YZZAJ @Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club
- Status
- Ascended
The Trench
Joined Nov 2021
YZZAJ
boosted
@AbNormal @itzpaquet @rats If baby jesus wanted us to think of them as people, he wouldn't have let them commit the crimes they dun got caught fer, an iffin they aint do em furreal anyway, wellun they did summin, baby jesus doan lai-yuh
@theblessing 1984 is about the experience of a low caste member in a dystopia, bnw is about the experience of a high caste member. High cast members get to go to the feelies, the orgies, they get to have soma, they have relative freedom. The proles in 1984 get jack shit, they get the two minutes hate and gruel and barely any cigarettes and have to make a razor last long past it's point of usability. The proles do not get to have feelies, and orgies, and soma, no, the proles get to have disgusting old rotten whores with painted faces to trick you until you get real close, close enough to smell em.
@doorroo @theblessing I like F451 because it offers hope, it says, "Yes things are bad, they are fucked, but you can get across the river and escape still"
@sekuhara @mario @bitterblossom @doorroo Your idea is much simpler and heuristic, I prefer it. I forget that bureaucracy isn't a part of the environment, it is a practice, I usually try and twist this system into something functional rather than abolish it, because of this forgetfulness. But it is more than forgetfulness, it is fear, there is a fear in me that if bureaucracy was ever collapsed, everything everywhere will die. And yet I consciously hate bureaucracy, I find it wasteful of time and energy and resources, but it's like an addiction, It's like a comfort, It's sick. Bureaucracy is like the Little drummer boy and when I march along with him I feel oh so in step, and oh so at ease, and yet in the back of my mind there is something scratching, screaming to get out because it knows that we are trapped.
@doorroo @mario @bitterblossom See this is a valid point, I'm open to ideas but they have to be thought out and logical, not doctrine
YZZAJ
boosted
@mario @Jazzy_Butts @bitterblossom Adults always make informed decisions, never get taken advantage of, and are, of course, never wrong about anything ever.
@doorroo @mario @bitterblossom This is a valid point that I have considered myself and is why I believe everyone should be restricted from giving consent from infancy onward, and it will only be when they are able to pass a series of tests to prove they aren't emptyheadded. Some will pass the tests at an early age, single digits for some, most will pass as teens, and another smaller percentage would pass much older, or maybe even never.
YZZAJ
boosted
@bitterblossom @mario @Jazzy_Butts
(continuing here bc l.t is bugging out on me too much)
consent choice is a simple positive or negative. that doesn't require a description, that's where the concept of informed consent comes in. which, clearly, an infant is not going to be able to provide (unless you got some freak genius baby on hand, which is a whole other mess of concerns).
the only reason children can't make informed consent decisions is because the adults refuse to fucking educate them properly. contemporary society forces children to be ignorant of many things, especially sexual ones, for no good reason - and then uses that abuse to justify overbearing protections "because they don't know better".
and despite it being the legal guardian's legal duty to protect a child from being taken advantage of, it's almost always the legal guardian who provides that sort of abuse, because the child has no means or rights with which to escape or prevent such abuse. nor is there any substantial system in place to check things and ensure that abuse isn't taking place - not until it's too late. AFTER a child starts showing the signs of being hurt, publicly, then MAYBE some other authority figure willl bother to contact legal authorities, and then they MIGHT bother to show up to investigate, and even when they do, chances are they don't do anything at all, because it's too bothersome for them to interfere and too expensive for the state to put more kids into protective custody.
informed consent required the subject to:
- actually be informed. if you don't allow a child to learn about love, sex, babies, etc, then you have failed them; they aren't inherently incapable of learning the information.
- make a decision based on that information and their own desires. it may be a positive or negative result. that is their decision to make, not yours, not anyone else's. you certainly don't get to say they don't have the right to make a decision in the first place.
the duty of a legal guardian comes into play when these conditions are not met. when the child is not yet capable of receiving, understanding, and communicating a choice of consent - then the parent would have the right to a decision on their behalf, PRESUMABLY for the child's benefit.
and this applies to mentally impaired adults as well as children. not everybody operates at the same level. age is literally not a factor, except that there's a bell curve of functionality, where the youngest edge of the spectrum is uneducated and unable to process complex information, and the eldest edge of the spectrum has gone senile and crippled and has lost necessary faculties. that middle section where one is perfectly capable of deciding things for one's self does not arbitrarily begin at 18+ years old. it would be far more accurate to say it begins around two years old, spikes around 4, and then rapidly accelerates as a child absorbs information from formal schooling.
(continuing here bc l.t is bugging out on me too much)
consent choice is a simple positive or negative. that doesn't require a description, that's where the concept of informed consent comes in. which, clearly, an infant is not going to be able to provide (unless you got some freak genius baby on hand, which is a whole other mess of concerns).
the only reason children can't make informed consent decisions is because the adults refuse to fucking educate them properly. contemporary society forces children to be ignorant of many things, especially sexual ones, for no good reason - and then uses that abuse to justify overbearing protections "because they don't know better".
and despite it being the legal guardian's legal duty to protect a child from being taken advantage of, it's almost always the legal guardian who provides that sort of abuse, because the child has no means or rights with which to escape or prevent such abuse. nor is there any substantial system in place to check things and ensure that abuse isn't taking place - not until it's too late. AFTER a child starts showing the signs of being hurt, publicly, then MAYBE some other authority figure willl bother to contact legal authorities, and then they MIGHT bother to show up to investigate, and even when they do, chances are they don't do anything at all, because it's too bothersome for them to interfere and too expensive for the state to put more kids into protective custody.
informed consent required the subject to:
- actually be informed. if you don't allow a child to learn about love, sex, babies, etc, then you have failed them; they aren't inherently incapable of learning the information.
- make a decision based on that information and their own desires. it may be a positive or negative result. that is their decision to make, not yours, not anyone else's. you certainly don't get to say they don't have the right to make a decision in the first place.
the duty of a legal guardian comes into play when these conditions are not met. when the child is not yet capable of receiving, understanding, and communicating a choice of consent - then the parent would have the right to a decision on their behalf, PRESUMABLY for the child's benefit.
and this applies to mentally impaired adults as well as children. not everybody operates at the same level. age is literally not a factor, except that there's a bell curve of functionality, where the youngest edge of the spectrum is uneducated and unable to process complex information, and the eldest edge of the spectrum has gone senile and crippled and has lost necessary faculties. that middle section where one is perfectly capable of deciding things for one's self does not arbitrarily begin at 18+ years old. it would be far more accurate to say it begins around two years old, spikes around 4, and then rapidly accelerates as a child absorbs information from formal schooling.
@sekuhara @mario @bitterblossom Thankyou, seriously, because I did not have the fucking energy
@mario @bitterblossom The children do not determine when they leave, the niggers do not determine when they leave. Any other gotchas or can you drop the act?
@doorroo @mario @bitterblossom The subtext is clearly that they can not do that if they wish to remain moral.
@mario @bitterblossom I already have explained where you went wrong, and you pretended not to understand, I am confident you are playing dumb because you are smart enough to know your argument leaks like a seiv but you have moral ideals ingrained which will not allow you to entertain contrary arguments.
@doorroo @mario @bitterblossom It does not MATTER if 99.9999999% of niggers are werewolf people from hell that bleed acid, you cannot just fucking shoot them on the basis of being black, you cannot just take an entire fucking groups rights away on the basis that most of them are retarded.
@mario @bitterblossom Yea you're not really this stupid, you can't be, I refuse to believe you're not taking the piss
@mario @bitterblossom Well I just made the age of consent 99 years old, happy now? It's arbitrary. You seriously don't see the problem with that, this is what I don't get, you seem rather logical and sharp yet you refuse to admit that your logic is faulty and revert to anecdote and "common sense talk" and shit, I just don't get you.
@mario @bitterblossom Replace the word children with blacks, and kindergarden job with prison guard job, and reread what you just wrote
@mario @bitterblossom I believe you are glancing around too quickly and you are not noticing the hole in your argument, or you do not care, but it is this; by arbitrarily restricting an entire class of people, based on the assumption that many in this class are not wise enough to be unrestricted, you will inevitably restrict those who happen to be in this class, but also happen to be different from their fellows in that they are wise enough to take care of themselves. Is not this binding of an unwilling and consciousness entity a form of rape, a form of slavery, a form of torture, a form of dehumanization, and this dehumanization is inescapable, forever, the victim will know they were less then human, their rage will grow, until...problems.
Agism is bigotry. It just is. There's no getting around that. It's either ok to be a bigot or it's not. We're either individuals or we're numbers. And in this society, we are numbers, and I hope that changes one day.
@mario @bitterblossom Anybody can be manipulated, it is not a uniquely youthful quality, it is the quality inherent in any naive person, regardless of age. I say to you, the solution is simple, do not take advantage of or manipulate naive people, regardless of their age.
@mario @bitterblossom If I may save some time, is it right for me to say that you (Mario) believe that any human who has lost verbal capabilities, is incapable of consent, or verbal and writing abilities, but you believe they can't consent if they can't use words, right? I remember you once said you would not sleep with a deaf mute, because you wouldn't know if they were consenting or not.
- Status
- Ascended
The Trench
Joined Nov 2021
