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