Is it really that simple to you? I still don't understand what you mean, so maybe I'm just being dumb.
A 'life' is property apparantly, so when does life begin - with sperm and eggs, when a sperm and a egg meet, 1 month later, 3 months, birth?
Answer the damn question. The question that every honest person, whether pro-choice or pro-life, finds hard to answer. Or at least admit it is difficult. You can't just claim it's simple and leave it at that.
You wanted to hear my defense on the calamities of choice. I gave you that: even in Libertarian ideals, there are some very simple rules that don't require more than simple explanations because they are so simple.
here was your entrance:
Quote:
Libertarians, despite being so pro-gun, won't let me 'choose' to kill someone for no reason. They won't let me 'choose' to strangle my newborn infant and, at least some of them, won't let a woman 'choose' to abort a pregnancy.
So the first two are razored out of the argument easily.
I really have no idea what the scientific verdict is regarding the start of sentient life. Personally, I say conception is life, and no consistent vegan should ever consider abortion. I don't know when sentience begins, but for simplicity I am anti-abortion at this time. BR is pro-choice. As a libertarian I think the human law should echo whatever can be made scientifically evident. I think, at the very least, late term abortions are completely sick.
Of course I 'get it,' but this article isn't 'it,' it's partisan crap. If the article was about how both parties are crap and like to limit our choices in many different ways I'd have to argument with it. As it stands it's pure partisan crap.
The article is quite basic. It at least hints at some simple concepts. The rest of it is pretty minor if you ask me. The last paragraph is just typical journalistic brash. There's only one political jounalist I can think of who I've never seen resort to this kind of thing. (For the sake of the thread I will not release the name).
I wouldn't call it partisan crap. Partisan crap is when you and SDW get in a thread about the impact of new developments in engineering. This is partisan, but there's nothing in it except an affirmation that the author likes the Libertarian way, and hints that he wishes some of the dormant libertarians in office would drop their bureaucratic baggage. At least that's how I read it.
You know I've been gone a few days, and I come back and see this same ol'crap.
If I had a nickle for everytime someone in this forum dimissed an idea because they didn't like the way the source, article, etc introduced it, I would be making Bill Gates spit shine my shoes.
Shawn, Bunge, Stupider, and others who very COMMONLY invoke this practice. Pretend for a second that I and others use the article to INTRODUCE an idea for discussion. Pretend we don't consider the text to be the Bible and that we can even start with a flawed idea and discuss how to improve it without tossing it out, etc.
The absolute hilarity of this is that in another thread you are (well at least most of you) discussing how when Dean mentioned wanting the votes of people with confederate flags on their pick up trucks, we should take the words in a abstract fashion and not concretely. We should look at the idea and not at the man who imperfectly expressed it, etc.
Then you come here and pull the same bait and switch repeatedly. Oh, it's partisan, oh that source is crap, oh a slipperly slope based off what I declare the person REALLY wants, etc. Then you get upset when it happens to Dean.
The issue here is choice and having compelling reasons for withholding it. The source, the article, etc. introduced the idea. Don't make everyone in here spend their time defending someone elses writing. If you find fault with their own ideas, make them defend them.
Does that mean you're not going to reply to my devastating reply, killer?
You mean the one where I watch you repeat lies, dismiss truthful claims, and then misconstrue what I say? Why would I waste my time with that.
Quote:
Did you just make that up?
Sorry Shawn, but I find statements like this just aren't worth my time any more. I know more than you read this thread. I know that the statements are compelling to more than just you. I don't have to change your opinion.
...well you see, that was my justification for not responding to something you obviously just made up. Now, how about the other replies within that post?
...well you see, that was my justification for not responding to something you obviously just made up. Now, how about the other replies within that post?
You don't reply. You ignore and question. You aren't worth my time.
it boils down to some people wanting a nanny state where their concept of choice and responsibility is which pacifier to suckle on.
others want to be able to make their own decisions, and are willing to fall down. they expect to pick themselves up, not have someone there to stop them from trying because they could/will get hurt.
it boils down to some people wanting a nanny state where their concept of choice and responsibility is which pacifier to suckle on.
others want to be able to make their own decisions, and are willing to fall down. they expect to pick themselves up, not have someone there to stop them from trying because they could/will get hurt.
Exactly. Personal responsibility vs. no consequences for your actions. That is the debate.
Exactly. Personal responsibility vs. no consequences for your actions. That is the debate.
The problem is that you won't find anyone who would disagree with that statement. The question is whether issues boil down to something as simple as that.
Person A smokes cigarettes for whatever reason.
Person B is the owner of a large corporation that sells cigarettes. They market the consumption of cigarette smoke as something healthy when only the opposite is true.
Is Person A responsible for his own health when it's obvious to everyone that tobacco products are harmful?
Is Person B responsible for deliberately marketing something as healthy when it is clearly not?
I don't think it matters what conclusion we make on both sides of the debate. What matters is that who is responsible is not always black and white. It's not always clear.
The problem is that you won't find anyone who would disagree with that statement. The question is whether issues boil down to something as simple as that.
Person A smokes cigarettes for whatever reason.
Person B is the owner of a large corporation that sells cigarettes. They market the consumption of cigarette smoke as something healthy when only the opposite is true.
Is Person A responsible for his own health when it's obvious to everyone that tobacco products are harmful?
Is Person B responsible for deliberately marketing something as healthy when it is clearly not?
I don't think it matters what conclusion we make on both sides of the debate. What matters is that who is responsible is not always black and white. It's not always clear.
No, that's very simple. Both are at fault. Even a total idiot knows that smoking is bad. False advertising is also bad. Both are at fault. Instead of large personal judgments to a few individuals, the payout should simply have been to a fund to help find a cure for cancer and to treat those currently afflicted with smoking related diseases.
The problem is that you won't find anyone who would disagree with that statement. The question is whether issues boil down to something as simple as that.
Person A smokes cigarettes for whatever reason.
Person B is the owner of a large corporation that sells cigarettes. They market the consumption of cigarette smoke as something healthy when only the opposite is true.
Is Person A responsible for his own health when it's obvious to everyone that tobacco products are harmful?
Is Person B responsible for deliberately marketing something as healthy when it is clearly not?
I don't think it matters what conclusion we make on both sides of the debate. What matters is that who is responsible is not always black and white. It's not always clear.
It is black and white if one has a political-moral framework (theory), as libertarians do.
For a libertarian Person A is an individual with a free will (assuming he/she is an adult). If he/she chooses to smoke then he/she is responsible. However, if an individual?s free will (choice) is made irrelevant because of a threat of violence or fraud from Person B, then it?s a different matter.
In the case of Person B if we assume that the cigarette was marketed as healthy and Person A was actually influenced by that marketing THEN Person A has been defrauded and is not responsible for the choice to smoke.
The underpinnings of libertarianism are very simple. A very reductionist version (at least mine) is that a) All individuals own 100% of themselves and no others ? that means their own body, their labor, their intellectual product. b) Morality and moral theory is based on life, i.e. it is those values that sustain and promote a rewarding existence (or in the worst case, any existence). c) Every human that wishes to live is responsible for their own life (a person does not own others) and this is (or should be) rational self-interest. D) It is only through the exercise of reason and choice that an individual can pursue rational self-interest ? which requires freedom from violence and fraud.
In a libertarian world, individuals freely exchange things they own (including their labor and thought) to maximize their own (and by default societies) benefit. Those things they collectively agree on, for the benefit of the whole, AND that cannot be provided through free exchange are usually embodied in the State.
If I had a nickle for everytime someone in this forum dimissed an idea because they didn't like the way the source, article, etc introduced it, I would be making Bill Gates spit shine my shoes.
I don't dismiss the source. I never pull the "Fox News" card. You're full of crap here.
Nowdays, I call myself a libertarian symp or fellow traveler. I havn't really rejected it, but find that we are so far from that ideal that my politics are shaped by the feasible - and I do have a few conservative-nationalistic beliefs that conflict with libertarianism.
But it deserves credit, and is a far cry from the knee-jerk emotive politics of the liberals....
Did you just search for the phrase "fox news" in bunge's posts? Because none of those links are to posts where he discredits something based on the source.
The first comes closest but is clearly a joke and an attack on the absurdity of the idea itself.
Bunge goes into a cyclic loop of denial when he can't figure out the problem. He has done this many times, and if you don't believe me, I really don't care. You can do your own research.
It's a very annoying and non productive trait, and it has been a favorite of bombastic idiots since the fall. Generally the best strategy is to ignore him, and just let him get the last word in. Nobody will read this thread when it's at the bottom of the pile, and everyone in it will have developed his own opinion, probably with little influence from bunge.
I smoked a cigarette once. I coughed, I puked and it hurt to breath for days. ANY body would understand that there is no way that THAT is healthy.
Car companies strive and advertise that their cars emit the "least" emissions. I don't see anyone wrapping their lips around tailpipes and trying to get a buzz.
Most people that smoke get started because they think it was cool or rebellious. These weak personalities then try to shift responsibility to cigarette makers and ask the government to help them.
I can't see how anyone can even refer to that fiasco with a straight face.
Comments
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Is it really that simple to you? I still don't understand what you mean, so maybe I'm just being dumb.
A 'life' is property apparantly, so when does life begin - with sperm and eggs, when a sperm and a egg meet, 1 month later, 3 months, birth?
Answer the damn question. The question that every honest person, whether pro-choice or pro-life, finds hard to answer. Or at least admit it is difficult. You can't just claim it's simple and leave it at that.
You wanted to hear my defense on the calamities of choice. I gave you that: even in Libertarian ideals, there are some very simple rules that don't require more than simple explanations because they are so simple.
here was your entrance:
Libertarians, despite being so pro-gun, won't let me 'choose' to kill someone for no reason. They won't let me 'choose' to strangle my newborn infant and, at least some of them, won't let a woman 'choose' to abort a pregnancy.
So the first two are razored out of the argument easily.
I really have no idea what the scientific verdict is regarding the start of sentient life. Personally, I say conception is life, and no consistent vegan should ever consider abortion. I don't know when sentience begins, but for simplicity I am anti-abortion at this time. BR is pro-choice. As a libertarian I think the human law should echo whatever can be made scientifically evident. I think, at the very least, late term abortions are completely sick.
Originally posted by bunge
Of course I 'get it,' but this article isn't 'it,' it's partisan crap. If the article was about how both parties are crap and like to limit our choices in many different ways I'd have to argument with it. As it stands it's pure partisan crap.
The article is quite basic. It at least hints at some simple concepts. The rest of it is pretty minor if you ask me. The last paragraph is just typical journalistic brash. There's only one political jounalist I can think of who I've never seen resort to this kind of thing. (For the sake of the thread I will not release the name).
I wouldn't call it partisan crap. Partisan crap is when you and SDW get in a thread about the impact of new developments in engineering. This is partisan, but there's nothing in it except an affirmation that the author likes the Libertarian way, and hints that he wishes some of the dormant libertarians in office would drop their bureaucratic baggage. At least that's how I read it.
If I had a nickle for everytime someone in this forum dimissed an idea because they didn't like the way the source, article, etc introduced it, I would be making Bill Gates spit shine my shoes.
Shawn, Bunge, Stupider, and others who very COMMONLY invoke this practice. Pretend for a second that I and others use the article to INTRODUCE an idea for discussion. Pretend we don't consider the text to be the Bible and that we can even start with a flawed idea and discuss how to improve it without tossing it out, etc.
The absolute hilarity of this is that in another thread you are (well at least most of you) discussing how when Dean mentioned wanting the votes of people with confederate flags on their pick up trucks, we should take the words in a abstract fashion and not concretely. We should look at the idea and not at the man who imperfectly expressed it, etc.
Then you come here and pull the same bait and switch repeatedly. Oh, it's partisan, oh that source is crap, oh a slipperly slope based off what I declare the person REALLY wants, etc. Then you get upset when it happens to Dean.
The issue here is choice and having compelling reasons for withholding it. The source, the article, etc. introduced the idea. Don't make everyone in here spend their time defending someone elses writing. If you find fault with their own ideas, make them defend them.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Does that mean you're not going to reply to my devastating reply, killer?
You mean the one where I watch you repeat lies, dismiss truthful claims, and then misconstrue what I say? Why would I waste my time with that.
Did you just make that up?
Sorry Shawn, but I find statements like this just aren't worth my time any more. I know more than you read this thread. I know that the statements are compelling to more than just you. I don't have to change your opinion.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
...well you see, that was my justification for not responding to something you obviously just made up. Now, how about the other replies within that post?
You don't reply. You ignore and question. You aren't worth my time.
Nick
others want to be able to make their own decisions, and are willing to fall down. they expect to pick themselves up, not have someone there to stop them from trying because they could/will get hurt.
Originally posted by alcimedes
it boils down to some people wanting a nanny state where their concept of choice and responsibility is which pacifier to suckle on.
others want to be able to make their own decisions, and are willing to fall down. they expect to pick themselves up, not have someone there to stop them from trying because they could/will get hurt.
Exactly. Personal responsibility vs. no consequences for your actions. That is the debate.
Originally posted by BR
Exactly. Personal responsibility vs. no consequences for your actions. That is the debate.
The problem is that you won't find anyone who would disagree with that statement. The question is whether issues boil down to something as simple as that.
Person A smokes cigarettes for whatever reason.
Person B is the owner of a large corporation that sells cigarettes. They market the consumption of cigarette smoke as something healthy when only the opposite is true.
Is Person A responsible for his own health when it's obvious to everyone that tobacco products are harmful?
Is Person B responsible for deliberately marketing something as healthy when it is clearly not?
I don't think it matters what conclusion we make on both sides of the debate. What matters is that who is responsible is not always black and white. It's not always clear.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
The problem is that you won't find anyone who would disagree with that statement. The question is whether issues boil down to something as simple as that.
Person A smokes cigarettes for whatever reason.
Person B is the owner of a large corporation that sells cigarettes. They market the consumption of cigarette smoke as something healthy when only the opposite is true.
Is Person A responsible for his own health when it's obvious to everyone that tobacco products are harmful?
Is Person B responsible for deliberately marketing something as healthy when it is clearly not?
I don't think it matters what conclusion we make on both sides of the debate. What matters is that who is responsible is not always black and white. It's not always clear.
No, that's very simple. Both are at fault. Even a total idiot knows that smoking is bad. False advertising is also bad. Both are at fault. Instead of large personal judgments to a few individuals, the payout should simply have been to a fund to help find a cure for cancer and to treat those currently afflicted with smoking related diseases.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
The problem is that you won't find anyone who would disagree with that statement. The question is whether issues boil down to something as simple as that.
Person A smokes cigarettes for whatever reason.
Person B is the owner of a large corporation that sells cigarettes. They market the consumption of cigarette smoke as something healthy when only the opposite is true.
Is Person A responsible for his own health when it's obvious to everyone that tobacco products are harmful?
Is Person B responsible for deliberately marketing something as healthy when it is clearly not?
I don't think it matters what conclusion we make on both sides of the debate. What matters is that who is responsible is not always black and white. It's not always clear.
It is black and white if one has a political-moral framework (theory), as libertarians do.
For a libertarian Person A is an individual with a free will (assuming he/she is an adult). If he/she chooses to smoke then he/she is responsible. However, if an individual?s free will (choice) is made irrelevant because of a threat of violence or fraud from Person B, then it?s a different matter.
In the case of Person B if we assume that the cigarette was marketed as healthy and Person A was actually influenced by that marketing THEN Person A has been defrauded and is not responsible for the choice to smoke.
The underpinnings of libertarianism are very simple. A very reductionist version (at least mine) is that a) All individuals own 100% of themselves and no others ? that means their own body, their labor, their intellectual product. b) Morality and moral theory is based on life, i.e. it is those values that sustain and promote a rewarding existence (or in the worst case, any existence). c) Every human that wishes to live is responsible for their own life (a person does not own others) and this is (or should be) rational self-interest. D) It is only through the exercise of reason and choice that an individual can pursue rational self-interest ? which requires freedom from violence and fraud.
In a libertarian world, individuals freely exchange things they own (including their labor and thought) to maximize their own (and by default societies) benefit. Those things they collectively agree on, for the benefit of the whole, AND that cannot be provided through free exchange are usually embodied in the State.
Originally posted by trumptman
If I had a nickle for everytime someone in this forum dimissed an idea because they didn't like the way the source, article, etc introduced it, I would be making Bill Gates spit shine my shoes.
I don't dismiss the source. I never pull the "Fox News" card. You're full of crap here.
This article is crap, plain and simple.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks, Max.
Thanks, that is why I used to be a libertarian.
Nowdays, I call myself a libertarian symp or fellow traveler. I havn't really rejected it, but find that we are so far from that ideal that my politics are shaped by the feasible - and I do have a few conservative-nationalistic beliefs that conflict with libertarianism.
But it deserves credit, and is a far cry from the knee-jerk emotive politics of the liberals....
Originally posted by bunge
I don't dismiss the source. I never pull the "Fox News" card. You're full of crap here.
This article is crap, plain and simple.
right, you'd never do that.
Originally posted by alcimedes
right, you'd never do that.
BAM!!!
Fellows
Originally posted by alcimedes
right, you'd never do that.
Did you just search for the phrase "fox news" in bunge's posts? Because none of those links are to posts where he discredits something based on the source.
The first comes closest but is clearly a joke and an attack on the absurdity of the idea itself.
It's a very annoying and non productive trait, and it has been a favorite of bombastic idiots since the fall. Generally the best strategy is to ignore him, and just let him get the last word in. Nobody will read this thread when it's at the bottom of the pile, and everyone in it will have developed his own opinion, probably with little influence from bunge.
I smoked a cigarette once. I coughed, I puked and it hurt to breath for days. ANY body would understand that there is no way that THAT is healthy.
Car companies strive and advertise that their cars emit the "least" emissions. I don't see anyone wrapping their lips around tailpipes and trying to get a buzz.
Most people that smoke get started because they think it was cool or rebellious. These weak personalities then try to shift responsibility to cigarette makers and ask the government to help them.
I can't see how anyone can even refer to that fiasco with a straight face.