Scum of the Earth

At 6/28/2011 7:28:05 AM, askbob wrote:

You need not apologized, you summarized, i didn't have to waste my time reading you lost precious moments of your life for me and I gained them.

I guess you used up all your grammar on your project. Brb have to work on super complicated excel spreadsheet for my honors undergraduate degree in finance (fe-nans).

Shifting the goalposts. Also nice rebuttal of 1 and 2. Oh wait you didn't rebut them because you're not serious. Don't waste my time k? Kind of defeats the purpose of asking Juggle to remove troll accounts if you're just going to troll too.

"same level as pedophiles"

In that it is a severe "level" of abuse. If I say being kicked in the balls is "on the same level" as taking a baseball bat to the stomach, I don't mean they're literally the same, or that one isn't systematically found subjectively worse than the other.

They're not "on the same level"

Good thing you have an argument for that.

and pointing out that SOME PEOPLE would prefer poor being molested to being around second hand smoke does not prove your point that it is. It just proves that people are willing to compare experiences that they've never suffered through. Not that they're on the same level or even comparable.

Guess you're just going to nitpick my argument. I don't see why never having experienced either of these things invalidates the analysis. I guess you'd have to prove that everyone is so mistaken about the trauma of child abuse compared to the trauma of obesity. You can't make this argument because you've never experienced it either. Good job.

And even if you have, it doesn't matter because each individual is different. Trolololol. Expressed individual preference is the best touchstone we have.

But surely you understand this is just a technique to get people to take nutritional child abuse really seriously. You might understand that if you had read through the thread. But you just want to troll so you're just nitpicking. See you even dropped 2 of my main arguments against your position to harp on the weakest one.

"First, people can get over being molested. Even if there were a 90% chance of recovering from child molestation, it would still be horribad right? It would still be a despicable crime? hmm?

Second, there are long term effects of poor diet that can't be reversed. You just haven't been following the thread and don't know anything about nutrition."

In a debate I would extend them, point out you dropped them, and you would automatically lose. Too bad you can just wave your dick around on forums without any accountability.

I agree that it's abuse, but it's not pedophilia or comparable or on the same level or whatever terminology you want to use.

Want to debate that?

At 6/28/2011 7:54:53 AM, Sieben wrote:

At 6/27/2011 11:35:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

A dog showing up and declaring they do so while conversing in a superior manner to a chatbot would be pretty convincing.

Whats the lower limit.

It's qualitative, not quantitative. And if it is quantitative... well, i haven't quantified it. Oh well.

No one's going to file for abuse-rights.

They file for custody. Also, never say no one.

You can't have custody of a child.

Why not?

At 6/28/2011 12:26:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

It's qualitative, not quantitative. And if it is quantitative... well, i haven't quantified it. Oh well.

What is the bare minimum it takes to get you to agree that you can initiate force against something?

You can't have custody of a child.

Why not?

Where does the right come from?

At 6/28/2011 12:29:19 PM, Sieben wrote:

At 6/28/2011 12:26:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

It's qualitative, not quantitative. And if it is quantitative... well, i haven't quantified it. Oh well.

What is the bare minimum it takes to get you to agree that you can initiate force against something?

What's the barest minimum it takes to kill an elephant?

I can't analyze all possible ways of demonstrating rationality, or killing an elephant, and figure out which one is "minimal" at the drop of the hat-- the ways differ qualitatively from one another.

You can't have custody of a child.

Why not?

Where does the right come from?

From the fact that you're altering the child's development, making use of it somehow, creating something from the child.

Unless of course the child is a human being.

At 6/28/2011 12:33:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

At 6/28/2011 12:29:19 PM, Sieben wrote:

At 6/28/2011 12:26:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

It's qualitative, not quantitative. And if it is quantitative... well, i haven't quantified it. Oh well.

What is the bare minimum it takes to get you to agree that you can initiate force against something?

What's the barest minimum it takes to kill an elephant?

Doesn't matter as long as I agree its categorically possible to kill an elephant.

Can you initiate force against dogs or not?

I can't analyze all possible ways of demonstrating rationality, or killing an elephant, and figure out which one is "minimal" at the drop of the hat-- the ways differ qualitatively from one another.

You just don't provide any reasoning why dogs can't be attacked.

Where does the right come from?

From the fact that you're altering the child's development, making use of it somehow, creating something from the child.

That's not custody. That's abuse or guardianship rights.

Unless of course the child is a human being.

The child is not a human being in the moral sense. If it were a human being, the type of human it is does not have ethical rights for the same reason rocks don't.

At 6/28/2011 12:42:15 PM, Sieben wrote:

At 6/28/2011 12:33:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

At 6/28/2011 12:29:19 PM, Sieben wrote:

At 6/28/2011 12:26:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

It's qualitative, not quantitative. And if it is quantitative... well, i haven't quantified it. Oh well.

What is the bare minimum it takes to get you to agree that you can initiate force against something?

What's the barest minimum it takes to kill an elephant?

Doesn't matter as long as I agree its categorically possible to kill an elephant.

Can you initiate force against dogs or not?

Still haven't seen the dogs become categorically capable of having force initiated against them ^_^.

I can't analyze all possible ways of demonstrating rationality, or killing an elephant, and figure out which one is "minimal" at the drop of the hat-- the ways differ qualitatively from one another.

You just don't provide any reasoning why dogs can't be attacked.

The burden of proof is on the affirmative.

Where does the right come from?

From the fact that you're altering the child's development, making use of it somehow, creating something from the child.

That's not custody. That's abuse or guardianship rights.

The latter two are arbitrary divisions of the former.

At 6/28/2011 1:42:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Can you initiate force against dogs or not?

Still haven't seen the dogs become categorically capable of having force initiated against them ^_^.

Initiate: To begin, to start, to introduce. http://en.wiktionary.org...
Force: (countable) Anything that is able to make a big change in a person or thing. http://en.wiktionary.org...

People can kick dogs. That counts as initiating force.

From the fact that you're altering the child's development, making use of it somehow, creating something from the child.

That's not custody. That's abuse or guardianship rights.

The latter two are arbitrary divisions of the former.

But the latter two are derived from homesteading. The former can't be because its not an activity. Its useless because you're saying "I'm verb-ing the child". It doesn't imply anything about what rights you actually have.

At 6/28/2011 1:53:36 PM, Sieben wrote:

At 6/28/2011 1:42:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Can you initiate force against dogs or not?

Still haven't seen the dogs become categorically capable of having force initiated against them ^_^.

Initiate: To begin, to start, to introduce. http://en.wiktionary.org...
Force: (countable) Anything that is able to make a big change in a person or thing. http://en.wiktionary.org...

People can kick dogs. That counts as initiating force.

I thought we were speaking philosophy, not physics.

From the fact that you're altering the child's development, making use of it somehow, creating something from the child.

That's not custody. That's abuse or guardianship rights.

The latter two are arbitrary divisions of the former.

But the latter two are derived from homesteading. The former can't be because its not an activity. Its useless because you're saying "I'm verb-ing the child". It doesn't imply anything about what rights you actually have.

You declare custody on the grounds that you've been raising the child. You never have to tell anyone what you're raising them to be or how. Just like you don't have to tell the authorities your farming strategy to keep your farm.
Property isn't a verb.

At 6/28/2011 2:07:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

People can kick dogs. That counts as initiating force.

I thought we were speaking philosophy, not physics.

Its philosophy because intention and initiation are key variables. The physics is made necessary only by the fact that we inhabit physical bodies.

But the latter two are derived from homesteading. The former can't be because its not an activity. Its useless because you're saying "I'm verb-ing the child". It doesn't imply anything about what rights you actually have.

You declare custody on the grounds that you've been raising the child. You never have to tell anyone what you're raising them to be or how. Just like you don't have to tell the authorities your farming strategy to keep your farm.

Raising your child doesn't imply anything about anyone else's rights to the child though. Is the child still open for abuse? Guardianship? Companionship? What? "Raising your child" just means you are involved with it. Property rights have to explicate what other people can and can't do, so an actual activity and its necessary conditions have to be outlined.

Property isn't a verb.

Homesteading requires you to be verb-ing and only gives you rights around that verb.

At 6/28/2011 2:13:00 PM, Sieben wrote:

At 6/28/2011 2:07:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

People can kick dogs. That counts as initiating force.

I thought we were speaking philosophy, not physics.

Its philosophy because intention and initiation are key variables. The physics is made necessary only by the fact that we inhabit physical bodies.

Physics necessary=/= physics sufficient.

Raising your child doesn't imply anything about anyone else's rights to the child though.

Raising a child means ordering their existence. It's pretty comprehensive. Just about any activity undertaken without the parent's permission with the child interferes with it.

At 6/28/2011 2:29:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Physics necessary=/= physics sufficient.

See intention/initiation.

Raising your child doesn't imply anything about anyone else's rights to the child though.

Raising a child means ordering their existence. It's pretty comprehensive. Just about any activity undertaken without the parent's permission with the child interferes with it.

No. It CAN be comprehensive. But there are are a plethora of things you do/don't have to do to "raise a child" or "order their existence". Those individual things have to be made clear so that the property right can be related to homesteading.

At 6/28/2011 2:46:40 PM, Sieben wrote:

At 6/28/2011 2:29:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Physics necessary=/= physics sufficient.

See intention/initiation.

Neither is part of the definition of force, though contravening a will is for the purposes outside physics class

Raising your child doesn't imply anything about anyone else's rights to the child though.

Raising a child means ordering their existence. It's pretty comprehensive. Just about any activity undertaken without the parent's permission with the child interferes with it.

No. It CAN be comprehensive. But there are are a plethora of things you do/don't have to do to "raise a child" or "order their existence". Those individual things have to be made clear so that the property right can be related to homesteading.

That would make property of any sort impossible by means of mountain of red tape.

At 6/28/2011 3:53:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Neither is part of the definition of force,

Intention. And I'm talking about initiations of force so yes its relevant.

though contravening a will is for the purposes outside physics class

Dogs have a will because they walk around and do stuff.

No. It CAN be comprehensive. But there are are a plethora of things you do/don't have to do to "raise a child" or "order their existence". Those individual things have to be made clear so that the property right can be related to homesteading.

That would make property of any sort impossible by means of mountain of red tape.

What? Argument about principles...?

Dogs have a will because they walk around and do stuff.

That simply doesn't follow. That means they are animals, not they have a will.

No. It CAN be comprehensive. But there are are a plethora of things you do/don't have to do to "raise a child" or "order their existence". Those individual things have to be made clear so that the property right can be related to homesteading.

That would make property of any sort impossible by means of mountain of red tape.

What? Argument about principles...?

Your principle of property abolishes property. I see no reason for this principle "Identify every possible violation and non-violation of your property or you don't have that property."

At 6/28/2011 5:56:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That simply doesn't follow. That means they are animals, not they have a will.

I define "walking around and doing stuff" as having a will. If you don't like it you need to give a better definition.

What? Argument about principles...?

Your principle of property abolishes property. I see no reason for this principle "Identify every possible violation and non-violation of your property or you don't have that property."

You don't have a positive duty to actually do this. It just has to be POSSIBLE to do this. It is NOT possible for people to figure out if they are infringing on your property rights if your property right cannot be clarified.

At 6/28/2011 8:06:41 AM, Sieben wrote:
Guess you're just going to nitpick my argument.

Well gee imagine that happening on debate forums trololol

I don't see why never having experienced either of these things invalidates the analysis. I guess you'd have to prove that everyone is so mistaken about the trauma of child abuse compared to the trauma of obesity. You can't make this argument because you've never experienced it either. Good job.

I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream though I've never had chocolate before in any form. See how completely stupid that sounds? Of course you can compare them, you just have to have rationale which I probably missed because I didn't read your intellectual insight consisting of 18 pages.

Lol I'd love to hear your rationale for why obesity and molestation are in the same ballpark.

Expressed individual preference is the best touchstone we have.

Lol you can lose weight, you can't lose memories. Also you aren't looking at motive, the child's choice past a certain age to choose what he eats, time restrictions on the parents in preparing meals, financial implications of eating healthier, etc.

Simply making the argument that some unnamed persons would prefer one over the other puts it in the same ballpark is ridiculous and lacking any real credence.

But surely you understand this is just a technique to get people to take nutritional child abuse really seriously.

Acting like an idiot and making ridiculous claims that pedophillia is on the same level as childhood obesity won't make people take you or your point seriously but will do the opposite.

"First, people can get over being molested. Even if there were a 90% chance of recovering from child molestation, it would still be horribad right? It would still be a despicable crime? hmm?

The motive and taking a young persons innocence on a sexual level is what makes it "horribad"

Second, there are long term effects of poor diet that can't be reversed. You just haven't been following the thread and don't know anything about nutrition."

Long term? Like what 1/8 of your life is "long term" puhlease.

I agree that it's abuse, but it's not pedophilia or comparable or on the same level or whatever terminology you want to use.

Want to debate that?

No because unlike you I have a full time job as well as a fishing wire to untangle. Not everyone has the luxury of being an arrogant asss all day.

At 6/24/2011 10:03:02 AM, Brainmaster wrote:

At 6/24/2011 10:00:25 AM, Sieben wrote:

At 6/24/2011 9:56:47 AM, Brainmaster wrote:

Sh!t. I must be a bad parent to feed my kids a light snack.

You clean your needles better.

Rhetoric aside, you are the guardian of you child's mind and body. I seriously doubt you have equipped yourself with good functional knowledge of nutrition and growth.

There are only like 150 calories in a box of cheezits.

Absolutely wrong. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

At 6/28/2011 6:52:36 PM, askbob wrote:

Well gee imagine that happening on debate forums trololol

You'd think debaters would be beyond nitpicking.

I don't see why never having experienced either of these things invalidates the analysis. I guess you'd have to prove that everyone is so mistaken about the trauma of child abuse compared to the trauma of obesity. You can't make this argument because you've never experienced it either. Good job.

I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream though I've never had chocolate before in any form. See how completely stupid that sounds? Of course you can compare them, you just have to have rationale which I probably missed because I didn't read your intellectual insight consisting of 18 pages.

Wow you're dumb. My whole point has been you can evaluate experiences you've never had using reasoning/induction, but YOU can't make the argument that people are wrong about the trauma of child molestation vs obesity because you're arguing AGAINST judgements in a first hand experiential vacuum.

Lol I'd love to hear your rationale for why obesity and molestation are in the same ballpark.

Lol I'd love to expose your total biological ignorance. Lets debate it? Oh wait you already declined because you're a little faggy troll.

Expressed individual preference is the best touchstone we have.

Lol you can lose weight, you can't lose memories. Also you aren't looking at motive, the child's choice past a certain age to choose what he eats, time restrictions on the parents in preparing meals, financial implications of eating healthier, etc.

I don't care about maturation. All it means is that child abuse gradually becomes self abuse. It still starts out as child abuse, which is the topic. Nice red herring.

Simply making the argument that some unnamed persons would prefer one over the other puts it in the same ballpark is ridiculous and lacking any real credence.

Why? You're imagining that there's objective harms that outweigh expressed subjective preferences? What a joke.

Also, they are not unnamed. I said me (Sieben) and Nonentity both agreed we'd rather have been molested. Inb4 you complain that this is not a randomized double-blind study.

But surely you understand this is just a technique to get people to take nutritional child abuse really seriously.

Acting like an idiot and making ridiculous claims that pedophillia is on the same level as childhood obesity won't make people take you or your point seriously but will do the opposite.

Well, you're the first person on this thread who's disagreed with that analysis. Maybe its because you just jumped in, have no idea what you're talking about, and are latching on to decontextualized analyses. Like I said, if you were REALLY interested, you would just read the thread. Instead you just want to wave your dick around.

The motive and taking a young persons innocence on a sexual level is what makes it "horribad"

OH OKAY So you're shifting the goalposts away from long term effects to immediate metaphysical traits like "innocence". Do you want to defend that strategy or is merely pointing it out sufficiently discrediting.

Second, there are long term effects of poor diet that can't be reversed. You just haven't been following the thread and don't know anything about nutrition."

Long term? Like what 1/8 of your life is "long term" puhlease.

HAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

I can't do anything other than laugh. Seriously. So ignorant. So stupid. If you used your brain for half a second you would be able to REASON at least the faintest shadow of my position. But you won't because you're just here to nitpick me.

Want to debate that?

No because unlike you I have a full time job as well as a fishing wire to untangle. Not everyone has the luxury of being an arrogant asss all day.

But apparently enough time to cry to the mods in post after post about all the trolls on the front page. K. Really convenient huh? You can back out of any conversation any time you want using this logic. You are totally unaccountable.

This is exactly the scenario that would occur if you had no idea what you were talking about and were scared sh­itless that I would serve you. I just want to maximize the benefit I get from beating you senseless. If I argue here in these forums you can just keep shifting the goalposts, dropping arguments, etc etc. You are a dishonest opponent. Fight on fair ground or fu­ck off.

At 6/28/2011 5:59:04 PM, Sieben wrote:

At 6/28/2011 5:56:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That simply doesn't follow. That means they are animals, not they have a will.

I define "walking around and doing stuff" as having a will. If you don't like it you need to give a better definition.

A will is a consciousness with a goal.

What? Argument about principles...?

Your principle of property abolishes property. I see no reason for this principle "Identify every possible violation and non-violation of your property or you don't have that property."

You don't have a positive duty to actually do this. It just has to be POSSIBLE to do this.

That's unenforcable. Apparently your idea of a discussion of principles is somewhat more airy-fairy, I compare principles as they work on earth-- my clarification that this was a political principle merely excludes things like "How do you get the Dems to sign on to that in Congress", not things like "How could a government even of the kind you advocate, with people like you, enforce that?"

It is NOT possible for people to figure out if they are infringing on your property rights if your property right cannot be clarified.

Simply because it isn't possible to list all possible instances of violation does not mean it's not possible for people who know exactly what activitiy they want to do to figure out if it's infringing.

At 6/28/2011 7:19:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
Well, you're the first person on this thread who's disagreed with that analysis.

Hahahaha oh really? I wonder why that is.

Is it

A. Because Sieben likes to insult others when people disagree with his backwardass logic and no one really feels like dealing with him

B. The post is overly long and no one feels like reading it

or

C. Sieben's argument that because nonentity agrees with his own ridiculous statement, his own ridiculous statement is correct

I'll give you 3 minutes to make up your minds contestants

At 6/28/2011 7:40:24 PM, askbob wrote:
I'll give you 3 minutes to make up your minds contestants

I think you've spent more time back-and-forthing with Sieben about how long it would take to read than would have been required to read it.

At 6/28/2011 7:40:24 PM, askbob wrote:

At 6/28/2011 7:19:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
Well, you're the first person on this thread who's disagreed with that analysis.

Hahahaha oh really? I wonder why that is.

Is it

A. Because Sieben likes to insult others when people disagree with his backwardass logic and no one really feels like dealing with him

Pointing out that you haven't read the thread is not an insult.

B. The post is overly long and no one feels like reading it

In the time you've spent responding to me you could have read the thread, particularly if you just skimmed for me and NE's bits.

or

C. Sieben's argument that because nonentity agrees with his own ridiculous statement, his own ridiculous statement is correct

My statement that some people would choose child molestation over childhood obesity is correct. I have stressed that one is not necessary "worse" than the other, and that this is up to individual preference.

Or how about Option D - Askbob has no idea what he's talking about, is dropping arguments, shifting goalposts, and just waving his dick around.

I'll give you 3 minutes to make up your minds contestants

3 minutes of intense contemplation later and I still think you're a retarded troll.

Debate? Put up or shut up faggot.

WHY WONT ANYONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

They are not your children to worry about, AKA sh!t parents can do what they want.

It just goes to show that there should be licensing for procreation, if you are unfit to parent a child then you cant have any muahahahaha!!