However, I'd like to ask you this question. Is it justifiable to kill other humans simply because they are not as developed as you? The answer would seem to be yes according to your logic on abortion.

No, as long as the beast will not be missed and will not die in a painful way. I'm a big supporter of soap and killing germs, mainly since noone, human or not, gets psychologically attached to germs, or literally brainless life.

Believe me, if there were aliens with the same mental capacity as humans. we would know about them by now. Therefore, these aliens exist only as a thought experiment, and in my opinion, a pointless one.

It's loads of speculation, don't do as if you know everything. There've been no definite signs of aliens, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Furthermore, what does it matter?

Would you want more developed life forms to disregard your life's worth totally, and kill you and your kind, painfully and in bulk?

Anarchy = Without rulers

Nothing bad about that.

There are many bad things about that. How would diseases be handled? How would we stop the apocalypse from happening? Also, since no major scientific projects would be carried out, we would be stuck on Earth until it is swallowed by the Sun. We NEED to get off to continue the human race. Plus,l with anarchy, much needed scientific advancement would be lost (space travel, antibiotics) and it would push humanity back MANY years before governments set themselves back up. Anarchy is not a state of mind humanity needs at this time. Just look at Somalia... it's terrible down there.

Edited 4/20/2016 01:16:53

Believe me, if there were aliens with the same mental capacity as humans. we would know about them by now. Therefore, these aliens exist only as a thought experiment, and in my opinion, a pointless one.

You are directly referring to the Fermi Paradox.
https://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=1zd93d67z#/watch?v=sNhhvQGsMEc

How would diseases be handled?

A company or charity starts working on a cure, and if the disease is lethal enough would most likely ship it out for free to not lose all of their customers.

How would we stop the apocalypse from happening?

Doesn't exist, and if it does it is not stoppable. What kind of religious weirdo are you that asks how to stop the apocalypse when supposedly you would want it due to you being a religious weirdo.

we would be stuck on Earth until it is swallowed by the Sun

Private space travel

Just look at Somalia

Al-Shabab, Mogadishu and Somililand are not anarchist.

No, as long as the beast will not be missed and will not die in a painful way. I'm a big supporter of soap and killing germs, mainly since noone, human or not, gets psychologically attached to germs, or literally brainless life.

Missing people is very much an invented practice. If there was a society where death was celebrated, this does not take away the humanity of the person who died, but it's rather just a different culture. Suggesting that the people who are a part of it are somehow less human is pretty racist.

It's loads of speculation, don't do as if you know everything. There've been no definite signs of aliens, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Furthermore, what does it matter?

Would you want more developed life forms to disregard your life's worth totally, and kill you and your kind, painfully and in bulk?

The real question is whether animals are even capable of wanting or not wanting this. Most animals are not even capable of imagining or being opposed to the idea that they will be raised for the sole purpose of being killed and eaten.

You are directly referring to the Fermi Paradox.
https://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=1zd93d67z#/watch?v=sNhhvQGsMEc

I'm well aware of the concept. However, my belief is that human society is advancing so rapidly, and so many previous "Impossibilities" are being discovered as possible that if there were a race capable of overcoming impossibilities like humans have, they would have done so and we would know about it.

For example, Many humans believe that it is impossible for anything with mass to travel at the speed of light. Likewise, several hundred years ago, many people believed that it was impossible for a flying machine to cross the atlantic ocean. I believe that like the latter, the former is actually possible with more advanced technology that we don't yet have.

Edited 4/20/2016 01:30:59

A company or charity starts working on a cure, and if the disease is lethal enough would most likely ship it out for free to not lose all of their customers.

A company or a charity would not be true anarchy as it is headed by leaders.

Doesn't exist, and if it does it is not stoppable. What kind of religious weirdo are you that asks how to stop the apocalypse when supposedly you would want it due to you being a religious weirdo.

Fine, I'll use the term "end of humanity event." This would include a pandemic (stoppable), meteor impact (Eventually stoppable) and many other possibilities.

Private space travel

Corporations would have leaders, therefore the corporations are not true anarchy.

Missing people is very much an invented practice. If there was a society where death was celebrated, this does not take away the humanity of the person who died, but it's rather just a different culture. Suggesting that the people who are a part of it are somehow less human is pretty racist.

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.

The real question is whether animals are even capable of wanting or not wanting this. Most animals are not even capable of imagining or being opposed to the idea that they will be raised for the sole purpose of being killed and eaten.

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.

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.

For example, Many humans believe that it is impossible for anything with mass to travel at the speed of light. Likewise, several hundred years ago, many people believed that it was impossible for a flying machine to cross the atlantic ocean.

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.

The basis of Anarcho-Capitalism is voluntaryism and the non-aggression principal. You are completely free to deal with one company or another or none at all, and they cannot force you to shop there. You are free to work at a company or not. You are not ruled over.

The problem with unrule is that governments will come out of unrule - it's near guaranteed. A government is just an alliance of businesses that got powerful enough to mandate their will upon all.

To build a government out of a bunch of businesses would be very hard, it was easier when all you had were tribes that were used to strong rule then build up. Monopolies would be broken after a while in a free market because of the incentives for doing so are very good. If you and nine other businesses that sell firewood and coal have fixed a price for coal and firewood, you only have to lower your price and most folk will shop at your company ,driving up your profits.

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.