The Pedo Bear strike

In practice, people do not have explicit contracts before having sex, which makes the zero aggression principle fairly useless in family matters.

Yeah, you said that before. What you have failed to do is give any logical reason why a failure to have a contract somehow obviates the ZAP.

You say that in the examples I give, I did not supply sufficient information, but in real life, that is all the relevant information you are likely to get.  The information you say should exist, is only going to exist if they have a pre-nupt, and not always even then.

Absent a formal or informal contract, or rules imposed by state or family, it is not clear what the property rights and obligations of cohabiting couple are in the event that they quarrel or split.

As demonstrated by the fact that you keep asking me to supply this entirely nonexistent agreement.

No woman that I have taken to bed has ever consented to sex in words, let alone discussed the finances of living arrangements and relationship termination.

What makes domestic situations different?

That they shared property and tasks until they did not.

You have surely noticed that women never consent in words to sex, and frequently protest all the way to the bedroom.

I have notices no such thing.

Don't get much pussy outside of brothels, do you?

What does that mean? As an example, let's say I go into McDonald's, go up to the counter person and say, "Give me the Big Mac Combo with a diet Coke and super-size it." When the cashier gives me my order may I just walk away without paying?

Your analogy is inapplicable to sexual relationships and family formation.   Indeed, the very fact that you find yourself reaching for such an inappropriate analogy, demonstrates the irrelevance of the Zero Aggression Principle to sexual relationships and family formation. 

Huh? Again you state a conclusion, but I don't provide support for it.

The difference between the case of purchasing a coke and the case of arranging for sex and possibly family may be more apparent to those of us that have sex outside brothels.

I notice you failed to address my question about your personal experience as a patriarch. My working assumption is that you are young, single, gynophobic, sexually frustrated and clearly--based on your own words--more than willing to commit date rape. How am I doing so far?

Wrong on five out of five.

Sex is negotiated pre rationally and pre verbally, and a woman's words are seldom in sync with her actions.   The mating dance is still much as it was from before we were human.  If date rape is defined with reference to a woman's words, the definition is absurd.

wdg3rd: Bad news.  Just waiting for the sweeper to pass will not save you from a ticket if you are on that side of the street during any of the hours involved.  Whether the street is swept that month or not.  Parking is forbidden in front of my house (not by me) between the hours of 8am and noon on Wednesdays.  Typically, the street sweeper (and his faithful police escort) pass by by 0830.  However, if someone parks there before noon, there is every chance that some other example of police presence will stumble by and engage in a bit of municipal revenue enhancement rather than prevent or solve a real crime.  This is less than a dozen miles across the Hudson from Manhattan.

And if you think you can park anywhere in the Five Boroughs for $12 per day, I assume you mean the monthly rate in a neighborhood where I wouldn't risk getting out of the car and walking to a subway station to get where I actually needed to be.  (Too likely to be victimized or labeled a criminal for defending myself in a city where self-defense is illegal, especially self-defense with appropriate hardware, and possession of appropriate hardware illegal anyway).  Daily rates are easily a magnitude greater, especially if near anywhere you'd want to live, work or shop.

You could be right about the time span. I never tried riding around the block until the streetsweeper passed. I just assumed that it was something that I could do. I always managed to find a space on the other side first, although sometimes I had to park far away. This was in Rego Park around 11 years ago, btw. I had to use the garage a few blocks away once when I couldn't find a place to park at all and it was either drive all night until someone left early in the morning or park in a place where I'd be certain to get a ticket.

The garage was full for the night, but I persuaded the guy to park my car anyway on the condition that I return for it in several hours after a bit of sleep. I don't recall the exact amount I paid for that, but it wasn't an incredible amount, something under $20, although it pissed me off. I assumed that was the daily rate, but I didn't live there. NYC must make an incredible amount of money on parking tickets, because they are certainly very efficient in that area. My impression of NYC is a city that rips-off its inhabitants and especially visitors at every opportunity. Nothing is convenient. Public bathrooms in malls are rare, and unlike other places, one must pay to park to visit them.

I was there to stay with my girlfriend who was very sick in the hospital, so there wasn't much I could do about it. And then there are the hospital parking fees. They used parking meters with quarters, and used plenty of them. Once again, the parking patrols were out in full force, brilliantly enforcing that part of the law. Every couple of hours I had to make a trip to feed the beast. Getting quarters is difficult, too. The banks in the area wouldn't let me through the door unless I had a bank card. If you're low on gas in Manhattan, you're SOL because as far as I know there are no gas stations there at all. If you don't have an EZ Pass you have to go through the lanes furthest from the tunnels' entrances and fight your way in (a great joy when 3 or the 4 entrances of the Hudson tunnel are closed for repairs!). At almost every turn, there was some inconvenient, unpleasant surprise.  When I go there, I feel like I'm in a tin-pot dictatorship when I go there. Unfortunately, it's hard to travel up and down the East Coast and avoid NYC, but out of principal, I'll gladly drive an extra 200 miles or so through PA to avoid the place.

No woman that I have taken to bed has ever consented to sex in words, let alone discussed the finances of living arrangements and relationship termination.

....

You have surely noticed that women never consent in words to sex, and frequently protest all the way to the bedroom.

....

Sex is negotiated pre rationally and pre verbally, and a woman's words are seldom in sync with her actions.   The mating dance is still much as it was from before we were human.  If date rape is defined with reference to a woman's words, the definition is absurd.

Robert Feynman the physicist wrote about this. His approach was, if he invited a woman to dinner hoping to have sex with her, before they ordered he ask, "Before I buy you dinner, tell me, are you going to have sex with me tonight?" And she would usually say yes. He would approach a woman in a bar who had done friendly eye contact with him, and say "Before I buy you a drink, tell me will you have sex with me tonight?" He talked like the women always said yes. In my experience it's usually.

He talked at length about disrespecting women, that he had to act like he thought they were trashy whores. I think this was because in his generation women were raised to believe that anybody who said yes was a trashy whore, so he had to put that label on them or they would both be very embarrassed that he asked. I think that is no longer necessary.

I want to suggest that you try this approach. Look at the WikiLeaks guy, who perhaps had sex with women who "protested all the way to the bedroom". They accused him of rape. It's his word against theirs and he's locked up now. Of course it might have been CIA agents who would have said that no matter what he did if he spent 20 minutes alone with them. But your chance of rape accusations from garden-variety crazy women goes way down if you take the simple precaution of asking first. Of course, for a variety of reasons you're better off not to sleep with crazy women anyway....

Are you mad bro ? Do you even fracking know me 

I don't respond to pompous morons, make a point of shut the frack up.

Because I used the word conservative you go about giving me lectures about how totalitarian I am and give me the standard Atheist BS grand standing sermon, get a grip of frack off.

Dunno if you're "totalitarian," but are you insane?

You betcha.

The positions you've taken anent the "NAMBLOID" folk, sams, hold as morally acceptable the perpetration of aggressive violence against human beings who have themselves not been demonstrated to have breached any other persons' rights. 

Unless, I suppose, you're defending the notion that a "legal infant" is the property of his/her parents, and it's somehow in their legitimate interest to keep the kid from such experiences as are associated with sexual stimulation of any kind. 

But that's insane, too, isn't it?

One might make with equal validity the argument that violent attack - and extending not only to imprisonment but also castration, possibly death - is appropriate under what serves you, sams, as a substitute for a code of moral conduct to punish a person outside a youngster's "ownership" who provides that child or adolescent with a novel of ideas - say, Atlas Shrugged, or John Ross' Unintended Consequences, or L. Neil Smith's The Probability Broach, or J. Neil Schulman's Alongside Night, or even The Turner Diaries by white supremacist whackjob William Luther Pierce - divergent from what that youngster's "owners" want him/her to know or think about the world.

And did I say dot-one about theism or atheism in anything I'd written to address your insanity?  Nope.

I suppose you're one of those social/traditionalist conservatives who goes juramentado whenever somebody discusses moral conduct without reference to your Great Sky Pixie. 

Like I said.  Insane.

Did the EFT team hired some Chinese trolls to balance the debate ?

Shove your Randian BS up your ass, Children before 18 are under discretion of their parents, who are the ones who feed and take care of them until they can make their own decisions.

Treating Paedophiles like criminals isn't infringing on the right of anyone ... unless criminals ought to be free too you know.

Any children below 15 can't consent to anything because for one their aren't mature and for two they don't know what the fuck is sex ... so you are a fucking pervert is you are a NAMBLOID.

Even for Children above 15 to 18, their consent is still subject to their parents judgement as their guardians.

Atlas Shrugged is a load of BS, Neil Smith's The Probability Broach is great but Molineux/Block arguments are still BS anyway, children are under the discretion of their parents under they reach majority.

Now suck some balls ...

Are you mad bro ? Do you even fracking know me 

I don't respond to pompous morons, make a point of shut the frack up.

Because I used the word conservative you go about giving me lectures about how totalitarian I am and give me the standard Atheist BS grand standing sermon, get a grip of frack off.

Dunno if you're "totalitarian," but are you insane?

You betcha.

The positions you've taken anent the "NAMBLOID" folk, sams, hold as morally acceptable the perpetration of aggressive violence against human beings who have themselves not been demonstrated to have breached any other persons' rights. 

Unless, I suppose, you're defending the notion that a "legal infant" is the property of his/her parents, and it's somehow in their legitimate interest to keep the kid from such experiences as are associated with sexual stimulation of any kind. 

But that's insane, too, isn't it?

One might make with equal validity the argument that violent attack - and extending not only to imprisonment but also castration, possibly death - is appropriate under what serves you, sams, as a substitute for a code of moral conduct to punish a person outside a youngster's "ownership" who provides that child or adolescent with a novel of ideas - say, Atlas Shrugged, or John Ross' Unintended Consequences, or L. Neil Smith's The Probability Broach, or J. Neil Schulman's Alongside Night, or even The Turner Diaries by white supremacist whackjob William Luther Pierce - divergent from what that youngster's "owners" want him/her to know or think about the world.

And did I say dot-one about theism or atheism in anything I'd written to address your insanity?  Nope.

I suppose you're one of those social/traditionalist conservatives who goes juramentado whenever somebody discusses moral conduct without reference to your Great Sky Pixie. 

Like I said.  Insane.

Sams, you clearly do not understand what I have written. I don't think you are doing it on purpose. Perhaps it is a cultural or linguistic thing. In any case, we are arguing past each other. So I am going to drop out of this discussion. I will touch on one point though. Your assumption that brothels must be my sexual outlet is simply false. I once hired a prostitute in the Philippines as an experiment. It was interesting, even fun, but ultimately nothing like consensual sex based on mutual sexual attraction.

Maybe the '70s in San Francisco jaded me, but sexual partners were ubiquitous, proactive and enthusiastic. Costa Rica and Panama have been less so, but still always clearly based on mutual sexual attraction and never commerce. My time in Singapore was different, because I had my girlfriend with me. She too, was a "volunteer." Man, was she a volunteer.

In short, though, they all said yes, before the sex started. NEWS FLASH: Women like sex and will say so directly to a man whom they want and trust. I feel sorry for you if you have never had anyone joyously telling you they wanted you. Maybe they don't trust you. I can certainly see why.

On the subject at hand, I for once think that a An-Cap society would be more conservative, especially since the cost of recklessness won't be shifted to somebody else through benefits et al.

Do you define "conservative" as having a tendency toward practicing moderation? Because I'm not sure I would. It seems to me that conservatism has to do with preserving older social standards, regardless of their nature. E.g., "conservatives" opposed the progressive prohibition agenda, but then they opposed its its repeal a couple of decades later.

Perhaps it is a cultural or linguistic thing. In any case, we are arguing past each other.

My take on it is simply that, at least in the older generation, explicit verbal permission for sex, in the sense currently advocated by the liberated, simply was so forced and unnatural - and women of the older generation were too intensely trained not to openly acknowledge their sexuality on that level - that while consent was given, it was given in subtle ways.

How valid this was I will at this point make no categorical statements there concerning, but one can look at the use of the phrase "rape training" in the book Why Men Are The Way They Are to get more details of the phenomenon under discussion.

On the subject at hand, I for once think that a An-Cap society would be more conservative, especially since the cost of recklessness won't be shifted to somebody else through benefits et al.

Do you define "conservative" as having a tendency toward practicing moderation? Because I'm not sure I would. It seems to me that conservatism has to do with preserving older social standards, regardless of their nature. E.g., "conservatives" opposed the progressive prohibition agenda, but then they opposed its its repeal a couple of decades later.

Conservative has in moderation and family centric social structures.

Intent upon proving repeatedy that he most definitely is gibberingly insane, we've got from sams:

Did the EFT team hired some Chinese trolls to balance the debate ?

Shove your Randian BS up your ass, Children before 18 are under discretion of their parents, who are the ones who feed and take care of them until they can make their own decisions.

Ah, good.  So when persons of any age demonstrate the ability to "feed and take care of" themselves, "they can make their own decisions" regarding sexual liaisons regardless of calendar age, right?

Jeez, no wonder the social/traditionalist "conservative" types hate the capitalist free market just as much as do their fellow authoritarians on the socialist/progressive/"Liberal" side. By freeing the individual human being from economically crippling restrictions imposed to prevent her/him from earning valuta (or plunder him/her into perpetual poverty), an AnCap economy poses a terrible threat to the crushing-out of the individual autonomy that comes naturally with individual material prosperity. 

What next, sams?  Are you going to fume, Bumble-fashion, about parish workhouse orphans getting uppity on an excess of protein when the undertaker's family allow them scraps of leftover meat instead of keeping 'em on a proper pauper's diet of gruel? 

Treating Paedophiles like criminals isn't infringing on the right of anyone ... unless criminals ought to be free too you know.

Any children below 15 can't consent to anything because for one their aren't mature and for two they don't know what the frack is sex ... so you are a fracking pervert is you are a NAMBLOID.

Even for Children above 15 to 18, their consent is still subject to their parents judgement as their guardians.

Interesting unnecessary capitalization of "Pedophiles," there, but that's only further evidence of sams' insanity, which is an already established fact.  Let's see; sams insists that it is moral to physically attack, imprison, and otherwise punish people who have a sexual interest in children or adolescents not yet grown to meet some arbitrary "age of consent" because they're criminals, and they're criminals because sams and his co-religionists have insisted that "children below 15 can't consent to anything."

Oh? So how come we keep getting all this social/traditionalist "conservative" noise about how people committing violent assault (including mayhem and murder) well below the age of 15 have got to be "prosecuted as adults!" in order to preserve society (however these collectivist clowns want to define "society" this week) from catastrophic disintegration? 

I had remarked some days ago that the matter of moral agency doesn't seem to be coming into this discussion at all.  When is it that a human being becomes capable of criminal mens rea? 

Speaking of religious whackjobs, are readers here aware that the Roman Catholic Church considers a member of their flock to have become capable of committing a mortal sin - and thereby condemning his/her unshriven soul to hell for all eternity - at the age of 7 years?   

Talk about consequences..... 

Have social/traditionalist "conservative" specimens like sams made any case as yet that sexual activity is necessarily and invariable harmful to human beings at any age?  Nope.  The best we've seen in this forum thus far - and it's not from sams - runs along the lines of the unsupported contention that because sexual relationships are very "intense" (oh, yeah?), they're too brain-boggling for a Homo sapiens below some arbitrary calendar age to engage in without drastic adverse consequences. 

Gotta scar 'em for life.  Or something.  Like I said, insane.

Er, does the meaning of the expression "a roll in the hay" escape the appreciation of these social/traditionalist "conservative" types completely?  Even among adults involved in heterosexual relationships, copulation pour l'amour o pour le sport goes on quite commonly without any intention that these contacts will lead to cohabitation, much less the ties of matrimony. 

And baby-making is not the objective of all this swiving.  Heck, it's an adverse consequence much to be avoided. 

Except for people like sams, who's insane, people in our civilization today widely and unabashedly acknowledge that even the fetus in utero (regardless of gender) has the capacity to seek and find pleasure in genital - what we'll call "sexual" - stimulation, and that capacity continues to manifest throughout infancy, childhood, and (hoo, boy, definitely!) adolescence, in spite of the way crazy people like sams insanely insist that for some reason (er, what reason?) these "legal infants" are not supposed to engage that libidinal drive in any way at all.

Yeah, sure.  And the participants in a Boy Scout campfire circle-jerk are engaged in a criminal conspiracy, each the "victim" of the kid sitting to his left.  And all of them should spend the rest of their lives as registered "violent sex offenders," 'cause by sams lights, they're all "NAMBLOID" types.   

The capacity for sexual stimulation and for deriving pleasure from sexual stimulation is a characteristic so commonplace among human beings from before birth through the very last years of old age that the absence of such is considered evidence of organic or psychiatric pathology.  This kind of anhedonia is, for example, one of the symptoms sought by doctors in assessing patients suspected of suffering depressed mood.  We don't search out such symptoms in children and young teenagers when we're exploring such diagnostic possibilities because kids pick up a good appreciation of the gibbering insanity of people like sams and clam up about the sex play in which they indulge, both with age-peers and with adults.  They stress out with embarrassment when any adult asks them about it.

Not that adults with mood disorders don't respond with similar reluctance.  Remember Heinlein's dictum: "Everybody lies about sex." 

Capacities such as what we might as well call "the sex drive" (not the drive to reproduce, or to find a life partner in marriage, but just to get one's proverbial rocks off) do not manifest so reliably, so strongly, and so widely if the exercise of such capacities is intrinsically, invariably, inescapably dangerous or damaging.  One might as well condemn a baby for gumming Zwieback as for happily humping a plush toy in his playpen, right? 

Or a ten-year-old (boy or girl) spending rather more time in the bathroom than the chores of grooming and elimination necessitate. 

They also tend to discover at early ages the compounded pleasure of sexual activities with other people.  Mutual manual stimulation is so commonplace as to be unremarkable, and indeed proves to be unmemorable, the kind of "everybody does it when you're a kid" activities that very, very few grown people care even to consciously acknowledge. 

Remember, we modern Americans are living in a culture where a President of these United States who got blowjobs regularly from government employees subject to his direct orders could say: "I did not have sex with that woman."

When irrumation in the Oval Office isn't considered "sex," how might most adult men think about how they used to get really nice blowjobs from kindly old Mr. Johnson (or his fellow "NAMBLOID") on their way home from Little League practice?

Okay, we've established that in the AnCap society of Ceres and the rest of the Belt as depicted in Escape From Terra there is emphatically no economic reason why people who have not yet reached the arbitrary calendar age set by frothingly insane social/traditionalist "conservative" authoritarians like sams can't emancipate themselves by providing independently for themselves their own means of securing food, clothing, housing, and the other material requirements of life support in this environment. 

We have also established that well before the idiotically arbitrary and senseless "ages of consent" noised about by sams, normal, healthy human beings have a perfectly functional appetite for pleasurable genital - sexual - stimulation. 

Heck, they even come into the capability to generate offspring of their own.  Remember those young American males who wind up paying child support for decades as the result of screwing-around they'd done when they themselves were jailbait a decade or so away from the daily necessity of shaving?

So what kinds of conditions in the AnCap society of Ceres and the rest of the Asteroid Belt could possibly exist to support sams' howlingly insane contention that there would be condoned under the Zero Aggression Principle any sort of fantastical "conservative" familial practice of violently assaulting those "NAMBLOID" persons who engage in consenting sexual relationships with persons (male or female) in the first or second decades of life?

Just frack off little clown ... I have no time to debate internet gurus on the idiotic side of the libertarian spectrum.

Intent upon proving repeatedy that he most definitely is gibberingly insane, we've got from sams:

Did the EFT team hired some Chinese trolls to balance the debate ?

Shove your Randian BS up your ass, Children before 18 are under discretion of their parents, who are the ones who feed and take care of them until they can make their own decisions.

Ah, good.  So when persons of any age demonstrate the ability to "feed and take care of" themselves, "they can make their own decisions" regarding sexual liaisons regardless of calendar age, right?

Jeez, no wonder the social/traditionalist "conservative" types hate the capitalist free market just as much as do their fellow authoritarians on the socialist/progressive/"Liberal" side. By freeing the individual human being from economically crippling restrictions imposed to prevent her/him from earning valuta (or plunder him/her into perpetual poverty), an AnCap economy poses a terrible threat to the crushing-out of the individual autonomy that comes naturally with individual material prosperity.  

What next, sams?  Are you going to fume, Bumble-fashion, about parish workhouse orphans getting uppity on an excess of protein when the undertaker's family allow them scraps of leftover meat instead of keeping 'em on a proper pauper's diet of gruel?  

Treating Paedophiles like criminals isn't infringing on the right of anyone ... unless criminals ought to be free too you know.

Any children below 15 can't consent to anything because for one their aren't mature and for two they don't know what the frack is sex ... so you are a fracking pervert is you are a NAMBLOID.

Even for Children above 15 to 18, their consent is still subject to their parents judgement as their guardians.

Interesting unnecessary capitalization of "Pedophiles," there, but that's only further evidence of sams' insanity, which is an already established fact.  Let's see; sams insists that it is moral to physically attack, imprison, and otherwise punish people who have a sexual interest in children or adolescents not yet grown to meet some arbitrary "age of consent" because they're criminals, and they're criminals because sams and his co-religionists have insisted that "children below 15 can't consent to anything."

Oh? So how come we keep getting all this social/traditionalist "conservative" noise about how people committing violent assault (including mayhem and murder) well below the age of 15 have got to be "prosecuted as adults!" in order to preserve society (however these collectivist clowns want to define "society" this week) from catastrophic disintegration?  

I had remarked some days ago that the matter of moral agency doesn't seem to be coming into this discussion at all.  When is it that a human being becomes capable of criminal mens rea?  

Speaking of religious whackjobs, are readers here aware that the Roman Catholic Church considers a member of their flock to have become capable of committing a mortal sin - and thereby condemning his/her unshriven soul to hell for all eternity - at the age of 7 years?  

Talk about consequences.....  

Have social/traditionalist "conservative" specimens like sams made any case as yet that sexual activity is necessarily and invariable harmful to human beings at any age?  Nope.  The best we've seen in this forum thus far - and it's not from sams - runs along the lines of the unsupported contention that because sexual relationships are very "intense" (oh, yeah?), they're too brain-boggling for a Homo sapiens below some arbitrary calendar age to engage in without drastic adverse consequences.  

Gotta scar 'em for life.  Or something.  Like I said, insane.

Er, does the meaning of the expression "a roll in the hay" escape the appreciation of these social/traditionalist "conservative" types completely?  Even among adults involved in heterosexual relationships, copulation pour l'amour o pour le sport goes on quite commonly without any intention that these contacts will lead to cohabitation, much less the ties of matrimony.  

And baby-making is not the objective of all this swiving.  Heck, it's an adverse consequence much to be avoided.  

Except for people like sams, who's insane, people in our civilization today widely and unabashedly acknowledge that even the fetus in utero (regardless of gender) has the capacity to seek and find pleasure in genital - what we'll call "sexual" - stimulation, and that capacity continues to manifest throughout infancy, childhood, and (hoo, boy, definitely!) adolescence, in spite of the way crazy people like sams insanely insist that for some reason (er, what reason?) these "legal infants" are not supposed to engage that libidinal drive in any way at all.

Yeah, sure.  And the participants in a Boy Scout campfire circle-jerk are engaged in a criminal conspiracy, each the "victim" of the kid sitting to his left.  And all of them should spend the rest of their lives as registered "violent sex offenders," 'cause by sams lights, they're all "NAMBLOID" types.    

The capacity for sexual stimulation and for deriving pleasure from sexual stimulation is a characteristic so commonplace among human beings from before birth through the very last years of old age that the absence of such is considered evidence of organic or psychiatric pathology.  This kind of anhedonia is, for example, one of the symptoms sought by doctors in assessing patients suspected of suffering depressed mood.  We don't search out such symptoms in children and young teenagers when we're exploring such diagnostic possibilities because kids pick up a good appreciation of the gibbering insanity of people like sams and clam up about the sex play in which they indulge, both with age-peers and with adults.  They stress out with embarrassment when any adult asks them about it.

Not that adults with mood disorders don't respond with similar reluctance.  Remember Heinlein's dictum: "Everybody lies about sex."  

Capacities such as what we might as well call "the sex drive" (not the drive to reproduce, or to find a life partner in marriage, but just to get one's proverbial rocks off) do not manifest so reliably, so strongly, and so widely if the exercise of such capacities is intrinsically, invariably, inescapably dangerous or damaging.  One might as well condemn a baby for gumming Zwieback as for happily humping a plush toy in his playpen, right?  

Or a ten-year-old (boy or girl) spending rather more time in the bathroom than the chores of grooming and elimination necessitate.  

They also tend to discover at early ages the compounded pleasure of sexual activities with other people.  Mutual manual stimulation is so commonplace as to be unremarkable, and indeed proves to be unmemorable, the kind of "everybody does it when you're a kid" activities that very, very few grown people care even to consciously acknowledge.  

Remember, we modern Americans are living in a culture where a President of these United States who got blowjobs regularly from government employees subject to his direct orders could say: "I did not have sex with that woman."

When irrumation in the Oval Office isn't considered "sex," how might most adult men think about how they used to get really nice blowjobs from kindly old Mr. Johnson (or his fellow "NAMBLOID") on their way home from Little League practice?

Okay, we've established that in the AnCap society of Ceres and the rest of the Belt as depicted in Escape From Terra there is emphatically no economic reason why people who have not yet reached the arbitrary calendar age set by frothingly insane social/traditionalist "conservative" authoritarians like sams can't emancipate themselves by providing independently for themselves their own means of securing food, clothing, housing, and the other material requirements of life support in this environment.  

We have also established that well before the idiotically arbitrary and senseless "ages of consent" noised about by sams, normal, healthy human beings have a perfectly functional appetite for pleasurable genital - sexual - stimulation.  

Heck, they even come into the capability to generate offspring of their own.  Remember those young American males who wind up paying child support for decades as the result of screwing-around they'd done when they themselves were jailbait a decade or so away from the daily necessity of shaving?

So what kinds of conditions in the AnCap society of Ceres and the rest of the Asteroid Belt could possibly exist to support sams' howlingly insane contention that there would be condoned under the Zero Aggression Principle any sort of fantastical "conservative" familial practice of violently assaulting those "NAMBLOID" persons who engage in consenting sexual relationships with persons (male or female) in the first or second decades of life?

Just frack off little clown ... I have no time to debate internet gurus on the idiotic side of the libertarian spectrum.

Well, ah, not to put too fine a point on it ... given how you feel about the people here ....

What exactly are you doing here at all?

Just frack off little clown ... I have no time to debate internet gurus on the idiotic side of the libertarian spectrum.

Well, ah, not to put too fine a point on it ... given how you feel about the people here ....

What exactly are you doing here at all?

I love to come comment the great EFT comics, but when a patronizing, condescending clown playing the internet gurus insult your intelligence ... I send him fracking off.

I enjoy some off-topic chat, but mighty-walls-of-text written in the condescending self-righteous tone don't interest me ... responding is only feeding the psychotic behaviour.

I'm sure you don't appreciate either the Libertarian/moron standard ''OMG You are a statist COnservative'' monster smear failed as intellectualism ... best answer is to send him fracking off.

In response to sams' rabidly insane non-reply to my earlier post:

Just frack off little clown ... I have no time to debate internet gurus on the idiotic side of the libertarian spectrum.

...we read:

Well, ah, not to put too fine a point on it ... given how you feel about the people here ....

What exactly are you doing here at all?

Well, he is insane, after all....

I've found sams interesting in the context of this "Pedo Bear" (whatever in hell that means) discussion because he seems reliably to personify the senseless presumptions at the base of all efforts to criminalize consensual human action in the name of maintaining some sort of fabulous traditionalist aggressively violent ordinative scheme.  

sams' is the voice of Prohibition, of Comstockery, of the War on (Some) Drugs, of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, and of "every kind of tyranny over the mind of man."  

@J Thomas:

What I'm supposed to respond this ?

Well, he is insane, after all....

I've found sams interesting in the context of this "Pedo Bear" (whatever in hell that means) discussion because he seems reliably to personify the senseless presumptions at the base of all efforts to criminalize consensual human action in the name of maintaining some sort of fabulous traditionalist aggressively violent ordinative scheme.  

sams' is the voice of Prohibition, of Comstockery, of the War on (Some) Drugs, of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, and of "every kind of tyranny over the mind of man."  

Do I really have to respond to this massive straw-man and paternalist condescension ?


Once again : frack off.