- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,666
- Reaction score
- 39,922
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Hillary supporters-How do you think a Trump Presidency will hurt you
Unborn children do indeed have rights, regardless of whether or not we choose to violate them. Since this is an a priori argument, I would propose we simply leave it by.
In reality this is the law in China. In reality this happens. I answered your question, and you refuse to answer mine.
Didn't read the post before responding, eh?
He's been off on a big "Open/Closed Inclusive/Exclusive" kick lately. I read folks from all over, because there is no such thing as a commentator, aggregator, or presenter who isn't a pundit.
The law certainly does equal force - because those "consequences" will involve the use of force against you for refusing to follow the law.
:shrug: then there is no such thing as force. You can always, after all, choose to commit suicide, and then no one can make you do anything.
Nor should we worry about conservatives forcing anyone to do anything. If they pass a law making homosexuality punishable by death, well, you can always choose to not practice homosexuality or move out of the country - you aren't being forced. If they choose to pass a law banning all abortions, well, women aren't being forced to carry their pregnancies to term - they can choose not to have sex, choose to flee the country for abortions, or choose to commit suicide. They have a veritable plethora of choices.
All that, of course, is ridiculous. Because law is force. And that's fine. Force has several fully legitimate uses in our interactions with others.
:roll: gosh. I wonder why non-Libertarians such as myself are pointing it out, then. Man, that Hobbes, whatta libertarian :lol:
By your logic, virtually nothing forces anyone to do anything.
There were no restrictions on SSM. There was no force because people had choices.
The threat of force remains the use of force, however, regardless of your wish to redefine it away. When you use the power of the central government to try to dominate others and make them live as you prefer, rather than as they prefer, you naturally create backlash. It is the centralization of power that creates winner-take-all fights, increases partisan bitterness, reduces trust, reduces willingness and ability to compromise, and leads inevitably to widespread paranoia. It turns politics from a mutually beneficial game of compromise into a zero-sum competition where each side believes it is fighting for it's life.
Fetuses have no rights. Any argument that presents that they have any is irrelevant. Do rural-based conservatives think that denying reality is a good argument?
Unborn children do indeed have rights, regardless of whether or not we choose to violate them. Since this is an a priori argument, I would propose we simply leave it by.
Remember what I said about absurd examples? This is one. Argue reality.
In reality this is the law in China. In reality this happens. I answered your question, and you refuse to answer mine.
Now, I've asked the question several times and you haven't bothered to answer it
Didn't read the post before responding, eh?
I had to look him up. I hate reading anything from pundits, no matter who they are.
He's been off on a big "Open/Closed Inclusive/Exclusive" kick lately. I read folks from all over, because there is no such thing as a commentator, aggregator, or presenter who isn't a pundit.
I can certainly choose to not pay taxes. Will there be consequences? Sure, but that's a separate issue and it is up to me as to whether or not I choose to allow that to affect my decision. See? tax does not equal force.
The law certainly does equal force - because those "consequences" will involve the use of force against you for refusing to follow the law.
As long as there is choice, force is not the appropriate concept for which to describe what government does.
:shrug: then there is no such thing as force. You can always, after all, choose to commit suicide, and then no one can make you do anything.
Nor should we worry about conservatives forcing anyone to do anything. If they pass a law making homosexuality punishable by death, well, you can always choose to not practice homosexuality or move out of the country - you aren't being forced. If they choose to pass a law banning all abortions, well, women aren't being forced to carry their pregnancies to term - they can choose not to have sex, choose to flee the country for abortions, or choose to commit suicide. They have a veritable plethora of choices.
All that, of course, is ridiculous. Because law is force. And that's fine. Force has several fully legitimate uses in our interactions with others.
Using the word is an appeal to emotion often used by libertarians.
:roll: gosh. I wonder why non-Libertarians such as myself are pointing it out, then. Man, that Hobbes, whatta libertarian :lol:
And I told you, neither of those situations are analogous to what we are talking about. Currently, neither Roe nor Oberkfell force you to do anything.
By your logic, virtually nothing forces anyone to do anything.
Since what Oberkfell did is remove the restrictions on SSM
There were no restrictions on SSM. There was no force because people had choices.
The threat of force remains the use of force, however, regardless of your wish to redefine it away. When you use the power of the central government to try to dominate others and make them live as you prefer, rather than as they prefer, you naturally create backlash. It is the centralization of power that creates winner-take-all fights, increases partisan bitterness, reduces trust, reduces willingness and ability to compromise, and leads inevitably to widespread paranoia. It turns politics from a mutually beneficial game of compromise into a zero-sum competition where each side believes it is fighting for it's life.