Libfas, please explain your ethics

1.  Why is it wrong to kill a violent criminal but okay to kill an innocent fetus?  I'm not particularly opposed to abortions, but it makes no sense that you rail against capital punishment while endorsing abortion.

2.  Why do you despise Christianity but tell everyone else that their religions are beautiful and are to be respected?  I don't understand how you can extol the greatness of science and education while while telling everyone (other than Christians) that their baseless beliefs should be protected.  I'm generally opposed to religion, so I say if you're going to hate one of them, hate all of them.

3.  Why is it wrong from conservatives to go on fear mongering about terrorism but it's okay for you to tell everyone the world is going to end because of global warming?  Whether or not you believe in either of these supposed threats it's clear that both sides are using fear to manipulate people.  Why not take the higher road if you're so educated and ethical?

4.  Why do you like Mac so much?

5.  Why do you believe the federal government can fix all of society's ills when it can barely deliver the mail?  It has been proven throughout history that large central governments lead to corruption and abuse.  Why do you continue to support big government?

Okay, >>80, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I will not take a stand on this issue.  I think >>79 said it pretty well, though I would disagree with him/her on some issues.

But I am not a liberal or a conservative, I am a human being.  Fuck these labels and quasi-boundaries.

1. I support both abortion and the death penalty. We need less people in the world.
2. I think all religions are stupid.
3. I know both sides use fear to get what they want. However, global warming will effect us more than terrorism ever will.
4. Macs suck.
5. We could do without some programs, granted, but corporations aren't established to support the averages Joes.

be anti-abortion. pregnancy is your punishment for being a whore. take it like a man.

Why should "average Joes" be supported, anyway?

Why does the mere fact of one's existence entitle him to the means by which to continue that existence?

I am not a slave.  I have no moral obligation whatsoever to provide for another.  That you wish to impose such an obligation upon me anyway is indicative of your utterly vile and despicable nature.

Because if you don't give him the means by which to continue his existence, then he won't be able to buy anyone's products anymore, thus causing the entire economy to stagnate.

Furthermore, assuming you own a business, to claim that the property you have allocated to yourself was obtained by your effort and your effort alone is highly misleading. Without the education system, the public transportation system, the efforts others have contributed to your business, and so forth, you would not have been able to keep your business running. While it is certainly true that you may have recompensed others for their efforts, under the parameters of our system it is at a price determined entirely by yourself. Workers who are not fortunate enough to have enough property to start their own business thus have no choice but to choose from among the employers who will hire them, and each worker's bargaining power is comparatively insubstantial as a result. If you claim that each individual has an equal chance of coming into enough property to start or obtain his or her own business, I'd suggest you take a look at the wide disparity of incomes in the society around you and reëvaluate your perceptions. The greatest barrier to equal opportunity in our society is an unequal start, and from our public school systems, which are vastly shittier in poor urban areas, to the amount of funds funneled into public works projects, the areas with higher incomes get vastly preferable treatment. The result takes our society far away from the meritocracy it pretends to be and back into the days of aristocratic dynasties. Thus, the odds that people are recompensed proportionally to the amount of work they've done are slim, especially in the absence of government laws regulating such things. (The $5.15/hr minimum wage law is ludicrous, it's barely enough to scrape together an existence in the *cheapest* parts of the country, let alone someplace like New York City or Los Angeles).

However, I don't think all business owners owe substantial amounts of taxes to the governments; just large ones. Similarly, if you don't own a business, then as long as your income is under $100,000 a year, I actually don't think you should pay any taxes at all. If it's above $100,000, then likely you owe some debt to society along similar lines as those described for business owners.

Finally, if you don't give him enough for food and shelter, he will starve or freeze, and thus society as a whole is guilty of homicide via collective negligence, as there are more than enough resources to prevent his death.

His life is his responsibility.  I possess no guilt if he dies from starvation.  I have no obligation towards him.  "Society" does not own resources--only individuals do.

"Because if you don't give him the means by which to continue his existence, then he won't be able to buy anyone's products anymore, thus causing the entire economy to stagnate."

This is absurd.  Aside from the fact that keeping the economy going is not government's business in the first place, what is the difference between me just keeping my money versus giving it to some guy off the street so he can give it back to me when he buys stuff at my store?

The fact is, the individual is an end in himself.  As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, no individual has an obligation to provide for or support another.

So it's his responsibility, and *only* his responsibility, if he can't get a job because no one is hiring? Give me a break. The ability to earn a living is entirely dependent upon having a job, which in turn is entirely dependent upon the economy, which in turn is entirely beyond his control. Capitalism has never functioned so that it employs everyone in a society capable of working, and it never will. In fact, Heinlein demonstrated this in his 1939 novel For Us, the Living, wherein he laid out a system of capitalism in its entirety and demonstrated precisely why it never amounts to a perfectly efficient system, and while I disagree with a number of policy recommendations he comes to as a result of his model, that particular aspect of his analysis is, as far as I can tell, beyond criticism.

Individuals "own" resources because they have the ability to back up their "ownership" with the threat of force. No consensual society of free-thinking rationalists would have a distribution of goods as uneven as that which exists in modern society; thus, private ownership in modern society is explicitly based on coercion. Only a society in which the state of ownership is voluntarily accepted by all participants without the threat of force can absolute freedom of the individual truly be said to exist.

The difference between the two scenarios you have outlined is that one creates a flow of goods and thus stimulates the economy. The other results in stagnation and will ultimately result in reduced profits for everyone in the society, for reasons that once again go back to

Finally, Ayn Rand was a crackpot. She has clearly not read her Proudhon, as virtually every argument she makes in favour of unrestricted private property is countered in his writings half a century before hers. She also ignores the fact that "individuals" aren't - every bit of personal property in modern society was acquired as a result of the functioning of that society. I notice you ignored all of my previous reply pertaining to that point. Could that be because you have no rebuttal to it? Interesting indeed.

>>87

Take Chomsky and Marx and shove them up your ass, I'm an Objectivist and I won't hear any of this rambling nonsense any longer.

So in other words, you have no rebuttal to my argument and you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and continue tonguing Ayn Rand. Good to hear. Objectivists are always such rational human beings. Hahahahahaha.

>>86
your whole life philosophy seems to be utterly selfish and sociopathic.  that's a mental disorder shared by despots and serial killers.  your parents must be proud.

oh, and ayn rand IS in fact a wingnut.  objectivism is no more valid than communism.

>>90
You're the sociopath, wanting to take people's money just because you can't be botherred to work.

>>92
uh, retard, I'm at work RIGHT NOW.  I'm the weekend manager for a delivery business, and also go to school full time.  I'm in my fourth year studying biochemistry at a large american university (if I said more, I wouldn't be anon would I?).

fucking moron.

>>92
oh, and eat shit.

>>93
>>94
If you work then you're stupid and still wrong. If you're lying then you are the one who should be snacking on scat.

>>95
whatever, fucking troll.

1.  A fetus is not a true living being in its early stages, simple as that.  The fetus' brain doesn't even START developing until around 7 or so weeks, and even then it's not fully functional until about 20 or so weeks.
Plus, consider your average person who aborts.  Teenagers or dirt-poor people who couldn't afford to raise a child -- Would the child be better off starving or going to an orphanage, or being killed before it could even be considered a sentient being?

2.  I don't hate Christianity -- I hate those that try to force their religion on others.  That goes for Christians, Jehova's Witlesses, etc etc, that try to scare you into believing you're going to suffer eternally if you don't believe in their particular dogmatic belief.  Otherwise, I'm fine with religion and I have some friends who happen to be Christians -- They're just not the asshole kind.

3.  I agree it is using fear tactics.  However, I consider global warming to be more of a real threat then terrorism.  Yeah sure, it sucks when a maniac suicide bomber kills a bunch of innocent civilians, but the potential for global warming has a much greater threat on a larger scale.

4.  Most people I know who own Macs are snobs.  I call them "Apple Snobs", cause they think they're so uppity with their Macs and iPods and whatever else it is they have.

5.  If you're talking about the American government, I don't.  The American government is pretty shitty, when you have a government who's primary purpose is to make a profit (I know you gotta put bread on the table, but a TRUE government should only take this but so far...), then they're gonna put the people's needs in the back seat and you end up with the crap we have now.

Personally, I think America needs a second revolution, sure it might set us back a bit, but it would at least allow us to start a relatively clean slate.

>>90 Nice strawman. For most of the people who get benefits from our government, it's not that they "can't be bothered to work," it's that no one will hire them, or that they simply can't make enough money to cover all the costs of living in modern America. The minimum wage is $5.15 right now. That means a person working 40 hours a week makes $824 a month. That was enough to live on in the 1970s when that minium wage was set, but inflation since then has rendered that a trifle.

(it's worth pointing out here that inflation *always* hurts the poor more than it hurts the rich, because the poor generally can't afford to invest in assets that don't devalue with currency; thus, a strong case could be made that fiat money should simply be banned)

There are a large number of people doing essential service jobs that no one else wants to do for virtually no money. Without them, the economy would collapse. I think the least we can do is make sure they have decent health care and can put food on the table for all their children.

>>29
>>37

29 speaks the truth according to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8

>>29 is either lying or too stupid to understand the basic science involved.

>>98
You're right in that no one will hire them, but think about that. If no one will hire them, they obviously have no useful skills, witch means that they didn't bother to take advantage of all the educational opportunities that america has to offer. And that, to me, makes them pretty stupid.

Oh, and just as a random fact, the earth hasn't seen any appreciable warming in ten years and has actually been cooling for the last three years. Check it.

>>101
your random "fact" is, in fact, a lie.

>>101 What educational opportunities? You seem to miss the obvious fact that, for anyone born in a poor area, our public school system is shit.

Also, what >>102 said.

>>103
What is your problem?

GO TO FUCKING COMMUNITY COLLEGE, DO A FUCKING COURSE IN VEHICLE MECHANICS OR STOCK CONTROL AND YOU WILL EARN MORE THAN MINIMUM WAGE

>>102
>>103
random fact is, in fact, fact.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=720zmeq&s=1

>>105
oh god damn it. thought it was direct
http://i19.tinypic.com/720zmeq.jpg
 

>>99
>>105
>>106
Sorry I'm all wrong. Anybody who thinks CO2 doesn't take part in changeing the worlds climate should watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYlbvJEZA_4
and all the parts!

>>104 Yeah, too bad I was talking about our primary and secondary school systems, which are shit.

Srsly? randroids? on MY 4chan?

ITT, everyone assumes that global warming is true.

>>104
Is there a naturally inexhaustible number of this kind of job? Aren't many people able to afford community college tuition only because the government subsidizes it, effectively paying them to go to school? Don't minimum-wage-paying jobs exist in the first place because they're necessary in order to provide services to others at a price those others are willing to pay? What would happen if some great percentage of minimum-wagers became educated and left their minimum-wage jobs? Wouldn't the minimum wage—and by extension, the cost for the services minimum-wagers provide which, again, they only provide in the first place because people who don't work minimum-wage jobs utilize the services—naturally increase as the available labor pool shrank?

>>84
What's interesting about this reasoning is that the door swings both ways.
Why should anyone give a fuck about YOU?
If you are confident in your independence, you should buy a patch of land and start growing you own food, making your own tools etc. Better learn medicine too, since you'll be your own doctor.
Hey, you don't need the help others right?

I don't know what a "Libfas" is, but I'll attempt to deal with some of these questions:

Why is it wrong to kill a violent criminal but okay to kill an innocent fetus?  I'm not particularly opposed to abortions, but it makes no sense that you rail against capital punishment while endorsing abortion.

It can't be too difficult to consider the viewpoint that a violent criminal is still a thinking person seized of civil rights, and that a fetus is not yet a person (hence has no rights at all).

The person posting these questions obvious has a cognitive logjam or sorts, in that he assumed something was true and then was unable to see past the assumption in order to understand the viewpoints of others.

In other words, he was a Conservative.  Conservatives don't CARE about the views of other people, and they do not try to empathize with others in order to understand other ways of living.

>>113
Why does a person get charged with double homicide if he kills a pregnant woman, then, Mr. Libfas?

>>114
If killing a fetus is murder than all abortions in the USA are murder.  Since that is NOT true, then what you posted is a technical detail about potential life.  We prosecute people for abusing and killing animals, too.  Those animals don't have the rights of a Human, do they?  Of course not.

What you did there is called "proving the rule".  Your exception only demonstrated that my rule is correct.

The meta-point to be made here is that killing a fetus is perfectly OK if done by the carrier (or "mother").  THAT is the truth that the Conservatards refuse to admit.  Why is it OK to kill a fetus?  Because the carrier ALWAYS has that right.  A potential mother always has a CHOICE.  And that choice should be honored by the abortion industry (which we should allow since it makes it highly likely the carrier's life will be saved after such a procedure).

>>115
A rare exposure of sanity and intelligence by RedCream.

We should take pictures.

What I wonder is whether we have the right to judge anyone at all?
What gives us the right?
A murderer is still a thinking person and you wouldn't lock up a thinking person for the rest of their lives either.
Do I get my point across? Where do we draw the line?

Also, we have to remember that what is considered right or wrong differs greatly between cultures, and through time.
The vikings had no concept of murder - as long as you didn't strike from behind or in the sleep it was considered fair game.
I remember a old Roman Empire court record where a prostitute had been murdered by a client. The prostitute's mother was mainly concerned with the fact that the murderer had cut her source of income, rather than having lost her daughter.

Remember the following oxymoron:
A tolerant society can't tolerate intolerance, or they wouldn't be tolerant.
Hence we can't tolerate crime, but where do we draw the line?

Oh, and studies have actually shown differences in brain function in violent criminals. It can be cured just as soon as homosexuality. So is rehabilitation really possible?

>>115
Everyone here is a moral relativist.
Look it up, fags.

>>115
On the contrary, you're point is the exception to my rule.
You know this to be true.

Why do you despise Christianity but tell everyone else that their religions are beautiful and are to be respected?  I don't understand how you can extol the greatness of science and education while while telling everyone (other than Christians) that their baseless beliefs should be protected.  I'm generally opposed to religion, so I say if you're going to hate one of them, hate all of them.
Because other religions are NOT trying to reform the USA into a fucking Theocracy.  Christians are OK, except for the many Theocrats among their number in the USA.  The Theocrats can just fuck off.

Naturally, since the OP is a Conservatard, he is UNABLE to see that his Christian majority's excesses form a severe problem for operating the US government as a true secular entity.  Conservatards are completely blind to their own Fundamentalist shitheads.  THAT'S WHY LIBERALS HATE YOU.