tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post7526343305863894332..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Open thread on episode #706...Zombie Jesus ApocalypseUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger155125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60086925297743157882011-05-04T20:46:07.473-05:002011-05-04T20:46:07.473-05:00Martin (late reply) but thanks for the update :)
...Martin (late reply) but thanks for the update :) <br />I'm very excited to show my Axp love, even if no one in Clarksville, TN gets it. Haha. I've always wondered if anyone catches the FSM decal on my car.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73159867639711358492011-05-03T14:05:25.936-05:002011-05-03T14:05:25.936-05:00Sorry Martin - I looked it up - I stand corrected!...Sorry Martin - I looked it up - I stand corrected!!<br /> What a piss-poor piece of writing!!<br />The writer wedged in a totally out of context occurance at the time of the actual crucifixion!<br />JC wasn't even cold on his cross, and they were discussing the other stiffs visiting their kin 2 days later!!tobytrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16754146360581382301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65353467111735385252011-05-03T13:49:17.085-05:002011-05-03T13:49:17.085-05:00Forgive my small-minded quibbly correction Martin,...Forgive my small-minded quibbly correction Martin, but I had to point out that JC wouldn't have been the vanguard as much as the rearguard action, of the "Zombie invasion" would he? <br />He didn't actually effect his big appearance till the Sunday, which would be a full weekend after the other guys would have made the scene and split, n'est pas? - Or is it me that needs to swat up my gospels?tobytrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16754146360581382301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38401441315401328212011-05-03T12:27:15.301-05:002011-05-03T12:27:15.301-05:00Nothing I can disagree with.
However I didn'...Nothing I can disagree with. <br /><br />However I didn't necessarily mean moving to a new city/state/country cause in the globalization age it is not 'that' different as say the customs of different tribes >15.000BC which literally perceived non-tribe members as alien, different species.<br />I enjoyed the discussion, cheers.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779959265311005079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14864117851189218832011-05-03T11:36:01.091-05:002011-05-03T11:36:01.091-05:00Since we have more in common than we originally th...Since we have more in common than we originally thought I'll try to be brief.<br /><br />Moving to a new city/state/country is not that hard as long as the legal barriers are not that great. I'll grant you that it can be very hard otherwise. I have no doubt that had I been brought up in a different society I would probably think differently about life and freedom. That said, now that I know better I can't go back to thinking that society has a claim on my life which can be cashed whenever society feels like it's necessary "for the greater good".<br /><br />I swear I'm going to think twice before starting a sentence with "Using your logic I could say ..." To make it blatantly obvious what I was saying consider the following scenario. A theist says "Yahweh is real because I feel his presence". If I reply "Using your logic I could say 'Quetzalcoatl is real because I feel his presence'." , would it be fair of you to later on quote me as saying that I believe in Quetzalcoatl? I really hope your answer is no.<br /><br />I'm interested in fallacies because it allows me to recognize bad patterns of thought. The more I understand them the more likely I am to catch myself before making a BS argument or unjustifiably dismissing an idea because it doesn't jive with my current beliefs. Moreover if someone says "You're using X fallacy" I'm much more likely to recognize the error if I already know X pattern.Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02445268087870411780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33430204073482232302011-05-03T04:58:17.532-05:002011-05-03T04:58:17.532-05:00@Strawman
I believe I made it pretty clear that al...@Strawman<br />I believe I made it pretty clear that all my implications, that appear as a strawman to you came from me not grasping the sarcasm of your original post. Which I can't really see, it still seems to me like a serious statement, although somewhat hidden (that is, I find it hard to think that you would put it there without actually meaning what you said – the {we deserve to die if we are so selfish}).<br />But this is the internetz and statements should be held at face value. So if you say you didn't mean it I drop my implications, and thus won't bother to address the fallacy accusations. <br />When I called you on your strawman, I was not talking about slavery anymore. But clearly you went with implications that went away than my original statement, and as such the situation is mirror image of the one described above, so I'll drop that too.<br /><br />@French Revolution<br />This can be argued in a lot of ways. But I will not really bother, because this topic was only brought up in the context of, apparently, badly applied implications-> see @strawman. Regardless, whether someone was willing to die for an idea, because they recognized a huge benefit in it for themselves, or whether they were willing to sacrifice their own life for the idea living on in others doesn't undermine the fact that They Died For The Idea.<br /><br />@Emotional arguments<br />It is easier to explain this particular case emotionally than by 'sound logic'. What I was attempting to show is that we are a part of the system more than we sometimes think; that our actions affect others' wellbeing, whether we want to or not. Hell, the very fact of me being born affected the lives of countless other individuals, both in a positive and negative way – very indirectly of course, just as a developed world citizen is detrimental to a lot of individuals from the developing world due to the willingness to promote the status quo. <br /><br />I didn't mean to inspire guilt, which I believe is stated clearly in my post. I just find it important to realise that our actions will influence the life and death of other human beings, no matter our motives.<br /><br />@Cooperation<br />Never heard of nirvana fallacy, actually had to look it up. The vast interest in fallacies, rather than arguments at hand dazzles me.<br />In any case, my answer will be quite similar to what you expect: yes.<br />Two countries 'cooperating' is no longer the cooperation understood by individualistic terms, mostly because 'a country' in this context is the country's government/authorities – and those do not represent the individuals in the group appropriately.<br /><br />What permits us to see the cooperation is the cherry picking of facts, and simplistic terms: 'this country will provide economical support, this country will provide cheap labor' is as far from an the fate of any single individual in either of the groups as the fate of a muscle cell is to a working out body builder.<br />ESPECIALLY since countries as population groups are ill-defined, and no longer represent two separate entities.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779959265311005079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25322377929260227732011-05-03T04:50:06.453-05:002011-05-03T04:50:06.453-05:00Let me first state that I think we agree more than...Let me first state that I think we agree more than I originally thought.<br /><br />"If the good wasn’t enough to offset the bad I would just bail out and move somewhere else."<br /><br />I dare to doubt that. It is not so easy to get out of the system, once you have been conditioned to depend on it, especially your whole life. But nevermind that, not that relevant.<br /><br />We actually might agree that, as far as 'I' is concerned. I think the bigger question here is: whether the life of an individual should be sacrificed to save the group. If my death would prevent the whole humanity from dying, while I do not want to die, I would understand the motives of my killers. I will come back to that in just a moment.<br /><br />Well said with the slavery part, nothing I can really disagree with. I'll try to address the following points on a more general scale.<br /><br />“To give you an example, if for whatever reason all primates (including us) had evolved to kill the second offspring, would it be okay to kill our second offspring too? Of course not…”<br /><br />“I don’t deny that those patterns do emerge, my position is that just because it has happened (or will happen) it doesn’t make it okay. “<br />“So in the hypothetical scenario where ALL societies in the world suddenly adopted slavery, THEN I would try to detach myself as much as possible from society/humanity and live in a place as secluded as possible.”<br /><br />'WE' make things okay. If everyone 'suddenly' adopted slavery, I think I would follow your trail and try to detach myself. However, if I was to be born into such a society, I recognize the high likelihood of me going with the flow. Morality can only make sense in the context of the group. A single individual with no other humans to interact with is morally neutral. In my definition that is. I see no other definition making sense, without invoking supernatural.<br />In that context, had we evolved to kill our second offspring, it is very likely that it would be normal and acceptable to do such an act. Just because the standards WE have are completely different and we find such an act repulsive does not make it bad in the same way that one chimp eating other chimp's babies is not 'bad'. There is just no framework to judge it by. Sure, we can use OURS, but I do not see how is that feasible.<br />If you imagine that for example, 500 years in the future morally would be even more evolved (very likely) and even looking at someone impolitely would be seen as a very bad and damaging act, doesn't mean that the present should be held accountable for frowning. Morality only makes sense in the context of the group, and thus greater good is the most moral choice.<br />It is just that the word has been abused, people assume an arrogant stance claiming that the greater good is what 'they' talk about. I do not make such claims, but I can speak of hypotheticals (one person's wellbeing vs. the group).Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779959265311005079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5002207946528948892011-05-02T16:45:50.628-05:002011-05-02T16:45:50.628-05:00Just a question- next week's show on schedule ...Just a question- next week's show on schedule as normal, same guests?<br /><br />-A different Carlos, from Austin. ;)Carlos O.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07701270322375313745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56671496714935379952011-05-02T16:10:37.242-05:002011-05-02T16:10:37.242-05:00“Why do you bring religion to the topic?”
I wasn’...“Why do you bring religion to the topic?”<br /><br />I wasn’t really trying to bring religion into the topic so I apologize if I mislead you, I just couldn’t help myself because it reeked of the usual Christian chant of “Jesus sacrificed himself (to himself) for you!”<br /><br />- Insert French Revolution paragraph here – <br /><br />Bottom line, they were fighting for <b>their</b> rights. It got to a point where they said “Either I get my freedom or I’ll die trying!” A very good byproduct of their actions is that we now have something called inalienable human rights. So don’t try to use their actions (fighting for their freedom) as justification for sacrificing an individual for “the greater good”.<br /><br />Btw, don’t even try to portray me as an ungrateful bastard because I do appreciate very much the actions of my ancestors but they didn’t do it “for my sake” and I wouldn’t have asked any of them to sacrifice themselves for my sake either.<br /><br />“That is the natural implication if you are willing to endorse ABSOLUTE freedom and no rights of the group towards you.”<br /><br />And since I never said anything about having ABSOLUTE freedom I called you on your straw man.<br /><br />As I said before, I take the good with the bad and if at any point the good doesn’t offset the bad then I would bail out. So in the hypothetical scenario where ALL societies in the world suddenly adopted slavery, <b>THEN</b> I would try to detach myself as much as possible from society/humanity and live in a place as secluded as possible.<br /><br />“Oh really? That is easy for you to say, because a scope one single human can take on the dynamics of all of humanity is very limited.<br />You are most likely using a computer to write this message. It is pretty safe to assume that most of its parts have been manufactured in China.<br />A country famous for its amazing labor unions and freedom of speech, and children going to schools instead of working 15 hours everyday.<br />Do you still claim that your good is not influencing anyone else?”<br /><br />You keep using emotional arguments instead of using sound logic. You’re basically using the fact that there are people who get sacrificed in this world and that I somehow benefit from this unfortunate situation (which, like you said, I’m not responsible) as justification for saying that it’s okay for society to sacrifice me “for the greater good”.<br /><br />“Cooperation only works on a small scale.”<br /><br />Really? So neighborhoods don’t cooperate with each other, cities don’t cooperate with each other, and countries don’t cooperate with each other? Or are you going to pull a nirvana fallacy because the cooperation between two countries can never be as equal as the cooperation between two people?Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02445268087870411780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6912526425349889902011-05-02T16:10:00.529-05:002011-05-02T16:10:00.529-05:00On the first point I’ll just leave with the follow...On the first point I’ll just leave with the following: <br /><br />I don’t recognize society’s right to force me to have or not to have children (being enforceable or not is another matter). While I recognize that I can’t live in my version of a perfect society (whatever that may be), at least now I do have a choice regarding the compromises I’m willing to make in the society I live in.<br /><br />To give you an example, it pisses me off that my tax dollars are being used for the gain of the military complex, mostly through wars. That said, I do recognize that a large part of the population do like to fund the military complex and they do like their wars. So I take the good that this society has to offer along with the bad. If the good wasn’t enough to offset the bad I would just bail out and move somewhere else.<br /><br />Now onto the next topic: "Incomplete comparison(...)"<br /><br />Slavery has a fairly well defined meaning. If you start watering down its meaning you can say stuff like we’re all slaves because we’re not absolutely and 100% free to do whatever we want (we have laws). I don’t consider myself a slave, in the traditional sense of the word, whenever I have to stop at a stop sign.<br /><br />So yeah, if we’re going by your watered down definition then I have no choice but to agree with you and say that we do have slavery.<br /><br />Next topic: "I may be part of the animal kingdom but I don't have to behave like one."<br /><br />I’m the first one to admit that we’re mostly governed by our instincts and emotions. I love the triune model of the brain as a way to explain human behavior. The point is that just because we have evolved with certain instincts and emotions, doesn’t mean we have to act on them. So your “it’s found in nature” argument is not valid. Hell, you could have said “we evolved that way” and still wouldn’t be valid.<br /><br />To give you an example, if for whatever reason all primates (including us) had evolved to kill the second offspring, would it be okay to kill our second offspring too? Of course not…<br /><br />Which brings us to our next topic: “- my quoted text - And you call me on straw man argument?”<br />I didn’t make a straw man argument. <br /><br />You said: "History demonstrates this pattern [of sacrificing individuals for the good of group] emerging whenever a group of human's is in danger." As a way of saying that it’s okay to sacrifice individuals for the good of the group because this pattern has emerged time and time again.<br /><br />My answer to that was: “Slavery has emerged naturally in almost every society up until very recently. Maybe we should bring back slavery as our ancestors certainly had better social structures than we have now.” That’s not a straw man, I’m just following your logic of “this pattern has emerged time and time again therefore it must be okay/good”.<br /><br />I don’t deny that those patterns do emerge, my position is that just because it has happened (or will happen) it doesn’t make it okay.Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02445268087870411780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80358921618660211062011-05-02T11:55:37.870-05:002011-05-02T11:55:37.870-05:00OH, and sorry for not getting the sarcasm, it is c...OH, and sorry for not getting the sarcasm, it is commonly known sarcasm does not transmit well through the internetz ;)Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779959265311005079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8064148142142582942011-05-02T11:50:14.487-05:002011-05-02T11:50:14.487-05:00I read most of that discussion.
In my view, when h...I read most of that discussion.<br />In my view, when humanity would ACTUALLY face extinction, forcing people to labor would be ridiculous, cause it requires way to much control over the person. A woman could easily rebel against being raped (well thats what it would be, wouldnt it) with miscarrying the baby, the methods are there.<br /><br />But to respond to the scenario, not that I think it is likely, and not that there is no difference between obligatory labor for 9 months (would you still object if males were required to provide sperm? - that doesn't seem like a huge deal IN THE CONTEXT OF EXTINCTION):<br /><br />Forcing people makes no sense, but strong encouragement towards, and social disapproval against would be completely understandable by me. <br /><br />I am looknig forward to your replies to other parts. Should you require, I can elaborate on the concepts provided.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779959265311005079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88523864318302934182011-05-02T11:47:16.391-05:002011-05-02T11:47:16.391-05:00@ LadyAtheist
If they responded to Shock, it woul...@ LadyAtheist<br /><br />If they responded to Shock, it would go over his head anyway. To answer the question to his satisfaction, you need to agree with him.The Fuck-Uphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14424379897087177800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75146827284296904932011-05-02T11:16:07.163-05:002011-05-02T11:16:07.163-05:00*lol* I just discovered this idiotic video: http...*lol* I just discovered this idiotic video: http://youtu.be/vXmWivdjjPI<br /><br />Should there be a reply video?LadyAtheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12132821431322748921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-23316142441174834112011-05-02T11:05:26.986-05:002011-05-02T11:05:26.986-05:00The thing that pisses me off about christians. Is ...The thing that pisses me off about christians. Is that they think that jesus actully made a sacrifice. There was no sacrafice. All he did was get his ass wooped.The atheist on the mounthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03053828664306065776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80253805800329066692011-05-02T10:15:35.669-05:002011-05-02T10:15:35.669-05:00WOW, you really have left me speechless (no sarcas...WOW, you really have left me speechless (no sarcasm here).<br /><br />Since I can't address your entire post all at once I'll just address one topic at a time.<br /><br />"Fair enough, but those are the implications when you read this: "<br /><br />You really should get into the habit of reading a little bit (not a lot, just a little bit) to see where the conversation is coming from. I'll give you a short summary of the conversation:<br /><br />To support his (her?) position M24 postulated the hypothetical armageddon like scenario where the world is overpopulated and resources are near exhausted. To make my point I asked him about the opposite hypothetical scenario where population was shrinking to near extinction. He basically said he didn't have to address that scenario because he didn't think it was likely to happen. <br /><br />The quotes you took were me saying (a few lines above had you bothered to read): "I could be just as ambivalent regarding the overpopulation issue." and then proceeded to "explain" why I don't have to address the overpopulation issue using (roughly) the same reasons he was using to not address the under population one (in an almost sarcastic tone).Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02445268087870411780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-9345684892444105222011-05-02T05:16:31.839-05:002011-05-02T05:16:31.839-05:00cont.
"I may be part of the animal kingdom ...cont.<br /><br /><br />"I may be part of the animal kingdom but I don't have behave like one."<br /><br />Really? REALLY?<br />You haven't studied animal kingdom enough then. We are MORE than 'just' animals, you could say humans are ascended animals. But a lot of our behaviour can be explained as only more sophisticated patterns that already exist in animal kingdom. <br />Look at the primary emotions driving your behaviour. There may be an intellectual underpinning to them, but the 'primary cause' of any of your motiviation will be just as primal as that of a chimp ;)<br /><br />"Slavery has emerged naturally in almost every society up until very recently. Maybe we should bring back slavery as our ancestors certainly had better social structures than we have now."<br /><br />And you call me on strawman argument?<br />But maybe I shouldn't have brought up so many topics at once.<br />Anyways, the examples are there, look at WWII.<br />When the society is in danger, everyone is demanded/expected to contribute. Now this is a little bit more complicated (the level of 'danger' is difficult to specify, and there are a lot of other factors)<br />However, if you can visualize an alien attack (world of wars style) that is determined to exterminate us all, I can guarantee that any single group you belong too would demand a contribution from each individual towards the survival of the group. And dissidents would be frowned upon.<br /><br />"Great bumper sticker, who sacrificed himself for me? Jesus?"<br /><br />Why do you bring religion to the topic?<br />Look at the history of freedom, let us say: beginning with the french revolution.<br />Freedom of an individual was not always there. Something/Someone made it happen, gradually. What/Who?<br />You honestly believe that kings and aristocracy one day decided: naaah, let them have their freedom, and their democracy? Sure you don't.(?)<br />But maybe you do not know why :)<br /><br />"Another straw man, one more and we hit the jackpot... Once again I may have missed a post or two but who here has said anything about detaching themselves from the rest of humanity?"<br /><br />That is the natural implication if you are willing to endorse ABSOLUTE freedom and no rights of the group towards you. Maybe you do not, that is however what I got from the 'we can have as many children as we want and if we deserve to die - so be it'<br /><br />And I do not necessarily mean the government, I see public authorities as the somewhat corrupt and distorted version representing 'greater good', distorted mostly through the scale at which it attempts to operate.<br /><br />"I don't sacrifice anyone any of them for my sake. Look up "cooperation". "<br /><br />Oh really? That is easy for you to say, because a scope one single human can take on the dynamics of all of humanity is very limited.<br />You are most likely using a computer to write this message. It is pretty safe to assume that most of its parts have been manufactured in China.<br />A country famous for its amazing labor unions and freedom of speech, and children going to schools instead of working 15 hours everyday.<br />Do you still claim that your good is not influencing anyone else? <br /><br />Now, I am not blaming you, or anyone in particular, because there is no one single person to blame. Just like you can't blame a single person for starting a war.<br /><br />Cooperation only works on a small scale. "help me out hunting, and I'll help to protect the fire".<br /><br />Once you start involving thousands, and thousands of thousands, and thousands of thousands of thousands of individuals the rules of cooperation collapse, and emerging patterns appear. <br />Cooperation is no longer bound to be just and fair towards all people in the group, and so you have the priveleged ones (like, say, the developed world) and the underdogs - the developing world.<br /><br />The sad thing is that no one single person can be put to blame, it is a result of patterns that probably started with the first colonization journeys, or even before that.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779959265311005079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29424577085307771452011-05-02T05:15:58.466-05:002011-05-02T05:15:58.466-05:00"Straw man argument, great start... I may hav..."Straw man argument, great start... I may have missed a post but I haven't read anyone saying <br />" I have the freedom to do whatever I want, and I do not give a flying f*** about anyone else"."<br /><br />Fair enough, but those are the implications when you read this:<br /><br />"- I don't see the population becoming a problem because we'll eventually get to an equilibrium along with renewable resources.<br />- If we are so selfish as to overpopulate the world to the point of bringing us to our demise then we deserve it.<br />- That's simply another necessary hardship that humans would have to undertake in order to survive in this situation."<br /><br />We deserve to die as a population because no one human is capable of being responsible for the survival of the whole? No thank you.<br /><br />If you think that one single family would sacrifice their right to have children because the world will suffer from overpopulation...<br />I don't know what to say, Its like thinking that we can stop global warming just by explaining it to people, and they will all nicely stop using cars and get on the bikes.<br /><br />"Incomplete comparison(...)"<br /><br />I understand the extent to which the comparison works. It is not 'complete' slavery, sure; but it is slavery nevertheless. Not that I have a problem with it, I fully support THAT kind of slavery (actually, I would rather go farther with it, but thats a different topic entirely).<br /><br />I recall ancient romans using slavery to work off debts and crimes as well - that would only work with the citizens though, the foreigners brought as slaves would stay slaves - 'of course'.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779959265311005079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52145565918875737802011-05-01T23:47:33.004-05:002011-05-01T23:47:33.004-05:00Good gravy Marie, what is wrong with these people?...Good gravy Marie, what is wrong with these people?!<br />Tornado victims seek comfort in Sunday services:<br />http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110502/ap_on_re_us/us_severe_weather<br /><br />(You really must click through, just for the photo!) <br /><br />I saw one woman on the news (who lost everything) say "God sure is good to us!"Melizerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08724343282950179740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71718519890727173472011-05-01T20:18:40.457-05:002011-05-01T20:18:40.457-05:00Hey I had public run in with the Family Radio aka ...Hey I had public run in with the Family Radio aka the We CAN Know May 21st people. I directed them to you so if they're not cowards some branch of them should want to call in. Not holding my breath though. My blog has a recap, and they have crazy that goes WAY beyond the May 21st stuff<br /><br />http://blogingproject.blogspot.com/2011/05/family-radio-god-hitler-and-prime.html?showComment=1304298686323#c7170095556857167311<br /><br />Forgive the blog whoring, just if anyone is interested.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09410805080108311574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68140956472162730382011-05-01T20:17:56.377-05:002011-05-01T20:17:56.377-05:00"I have the freedom to do whatever I want, an..."I have the freedom to do whatever I want, and I do not give a flying f*** about anyone else.<br />Everyone will die? Bummer - but my freedom should never be taken away from me!"<br /><br />Straw man argument, great start... I may have missed a post but I haven't read anyone saying " I have the freedom to do whatever I want, and I do not give a flying f*** about anyone else".<br /><br />"We already have slavery - prisoners are slaves, aren't they? -> People whose liberty was taken from them by the government."<br /><br />Incomplete comparison, 2 for 2, not bad... Prisoners are not slaves, the government doesn't own them. *some* liberties have been taken away from them because of their transgressions to society. It's not like the government has the right to put you in jail for no reason and then sell you like property. Look up "retribution".<br /><br />" I suggest studying population dynamics of some mammals, e.g. rats. When the survival of the population as a whole is in danger, the liberties of an individual in that population are 'sacrificed' for the sake of the group. "<br /><br />I may be part of the animal kingdom but I don't have behave like one.<br /><br />" History demonstrates this pattern emerging whenever a group of human's is in danger. "<br /><br />Slavery has emerged naturally in almost every society up until very recently. Maybe we should bring back slavery as our ancestors certainly had better social structures than we have now.<br /><br />" The only reason WE even have the right to state that, is because of people that were willing to sacrifice their good for the... greater good. "<br /><br />Great bumper sticker, who sacrificed himself for me? Jesus?<br /><br />" So do not be so quick as to detach yourself from the rest of the humanity. "<br /><br />Another straw man, one more and we hit the jackpot... Once again I may have missed a post or two but who here has said anything about detaching themselves from the rest of humanity?<br /><br />" Not that you do not depend on it EVERY SINGLE DAY, already. "<br /><br />Nice try. Although I do depend on A LOT of people on a daily basis (just like a lot of people depend on me) I don't sacrifice anyone any of them for my sake. Look up "cooperation".Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02445268087870411780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-18340814480331609982011-05-01T18:50:27.829-05:002011-05-01T18:50:27.829-05:00I must admit I find the obsession with absolute fr...I must admit I find the obsession with absolute freedom and no dependence on any other human quite hilarious.<br /><br />"I have the freedom to do whatever I want, and I do not give a flying f*** about anyone else.<br />Everyone will die? Bummer - but my freedom should never be taken away from me!"<br /><br />And slavery?<br />We already have slavery - prisoners are slaves, aren't they? -> People whose liberty was taken from them by the government.<br />For the greater good :)<br /><br />I suggest studying population dynamics of some mammals, e.g. rats. When the survival of the population as a whole is in danger, the liberties of an individual in that population are 'sacrificed' for the sake of the group.<br />History demonstrates this pattern emerging whenever a group of human's is in danger.<br /><br />Unfair? Unjust? <br />The only reason WE even have the right to state that, is because of people that were willing to sacrifice their good for the... greater good.<br /><br />So do not be so quick as to detach yourself from the rest of the humanity. You might need it one day.<br />Not that you do not depend on it EVERY SINGLE DAY, already.<br /><br />You are a part of this system. You were born into it. And there is only one way out ;)Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779959265311005079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86383988410879956052011-05-01T11:06:53.168-05:002011-05-01T11:06:53.168-05:00I have a solution to all of the arguments here. It...I have a solution to all of the arguments here. It's a virus that is ubiquitously airborne, long-lived and kills a human instantly. This would eliminate all further arguments from anyone.<br /><br />Problem solved.The Fuck-Uphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14424379897087177800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67301849321244679542011-04-30T20:37:38.967-05:002011-04-30T20:37:38.967-05:00@Mamba24
The only assumption that I'm going t...@Mamba24<br /><br />The only assumption that I'm going to make is that in your little society everyone had the same rights at the beginning when the ten people got together and decided to cooperate.<br /><br />The couple certainly has the right to have a child but not at the expense of others. In this setting if they decide to have a child then I see two fair and just choices:<br /><br />Option #1) Rewrite the terms of their cooperative agreement to distribute the means of production as equally as possible between the ten members and everyone will have to carry their own weight.<br /><br />Option #2) Continue giving the couple their normal ration and let them divide it three ways among themselves.Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02445268087870411780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24643144777177069482011-04-30T19:30:12.241-05:002011-04-30T19:30:12.241-05:00@Mamba24
Not everyone who disagrees with you is &...@Mamba24<br /><br />Not everyone who disagrees with you is "arguing from emotion" or failing to think things through. You've made it pretty clear in this thread that you support even the most invasive government interference in an individual's business, right on down to what they may or may not do with their bodies. (In case you missed it, THAT is why it's so ironic that you think you're pro-choice.) <br /><br />In your sadly misanthropic view, folks can be forced to bear or abort children against their will so long as a government can make a case that it is for a "greater good". That's pretty heinous, not to mention rationally and ethically untenable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com