The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.
Forums
 »
Economics
 »
Political Theory
 »
A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

Thank you for your participation and interest in the Mises Community. This software platform has seen its day, however, and so is now closed. We are redoing our entire site, so look for some exciting developments by the end of the year. Thank you for your support of Austrian economics, liberty, and peace.

A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

This post has 681 Replies | 9 Followers

Top 25 Contributor
Posts 4,532
Points 84,495
Reply
Stranger replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 3:54 PM

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Only problem is that it doesn't, Stranger. Not unless you wish to equivocate/strawman on the way potential is being used. Do you wish to keep using your fallacious garbage, or do you want to be honest? Your choice. I suggest you make it now.

You are hilariously petty.

The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070
Reply
Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 3:58 PM

Thank you for your concession. I trust you'll no longer be promulgating your fallacious garbage.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
Reply
filc replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 4:06 PM

Stranger:
It does as much as any other type of cell. You can take a blood sample and use it to clone me, and thus my blood has the potential to become a rational human being and has potential rights.

Why stop at the cells? Why not molecules? Or particles? Electrons Protons Neutrons!! Electrons have potential rights!

Oh yes because that would be lunacy.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 5:37 PM

filc:

Stranger:

filc:

Stranger:
Do sperm have rights mr. JackCuyler?

Didn't we go over this like 8 pages ago? DOes he really need to repeat himself or is Argumentum Ad Nauseum  your only method of debating?

Yes he does, if he claims to be excluded from the generalization.

I think your confusing yourself Stranger. Who here has claimed that sperm were children? Is a sperm a child?

He did not say anyone made that claim.  He asked if sperm do have rights.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 5:38 PM

JackCuyler:

Stranger:

filc:
I think your confusing yourself Stranger. Who here has claimed that sperm were children? Is a sperm a child?

It has the potential to become one

No it doesn't.

Sperm do not have the potential to become humans?  How can we even talk to people that dispute the laws of nature and scientific fact?

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 5:40 PM

filc:
No its not. It's like saying a tire lying on the street has the potential of becoming a car.

No, the sperm is like rubber.  A tire is like a child.  And a tire on a car is like a human that can reason.

So it is like saying that rubber has the potential to become a tire, which has the potential of being put on a car.  (A sperm has the potential to become a child which has the potential to reason).  Try to get your analogies straight.

 

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 5:43 PM

filc:

Stranger:
It does as much as any other type of cell. You can take a blood sample and use it to clone me, and thus my blood has the potential to become a rational human being and has potential rights.

 

Why stop at the cells? Why not molecules? Or particles? Electrons Protons Neutrons!! Electrons have potential rights!

Oh yes because that would be lunacy.

You guys are the ones making the ludicrous argument that just because a child has the potential to reason that it has rights, and on the other hand even though a sperm has the potential to reason, it does not have rights.  Your only criteria is "potential" and it is completely inconsistent.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
Reply
filc replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 5:53 PM

Spideynw:
You guys are the ones making the ludicrous argument that just because a child has the potential to reason that it has rights, but that on the other hand even though a sperm has the potential to reason, it does not have rights.  Your only criteria is "potential" and on the one hand it grants rights, on the other it does not.

No were pointing out how you two are conflating arguments. On the one hand we have a human, who is a human and will remain to be a human regardless of whether they are 5 or 50. You conflate that stating that we believe sperm have rights. But sperm are not humans and left to themselves do not ever become humans.

What were asking you and Stranger to do is stop with the conflation. It looks pathetic and it's extremely obviously fallacious.  It's obvious you two are just being stubborn. This is more about being correct than it is about coming to any type of productive conclusion. 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 792
Points 13,825
Reply
JackCuyler replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 5:57 PM

Spideynw:

JackCuyler:

Stranger:

filc:
I think your confusing yourself Stranger. Who here has claimed that sperm were children? Is a sperm a child?

It has the potential to become one

No it doesn't.

Sperm do not have the potential to become humans?  How can we even talk to people that dispute the laws of nature and scientific fact?

I agree.  People who claim that sperm have the potential to become humans are disputing the laws of nature and scientific fact.


faber est suae quisque fortunae

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 4,532
Points 84,495
Reply
Stranger replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 5:59 PM

filc:

No were pointing out how you two are conflating arguments. On the one hand we have a human, who is a human and will remain to be a human regardless of whether they are 5 or 50. You conflate that stating that we believe sperm have rights. But sperm are not humans and left to themselves do not ever become humans.

Children left to themselves will die before becoming humans as well.

The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
Reply
filc replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 6:02 PM

Stranger:
Children left to themselves will die before becoming humans as well.

And your begging the question again, are childrens human. You have yet to prove us otherwise. 

Take your circular reasoning and toss it in the trash. Get your mind out of the gutter and join us on an intellectually productive plane for once. 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 792
Points 13,825
Reply
JackCuyler replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 6:03 PM

Stranger:
Children left to themselves will die before becoming humans as well.

Children already are humans.


faber est suae quisque fortunae

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 4,532
Points 84,495
Reply
Stranger replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 6:08 PM

filc:

Stranger:
Children left to themselves will die before becoming humans as well.

And your begging the question again, are childrens human. You have yet to prove us otherwise. 

Take your circular reasoning and toss it in the trash. Get your mind out of the gutter and join us on an intellectually productive plane for once. 

Is this all you have left?

The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
Reply
filc replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 6:13 PM

Stranger:
Is this all you have left?

This makes no sense. Speak teh engrish. I don't speak innuendo.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 7:42 PM

filc:
No were pointing out how you two are conflating arguments. On the one hand we have a human, who is a human and will remain to be a human regardless of whether they are 5 or 50.

Can humans that are 1 year old reason?

filc:
You conflate that stating that we believe sperm have rights.

And you obviously did not read what I posted.  Nowhere did I ever state that you think sperm have rights.  I stated that using your criteria, that children have the potential to reason endows them with rights, the same can be said about sperm and eggs.

filc:
But sperm are not humans and left to themselves do not ever become humans.

And a one year old left to himself will never become human.  Yet somehow you still think they have rights...

filc:
What were asking you and Stranger to do is stop with the conflation. It looks pathetic and it's extremely obviously fallacious.

What's pathetic is your inability to reason.

filc:
This is more about being correct than it is about coming to any type of productive conclusion. 

Maybe you should look in the mirror.  I happily answer all of the "child's rights" questions, yet you all like to ignore mine.  The reason I am willing to answer questions should be obvious to anyone reading this thread.  Those that advocate that children do not have rights have a much more consistent philosophy than those that do claim they do.

If you are wondering what my question is, it is "if children have rights because they have the potential to reason, why don't sperm, which have potential to reason as well?"

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 7:43 PM

filc:

Stranger:
Children left to themselves will die before becoming humans as well.

And your begging the question again, are childrens human. You have yet to prove us otherwise. 

And you are begging the question.  Can small children think critically?  See how fun this is?

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 7:45 PM

JackCuyler:

Stranger:
Children left to themselves will die before becoming humans as well.

Children already are humans.

The line of reasoning is simply stupid.  I could just as easily say that apes are special and have rights.  Now prove me wrong.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
Reply
filc replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 8:03 PM

I already challenged you with at least 3 various questions. The likes of which you wouldn't touch with a 10 inch pole. There is no need to repeat this again. Being unable to reason for a period of time does not mean you are not human. 

The only stupid reasoning here is the ones who think people that are sleeping are homesteadable, and that they have not rights because they are asleep and cannot present their case to a judge. 

The only stupid reasoning here are those who disconnect themselves from reality and prefer to make up their own dictionary definitions of what is or is not human, and then decide to apply different aspects of those definitions to meet your silly agenda.

The only thing that has transpired for the past X number of pages is a clear representation of lunacy. 

Spideynw:
The line of reasoning is simply stupid.  I could just as easily say that apes are special and have rights.  Now prove me wrong.

And by the way, it is up to YOU to prove that children are not human. It's not on me. And you cannot re-define the definition of human to do so. Such is the way of lunacy. Either you contend with reality or you go back to your whole were you can pretend to live in your fantasy world.

Your arbitrary new definition of what is, and is not human fails on so many levels as has been pointed out a clear number of times on this thread. Need we repeat ourselves over, and over and over again?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
Reply
filc replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 8:20 PM

Spideynw:
Can humans that are 1 year old reason?

Can someone who is asleep or has alzheimers not reason? and by not reasoning do they stop being human? Also who is the judge of what is good or bad reasoning? Are you the omniscient arbitor that will enighten us? It's either idiocy or lunacy to go down this path.

Spideynw:
And you obviously did not read what I posted.  Nowhere did I ever state that you think sperm have rights. 

Stranger tried to conflate a sperm with being human. You defended him. Want me to re-quote everything all over again?

Spideynw:
I stated that using your criteria, that children have the potential to reason endows them with rights, the same can be said about sperm and eggs.

Accept that sperm and eggs are not human, and will not potentially be human. They are no more human than the molecules that make up our bodies.

Spideynw:
And a one year old left to himself will never become human.  Yet somehow you still think they have rights...

Accept t hat a one year old already is human? Now your following the route of circular reasoning just as Stranger did. How many more beautiful examples of logical retardation would you like to provide for us? And your the one trying to compare a sperm to a 1 year old as if they are identical. 

And you have yet to prove to us that 1 year olds don't have rights without re-writing your own pet definition of human and rights in the dictionary. And you subscribe to a fallacy that positive law somehow creates rights. That laws come before rights do. 

Spideynw:

filc:
What were asking you and Stranger to do is stop with the conflation. It looks pathetic and it's extremely obviously fallacious.

What's pathetic is your inability to reason.

I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt. The only one inable to reason, and the only one being stubborn is you. I'm genuinly interested in how you came to what you beleive but you refuse to answer questions, like homesteading alzheimer patients. 

Spideynw:
Maybe you should look in the mirror.  I happily answer all of the "child's rights" questions, yet you all like to ignore mine

Than answer mine in this past thread. I know of at least 2 that you have not answered. And don't tell me you have because I have read, and re-read. 

Spideynw:
Those that advocate that children do not have rights have a much more consistent philosophy than those that do claim they do.

Look I could make up any kind of idiot theory I wanted and it would be 100% consistent if I re-defined select words and re-structured various meanings arbitrarily. In reality however the only way your consistency holds up is by arbitrarily re-defining what a human is and what rights .

 

Now for the umpteenth time explain to me this.

 

  • How are you not homesteadable when your asleep?
  • How are you not homesteadable when you have Alzheimer
  • Who is the omniscient judge that can detirmine what is a reasoning body and what is not
  • Most children can rationalize and critically think as early as age 5. Do they stop becoming property? How do you measure the rational capacity?
  • Property is property, whats wrong if a father wants to keep his daughter chained in the basement for 30 years? Or is that accepted under your new reasoning?
  • How can property arbitrarily stop being property at X random age.
  • How can my property sue me to steal rights to what is mine? If I own the child as property they have no right to bring their case to a judge, they have no right to their body. Their body is mine. How is your definition NOT arbitrary? 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
Reply
filc replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 8:22 PM

Please observe Stranger and Spidey's argumentum ad nauseum on this topic.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 792
Points 13,825
Reply
JackCuyler replied on Sun, Jan 3 2010 11:50 PM

Spideynw:

JackCuyler:

Stranger:
Children left to themselves will die before becoming humans as well.

Children already are humans.

The line of reasoning is simply stupid.  I could just as easily say that apes are special and have rights.  Now prove me wrong.

Which part is stupid?  Seriously.  Is it my claim that human children are human?  The statement is self evident.


faber est suae quisque fortunae

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Mon, Jan 4 2010 10:10 AM

JackCuyler:
Which part is stupid?  Seriously.  Is it my claim that human children are human?  The statement is self evident.

That being human is, in any way, significant to whether or not one has rights.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Mon, Jan 4 2010 11:32 AM

filc:
Can someone who is asleep or has alzheimers not reason? and by not reasoning do they stop being human? Also who is the judge of what is good or bad reasoning? Are you the omniscient arbitor that will enighten us?

How is this question relevant to whether or not children have rights?

filc:
Than answer mine in this past thread. I know of at least 2 that you have not answered.

What are they?  BTW, I only answer questions that are relevant.  I will list why I think they are not relevant if I deem them as such.

filc:
How are you not homesteadable when your asleep?

And this is relevant to whether or not children have rights how?

filc:
How are you not homesteadable when you have Alzheimer

Did I say one is not?  Regardless, how is this question relevant?

filc:
Who is the omniscient judge that can detirmine what is a reasoning body and what is not

How is this question relevant?  I could ask the same of you.

filc:
Most children can rationalize and critically think as early as age 5. Do they stop becoming property? How do you measure the rational capacity?

How is this question relevant?  I could ask almost the exact same question to you.  Can children have sex and choose to die at age 5?  How do you measure rational capacity?

filc:
Property is property, whats wrong if a father wants to keep his daughter chained in the basement for 30 years?

How is this question relevant?  Sperm is the father's property.  What is wrong with a father that wants to keep his sperm that becomes his child that becomes his adult child chained in the basement for 30 years?

filc:
Or is that accepted under your new reasoning?

Same back at you.

filc:
How can property arbitrarily stop being property at X random age.

That is the question I asked you.  How can sperm arbitrarily stop being property at X random age?

filc:
How can my property sue me to steal rights to what is mine?

Same back at you.  Question is really irrelevant, since it applies to both of us

filc:
If I own the child as property they have no right to bring their case to a judge, they have no right to their body. Their body is mine. How is your definition NOT arbitrary? 

If I own my sperm, the child that is created from the sperm has no rights to bring her case to arbitration, since the child has no rights to her body.  The body is mine.  How is your definition NOT arbitrary?

I already tried to explain to you the similarities between the two philosophies.  Both philosophies assumes the child does not have rights before some point, and then has rights after some other point in time.  The main difference comes down to the fact that your philosophy either makes everything a parent does to a child criminal or leaves it up to completely subjective criteria as to when it is right or wrong to do something to a child.  My philosophy does not make parents criminals.

 

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Mon, Jan 4 2010 11:37 AM

filc:
Being unable to reason for a period of time does not mean you are not human. 

And when did I ever make such a claim?

filc:
The only stupid reasoning here is the ones who think people that are sleeping are homesteadable,

Someone here thinks that is the case?  Because I sure don't.

filc:
The only stupid reasoning here are those who disconnect themselves from reality and prefer to make up their own dictionary definitions of what is or is not human,

When has it ever been disputed in this thread as to what is or is not human?

filc:
And by the way, it is up to YOU to prove that children are not human.

And it is up to YOU to prove I have ever claimed children are not human.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
Reply
filc replied on Mon, Jan 4 2010 12:45 PM

Evasion is never a good sign.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
Reply
nirgrahamUK replied on Mon, Jan 4 2010 2:02 PM

its clear that filc and spidey disagree. but evasion?

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
Reply
filc replied on Mon, Jan 4 2010 2:27 PM

nirgrahamUK:

its clear that filc and spidey disagree. but evasion?

I havn't even got to a point where I can disagree because I have yet to see a coherent explanation of his position. I'm not trying to attack Spidey. I'm trying to understand the principles hes advocating. I'm trying to understand why X is applied here but not there. All I want is a simple yes/no response from Spidey and an explanation of why. What I get instead is a hostile response, evasion, and no effort whatsoever to explain his argument. 

Short witty responses do not explain one's position. 

Now if Spidey can coherently explain in full his position while addressing the items I pointed out then I can agree to disagree, but at this poitn I don't even know if I can disagree because I have yet to understand fully his position. 

Responding with "This has nothing to do with childrends rights" is clear evasion, because my direct line of questioning is asking WHY it has nothing to do with children's rights. I am asking why is his position arbitrarily directed at children and not at other humans incapable of reason. I'm asking what makes his assignment not arbitrary. If he doesn't want to answer fine than don't answer, but the response he provided above is clear evasion.

Quiet frankly isn't it pretty evident?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390
Reply
scineram replied on Mon, Jan 4 2010 3:09 PM

You guys still think political philosophy is about proof and disproof rather than reasonable argumentation?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 792
Points 13,825
Reply
JackCuyler replied on Mon, Jan 4 2010 3:20 PM

Spideynw:

JackCuyler:
Which part is stupid?  Seriously.  Is it my claim that human children are human?  The statement is self evident.

That being human is, in any way, significant to whether or not one has rights.

Do you actually read posts before you hit reply, or just skim and assume the rest?  If it was the former, than this shows a serious lack of reading comprehension skills.  Here, I'll spell it out for you:

Stranger:
Children left to themselves will die before becoming humans as well.

Now notice the concept of rights was not mentioned.  We can see, however, a claim that children (not sperm) will, under certain circumstances, die "before becoming humans".  This implies that children are not yet human.  He did not say, "before gaining rights," nor, "before gaining reason," but rather, "before becoming humans." 

I then corrected him.

JackCuyler:
Children already are humans.

Again, notice I did not mention rights or reason, merely corrected his glaring error.  You demonstrated your mastery of reading comprehension when you called my line of thought "stupid".  A short time later, however, you came up with this:

Spideynw:
And it is up to YOU to prove I have ever claimed children are not human.

And while you did not make the claim outright, you called the line of reasoning that children are human, "stupid" -- evidence, if not proof.


faber est suae quisque fortunae

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Mon, Jan 4 2010 3:58 PM

JackCuyler:

This implies that children are not yet human.  He did not say, "before gaining rights," nor, "before gaining reason," but rather, "before becoming humans." 

I then corrected him.

And rightly so.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Mon, Jan 4 2010 4:03 PM

JackCuyler:
And while you did not make the claim outright, you called the line of reasoning that children are human, "stupid" -- evidence, if not proof.

I said:

Spideynw:

JackCuyler:
Which part is stupid?  Seriously.  Is it my claim that human children are human?  The statement is self evident.

That being human is, in any way, significant to whether or not one has rights.

How you get that this means I called the line of reasoning that children are human is stupid is beyond me.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 792
Points 13,825
Reply
JackCuyler replied on Mon, Jan 4 2010 6:05 PM

Spideynw:

JackCuyler:
And while you did not make the claim outright, you called the line of reasoning that children are human, "stupid" -- evidence, if not proof.

I said:

Spideynw:

JackCuyler:
Which part is stupid?  Seriously.  Is it my claim that human children are human?  The statement is self evident.

That being human is, in any way, significant to whether or not one has rights.

How you get that this means I called the line of reasoning that children are human is stupid is beyond me.

You don't from that.  However, I said

JackCuyler:
Children already are humans.

and you replied

Spideynw:
The line of reasoning is simply stupid.

I don't know how you infer a claim that being human is, in any way, significant to whether or not one has rights from "Children already are humans."


faber est suae quisque fortunae

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070
Reply
Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Mon, Jan 4 2010 6:06 PM

Spideynw:
Sperm do not have the potential to become humans?  How can we even talk to people that dispute the laws of nature and scientific fact?
Because the sperm in my testicles do not have the potential to become humans--by themselves. I'm hoping you won't deny that, for that would mean you'd be disputing the laws of nature and scientific fact. Wouldn't want that.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070
Reply
Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Mon, Jan 4 2010 6:07 PM

Spideynw:
You guys are the ones making the ludicrous argument that just because a child has the potential to reason that it has rights, and on the other hand even though a sperm has the potential to reason
Except that it doesn't. As with Stranger: do not use strawmen.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Tue, Jan 5 2010 7:34 AM

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Because the sperm in my testicles do not have the potential to become humans--by themselves.

And children do not have the potential to become adults by themselves either.  What is your point?

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070
Reply
Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Tue, Jan 5 2010 7:37 AM

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Because the sperm in my testicles do not have the potential to become humans--by themselves.
Spideynw:
And children do not have the potential to become adults by themselves either.
Yes, they do. They do not require an egg for fertilization. They will grow as part of a natural process. Now you're guilty of being willfully dishonest. Please bow out of the thread.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Tue, Jan 5 2010 7:47 AM

JackCuyler:

You don't from that.  However, I said

JackCuyler:
Children already are humans.

and you replied

Spideynw:
The line of reasoning is simply stupid.

No, I said:

Spideynw:
The line of reasoning is simply stupid.  I could just as easily say that apes are special and have rights.

However, I will concede that posting that in reply to your post really makes no sense, given that you said nothing in that particular post about humans having rights.  So, my apologies.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Reply
Spideynw replied on Tue, Jan 5 2010 7:49 AM

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Because the sperm in my testicles do not have the potential to become humans--by themselves.
Spideynw:
And children do not have the potential to become adults by themselves either.
Yes, they do. They do not require an egg for fertilization. They will grow as part of a natural process. Now you're guilty of being willfully dishonest. Please bow out of the thread.

Really?  So if I leave my newborn baby on the floor, it will magically grow by itself?  Could you please enlighten us on how this can occur?

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070
Reply
Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Tue, Jan 5 2010 8:24 AM

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Because the sperm in my testicles do not have the potential to become humans--by themselves.
Spideynw:
And children do not have the potential to become adults by themselves either.
Knight_of_BAAWA:
Yes, they do. They do not require an egg for fertilization. They will grow as part of a natural process. Now you're guilty of being willfully dishonest. Please bow out of the thread.
Spideynw:
Really?
Yes, really.  You know what we're talking about, and you're deliberately creating strawmen. Please leave this thread, for you are not honest enough to be here.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Reply
Conza88 replied on Wed, Jan 6 2010 5:28 AM

This is for the folks too lazy to read one or two journal articles, or listen to an audio lecture.

= Win.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Page 17 of 18 (682 items) « First ... < Previous 14 15 16 17 18 Next > | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap