Originally posted by JimProfit
I'm a communist. Arguably an anarchist/nihilist
if there is anything meaningful to take from this post, here it is:
no, you are not an anarchist. not even close. you don't even understand the first thing about the concept
anarchists want people to live free of coercieve influences they have no influence over, such as the state.
you are a fascist. you believe you have the right to do whatever you want to whoever you want, and people dont have the right to do anything about it. that is the literal definition of fascism, just applied to an individual and not a state apparatus
Originally posted by JimProfit
I'm a communist. Arguably an anarchist/nihilist, and my view is... if abortion was justified, I'd be for it. It just so happens it never is.
OMG, no way! I'm a communist too. I even live in a communist country. That's the extent of my communism.
Now let's have communism measuring contest.
How can you be an anarchist then preach on about abortion the way you do. It's somewhat strange that you'd give yourself the liberty to decide what someone else does with their own body...as an anarchist, of course.
Originally posted by inimalist
anarchists want people to live free of coercieve influences they have no influence over, such as the state.you are a fascist. you believe you have the right to do whatever you want to whoever you want, and people dont have the right to do anything about it. that is the literal definition of fascism, just applied to an individual and not a state apparatus
But he does want to live free from coercion. By being a totalitarian (which is what I think you really mean) he maximizes his personal freedom.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But he does want to live free from coercion. By being a totalitarian (which is what I think you really mean) he maximizes his personal freedom.
maybe authoritarian, my understanding of what differs totalitarian from fascism/authoritarianism is that in the fascist state, they only care that you hang leader's portrait in your home, in the totalitarian state, you have to belies it, as in it consumes the totality of your person and life.
I could be wrong, I'm not sure of the subtle differences between the three.
all I knows is it ain't anarchy!
I actually made a video about it, I call it anarcho-fascism. I'm half joking of course. I say "half", because I just take my real views, and just kick them into overdrive for the drama of it all. Sort of like Steven Colbert, but self satire.
watch?v=oms_JXkE2Ks <--Just put that at the end of a youtube url and you can see my video. I call it anarcho-fascism/anarcho-statism. Either one is acceptable, and I just love making Jacob Spinny butthurt, because he's such a stereotypical Rand Roid.
But yes, I don't consider "controlling women's bodies" anymore an infringement on rights then I would "controlling a computer". Women have an asset. They are using their uterus to deny humanity it's rightful destiny as the dominant species in the universe. Women are basically biological terrorists. Either they try to entrap you in child support, marriage, or abortion. Either way, to women, life centers around the vagina. I look at women as some sort of thief who is somehow keeping mankind from getting the most out of production. Like if some thugs stole all the water in a dam, or blocked the sun and told us they wouldn't unblock it till we listened to their demands. Women's reproductive organs are not a right, they're a tool. That makes a woman a tool, until we evolve into asexual beings. Which trust me, I probably want more then you do...
Besides, whatever "rights" you think I'm infringing on by "controlling women's bodies", is nothing compared to what happens in "population control". Whether or not you want to believe it's "consenting", the fact is, it's easier to control 300 million, then 400 million. Therefore, the more babies, the more freedom. You "blend in", and it becomes more difficult to license, restrict, condition, and leash everybody.
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Why don't you think that it is not a human being?
Like I explained, I believe the terminology is ambiguous. When you say "human being" you mean a legal/spiritual person with human rights. When I say "human being" I mean a life form with human DNA regardless of rights. So we are talking about completely different concepts, and anyone admitting that the fetus is a "human being" does not accept the inference you'd derive based on your definition of the word.
Do you understand what I mean? I can try to make it more understandable if something is unclear.
K, so I made it about one minute into the video.
You mispronounced lots of those political terms which made it difficult for me to even pay attention. I'm fine with misspelling words every now and then but at least know how to pronounce them. One of my old professors said, "You can't use a word if you don't know what it means and know how to pronounce it." He wasn't referring to actually using, it is symbolic of how seriously people will take you if you do try to use it by violate those two rules.
So, I watched the rest of the vid. You didn't really define anarcho-fascism. You tried to define it by what it must lack in order to be defined as such, which is not how you define anything. For instance, if you were to define an apple, you could not define it as follows:
"An apple is not furry and it doesn't have eyeballs."
Also, in case you actually wanted to know what it was:
http://www.diclib.com/cgi-bin/d1.cgi?l=en&base=amslang&page=showid&id=249
- The theory that an anarchic society, having no infringements, can and should be brought about through a harsh authoritarian state. It is believed that since the people don't come to this freedom on their own, it must be imposed on them.
Originally posted by inimalist
/facepalmI wan't those 30 seconds I wasted reading any of that back
Originally posted by JimProfit
I get the feeling this forum doesn't permit actual thought process, because all these opinions are as contrived and shallow as the sort of ***** who gets an abortion.Be pro-choice for something tangible.
Lets expand on the logic behind the laws:
So what if an infant is a human? If a person restricted their "murder" to their own infants, that makes them no danger to myself, or society in general. So, why should we care whether or not someone murders their own kin?
The "inalienable rights" against murder are extended to all human beings out of self interest. We don't want to be deprived of such rights, so we're forced to extend these rights to all people.
And yet, where's the self interest in protecting someone elses children? why not adopt a stance that, say, children are property of their parents, and thus the parents can do what they like to the child. Even kill them, if necessary?
After all, children are a drain on the parents... Maybe they miscalculated their ability to care for the kids. Maybe society would be better off without a future burden on society...
And, as someone else in this thread claimed of fetuses, you could also apply to infants in that they have no dreams, aspirations... probably not even self awareness.
Not that I subscribe to any of this, but I think the debate on fetus vs infant takes a lot of things for granted, such as the inalienable rights humans have simply for being human...
Resorting to the "human rights" answer is, imo, intellectually lazy, as it doesn't really answer at all what the difference is between killing a fetus and an infant. All it does is address the question using the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition, e.g. our tradition of treating anyone that fits our definition of "human" as deserving of special protections.
So, an infant is a human. So what?
Originally posted by cdtm
Lets expand on the logic behind the laws:So what if an infant is a human? If a person restricted their "murder" to their own infants, that makes them no danger to myself, or society in general. So, why should we care whether or not someone murders their own kin?
The "inalienable rights" against murder are extended to all human beings out of self interest. We don't want to be deprived of such rights, so we're forced to extend these rights to all people.
And yet, where's the self interest in protecting someone elses children? why not adopt a stance that, say, children are property of their parents, and thus the parents can do what they like to the child. Even kill them, if necessary?
After all, children are a drain on the parents... Maybe they miscalculated their ability to care for the kids. Maybe society would be better off without a future burden on society...
And, as someone else in this thread claimed of fetuses, you could also apply to infants in that they have no dreams, aspirations... probably not even self awareness.
Not that I subscribe to any of this, but I think the debate on fetus vs infant takes a lot of things for granted, such as the inalienable rights humans have simply for being human...
Resorting to the "human rights" answer is, imo, intellectually lazy, as it doesn't really answer at all what the difference is between killing a fetus and an infant. All it does is address the question using the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition, e.g. our tradition of treating anyone that fits our definition of "human" as deserving of special protections.
So, an infant is a human. So what?
QFT
we aren't a superstitious spiritual people anymore, we know there is no physical difference between a fetus about to be born in a womb and a new-born infant, and yet we protect one and kill the other like we are from the medieval ages, and somehow like we think "human rights" are something that are spiritually gifted to a fetus during child-birth or something.
Originally posted by truejedi
we aren't a superstitious spiritual people anymore, we know there is no physical difference between a fetus about to be born in a womb and a new-born infant, and yet we protect one and kill the other like we are from the medieval ages, and somehow like we think "human rights" are something that are spiritually gifted to a fetus during child-birth or something.
IIRC, the way the law is currently set up a baby about to be born (last couple months) is treated the same as a newborn. It's an arbitrary line, yes, but any line we draw will be arbitrary.
Originally posted by truejedi
QFTwe aren't a superstitious spiritual people anymore, we know there is no physical difference between a fetus about to be born in a womb and a new-born infant, and yet we protect one and kill the other like we are from the medieval ages, and somehow like we think "human rights" are something that are spiritually gifted to a fetus during child-birth or something.