Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys  (Read 75936 times)

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #45 on: May 19, 2008, 03:37:53 pm »

Actually, I literally meant I didn't understand the logical progression.

Um, it's a really simple bit of logic.  If you cannot understand it, it's not likely that you will be able to understand much of anything that is being discussed here...

Still avoiding getting those definitions out there...

What definitions are those?

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #46 on: May 19, 2008, 05:20:17 pm »

Actually, I literally meant I didn't understand the logical progression.

Um, it's a really simple bit of logic.  If you cannot understand it, it's not likely that you will be able to understand much of anything that is being discussed here...

Again with the dishonesty. You quote-mined out the particular portion that I explicitly said was confusing.

It was claimed that the progression was "perfectly logical." He was talking about being or not being pregnant. As a deductive statement, it was a non sequitur. I had no idea what we was trying to say because it was just tossed in there. The came the "perfectly logical" claim; which was a bit amusing at that point.

I understand what he was trying to say. But the premises are still arguable, and there's no perfectly logical conclusion, unless you accept the premises that he laid out. And I don't (in a previous post, I distinguished between deprivation of possession of property and being enslaved--which are only metaphorically comparable). 'Course, that doesn't mean I disagree with his conclusion. Just the reasoning by which he arrived there.

Still avoiding getting those definitions out there...

What definitions are those?

Joe
[/quote]

Just read my previous post where I asked you to be honest and civil. I've explicitly stated it a number of times now, and I honestly cannot tell whether you're just being argumentative to waste my time re-writing portions of my previous posts.

As a sanity check, I've checked Black's, OED, and Webster's. I don't know what dictionaries you consulted: they do not provide identical definitions. There are various shades of meaning in each one. So I don't know what you're talking about. And you keep shirking from an actual substantive response by using equally amorphous words to flesh out what you're trying to say.

You keep declaring that these terms are "well-defined", among other merely assertive descriptions. You're arguing, essentially that solid, firm definitions really, really, really do exist, honestly. And you know what they are.

But so far, you have been unable to actually produce any of these definitions yourself or communicate them to me. In all probability, I'm starting to think you don't actually have anything to put forth. My challenge to do so will stand. Take it up whenever you wish.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #47 on: May 19, 2008, 05:46:52 pm »

Again with the dishonesty. You quote-mined out the particular portion that I explicitly said was confusing.

There's nothing dishonest.  I'm not going to quote layer upon layer of words.  Anyone who wants to see the whole detail can scroll back through by clicking the links.

It was claimed that the progression was "perfectly logical." He was talking about being or not being pregnant. As a deductive statement, it was a non sequitur. I had no idea what we was trying to say because it was just tossed in there. The came the "perfectly logical" claim; which was a bit amusing at that point.

I understand what he was trying to say. But the premises are still arguable, and there's no perfectly logical conclusion, unless you accept the premises that he laid out. And I don't (in a previous post, I distinguished between deprivation of possession of property and being enslaved--which are only metaphorically comparable). 'Course, that doesn't mean I disagree with his conclusion. Just the reasoning by which he arrived there.

But it wasn't "just tossed in there."  It was a perfectly logical statement.

You claimed that there is no comparison between the two things.  He stated that they differ only in degree, not any fundamental way.  Very simple.

Just read my previous post where I asked you to be honest and civil. I've explicitly stated it a number of times now, and I honestly cannot tell whether you're just being argumentative to waste my time re-writing portions of my previous posts.

As a sanity check, I've checked Black's, OED, and Webster's. I don't know what dictionaries you consulted: they do not provide identical definitions. There are various shades of meaning in each one. So I don't know what you're talking about. And you keep shirking from an actual substantive response by using equally amorphous words to flesh out what you're trying to say.

You keep declaring that these terms are "well-defined", among other merely assertive descriptions. You're arguing, essentially that solid, firm definitions really, really, really do exist, honestly. And you know what they are.

But so far, you have been unable to actually produce any of these definitions yourself or communicate them to me. In all probability, I'm starting to think you don't actually have anything to put forth. My challenge to do so will stand. Take it up whenever you wish.

Why don't you provide a list of the words you seem to be having trouble with... ::)

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #48 on: May 21, 2008, 08:03:07 am »


are we dizzy yet...

RebelSniper

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #49 on: September 09, 2008, 08:14:25 pm »

I hear cucumber farmers are backing this legislation...

Laugh if you want to, but here in Alabama when they passed this law, it actually was the cucumber farmers pushing the bill. Heaven forbid some lady pleasure herself without big brother telling her what she can and cannot use to do so.
Logged

Keyser Soce

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1256
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #50 on: September 13, 2008, 06:41:18 pm »

Someone needs to tell those poor deprived women about NH.  >:D
Logged
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #51 on: September 13, 2008, 06:47:03 pm »

Someone needs to tell those poor deprived women about NH.  >:D

We even have a Porcupine who sells such things, and will take silver in payment.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

OrganizedChaos

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
  • Deus ex Machina
    • Restricted Liberty, Defined Freedom
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #52 on: June 13, 2009, 01:24:47 pm »

I hear cucumber farmers are backing this legislation...

Laugh if you want to, but here in Alabama when they passed this law, it actually was the cucumber farmers pushing the bill. Heaven forbid some lady pleasure herself without big brother telling her what she can and cannot use to do so.


Are  you serious? and I thought things in Utah were tough. I figured if any state was going to pass any "ANTI HAPPY" legislation it would be Utah, lord knows you could shove coal up the rumps of some of the people here and get diamonds.
Logged
My Blog- Restricted Liberty, Defined Freedom

I am the FSP contact for Utah, please feel free to contact me or join the Yahoo Group.

Y! Group-UtahFSP

MTPorcupine3

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 350
    • Sovereign Solutions: Free State Project
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #53 on: June 13, 2009, 04:05:17 pm »

Then they came for the lubricants.

Cute. It's a little known fact that artificial lubricants are generally necessitated by the lack of a foreskin, which keeps the glans soft, moist and sensitive and makes for a gliding mechanism. Only in America and other circumcising cultures would artificial lubricants be a serious consideration.

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #54 on: June 15, 2009, 12:47:34 pm »

Then they came for the lubricants.
Cute. It's a little known fact that artificial lubricants are generally necessitated by the lack of a foreskin, which keeps the glans soft, moist and sensitive and makes for a gliding mechanism. Only in America and other circumcising cultures would artificial lubricants be a serious consideration.

I'm not exactly a dildo expert, but I think most of them are better used with lubricants, regardless of what biological equipment men may or may not have...

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Steve25

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
    • Temptations Direct
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #55 on: July 23, 2009, 08:50:28 am »

Then they came for the lubricants.
Cute. It's a little known fact that artificial lubricants are generally necessitated by the lack of a foreskin, which keeps the glans soft, moist and sensitive and makes for a gliding mechanism. Only in America and other circumcising cultures would artificial lubricants be a serious consideration.

I'm not exactly a dildo expert, but I think most of them are better used with lubricants, regardless of what biological equipment men may or may not have...

Joe

You're right, dildos and such toys should be used with a lubricant. Also even men who have a foreskin can feel the benefit of using a good quality lubricant.

sonio

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 764
    • Sonio on Facebook
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #56 on: July 23, 2009, 09:52:09 am »

Lube is great thing to have...
Logged
It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. – Charles A. Beard

abraham abbott

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
    • School Sinks
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #57 on: August 25, 2009, 03:39:45 am »

????
Logged
School Sinks  is an interesting blog and you should check it out for more Details and Information and for any more Details you can check any of the links...

CA_Libertarian

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 473
  • FSP Member 2007
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #58 on: August 25, 2009, 05:03:33 am »

????

Best first post ever, IMO.

Welcome to the forum.
Logged
www.pledgebank.com/Next1000

The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
~Thomas Paine (1737–1809)

blaked

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
  • Fellow llama
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #59 on: September 06, 2009, 07:07:56 am »

Well a lot of these people belong to church congregations that actively pursue the moral and sexual sanitization of the country.  Comstockery has a lengthy history in the United States and has been fairly successful.  Usually this kind of activism comes in waves - it was part of the whole crusade against booze and everything else 'vice' that overcame America during the progressive era.  A great read is 'City of Eros' by Jeffrey S. Adler, which is an account of the history of Prostitution in New York City that gives accounts of Comstock and his men raiding burlesque shows.


http://www.independentmail.com/and/home/article/0,1886,AND_8195_4641568,00.html

The War on Dildoes is nothing new.

That's not the weird part; unrestrained legislatures, as a body, do push the boundaries of common sense.

What is peculiar, is that a person--an actual, genital-possessing person--got up and stated something along the lines of, "Dildoes pose so great threat to our values that we must discuss them now, in this government forum; and to protect people from sexually stimulating themselves, we must ban these heinous devices!" Just flies against common sense. You'd think they might have better things to do.

What is even more peculiar is that other actual people in the legislature never call them on it.

Well, it's not that peculiar...
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up