You are attacking us personally and it's because you do not know enough about even the points you bring up yourself to debate any of these issues with us and that what we are saying sounds so foreign to you really shows that you have a "Cliff Notes" version of the facts at best.

No I'm not - everything I argue is related to the argument. I have nothing against you personally for me to attack you personally.

Just saying I don't have the right facts isn't enough. Please, if you are working from a better set just show me the facts you have so I can at least see them.

Read the links I already posted in the thread. That is a good start.

Are you deliberately not reading what I have posted several times already? Acts of aggression exist and you have the right to defend yourself.
If a person tries to murder you, you have the right to defend yourself. You have the right to use violence to defend yourself. So you can kill in selfdefense, but you are not allowed to for example enter your neighbor's house without permission and attack him with a knife.

Murder = Act of aggression.
Killing an assailant with a knife = self defense.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...Yo1L8qGckOzoKQ

Oh no lonely men. There isn't any of those anywhere else in the world.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...s-2081630.html

Sure mistakes have been made - oh look what happened when the mistake was made, Mao stepped down and took responsibility a year after it started.

If the one child policy wasn't working it would have been stopped.

The one-child policy is temporary. When it isn't working the Chinese will stop doing it just like when the Great Leap Forward policy failed they stopped doing it.

Cliff Notes version me? Or Cliff Notes version you? Rrrrrrrright. Read a little, brush up on your history then try again. But by then you'll have realized I'm right anyways. :)

So your ethics just changed...but you said they wouldn't.

What constitutes self defense? If in our little village there is enough food for everyone to have 1 baby, and someone wants to have tons of babies causing all the babies in the town to starve, is killing that one baby murder?

This situation happens around the world every day. Saying it doesn't is just ignorance.

Looks like ethics CAN change. Like they have in this case. Rest assured that I've read every post that you've written so you can stop writing that I haven't in an attempt to make me seem less informed. I'm very informed.

Like I said, I'm doing everything in my power to prevent that. I work hard, I invest, I save money,....

Fiat justicia, ne perat mundus.

If the apple tree is the property of human being A than all the apples belong to him and he can use them as he sees fit. He can eat them, seel them or give them away. It's his decision.

If the apple tree doesn't belong to anyone, the apples belong to the human being that plucks the apples. He can decide what to do with them.


10 people = 10 individuals, with different ideas, different needs, different tastes,... Some of those people might even dislike apples or be allergic to them....

In a free world, the limited resources are divided (through the mechanism we call the market) so that every one has the best chance of getting the things he wants most.

In your world, the population gets reduced to match the limited supply of resources.

Wtf? Latin? Apple trees? Are you serious?

Would you let your family die, yes or no? You would? Then this argument is over, I'm the kind of guy that likes to live and keep my family alive, you're the kind of guy who doesn't. I don't have to worry about people like you - evolution will take of you.

I didn't mean apples literally.

10 people 5 apples. That is all there is. You can't add your funny reasoning to a math problem. That's not how math works. There isn't a tree. There are 5 apples and it takes an apple to keep one person from starving so either 10 people all starve or 5 starve and 5 live. Which one? Simple question, no need for your fanciness. Can you answer it? My guess is NO, not without proving your entire argument wrong.

Stop trying to find a work around. These guys in China had no choice. In your utopian fantasy land that never will and never could exist maybe things could be different.

But this is Earth. Welcome.

'limit the population'? If a storm destroys crops so they're less resources available, do you start limiting the population then or do you wait until there's another disaster? At what point do you decide "now we have to reduce the population a bit more because our supply of food just decreased"?

In the free market: more demand + less supply = rising prices + less demand (because of the higher prices) + more alternatives (as a result of human creativity).

If you earn x amount of money each month and you spend it all on your family and one day you lose your job. So you find another job, but one that pays less money. Do you adjust your lifestyle, the way you spend money, do you buy different things or spend less money on luxuary products,... or do you decide to reduce the size of your family?

Ethically speaking that baby is a human being, master of his own body. The mother has no ethical obligation to take care of it. Neither does anyone else.

Morally however, If I'd see a starving baby by the side of the road, I'd take it in and care for it.

...and your version of earth is made up of 10 people and 5 apples.

Yeah, we are not talking about the real world. You are. Yeah... That...

ah, Government knows best.... Befehl ist Befehl... no need to question anything, government knows best... :disgust

If there isn't enough food for everyone to live? It's easy: you just wait for people to die. The one child policy is in place so that you never have to ever wait for someone to die because they don't have food, and unfortunately it also means that sometimes people have to be made examples of in order for the greater good.

If everyone can eat enough to stay alive then there isn't a need to reduce anything. But if it means that in X amount of days we will all die then one of the people in the family has to leave and do their own thing. It's the sad truth but what are they supposed to do, all die?

So you're saying that if the baby was just born and left there to die then it's ok?

You do keep bringing up points that have already been addressed.

If you are really interested in understanding our position better, I recommend "Economics in One Lesson" from Henry Hazlitt, "Human action" from Ludwig von Mises, "The ethics of Liberty" from Murray Rothbard.

I'm sorry, did you do the work and did you do the schooling that the people came up with that info did? If you didn't then they do know best.

Just like your teacher will know best all the time, and your professor will know best. Because they are more educated. Just saying 'they don't know best' means nothing.

Let's throw in "The Road To Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek as well...

Points that have been addressed?

Like what? When I say please tell me what they should do and you say 'I don't know but they shouldn't kill people' that isn't a point that was addressed.

That's you not knowing.

So mistakes have been made in the past. Wouldn't it be at least prudent to take into consideration the possibility that someone is making a mistake now?

It's temporary? But if we are all running out time, space and resources, shouldn't it be permanent? (in your logic)

Of course it is important to take that into consideration, but if we just don't do anything because something might maybe be a mistake then nothing would ever get done.

I'm not sure what the limits of our resources and space are - I leave that up to the people who study that stuff that work for China. I trust when they feel there are enough resources to support a larger population the one child policy will be eased.

History has shown us that the result of all progressive ideologies carried to their logical extreme is genocide. :disgust

No, ethics didn't change. Like I've said several times already: Every human being is free to use his body and property as he sees fit as long as he doesn't cause damage to another human being or his property. If another human being does cause damage to your body or your property or attempts to cause damage, then you have the right to defend yourself.

There is a huge difference between using violence do defend yourself and initiating an act of aggression. There's a difference between a voluntary transaction and an involuntary transaction. There's a difference between a couple having sex and rape.

Well, at least most people know the difference between having sex and rape, between murder and self defense....

I've addressed this several times already and with different examples. The fact that my neighbor has an extra baby does not give him any rights to the food i have worked for and have stored in my home. The fact that he has an extra baby, will no affect my right to use my property (food) to feed my family.

I've addressed this already.

Ok if you have food stored in your home then there isn't no food. There's food stored in your home.

I mean if there is only enough food around for x amount of people, total. Not aside from the stuff you have set aside just in case.

This 'what we do is right and what everyone else does is wrong' attitude is so disgusting.

Can we deal with reality here instead of your absurd hypothetical situations?

I have addressed this already. I work hard, I save, I invest, I.... all to provide for my family. But I will never commit an act of murder or steal.

And unlike some, i don't life in a metaphysical world with only 5 apples. I live in the real world, a world with limited resources, a world where I earn money to provide for my family by creating and selling products and services other people want and are willing to pay for.

If you want to turn the world into an equation than you have to take everything into consideration. And like I said, human beings are very complex creatures. The ways we interact are even more complex. If you think you (or those government scientists) can turn everything into a simple math problem.... good luck

btw: I also recommend reading the paper Ludwig von Mises wrote on the economic calculation problem in the Soviet union.


Earth, a place WITH trees. :winkwink:

:disgust:disgust

I've addressed the difference between ethics and morality. I've also addressed what I personally would do if I encountered a starving baby.

Is it disgusting when someone is killed because of a crime they committed?

Who wants to pay to keep that guy in jail if it isn't?

Come on man, this is real fucking life. Sometimes things that are shitty have to happen. But they have to happen.

Sorry let me rephrase the question: according to the ethics that you base your idea of not killing on, should the baby be left to die?

You already admitted they sometimes make mistakes. After all they're only human.

Funny since you think so highly of those scientists. A real scientist questions everything, even what his teachers teach him. If scientist never did that, we'd still believe the earth was flat...

Is this a joke?

Yeah they do make mistakes, but I also said that if people did nothing because mistakes could be made then nothing would get done. Is your solution to 'mistakes might happen' to just do nothing? Or is your solution to do what you say, because you never make mistakes?

I DO question everything. But sometimes a hard decision has to be made, questioning everything doesn't mean wait for the rosy solution.


Yes, teachers being more educated than their students is a joke. Who would ever believe something so silly.

moeloubani, how old are you?

Ethically: Every human being is free to do with his body and property what he wants as long as he doesn't cause damage to another human being or his property. That answers your question.

If I need to spell it out for you: Ethically, you have no obligation to do anything with your body, you don't want to do.

Ethically: If your neighbor is drowning, you don't have to jump after him to save him.

Morally: If one of my neighbor's just stood by when another neighbor was drowning, I would never talk to that neighbor again, I wouldn't do business with hem again,....

Personally: I've already saved a friend from drowning.

And I have already addressed the issue of the starving baby.

Congrats to the Chinese. They take the problem seriously. Good for them (and us).

:thumbsup

Where did I say we have to do nothing? People are free to do whatever they want as long as they don't cause damage to another human being or his property.

Preventing people from doing what they want (as long as they don't cause damage...) is an act of aggression and that's exactly what the government is doing.

Government intervention in the economy, in our daily lives limits our creativity.


again, read Mises paper on the economic calculation problem.

true .

what he said.

Bringing a child into this world isn't a crime.

Beating up a (pregnant) woman and murdering a child are acts of aggression (=crimes).

m curious myself. His age does not say anything about the validity or invalidity of his ideas, but it might help us understand some of his reactions :)

Scared to answer the question?

Try again:

According to your ethics:

Would you let a baby laying there live or die. Would there be any ethical obligation to assist the baby so that it may live or should it be left there to die because it can not fend for itself.

Answer the question.

What would you do? Don't answer a bunch of different questions. ACCORDING TO YOUR ETHICS. Not your morality.

Don't be scared to say it: you would let the baby die.

So if everyone lived life according to your ethics where killing a baby to make sure a rule is held so millions don't suffer is wrong but letting a baby die because it can't fend for itself, where do you think society would be right now?

Do you see NOW how you are flawed in your way of thinking? You would let a baby DIE according to your ethics but you would prevent the killing of the same baby even if it was for the greater good.

Your ethics = babies all die, my ethics = one baby dies millions flourish.

Do you see now why your way of thinking is deranged and unrealistic?

There is no longer any argument, now that it has been shown that your way of thinking leads to every human on Earth having to fend for themselves when they are born and therefore dying. No humans = logic fail.

Now let me do my own little bit of Latin: quod erat demonstrandum.

Good night all! *bows out*

:error

Wtf are you talking about? :helpme

Yeah, exactly. My guess is either in or just out of college. He doesn't seem to want to answer though.

already addressed that
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...&postcount=110
already addressed that: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...&postcount=134

already addressed that.

Ethics = rules about what is right and what is wrong. It's the basic set of rules to prevent injustice (I've explained this on the first page).

Morality = personal guidelines by which you decide to live your life.

Now there's no such thing as MY or YOUR ethics. Ethics are universal. Morality is personal.

In this thread have already explained both the ethics involved and what my personal reaction would be in the situation you described.

reading comprehension?

I started this thread because I am opposed to people murdering babies. I already said that I would help a starving baby and now you have the nerve to post that?

Let's not forget, you are the one who thinks it's ok to use violence and murder innocent babies to set an example.

What would you do if you found a starving baby? You obviously have no problem with killing babies to make a point (set an example). What would you do?

I've already stated what I would do. And I'm sure most people in my community would act in the same way and help the starving baby.

see above.

:disgust

my way: human creativity and human cooperation.

I've always maintained that spanking is only appropriate when inflicted upon grown women of questionable virtue with great asses.

But, that's just me.

Your mileage may vary.

I don't get this. Our planet can surely handle 3 billion if it is currently at 7 billion - we wouldn't be fucked at 3 billion.

Doing a bit of number crunching:

Habitable land on earth for humans:
15.6 billion acres

China acres:
2.3 billion

China population:
1.3 billion

Doing the math:

- china population / china acres = world population / world acres
- 1.3 / 2.3 = x / 15.6
- x=8.8174

So, the world will be as populated as china when the world hits 8.8 billion people.

We are currently at 6.7 billion. Only 2.1 billion more people to go.

I think we would be in trouble when we hit the 25 billion level. Technology will change, houses will get smaller, social conditions will adapt. But I don't think we will stop until we hit 25 billion. People, populations, and politicians just don't have the balls to slaughter masses of humans for the good of the species.

On the lower end, I think we would be in trouble at the 50,000 persons level. If we ever got to 10,000 or less humans we would really have to take care at that point.

Source(s):
http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/index.html
http://www.learner.org/courses/envsc...ion_of_climate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
http://pages.prodigy.net/jhonig/bignum/qland2.html