For life means you're for life. You don't get to be picky about these things when using such a phrase, maybe you should say for-human-life.

Are you trolling me or something? Here is the definition of Pro-life:

Opposing abortion and euthanasia

(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/pro-life)

It's not like you can't still get guns in a legal way even if you are a convicted felon by exploiting loop holes eh?

I have relatives who are convicted felons, so I'm pretty sure I'm more knowledgeable on the subject, especially given that I actually live in america and not in brazil.

Edited 4/19/2016 22:40:02

Voluntaryism , the core of Ancap thought along with the NAP says that folk should not organize folk with violence. There has never been a time with organization of folk with violence.

Are you trolling me or something? Here is the definition of Pro-life:

Ok, then stop trying to make it seem like pro-life has a bigger meaning than just that. Pro-life doesn't mean for life, it means against abortion, as you say.

Ok, then stop trying to make it seem like pro-life has a bigger meaning than just that. Pro-life doesn't mean for life, it means against abortion, as you say.

You're the one who's trying to make it have a bigger meaning than that with gems like these:

If you're actually pro-life, then you better be prepared to wear gas masks

Be vegetarian

Never cut grass

I never said it had any other meaning. Like I said, I'm not the one trying to claim that pro-life means you're against mowing your lawn and breathing.

Edited 4/19/2016 23:35:09

I have relatives who are convicted felons, so I'm pretty sure I'm more knowledgeable on the subject, especially given that I actually live in america and not in brazil.

I'm sorry that I live in Brazil and I can't possibly know about the Gun show loophole, where the term refers to the viewpoint that there is an inadequacy in federal law, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms". So, as long as you look nice, you can get legally a gun on a Gun show, even if you're a convict.

It might be prohibited to sell guns to convicted felons, but there's an effective loophole on gun shows.


@Major General Smedley Butler

The first time I talked to an anarcho capitalist, it was 3 years ago. He was a brilliant person and had actual good arguments to defend his position. We talked for hours about anarcho capitalism. Back then I hadn't near as much knowlage as I possess today, but I've got 3 years to think on the matter.

Yes, I thinked on this for at least 3 years. And my conclusion on this matter is that even though he had very good convincing arguments, which you in fact lack, he was wrong. His project couldn't work, because it is utopian. Pretty much like communism, or any other anarchist movement, the ancap won't work because it ignores the most important factor on the equation: human nature.

All I have to say is, if you're going to make a pro-lief argument, you'd better be prepared to be actually pro-life.

you're just using pro-life arguments ("It's a violation of liberty to be killed") to justify your anti-liberty positions on Gun Control.

Umm, I don't think the for-life group has the "humans are going to get killed" argument all to themselves. (just about) Noone agrees that folk should be killed, that's sadist, yet there are for-choice folk somehow. I definitely don't think folk should be killed, but in order not to be hypocritc, illegalising murder and harm of all beasts that feel pain (it's a scratchy border, but whatever), not just humans. This would not mean illegalising abortion unless it is at a somewhat late part (and even then, iffy. They used to do surgery on babies without anaesthesia since their nervous system was so undeveloped, they didn't feel much pain.).

I definitely don't think folk should be killed, but in order not to be hypocritc, illegalising murder and harm of all beasts that feel pain

It's not about "all beasts that feel pain", but rather that Human life is inherently worth more than animal life, which is something that most people can agree on. I mean, in practically every single country, there are protections on human life (Laws against murder) that just are not there for animals.

Also, Are you now acknowledging that Babies in the womb are Human Life? I've previously observed that you have a lot of trouble with this concept and frequently refer to them as "beasts".

Edited 4/19/2016 23:54:33

Human life is inherently worth more than animal life, which is something that most people can agree on

I see this as an awful kind of supremacism. It's no better than some ethnicities thinking they're "inherently better" and worth more than others.

Also, Are you now acknowledging that Babies in the womb are Human Life? I've previously observed that you have a lot of trouble with this concept and frequently refer to them as "beasts".

Humans are beasts, but yes, they can't really be classed as anything other as specie: wise man.

I see this as an awful kind of supremacism. It's no better than some ethnicities thinking they're "inherently better" and worth more than others.

I don't think ethnicities are "inherently" better, but some cultures, and by extension the people of that culture, certainly are. And I certainly believe humans are worth more than beasts. Do you really believe a fly or mouse is worth as much as a human?

There have been million of opportunities for you to be killed by folk who surround you, it is really quite easy to kill another person. Why haven't you been killed? Maybe because folk don't want to kill each other all the time. The vast majority of folk do not want to kill kill kill, and the majority of the ones that do are what Anarcho-Capitalism wants to get rid of.

I don't think ethnicities are "inherently" better, but some cultures, and by extension the people of that culture, certainly are.

You're probably not qualified to logically make any assumptions of any cultures being better than the other.

Do you really believe a fly or mouse is worth as much as a human?

Flies don't have really pain or brains much, but a mouse, absolutely. It's terrible how they're dealt with, though. Furthermore, it doesn't even matter. It's not as if most beasts will get offended if humans say they're the best beast, but what does matter, is their lives.

Imagine if much more advanced aliens came to the Earth. If they dealt with us, like we dealt with other beasts, we're in for trouble, and we earned 150% of it. Do as you would like to have done.

You're probably not qualified to logically make any assumptions of any cultures being better than the other.

Darwinism ftw

Humans are beasts, but yes, they can't really be classed as anything other as specie: wise man.

I'll use this as a base to answer most of the stuff here. As Жұқтыру said, humans aren't better then animals, we just happen to be some evolved monkeys that have a bigger brain then the rest. Any argument pro-supremacy of the "human kind" is mostly done under religious concepts, you know, that idea that god created men at his image.

Any kind of supremacy is a problem, until people understand that there isn't such a thing as pure superiority, but rather a complex spectrum of local advantages based on million of years of luck.


Major, that quote serves to you too. People overate too much mankind. We're nothing but advanced beasts. The lack of a police, a central justice system and even a light military will certainly end with a widespread return to a primitive state of fight for survival and early government formations.

I don't think ethnicities are "inherently" better, but some cultures, and by extension the people of that culture, certainly are.

Therefore you're supporting that some ethnical groups are superior to others. Using this "soft" vocabulary doesn't make it any less racist I fear...

Darwinism ftw

I'm pretty sure we don't know the same Darwin lol. Darwinism says that the most advanced individuals/groups/species will survive and transmit their genes to their kids. As long as there's muslims that are alive and reproducing well, they're winning under darwin's idea. As are christians, budhists, americans, south africans, blacks, whites,...

Edited 4/20/2016 00:34:48

Militaries are useless when there are no governments, the point of a military is to gather more land to govern. You rob someone, no one will deal with you again and some people will try to kill you, deterrent enough, if not deterrent enough, private police. You've failed to state how if humans naturally want to kill each other, we don't kill each other off at random more often.

I see this as an awful kind of supremacism. It's no better than some ethnicities thinking they're "inherently better" and worth more than others.

Yet, the very fact that you are sending me this message disproves your point. I live in tennessee, a part of the united states of america, whereas you live in Eritrea, or Kazakhstan, or whatever other place you live in that is not America. If we were beasts, we would never even have the chance to have a discussion, as even if you traveled to Tennessee by somehow overcoming the Ocean, deserts and thick forests that separate us, you would still not be able to communicate with me due to the fact that Beasts have no language.

However, we are not beasts. We can instantly communicate with each other using language, over a network of computers all over the world. This alone proves that Humans are superior, since most animals only have very basic forms of communication.

Furthermore, most beasts have on par with, and sometimes even superior physical capabilities form humans, ie Most animals have arms, legs, brains, and the like. Humans are obviously something special, as our intellectual accomplishments simply outpace that of any beast by many orders of magnitudes. There is no species in the world that is comparable to humans.

Yet, the very fact that you are sending me this message disproves your point. I live in tennessee, a part of the united states of america, whereas you live in Eritrea, or Kazakhstan, or whatever other place you live in that is not America. If we were beasts, we would never even have the chance to have a discussion, as even if you traveled to Tennessee by somehow overcoming the Ocean, deserts and thick forests that separate us, you would still not be able to communicate with me due to the fact that Beasts have no language.

However, we are not beasts. We can instantly communicate with each other using language, over a network of computers all over the world. This alone proves that Humans are superior, since most animals only have very basic forms of communication.

Furthermore, most beasts have on par with, and sometimes even superior physical capabilities form humans, ie Most animals have arms, legs, brains, and the like. Humans are obviously something special, as our intellectual accomplishments simply outpace that of any beast by many orders of magnitudes. There is no species in the world that is comparable to humans.

Humans have done much more than other beasts, so what? Germans did much more than and were better-taught and brought the first telegrammes to Namibia that could connect to all about the world. None of that's justification at all to kill in bulk Namibians.

Again, do you think aliens should deal with us like s--- like we deal with other beasts? Pray to the gods that aliens will be kinder and more selfless than humans.

From the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much – the wheel, New York, wars and so on – whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man – for precisely the same reasons.

Edited 4/20/2016 00:57:21

Humans deal with beasts through necessity first then habit afterwards. Why did we imprison cattle and molest them and eat their children? We would have died without doing that. Now? We do it because we've done it since forever. So most likely, aliens would not have to eat us or imprison us (they are space-faring, they ought to be able to provide for themselves without eating things from another planet) and they can't do something from habit that they've never done.

Also this is why genetically modified foodstuffs and mass bug eating will be good, less pressure on the conscience of the conscious.

Humans have done much more than other beasts, so what? Germans did much more than and were better-taught and brought the first telegrammes to Namibia that could connect to all about the world. None of that's justification at all to kill in bulk Namibians.

Again, do you think aliens should deal with us like s--- like we deal with other beasts? Pray to the gods that aliens will be kinder and more selfless than humans.

I am a firm believer in the idea that it is never justifiable to kill another human, as I'm sure you're aware of by now. 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.

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.