Political Theory

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

Conza88 — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:28:53 GMT

scineram:

Conza88:
= Win.

Not really. Just have abortion and leave it there.

Nope. Now it's time you read a journal article. Sorry, got no video under 5 minutes to show you.

Block, Walter. 2004. “Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights,” International Journal of Social Economics; Vol. 31, No. 3, pp 275-286

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

scineram — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:47:27 GMT

Conza88:
= Win.

Not really. Just have abortion and leave it there.

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

Conza88 — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:28:06 GMT

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

(Please visit the site to view this media)

= Win.

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

Knight_of_BAAWA — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:24:11 GMT

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.

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

Spideynw — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:49:06 GMT

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?

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

Spideynw — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:47:15 GMT

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.

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

Knight_of_BAAWA — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:37:57 GMT

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.

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

Spideynw — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:34:27 GMT

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?

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

Knight_of_BAAWA — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:07:29 GMT

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.

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

Knight_of_BAAWA — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:06:19 GMT

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.

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

JackCuyler — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:05:58 GMT

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."

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

Spideynw — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:03:36 GMT

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.

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

Spideynw — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:58:58 GMT

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.

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

JackCuyler — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:20:13 GMT

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.

Re: A Minarchist Challenge To Anarcho-Capitalists

scineram — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:09:21 GMT

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