advocate something in which I do not believe? Libertarian does not mean libertine. Why don't you quit stalling and advocate the government control of all sexual relations and instances of sexual intercourse? Don't you want to protect people from harmful sex?

My consent to be governed , in theroy and idealy we have a government of the people by the people and of the people , this more than just implys a lot of mutual obligation.

That does not explain why you are partially owned by other people. It explains why you might feel obligated to do something for other people, but it does not establish a basis of ownership, partial or otherwise. Though I find interesting that you seem to be concerned over people being commodities, and yet while you seem to think a consent to be government transfers part ownership of you to someone else, you seem to have no objections to that at all.

You are highly prone to wishfull thinking , what measures to prevent the spread of STDs are more than 80% effective?

Other than abstinence, I don't know, but I am not going to support government banning all sex to prevent the spread of STDs. On the other hand, legal prostitution where in prostitutes are required to be free of diseases can help prevent the spread of STDs.