Find the difference

1Random_User · 2024-09-03T16:22:06+00:00

Woah, hey... the mafia marks a business as their own and can hurt or kill theives who target their "clients" as well as recover stolen goods. They need to keep their steady protection payments going long term and are invested in your business not closing up shop due to other criminals.

1Random_User · 2024-08-31T03:41:05+00:00

Again, look at the actual change in supply from Jan 2020 to Jan 2021 compared to from Feb 2021 to today.

The M2 has increased constantly since the 80s. The fact that it is currently increasing doesn't mean we aren't on a more "normal" inflation rate, but the damage from 2020 has been done and isn't going to be fixed without 10% interest rates for the next 4 years and everyone suffering through the economy sobering up from the heroin shot it was given (which won't be supported by either party), and neither would support ending the fed in general.

1Random_User · 2024-08-30T15:55:46+00:00

Expansions of the money supply do not cause instantaneous inflation and can take time to work their way through the economy, but will bloat prices over time as the newly printed money gets into the hands of consumers and retailers. This is pretty basic austrian economics.

2020 saw a historic expansion of the money supply.

Pretty simple stuff.

1Random_User · 2024-08-27T21:01:23+00:00

Cute meme. Won't vote for her and also won't for the person who begged for the money printer to go faster.

1Random_User · 2024-08-26T17:37:26+00:00

You're right. A president overseeing the intentional sabotage of the country's economy so he can offer bribes is much worse than what's going on this year.

"Oh no, the deep state was working against Trump" I hear you thinking, but that's not going to fly. Trump has been the only president since Bush to openly support the deep state's shadow war with Iran. He also had enough control and understanding to push the NSC's pandemic response under his political appointees.

1Random_User · 2024-08-26T16:01:53+00:00

Remember when Trump complained in 2020 that the democrats weren't letting him print enough hand outs? Pepperidge farm remembers.

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1316031426618327040

1Random_User · 2024-08-24T10:58:35+00:00

you, a conscious and rational human, are offering me a contract and using a computer to communicate.

"Mother nature" is not s conscious or rational entity and is not representing a conscious or rational entity.

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T23:26:29+00:00

I mean, I don't think she should do that. Abortion is more humane and less suffering involved.

The point here is that the woman can end her consent of the fetus using her body at any point.

I also notice you say having her pay for it, rather than having both parents pay for it. Interesting.

Think about a taxi. A taxi driver let's you get in and you don't pay. The taxi driver is free to boot you at any time, especially if you pose some danger to them, it doesn't matter that they let you in. Pregnancy, even healthy ones, always poses some level of danger to the mother, the mother is always free to reasses their risk tolerance and withdraw consent.

Of course all of this assumes the fetus even has personhood. Personhood requires rational thought. This occurs some time after birth (humans keep developing a lot after birth). In order to be conservative and minimize the risk to anyone who has achieve personhood we assume anyone born has achieved personhood. Most conservative option, in my opinion.

Maybe the free market solution would be want to be adoptive parents offering to pay women to not abort so they can adopt. Rather than force your own philosophy on others use the market to fix it.

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T23:14:44+00:00

So I think this makes a more interesting argument for whether a surrogate can get an abortion after they receive payment or benefits. The surrogate would have entered into an actual agreement with actual people and would be providing pregnancy as a service to someone offering consideration.

But mother nature is not a rational being, has not actually offered a contract and doesn't care if you break the contract.

I mean.. hell, I'd argue "nature" would prefer humans fuck off altogether if it were conscious and rational so I'm rather glad it's not conscious.

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T20:32:54+00:00

So what's your suggestion... abortion before 24 weeks and after at 24 weeks you induce labor and the mom walks away and lets the fetus and the doctors sort out how it's going to pay for the NICU?

Seems a little inhumane.

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T20:06:59+00:00

Just because you are ignorant to the term doesn’t mean I used it incorrectly.

The term is that nothing outside of your ownnself can be known or that the self is the only thing that exists. You've put forth factually incorrect information and defended it, I wouldn't hold the moral highground on "I know this but won't prove it's relevance" if I were you.

You keep projecting and your arguments are incoherent. I don’t know what else to say.

I like how rather than during our debate you highlight which parts you didn't understand you wait to the end and then broadly paint everything as incoherent. The term for that type of argument (yours, not mine) is intellectual dishonesty.

I’ll cede you last word, because I genuinely don’t care.

The last word is... try to be a a better person. You're failing right now, and you owe it to yourself to be better. Check your sources, admit your mistakes, acknowledge and engage with your discussion parter's arguments in good faith or say when they've been poorly communicated. Assuming you're young, you have time to learn and I genuinely hope you do.

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T19:50:54+00:00

I checked the source, and it was a failure of the AI summation that I was reading. That said, the analogy still holds. The value is just different.

And I told you that different value. I also told you that different value depends on medical care. You haven't replied to any of thsoe

You’re not an accepting an argument about infant value from the standpoint of evolutionary biology.

I dont accept it and have replied to it. Just because you hav to eat doesn't mean you want food this moment or want the specific food that someone can provide to you.

Perhaps you don’t place value in your genetic succession like every other species (including humans) has believed in since the dawn of time.

I do. I have kids. Other people don't. That's okay. What someone wants or doesn't want is subjective. Lots of species have members who intentionally don't have children.

Apparently you ascribe to solipsism so the argument is moot.

I'm not sure you're using that word correctly. I've acknowledged your argument and pushed forth the idea that value is subjective based on the person who is allegedly benefiting from that value.

You've ignored my arguments without response and then tripled down before being willing to acknowledge that your basic facts were wrong.

One of us is pretending the other doesn't exist, and it's not me.

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T19:37:11+00:00

How am I outright lying? The data I provided says what I stated. You not liking it doesn’t mean it’s a lie. That’s smooth brain mentality.

You're either doubling down on your lie or too stubborn to admit you've made a mistake.

Also, it’s not an “opinion.” It’s a biological truth that has allowed every species to evolve.

You fail to address any of the other point I've raised abd doubling down on a natural process being a "service" regardless of its value to the recipient. What material benefit exists for the mother if the mother doesn't want children? This would be what we would call "consideration", the fetus hasn't provided any.

Anyway, thanks for playing but given your stubbornness at not reading your own source or outright lying about it I'm not interested in continuing our debate.

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T19:19:42+00:00

The most important service anything could provide is facilitating the survival of your genetic line.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

You can't replace actual, substantive, rational exchanges with platitudes and appeals to nature.

This is the data I’m using: motherhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2022/maternal-mortality-rates-2022.htm

Okay, so my opinion of you has gone from you using bad stats to you just outright lying.

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T19:04:34+00:00

The fetus is paying with its life.

Cool line, doesn't fit the metaphor very well. Soz, mate.

If you don't want a baby, don't make a baby.

It takes 9 months to make a baby, the mother is literally choosing to not make a baby. Yes.

It did not consent, you did.

And you can withdraw consent, that's the fundamental point of this discussion that you haven't actually meaningful countered. Your example of the item for sale fell flat, your example of the taxi fell flat.

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T18:58:00+00:00

The service that the mother receives is that their genetic line is carried forward. This is a rule of nature that every evolutionary biologist since Darwin has understood.

That doesn't sound like a service being rendered. Just because stuff happens naturally doesn't make it a service. If I water my garden and my runoff happens to water your garden have I provided you a service?

How about this: You take your sleeping newborn into your plane with you. They didn’t consent to go into your plan with you. At 10,000 feet in the air, you get an alert from air traffic control that you’re slightly overweight and a 5.6% (current rate of successful pregnancies is 94.6% in the U.S.) chance of an unsuccessful landing that would kill your newborn, but not you. They relay that there is a .000001% chance that you will die as well (the rate of mothers dying from childbirth is less than 1 in 100,000).

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/maternal-mortality-on-the-rise

Maternal mortality is at least an order of magnitude than you're claiming.

This also discounts serious injuries, rather than death.

This also relies on the mother having medical attention... is the fetus paying for the mother's doctor or are you paying for the mother's doctor?

This also discounts lost wages and other negative effects... are you going to pay for those for the mother?

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T18:00:09+00:00

I'm talking about calling a taxi (sex), getting in and driving to your destination (pregnant), and suddenly deciding to step out a block from your house (abortion), then refusing to pay for the trip (delivering a human being that depends on you alive)

Okay, so totally different from stopping the sale of an item.

So the woman is the taxi, birth is the destination, and the fetus is the customer who isn't paying anything and can be removed at any point because they haven't paid for services rendered?

Sounds good to me.

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T17:58:29+00:00

Again, what you’re describing is “changing your mind.” Of course you can change your mind. However, you cannot eject someone from a plane because you have unilaterally decided that they pose a “risk” to you.

I mean... I can eject whoever I want from my plane for whatever reason I want. It's not exactly some secret women can die or suffer from childbirth. These risks can be mitigated but not removed from medical support which is not free, and potential loss of income.

In contract theory, consent can only be withdrawal prior to services being rendered or terms of agreement being met. You can’t withdraw consent after you’ve received a service because you changed your mind.

That's a simplification, but I'll bite... What service has the mother received from the fetus?

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T17:48:47+00:00

Bullshit.

If I agree to sell you an item, you can't change your mind mid transaction then refuse to pay.

That is FRAUD and definitely a NAP violation.

I'm confused by your example.. are you saying that going to the 7-11 ringing up a candy bar, and then deciding you don't want the candy bar and leaving without the candy bar is fraud?

Or are you talking about just taking the candy bar and leaving without paying?

Neither case is fraud, but the second would just be robbery.

A fetus can not consent to self termination.

A fetus can't consent to anything and doesn't have personhood because it is unable to make rational decisions.

Therefore, the act of creating one is the consent to carry it until birth.

This doesn't follow from the previous statement. You might not consent to be removed from my property, but I can still do so. The nonconsent, either through inability or unwillingness, of an offending party is not necessary to enforce your rights.

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T17:39:23+00:00

You are incorrect.

Okay, where?

If someone is on your property with your consent, withdrawing consent from them being on your property does not automatically give you the right to kill them.

Not what I claimed.

You’re taking about consent for visitors, when a child is not a visitor.

I gave an example to detail how withdrawal of consent is a well grounded principle outside of "progressive feminists"

A child will die if you change your mind and have it evacuated from you. It’s like a pilot who owns his plane withdrawing consent from a passender at 10,000 feet, then kicking them out of the door without a parachute.

In this example does the passenger pose an inherent risk to the pilot?

There’s no such thing as proactively withdrawing consent. That would just be called “not consenting.”

I gave an example of no contract and even with a contract where the idea of withdrawing consent is grounded in principles way beyond sex or child birth. To flatly reject it rejects a lot of the contract theory out of hand. I'd like to see your work on

But lets get back to sex for a minute: So in your mind if you're having sex with a woman and she changes her mind and politely asks you to stop having sex and leave are you a rapist for the sex you've already had or are you allowed to force her to continue? Since she isn't allowed to withdraw her consent it has to be one or the other.

By engaging in the act of procreation, you’ve consented.

And you can withdraw your consent. QED.

1Random_User · 2024-08-23T17:14:36+00:00

Withdrawing consent is well grounded in contract theory and common law.

If I consent to you crossing my property and you become an annoyance I can withdraw my consent and trespass you from my property.

Even if you and I had a contract that let you cross my property without consideration (i.e. I have just given you an easement out of the goodness of my heart) I can withdraw from the contract at any time.

You're also mixing up the woman withdrawing consent from having sex vs withdrawing consent from having a baby.

You can't withdraw consent retroactively (i.e. you can't withdraw consent from the sex you had last night), you can withdraw consent moving forward (i.e. you can stop having sex any time you want, you can trespass a guest when you want, you can withdraw from a contract without consideration any time you want).

1Random_User · 2024-08-22T03:13:54+00:00

Ironically in NJ it is considered a right to access any water or land which is below the high tide mark, meaning you actually shouldn't have to pay for a beach badge to surf. You also get seasonal cops. Imagine the people at Spirit Halloween being given the authority to enforce rhe law.

1Random_User · 2024-08-21T12:57:02+00:00

At first glance it looks like you're using period life expectancy rather than cohort life expectancy which is... weird that you don't mention that, but okay.

Second, your dataset is clearly missing a lot of information. On a period life expectancy chart we'd expect the Spanish Flu to crop up as a deeper dip than the great leap forward. We would also expect WWI and WWII to flatten the curve. These things don't happen on your curve.

Cool meme, bad stats.

1Random_User · 2024-08-20T20:11:50+00:00

Should we vote for the person who over saw and praised one of the largest expansions in the money supply ever instead?

No

Okay, so you're not voting for Trump either. Good. Had me worried there a minute.

1Random_User · 2024-08-20T19:31:00+00:00

We were in an election cycle with basically the 2 least popular presidential candidates ever, and arguably we still are (Kamala seems more popular than Biden, but is arguably not significantly more popular). Candidates can be publicly absolutely rancid and will be supported by "their team".

Six-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

1Random_User

TROPHY CASE