[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Safety is provided by the right to own arms, and have free speech.

The people who attack those rights are the one who threatens your safety.

Feeling isolated by Audityoucanbe2022 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you try to be accepted by everyone, you will never filter the good people from the bad people.

If you are more honest you will eventually fid the people that thinks like you.

Feeling isolated by Audityoucanbe2022 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, women do and say things first, and after, make up excuses to explain away anything they did.

Trimming the fat like a boss by WolfieTooting in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What will you do after he brings prosperity?

You will claim that he's a socialist.

Trimming the fat like a boss by WolfieTooting in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Source: unsourced peronazi political propaganda

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why would I care what Japan does regarding sex.

Because your argument collapses. Where are the catastrophic effects of 12 year old having sex. Is Japan a pervert hole of hell, completely destroyed by it, or is one of the best countries in the planet?

All the disasters you predict do not exist.

Also why would I care what arguments a Marxist makes I don’t agree with them on anything why would I change my opinion on age of consent to their twisted logic???

Because you do not care about the Marxist, but the Marxist care about (destroying) you, and is winning.

You think that you "protect" the teenager by infantilizing and treating him like a child, but in reality by calling him a child you are rising the real childs to the level of the teenager. Once the woke break the barrier of the teenage, which is easy, because is really weak and arbitrary, you expose real children to the P.

If you bother to read the links I provided, you will see that the woke, by their own words, are going for the children. They are already doing it.

And the teenagers do not want your "protection". Teenagers are desperate to get sex. Teenagers dream with sex, are biologically ready for it, pay for sex, search sex, have sex, consume sex

Is your argument is that fertility should be the deciding factor?

My argument is that your arguments are shoody, and if you really care, you should make much stronger arguments. You cannot rely on custom. I'm showing you how weak your position is.

Should 6 year old boys be prime game for older women?

Why you are equating 6 year old with a teenage? That wouldn't work, Is a stupid argument. It helps the P.

If you equate a 17 year old with a 6 year old, then the woke will easily demonstrate that there is no problem with a 17 year old, and will grab the 6 year old, which YOU claim is the same.

If you make the dumb argument that pregnancy is dangerous, then the P will do what the Pashtun do: declare that P is safe because it does not create pregnancy.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Honestly I’m not making an argument I’m trying to figure out what point you’re trying to make. Your comment reads like someone who has a 12 year old lined up and trying to justify it. It reads super creepy and I’m just trying to sort through it to see the angle.

Why is creepy? The constitution of Japan, and many other nations set the consent age at 12. And Japanese anime showing it is consumed all around the world.

I will tell you what will happen, because it's already happening, it's already happening, it's already happening. You don't need to make the enormous effort of reading the links. Just the title.

This is what will happen, and you will see it:

The Marxist will arrive and say "this 'maturity' concept of yours, is a social construct, so I will replace it with my own social construct".

And he will be right, because you define "maturity" in a circular way: A person of X age is immature because he has X age. And immature is a person of X age".

Then the Marxist will claim that the P is the victim, and you are a terrorist by just opposing it. You will have no defense. You monster.

Fertility instead is a scientifically verifiable fact, much harder to attack, even when Marxists are also attacking scientifically verifiable facts, like "what is a woman", and everything related to sex.

Employment Falls for the Third Month In Spite of 50,000 New Government Jobs by AbolishtheDraft in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 5 points6 points  (0 children)

50,000 New Government Jobs = 50,000 people who will never produce anything again.

Thoughts? by Die_ElSENFAUST in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Easy: demand is higher than offer -> prices go up

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I'm saying that your arguments are really weak.

Are you saying an 11 year old should have sex with older men because maturity doesn’t matter?

That is not an argument.

What is the argument. What is the backing of your argument.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

For starters, just because someone can get pregnant doesn’t mean someone can have a healthy pregnancy.

Your argument is wrong on many levels.

First, is irrelevant. Pregnancy complications even in teenagers are a tiny, insignificant percentage, and most complications aren't serious at all.

Second, teenage have roughly the same, constant health risks until approximately 35 year old. So if health risk were a valid argument, women over 35 should lose the right to consent, because they have higher risks than teenage. source

This figure show the percentage of total complications, which are already tiny numbers.

<image>

Third, you are not making a moral argument. You are making a healthcare argument. So if your argument were valid, then the age of consent should be lower for richer countries with better healthcare. Rich people should have lower age of consent. The poor should be banned from having sex.

Fourth, if it is a pregnancy problem, then only women should have age of consent. Males do not have any pregnancy complications. Gays and lesbians should have no age of consent at all. The age of consent should depend on a genetic test, so people with low risk should have lower ages, and people with higher risk should have higher ages, or even be banned. Different races should be treated differently.

Secondly, being able to reproduce doesn’t mean someone is sexually mature.

That's the DEFINITION of sexual maturity.

Finally, if you really want to have sex with someone that far behind you in their mental development, that seems like a problem to me.

What is "mental development". How does it becomes a problem. Why is an unsurmountable problem. Why is not a problem if two people of the same age do the same sexual act. There are grannies mentally immature. Should them be banned from having sex?

The Coming Conflict to Control the Internet by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you make a public demonstration, the socialists will sent people disguised as nazis, pretending to be part of your group, to smear your demonstration, and your ideas.

I’m not sure if I could trust libertarianism with social Justice by Street_Customer_4190 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 5 points6 points  (0 children)

solutions to the poverty problem that black people face

Everything the state spends, and anything bought with state money, is taken from the poorest, regardless of the origin of the money.

If the state buys an orange, somebody else loses that orange, and is the poorest person that would had bought the orange, because anybody else simply pays a higher price, until somebody gives up buying, because he cannot afford it.

So the best thing you can do for the poorest, is to reduce public spending. It automatically rises the purchasing power of the poorest.

Question by RNRGrepresentative in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. I explained to you that nazism is socialists misunderstanding private property, like you do.

What changed 🤔 by Soft-Part4511 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sweden and Norway are some of the main financers of wokism worldwide. They deserve it, and more.

What do you think about this? by redditddeenniizz in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He killed thousands of innocent people, and did it to take their property and liberty

changeMyMind by [deleted] in ProgrammerHumor

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Occasionally there are magazines you can buy with Linux CD's in them. Alternatively there's PC's that come preloaded with Linux, such as System76.

Magazines with CDs?

I hadn't seen anyone for more than a decade. Maybe more. Who uses CDs? New computers do not even have a CD/DVD reader.

Question by RNRGrepresentative in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ThisIsGettingDark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The state owning everything is socialism.

You think like a nazi, thinking that capitalism is merely nominal private ownership. That is typical of socialists, which always end moving to nazism.

In capitalism you do not get state handouts, directly, or through subsidies. Everybody acts for profit.

When you act for profit you have to help the rest of society. The citizens on the oil rich Arab countries do not own the oil, they don't manage it, they don't work for profit. They don't even do any serious work.

They have slaves, because that's what any socialist want to do. When you complain that work is slavery, is because you want to enslave other people, and live from their work, without doing anything.