Zone1 Can We Agree Consent is primary?

[JoeB131]

It fits the criteria though. The fact that such an immoral and outrageous scenario could happen under your logic and prescription shows how obtuse it is

Except Doctors wouldn't do that because it would violate their Hippocratic oath to do no harm.

The problem is, of course, is that people like you see no value in GAC (despite a raft of clinical evidence to the contrary) because you can't get a head of your own religious and sexual bigotries.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The term "consent" brings forth very sexual intonations, and it can be an issue in sexual dynamics. We've seen it be a major issue with rape claims. A woman claims she never consented to sex she had. We've even seen modern leftists say that if a man and a woman are drunk, the woman isn't able to consent so it's rape.

However, "consent" doesn't just apply to sex, it applies to what happens to your body. And we've established in our society that if you're below the age of 18, you cannot consent. A 17 year old girl can have sex with a man who is 366 days older than his 17th birthday and be convicted of rape. Hell,We've even established when people are too young to get their bodies permanently scarred by a tattoo..

So, given all of this, I think based on precedent (and recent pushback from woke propaganda), it's safe to say that young girl shouldn't be able to "consent" to having her boobs chopped off, nor should a young boy be able to "consent" to having his dick chopped off and a large wound be purposefully inserted between his legs.

I know it takes time for new ideologies to phase out, and our society can be ashamed of what we considered. I mean, we performed lobotomies on people, and assumed babies couldn't feel pain and performed surgery on them without anesthesia. We screw things up as we go along in life inside our culture.

But, I think it's safe to say we know the grooming, convincing, or secret dwelling of a child's gender confusion by parents, school teachers, psychologists, psychiatrists, or doctors is impeding on that person's ability to consent.

As we've heard from feminists and the woke left, "Consent" is king, so truly, they should be on board with rallying with me to fight against those who would violate a person who isn't able to consent.

Am I right? JoeB131 LOL

Obviously we cannot agree, since we reelected a known sexual predator.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Obviously we cannot agree, since we reelected a known sexual predator.

Obviously we cannot agree, since we reelected a known sexual predator.

Link to convictions of sexual predation ? Thanks.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Are you being a bad faith little sealion dipshit?

Yes.

Trump is a rapist.

It's a fact in the public record.

Blame him, crybaby. Don't get mad at me.

You don't deserve to sit at the adult table.

And you don't have anything to support your premises.

You run and hide behind invective.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You don't deserve to sit at the adult table.

And you don't have anything to support your premises.

You run and hide behind invective.

Cry it all out, crybaby.

The President is a secual predator. Its a fact.

Trump is a rapist.

The one time he actually sued someone for calling him that, his lawsuit was laughed out of the court. And the judge clarified for him that, indeed, a jury found him to be a rapist.

So you are crybabying to the wrong guy. Whine to the rapist.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The one time he actually sued someone for calling him that, his lawsuit was laughed out of the court. And the judge clarified for him that, indeed, a jury found him to be a rapist.

Link to case convicting him of rape?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Guess who else agrees that consent is primary?

The jury that decided our president is a rapist.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Guess who else agrees that consent is primary?

The jury that decided our president is a rapist.

Link to case and decision?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Don't feed the sealions. ^^

If this dipshit doesn't know what I am referring to, then he shouldn't even be posting on this board.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Don't feed the sealions. ^^

If this dipshit doesn't know what I am referring to, then he shouldn't even be posting on this board.

Still no support?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Don't feed the sealions. ^^

If this dipshit doesn't know what I am referring to, then he shouldn't even be posting on this board.

Let carry your water for you, like most Liberals. Let me show where your premise is wrong, yet again

The jury reached a decision on May 9, 2023, after deliberating for less than three hours. Considering the preponderance of the evidence, the jury delivered a verdict that first stated that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her, and next stated that Carroll did prove that Trump was responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse,[ and also stated that Trump defamed Carroll with false statements made with actual malice in the October 2022 Truth Social post; thus the jury awarded Carroll a total of $5 million in damages from Trump

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And then the judge clarified the jury found he did rape her.

The state was so embarrassed that their out of date rape law didnt include forceful penetration with a hand, that it updated its laws right away to match those of the other states.

So yes, we can call Trump a rapist without reprisal, as it is a fact in the public record.

The Rapist in Chief.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And then the judge clarified the jury found he did rape her.

The state was so embarrassed that their out of date rape law didnt include forceful penetration with a hand, that it updated its laws right away to match those of the other states.

So yes, we can call Trump a rapist without reprisal, as it is a fact in the public record.

The Rapist in Chief.

It was a civil law suit and not charges, a conviction or prosecution tried in a criminal court.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And now, Trump being a rapist is a fact in the public record.

Any person, public or private, in any setting or forum, can say Trump is a rapist, without reprisals.

Because it's now a fact in the public record.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And now, Trump being a rapist is a fact in the public record.

Any person, public or private, in any setting or forum, can say Trump is a rapist, without reprisals.

Because it's now a fact in the public record.

But not based on a criminal charges or conviction. 30 year old politically opportune timing.

Someone got a jury to award her damages because he bad mouthed her

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Rapist in Chief.

And he stole from charity.

And he committed fraud for decades, also per the court.

34 time felon.

And his business was convicted of 17 felonies. All with his signature all over them.

The MAGA twits convulse, when you remind them.

Watch.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The Rapist in Chief.

And he stole from charity.

And he committed fraud for decades, also per the court.

34 time felon.

And his business was convicted of 17 felonies. All with his signature all over them.

The MAGA twits convulse, when you remind them.

Watch.

Do you put your fingers in your ears when you repeat this?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The term "consent" brings forth very sexual intonations, and it can be an issue in sexual dynamics. We've seen it be a major issue with rape claims. A woman claims she never consented to sex she had. We've even seen modern leftists say that if a man and a woman are drunk, the woman isn't able to consent so it's rape.

However, "consent" doesn't just apply to sex, it applies to what happens to your body. And we've established in our society that if you're below the age of 18, you cannot consent. A 17 year old girl can have sex with a man who is 366 days older than his 17th birthday and be convicted of rape. Hell,We've even established when people are too young to get their bodies permanently scarred by a tattoo..

So, given all of this, I think based on precedent (and recent pushback from woke propaganda), it's safe to say that young girl shouldn't be able to "consent" to having her boobs chopped off, nor should a young boy be able to "consent" to having his dick chopped off and a large wound be purposefully inserted between his legs.

I know it takes time for new ideologies to phase out, and our society can be ashamed of what we considered. I mean, we performed lobotomies on people, and assumed babies couldn't feel pain and performed surgery on them without anesthesia. We screw things up as we go along in life inside our culture.

But, I think it's safe to say we know the grooming, convincing, or secret dwelling of a child's gender confusion by parents, school teachers, psychologists, psychiatrists, or doctors is impeding on that person's ability to consent.

As we've heard from feminists and the woke left, "Consent" is king, so truly, they should be on board with rallying with me to fight against those who would violate a person who isn't able to consent.

Am I right? JoeB131 LOL

Who gives consent, if a child needs surgery? Or medication?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Who gives consent, if a child needs surgery? Or medication?

The child’s parents or lawful caregiver.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Except Doctors wouldn't do that because it would violate their Hippocratic oath to do no harm.

Exactly... thus doctors shouldn't also violate their hippocratic oath and chop off a perfectly functioning body part and mutilate another person's body.. much less a child's who cannot consent to an irreversible life-changing assault.

The problem is, of course, is that people like you see no value in GAC

Why would I support something that harms humans?