In that society, if death is thought to be a good thing, then, what? I'm fully for consenting suicide or helped suicide. Saying they're not human wouldn't be racist, it would just be wrong. If everyone likes death so much there, than be my guest and die, I don't see what your point is.

My point is, it's ridiculous to say that if nobody misses you then you're not human.

You're still evading my "thought experiment". And it's not the thought of being killed or eaten that's the worst, it's being killed and eaten. I'm not too afraid of my death, but I couldn't bear to have the folk who love me be notified of it.

In that case, how can animals have loved ones? I'm not sure what you'er getting at here.

Most babies, until they've a few years, can not imagine being killed either, that doesn't mean that it's okay to kill them. But babies that don't have the psychologyit's fully fine to kill them, as well as anybody else that does not have the psychology development of life nor human ties.

We don't know what babies can imagine. However, it's not really relevant, since this is an apples to oranges comparison. As far as I can tell you're down with the idea that babies in the womb are in fact human.

With that in mind, I would propose that it is not reasonable to say that a person does not have a right to live; Whether or not they can form relationships is not relevant, since they are themselves remarkable enough to have a right to live.

The difference is, for weight to go at vacuum light-speed, there's good scientific backing to it, when (qualified) folk say that you probably can't, where as back then, all you had to know was that it was ridiculous.

I wouldn't consider that the testimony of scientists today is more reliable than that of people from several centuries ago. They had their reasons for testifying, as do scientists, but there is no way to know for certain that they are correct.

Edited 4/20/2016 02:24:38

wat happen if da businesses form a cartel and do price controls

wat then

Exactly what I said one part of the monopoly would do: Stop raising prices and make a killing selling their goods.

My point is, it's ridiculous to say that if nobody misses you then you're not human.

If noone misses you, you're still going to biologically be a human, but you won't be a fellow. There's a difference.

In that case, how can animals have loved ones? I'm not sure what you'er getting at here.

Besides beasts themselves having loving families, I know that I and others would be very sad if their family members would die. Beasts often have networks and friends, it's all the same as the not-unique humans.

We don't know what babies can imagine. However, it's not really relevant, since this is an apples to oranges comparison. As far as I can tell you're down with the idea that babies in the womb are in fact human.

Well, we've a pretty good idea of mental capacity, and we figured out that a horde of 48 cells can't imagine a thing. And I was never up with the idea that babies in the womb aren't biologically human: they are.

With that in mind, I would propose that it is not reasonable to say that a person does not have a right to live; Whether or not they can form relationships is not relevant, since they are themselves remarkable enough to have a right to live.

A fellow has the right to live, but a literally brainless noone, who cares, other than principlists?

I wouldn't consider that the testimony of scientists today is more reliable than that of people from several centuries ago. They had their reasons for testifying, as do scientists, but there is no way to know for certain that they are correct.

I'm not the best fellow to talk with this, even on Warlight, since this goes into science's past, but in short, scientists today base their inferences on what's happened, scientists back then base their inferences on what's said (faith dogma, some wrong past beliefs, so on). To believe that science today is just as science 500 years ago, this is not.

Whatever, this isn't going anywhere, that's already found. The point is, you can value human life and be for-choice. Not everyone for-choice are human-hating sadists, as you implify.

Edited 4/20/2016 04:05:33

If noone misses you, you're still going to biologically be a human, but you won't be a fellow. There's a difference.

Mind letting me know what this difference is exactly?

A fellow has the right to live, but a literally brainless noone, who cares, other than principlists?

There's no reason that a person should have their right to live taken away simply because they have not been cared for long enough to go out in the world on their own; In fact, I would argue that when you literally need the care of your mother to stay alive, you deserve not only the right to live, but also the right to this care.

I'm not the best fellow to talk with this, even on Warlight, since this goes into science's past, but in short, scientists today base their inferences on what's happened, scientists back then base their inferences on what's said (faith dogma, some wrong past beliefs, so on). To believe that science today is just as science 500 years ago, this is not.

Philosophically speaking, they are both based on the same thing, that is the best information available at the time. Modern scientific facts weren't available several hundred years ago, and therefore weren't used to form opinions.

Furthermore, just because our modern scientific observations were made with more advanced equipment and based upon more knowledge doesn't increase the likelihood that they are true. In fact, several hundred years from now, I imagine our descendants will look back on our to them foolish beliefs with shame, as we do to our ancestors who held what we consider untrue beliefs.

Whatever, this isn't going anywhere, that's already found. The point is, you can value human life and be for-choice. Not everyone for-choice are human-hating sadists, as you implify.

Even if neither of us is convinced to change our rather polarized opinions, It's still helpful to expose ourselves to the views of others and at least consider adopting them :)

Edited 4/20/2016 05:03:45

Also are you just retarded?

Insulting someone is pathetic Major. If you have nothing else to say, just avoid posting here.

My comment here was to underline the fact that you specifically stated "why do we need to pay for folk?" hence your own comment targeted money spent for the people, and you purposely omitted the rest (the state that wasted billions to save banks after the crisis, the billions for the army and its defense industry, intelligence agencies, etc etc).

And I will ask this again: How Socialism is linked with gun control? I know your hatred for "socialism", but if you are unable to post anything relevant proving the hypothetical link between socialists and gun control, this would prove again how irrelevant is the thread you made.

Mind letting me know what this difference is exactly?

The meaning changes from who you ask, but to me, a fellow must have brain and some kind of psychologic and neurologic development, as well as triggering another fellow's clear man answering deeds.

In short, something that you can recognise as human by shape and deeds, not a group of 96 cells.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/embryo_comparison.gif

There's no reason that a person should have their right to live taken away simply because they have not been cared for long enough to go out in the world on their own; In fact, I would argue that when you literally need the care of your mother to stay alive, you deserve not only the right to live, but also the right to this care.

And you can wield the same argument to thoughts of sex, as I have told you earlier. Not having sex doesn't mean you're doing abortions.

Frankly, I don't care if I painlessly die in my sleep if I'm all alone in some pad in open space. I literally wouldn't be able to care, since I'm dead. If you believe in afterlife, then I'm getting what I earned, bad or good.

Even if neither of us is convinced to change our rather polarized opinions, It's still helpful to expose ourselves to the views of others and at least consider adopting them :)

It's good to have talk with differing thoughts, but you get stingy after a while and I suspect I do, and all it does is seperate more (it's a general psychologic truth that more interaction between two folk who have opposing ideas will make the ideas even more polar).

The meaning changes from who you ask, but to me, a fellow must have brain and some kind of psychologic and neurologic development, as well as triggering another fellow's clear man answering deeds.

How is it reasonable to impose a set of requirements at which a person has "earned" the right to live? Especially given that different people can have different opinions on this, how is your opinion more valid that theirs?

In my opinion, there is no moral way to create such a standard, and therefore there must be no standard, which means that every person has a right to live.

In short, something that you can recognise as human by shape

Practically everyone recognizes that a baby in the womb is some sort of human, so this isn't really a valid argument.

And you can wield the same argument to thoughts of sex, as I have told you earlier. Not having sex doesn't mean you're doing abortions.

There is no parallel argument in sex, since a human begins as a very specific thing: A union of two cells, a sperm and an egg. These two cells apart can never be a human, since both of them together are required to be a human being.

And as I've said before, a simple thought of a child lacks continuity into any child that is eventually created. You don't seem to have anything to say to this, as you've said that same thought thing over and over again...

Frankly, I don't care if I painlessly die in my sleep if I'm all alone in some pad in open space. I literally wouldn't be able to care, since I'm dead. If you believe in afterlife, then I'm getting what I earned, bad or good.

That's all well and good, but it's not the same thing as your mother murdering you while you're alive and conscious, if you're trying to imply that abortions are somehow "painless deaths in your sleep".

It's good to have talk with differing thoughts, but you get stingy after a while and I suspect I do, and all it does is seperate more (it's a general psychologic truth that more interaction between two folk who have opposing ideas will make the ideas even more polar).

I don't really get irritated when discussing theoretical things such as our discussion about aliens, it's just that this is an issue that affects me very personally, given that I have several brothers and sisters who I have thought of as such from literally the moment that I found out they existed, including while they were still in the womb. The thought that they were at some point not really human is just the most ludicrous idea to me.

Light and Heavy Weaponry only for self-defense.

Yeah you don't know anything about firearms if you suggest "heavy weaponry" for self defense.

"Oh darn, some dolt broke into my house, time for the crew-serviced Anti-Tank gun. Wife, kids! Come help dad blow a man in half!"

Why do you hate me so much?-No, I never declared firearms to be heavy weaponry. Heavy weaponry is for miltary use only; Only light weponry like knifes and guns for matters of self-defension; Also I do not talk about your corrupted american meaning of self-defense, but of the civilzed european meaning of self-defense.

Light and Heavy Weaponry only for self-defense.

The European meaning of self-defense is attack, attack, attack. Something the American government picked up from you blokes, among other things.

let ban guns

The European meaning of self-defense is attack, attack, attack.

By "European meaning" you have to explain it to me better what was your point here?

And I noticed you still did not answered my question: Are you unable to give any worth explanations?

Edited 4/21/2016 09:16:41

You asked a question? Oh I'll try to answer.

No just no, you know I am against all money spent by governments, I'm a anarchist. You're just being ridiculous if you actually think I'm for government spending money.

Socialists are for more authoritarianism and gun control is authoritarian leaning, easy to get right?

Socialists are for more authoritarianism and gun control is authoritarian leaning, easy to get right?

Depends, Revolutionary socialists tend to oppose gun control because they want to arm the working class, while democratic socialists tend to be mixed on this issue, easy also to get I guess right?

Edited 4/21/2016 12:38:31

Well. The black panthers were pro-gun because their revolution depended on the people's side while Sandernists are anti-gun because their revolution depends on them being on the governments side. I think that's a good summarization of the ulterior motives of the two groups :p

The European meaning of self-defense is not "attack, attack, attack" so I guess you were sarcastic on here, bro?!