Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Raising Children is Not an Obligation

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:24:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If I don't want my children, I have no moral obligation to raise them.

I'll derive a theory of rights first:

Nothing has inherent value. Rocks, humans, trees, etc. are all entirely meaningless. What confers value on an object is our ability to subjectively impose our preferences on it.

My life also doesn't have inherent value. I give it value when I am free to pursue my own ends and engage in activities that I find worthwhile. But why does this matter? The end for all humans is happiness. As Aristotle notes, happiness is the proper end to have because it is not a means to any other end.

So, insofar as my ability to be happy stems from my ability to pursue my own ends and thus confer worth upon myself, the most moral thing for me to do would be to pursue my own ends.

Now, we run into a bit of a problem. What if my desire to pursue my own ends conflicts with another person's desire to pursue his own ends? For example, what if I gain happiness by killing others?

From this is it is clear that we must have constraints on actions. In order to maximize happiness for all people, we must ensure that all people are able to pursue their own ends (drawn from utilitarianism).

The best means through which we enable all people to pursue their own ends is through individual, hypothetical contracts that we make to not violate each others' ability to pursue ends (henceforth called autonomy). We constrain our interests if others constrain their interests so that we do not violate each others' autonomy. From these contracts, we create the basis of rights like life, liberty, and property. (This is drawn from Gauthier's theory of contractualism.) If we did not accept these contracts, there would be no reason for other people to do so either, and thus we could very easily violate autonomy and eliminate the basis for self-worth (drawn from Kant).

From this we can see that rights entail noninterference.

Since rights are negative and not positive, I only have to not harm someone's rights. I don't have an obligation to provide for them. For example, I don't have an obligation to give someone a room in my house to worship their gods. I simply have to not force them to not practice.

Parent's don't have to care for children because not caring for them does not directly infringe upon their rights. It simply does not provide them with the means to have their rights, which is fine since rights are negative and not positive.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:30:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:24:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
If I don't want my children, I have no moral obligation to raise them.

I'll derive a theory of rights first:

Nothing has inherent value. Rocks, humans, trees, etc. are all entirely meaningless. What confers value on an object is our ability to subjectively impose our preferences on it.

My life also doesn't have inherent value. I give it value when I am free to pursue my own ends and engage in activities that I find worthwhile. But why does this matter? The end for all humans is happiness. As Aristotle notes, happiness is the proper end to have because it is not a means to any other end.

So, insofar as my ability to be happy stems from my ability to pursue my own ends and thus confer worth upon myself, the most moral thing for me to do would be to pursue my own ends.

Now, we run into a bit of a problem. What if my desire to pursue my own ends conflicts with another person's desire to pursue his own ends? For example, what if I gain happiness by killing others?

From this is it is clear that we must have constraints on actions. In order to maximize happiness for all people, we must ensure that all people are able to pursue their own ends (drawn from utilitarianism).

The best means through which we enable all people to pursue their own ends is through individual, hypothetical contracts that we make to not violate each others' ability to pursue ends (henceforth called autonomy). We constrain our interests if others constrain their interests so that we do not violate each others' autonomy. From these contracts, we create the basis of rights like life, liberty, and property. (This is drawn from Gauthier's theory of contractualism.) If we did not accept these contracts, there would be no reason for other people to do so either, and thus we could very easily violate autonomy and eliminate the basis for self-worth (drawn from Kant).

From this we can see that rights entail noninterference.

Since rights are negative and not positive, I only have to not harm someone's rights. I don't have an obligation to provide for them. For example, I don't have an obligation to give someone a room in my house to worship their gods. I simply have to not force them to not practice.

Parent's don't have to care for children because not caring for them does not directly infringe upon their rights. It simply does not provide them with the means to have their rights, which is fine since rights are negative and not positive.

What is the meaning of this nonses being spewed by Lady Royale.
So you dodged the issue once again. You are as slick as that sewer
rat in Innomens house for sure. But this time, I am gonna trap you like
a fly in a black widows web.
Mwhahaahaaaaaaa !!!!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:34:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:30:20 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:24:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
If I don't want my children, I have no moral obligation to raise them.

I'll derive a theory of rights first:

Nothing has inherent value. Rocks, humans, trees, etc. are all entirely meaningless. What confers value on an object is our ability to subjectively impose our preferences on it.

My life also doesn't have inherent value. I give it value when I am free to pursue my own ends and engage in activities that I find worthwhile. But why does this matter? The end for all humans is happiness. As Aristotle notes, happiness is the proper end to have because it is not a means to any other end.

So, insofar as my ability to be happy stems from my ability to pursue my own ends and thus confer worth upon myself, the most moral thing for me to do would be to pursue my own ends.

Now, we run into a bit of a problem. What if my desire to pursue my own ends conflicts with another person's desire to pursue his own ends? For example, what if I gain happiness by killing others?

From this is it is clear that we must have constraints on actions. In order to maximize happiness for all people, we must ensure that all people are able to pursue their own ends (drawn from utilitarianism).

The best means through which we enable all people to pursue their own ends is through individual, hypothetical contracts that we make to not violate each others' ability to pursue ends (henceforth called autonomy). We constrain our interests if others constrain their interests so that we do not violate each others' autonomy. From these contracts, we create the basis of rights like life, liberty, and property. (This is drawn from Gauthier's theory of contractualism.) If we did not accept these contracts, there would be no reason for other people to do so either, and thus we could very easily violate autonomy and eliminate the basis for self-worth (drawn from Kant).

From this we can see that rights entail noninterference.

Since rights are negative and not positive, I only have to not harm someone's rights. I don't have an obligation to provide for them. For example, I don't have an obligation to give someone a room in my house to worship their gods. I simply have to not force them to not practice.

Parent's don't have to care for children because not caring for them does not directly infringe upon their rights. It simply does not provide them with the means to have their rights, which is fine since rights are negative and not positive.

What is the meaning of this nonses being spewed by Lady Royale.
So you dodged the issue once again. You are as slick as that sewer
rat in Innomens house for sure. But this time, I am gonna trap you like
a fly in a black widows web.
Mwhahaahaaaaaaa !!!!

Looks like you're in over your head.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:35:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:24:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
If I don't want my children, I have no moral obligation to raise them.

I'll derive a theory of rights first:

Nothing has inherent value. Rocks, humans, trees, etc. are all entirely meaningless. What confers value on an object is our ability to subjectively impose our preferences on it.

My life also doesn't have inherent value. I give it value when I am free to pursue my own ends and engage in activities that I find worthwhile. But why does this matter? The end for all humans is happiness. As Aristotle notes, happiness is the proper end to have because it is not a means to any other end.

So, insofar as my ability to be happy stems from my ability to pursue my own ends and thus confer worth upon myself, the most moral thing for me to do would be to pursue my own ends.

Now, we run into a bit of a problem. What if my desire to pursue my own ends conflicts with another person's desire to pursue his own ends? For example, what if I gain happiness by killing others?

From this is it is clear that we must have constraints on actions. In order to maximize happiness for all people, we must ensure that all people are able to pursue their own ends (drawn from utilitarianism).

The best means through which we enable all people to pursue their own ends is through individual, hypothetical contracts that we make to not violate each others' ability to pursue ends (henceforth called autonomy). We constrain our interests if others constrain their interests so that we do not violate each others' autonomy. From these contracts, we create the basis of rights like life, liberty, and property. (This is drawn from Gauthier's theory of contractualism.) If we did not accept these contracts, there would be no reason for other people to do so either, and thus we could very easily violate autonomy and eliminate the basis for self-worth (drawn from Kant).

From this we can see that rights entail noninterference.

Since rights are negative and not positive, I only have to not harm someone's rights. I don't have an obligation to provide for them. For example, I don't have an obligation to give someone a room in my house to worship their gods. I simply have to not force them to not practice.

Parent's don't have to care for children because not caring for them does not directly infringe upon their rights. It simply does not provide them with the means to have their rights, which is fine since rights are negative and not positive.

It is an obligation because having children is ones responsibility.
Of course this is not a mandate or law Royale technically speaking.
So rejoice my dear friend. I can only imagine what it would be like if you
were pregnant and walking around barefoot with a swollen nose, ankles,
face, and a big fat tummy. Ha, ha, ha.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:39:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:36:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You don't need a theory of rights to negate the idea of "moral obligation".

But she is an advocate of abortion. Which means she has no true value for life.
This is something more supported by the Liberal establishment.
But even in todays modern democracy, it is still frowned on.
There is no debating that.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:43:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:39:29 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:36:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You don't need a theory of rights to negate the idea of "moral obligation".

But she is an advocate of abortion. Which means she has no true value for life.

Life doesn't have inherent value anyway.

This is something more supported by the Liberal establishment.
But even in todays modern democracy, it is still frowned on.
There is no debating that.

I don't care about that.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:48:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:43:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:39:29 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:36:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You don't need a theory of rights to negate the idea of "moral obligation".

But she is an advocate of abortion. Which means she has no true value for life.

Life doesn't have inherent value anyway.

This is something more supported by the Liberal establishment.
But even in todays modern democracy, it is still frowned on.
There is no debating that.

I don't care about that.

False. Life is valuable and it is natural for us to feel that we should protect
our loves ones. Maybe in your dysfunctinal life it has no value.
But where I come from,and most would agree, life in itself is valuable.
Like it or not.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:49:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:48:13 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:43:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:39:29 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:36:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You don't need a theory of rights to negate the idea of "moral obligation".

But she is an advocate of abortion. Which means she has no true value for life.

Life doesn't have inherent value anyway.

This is something more supported by the Liberal establishment.
But even in todays modern democracy, it is still frowned on.
There is no debating that.

I don't care about that.

False. Life is valuable and it is natural for us to feel that we should protect
our loves ones. Maybe in your dysfunctinal life it has no value.
But where I come from,and most would agree, life in itself is valuable.
Like it or not.

Bring all of your multiple personalities to the court.
I have something for all of them. You do not wanna miss this my dear friend.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:50:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:48:13 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:43:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:39:29 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:36:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You don't need a theory of rights to negate the idea of "moral obligation".

But she is an advocate of abortion. Which means she has no true value for life.

Life doesn't have inherent value anyway.

This is something more supported by the Liberal establishment.
But even in todays modern democracy, it is still frowned on.
There is no debating that.

I don't care about that.

False. Life is valuable and it is natural for us to feel that we should protect
our loves ones. Maybe in your dysfunctinal life it has no value.
But where I come from,and most would agree, life in itself is valuable.
Like it or not.

1. "False" is not an argument.

2. "Most would agree" is not an argument.

3. Calling me dysfunctional is not an argument.

4. Asserting that life is valuable is not an argument.

5. "It is natural that..." is neither an argument nor even universally true.

Value is not a property of objects--it's a product of subjective experience, conceived as a relation between the subject and some object.
TheBellTolls
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:50:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:48:13 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:43:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:39:29 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:36:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You don't need a theory of rights to negate the idea of "moral obligation".

But she is an advocate of abortion. Which means she has no true value for life.

Life doesn't have inherent value anyway.

This is something more supported by the Liberal establishment.
But even in todays modern democracy, it is still frowned on.
There is no debating that.

I don't care about that.

False. Life is valuable and it is natural for us to feel that we should protect
our loves ones. Maybe in your dysfunctinal life it has no value.
But where I come from,and most would agree, life in itself is valuable.
Like it or not.

False. Life has no value. It is unnatural to feel we should protect others. Your life is dysfunctional for giving value to that which you don't want to give value.
Where I come from, and most would agree, life in itself is not intrinsically valuable. We give it value.
Like it or not.

The bell tolls.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:52:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:35:29 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:24:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
If I don't want my children, I have no moral obligation to raise them.

I'll derive a theory of rights first:

Nothing has inherent value. Rocks, humans, trees, etc. are all entirely meaningless. What confers value on an object is our ability to subjectively impose our preferences on it.

My life also doesn't have inherent value. I give it value when I am free to pursue my own ends and engage in activities that I find worthwhile. But why does this matter? The end for all humans is happiness. As Aristotle notes, happiness is the proper end to have because it is not a means to any other end.

So, insofar as my ability to be happy stems from my ability to pursue my own ends and thus confer worth upon myself, the most moral thing for me to do would be to pursue my own ends.

Now, we run into a bit of a problem. What if my desire to pursue my own ends conflicts with another person's desire to pursue his own ends? For example, what if I gain happiness by killing others?

From this is it is clear that we must have constraints on actions. In order to maximize happiness for all people, we must ensure that all people are able to pursue their own ends (drawn from utilitarianism).

The best means through which we enable all people to pursue their own ends is through individual, hypothetical contracts that we make to not violate each others' ability to pursue ends (henceforth called autonomy). We constrain our interests if others constrain their interests so that we do not violate each others' autonomy. From these contracts, we create the basis of rights like life, liberty, and property. (This is drawn from Gauthier's theory of contractualism.) If we did not accept these contracts, there would be no reason for other people to do so either, and thus we could very easily violate autonomy and eliminate the basis for self-worth (drawn from Kant).

From this we can see that rights entail noninterference.

Since rights are negative and not positive, I only have to not harm someone's rights. I don't have an obligation to provide for them. For example, I don't have an obligation to give someone a room in my house to worship their gods. I simply have to not force them to not practice.

Parent's don't have to care for children because not caring for them does not directly infringe upon their rights. It simply does not provide them with the means to have their rights, which is fine since rights are negative and not positive.

It is an obligation because having children is ones responsibility.
Bare assertion fallacy. According to the theory I derived, if I don't want to have children, I don't have to.

Non sequitor fallacy. Even if it is a responsibility to have children, it doesn't imply that there is an obligation to care for them.
Of course this is not a mandate or law Royale technically speaking.
So rejoice my dear friend. I can only imagine what it would be like if you
were pregnant and walking around barefoot with a swollen nose, ankles,
face, and a big fat tummy. Ha, ha, ha.

You're a disgusting misogynist.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:52:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:36:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You don't need a theory of rights to negate the idea of "moral obligation".

I know.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:52:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:43:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:39:29 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:36:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You don't need a theory of rights to negate the idea of "moral obligation".

But she is an advocate of abortion. Which means she has no true value for life.

Life doesn't have inherent value anyway.

This
This is something more supported by the Liberal establishment.
But even in todays modern democracy, it is still frowned on.
There is no debating that.

I don't care about that.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:53:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My life also doesn't have inherent value. I give it value when I am free to pursue my own ends and engage in activities that I find worthwhile. But why does this matter? The end for all humans is happiness. As Aristotle notes, happiness is the proper end to have because it is not a means to any other end.

Yes, but "happiness" in the Aristotelian sense is very different from the "happiness" you're using. It is not everyone pursuing their own ends, it is eudamonaic happiness that consists in the cultivation of moral and intellectual virtues. Happiness has objective features that entails a certain model of "the good life" - not everyone pursuing their own subjective desires.

Since rights are negative and not positive, I only have to not harm someone's rights.

I don't agree with your premise here and I find it peculiar that a leftist like yourself (right?) would wholly reject positive rights. No one has a right in a wealthy nation to education? Healthcare? Food? This needs a better explanation.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:54:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:50:15 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:48:13 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:43:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:39:29 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:36:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You don't need a theory of rights to negate the idea of "moral obligation".

But she is an advocate of abortion. Which means she has no true value for life.

Life doesn't have inherent value anyway.

This is something more supported by the Liberal establishment.
But even in todays modern democracy, it is still frowned on.
There is no debating that.

I don't care about that.

False. Life is valuable and it is natural for us to feel that we should protect
our loves ones. Maybe in your dysfunctinal life it has no value.
But where I come from,and most would agree, life in itself is valuable.
Like it or not.

1. "False" is not an argument.

2. "Most would agree" is not an argument.

3. Calling me dysfunctional is not an argument.

4. Asserting that life is valuable is not an argument.

5. "It is natural that..." is neither an argument nor even universally true.

Value is not a property of objects--it's a product of subjective experience, conceived as a relation between the subject and some object.

LOL, Cody is saying everything that I said to you in the other threads, inferno :P
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:55:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:53:03 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
My life also doesn't have inherent value. I give it value when I am free to pursue my own ends and engage in activities that I find worthwhile. But why does this matter? The end for all humans is happiness. As Aristotle notes, happiness is the proper end to have because it is not a means to any other end.

Yes, but "happiness" in the Aristotelian sense is very different from the "happiness" you're using. It is not everyone pursuing their own ends, it is eudamonaic happiness that consists in the cultivation of moral and intellectual virtues. Happiness has objective features that entails a certain model of "the good life" - not everyone pursuing their own subjective desires.

I know. I'm not using his theory of happiness. I'm using better theory. I'm just hijacking his argument that happiness is the highest end.
Since rights are negative and not positive, I only have to not harm someone's rights.

I don't agree with your premise here and I find it peculiar that a leftist like yourself (right?) would wholly reject positive rights. No one has a right in a wealthy nation to education? Healthcare? Food? This needs a better explanation.

I think AnCom societies are in everyone's best interest. I don't think there is an obligation to be part of one. Leftism is voluntary.
TheBellTolls
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:57:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Governments forcing others to do their will is for the weak. Only the strong should survive. Forcing others to support the weak is foolish.

The bell tolls.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:59:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:48:54 PM, TheBellTolls wrote:
If one has a child and one does not wish to feed it, it is permissible to let it die.

The bell tolls.

Not in America it is. I would seriously advise thee to not try this one in
front of the law. Youre not that stupid.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:59:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:53:03 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
My life also doesn't have inherent value. I give it value when I am free to pursue my own ends and engage in activities that I find worthwhile. But why does this matter? The end for all humans is happiness. As Aristotle notes, happiness is the proper end to have because it is not a means to any other end.

Yes, but "happiness" in the Aristotelian sense is very different from the "happiness" you're using. It is not everyone pursuing their own ends, it is eudamonaic happiness that consists in the cultivation of moral and intellectual virtues. Happiness has objective features that entails a certain model of "the good life" - not everyone pursuing their own subjective desires.

That's precisely the problem with Aristotelian ethics--it's ultra-teleological. It measures us by how well we live up to whatever the "proper" form of life is, when, really, we're an open-ended bunch wrapped in a warm tortilla of potentiality. We don't have a "proper" form or function; if we did, there couldn't be ethics. There would just be a list of mundane errands to do. So, no--there isn't a divine task to do, or a vocation to discover, or a "good life" to live. The "good knife" cuts, the "good pencil" writes, so the "good man" must be one who fulfills some function proper to him, but, oh... we're argos, without work...

Since rights are negative and not positive, I only have to not harm someone's rights.

I don't agree with your premise here and I find it peculiar that a leftist like yourself (right?) would wholly reject positive rights. No one has a right in a wealthy nation to education? Healthcare? Food? This needs a better explanation.

She's an AnCom, bro.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:00:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@royal:

So, insofar as my ability to be happy stems from my ability to pursue my own ends and thus confer worth upon myself, the most moral thing for me to do would be to pursue my own ends.

Please elaborate on your ability to pursue your own ends. In short, demonstrate that you have it.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:00:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:51:53 PM, TheBellTolls wrote:
Inferno. You bore me. I shall devour you first.

All have tried and all have failed.
I am much more complex than your froward mind can even imagine.
If life has no value, then please allow yourself to die in my arms.
Yes.
TheBellTolls
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:00:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:59:02 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:48:54 PM, TheBellTolls wrote:
If one has a child and one does not wish to feed it, it is permissible to let it die.

The bell tolls.

Not in America it is. I would seriously advise thee to not try this one in
front of the law. Youre not that stupid.

I recognise only one law. It is not American.

The bell tolls.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:01:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think AnCom societies are in everyone's best interest. I don't think there is an obligation to be part of one. Leftism is voluntary.

Aren't positive rights already embedded in communism? Do communists deny universal education or healthcare?
TheBellTolls
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:02:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 3:00:36 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:51:53 PM, TheBellTolls wrote:
Inferno. You bore me. I shall devour you first.

All have tried and all have failed.
I am much more complex than your froward mind can even imagine.
If life has no value, then please allow yourself to die in my arms.
Yes.

I will succeed where others have failed. I will live forever.
My mind is like a honed blade cutting through steel on a warm summers day.
Were I to die in your arms, would the world have any less worth? No.
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:03:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 3:00:59 PM, TheBellTolls wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:59:02 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:48:54 PM, TheBellTolls wrote:
If one has a child and one does not wish to feed it, it is permissible to let it die.

The bell tolls.

Not in America it is. I would seriously advise thee to not try this one in
front of the law. Youre not that stupid.

I recognise only one law. It is not American.

The bell tolls.

Then you know not to challenge our great Democracy here or there.Many have tried, and again they have all failed.
Royals justification mirrors that of a ruthless dictator.
And like Moses who led the Jews out of the iron hands or oppression.
I will save DDO from this madness today.