Topic: the entire us election will be based on one fairly irrelevant issue!
dw !jdTkvovFCQ started this discussion 14 years ago #21,665
Yay!
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #343,672
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 18 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #343,676
this is unusual because...?
dw !jdTkvovFCQ (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #343,680
For some reason I am not being spammed with our election stuff, I guess nobody cares because it's summer also the last one was last year
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #343,710
i hope it's focused on something outside of the realm of politics, like whether churches should be allowed to gay marry.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 22 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,906
@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
i hope it's focused on something outside of the realm of politics, like whether churches should be forced to offer contraceptive insurance.
OH WAIT LOL
i hope it's focused on something outside of the realm of politics, like whether churches should be forced to offer contraceptive insurance.
OH WAIT LOL
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,940
@previous (E)
churches are businesses. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
that's it
This means congress may not establish a national religion, nor prevent people from exorcising the religion of their choosing.
it says nothing of taxation or regulation. the only reasons churches have gotten away with not being taxed or regulated is because they operated like a powerful little feudalistic monarchy. but we've already got a federal government, we don't need anyone else trying to run the show.
tax churches, and regulate their business practices.
and don't tell me they'll do less charity work, large corporations, like churches, fund charity all the time. it's the capitalist way
churches are businesses. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
that's it
This means congress may not establish a national religion, nor prevent people from exorcising the religion of their choosing.
it says nothing of taxation or regulation. the only reasons churches have gotten away with not being taxed or regulated is because they operated like a powerful little feudalistic monarchy. but we've already got a federal government, we don't need anyone else trying to run the show.
tax churches, and regulate their business practices.
and don't tell me they'll do less charity work, large corporations, like churches, fund charity all the time. it's the capitalist way
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 58 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,950
@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
Churches that can't afford the Church Tax would sue and claim that it's unconstitutional because they cannot afford to pay and therefore are being prohibited in the free exercise of their religion.
Churches that can't afford the Church Tax would sue and claim that it's unconstitutional because they cannot afford to pay and therefore are being prohibited in the free exercise of their religion.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,952
@previous (F)
Like how people sue tge government when they can't pay their income tax?
Do you know how taxes work?
Like how people sue tge government when they can't pay their income tax?
Do you know how taxes work?
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,953
@343,940 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
Regulation is the opposite of the free exercise thereof. Unbelievably idiotic argument.
Taxation could be put upon churches, but would likely be argued as a prohibition against the free exercise, and would probably succeed.
Ban all organizations not controlled by the federal government. Great idea. Surely you don't actually believe this.
You seem desperately confused about what capitalism is. HINT: It has nothing to do with taxation and regulation.
Regulation is the opposite of the free exercise thereof. Unbelievably idiotic argument.
Taxation could be put upon churches, but would likely be argued as a prohibition against the free exercise, and would probably succeed.
Ban all organizations not controlled by the federal government. Great idea. Surely you don't actually believe this.
You seem desperately confused about what capitalism is. HINT: It has nothing to do with taxation and regulation.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,955
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,956
@343,710 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
Why should we follow laws based on some else' religion? these people are ignorant, and power hungry.
Why should we follow laws based on some else' religion? these people are ignorant, and power hungry.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,957
@343,953 (E)
> Regulation is the opposite of the free exercise thereof. Unbelievably idiotic argument.
Oh good, i can sacrifice children in the name of god. Good thing stuff like that, you know, the excercising my beliefs, isn't prohibited in any way. Unless some federal laws apply first...
> Taxation could be put upon churches, but would likely be argued as a prohibition against the free exercise, and would probably succeed.
That's the same argument i use to justify sacrifice children on a satanic alter. Of course i shouldn't be prevented from practicing whatever crazy thing i believe.
> Ban all organizations not controlled by the federal government. Great idea. Surely you don't actually believe this.
I believe the civil war has already answered the question as to who wears the pants in this hemisphere. (it's not the church, as much as they like to think they're in charge.)
> You seem desperately confused about what capitalism is. HINT: It has nothing to do with taxation and regulation.
I probably wasn't clear here: the capitalist way is to make money by being productive, not beg for money and redistribute wealth.
> Regulation is the opposite of the free exercise thereof. Unbelievably idiotic argument.
Oh good, i can sacrifice children in the name of god. Good thing stuff like that, you know, the excercising my beliefs, isn't prohibited in any way. Unless some federal laws apply first...
> Taxation could be put upon churches, but would likely be argued as a prohibition against the free exercise, and would probably succeed.
That's the same argument i use to justify sacrifice children on a satanic alter. Of course i shouldn't be prevented from practicing whatever crazy thing i believe.
> Ban all organizations not controlled by the federal government. Great idea. Surely you don't actually believe this.
I believe the civil war has already answered the question as to who wears the pants in this hemisphere. (it's not the church, as much as they like to think they're in charge.)
> You seem desperately confused about what capitalism is. HINT: It has nothing to do with taxation and regulation.
I probably wasn't clear here: the capitalist way is to make money by being productive, not beg for money and redistribute wealth.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,958
@343,952 (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
> Like how people sue tge government when they can't pay their income tax?
Is it defined in the constitution that congress shall make no law prohibiting a man from keeping all his income?
> Like how people sue tge government when they can't pay their income tax?
Is it defined in the constitution that congress shall make no law prohibiting a man from keeping all his income?
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,960
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,961
Without taxes, who will pay for the roads and sewers that we all use daily?
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,962
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,963
@previous (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
lol. Sometimes I think that mountainman actually believes such things.
lol. Sometimes I think that mountainman actually believes such things.
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,964
Wait, what issue are we even talking about?
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,965
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,967
@343,964 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
Taxing churches and prohibiting child sacrifice through federal laws
Taxing churches and prohibiting child sacrifice through federal laws
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 14 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,968
@343,964 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
I think some of them are butthurt about paying tax or something. I'm not sure.
I think some of them are butthurt about paying tax or something. I'm not sure.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,973
@343,957 (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
> Oh good, i can sacrifice children in the name of god. Good thing stuff like that, you know, the excercising my beliefs, isn't prohibited in any way. Unless some federal laws apply first...
You are supremely confused about what it means to "exercise one's beliefs". This is not a grant of additional rights. You do not gain rights over the bodies of others from this provision.
> That's the same argument i use to justify sacrifice children on a satanic alter. Of course i shouldn't be prevented from practicing whatever crazy thing i believe.
Except that the money really is your property, while the child isn't.
> I believe the civil war has already answered the question as to who wears the pants in this hemisphere. (it's not the church, as much as they like to think they're in charge.)
Wow. I guess I was wrong. You really are a spastic.
> I probably wasn't clear here: the capitalist way is to make money by being productive, not beg for money and redistribute wealth.
The capitalist way is voluntary transactions. This includes begging and redistribution.
> Oh good, i can sacrifice children in the name of god. Good thing stuff like that, you know, the excercising my beliefs, isn't prohibited in any way. Unless some federal laws apply first...
You are supremely confused about what it means to "exercise one's beliefs". This is not a grant of additional rights. You do not gain rights over the bodies of others from this provision.
> That's the same argument i use to justify sacrifice children on a satanic alter. Of course i shouldn't be prevented from practicing whatever crazy thing i believe.
Except that the money really is your property, while the child isn't.
> I believe the civil war has already answered the question as to who wears the pants in this hemisphere. (it's not the church, as much as they like to think they're in charge.)
Wow. I guess I was wrong. You really are a spastic.
> I probably wasn't clear here: the capitalist way is to make money by being productive, not beg for money and redistribute wealth.
The capitalist way is voluntary transactions. This includes begging and redistribution.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,974
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,975
Anonymous E double-posted this 14 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,976
@343,962 (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
> Donations to charity solves everything
> Donations to charity
Is this standard American English?
> Donations to charity solves everything
> Donations to charity
Is this standard American English?
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,977
@343,973 (E)
But in satanism i do have a right to sacrifice children, it's our main tennant. Stop trying to infringe on my religious freedoms.
But in satanism i do have a right to sacrifice children, it's our main tennant. Stop trying to infringe on my religious freedoms.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,979
@343,963 (I)
Private roads have been extensively written on. The only problem is in the privatization stages, which is a effect of their initial socialization.
Private roads have been extensively written on. The only problem is in the privatization stages, which is a effect of their initial socialization.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 26 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,980
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 12 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,981
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 11 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,982
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,984
@343,977 (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
There is only one objective reality. There are no additional rights to be gained. You may have additional desires because of your religion, but you do not gain any positive rights from it.
There is only one objective reality. There are no additional rights to be gained. You may have additional desires because of your religion, but you do not gain any positive rights from it.
Anonymous E double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,985
@343,980 (I)
The gated community I live in has privately owned and maintained streets. I get parcels from FedEx and other market companies. I am not sure how the sewer system works.
The gated community I live in has privately owned and maintained streets. I get parcels from FedEx and other market companies. I am not sure how the sewer system works.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 41 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,986
Some religions do gain additional rights. Such as the right to wear headgear in a identification photo.
Anonymous I double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,987
@343,985 (E)
What about the main roads that lead out? Do you use them? Find out about the sewer and how much it costs to maintain.
What about the main roads that lead out? Do you use them? Find out about the sewer and how much it costs to maintain.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 14 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,988
@343,984 (E)
So then i can't bar people from gay marrying just because i find it disgusting? Blasphemy
So then i can't bar people from gay marrying just because i find it disgusting? Blasphemy
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 1 second later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,989
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,990
@343,982 (I)
http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf
The Privatization of Roads and Highways by Dr Walter Block
http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf
The Privatization of Roads and Highways by Dr Walter Block
Anonymous E double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,992
@343,987 (I)
Of course I use them. I'm sorry but I will not be investigating sewer costs. Just letting you know now, so you don't get disappointed.
Of course I use them. I'm sorry but I will not be investigating sewer costs. Just letting you know now, so you don't get disappointed.
Anonymous E triple-posted this 14 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,993
Anonymous E quadruple-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,994
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,997
Anonymous I double-posted this 14 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #343,998
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #344,001
@343,997 (I)
Thank god for the establishment of religion in our politics. If politics can't regulate religion at least religion can regulate our politics.
Thank god for the establishment of religion in our politics. If politics can't regulate religion at least religion can regulate our politics.
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #344,018
Anonymous K double-posted this 14 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #344,019
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #344,318
Anonymous E double-posted this 14 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #344,319
Anonymous E triple-posted this 14 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #344,320
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,376
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,420
dw !jdTkvovFCQ (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,422
abandon thread
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,481
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,488
@previous (E)
When people are voting for laws based on their religion, you can't blame the state. Wow, it's just incredibly dishonest to try and divorce this issue from religion. So I now know that this is Mountainman. Thanks.
When people are voting for laws based on their religion, you can't blame the state. Wow, it's just incredibly dishonest to try and divorce this issue from religion. So I now know that this is Mountainman. Thanks.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,494
@344,481 (E)
Why do you hate the state so much mountainman?
It's giving you the electricity and internet connection you need to bitch about it constantly, you could at least be a bit fucking grateful for that.
Why do you hate the state so much mountainman?
It's giving you the electricity and internet connection you need to bitch about it constantly, you could at least be a bit fucking grateful for that.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,496
@344,488 (I)
> voting for laws
This is statism. Remove the state, there is no voting for laws regarding other people. It's incredibly dishonest to exonerate statism from the problem of religious states.
> voting for laws
This is statism. Remove the state, there is no voting for laws regarding other people. It's incredibly dishonest to exonerate statism from the problem of religious states.
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 1 second later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,497
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 37 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,498
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 12 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,501
@344,494 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
He doesnt understand such things. He believes that since his gated community pays for their own streets, that no one should have to pay taxes.
He doesnt understand such things. He believes that since his gated community pays for their own streets, that no one should have to pay taxes.
Anonymous I double-posted this 14 years ago, 44 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,503
@344,496 (E)
Who makes the laws? Does the "state" rise up on it's own lol? You dislike the state because it prevents you from fucking kids, Mountainfag.
Who makes the laws? Does the "state" rise up on it's own lol? You dislike the state because it prevents you from fucking kids, Mountainfag.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,507
@previous (I)
Who steals? Who murders? Individuals do, and their actions are justified by a philosophy known as statism.
Who steals? Who murders? Individuals do, and their actions are justified by a philosophy known as statism.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,511
@previous (E)
Oh okay. this issue has nothing to do with religion. Religious people don't band together and ban gay people from adopting, and sick women from having abortions. It's just the state, so we shouldnt even get mad at a book full of fairy tales that encourages hate and fear. got it.
Oh okay. this issue has nothing to do with religion. Religious people don't band together and ban gay people from adopting, and sick women from having abortions. It's just the state, so we shouldnt even get mad at a book full of fairy tales that encourages hate and fear. got it.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 27 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,512
@344,497 (C)
> implying
@344,498 (E)
False dichotomy.
@344,501 (I)
Taxes are statist decadence. If people can pay for their own streets, then the state has become redundant!
> implying
@344,498 (E)
False dichotomy.
@344,501 (I)
Taxes are statist decadence. If people can pay for their own streets, then the state has become redundant!
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,516
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
He also believes that children who have been molested should just shun the predators. No police required. lol religion fucks with his perception of reality.
He also believes that children who have been molested should just shun the predators. No police required. lol religion fucks with his perception of reality.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 32 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,517
@344,511 (I)
> this issue has nothing to do with religion.
You can argue that if you like. I wouldn't.
> Religious people don't band together and ban gay people from adopting, and sick women from having abortions.
The state bands together and does this. Religious people band together and try to influence the state. These people would not do these things directly, but wil do them indirectly, because they have been corrupted by the philosophy of statism.
> so we shouldnt even get mad at a book full of fairy tales that encourages hate and fear
Are you talking about the Quran?
> this issue has nothing to do with religion.
You can argue that if you like. I wouldn't.
> Religious people don't band together and ban gay people from adopting, and sick women from having abortions.
The state bands together and does this. Religious people band together and try to influence the state. These people would not do these things directly, but wil do them indirectly, because they have been corrupted by the philosophy of statism.
> so we shouldnt even get mad at a book full of fairy tales that encourages hate and fear
Are you talking about the Quran?
Anonymous E double-posted this 14 years ago, 23 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,519
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,552
@previous (E)
You have said that when children are molested, their perpetrators shunned be shunned. No police called. If they are not shunned, it means the activity wasnt harmful. So they can continue fucking the kid. The state keeps you from fucking children, and the church encourages it.
No wonder you hate the state.
You have said that when children are molested, their perpetrators shunned be shunned. No police called. If they are not shunned, it means the activity wasnt harmful. So they can continue fucking the kid. The state keeps you from fucking children, and the church encourages it.
No wonder you hate the state.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 20 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,561
@previous (I)
> the church encourages it.
You are actually retarded.
I was not advocating a course of action; I was presenting alternative courses of actions. You seem to misinterpret "shunned" by which I mean ostracized. Nobody would want to live or work with such a person, such that they would be forced to leave, and likely not be accepted anywhere else.
> the church encourages it.
You are actually retarded.
I was not advocating a course of action; I was presenting alternative courses of actions. You seem to misinterpret "shunned" by which I mean ostracized. Nobody would want to live or work with such a person, such that they would be forced to leave, and likely not be accepted anywhere else.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,563
@previous (E)
People are very willing to live and work, and stay married to such people. Look at Jerry Sandusky lol statism wins again.
People are very willing to live and work, and stay married to such people. Look at Jerry Sandusky lol statism wins again.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,578
@344,494 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> It's giving you the electricity and internet connection you need to bitch about it constantly, you could at least be a bit fucking grateful for that.
lol’d
> It's giving you the electricity and internet connection you need to bitch about it constantly, you could at least be a bit fucking grateful for that.
lol’d
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 55 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,592
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,596
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,629
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 15 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #344,831
@previous (E)
People hurt children, and no one shuns them or makes them quit. Often times, the state has to step in and stop the abuse. You don't agree with that, and believe that the crimes are not that bad if everyone isn't ostracizing the perpetrator. Still confused?
People hurt children, and no one shuns them or makes them quit. Often times, the state has to step in and stop the abuse. You don't agree with that, and believe that the crimes are not that bad if everyone isn't ostracizing the perpetrator. Still confused?
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #345,047
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #345,057
@previous (E)
Sometimes the children have to tell them. Especially when mommy or daddy wont kick out the rapist.
Sometimes the children have to tell them. Especially when mommy or daddy wont kick out the rapist.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #345,083
@previous (I)
You are now broaching the subject of different sets of morality. Some groups may find gay sex, or pedo sex, or 1st cousin sex acceptable, and others not.
You are now broaching the subject of different sets of morality. Some groups may find gay sex, or pedo sex, or 1st cousin sex acceptable, and others not.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #345,084
@previous (E)
Nope. That's what you said. You said that police shoudnt be called because people will just shun the offender. As we've seen in many instances, people do not shun them and the child endures further abuse. These kids grow into adults who vote for laws against child sexual abuse. In your world, if you can't fight someone off, you're fucked.
Nope. That's what you said. You said that police shoudnt be called because people will just shun the offender. As we've seen in many instances, people do not shun them and the child endures further abuse. These kids grow into adults who vote for laws against child sexual abuse. In your world, if you can't fight someone off, you're fucked.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #345,087
@previous (I)
> You said that police shoudnt be called because people will just shun the offender.
No, I didn't. As I already explained, I was asked to provide alternate option to calling the police. This was one I came up with. I am not saying this is the only way, or even a better way.
> You said that police shoudnt be called because people will just shun the offender.
No, I didn't. As I already explained, I was asked to provide alternate option to calling the police. This was one I came up with. I am not saying this is the only way, or even a better way.