Fuck the US military!

[infected slut princess]

I support the slave, not the slaver.

The only libertarian here is you. Be because you would gladly enslave people to serve your Stalinist agenda, so you are a real sicko.

[Kaelik]

I support the slave, not the slaver.

The only libertarian here is you. Be because you would gladly enslave people to serve your Stalinist agenda, so you are a real sicko.

Oh are we back to the Stalin thing? I thought you got tired on mindlessly repeating the same nonsensical insult over and over. Guess not.

[DSMatticus]

The only libertarian here is you. Be because you would gladly enslave people to serve your Stalinist agenda

It's official; we've hit peak buzzword and the libertarian stalinists are here to socialize your medicare. Class warfare.

So the total rapes in the world is not changing. And you should prefer being in Redmonton post-occupation, rather than pre-occupation.

if you are the 101st rape victim in Redmonton, victimized by an occupying soldier, obviously you prefer the pre-occupation sexual assault situation. So really, you are just hating the 101st rape victim in Redmonton.

This is why you are the dumbest fucking person. You followed "total rapes are the same" with "but what if you're potential victim X and not potential victim Y? That'd really suck, amirite?" Fictional eastern europeans are people, too; stop being so racist.

You are more likely to rape someone if you are in a foreign land on some mad imperialist crusade than if you are sitting around in your home country being a janitor or an accountant. So you need to think about the victims of the invaded country. Because there will be more rape victims total when you are putting occupation forces in another country than if all those soldiers stayed home

I kind of just want to drop "cite sources" on you and watch you flail, but it doesn't actually matter so whatever. You are comparing apples to oranges to grapes. Sexual assaults by military personnel on other military personnel are not the same problem as sexual assaults by military personnel stationed abroad peacefully on locals are not the same problem as sexual assaults by military personnel deployed to combat duty on locals. And if your vocabulary begins and ends with "imperialist rape machine!!1!", you are not really capable of capturing that. Because two of those have exactly fuck all to do with imperialism, and the number of soldiers deployed to active combat zones right now is actually bullshit small (though higher than it should be).

[infected slut princess]

You guys are so dumb. Your only argument seems to be "but war and occupation doesn't lead to more rape, because we fap to the military," which is stupid. Actually, I can add it to the list of insane TGD stalin fapper beliefs, such as "law of contradiction is false" and "having a badge and a gun gives you the right to murder people." Next thing you know, you will be saying war and pccupation doesn't lead to more murder, and people dying in war is just the result of populations moving around. Or you'll say being in the military doesn't make you more liekly to commit suicide. You're all so fucking stupid, I laugh about it.

[Red_Rob]

I'm so glad your sig is there ISP. Every time I think about responding to one of your posts it's like a little disclaimer reminding me not to feed the troll.

[DSMatticus]

As someone who has spent entirely too much time responding to him, it is getting pretty stale. Every ISP comeback ever: "I don't understand the distinction between being legally entitled to X and being ethically justified in doing X, so therefore when people tell me to shove my religious belief in natural rights fairies up my ass clearly they don't think laws can be unethical. Stalin-fappers!"

The funny thing is that it's a strawman when he does it, but if you turn it back on him it's completely accurate. ISP actually does believe that legal entitlements and ethics are one and the same, he just doesn't believe that those legal entitlements are the same thing as laws (because natural rights fairies get to say what your legal entitlements are, not governments; governments are just pretending and ruining everything). And because ISP is an anarchist, you will note that the only system of laws he will accept as ethical does not include prohibitions against child molestation! Children obviously can't participate in the same non-coercive framework as adults, because they're children and they really do need guardians with some level of coercive authority over them. It is in fact impossible to justify legally intervening to prevent the abuse of children in the absence of an involuntary social contract which defines the limits of the guardian's authority and a coercive government which credibly threatens to show up with sticks and guns when the guardian doesn't respect those limits.

ISP can sit there and pretend that unethical laws are some damning paradox for everyone who disagrees with him, but I actually get to say that he thinks pedophilia should be legal and not be the least bit full of shit. Because that's a thing he actually does think. Which may explain why when child abuse came up in the original Slutty Monarch Explains Anarchy thread he shut the fuck up and wandered off.

[schpeelah]

ISP actually does believe that legal entitlements and ethics are one and the same, he just doesn't believe that those legal entitlements are the same thing as laws (because natural rights fairies get to say what your legal entitlements are, not governments; governments are just pretending and ruining everything).

Really? I always read him as "the word 'rights' means ethical entitlements, goddammit!", not confused whether 'legal' means 'legal' or 'moral'.

[RobbyPants]

You guys are so dumb. Your only argument seems to be "but war and occupation doesn't lead to more rape, because we fap to the military," which is stupid.

Do you actually read the things other people post? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head here that is "pro military". I can think of a few pro gun people, but most of them tend to be anti-government, particularly as far as the executive branch goes.

[DSMatticus]

ISP actually does believe that legal entitlements and ethics are one and the same, he just doesn't believe that those legal entitlements are the same thing as laws (because natural rights fairies get to say what your legal entitlements are, not governments; governments are just pretending and ruining everything).

Really? I always read him as "the word 'rights' means ethical entitlements, goddammit!", not confused whether 'legal' means 'legal' or 'moral'.

ISP subscribes to the theory of natural rights. He believes that there exists a set of entitlements (natural rights) which are distinct from the set of entitlements bestowed by governments (legal rights), and that the least inethical social contract is one which abides by these natural rights. You would be forgiven for thinking that when ISP says rights he means only those entitlements which are ethical, because that's actually half-true. But the other half of that truth is that he thinks they are ethical because invisible fairies that only he can see told him so PHILOSOPHY!!1! which falsely (yet conveniently) reasons that the universe actually gives a fuck whether or not the governments of men demand taxes and provide public water.

Consider the fundamentalist worldview; murder is unethical because the word of god says so, and in the absence of the word of god there can be no ethical reasoning. Atheist ethics is genuinely an oxymoron to fundamentalists; their worldview is so warped and twisted that it cannot accomodate a distinction between god's "thou shalt (not)"'s and ethics. Similarly, when we start talking about the distinctions between rights and ethics, we instantly lose ISP. Because his worldview doesn't actually have a distinction between (natural) rights and rights which are ethical; it only has a distinction between natural rights (which are ethical) and the make-believe decrees of governments which are not absolutely not rights (and almost always unethical). That's why "rights which are unethical" is such a confusing paradox to him, and why he keeps trying to strawman people with it. He's a fundamentalist ranting about how atheism leads to rape and murder.

And, continuing on, ISP is a self-declared anarchist. His preferred natural rights framework genuinely has no tools to combat the molestation of children, because children obviously can't participate in the non-coercive framework on which his ideal social contract is based ("do your homework, Timmy" is not an act of tyrannical oppression), yet it is still very clearly not okay to coerce children into sexual activity or slave labor (or even non-coercively convince them to do those things, for that matter, which may be redundant or meaningless depending on how you define the coercion of a minor).