GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   China: Forced Abortion For Violating One Child Policy (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=993828)

u-Bob 10-23-2010 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17633387)
Maybe not exactly but it's the best we have.
They used to say the exact same thing about slavery.

moeloubani 10-23-2010 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17634155)
They used to say the exact same thing about slavery.
Yes because slavery = scientific data gathered by people who studied for years to get to where they were, studying previous data as well as talking to experts in the fields of growing food and sustainability.

Human cooperation? You mean government? Or do you mean schooling that helped people learn as they grew up (government) or do you mean the funding put out for tons of these programs (government) when you say human cooperation? Please tell me where a tribe that didn't have a proper government excelled past one with a proper government.

NONE.

Let me think without constant interference from the state people would be robbing people left and right, there would be no roads to get around, there would be no internet or phones.

And you guys are right, Chinese planning is so horrible, it's not like while the rest of the world was getting fucked they were still growing. Or like they're on their way to having the biggest economy in the world. Or like they got to host an Olympics in 2008 that was one of the nicest ever. No fuck that, China is such a shit hole because sometimes their people disagree with the government. What the fuck is that all about? There should be NO disagreements and everyone should be happy or something is wrong. RIGHT RIGHT?? Just like in the US where 100% of the people vote for 1 political party in order for it to win. Oh wait.....

Ethersync 10-23-2010 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17634849)
Yes because slavery = scientific data gathered by people who studied for years to get to where they were, studying previous data as well as talking to experts in the fields of growing food and sustainability.
So, pregnant women having to worry about being detained and their unborn children killed by lethal injection and left inside them = scientific data gathered by people who studied for years to get where they were, studying previous data as well as talking to experts in the fields of growing food and sustainability?

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17634849)
Human cooperation? You mean government? Or do you mean schooling that helped people learn as they grew up (government) or do you mean the funding put out for tons of these programs (government) when you say human cooperation? Please tell me where a tribe that didn't have a proper government excelled past one with a proper government.
I do not consider a "proper" government one that has no respect for individual liberty and where the citizenry live in fear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17634849)
Let me think without constant interference from the state people would be robbing people left and right, there would be no roads to get around, there would be no internet or phones.
Did any of us say there is no role for government at all?

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17634849)
And you guys are right, Chinese planning is so horrible, it's not like while the rest of the world was getting fucked they were still growing. Or like they're on their way to having the biggest economy in the world. Or like they got to host an Olympics in 2008 that was one of the nicest ever. No fuck that, China is such a shit hole because sometimes their people disagree with the government. What the fuck is that all about? There should be NO disagreements and everyone should be happy or something is wrong. RIGHT RIGHT?? Just like in the US where 100% of the people vote for 1 political party in order for it to win. Oh wait.....
You seem to think if China does one thing right they do everything right.

They did everything perfect to win their bid to host the Olympics in 2008 so of course their one child policy, forced abortions of unborn babies and forced sterilization of their citizens must also be right? It's one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

Tuck your tail between your legs and walk away kid. Because this debate is over and you lost :2 cents:

u-Bob 10-23-2010 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17634849)
Human cooperation? You mean government? Or do you mean schooling that helped people learn as they grew up (government) or do you mean the funding put out for tons of these programs (government) when you say human cooperation?
First of all, government doesn't produce anything. Because it doesn't produce anything, it can't sell anything. because it can't sell anything, it has no income. Because it has no income, it has no money to spend. But wait, government does spend money... how does that work? Simple. The government takes out a loan and forces the population it exerts control over to pay back that loan (with interest).

Want to talk about schooling? Ask an American to find his own country on a blind map. Or ask English, Dutch, Belgian, French,... parents why they are camping outside of schools. Government planning...

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17634849)
Let me think without constant interference from the state people would be robbing people left and right, there would be no roads to get around, there would be no internet or phones.
So you are saying, that the only reason YOU are not robbing people right now is because the state exists? If the state didn't exist, would you rob people? Personally, I'd never rob someone. Like i said, I don't commit murder and I don't steal. Those are things I'll never do simply because I believe in justice and liberty. So that's one human being that wouldn't be robbing other people. Would you rob other people? No? ok, now there's 2 people who wouldn't rob other people. What about all other human beings on this planet? Do you think they are all evil and would all rob each other? Like I said earlier in this thread, there are bad people. Some people will commit acts of aggression. But you have the right to defend yourself against them. You have the right to use violence to defend yourself. You have the right to form an organization to protect yourself and the others who are part of your organization. You have the right to buy protection from companies that offer protection services. etc But not all people are bad.

Do you believe all people are bad?
3 possibilities:
1. All people are good. obviously, that is not an answer you'd give, based on your previous comments.
2. Some people are good, some people are bad. Personally, I believe this is the case. Now if this is the case, than the last thing you'd want is a government. Because a government is an artificial position of power and if there are good people and bad people (people who prey on all others) than bad people will do whatever they can to use/abuse/gain control over that position of power.
3. All people are bad. If all people are bad than the people who make up the government are also bad so the chances that those bad people will use their power to do good are very slim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17634849)
There should be NO disagreements and everyone should be happy or something is wrong. RIGHT RIGHT?? Just like in the US where 100% of the people vote for 1 political party in order for it to win. Oh wait.....
As long as there are people there will be disagreements. We are all individuals, we are all unique, we all have our own ideas. So obviously there will be disagreements. But using force/violence/aggression to force your ideas of what is good onto others is never acceptable.

u-Bob 10-23-2010 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17634849)
Yes because slavery = scientific data gathered by people who studied for years to get to where they were, studying previous data as well as talking to experts in the fields of growing food and sustainability.
I'll say this one more time: The way you come up with your ideas, of what you think would be best for this planet, doesn't matter. Whether you form a scientific conclusion based on limited research or whether you cut open small birds and looks at their liver or whether you base your ideas on greed or on... It all doesn't matter. Nothing gives you the right to commit acts of aggression. Nothing gives you the right to force your will onto others.

u-Bob 10-23-2010 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 17634982)
They did everything perfect to win their bid to host the Olympics in 2008 so of course their one child policy, forced abortions of unborn babies and forced sterilization of their citizens must also be right? It's one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.
Let's not forget all the property violations... Thousands of homes that were destroyed to make room for those big stadiums.

moeloubani 10-23-2010 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 17634982)
So, pregnant women having to worry about being detained and their unborn children killed by lethal injection and left inside them = scientific data gathered by people who studied for years to get where they were, studying previous data as well as talking to experts in the fields of growing food and sustainability?



I do not consider a "proper" government one that has no respect for individual liberty and where the citizenry live in fear.



Did any of us say there is no role for government at all?



You seem to think if China does one thing right they do everything right.

They did everything perfect to win their bid to host the Olympics in 2008 so of course their one child policy, forced abortions of unborn babies and forced sterilization of their citizens must also be right? It's one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

Tuck your tail between your legs and walk away kid. Because this debate is over and you lost :2 cents:
I'm sorry you must have missed the part about when the rest of the world was crashing China was growing. Don't ignore the stuff that doesn't fit your wacky idea of how things should be.

So you think that your idea of letting those children live, having the population become too much and everyone starving is better? You'd rather millions die and one baby live?

Walk away? LOL You do realize that you are arguing that the fastest growing country with one of the best (if not the best) team of scientists working for them is wrong. So you are arguing that you are somehow able to come up with an idea better than all of those people. Right.

Ethersync 10-23-2010 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17635293)
Let's not forget all the property violations... Thousands of homes that were destroyed to make room for those big stadiums.
Yeah, I was just running with his line of thought. You are absolutely right. Here are some more things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern...and_censorship

moeloubani 10-23-2010 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17635263)
I'll say this one more time: The way you come up with your ideas, of what you think would be best for this planet, doesn't matter. Whether you form a scientific conclusion based on limited research or whether you cut open small birds and looks at their liver or whether you base your ideas on greed or on... It all doesn't matter. Nothing gives you the right to commit acts of aggression. Nothing gives you the right to force your will onto others.
So if right now I started putting poisons in my soil, if it doesn't hurt you directly you don't care? What if that poison seeps down and starts hurting people?

So if I have a baby and we only have food for x amount of people, is that fair if it means you CAN'T have a baby? Or should we all follow the same rules? FOOD IS LIMITED. YOUR FANTASY SOCIETY WITH UNLIMITED RESOURCES DOESN'T EXIST.

u-Bob 10-23-2010 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635298)
So you think that your idea of letting those children live, having the population become too much and everyone starving is better? You'd rather millions die and one baby live?

Walk away? LOL You do realize that you are arguing that the fastest growing country with one of the best (if not the best) team of scientists working for them is wrong. So you are arguing that you are somehow able to come up with an idea better than all of those people. Right.
Like I said. Ethics (the idea of what is right and wrong) don't change based on the situation, no matter how complex the situation is. If it did, then people wouldn't be responsible for their actions because the wouldn't be able to judge beforehand whether their actions were right or wrong.

There is a difference between right and wrong. Murdering people is wrong... in every situation.

moeloubani 10-23-2010 03:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17635245)
First of all, government doesn't produce anything. Because it doesn't produce anything, it can't sell anything. because it can't sell anything, it has no income. Because it has no income, it has no money to spend. But wait, government does spend money... how does that work? Simple. The government takes out a loan and forces the population it exerts control over to pay back that loan (with interest).

Want to talk about schooling? Ask an American to find his own country on a blind map. Or ask English, Dutch, Belgian, French,... parents why they are camping outside of schools. Government planning...


So you are saying, that the only reason YOU are not robbing people right now is because the state exists? If the state didn't exist, would you rob people? Personally, I'd never rob someone. Like i said, I don't commit murder and I don't steal. Those are things I'll never do simply because I believe in justice and liberty. So that's one human being that wouldn't be robbing other people. Would you rob other people? No? ok, now there's 2 people who wouldn't rob other people. What about all other human beings on this planet? Do you think they are all evil and would all rob each other? Like I said earlier in this thread, there are bad people. Some people will commit acts of aggression. But you have the right to defend yourself against them. You have the right to use violence to defend yourself. You have the right to form an organization to protect yourself and the others who are part of your organization. You have the right to buy protection from companies that offer protection services. etc But not all people are bad.

Do you believe all people are bad?
3 possibilities:
1. All people are good. obviously, that is not an answer you'd give, based on your previous comments.
2. Some people are good, some people are bad. Personally, I believe this is the case. Now if this is the case, than the last thing you'd want is a government. Because a government is an artificial position of power and if there are good people and bad people (people who prey on all others) than bad people will do whatever they can to use/abuse/gain control over that position of power.
3. All people are bad. If all people are bad than the people who make up the government are also bad so the chances that those bad people will use their power to do good are very slim.



As long as there are people there will be disagreements. We are all individuals, we are all unique, we all have our own ideas. So obviously there will be disagreements. But using force/violence/aggression to force your ideas of what is good onto others is never acceptable.
I believe that all people are out for themselves and for their families.

Your idea of this place where everyone is nice but is a total individual is BS.

It only works with unlimited resources.

What if you were in a situation where in your little fantasy fun land everyone was all happy then one person had their food eaten by some animal and had no money. What would you do if your family was starving? Would you just sit idly by and watch them die? You ask your neighbors for help and they all say NO, we have NO EXTRA FOOD.

So you'd just sit there and watch your family die? What if the only way to keep your family alive was to physically go out and kill someone to feed your family. Would you do it? Or would you sit by as your family dies and say 'Hey, at least we were good people.'

Limited resources. Not fantasy land. Why don't you guys understand that.

When you have 5 apples you can't give 10 people an apple, it just doesn't work that way. Even if you write it a thousand times 'give 10 people an apple' it doesn't mean 5 can turn into 10. Either 10 people get half an apple or 5 people get a full one and 5 get nothing.

What part of that simple mathematics is soooo hard for you guys to understand? Resources = limited. Scientists = smarter than you guys. Decisions = made for the best of a society and not for the best of one lady who decides to break the law.

moeloubani 10-23-2010 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17635313)
Like I said. Ethics (the idea of what is right and wrong) don't change based on the situation, no matter how complex the situation is. If it did, then people wouldn't be responsible for their actions because the wouldn't be able to judge beforehand whether their actions were right or wrong.

There is a difference between right and wrong. Murdering people is wrong... in every situation.
You're right, it never is ok to murder someone.

Never ok to murder someone. Never. So a man rushing at you with a knife ready to kill you isn't going to be shot because of your ethics. Oh wait...

Ethics just changed. Now it's ok if it means you don't die right. If there's a little kid that you see about to blow your house up killing your family, what do you do? Oh wait. Ethics just changed.

But you tell me, when the two choices are let one baby live and millions die or one baby die and millions live what would you choose? You have only two choices. Not fantasy land. Two choices. Pick one.

Is it ok to murder the millions just so you don't hurt the cute little baby? Or is long term murder causing suffering and slow deaths not really murder? Please enlighten us oh Buddha.

Ethersync 10-23-2010 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635298)
I'm sorry you must have missed the part about when the rest of the world was crashing China was growing. Don't ignore the stuff that doesn't fit your wacky idea of how things should be.
Do you know how China calculates GDP?

Do you know about the housing bubble China has right now?

Do you know about their empty cities? Their empty shopping centers?

China is not the bright shining star that you think they are, but let's say you are right. Are you now saying that since China got 2 things right they are right about everything? My point stands. You are just too dense to get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635298)
So you think that your idea of letting those children live, having the population become too much and everyone starving is better?
You are assuming population would continue to explode unabated if there was no one child policy. History has proven that does not happen. You are also expressing an opinion as a fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635298)
You'd rather millions die and one baby live?
So this one baby, if left to be born, would have killed millions? :1orglaugh

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635298)
Walk away? LOL You do realize that you are arguing that the fastest growing country with one of the best (if not the best) team of scientists working for them is wrong. So you are arguing that you are somehow able to come up with an idea better than all of those people. Right.
Every point you are trying to make here fails on so many levels you are just embarrassing yourself.

There are good things about China. There are also many very bad things. You may be too young to remember that in the 80s most everyone thought Japan was going to rule the world. Things do not always work out the way people predict. China has a long way to go. Also, if you knew your history you would know that during global depressions, and make no mistake that is what we are dealing with here, export based countries tend to be the hardest hit.

Back to the original point. There are already exceptions being made China's one child policy in many parts of China and more and more it is becoming clear that this was a flawed policy. Did you even read anything I linked to in this thread?

u-Bob 10-23-2010 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635306)
So if right now I started putting poisons in my soil, if it doesn't hurt you directly you don't care? What if that poison seeps down and starts hurting people?
I already addressed that issue. See page 1.

Your land = your property. Your decision if you want to put stuff in the ground. But the second that stuff contaminates your neighbor's land, you are causing damage to his property and you are responsible for the damages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635306)
So if I have a baby and we only have food for x amount of people, is that fair if it means you CAN'T have a baby? Or should we all follow the same rules? FOOD IS LIMITED. YOUR FANTASY SOCIETY WITH UNLIMITED RESOURCES DOESN'T EXIST.
Might want to... I was going to say reread my previous posts, but obviously you didn't read them at all. The idea's I expressed (free market capitalism, Austrian economics) are all based on the fact that we live in a world with limited resources. The free market is a system were no aggression is allowed (if you do commit acts of aggression, people have the right to defend themselves), a system that gives everyone the best chance to improve their situation.

You think that all resources on this planet belong to the collective and you put the state in charge of rationing things.

The funny thing is that you don't seem to realize that that big rationing-agency, the state, acts as if resources are unlimited. (deficit spending...)

moeloubani 10-23-2010 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 17635323)
Do you know how China calculates GDP?

Do you know about the housing bubble China has right now?

Do you know about their empty cities? Their empty shopping centers?

China is not the bright shining star that you think they are, but let's say you are right. Are you now saying that since China got 2 things right they are right about everything? My point stands. You are just too dense to get it.



You are assuming population would continue to explode unabated if there was no one child policy. History has proven that does not happen. You are also expressing an opinion as a fact.



So this one baby, if left to be born, would have killed millions? :1orglaugh
I'm sorry for making that assumption - I guess the data you have is much better than the data that the Chinese have. And I guess your brain does things way better than the Chinese teams of people do. And of course I meant it literally as if that one child lives millions will die. Not that if that one child is made an exception then every child has to be made an exception.

Bravo.

You know best for the world - fuck those people that study numbers and make decisions based on facts and real observations, let's all make our decisions based on emotions and politics. Woooo.

LOL :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

People like you guys are the problem with the US today, drinking up propaganda and spewing it out as if you knew anything. You don't. Give it up. China knows what they are doing - or at least knows better than you.

Ethersync 10-23-2010 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635306)
So if right now I started putting poisons in my soil, if it doesn't hurt you directly you don't care? What if that poison seeps down and starts hurting people?

So if I have a baby and we only have food for x amount of people, is that fair if it means you CAN'T have a baby? Or should we all follow the same rules? FOOD IS LIMITED. YOUR FANTASY SOCIETY WITH UNLIMITED RESOURCES DOESN'T EXIST.
Resources may be limited, but human ingenuity is not. We are not running out of food. In countries where people are starving it is because of war or some other failure of government policies and no functional free market system.

Ethersync 10-23-2010 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635331)
I'm sorry for making that assumption - I guess the data you have is much better than the data that the Chinese have. And I guess your brain does things way better than the Chinese teams of people do. And of course I meant it literally as if that one child lives millions will die. Not that if that one child is made an exception then every child has to be made an exception.

Bravo.

You know best for the world - fuck those people that study numbers and make decisions based on facts and real observations, let's all make our decisions based on emotions and politics. Woooo.

LOL :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

People like you guys are the problem with the US today, drinking up propaganda and spewing it out as if you knew anything. You don't. Give it up. China knows what they are doing - or at least knows better than you.
Can you quote you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17633164)
I say it time and time again: when someone loses an argument or they've got nothing to counter a good argument they will ALWAYS resort to attacking the person and putting the argument aside.

100% of the time. It's the most childish thing and in any real debate you'd be laughed at and ridiculed for doing it. I hope you feel like a champ while acting like a child!

moeloubani 10-23-2010 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17635330)
I already addressed that issue. See page 1.

Your land = your property. Your decision if you want to put stuff in the ground. But the second that stuff contaminates your neighbor's land, you are causing damage to his property and you are responsible for the damages.



Might want to... I was going to say reread my previous posts, but obviously you didn't read them at all. The idea's I expressed (free market capitalism, Austrian economics) are all based on the fact that we live in a world with limited resources. The free market is a system were no aggression is allowed (if you do commit acts of aggression, people have the right to defend themselves), a system that gives everyone the best chance to improve their situation.

You think that all resources on this planet belong to the collective and you put the state in charge of rationing things.

The funny thing is that you don't seem to realize that that big rationing-agency, the state, acts as if resources are unlimited. (deficit spending...)
LOL So if China says 'we are running out of resources based on our data and we need to limit our population' then your reply simply is 'no, you're wrong'.

So what if in your 'free market' society, the woman has the baby, can't care for it. What happens to the baby now? Who pays for it? That baby has to use its own body to make money?? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Both of you guys need to wake up and realize that China knows what they're are doing and you guys simply have noooo fucking clue what you're talking about. Go back to drumming your hippy drum and let real men make real decisions.

moeloubani 10-23-2010 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 17635337)
Can you quote you?
That's not an attack against you personally it's an attack against the way you view the argument.

moeloubani 10-23-2010 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 17635332)
Resources may be limited, but human ingenuity is not. We are not running out of food. In countries where people are starving it is because of war or some other failure of government policies and no functional free market system.
Because you say we are not running out of food it doesn't mean that the teams of people that found that China IS running out of food is wrong.

They know more than you and make more informed decisions. Am I wrong about that?

Ethersync 10-23-2010 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635341)
That's not an attack against you personally it's an attack against the way you view the argument.
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.

moeloubani 10-23-2010 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethersync (Post 17635348)
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.

Ethersync 10-23-2010 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635351)
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.

u-Bob 10-23-2010 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635317)
You're right, it never is ok to murder someone.

Never ok to murder someone. Never. So a man rushing at you with a knife ready to kill you isn't going to be shot because of your ethics. Oh wait...

Ethics just changed.
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.

moeloubani 10-23-2010 04:07 PM
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. :)

moeloubani 10-23-2010 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17635366)
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.
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.

u-Bob 10-23-2010 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635315)
What would you do if your family was starving? Would you just sit idly by and watch them die? You ask your neighbors for help and they all say NO, we have NO EXTRA FOOD.
Like I said, I'm doing everything in my power to prevent that. I work hard, I invest, I save money,....

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635315)
What if the only way to keep your family alive was to physically go out and kill someone to feed your family. Would you do it? Or would you sit by as your family dies and say 'Hey, at least we were good people.'
Fiat justicia, ne perat mundus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635315)
When you have 5 apples you can't give 10 people an apple, it just doesn't work that way.
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635315)
Even if you write it a thousand times 'give 10 people an apple' it doesn't mean 5 can turn into 10. Either 10 people get half an apple or 5 people get a full one and 5 get nothing.

What part of that simple mathematics is soooo hard for you guys to understand? Resources = limited.
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.

moeloubani 10-23-2010 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17635383)
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.

u-Bob 10-23-2010 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635339)
LOL So if China says 'we are running out of resources based on our data and we need to limit our population' then your reply simply is 'no, you're wrong'.
'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?

u-Bob 10-23-2010 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635339)
So what if in your 'free market' society, the woman has the baby, can't care for it. What happens to the baby now? Who pays for it? That baby has to use its own body to make money?? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh
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.

Ethersync 10-23-2010 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635392)
But this is Earth. Welcome.
...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...

u-Bob 10-23-2010 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635342)
They know more than you and make more informed decisions. Am I wrong about that?
ah, Government knows best.... Befehl ist Befehl... no need to question anything, government knows best... :disgust

moeloubani 10-23-2010 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17635395)
'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?
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?

moeloubani 10-23-2010 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17635398)
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.
So you're saying that if the baby was just born and left there to die then it's ok?

u-Bob 10-23-2010 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635351)
No I'm not - everything I argue is related to the argument. I have nothing against you personally for me to attack you personally.
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.

moeloubani 10-23-2010 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17635403)
ah, Government knows best.... Befehl ist Befehl... no need to question anything, government knows best... :disgust
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.

Ethersync 10-23-2010 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17635410)
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.
Let's throw in "The Road To Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek as well...

moeloubani 10-23-2010 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17635410)
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.
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.

u-Bob 10-23-2010 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635375)
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.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 17635375)
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.
It's temporary? But if we are all running out time, space and resources, shouldn't it be permanent? (in your logic)

moeloubani 10-23-2010 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 17635418)
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.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 AM.
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc