Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Honest question, Part 1.

Ayyuba
Posts: 218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2013 11:42:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am going to ask a question, and I am ready for honest answers. If I claim that true libertarians are prochoice, am I guilty of the No Ttrue Scotsman fallacy?
So you wanna know all about Sitara, huh? Knowledge is power, and you want knowledge of me? With great power comes great responsibility, so I hope you understand what you're getting yourself into. Don't say I didn't warn you.
http://www.writerscafe.org...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.condomdepot.com...
http://www.fundabortionnow.org...
"Anyone who knows anything about the presidency knows that liberalism and conservatism have jack sh*t to do with being president." -Im
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:25:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/17/2013 11:42:55 PM, Ayyuba wrote:
I am going to ask a question, and I am ready for honest answers. If I claim that true libertarians are prochoice, am I guilty of the No Ttrue Scotsman fallacy?

All libertarians are pro choice, Obama has passed a bill so that abortion can be legal in every state. It is the most logical answer.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:26:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/17/2013 11:42:55 PM, Ayyuba wrote:
I am going to ask a question, and I am ready for honest answers. If I claim that true libertarians are prochoice, am I guilty of the No Ttrue Scotsman fallacy?

Yes. I very rarely believe the No True Scotsman fallacy applies, but this is a rare case that I've seen where it does in fact apply.

Abortion is one of those grey area issues that is difficult to resolve and the hard line principles of Libertarianism aren't meant to solve it.

Libertarian principles require the protection of life, liberty, and property. The debate about whether a fetus is a life and a life that is human is one that isn't quite political.

I personally believe Ron Paul provides strong arguments for the pro-life stance and for you to call Ron Paul not a true Libertarian is utterly absurd.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ayyuba
Posts: 218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:26:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:23:19 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Yes.

Why do you think libertarians must be prochoice?

I don't anymore. I am just trying to open myself to logic and wisdom. Thank you for your honest answer.
So you wanna know all about Sitara, huh? Knowledge is power, and you want knowledge of me? With great power comes great responsibility, so I hope you understand what you're getting yourself into. Don't say I didn't warn you.
http://www.writerscafe.org...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.condomdepot.com...
http://www.fundabortionnow.org...
"Anyone who knows anything about the presidency knows that liberalism and conservatism have jack sh*t to do with being president." -Im
Ayyuba
Posts: 218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:28:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:26:16 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/17/2013 11:42:55 PM, Ayyuba wrote:
I am going to ask a question, and I am ready for honest answers. If I claim that true libertarians are prochoice, am I guilty of the No Ttrue Scotsman fallacy?

Yes. I very rarely believe the No True Scotsman fallacy applies, but this is a rare case that I've seen where it does in fact apply.

Abortion is one of those grey area issues that is difficult to resolve and the hard line principles of Libertarianism aren't meant to solve it.

Libertarian principles require the protection of life, liberty, and property. The debate about whether a fetus is a life and a life that is human is one that isn't quite political.

I personally believe Ron Paul provides strong arguments for the pro-life stance and for you to call Ron Paul not a true Libertarian is utterly absurd.

I voted for Ron Paul. I deeply admire him. I was not dsenying how libertarian he is, and in my personal opinion, I feel that he is the most libertarian. Why do you think I was critquing him?
So you wanna know all about Sitara, huh? Knowledge is power, and you want knowledge of me? With great power comes great responsibility, so I hope you understand what you're getting yourself into. Don't say I didn't warn you.
http://www.writerscafe.org...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.condomdepot.com...
http://www.fundabortionnow.org...
"Anyone who knows anything about the presidency knows that liberalism and conservatism have jack sh*t to do with being president." -Im
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:31:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:26:57 AM, Ayyuba wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:23:19 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Yes.

Why do you think libertarians must be prochoice?

I don't anymore. I am just trying to open myself to logic and wisdom. Thank you for your honest answer.

Why did you think that?
I am curious as to your reasoning, if you don't mind.
My work here is, finally, done.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:32:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:28:34 AM, Ayyuba wrote:
I voted for Ron Paul. I deeply admire him. I was not dsenying how libertarian he is, and in my personal opinion, I feel that he is the most libertarian. Why do you think I was critquing him?

Ah, you're pro-life, nvm. You're OP gave off the impression that you supported the statement that pro-choice is a requirement for Libertarianism. In that case, I redirect my critique to Mikal.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:34:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:32:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:28:34 AM, Ayyuba wrote:
I voted for Ron Paul. I deeply admire him. I was not dsenying how libertarian he is, and in my personal opinion, I feel that he is the most libertarian. Why do you think I was critquing him?

Ah, you're pro-life, nvm. You're OP gave off the impression that you supported the statement that pro-choice is a requirement for Libertarianism. In that case, I redirect my critique to Mikal.

Pro choice is a requirement to be a liberal. Read the bible
Ayyuba
Posts: 218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:34:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:32:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:28:34 AM, Ayyuba wrote:
I voted for Ron Paul. I deeply admire him. I was not dsenying how libertarian he is, and in my personal opinion, I feel that he is the most libertarian. Why do you think I was critquing him?

Ah, you're pro-life, nvm. You're OP gave off the impression that you supported the statement that pro-choice is a requirement for Libertarianism. In that case, I redirect my critique to Mikal.

Thanks hun. I was prochoice until today, but i thought about it, and I feel that prolife beliefs are right for me. I seriously love Dr Paul.
So you wanna know all about Sitara, huh? Knowledge is power, and you want knowledge of me? With great power comes great responsibility, so I hope you understand what you're getting yourself into. Don't say I didn't warn you.
http://www.writerscafe.org...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.condomdepot.com...
http://www.fundabortionnow.org...
"Anyone who knows anything about the presidency knows that liberalism and conservatism have jack sh*t to do with being president." -Im
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:35:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:34:16 AM, Mikal wrote:
Pro choice is a requirement to be a liberal. Read the bible

You just said "All libertarians are pro choice." Ron Paul is not pro-choice.

What does the Bible have to do with anything, I'm not even a Christian.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:35:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:32:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:28:34 AM, Ayyuba wrote:
I voted for Ron Paul. I deeply admire him. I was not dsenying how libertarian he is, and in my personal opinion, I feel that he is the most libertarian. Why do you think I was critquing him?

Ah, you're pro-life, nvm. You're OP gave off the impression that you supported the statement that pro-choice is a requirement for Libertarianism. In that case, I redirect my critique to Mikal.

Clearly states that God killed all the first born children. Therefore he supports post 3rd trimester abortion as well
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:42:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:35:54 AM, Mikal wrote:
Clearly states that God killed all the first born children. Therefore he supports post 3rd trimester abortion as well

Yes, Yahweh is a sick freak, that's why Jesus rejected him and set forth the New Covenant.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:43:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A no true Scotsman fallacy is one of the trickier ones to identify because something can appear similar in form simply by someone omitting something in a categorical definition.

The idea is that you define a category, make a universal statement about that category, and then when presented with a counter-example say that the example is not really part of that category despite it meeting the definition. i.e. you admit an exception but don't admit your universal is false.

As you can see everything turns on whether the counter-example truly is part of the category given. So even if you say something like:

No libertarian is pro-life.

and someone says:

I'm a libertarian and I'm pro-life

you go:

No true libertarian is pro-life


that is not necessarily a NTS fallacy since it is quite possible that the categorical definition of a libertarian is not simply "someone who claims to be a libertarian." It is possible that some element inherently implied by the definition of libertarian makes it impossible for any libertarian to be pro-life.

For instance there is no such thing as a racist which believes in racial equality. If someone came against me with a counter example I would say "that's no true racist."

Now as a self-described libertarian I would say it is certainly not implied by any common definition of libertarian that one must be pro-choice.

I do not wish to take a stand on the issue, but I will point out that even on the basis of a right to liberty everything turns on whether or not you consider the fetus a 'person' or 'unique individual' in the way you would consider an infant one.

Even the most radical believer in liberty (and you won't find many more radical than I) cedes that nobody should have the liberty to deprive others of liberty.

So if an abortion is considered by a libertarian to be in the same category as killing an infant, or a child; then of course they are going to be against it because that deprives the offspring of liberty. The parent's liberty to murder is no right.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:46:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:42:40 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:35:54 AM, Mikal wrote:
Clearly states that God killed all the first born children. Therefore he supports post 3rd trimester abortion as well

Yes, Yahweh is a sick freak, that's why Jesus rejected him and set forth the New Covenant.

Things Yawheh or our messiah supports

(1) Slavery
(2) The abolishment of slavery
(3) Infanticide
(3) Racism
(4 Equality
(6) Murder
(7) Justice

He also gave bush power. Bush became president so that he can mess up our economy .That gave rise to Obama whom is the anti christ. Barak in Hebrew is lighting, which in the hebrew bible is clarified. Jesus says he saw satan fall like "Barak" from heaven. Our economy and morality must suffer so that Obama can bring about the end times.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 5:49:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/17/2013 11:42:55 PM, Ayyuba wrote:
I am going to ask a question, and I am ready for honest answers. If I claim that true libertarians are prochoice, am I guilty of the No Ttrue Scotsman fallacy?

Not necessarily. A No True Scotsman is a version of begging the question. Therefore, a no true scotsman must fail to justify why a "true" something would act in such a way.

For example, a No True Scotsman may claim:

"A true liberal would support drug legalisation." It does not necessarily follow from liberalism that a liberal ought to, and on its own it does not justify itself. It begs the question, and therefore is fallacious.

A non-fallacious argument of similar form:

"A true liberal would value consent and liberty." The common academic understanding of liberalism is one which values these things, and therefore it is pretty much a safe premise in itself.

In short, a no true scotsman is fallacious for it begs the question: "But what makes false X's not support what you are saying?"
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 6:50:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You're only guilty of the informal No True Scotsman fallacy if you fail to justify your claim.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 8:54:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:26:16 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/17/2013 11:42:55 PM, Ayyuba wrote:
I am going to ask a question, and I am ready for honest answers. If I claim that true libertarians are prochoice, am I guilty of the No Ttrue Scotsman fallacy?

Yes. I very rarely believe the No True Scotsman fallacy applies, but this is a rare case that I've seen where it does in fact apply.

Abortion is one of those grey area issues that is difficult to resolve and the hard line principles of Libertarianism aren't meant to solve it.


It's not even remotely difficult to resolve.

Libertarian principles require the protection of life, liberty, and property. The debate about whether a fetus is a life
No it's not. Replace fetus with a hobo. Libertarianism says you don't have to let him live in your fetus, even though he's life. Done.
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.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 8:47:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 8:54:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:26:16 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Libertarian principles require the protection of life, liberty, and property. The debate about whether a fetus is a life
No it's not. Replace fetus with a hobo. Libertarianism says you don't have to let him live in your fetus, even though he's life. Done.

Replace hobo with two year old. Does Libertarianism say you don't have to feed your own children?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 9:57:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 8:47:49 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/20/2013 8:54:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:26:16 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Libertarian principles require the protection of life, liberty, and property. The debate about whether a fetus is a life
No it's not. Replace fetus with a hobo. Libertarianism says you don't have to let him live in your fetus, even though he's life. Done.

Replace hobo with two year old. Does Libertarianism say you don't have to feed your own children?

It could be argued that under certain moral philosophies associated with Libertarianism (e.g. Objectivism) that it would be immoral to give or receive aid (since this would be altruism, which is seen as irrational), which would be a necessary part of being or having a child. Then again, objectivism would hold that abortion is fine in the first place.

On a side note (not intending to derail the thread, I just thought of this while examining a few libertarian philosophies), why is there a false dichotomy projected between collectivism (emphasis of collective over individual) and individualism (emphasis of individual over collective)? Shouldn't stating that everyone is equally valuable be regarded as a moderate stance instead of being the views of an evil collectivist statist pig?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 12:05:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 9:57:21 AM, drhead wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:47:49 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/20/2013 8:54:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:26:16 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Libertarian principles require the protection of life, liberty, and property. The debate about whether a fetus is a life
No it's not. Replace fetus with a hobo. Libertarianism says you don't have to let him live in your fetus, even though he's life. Done.

Replace hobo with two year old. Does Libertarianism say you don't have to feed your own children?

It could be argued that under certain moral philosophies associated with Libertarianism (e.g. Objectivism) that it would be immoral to give or receive aid (since this would be altruism, which is seen as irrational), which would be a necessary part of being or having a child. Then again, objectivism would hold that abortion is fine in the first place.

Giving and receiving aid is not altruism under the objectivist definition of the word unless you are doing it because the other person values that aid (and you must always place the needs of others first) as opposed to you valuing the other person.

You don't seriously believe Objectivist object to raising children [and indeed being beholden to do so with a certain competence if you accept the responsibility] do you?

On a side note (not intending to derail the thread, I just thought of this while examining a few libertarian philosophies), why is there a false dichotomy projected between collectivism (emphasis of collective over individual) and individualism (emphasis of individual over collective)?

The dichotomy between the real liberty of real people vs the imaginary liberty of collective abstractions is not false. If a collective has the right to make decisions for its 'members' by the mechanism of majority (or anything else but perfect consensus) the liberties of individuals are sacrificed.

Therefore the only way for an individual to have liberty is if no one has the right to countermand the requirement for their consent. Not other individuals, not collections of other individuals. Thus there is a valid dichotomy between everything else but individualism in the context of liberty.

'emphasis' is the kind of word a non-libertarian would use because it relates to the viewpoint of some entity deciding what's more likely to work or what's "worth it" to society. That is not how libertarians think (and I'm glad of it).

Shouldn't stating that everyone is equally valuable be regarded as a moderate stance instead of being the views of an evil collectivist statist pig?

You can state it, you can believe it, you can act on it; but if you try to force others to do any of those three then you're an evil collectivist statist pig.

Liberty is not the valuing of men but valuing their freedom, and all major libertarian philosophies advocate equality of liberty.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 2:52:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 8:47:49 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/20/2013 8:54:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:26:16 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Libertarian principles require the protection of life, liberty, and property. The debate about whether a fetus is a life
No it's not. Replace fetus with a hobo. Libertarianism says you don't have to let him live in your fetus, even though he's life. Done.

Replace hobo with two year old. Does Libertarianism say you don't have to feed your own children?

Unless you've got contract with them that says otherwise, yup. An "A feeds B" relationship needs the consent of both parties to be legit.

Shouldn't stating that everyone is equally valuable be regarded as a moderate stance
No, which is a good thing, moderate stances are nonsensical. But that's also nonsensical-- and one can see this by asking valuable to whom?
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
11/21/2013 2:54:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You don't seriously believe Objectivist object to raising children.
In case anyone doe believe this, the answer is no.

and indeed being beholden to do so with a certain competence if you accept the responsibility
The only thing I see as "accept the responsibility" is signing a contract. If you have no contract, your only obligation to a child is to let them walk away freely from any relations with you.
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.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 3:04:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 2:54:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The only thing I see as "accept the responsibility" is signing a contract. If you have no contract, your only obligation to a child is to let them walk away freely from any relations with you.

An interesting position, but unfortunately it runs into the problem of legal consent being required for contracts and reaching the age of 18 being required for legal consent, and finally no mammal goes from zygote to 18 without a lot of help.

Either there is an implied contract when you decide to do something that may well result in conception or people can effectively abort their children up to the age of what, four five? Much higher in worse economic times.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 3:43:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 3:04:11 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/21/2013 2:54:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The only thing I see as "accept the responsibility" is signing a contract. If you have no contract, your only obligation to a child is to let them walk away freely from any relations with you.

An interesting position, but unfortunately it runs into the problem of legal consent being required for contracts and reaching the age of 18 being required for legal consent
I'm not describing present legal rules but rather ideals, and I'm not in favor of that requirement.

and finally no mammal goes from zygote to 18 without a lot of help.
Some do. The odds are definitely worse. In any case need is never a claim.


Either there is an implied contract when you decide to do something that may well result in conception
Nope. I do things that may result in increased taxes or less legal forms of robbery, doesn't make it as though I signed anything.

or people can effectively abort their children up to the age of what, four five? Much higher in worse economic times.
"Effectively abort" as in, end relations with? I suppose. I care not. If you do, open an orphanage.
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.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 3:50:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/17/2013 11:42:55 PM, Ayyuba wrote:
I am going to ask a question, and I am ready for honest answers. If I claim that true libertarians are prochoice, am I guilty of the No Ttrue Scotsman fallacy?

It depends on your definition of libertarian. I wouldn't think so, if the defining feature of libertarianism was the NAP.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 4:00:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Amended, by "some do," I was speaking of the help ceasing some time significantly after zygote.
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.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 5:39:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 3:43:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/21/2013 3:04:11 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/21/2013 2:54:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The only thing I see as "accept the responsibility" is signing a contract. If you have no contract, your only obligation to a child is to let them walk away freely from any relations with you.

An interesting position, but unfortunately it runs into the problem of legal consent being required for contracts and reaching the age of 18 being required for legal consent
I'm not describing present legal rules but rather ideals, and I'm not in favor of that requirement.

Under any set of rules in the book nobody can negotiate a contract for their own conception and upbringing. I am afraid our species' biology simply isn't compatible with the notion that parents have no responsibility to their offspring.

I do want to give you the ADOL star for special competence seeing as you are the first person on this site who has indicated they understand the difference between legal present and legal proper.

In any case need is never a claim.

Even if you create the need yourself?

Either there is an implied contract when you decide to do something that may well result in conception
Nope. I do things that may result in increased taxes or less legal forms of robbery, doesn't make it as though I signed anything.

Nevertheless if you do something that requires the consent of another without explicitly receiving that consent it is quite possible that you enter into an implied contract until such time as the other informs you that the terms are not what you expected.

I know it doesn't make much sense to talk about 'consent to be created' but perhaps that is the clearest way to think about it?

Can I pose a question to you, if someone cloned you; would that require your consent (they didn't need your cooperation, they got the DNA from a scan or a skin cell you left somewhere)?

or people can effectively abort their children up to the age of what, four five? Much higher in worse economic times.
"Effectively abort" as in, end relations with? I suppose. I care not. If you do, open an orphanage.

Did you care when you were seven?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Ayyuba
Posts: 218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 7:22:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 3:50:28 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/17/2013 11:42:55 PM, Ayyuba wrote:
I am going to ask a question, and I am ready for honest answers. If I claim that true libertarians are prochoice, am I guilty of the No Ttrue Scotsman fallacy?

It depends on your definition of libertarian. I wouldn't think so, if the defining feature of libertarianism was the NAP.

What is an NAP?
So you wanna know all about Sitara, huh? Knowledge is power, and you want knowledge of me? With great power comes great responsibility, so I hope you understand what you're getting yourself into. Don't say I didn't warn you.
http://www.writerscafe.org...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.condomdepot.com...
http://www.fundabortionnow.org...
"Anyone who knows anything about the presidency knows that liberalism and conservatism have jack sh*t to do with being president." -Im
Ayyuba
Posts: 218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 7:23:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:34:16 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:32:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:28:34 AM, Ayyuba wrote:
I voted for Ron Paul. I deeply admire him. I was not dsenying how libertarian he is, and in my personal opinion, I feel that he is the most libertarian. Why do you think I was critquing him?

Ah, you're pro-life, nvm. You're OP gave off the impression that you supported the statement that pro-choice is a requirement for Libertarianism. In that case, I redirect my critique to Mikal.

Pro choice is a requirement to be a liberal. Read the bible

No True Scotman Fallacy. Liberals can be prolife.
So you wanna know all about Sitara, huh? Knowledge is power, and you want knowledge of me? With great power comes great responsibility, so I hope you understand what you're getting yourself into. Don't say I didn't warn you.
http://www.writerscafe.org...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.condomdepot.com...
http://www.fundabortionnow.org...
"Anyone who knows anything about the presidency knows that liberalism and conservatism have jack sh*t to do with being president." -Im