Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are Anarcho-Capitalists Latent Baby Killers?

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 5:26:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here's a challenging hypothetical question for that worldly-wise set of anarcho-capitalists for whom self-interest is the most fundamental and brilliant natural law, and for unabashedly nihilistic libertarians for whom it's the one and only true compass for guiding one's actions. Let's say that you were permanently stranded on another planet that was somewhat barren and inhospitable. Further, let's say that your situation was such that you knew for a certainty that you will never be rescued or receive any supplies from earth, your plight really is permanent and hopeless. Let's also say that you're not quite alone, that there's one other human being with you, but unfortunately he's not an ally or partner in your struggle for survival, he's a dependent. A total dependent, for your fellow strandee is a baby.

Yes, a pre-toddler infant who can't make any contribution whatsoever to enhancing your prospects of surviving the hardships of your new extraterrestrial environment. Of course just the opposite is the case, your darling little diapered dependent is going to be a real drag on your efforts to stay alive, and a drain on your limited and unreplenishable resources. Quite simply, there's nothing of a pragmatically beneficial nature to be gained from trying to care for this parasitical waif you've been burdened with. That's all he is from the perspective of pragmatic self-interest, after all, just a baneful burden who may tip the balance of your ability to survive in the wrong direction.

Now then, since you're a staunchly self-avowed, doctrinally dyed-in-the-wool (perhaps even somewhat nihilistic) libertarian capitalist who doesn't think in subjective and wishy-washy "moral" terms, since self-interest is the more rational GPS that you've switched your moral compass out for, and since it's quite obvious after doing a quick bit of pragmatic calculus that there's not much practical sense in jeopardizing your own chances of staying alive to do play foster mommy or daddy to your useless and resource-taxing ward, do you do what your self-interest would seem to dictate, do you snuff out the life of your infantile companion? Or perhaps simply leave him out over night to perish from exposure, that would be the more non-aggressive way to do it.

You could of course try to rationalize doing the irrationally noble thing, you could reason that eventually baby bunting will be out of nappies and grow up into a strapping lad who will be good company and a serviceable comrade in your fight for life on this desolate rock in space you're stuck on. Good long-term thinking, except for one teensy problem. The rub is that your future bosom friend and helper is going to be deadweight for just way too long before he's any good to you. And if you deign to carry that deadweight you're overwhelmingly unlikely to live to see any return on your investment. That is, the little tyke is a clear and present danger to your immediate survival and can't be spared on the grounds that one far off day he may become an asset. Right now he's nothing but a glaring liability who's seriously impairing your odds of making it, this is the reality you have to confront.

So then, if you're confronting this bleak reality as a confirmed egoistic individualist, confronting it with nothing but self-interest as the all-purpose criterion upon which to make all your choices, what are you going to do? What would an authentic self-interested, altruism-rejecting, free-market touting, libertarianism espousing individual who operates solely according to the objective logic of "ethical egoism" do in such a scenario? Would you do what's decent by the lights of most people, or would you do what's consistent with your worldview and become a baby killer? That is, are all look-out-for-#1 anarchists, all individualistic and utilitarian free-marketarians who explicitly consider self-interest to be the only real and legitimate motive for doing anything potential baby killers? Are you all child murderers awaiting the right circumstances? (Btw, this is meant to be a bluntly pointed question, to put it oxymoronically, please don't seize on the bluntness of its wording as a convenient excuse to dodge what is actually a serious ethical dilemma.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 5:31:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
he
Raising female companionship from infancy on a desert planet I can see, but male? F*** that. Let him crawl around wherever he wants, it would be facially unjust for me to help him. ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 5:33:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Note that it's a rather narrow spectrum of planets where the chances of my survival are reasonably altered by some standard of care to an infant, but as that isn't really marginal to my decision...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 5:35:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Of course I'd leave the baby to perish.

Here's how it plays out: my chances of survival are basically zero, because I'm getting no rescue or extra supplies. But, maybe it's possible that I survive and find a way to subsist. If I take the baby along, my chances of living are guaranteed to be zero, because I'll neither have enough to live on nor see a return on my investment in the kid. So:

Take the kid = 0% chance of survival. We both consume existing resources, I die without getting a companion to help me survive, and the kid dies soon after by virtue of being unable to survive (and by virtue of our having jointly consumed available resources).

Leave the kid = >0% chance of survival. I ration all the resources for myself, maybe die, but have a better chance than the alternative.

Basically, I gain nothing from taking the kid, am guaranteed to die if I do take it, and have no meaningful impact, since the kid's chances of survival are 0% either way.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 5:37:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 5:35:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Of course I'd leave the baby to perish.

Here's how it plays out: my chances of survival are basically zero, because I'm getting no rescue or extra supplies. But, maybe it's possible that I survive and find a way to subsist. If I take the baby along, my chances of living are guaranteed to be zero, because I'll neither have enough to live on nor see a return on my investment in the kid. So:

Take the kid = 0% chance of survival. We both consume existing resources, I die without getting a companion to help me survive, and the kid dies soon after by virtue of being unable to survive (and by virtue of our having jointly consumed available resources).

Leave the kid = >0% chance of survival. I ration all the resources for myself, maybe die, but have a better chance than the alternative.

Basically, I gain nothing from taking the kid, am guaranteed to die if I do take it, and have no meaningful impact, since the kid's chances of survival are 0% either way.

The 0 vs. non-0 setup seems to me an invalid thought experiment on the grounds that it requires omniscience about a borderline case, and omniscient beings obviously can't be the basis for our morality.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 5:39:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 5:37:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/7/2011 5:35:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Of course I'd leave the baby to perish.

Here's how it plays out: my chances of survival are basically zero, because I'm getting no rescue or extra supplies. But, maybe it's possible that I survive and find a way to subsist. If I take the baby along, my chances of living are guaranteed to be zero, because I'll neither have enough to live on nor see a return on my investment in the kid. So:

Take the kid = 0% chance of survival. We both consume existing resources, I die without getting a companion to help me survive, and the kid dies soon after by virtue of being unable to survive (and by virtue of our having jointly consumed available resources).

Leave the kid = >0% chance of survival. I ration all the resources for myself, maybe die, but have a better chance than the alternative.

Basically, I gain nothing from taking the kid, am guaranteed to die if I do take it, and have no meaningful impact, since the kid's chances of survival are 0% either way.

The 0 vs. non-0 setup seems to me an invalid thought experiment on the grounds that it requires omniscience about a borderline case, and omniscient beings obviously can't be the basis for our morality.

I was just about to post on that. My original post was simply intended to demonstrate that, even accepting his conditions, the experiment doesn't operate in his favor.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 5:49:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Charles, you do realize you're a baby killer too, right? There are lots of starving children in Africa. If you sell your house and your car and live in a tent in the park and ride your bike to work every day, you could probably save a significant number of them. But you don't. Murderer.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 9:15:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is insufficient information to determine whether or not it would be prudent to save the child. You could not begin to determine whether or not it is a practical idea without specific information about your probability of survival, the child's, the impact you each have on each other's probability of survival, and several other factors I'll think of after the post. Finally, you can't argue that one degree of risk-aptness or child valuation is more or less rational than any other. For any human, it becomes purely a psychological matter (even if you subscribe to some ethical theory that suggests that you must always attempt to save the child, the extent to which you value following this doctrine becomes a determinate factor.

Suppose that you are on a circular disk with a radius of 200 meters. You are 20 meters from the edge of the disk and there is a baby at the center of the disk. You know with an arbitrary degree of epistemic certainty that ever living being on the disk will die painfully in 20 seconds. Would you attempt to save the child under those circumstances? If you answer "no" than you must concede that your own probability of survival must impact your decision and after that any attempt to argue that certain degrees of risk are inherently more acceptable than others is nonsense.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 9:58:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 5:35:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Of course I'd leave the baby to perish.

Here's how it plays out: my chances of survival are basically zero, because I'm getting no rescue or extra supplies. But, maybe it's possible that I survive and find a way to subsist. If I take the baby along, my chances of living are guaranteed to be zero, because I'll neither have enough to live on nor see a return on my investment in the kid. So:

Take the kid = 0% chance of survival. We both consume existing resources, I die without getting a companion to help me survive, and the kid dies soon after by virtue of being unable to survive (and by virtue of our having jointly consumed available resources).

Leave the kid = >0% chance of survival. I ration all the resources for myself, maybe die, but have a better chance than the alternative.

Basically, I gain nothing from taking the kid, am guaranteed to die if I do take it, and have no meaningful impact, since the kid's chances of survival are 0% either way.

Cody, Cody, Cody, I'm surprised and shocked that you've taken a somewhat facile way out of the little hypothetical dilemma I've created. Let me recap your argument, you reason that it would be acceptable and sensible to let baby perish because if you don't then you're definitely going to die, since your chances of survival are zero with a bambino in tow. And since baby would die shortly thereafter, attempting to do the decent thing by him would simply be pointlessly condemning the two of you to death, ergo it's simply a straightforward logical conclusion that you should let your unwanted dependent expire. I believe I have it right, I believe that this is your argument. The glaring, ginormous flaw in it though is that you've rewritten the scenario to simplify it into one in which your decision can be such a straightforward logical proposition!

That is, if you reread the scenario I set up in the OP you'll see that I clearly and repeatedly state that caring for baby will add difficulty to the challenge of surviving, that it may very well adversely affect your struggle to cope with your environment and cost you your life, but I never, repeat NEVER said that playing foster pappy to baby would be guaranteed to reduce your ability to survive to zero, I never made it that easy for you. You, however, have revised the scenario so as to make it that easy, so as to allow yourself the cop-out of saying: "Well sure, if caring for baby is going to make my odds of surviving zero and get us both killed, of course I should and would let the bratling buy the farm."

Let me reiterate, all you've done, then, is evasively dodge the real ethical choice that I tried to force upon your conscience. Nope, you haven't dealt with the dilemma in good faith, or with much intellectual honesty at all. You've just provided yourself with an easy out, and taken it. This isn't at all like you, perhaps you were pressed for time, or tired and hungry. At any rate, I'm afraid that I have to say that your answer and argument is lame. I say this not to be insulting, but as a mere statement of fact. You'll note that although I've previously told you more than once that I respect the intelligence of your arguments without finding them persuasive, I've not attacked any of your arguments as lame, because until now they haven't been. But this time you haven't done justice to your own logical powers, you've produce a weak and intellectually dishonest argument. If you have the time and inclination I'd suggest that you reread the original post and reply again with a better argument for your egoistic position.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:04:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 5:49:55 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Charles, you do realize you're a baby killer too, right? There are lots of starving children in Africa. If you sell your house and your car and live in a tent in the park and ride your bike to work every day, you could probably save a significant number of them. But you don't. Murderer.

J.Kenyon, another recriminating response that contributes nothing of value or interest to the discussion. Oh well, you're still welcome to reply with some actual thoughts rather than vapid ad hominem-isms.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:18:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 9:58:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/7/2011 5:35:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Of course I'd leave the baby to perish.

Here's how it plays out: my chances of survival are basically zero, because I'm getting no rescue or extra supplies. But, maybe it's possible that I survive and find a way to subsist. If I take the baby along, my chances of living are guaranteed to be zero, because I'll neither have enough to live on nor see a return on my investment in the kid. So:

Take the kid = 0% chance of survival. We both consume existing resources, I die without getting a companion to help me survive, and the kid dies soon after by virtue of being unable to survive (and by virtue of our having jointly consumed available resources).

Leave the kid = >0% chance of survival. I ration all the resources for myself, maybe die, but have a better chance than the alternative.

Basically, I gain nothing from taking the kid, am guaranteed to die if I do take it, and have no meaningful impact, since the kid's chances of survival are 0% either way.

Cody, Cody, Cody, I'm surprised and shocked that you've taken a somewhat facile way out of the little hypothetical dilemma I've created. Let me recap your argument, you reason that it would be acceptable and sensible to let baby perish because if you don't then you're definitely going to die, since your chances of survival are zero with a bambino in tow. And since baby would die shortly thereafter, attempting to do the decent thing by him would simply be pointlessly condemning the two of you to death, ergo it's simply a straightforward logical conclusion that you should let your unwanted dependent expire. I believe I have it right, I believe that this is your argument. The glaring, ginormous flaw in it though is that you've rewritten the scenario to simplify it into one in which your decision can be such a straightforward logical proposition!

My argument is that my chances of survival are already low. I have a small amount of resources that might allow me to survive--even you construct the scenario to say that my plight is "hopeless". If such is the case, my chance of survival is >0%. If I take on this baby, I have to divide my already ultra-scarce resources even further, which makes my chance of survival functionally 0, or so close to 0 that the difference is negligible. I lose a lot and take a massive risk by taking on the baby, and gain absolutely nothing. I would leave the child to perish.

That is, if you reread the scenario I set up in the OP you'll see that I clearly and repeatedly state that caring for baby will add difficulty to the challenge of surviving, that it may very well adversely affect your struggle to cope with your environment and cost you your life, but I never, repeat NEVER said that playing foster pappy to baby would be guaranteed to reduce your ability to survive to zero, I never made it that easy for you. You, however, have revised the scenario so as to make it that easy, so as to allow yourself the cop-out of saying: "Well sure, if caring for baby is going to make my odds of surviving zero and get us both killed, of course I should and would let the bratling buy the farm."

Your comments on the matter:

The rub is that your future bosom friend and helper is going to be deadweight for just way too long before he's any good to you.

In other words, I'll die before he becomes useful.

And if you deign to carry that deadweight you're overwhelmingly unlikely to live to see any return on your investment. That is, the little tyke is a clear and present danger to your immediate survival and can't be spared on the grounds that one far off day he may become an asset.

Yeah. This implies that the introduction of a dependent reduces the chance of survival to a functional 0%.

Let me reiterate, all you've done, then, is evasively dodge the real ethical choice that I tried to force upon your conscience. Nope, you haven't dealt with the dilemma in good faith, or with much intellectual honesty at all. You've just provided yourself with an easy out, and taken it. This isn't at all like you, perhaps you were pressed for time, or tired and hungry. At any rate, I'm afraid that I have to say that your answer and argument is lame. I say this not to be insulting, but as a mere statement of fact. You'll note that although I've previously told you more than once that I respect the intelligence of your arguments without finding them persuasive, I've not attacked any of your arguments as lame, because until now they haven't been. But this time you haven't done justice to your own logical powers, you've produce a weak and intellectually dishonest argument. If you have the time and inclination I'd suggest that you reread the original post and reply again with a better argument for your egoistic position.

My argument doesn't change, even if you modify the parameters. The conditions are functionally the same:

Leave the child: x/1 division of resources (where X is the total quantity of resources, to oversimplify the analysis a bit), some chance of survival.

Take the child: x/2 division of resources, significant loss in chance of survival (which becomes functionally zero when you consider all the talk about him being an imminent threat to my immediate survival), and gain nothing (as the child will not be useful before I apparently perish).

Clearly, the choice is still to leave the child. Even if we say that my chance of survival taking the child is 50%, reduced from the initial probability of 75%, I still wouldn't take the child, because my chance of survival is going down with no corresponding gain. You're basically testing whether I'll take guaranteed losses for ethical reasons--something that no rational person in that kind of situation is likely to do. In the one case, the child is going to die. In the other case, the child is probably going to die when resources are prematurely depleted.

Of course, I share Ragnar's criticism, that you can't set up those sorts of conditions anyway, because it presumes omniscience about all initial conditions, later risks and results, etc. If I were trapped on some planet with X amount of resources, and had to choose whether to keep or leave some baby, I'm placing my chips on the better bet for my own survival.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:20:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:05:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
You do know that not all Ancaps are nihilists, right?

Furthermore, this thread really has nothing to do with ancaps or nihilism, just egoism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:37:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:05:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
You do know that not all Ancaps are nihilists, right?

Yes, I know this. But it also seems that many ancaps and other extreme pro-capitalists emphasize the principle of self-interest to the point that in their thinking it's the only real and legitimate motivation for any choice a human being might make, and although I do explicitly refer to ancaps and nihilistic libertarians it's also clear that my little thought experiment is designed to be targeted at the exclusivity with which some pro-capitalists embrace egoism and self-interest, regardless of the ideological label worn by said pro-capitalists. What I'm really trying to get at, then, with my hypothetical scenario is just how ideologically committed some pro-capitalist folks are to the dogmatic egoistic idea that self-interest is the exclusive value underlying all human behavior.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:40:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Fair enough, we already know how committed to the dogma of altruism you are :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:47:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:37:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:05:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
You do know that not all Ancaps are nihilists, right?

Yes, I know this. But it also seems that many ancaps and other extreme pro-capitalists emphasize the principle of self-interest to the point that in their thinking it's the only real and legitimate motivation for any choice a human being might make, and although I do explicitly refer to ancaps and nihilistic libertarians it's also clear that my little thought experiment is designed to be targeted at the exclusivity with which some pro-capitalists embrace egoism and self-interest, regardless of the ideological label worn by said pro-capitalists. What I'm really trying to get at, then, with my hypothetical scenario is just how ideologically committed some pro-capitalist folks are to the dogmatic egoistic idea that self-interest is the exclusive value underlying all human behavior.

So, as an Ancap who's a nihilist and egoist, I must make your skin crawl. :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:54:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:47:54 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:37:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:05:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
You do know that not all Ancaps are nihilists, right?

Yes, I know this. But it also seems that many ancaps and other extreme pro-capitalists emphasize the principle of self-interest to the point that in their thinking it's the only real and legitimate motivation for any choice a human being might make, and although I do explicitly refer to ancaps and nihilistic libertarians it's also clear that my little thought experiment is designed to be targeted at the exclusivity with which some pro-capitalists embrace egoism and self-interest, regardless of the ideological label worn by said pro-capitalists. What I'm really trying to get at, then, with my hypothetical scenario is just how ideologically committed some pro-capitalist folks are to the dogmatic egoistic idea that self-interest is the exclusive value underlying all human behavior.

So, as an Ancap who's a nihilist and egoist, I must make your skin crawl. :P

I'm a fan of horror movies, nothing makes my skin crawl.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:56:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Responding to the title of this thread, yes. I dream of killing babies. I also hate coloreds, japs, homos, mexicans and anyone who isn't also an anarcho capitalist, atheist, materialist or moral nihilist. So really when I'm done it will only be me and Cody left. You caugt me.
My manwich!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:58:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:56:14 PM, Merda wrote:
Responding to the title of this thread, yes. I dream of killing babies. I also hate coloreds, japs, homos, mexicans and anyone who isn't also an anarcho capitalist, atheist, materialist or moral nihilist. So really when I'm done it will only be me and Cody left. You caugt me.

Better not just be you and me left. I want the post-apocalyptic world to be stocked with hot chicks.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:59:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:54:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:47:54 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:37:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:05:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
You do know that not all Ancaps are nihilists, right?

Yes, I know this. But it also seems that many ancaps and other extreme pro-capitalists emphasize the principle of self-interest to the point that in their thinking it's the only real and legitimate motivation for any choice a human being might make, and although I do explicitly refer to ancaps and nihilistic libertarians it's also clear that my little thought experiment is designed to be targeted at the exclusivity with which some pro-capitalists embrace egoism and self-interest, regardless of the ideological label worn by said pro-capitalists. What I'm really trying to get at, then, with my hypothetical scenario is just how ideologically committed some pro-capitalist folks are to the dogmatic egoistic idea that self-interest is the exclusive value underlying all human behavior.

So, as an Ancap who's a nihilist and egoist, I must make your skin crawl. :P

I'm a fan of horror movies, nothing makes my skin crawl.

Are you comparing my ideologies to a horror film? Lol.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:00:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:04:04 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/7/2011 5:49:55 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Charles, you do realize you're a baby killer too, right? There are lots of starving children in Africa. If you sell your house and your car and live in a tent in the park and ride your bike to work every day, you could probably save a significant number of them. But you don't. Murderer.

J.Kenyon, another recriminating response that contributes nothing of value or interest to the discussion. Oh well, you're still welcome to reply with some actual thoughts rather than vapid ad hominem-isms.

Excuse me? I just pointed out a serious problem with your argument. Are you going to respond to it, or just fap to Karl Marx some more?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:00:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:58:20 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:56:14 PM, Merda wrote:
Responding to the title of this thread, yes. I dream of killing babies. I also hate coloreds, japs, homos, mexicans and anyone who isn't also an anarcho capitalist, atheist, materialist or moral nihilist. So really when I'm done it will only be me and Cody left. You caugt me.

Better not just be you and me left. I want the post-apocalyptic world to be stocked with hot chicks.

Hot chicks that are atheists, materialists, ancaps and/or moral nihilists?

Good luck with that.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:01:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:56:14 PM, Merda wrote:
Responding to the title of this thread, yes. I dream of killing babies. I also hate coloreds, japs, homos, mexicans and anyone who isn't also an anarcho capitalist, atheist, materialist or moral nihilist. So really when I'm done it will only be me and Cody left. You caugt me.

Do you think that your contemptuous opinion of me entitles you to use racist terms such as colored and ja*p, or to make light of being homophobic and Hispanophobic? Oh well, I guess this is the mentality of some adolescent anarcho-capitalists, not all perhaps, but some – many.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:02:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 11:00:31 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:58:20 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:56:14 PM, Merda wrote:
Responding to the title of this thread, yes. I dream of killing babies. I also hate coloreds, japs, homos, mexicans and anyone who isn't also an anarcho capitalist, atheist, materialist or moral nihilist. So really when I'm done it will only be me and Cody left. You caugt me.

Better not just be you and me left. I want the post-apocalyptic world to be stocked with hot chicks.

Hot chicks that are atheists, materialists, ancaps and/or moral nihilists?

Good luck with that.

Meh. I don't really care about that. "Hot" is the only qualification.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:05:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 11:02:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:00:31 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:58:20 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:56:14 PM, Merda wrote:
Responding to the title of this thread, yes. I dream of killing babies. I also hate coloreds, japs, homos, mexicans and anyone who isn't also an anarcho capitalist, atheist, materialist or moral nihilist. So really when I'm done it will only be me and Cody left. You caugt me.

Better not just be you and me left. I want the post-apocalyptic world to be stocked with hot chicks.

Hot chicks that are atheists, materialists, ancaps and/or moral nihilists?

Good luck with that.

Meh. I don't really care about that. "Hot" is the only qualification.

Pfft, I doubt that. After awhile, hearing the girl drone on about the "meaning of life" and God's eternal love will become increasingly irritating. And no matter how hot she is, that ain't gonna work. :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:05:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:59:18 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:54:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:47:54 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:37:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:05:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
You do know that not all Ancaps are nihilists, right?

Yes, I know this. But it also seems that many ancaps and other extreme pro-capitalists emphasize the principle of self-interest to the point that in their thinking it's the only real and legitimate motivation for any choice a human being might make, and although I do explicitly refer to ancaps and nihilistic libertarians it's also clear that my little thought experiment is designed to be targeted at the exclusivity with which some pro-capitalists embrace egoism and self-interest, regardless of the ideological label worn by said pro-capitalists. What I'm really trying to get at, then, with my hypothetical scenario is just how ideologically committed some pro-capitalist folks are to the dogmatic egoistic idea that self-interest is the exclusive value underlying all human behavior.

So, as an Ancap who's a nihilist and egoist, I must make your skin crawl. :P

I'm a fan of horror movies, nothing makes my skin crawl.

Are you comparing my ideologies to a horror film? Lol.

Not consciously, don't be so touchy.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:06:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 11:01:59 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:56:14 PM, Merda wrote:
Responding to the title of this thread, yes. I dream of killing babies. I also hate coloreds, japs, homos, mexicans and anyone who isn't also an anarcho capitalist, atheist, materialist or moral nihilist. So really when I'm done it will only be me and Cody left. You caugt me.

Do you think that your contemptuous opinion of me entitles you to use racist terms such as colored and ja*p, or to make light of being homophobic and Hispanophobic? Oh well, I guess this is the mentality of some adolescent anarcho-capitalists, not all perhaps, but some – many.

Dude, it's a phucking joke man.
My manwich!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:06:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 11:05:09 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:02:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:00:31 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:58:20 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:56:14 PM, Merda wrote:
Responding to the title of this thread, yes. I dream of killing babies. I also hate coloreds, japs, homos, mexicans and anyone who isn't also an anarcho capitalist, atheist, materialist or moral nihilist. So really when I'm done it will only be me and Cody left. You caugt me.

Better not just be you and me left. I want the post-apocalyptic world to be stocked with hot chicks.

Hot chicks that are atheists, materialists, ancaps and/or moral nihilists?

Good luck with that.

Meh. I don't really care about that. "Hot" is the only qualification.

Pfft, I doubt that. After awhile, hearing the girl drone on about the "meaning of life" and God's eternal love will become increasingly irritating. And no matter how hot she is, that ain't gonna work. :P

What gives you the impression that I'll be spending more than one evening with any of those girls?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:07:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 11:06:27 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:05:09 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:02:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:00:31 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:58:20 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:56:14 PM, Merda wrote:
Responding to the title of this thread, yes. I dream of killing babies. I also hate coloreds, japs, homos, mexicans and anyone who isn't also an anarcho capitalist, atheist, materialist or moral nihilist. So really when I'm done it will only be me and Cody left. You caugt me.

Better not just be you and me left. I want the post-apocalyptic world to be stocked with hot chicks.

Hot chicks that are atheists, materialists, ancaps and/or moral nihilists?

Good luck with that.

Meh. I don't really care about that. "Hot" is the only qualification.

Pfft, I doubt that. After awhile, hearing the girl drone on about the "meaning of life" and God's eternal love will become increasingly irritating. And no matter how hot she is, that ain't gonna work. :P

What gives you the impression that I'll be spending more than one evening with any of those girls?

Wishful thinking.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:08:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 11:07:15 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:06:27 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:05:09 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/7/2011 11:02:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Meh. I don't really care about that. "Hot" is the only qualification.

Pfft, I doubt that. After awhile, hearing the girl drone on about the "meaning of life" and God's eternal love will become increasingly irritating. And no matter how hot she is, that ain't gonna work. :P

What gives you the impression that I'll be spending more than one evening with any of those girls?

Wishful thinking.

Why would you wish that on me?