Social Approval or Principles?

[bennyboy]

The initiation of force is rationally, morally and logically incorrect.

You are stating a bunch of assertions as brute fact.  You have not shown that force IS rationally, morally or logically incorrect.

No, you are not correct in what you are saying.

I said the initiation of force is invalid.

You should read what you type. That will make talking to yourself much easier. I'm surprised that the fact that I fucking QUOTED you saying that doesn't stop you from pretending you didn't. Fox News much, dude?
___

You are talking much about the rights of the individual. From what authority or intrinsic condition do your individual rights come from, without a government to enforce them? Without the mutual agreement of a group of people, and some plan to enforce that agreement, where do your privileges come from? And what happens when the group ends up with a parasite in it, who wants the benefit of those rules, but refuses the duties of that group because he never "volunteered?"

Apparently the answer to that question is he runs to his computer and makes 10 threads about it.

[Bad Writer]

By the way, Koolay, you should use 'hide' tags when posting pictures like that. Even "Area 69" requires that you hide images that are used for shock value.

[bennyboy]

By the way, Koolay, you should use 'hide' tags when posting pictures like that. Even "Area 69" requires that you hide images that are used for shock value.

I find it offensive that he would initiate psychological aggression by imposing these images on us.

[genkaus]

We all own private property because we own our bodies and the actions of our body- by definition we own our body. So if someone kidnaps you, that is violating human property. You also own the actions of your body, I.e, if I build a house, and someone decides to take and destroy that house, that is a violation of my private property.

Your argument is defeated at two levels. Firstly, you haven't shown that you own your body. And no - it is not true by definition and it is not self-evident. "We made your sorry ass." Your parents say "We clothed you and fed you and kept you alive all these years - we own atleast half of your body". "We gave you a context to exist in." Says the society "We gave you all the knowledge and all the benefits of technological advancement that have become a part of your existence - we own about 10% of your body". "We kept you safe" Says the government "We made sure nobody murdered you in your sleep. We own about 5%".


Secondly, even if your premise was true, that is all you'd own - your body and your actions. You do not own anything else. You do not own the the ground where you are building your house, you do not own the bricks, you do not own the concrete. You do not have the right to act on any of those and if your actions affect any of the things that you do not own - you are the one initiating force. And since you did not own the ground, the bricks or the concrete you acted upon them wrongfully to build your house - and therefore I can destroy it without violating your private property - because the simple fact of your having acted upon it does not make it your property.

If someone says 'private property is invalid' they are using private property to communicate that message, they own their lips, and they own the sound waves their mouth produces. So it becomes logically invalid immediately as the person arguing against private property uses private property to communicate that message.

Only a moron would make a statement like "private property is invalid/valid". That's like saying: a ball makes no sense.

Secondly, I'm not using private property, I'm using public property. My body, my lips and my sounds belong to everyone in the public. Anyone is welcome to come and use them - within limitations given by the government, ofcourse - including me. However, since I'm the only one who can use it in that way, I'm the only one currently using it - that does not change the fact that it actually belongs to the public.

Except, the state does not initiate force.

Nowhere does it say that this is initiation of force. It could just as easily be retaliation.

[Bad Writer]

You gonna use hide tags on those photos you keep reposting, or are you going to keep being a giant douche?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I read the OP with intrigue, but then around half way down page 1 we got back to this:

Are you sure about that? I can guarantee you that the slaves themselves sure didn't disapprove of anyone being against their enslavement.




-Dad...I was thinking. Why do we have slaves? Aren't they people too?
*SMACK*
-Quit yer' yappin', sonny, and go bring me a glass o' whiskey!

Ah, yes, I'm sure it went down something like that every time.


Do you think so little of us here at these forums to think that we would just toss out our good sense and rationale? If we were to act like this, then we wouldn't be atheists at all, considering we are outnumbered by theists.


All of us, same as how we're all still atheists despite being completely outnumbered by theists. The reverse can be employed too; how are you still a dumbshit when you're surrounded all the time by extremely intelligent individuals on this website? You see, majority does not always change the way a person thinks.


Every single society? Nope.

Someone from the middle ages would adapt to living among us. Someone from the stone age would do the same. Someone from the future would be another good example. We can do this all day, Koolaid.


This is actually a good question. You see...we don't know, but we can definitely expect some things to remain as constants. I would hope that we might even be better at that time. Perhaps by then, someone being irrational and weird will have been proven to be a false idea.


Another good question, but is it the question? This definitely depends on the individual. For me, I care more about principles and what they can do for society when adhered to.

I can give you a better example, of people that believe in the non aggression principle vs. statists, who believe the government initiating force is right. We are vastly outnumbered, and whenever I bring up the logical arguments for the non aggression principle, I just get attacked, insulted, and ostracised for questioning the ethics of a centrally coercive entity. So I don't think many people on this forum care about the principle of atheism, which is rationality, if they can't apply that rationality to other areas. It shows they don't get something fundamental, and/or don't want to.

Statetheists is a better word.

Just can't keep it in your pants can you Kool-aid? Man you must be so angry when you go to sleep that the government is telling you when it's your bed time.

[bennyboy]

re: the police officer and the pepper spray

I have to say that seems like a pretty bad PR move, considering there were about 50 kids there with cameras.