Who Owns You?

utbagpiper · Aug 28, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
It's the same with tyrants. All tyrants want freedom for themselves but they don't want it for others. (Walter E. Williams)

Indeed as we see so many who want liberty to kill a living child, but don't give a rip about the life of the child.

Williams makes a lot of sense, a lot of the time. But abortion is a lot closer to slavery than it is to smoking.

Notably, Williams closing this particular essay by espousing greater tolerance for little annoyances. I agree. Nobody should presume to kill another person over mild annoyances. Continuing a pregnancy for a couple of months is--in most cases--a pretty small annoyance compared to the value of a viable, human life that might even be viable outside the womb given modern medical technology.

If you have the courage to discuss the issue of "Who Owns" a Baby before it is born in your own words, let's do so entirely objectively using objective data. Time to stop hiding behind the words of others and insults towards those with whom you disagree, SVG.

Charles

stealthyeliminator · Aug 28, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Is this really what anarchists' consider to be mature, rational discussion, SVG? You make claims that are outright false and then not only refuse to provide citations or concede your error, but you engage in Citizen's childish tactics of refusing to address others civilly?

You are jumping to conclusions well beyond anything I've posted. But is clear that the anarchists and claimed "Objectivists" are terrified of actually discussing the topic of "Who Owns an Pre-Born Baby" in a rational, objective manner; instead resorting to sophomoric insults and strawman.

The weakness of your position becomes more clear with every such post. And for the record, I did not alert any moderator as to the content of your recent insulting misuse of my user name. Someone else--perhaps even the mods themselves--found your insult to be beneath the standards of the forumn. Maybe you ought to consider whether your chosen forms of communication are appropriate.

Charles

Would you please stop trying to characterize every view or behavior you dislike of certain members as somehow an "anarchist" view or behavior? Obviously it is no more properly characterized as "anarchist" just because it comes from an anarchist than it is properly characterized as "male" because it comes from a male, or "American" because it comes from an American, etc. I can only see this behavior as an attempt to paint a disparaging picture that you know to be false.

utbagpiper · Aug 28, 2015

stealthyeliminator said:
Would you please stop trying to characterize every view or behavior you dislike of certain members as somehow an "anarchist" view or behavior? Obviously it is no more properly characterized as "anarchist" just because it comes from an anarchist than it is properly characterized as "male" because it comes from a male, or "American" because it comes from an American, etc. I can only see this behavior as an attempt to paint a disparaging picture that you know to be false.

I'm sorry if the rare, civil and well behaved anarchist gets caught up in such characterizations. But it seems the most vocal anarchists on this site are giving you all a bad rap.

I see their inability to uphold even the minimal rules of civility of this site as an indication these are not highly mature, intelligent types they like to hold themselves out to be, but rather immature brats incapable of abiding any rules whatsoever.

I surmise that you hold a pro-life position along with your other political views. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) A position of defending innocent life seems far more in line with what Citizen, SVG, and some others have purported is their foundational pro-liberty position. Yet when I turn the discussion to the objective data about when a fetus becomes a living human being endowed with the right to life, Citizen engages in a some ridiculous religious straw man, then goes radio silent when I don't take his bait but continue with an objective discussion of what constitutes human life, all while he continues his deliberate form of insulting me. SVG picks up his tactics of insults via username epithets and referring to me in sideways manners, then falsely attributes positions to me.

They are arguing from what they hold out to be the proper anarchist position. They are not arguing a "male" or "American" position, but an anarchist, objectivist position.

If you dislike my propensity to call these anarchists out for the bad conduct, then step up and forget personality and call them out yourself. If their views do not represent anarchist in general, say so. But don't act like I'm the problem for accepting their words at face value.

Culture is what a group collectively accepts or doesn't accept. I'd like a forum where discussion are civil without regard to personality or long past offenses or even current disagreement.

When your fellow anarchists can accept that a solid pro-RKBA/OC position doesn't require any specific position on anarchy and when they can either completely ignore me, or engage in a civil manner, I will stop calling linking their bad behaviour to anarchists and Objectivists because at that point there won't be any bad behavior.

Put another way, I'm asking of you and the other well-behaved anarchists no more than what you expect of the good cops regarding their rotten-apple fellows.

Charles

sudden valley gunner · Aug 29, 2015

stealthyeliminator said:
Would you please stop trying to characterize every view or behavior you dislike of certain members as somehow an "anarchist" view or behavior? Obviously it is no more properly characterized as "anarchist" just because it comes from an anarchist than it is properly characterized as "male" because it comes from a male, or "American" because it comes from an American, etc. I can only see this behavior as an attempt to paint a disparaging picture that you know to be false.

+1

I find it interesting that those who will purposefully be mistruthful accusing others of not being civil.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 29, 2015

Who has the right to decide how much risk a person will take -- he or some faceless Washington bureaucrat? In my opinion, the answer depends upon the answer to the question: Who owns you? If one owns himself, then it is he who decides how much risk he takes. If government owns you, then you don't have the right to unilaterally decide how much risk you'll take.-Walter E. Williams.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/06/11/who-owns-you-n1849348/page/full

sudden valley gunner · Aug 29, 2015

stealthyeliminator said:
Certainly not everything that is faith based is arbitrary and not everything that is arbitrary is faith based. So are you trying to argue against using "faith" as a "base", or are you trying to argue against being arbitrary, or are you trying to conflate the two and argue against both as if they're one? Is what you're trying to argue that for some they may "become human" at different points in their development than others?

ETA: The reason consent laws are seen as arbitrary is because we believe that the "age at one may legitimately consent" is different for different people, and so cannot be legitimately defined as one particular age, but it isn't just because the age is defined or even just because it is defined as one particular age. For it to be arbitrary it must be true both that it is defined as one particular age, and we must believe that it cannot legitimately be defined as one particular age because the actual age at which the condition is true for a person is different for different people. So for the analogy to hold over in this case (and for bagpiper's position to be illegitimate due to being "arbitrary"), we would have to believe that the "age" at which a being becomes a human life may be different for different individuals. I personally hadn't really thought about that before, but I can't think of any reason why I'd believe that is true.

ETA: Maybe what I understand "arbitrary" to mean is off - I've never really "looked up" the word but just learned how it is often used. I guess based solely on the dictionary definition we might could say a particular view is arbitrary if it is lacks a foundation of reason and logic.

Since I was enjoying our civil discourse, and just read your last ETA.

That is a good point bout reason and logic. I would say though that reason and logic still would have to comport to natural laws and property rights which are all based on self ownership. Richard Overton has some great writings on this, and to me the one who seems to be able to lay to rest arbitrary morality.

An interesting point is that in the bible a few things stand out to me , life didn't begin for Adam until given the breath of life, abortion is used for adulteresses, and a fetus seems be the property of the husband.

solus · Aug 29, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Is this really what anarchists' consider to be mature, rational discussion, SVG? You make claims that are outright false and then not only refuse to provide citations or concede your error, but you engage in Citizen's childish tactics of refusing to address others civilly?

You are jumping to conclusions well beyond anything I've posted. But is clear that the anarchists and claimed "Objectivists" are terrified of actually discussing the topic of "Who Owns an Pre-Born Baby" in a rational, objective manner; instead resorting to sophomoric insults and strawman.

The weakness of your position becomes more clear with every such post. And for the record, I did not alert any moderator as to the content of your recent insulting misuse of my user name. Someone else--perhaps even the mods themselves--found your insult to be beneath the standards of the forumn. Maybe you ought to consider whether your chosen forms of communication are appropriate.

Charles

SVG, et al., and i get ban'd for pointing out the insulting tone, name calling, and overall condescending bovine consistently being slung at all members who challenge as well as someone demanding the theme be changed to suit their current mood, ...all the while someone's condescending tirades and antics towards other member(s) continue unabated...

guess i'm not privy to the connetction

ipse

PistolPackingMomma · Aug 29, 2015

utbagpiper said:
I'm sorry if the rare, civil and well behaved anarchist gets caught up in such characterizations. But it seems the most vocal anarchists on this site are giving you all a bad rap.

I see their inability to uphold even the minimal rules of civility of this site as an indication these are not highly mature, intelligent types they like to hold themselves out to be, but rather immature brats incapable of abiding any rules whatsoever.

I surmise that you hold a pro-life position along with your other political views. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) A position of defending innocent life seems far more in line with what Citizen, SVG, and some others have purported is their foundational pro-liberty position. Yet when I turn the discussion to the objective data about when a fetus becomes a living human being endowed with the right to life, Citizen engages in a some ridiculous religious straw man, then goes radio silent when I don't take his bait but continue with an objective discussion of what constitutes human life, all while he continues his deliberate form of insulting me. SVG picks up his tactics of insults via username epithets and referring to me in sideways manners, then falsely attributes positions to me.

They are arguing from what they hold out to be the proper anarchist position. They are not arguing a "male" or "American" position, but an anarchist, objectivist position.

If you dislike my propensity to call these anarchists out for the bad conduct, then step up and forget personality and call them out yourself. If their views do not represent anarchist in general, say so. But don't act like I'm the problem for accepting their words at face value.

Culture is what a group collectively accepts or doesn't accept. I'd like a forum where discussion are civil without regard to personality or long past offenses or even current disagreement.

When your fellow anarchists can accept that a solid pro-RKBA/OC position doesn't require any specific position on anarchy and when they can either completely ignore me, or engage in a civil manner, I will stop calling linking their bad behaviour to anarchists and Objectivists because at that point there won't be any bad behavior.

Put another way, I'm asking of you and the other well-behaved anarchists no more than what you expect of the good cops regarding their rotten-apple fellows.

Charles

The anarchists on this forum are more than capable of being civil, polite, rational, what have you.

The fact that you do not feel they are doing so with YOU, perhaps speaks to either your compulsive desire to mandate they communicate in the same manner that you do, or perhaps that you've done nothing to EARN such civility from them, with your nigh constant disparaging remarks and thinly veiled attacks upon an ideology you are incapable of letting others hold without scorn.

I know that I personally am always persuaded to waste my time being civil to jack@sses merely because they want me to be.

Bikenut · Aug 29, 2015

Tagged in anticipation of imminent meltdown.

Grapeshot · Aug 29, 2015

Ladies and gentlemen, we are getting into a wizzing contest, worrying about personalities like a dog chewing on a bone rather than sticking to the subject/the question in the OP. Rise above it, please.

stealthyeliminator · Aug 29, 2015

So... Have we all come to agreement that all individual human beings have rightful claim to ownership of themselves and their bodies?

utbagpiper · Aug 29, 2015

I'm anxious to discuss, objectively, when a baby gains personhood and the right to life.

If anyone is willing.

Charles

utbagpiper · Aug 29, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
An interesting point is that in the bible a few things stand out to me , life didn't begin for Adam until given the breath of life, abortion is used for adulteresses, and a fetus seems be the property of the husband.

Do you really want to start using religious texts as the basis for pubic policy? It appears from what you've posted you'd have to support legal access to elective abortion on demand right up to moments before birth. Late term partial birth abortion is particularly heinous. Certainly you don't object to legal restrictions on that?

Wouldn't you prefer to stick to objective facts to determine when a child becomes endowed with the right to life?

Charles

color of law · Aug 30, 2015

Grapeshot said:
Ladies and gentlemen, we are getting into a wizzing contest, worrying about personalities like a dog chewing on a bone rather than sticking to the subject/the question in the OP. Rise above it, please.

The question was answered 89 posts past when I explained the federal income tax.

[video=youtube;-8hbUqhKM38]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8hbUqhKM38[/video]
capisce

utbagpiper · Aug 30, 2015

PistolPackingMomma said:
The anarchists on this forum are more than capable of being civil, polite, rational, what have you.

I anxiously await evidence to support this contention.

PistolPackingMomma said:
your nigh constant disparaging remarks and thinly veiled attacks upon an ideology you are incapable of letting others hold without scorn.

My disdain for the anarchist and Objectivist positions here is limited to two very simple areas:

1-The fact that a couple of the most vocal Objectivist anarchist refuse to concede that a non-anarchist can be every bit as strong a supporter of RKBA/OC as an anarchist. The constant assertions--explicit and implicit--that any social-political philosophy other than anarchy is tantamount to being a gun grabber on par with Bloomberg, Schumer, or Brady.

2-The inability of self-proclaimed anarchists to maintain their own standards of using objective data and good logic and honest debating skills to support their positions.

There are objective arguments to make in favor of legalized, elective abortion. Neither Citizen nor SVG has bothered to do so but have instead engaged in personality attacks, strawman, falsely representing my positions and arguments and then retreating entirely for any discussion of the matter.

This is a gun forum. I don't care where anyone stands on abortion (or UFOs, immigration, taxes, public lands, religion, etc). I almost never start a non-RKBA/OC related thread. But if someone else is going to do so, he ought to have the courage of his convictions to have a civil, mature discussion even with those who disagree with him.

Any child can be polite to those whom he likes. That same child can most often be expected to treat poorly those he doesn't like.

It is the mature man (and civilized "lady") who can show forth civility even to those who annoy them and with whom they disagree.

Now, if you believe my position on when a child gains the right to life is wrong, I'm happy to discuss it here, rationally, logically, and civilly. If you just want to toss out offensive insults because you disagree, I'll kindly ask you to keep your mouth shut.

Charles

1245A Defender · Aug 30, 2015

Well,,,

utbagpiper said:
Any child can be polite to those whom he likes. That same child can most often be expected to treat poorly those he doesn't like.

It is the mature man (and civilized "lady") who can show forth civility even to those who annoy them and with whom they disagree.

Now, if you believe my position on when a child gains the right to life is wrong, I'm happy to discuss it here, rationally, logically, and civilly. If you just want to toss out offensive insults because you disagree, I'll kindly ask you to keep your mouth shut.

Charles

QFT and snipped for brevity....

I avoid any discussions with you..
I wont be labeled, or libeled by you for my views..
I wont be demeaned or belittled by you..

I really dont care for your false and childish claims of hurt feelings
when you are not addressed as you claim you deserve.

Grapeshot · Aug 30, 2015

Grapeshot said:
Ladies and gentlemen, we are getting into a wizzing contest, worrying about personalities like a dog chewing on a bone rather than sticking to the subject/the question in the OP. Rise above it, please.

color of law said:
The question was answered 89 posts past when I explained the federal income tax.

The open statement in the OP reads: "The purpose of this thread is to request ideas on phrasing and conversational tactics when asked about my OC’d defensive sidearm." It does not invite thread drift i.e. abortion, federal taxes, or other off topic rants no matter how tangentially they are attached. "Conversational tactics" would refer to that which could be used in chance encounters on the street, not philosophical discussion.

Of greater import is that personal attacks/insults, no matter from whom, are completely unacceptable. There are several options available here - 1) clean up the thread by editing/deleting all personal attacks which would destroy the thread IMO or lock the thread which would be unfortunate. We shall see.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 30, 2015

Grapeshot said:
The open statement in the OP reads: "The purpose of this thread is to request ideas on phrasing and conversational tactics when asked about my OC’d defensive sidearm." It does not invite thread drift i.e. abortion, federal taxes, or other off topic rants no matter how tangentially they are attached. "Conversational tactics" would refer to that which could be used in chance encounters on the street, not philosophical discussion.

Of greater import is that personal attacks/insults, no matter from whom, are completely unacceptable. There are several options available here - 1) clean up the thread by editing/deleting all personal attacks which would destroy the thread IMO or lock the thread which would be unfortunate. We shall see.

Don't you know abortion is like slavery so you can't own yourself as long as abortion exists.......

sudden valley gunner · Aug 30, 2015

solus said:
SVG, et al., and i get ban'd for pointing out the insulting tone, name calling, and overall condescending bovine consistently being slung at all members who challenge as well as someone demanding the theme be changed to suit their current mood, ...all the while someone's condescending tirades and antics towards other member(s) continue unabated...

guess i'm not privy to the connetction

ipse

+

Wait my friend we are not to talk civilly because we disagree politically!

The dual standard I tried to pass off as missing something, yet it no longer can be.

PistolPackingMomma said:
The anarchists on this forum are more than capable of being civil, polite, rational, what have you.

The fact that you do not feel they are doing so with YOU, perhaps speaks to either your compulsive desire to mandate they communicate in the same manner that you do, or perhaps that you've done nothing to EARN such civility from them, with your nigh constant disparaging remarks and thinly veiled attacks upon an ideology you are incapable of letting others hold without scorn.

I know that I personally am always persuaded to waste my time being civil to jack@sses merely because they want me to be.

+1

There's that saying if you run into an a-hole the problem was the a-hole, if you run into lots of a-holes the problem is you.

PistolPackingMomma · Aug 30, 2015

utbagpiper said:
I anxiously await evidence to support this contention.

I used to anxiously wait for my cat to stop hissing at me when I prodded her for disagreeing with me. Guess you and I can be "waiting buddies"! :lol:

My disdain for the anarchist and Objectivist positions...(snipped)

1-The fact that a couple of the most vocal Objectivist anarchist refuse to concede...(snip)

2-The inability of self-proclaimed anarchists to maintain their own standards of using objective data and good logic and honest debating skills to support their positions.

You are a paragon of civility. I can't imagine why anyone has ever had trouble discussing strongly held ideologies with you. Boggles the brain.

But if someone else is going to do so, he ought to have the courage of his convictions to have a civil, mature discussion even with those who disagree with him.

Goodness, we actually agree. Perhaps you could lead the way by example for all of us "uncivilized" anarchists. I suppose it will take some effort on your part, but I'm rooting for you, Charles! You can do it if you only set your mind to it! Show us the way!

Any child can be polite to those whom he likes. That same child can most often be expected to treat poorly those he doesn't like.

It is the mature man (and civilized "lady") who can show forth civility even to those who annoy them and with whom they disagree.

The irony here is just staggering.

...(snip) I'll kindly ask you to keep your mouth shut.

Charles

You can ask me kindly, or rudely, but I'll do you no favors. You've got my most insincere apologies if that rubs you raw.

Who Owns You?

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Accomplished Advocate

Banned

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member