moda0306 wrote:
You should agree with me on this... How we look at property should guide a whole host of our moral decisions. Should it not? You just seem to think there's no conciecable way there could be disagreement on this. This is why most of who would normally be your allies are disagreeing with you on this.
I still don't know if torturing those puppies is wrong in your mind, and if it is, why, if they have no rights. . Sorry for the morbidity, but I think this is an important point that everyone should ask themselves, as it seems like a bit of a moral dilemma once again.
Who is dissagreeing about what? How we look at property should guide a whole host of our moral decisions? I don't know what that means. What moral decisions? Sincerely I don't know what you mean.
Still with the puppies? I answered this one already. You are pretending that you don't know or you didn't read it.
If my position is a non-position, then so is yours. You can't define property to me in concrete terms, so I can't know what is theft and what is just picking apples off an apple tree.
I have no perfect logical solution, nor does any moral dilemma. That's why they are called moral dilemmas.
So we are both working with ambiguity here. You're just the one not willing to admit it and have a good faith discussion on this stuff, and even people who would love to agree with you rather than me are trying to tell you this.
But to end this...
Can I kill puppies in my front yard in front of children? Is it moral? If not, why not?
(Edit: you said you wouldn't answer it because it was a trap last time I checked)
You probably will find a way of dancing around this, too... Again.
I'm out. Peace.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
Rien wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that the existence of the initiation of force is the cause of the effects you describe, not its solution.
+1
The initiation of force can at best solve the problems of the initiator if they are successful, but they create problems for the one aggressed against and for society. If it's true that peaceful negotiation and voluntary consent is always a superior method of conflict resolution then humans will get there eventually, a very long time from now. Consistent principles are better than inconsistent ones and humans are lurching towards the application of consistant principles in morality, science etc. Unfortunately it seems like it's two steps forward and one step back at times.
Child sacrifice, overt human ownership, leeching, the Earth revolving around the Sun....these were all beliefs or practices that existed that no longer exist and I would dare to say will never exist again. The argument that through all of history there have been humans who initiated force therefore this will always be the case is just a false argument. It might be that humans never embrace total non-violence (obviously people with mental problems excluded since they aren't able to fully choose), but it won't be because "it's always been that way". That is not a valid argument.
The agrument that "Violence or the initiation of force must be used to solve the problem of violence or initiation of force".....is such an obvious self-contradiction I would invite anyone making that argument to really break down the statement.
Sounds good other than this part.
Yeah.....so I actually typed it the other way....sun around the earth....and it looked wrong to me on a subconscious level so I re-arranged it. I remember thinking I screwed it up and re-typed it.
Just for the record though I do believe the earth is flat.
Can I kill puppies in my front yard in front of children? Is it moral? If not, why not?
(Edit: you said you wouldn't answer it because it was a trap last time I checked)
You probably will find a way of dancing around this, too... Again.
Previous puppy answer: With the puppy question, you want me down to these two options:
Yes -"Ohhhhh wow your sense of right and wrong doesn't extend to the public torture of helpless cute animals, you are obviously a whack job libertarian nutcase"
No - "Wait wait, I thought I OWNED the puppy and it's my PROPERTY and no one has a right to tell me what to do with my PROPERTY"
Obviously if you're the type of sick twisted pervert that would torture puppies on your front lawn....it's doubtful you'll even have a lawn or puppies at all. More likely you would have already shown to everyone what a sick and twisted person you are and they would have dealt with you. This act would certainly do it. The state (since it's immoral) would try to protect you. Absent the state you would be dealt with and everyone would be well within their right to do so. You would be like a dangerous wild animal and they would not be safe nor would their children.
And everyone would know that.
Puppy answer 2.0
Yes the puppies are your property. No they don't have rights. Toturing them is still wrong though. Deriving please from the torment of something else is the symptom of an immoral or ammoral sick human who is a danger to others. Incumbant in ownership is responsibility as I've stated. Control and responsibility are both the critical components of ownership. Having and retaining ownership of puppies implies the care of the puppies as you are responsible for them. Slaughtering them for your sick pleasure is just a waste of the puppies and their lives. If you don't want the responsibility of ownership of the puppies anymore you should sell them or give them away to someone else who can care for them and be responsible for their lives. Even people who kill animals for food (a legitimate use) don't torture the animal. I can't believe you can even ask such a nonsensical question.
Only a sick person would answer yes and maybe not even then. Practically everyone else knows the answer to this question is no even though they might not be able to articulate why. Do you know why that is?
Do you think it's morally acceptable to buy enough crops to feed thousands and burn it? The world's resources are limited. obtaining them for the purpose of destruction and denial to others is to waste them. Same principle. If you don't understand the concept of ownership and the responsibility that implies it's obvious why you will still be stumped by questions like this. The fact that you're stumpted by them is the crux of your argument that they are really confusing so no one can have a correct understanding.
It's fine. We can stop here and put this thread in the great library of the internet so future generations can read about the evolution of human morality.....and laugh.
moda0306 wrote:
If the link is as you say, then we can defend land and resources as our own as we deem our claims to exist today. We can morally vastly modify the world around us to the long-term detriment of the ecosystem, we can have exclusive land ownership rights, and we can continue to subject animals to torture because we will eat them someday and it's "more efficient" (or just torture animals for fun because they don't have rights and can exist as our property). It means we don't have to recognize ANY validity to potential prior claims to our land from Indians.
Wow this is a such a leap. You are saying that if I'm right that people own themselves and the effects their actions and are responsible for what they create and have the right to own things etc. that the ecoysystem will be ruined and animals can be tortured and the poor long dead indians and the theft of their land is now legitimized.
This is just an argument from adverse effects. It's like arguing that God can't exist because you don't believe in him and therefore you'll be dammed to Hell if he does exist.
on puppies and land, the word you are looking for may be "stewardship" although "Incumbent in ownership is responsibility" works just as well for me.
From Webster's:
stew·ard·ship noun \?stü-?rd-?ship, ?styü-; ?st(y)u?rd-\ : the activity or job of protecting and being responsible for something
Full Definition of STEWARDSHIP
1: the office, duties, and obligations of a steward
2: the conducting, supervising, or managing of something; especially : the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care <stewardship of natural resources>
moda0306 wrote:Can I kill puppies in my front yard in front of children?
Yes. They are your property and you can certainly do just that.
In retaliation if you were to do this in my neighbourhood, I would make sure that your life would become so unpleasant that you would choose to leave rather than stay. I would not initiate force against you, but I would try and organise the neighbourhood into ignoring your existence, I would inform all your customers and relatives of your moral fibre, I would inform all the service providers of your practises and ask them to cancel their service to you. If they would continue to provide you services, I would go public and spur people to cancel their subscriptions to these service providers in order to get them to stop their services to you.
I would probably be able to come up with more stuff. But you get the gist. Moral outrage is sufficient enough to make sure that people who torture their puppies won't do it again. Especially in a world where NAP is the way to live, people would feel the need to take action themselves. Because in a NAP world, if YOU don't do it, nobody will do it for you. You cannot simply call the police. I am 100% convinced that this would work better than any jail time that you would get today.
moda0306 wrote:Can I kill puppies in my front yard in front of children?
Yes. They are your property and you can certainly do just that.
In retaliation if you were to do this in my neighbourhood, I would make sure that your life would become so unpleasant that you would choose to leave rather than stay. I would not initiate force against you, but I would try and organise the neighbourhood into ignoring your existence, I would inform all your customers and relatives of your moral fibre, I would inform all the service providers of your practises and ask them to cancel their service to you. If they would continue to provide you services, I would go public and spur people to cancel their subscriptions to these service providers in order to get them to stop their services to you.
I would probably be able to come up with more stuff. But you get the gist. Moral outrage is sufficient enough to make sure that people who torture their puppies won't do it again. Especially in a world where NAP is the way to live, people would feel the need to take action themselves. Because in a NAP world, if YOU don't do it, nobody will do it for you. You cannot simply call the police. I am 100% convinced that this would work better than any jail time that you would get today.
Yes, shunning has a long history of effective use. Of course it can be misused as well, but it is less likely to lead to tragic results than governmentally sanctioned violence, and doesn't have the concomitant disastrous social costs of the latter.
If there is a significant minority of the society that disagrees with a particular case of shunning, then it isn't very effective in that case. This is both a benefit and a limitation of this approach.
Why would you guys shun him for what he did with his own property?
I think the point of the question is to try and poke holes in theory of ownership of anything. It's obvious that the puppies belong to him and also obvious that torturing them is wrong. This is supposed to prove there are gray areas so there are no black and white areas. Well there are always some gray areas when it comes to gigantic philospohical questions like this. The existance of gray areas does not disprove the existance of black and white areas.
Regardless this isn't a gray area. I think I explained why quite cleary and I82 assited with the more appropriate word "stewardship".
I apologize for the insult-laden post. I got frustrated with your style and lashed out. Let me try to say things more constructively.
How long did you lurk here before you started posting? I think you should have done it much longer. From our perspective (or at least from mine), you charged in here out of nowhere and started insulting and picking fights with some of the most respected contributors here. Not a good start.
We used to have a culture here of mutual respect and cooperation, where people with vastly different assumptions and backgrounds could come together and figure out things like how the monetary system works. A huge diversity of opinion and perspectives has been a major strength here: we have libertarians, anarchists, Marxists, liberals, conservatives, Christians, atheists, at least one monarchist (hi Ad Orientem!), people who love or hate one or more of the asset classes, and who knows what else. All of them have gotten along here, with (generally) complete respect for each other.
One thing that this forum has always been good at is admitting when the other guy has a point. And that's the moment when I think we all learn a lot. A lot of times it's "I disagree with that, but I can see what you mean from that perspective, and that would lead us to conclusions X, Y, and Z". We don't get anything close to that from you. No disagreement on the slightest point is allowed when you're involved in a conversation. Now, most threads turn into shouting and/or insult matches. And when the other guy scores a point, instead of acknowledging it, you double down every time, and often it makes you look foolish.
I think the theme is that you were a terrible "joiner". You have made no attempt to find out the culture of this forum, and no attempt to participate in that culture.
The topics that you're interested in are of wide interest in this forum, there's no doubt about that. But the quality of conversation around here has taken a nose-dive lately. I'm certainly to blame for my part in that. But it seems to correlate with the ungraceful arrival of one Kshartle.
I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm really not; I've been guilty of many of these offenses myself, either here or elsewhere, and I would have benefited from somebody pointing that out.
I think I probably lurked for a couple weeks. It seemed like everyone was really underestimating the risk of cash and bonds and I jumped in with my perspective. Now I definately have a far more assertive language style than others. If I believe up is up and black is black I just say it and try to prove it with logic, reason whatever. I don't say "I think up is up and I can see why you might think it's down." I know that approach is certainly not the softest and not always appreciated .
There are two things that I have a difficult time letting go and they are rather common: false arguments and the support of violence. I feel compelled to point out the former so we can drop that argument and move on and the latter just sickens me so I feel less...gracious towards the poster. I'd rather people just admit that's what they support rather than hide behind false arguments. If someone disagrees that's fine, I ask for that after I lay out a case. It's just if that argument is false I want to point that out quick so we can drop it and see if there are better ones. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar though as they say.
"From our perspective (or at least from mine), you charged in here out of nowhere and started insulting and picking fights with some of the most respected contributors here." - Would you do me a solid and perhaps click on the start of my posting history sometime and show me where? I'm not saying you're wrong. But perhaps what I perceive as a debate point is coming off as an insult. I would appreciate the help, from anyone in fact.
I've been on the sharp end of some of your posts, and I just want to say that in my opinion, you are a fine addition to this forum, and I hope you'll stick around to keep providing your input. You always provide plenty of reasoning to backup your posts, which is always welcome. We need more boat rockers to keep us sharp.
I've been on the sharp end of some of your posts, and I just want to say that in my opinion, you are a fine addition to this forum, and I hope you'll stick around to keep providing your input. You always provide plenty of reasoning to backup your posts, which is always welcome. We need more boat rockers to keep us sharp.
I appreciate it stuper1. If I get insulting and personal though please let me know. I'm sure I have, but from my perspective it's in response to a personal attack from someone disagreeing and supporting their case by calling me a doo-doo head. I don't mind being called a doo-doo head, I call myself that. I do mind it as a support for an argument against what I'm saying. That's tiresome and lazy to me.
Of course that's all in the eye of the beholder and I'm probably wrong about that some of the time.
Simonjester wrote:
debating to win VS debating to learn VS debating to defend cherished beliefs.
of the three debating to learn is more difficult, it involves trying to think outside your box and see past the beliefs that trap you (see my sig line). Ultimately it is probably the only type of debate with real rewards at the end. i see certain posters on both sides of any number of debates whose arguments don't seem to ever evolve, they slide past well crafted counters to their points and weeks or months later repeat the same argument as if it had not been given serious thought, or had never had good refutations made against it. i suspect they, and those who hit and run with fallacious arguments or personal attacks, are debating to win or to defend cherished beliefs at any cost. this is not intended an insult we all have a hard time admitting error and of approaching things from a perspective of potential ignorance, (A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.)
.
Last edited by Kshartle on Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The way we see it, we're not asking you to abandon logic or reason, but are legitimately challenging some of the premises that you built your logic/reason on top of, and you seem to allow no wiggle room for definitions in your language.
I think if there is anything that can be said about people here, it's that they are very good, on average, at using logic rather than emotion. But if deductive logic fact be accomplished, we have to get into grey areas of logic/reason. The way I see it, and you're sure to disagree, is that people like myself, Gumby, MT, PointedStick, Xan and even doodle use logic where appropriate, and where logic can't be perfect, try to discuss things based on history, anecdotes, asking questions, etc.
Simon probably sides more with you, thinking that I'm just a broken record. However, he even disagrees with your take on whether being in favor of any government is forceful. I try to move debates forward, but where some debates seem to stop and spin wheels (and I don't think this is MY fault) are the following:
- what are our property rights?
- what does our money supply consist of, and what are the natural economic affects of manipulating that?
- is demand unlimited in a monetized economy?
PS is probably even more adamant than I am that rights can't be proven. Xan agrees that there's some ambiguity to property rights. Yet my repeated attempts to get this point addressed is met with what kshartle and tech seem to think are valid retorts, and most of the rest of us, whether they agree with me or not, think your inability to address the holes in your logic lacking.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
Kshartle wrote:There are two things that I have a difficult time letting go and they are rather common: false arguments and the support of violence. I feel compelled to point out the former so we can drop that argument and move on and the latter just sickens me so I feel less...gracious towards the poster. I'd rather people just admit that's what they support rather than hide behind false arguments. If someone disagrees that's fine, I ask for that after I lay out a case. It's just if that argument is false I want to point that out quick so we can drop it and see if there are better ones.
If I understand this statement correctly (and I'm sure I don't, so please correct me if I have it wrong) it sounds like you would argue, vigorously, with anyone who said anything that even remotely condoned any government law or policy — since you seem to equate all governments with "violence".
I'm sure you can see how such a line of rigid logic would make a forum rather unbearable.
Last edited by Gumby on Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Kshartle wrote:There are two things that I have a difficult time letting go and they are rather common: false arguments and the support of violence. I feel compelled to point out the former so we can drop that argument and move on and the latter just sickens me so I feel less...gracious towards the poster. I'd rather people just admit that's what they support rather than hide behind false arguments. If someone disagrees that's fine, I ask for that after I lay out a case. It's just if that argument is false I want to point that out quick so we can drop it and see if there are better ones.
If I understand this statement correctly (and I'm sure I don't, so please correct me if I did) it sounds like you would argue, vigorously, with anyone who said anything that even remotely condoned any government law or policy — since you seem to equate all governments with "violence".
I'm sure you can see how such a line of rigid logic would make a forum — where open-minded thinkers previously enjoyed learning different perspectives — rather unbearable.
rigid logic?
Yes I see your point. I try to keep it to the major things (creation of money, arbitration of poperty rights, permission to buy and sell goods, other big stuff......)
When two or more parties are debating which government policy they think would work out better I do feel compelled to always ask the question why they think the initiation of force will solve the problem. It's because I'm convinced that it won't and I'd like others to see that. I'm clumsy with the approach.
Yes I can see where that would be unbearable. Can we all just agree that government "solutions" are bad right now so we can move on from that No? Well I tried.
Rather than point out that the government solution is an acceptance of the initiation of force against our fellow man, I'll try to confine my interjections to possible free market solutions to the problem, or let the debating parties decide what the government should do to solve it
For the record, I agree that you're arrival improved the forum. But it's been frustrating at times.I don't like lazy logic that allows people to justify holding a gun (effectively) in someone else's face. I know you probably don't believe this, as you think I've been delivering just that . But if we are going to advocate for a government, we should have to deliver a pretty sound argument for it. While you don't think I have, rest assured, in my gut I think I have and should HAVE to if I'm going to advocate for such an entity to exist.
However, there is something simply not right about the rigidity of some of your positions. It's like you have certain premises that to debate brings about a flurry of unpleasant responses from you that don't (in our minds) address our actual point. This indicates a lack of intellectual curiosity. Feeling that an ambiguous premise is so solid that it's not even debatable shows me that there might actually be a subconscious emotional response happening here, rather than a purely logical one... since logic thrives on inalienable premises to build its structure on. To say that "I have a right to my property" is one of those premises naturaly brings a hosts of additional questions as to how you arrived at that premise, and what the definitions are within that premise, that if you can't even acknowledge that this premise brings as many questions as answers, or at least SOME tough questions (which woud therefore weaken its ability to be a valid premise), then I see this as an emotional rather than logical or even moral attachment to this. This may seem insulting, but it's just my honest take. I think it's always hard to perfectly identify our motivations, and I definitely include myself in that!
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
Kshartle wrote:Yes I can see where that would be unbearable. Can we all just agree that government "solutions" are bad right now so we can move on from that
Well, that's just it... Most people on this forum already believe that government "solutions" have major flaws. I just don't think you need to defend every ounce of logic in your head every time a bureau or policy of the government is mentioned. We get it.
Last edited by Gumby on Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
moda0306 wrote:
For the record, I agree that you're arrival improved the forum. Thank you
Feeling that an ambiguous premise is so solid that it's not even debatable shows me that there might actually be a subconscious emotional response happening here, rather than a purely logical one... since logic thrives on inalienable premises to build its structure on. To say that "I have a right to my property" is one of those premises naturaly brings a hosts of additional questions as to how you arrived at that premise, and what the definitions are within that premise, that if you can't even acknowledge that this premise brings as many questions as answers, or at least SOME tough questions (which woud therefore weaken its ability to be a valid premise), then I see this as an emotional rather than logical or even moral attachment to this. This may seem insulting, but it's just my honest take. I think it's always hard to perfectly identify our motivations, and I definitely include myself in that!
Have I not given the rationale for why humans have a right to own property many times? Have I ever said it's a right just because it is without support?
Have I not ackowledged that there are gray areas and sometimes it's difficult to see clearly who's claim on a particular peice of property is? I know I've said as much in this thread several times.
Now I definately am not going to pretend I'm not certain about the existance of property rights because I am 100% convinced of them. I think this is a cause for problem because if someone is unsure they take it as impossible that someone could be certain. The nature of the concept makes it look like it might be impossible to say with certainty that they exist and my certainy is being interpretted as an inflexible mind or arrogance etc. I assure you I'm 100% certain of the validity, as certain as I am that I'm typing to you. That's why I ask for flaws to be pointed out in my reasoning or contradictions pointed out. There are endless scenarios that can be imagined to prove conclusively that sometimes clear ownership is hard to establish. The scenarios don't address anything I've said though and that's where the frustration lies....for me.
We've discussed the particular mindset that would be drawn to the PP. It's one that admits they are quite uncertain about investments and their future so the PP works for them since no certainty is required.
Well.......I'm the guy who's all in on stocks and gold. My investment approach is similar to my debate style. I look and think and analyze until I get as close to certainty as I can. Then I trust my judgement. That is a different approach than the typical mindset here (not saying it's better).
Just curious, but... Does a group of atoms have a "right" to own another group of atoms?
(Sorry for the "question," but I'm genuinely curious).
We are just a lump of atoms when you get right down to it. When we die, our atoms are dispersed throughout the universe. I'm not sure how anything truly "owns" anything! If we were to look at the planet from distant space, I imagine all of our quibbles about properties and possessions would look like just pointless discussions about objects.
I guess you could say that a bunch of atoms might now want another group of atoms to touch a third group of atoms.
Last edited by Gumby on Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby wrote:
Just curious, but... Does a group of atoms have a "right" to own another group of atoms?
Nope. Miscellaneous groups of atoms don't have rights. They don't have free will, therefore they can't choose between right or wrong, therefore they can't be responsible for themselves or their actions or the effects of them. If they can't be responsible for themselves or their actions they can't be responsible the effects of those actions or anything else required to aquire property or exercise the rights (and stewardship!) of property. This is the most incomplete summary that could still be called a summary.
And no you can't just kill a baby because it can't choose yet either. It's a little human and whoever takes it home from the hospital is the steward. They've made a agreement with everyone else that they will be responsible for the little human, even though they don't "own" the baby. This is the only social contract I can think of at the moment that is valid. There are others most likely that are tied to stewardship of property. Parents are responsible for the kids but they are also responsible to everyone else for being a good parent. Someday little Johnny is gonna be on the loose and if mommy and daddy raised an ax murder rapist by abusing him they are definately responsible.
Of course I'm preparring myself for the endless slew of questions this post will generate.
If anyone has questions on this stuff, it would be great to hear your opinion on the answer when you ask you the question though because that would show some good faith effort. Like I've said....it takes 1/20th the mental effort to ask the question than to answer it and answering just invites another 20 questions.
Last edited by Kshartle on Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mountaineer wrote:
Thus, to answer the question "Do I have a right to own property?" is like trying to answer the question "What is the meaning of life?" or like the famous middle-age question about "How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?" I suppose I fall into the "Failure to State" category since my answer is not absolute (e.g. black or white) ... there is a whole lot of gray area that you are trying to put into a neat little package; I do not believe that is possible.
Does someone have the right to murder you? Is it even possible for someone to have the right to murder you?
K. You seem to have conveniently left out the first part of my post which addresses your question, at least from my perspective. Hmmmmm. I'm getting the sense you just like to argue and debate rather than have an answer; or you are trying to beat some of us down until we acquiese and just say "you are absolutely right". This, in my humble experience, is like the people who cherry pick data to prove a preconceived idea (global warming), or cherry pick Scripture verses to prove why they are non-believers (all those old guys had slaves). Ad nauseum. You of course are entitled to your opinion, even though it is wrong
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Mountaineer wrote:
Thus, to answer the question "Do I have a right to own property?" is like trying to answer the question "What is the meaning of life?" or like the famous middle-age question about "How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?" I suppose I fall into the "Failure to State" category since my answer is not absolute (e.g. black or white) ... there is a whole lot of gray area that you are trying to put into a neat little package; I do not believe that is possible.
Does someone have the right to murder you? Is it even possible for someone to have the right to murder you?
K. You seem to have conveniently left out the first part of my post which addresses your question, at least from my perspective. Hmmmmm. I'm getting the sense you just like to argue and debate rather than have an answer; or you are trying to beat some of us down until we acquiese and just say "you are absolutely right". This, in my humble experience, is like the people who cherry pick data to prove a preconceived idea (global warming), or cherry pick Scripture verses to prove why they are non-believers (all those old guys had slaves). Ad nauseum. You of course are entitled to your opinion, even though it is wrong
ok this was the first part of your post that I left out:
My thoughts: Rights depend on where and when one lives and where and when the one doing the judging is and what the beliefs about God are by both.
Ok so you think that someone doesn't have a right to live if they a born in a society where people make sacrifices to a God and they are selected for sacrifice? That's my understanding of your thoughts on rights. Is that correct? Is that all you think rights are, whatever people think they are? If I don't get it please let me know what I've missed.
Would you like to me address what I disagree about that?
I assure I didn't cherry pick my way around that because it poses some difficulty to my own position. I skipped over it because I think we've already gone through that argument many many times.
The 2nd paragraph just reads to me like you're saying property rights can't be proved. But you provide no support for that idea, just that you beleive it. It's looks like you're outright saying you don't have a position on it. I was asking the question about murder because I was actually going to try my hand at the socratic method to perhaps show this entire line of thinking is self-contradicting.
Mountaineer wrote:
I'm getting the sense you just like to argue and debate rather than have an answer; or you are trying to beat some of us down until we acquiese and just say "you are absolutely right".
I would invite you to re-read my posts. I don't think there's any shortage of me taking positions, answering questions, stating things conclusively and providing my reasons. Maybe I haven't done any of that and just thought I did.
Heck I get criticized more for stating things conclusively than anything else! Now I get accused of not stating answers
Kshartle wrote:Heck I get criticized more for stating things conclusively than anything else! Now I get accused of not stating answers
This is a tough crowd to please.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think it's just your debate style (not your opinions) that is ruffling our feathers. It's very, well...in your face and inflexible. And you get really annoyed at us if we break your rules, like:
- no quoting sources
- no using real world evidence
- no asking questions (now we can't ask questions unless we provide our opinions)
- no deviating from your own definitions (of "inflation", "money", "value", etc.).
I mean, it's extremely difficult to have a fruitful conversation — where people can engage in critical thinking and learn new perspectives — under those conditions. You get that, right?
Last edited by Gumby on Wed Nov 27, 2013 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
. Sorry for the morbidity, but I think this is an important point that everyone should ask themselves, as it seems like a bit of a moral dilemma once again.
