This is perhaps one of the best one liners that I've ever seen shared on the forums. And, really, it is a daisy of an epitaph for some of our friends who seem content upon political suicide.Originally Posted by Deborah K
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-19-2014 at 03:40 PM.
Skinning a pet alive and keeping it that way for weeks isn't evidence of sapience.
Any political opinion can and will seem absurd to the listener/reader, provided they hold the contrary opinion and hold it very strongly. That is what makes a political opinion "absurd" -- the one who thinks it is absurd strongly holds the contrary view.
Oh? What if you had to do that, repeatedly, in order to cure AIDS?
If a human being is doing something, they have a purpose for doing it. That you do not happen to agree with his action or purpose does not make him a non-human.
So, you don't think there are sadists, or malevolence out there? Everyone is benevolent? Everyone means well? Everyone has their reasons?
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
HH, pull yourself out of the philosophical realm for a moment. There are universal truths. One is that torturing, neglecting, and abusing animals is wrong.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
There are universal truths. One is that you don't come and threaten to kill my family. You don't kill 3,000 in New York. If you do, then be prepared for massive retaliation.
Peaceniks like Lew Rockwell and Harry Browne and Ron Paul are absolutely absurd and loony for not wanting to go and kill our enemies in Iraq. It's just ludicris. it's like they're not even living on the same planet as the rest of us. Hello? He-llo, guys? Want to come back from Fantasy World and join us here in in reality? There are evil people in the world. If you don't blow up their countries, they will blow you up. Al-Quieda is not going to leave you alone just because you leave them alone. They will just keep coming at you because they hate, absolutely loathe, everything about America and they would be very happy to have an insane person like Lew or Ron or Harry in charge who will allow them to get stronger and stronger and stronger, unmolested. I mean, this is just loony tunes. It's beyond absurd.
Right?
Your outlook here reminds me of the what's in your pockets thread, hulmuth. Do you remember that one? Every time I see you post something I think of that thread. That was the funniest list of junk in my pockets that I've ever read. Was just reminded of it again. Seems like yer always ready fer battle. Heh...
Yes, I remember that. At the time, it seemed to confirm your opinion that I was a lunatic.
Hey, what can I say? Be Prepared. If you think I'm crazy, you'd really think these guys are nuts:
http://everydaycarry.com/
There's a whole "everyday carry" culture or lifestyle or whatever. They take it to the, what's that again? Oh yes: the "absurd extreme."
Everyone does have their reasons. Sometimes they might be malevolent, for sure. Sometimes twisted. But unless they first aggress upon me, or upon another human being, I am not justified in using violence against them.
I understand you expand this to say that you're justified if they're aggressing upon another living thing. I understand the analogical thinking, but I don't think that it's possible to make this work or be logical and consistent. Rats are very intelligent. Many seem just as intelligent as cats, as far as we can tell. Yet many of us think nothing of massacring them. And not just killing, but poisoning them in a very long, painful, inhumane way. Why? Because it's cheap and effective. Is it a Universal Truth that this is wrong? Certainly it falls under the category of "torturing, neglecting, and abusing animals." But if it is a Universal Truth that torturing rats is wrong, the vast majority of humanity has failed to tune in to that universal.
What if a guy wants to torture his mentally challenged son? The son is retarded, he can't comprehend "rights"- he can't support himself. So what if the father concluded that his son is not an actual human being, but instead his personal property do as he pleases with?
Does his son have any rights. If so, why?
If a community believed in slavery, should that be allowed? If not, why? What if they believe another tribe or ethnicity is nonhuman? Who has the "right" to tell them they can't own slaves in their own communities?
Where is the line? Is there a line?
Oh. So you're fine with torturing and killing humans as well?
Those who want liberty must organize as effectively as those who want tyranny. -- Iyad el Baghdadi
I detect a strawman.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Oh, I didn't think that you were crazy, helmuth. Was just mentioning that I remembered.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-19-2014 at 09:48 PM.
Read his words.
"Going after our enemies" means that we kill, torture and indefinitely imprison many innocents, alongside the guilty. We don't make much distinction, do we? (By "we" I mean the gov't we fund.)
Those who want liberty must organize as effectively as those who want tyranny. -- Iyad el Baghdadi
I can't believe you think he's being serious. He was being sarcastic. I have freaking Aspergers and even I was able to see that he was being sarcastic....
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Huh. My bad if that's the case. I'm generally good at detecting it, but he's better at doing it. I am humbled.
Those who want liberty must organize as effectively as those who want tyranny. -- Iyad el Baghdadi
Prove it. That's a very big and bold statement, claiming to know the hearts of others. Onus rest squarely with you to prove the assertion. Until you do, it is nothing more than pure bull$#@!.
I made no such assertion. You appear to be on a jag of grossly failed logic. I am surprised.If you assert that trees do have rights, that assertion is, thus far, equally unsupported. Feel free to support it.
Proof of your bald assertions that humans are morally entitled to torment and main other snetient beings; that sentience is not the arbiter of constraint upon human action, but only "sapience". Big assertions used in support of your thesis that a human being is morally free to engage in the most profoundly perverted acts of depravity conceivable demand big proof.Proof of what? What doesn't exist? What show do you seek to see? What would make it impressive to you?
The fact that other beings feel pain and display clear love of their own existence strongly supports my belief that they are not mere objects to be trifled with in any manner one's mood might dictate. If you really believe what you assert, then all I can say is you are not the sort I would want at my back in a foxhole. I'd rather take my chances on my own.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
Do you have a line? How do you propose enforcing that line?
"You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul
should there be a line?
Y'all should have started this topic in the summer. I could have posted a pic of the grasshopper guts spread across my front bumper. It was a friggin genocide on my truck.
You want me to prove that it is arrogant and conceited to presume to know better than others how they should live and to forcibly shove your opinions down their throats? Ummm......
How about you prove that it's not.
So you do not assert that trees have rights. Terrific. Then when I say something like, "Trees have life. They don't have rights," rather than contradicting me by writing, "blind...unsupported...I'd call that a FAIL," instead you should agree with me by writing something like, "Yes, I also don't assert that trees have rights."I made no such assertion.
Unless of course I've misunderstood you and you wish to contest my blind, unsupported assertion that trees have life.
Feel free to clear this all up and contest both, or either, assertion. Or agree with both, or either.
Ahh, Osan-san, this is the root of your misunderstanding of me. In the heat of your emotion, you have failed to notice that I never made such an assertion. If I had made such an assertion, rest assured I would have probably draped it in the hair of some kind of line of reasoning attempting to anchor its moral origins on metaphysical bedrock (just as you did with your opposite moral assertion), not just left it bald and naked. Such an attempt would undoubtedly be specious and not hold up to any very hard scrutiny.Proof of your bald assertions that humans are morally entitled to torment and main other sentient beings;
No, torturing animals may very well be immoral, or at least usually immoral, when not done for some practical purpose like curing cancer or testing lipstick or stopping them from spreading plagues. But I was not addressing morality. I was addressing political morality. Libertarianism at root asks one question: "When can humans justifiably use force against other humans?" And it gives one answer: "Only in defense against or response to the initiation of force by another human." Since the animal-torturer is not initiating any force against any other human, libertarianism prohibits anyone from using any force against him, for such a use of force would be an initiation.
Torturing animals may be immoral. Becoming hopelessly addicted to opiates may be immoral. Clearcutting rainforests may be immoral. Burning the Quaran, or the Bible, may be immoral. But all of these things are done with one's own property and thus the immoral actors cannot justly be forced to stop.
They are not. If behavior is depraved, then by definition it is not moral. But that does not mean it can be stomped out by rapid-response Anti-Depravity SWAT Teams. Libertarianism prohibits the initiation of force -- even against those whom you see as depraved. Even against those whom you hate. Especially against those whom you hate. It's just like free speech:Big assertions used in support of your thesis that a human being is morally free to engage in the most profoundly perverted acts of depravity conceivable demand big proof.
"We don't have freedom of speech to talk about the weather. We have the first amendment so we can say very controversial things." -Ron Paul
It's easy to grant freedom of speech to those we agree with. The real test is granting that freedom to those with opinions we absolutely despise.
Bacteria display a clear love for their own existence (via their drive to perpetuate that existence). Some research suggests that trees can feel pain. To make a rule that it is OK to initiate force upon anyone whom you think is causing any other lifeform pain or suffering or death, is to make a horrible rule. In my opinion.The fact that other beings feel pain and display clear love of their own existence strongly supports my belief that they are not mere objects to be trifled with in any manner one's mood might dictate.
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 11-20-2014 at 04:19 PM.
LOL, thanks Amy. Yes, FreedomFanatic is right, I was just using that as an example of how easy and common it is for people (in this case neo-cons) to think that views that contradict their own (in this case, non-interventionism and peace) are absurd, and that the people who hold those views must be loony nutcases. Kooks, as we so often heard Ron Paul called.
Most of Ron Paul's views, in fact, are seen by many/most people as exactly, precisely what Deb said: the result of a political philosophy taken to the absurd extreme. But that's not an argument against his views. Not at all. It's just a round-about way of saying that they disagree with Ron's views, and in fact disagree so strongly that they probably are not even capable of comprehending those views in the slightest. They just tune them out as "kooky."
I don't know, probably the son doesn't even exist, right? And neither does the guy. And neither do you. So what's the problem?
A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable [individuals] we see the growing spread of chaos...
-- Vladamir Putin
http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/23137
You're leaping when trying to compare Ron's educated and experienced views on foreign policy and economics with someone's right to torture their animals. Just because the masses aren't educated enough to understand Ron's political philosophy doesn't mean his views are absurdly extreme.
You really can't bring your views on a person's right to torture their animals to a logical conclusion, because there is none.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Uh, no. Sadly, that guy does exist, and so does his son, and so do I. You do too. In fact, existence is an uncomfortable part of this 'life' thing, but we are here, right? So we might try to value and respect other living creatures. The truth is, there are people out there who would skin others alive purely for their own amusement.
The question I am asking is where is the line one draws? How long before a certain race or ethnicity or people with undesirable physical traits become "subhuman" and "personal property"?
You can spare me your sarcasm and professorial schtick. Just answer the question in plain English.
I could compare any political view with any other. It's all the same. Those who disagree, and disagree strongly enough, will simply dismiss the view they disagree with as absurd and extreme. There's nothing special about animal rights. Those who are strongly opposed to animal rights will find your own view on it absurd and extreme.
Calling something "absurd and extreme" just means you do not want to go to the mental effort required to understand it.
I mean, this is my own view regarding animal rights (the lack thereof). Obviously I do not think that it's absurd and extreme. Now you can just discount my view and decide you're smarter than me and I'm too stupid for words, and that you get to decide what's absurd and extreme and that I do not. But that's kind of a lazy way out.
I have explained the logical position, as I see it. Let me do it again:You really can't bring your views on a person's right to torture their animals to a logical conclusion, because there is none.
When can we use force?
Only in response to force.
Has someone torturing animals which he owns initiated force?
No.
Thus, we cannot use force against him. Any force use would be aggressive and contrary to liberty.
Instead, we can mind our own business. Or, if we simply cannot help our inner busybodiness, we can attempt to pressure, persuade, or cajole him via peaceful, non-aggressive means. Shunning comes to mind. If it is a very important issue to us, we can make sure to subscribe to a legal system which prohibits such behavior, as I described earlier in the thread. There are ways to go about opposing misbehavior towards animals in a libertarian way. A million ways, limited only by your creativity. Using force just isn't one of them.
HH, please. You're not being real with me. You know that there are absolutes in this world.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
And btw, never would I call you stupid. I'm not trying to be flippant here.
Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.
Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine
"I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us