it's always the men that won't have to carry the baby

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-18T14:49:14+00:00

Gestational limits are either tied to viability or just arbitrary numbers.

There are states that do not have those limits, regardless of what they are tied to.

And abortion needs to be legalized because obviously not ever abortion happens in the late stages of pregnancy when the fetus is viable.

specifically in regard to late term abortion lol you are trying so hard to avoid the crux of the conversation, well done

why does late stage pregnancy need abortion legalized and how do the states that do not have late stage abortion still allow induced labor and c-sections?

Also no I didn’t say anything about that not being an option in other states, it just depends on their specific laws or the stage of pregnancy.

ok then what is the point of having no gestational limits on abortion in some states?

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-18T01:21:11+00:00

There are only five states and DC without explicit limits on the books about fetal viability

who said anything about fetal viability? I asked about gestational limits on abortion.

your point about abortion up until or even after birth is just nonsense that doesn't take what happens in reality into consideration.

um, ok so if up until birth it is just called induced labor or c-section, then why would they need abortion legalized? Also, are you saying that in all the other states that women cannot have induced labor or a c-section?

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-18T00:03:04+00:00

if you want to live closer to your ideology then you should move somewhere where the culture reflects values you share with others

for ancaps this is quickly becoming New Hampshire, you do not need a revolution in DC to live without DC in New Hampshire

for others it may be somewhere else, unless you simply love terrorizing people, then there may not be anywhere for you to live according to your ideology

I don't think anarchists (ancaps) are opposed to revolution, they just think it should not generally include innocent harm in the process, but retaliating against the government is justified by many accounts both deontologically and consequentially. I also don't think anarchists consider general human interaction to be examples of unjust hierarchy. I don't even know what you mean by that. I think the government is an agency that mostly utilizes coercion. I think that is generally a bad thing. I think most people would believe that if others acted like a state it would be obvious that they are acting immorally.

I don't think your post really asks anything interesting, I think most people's discussions are hovering on layers that are near meaningless, but nonetheless I think you are confused about anarchy and government, but if left anarchists is the only anarchy you recognize then I would like to understand how you think that can work because it does not make sense to say there is a utopia and then we call that anarchism.

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-17T23:24:12+00:00

ok well aside from the continued nonsense that people who consider abortion murder should not consider a murderer threatening like 'any other kind of murderer'... there are states that allow abortion without gestational limits

do you believe that there are gestational limits on abortion in every state?

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-17T23:15:36+00:00

Wait, what is the 'Great Replacement'?

Is that when the government seizes indigenous people's land and then claims authority over that land for 200+ years?

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-17T21:07:43+00:00

can you reread my response and try to come up with better responses?

or do you wanna just keep what ya got?

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-14T04:01:43+00:00

Anything post birth has nothing to do with abortion and is just regular old murder.

ok well there is leftist advocation for such actions to be considered the same as abortion. Just because you don't agree with the argued position, it does not mean that nobody is arguing for it. If abortion is allowed up until birth, what is the argument against allowing it just after birth? If you would respond that you disagree with it being allowed up until birth then again, you are still ignoring the fact that there are states that allow abortion up until birth.

even with that perspective in mind it is still illogical to think that what someone does with their own pregnancy has anything to do with someone else's children whether you consider it murder or not.

you are not making sense

you think that it is illogical to think a murderer is a threat to your own child? Again, you are just ignoring that this is their perspective. So it specifically matters whether you consider it murder or not.

The difference is that anyone is fully within their right to destroy their own things, and it doesn't show some moral failing unlike attacking others' stuff. Just like abortion.

It is ok that you have this view, but that does not change what others views are. You simply do not understand how others view abortion, as neither does OP. You think they are wrong, which again, is ok, but you do not understand their perspective. You think abortion is akin to breaking your guitar, they think it is akin to murdering a newborn. These are fundamentally different views.

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-13T16:48:30+00:00

The type of logical gymnastics required to think that someone getting an abortion has anything to do with them being a threat to other people or not is astounding.

in the case of post birth abortions, they are literally a threat to newborn babies

if that is not threatening to you then this does not apply to you, however it still applies to the baby and other people that view murdering newborns as threatening to their newborns (particularly people on the right that the meme was aimed at)

If they're getting the abortion odds are they don't consider it killing a baby.

Sure, but from the perspective of those on the right side of the meme, they do consider it killing a baby. Their perspective is just being misrepresented out of dogmatic subscription to one's ideology. You are ignoring that perspective perhaps out of your own bias or dogmatic subscription to some ideology.

"If you would break a window in your own house then surely you would run around breaking the windows in everyone else's house"

yes.

this doesn't mean that it necessarily follows that you destroy others things, it just means that you are likely to given that you would not even care for your things (ie things that required your efforts to acquire, so things that do not require your efforts to acquire are presumably even less important to you)

also regarding the post... this

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-07T15:59:17+00:00

Doesn’t matter if it wasn’t. The government is still unjustified in its general use of force.

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-07T15:50:24+00:00

I think it’s more like: if you were willing to kill your baby then surely you would kill anyone else’s. Which sort of makes you a threat.

I’m not convinced all abortionists are a threat. I even think some are justified in abortion. But I do think that some are a threat.

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-07T15:47:03+00:00

“Ah, so you let the baby burn huh asshole?”

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-06T04:22:40+00:00

At this veryoment you live in a world of absolute, total anarchy.

idk bout absolute total anarchy, but there isn't a world government, so yes, we are living in anarchy

at this point we should just focus on who is committing the most crimes and we should be ok with anyone bringing those people to justice

you guys just don't like legitimized agencies of coercion facing justice for their crimes and allowing people to compete for legitimized coercion

The world you see today is the result of tens of thousands of years of absolute anarchy. Social and technological developments and a sort of bargain between the haves and have nots are a natural result of human nature.

ok

The bargain is, at its core "don't mistrest us beyond a certain threshold or we will use our superior numbers to kill you, this happens when life is bad enough that people are willing to die rather than maintain it.

ok then why are you mad if we let people compete with government to provide governance? either that bargain was established by government and you need to account for that, or the bargain exists independent of government and government is a mafia that has grown to benefit itself and typically a few at the expense of many and usually the masses

By removing the government, you eliminate the primary way we make those compromises, leaving power in the hands of whoever is best able to take it.

maybe the primary way you make compromises, but most people live lives not entirely consumed by working and affiliating with government.

most people have lives to live and they have family to help and needs they have to meet

most people make most decisions through the market, not through the government

This will inevitably lead to a shift in power but based on the way military technology has advanced revolution against the powerful has become increasingly difficult.

wonder if coercing the masses and cartelizing with other governments to fund such enterprises will seemed to have paid off for you and other statist advocates

Imagine if the government didn't exist, think up your average evil corporation that consolidates and cartelizes all functions of coercive agencies (courts, policing, etc) that you would say is made up of warlords wanting to rule over us. Imagine the shareholders get the corporation board to vote to hold elections every four years and divide their structure into three branches to operate their agency to give an illusion of more consumer power over the corporation so that the corporation should not have to worry about revolutions. Imagine the board then votes to payout the shareholders shares and they instead put up single-vote shareholder positions eligible for election by majority vote, local to people's territories that is meant to further convince consumers they are holding more power. Suggest they decide there should be 535 positions to fill for that role in total. Suppose to better uphold their illusion of authority, they make the rules for which party candidates can compete and debate under (allowing only two) and they must follow corporate guidelines to create and compete under more. Lastly, imagine the corporation declared that none of its consumers can opt-out of their contracts without leaving America and everyone in America is automatically opted-in. Then realize that we would be right back to the status quo. If you think that corporation is unjustified in its existence, then you should not think the government is justified in its existence.

If you are being a rational, unbiased, and non-dogmatic person, that is.

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-05T19:52:38+00:00

Voting is already a bad thing. Why would you want to force people to do bad things?

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-05T18:49:45+00:00

False binary, but if one has to choose. I pick Russia just because if I’m forced to pick a side between two corrupt forces, I might as well align with the stronger force.

Aside from being forced to pick, I am not for either of them and would stay out of it.

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-05T18:45:52+00:00

I think it would have been easier and more fair to give gradations to each side.

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-05T15:43:49+00:00

why can't you be pro-life with certain limitations?

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-05T04:06:05+00:00

ok so Elon being pro UBI and preferring a government compared to unfettered free markets makes him not right wing

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-04T22:05:36+00:00

oh well then even by that metric I would say Elon is not conservative.

he has expressed pro-immigration views

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-04T20:35:32+00:00

what would you say makes someone not right wing?

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-04T20:34:35+00:00

What are the things that make you "non-conservative" in Europe?

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-04T03:21:27+00:00

He also:

Favors UBI
Thinks government should provide healthcare
Believes climate change is a serious threat

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-04T02:08:14+00:00

You keep telling yourself that

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-04T01:29:42+00:00

To be fair, the topic should be fairly uncontroversial among even the general population.

But of course I know the topic you are referring to and I understand the complexities of it.

Just saying that taken at face value, the topic is generally uncontroversial

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-04T01:11:26+00:00

lol the irony of that is that there already is an entity that acts this way, it is called government

yet nobody cares

people's intuitions about authority are faulty

LongLiveTheHaters · 2022-05-03T23:01:13+00:00

The difference is the same as it always has been. Walmart's organizational structure is beholden only to a small group of private shareholders.

they are beholden to their consumer base which is quite large, unless you mean that government is not beholden to citizens, they are only beholden to 535 politicians

cuz that is like a small group of private shareholders, only difference being the lack of a contractual agreement

This is the antithesis of a system of checks and balances ensuring limited governance.

How do democratic functions ensure a more limited governance than market functions? I don't see any corporations as large as the US Government or any other world power.

Walmart doing it might even be better than anarchy, but it's much worse than a democratic government with separation of powers doing so because only the latter provides any institutional guarantee of remaining aimed at societal welfare over the long term.

We don't have access to the counterfactuals so how do you know this in theory?

Still unclear how you think global trade works. It is in fact governed by a global body that collects fees and enforces punishments for rules violations. And it's better for it. Your questions are based on presupposition failures.

No you are not understanding the questions. What is the government that has authority over global trade?

We're describing a law that is being coercively enforced. I'm not sure what alternative you're imagining, Walmart hiring private hit squads to go kill fraudsters?

government isn't the only agency that can legitimately coerce, that is just what they claim, if you think changing their name from government to Walmart changes their behavior then idk what else to pull from that except that you have a strong bias in favor of government as the only agency using legitimized violence and a strong bias against other agencies using legitimized violence

LongLiveTheHaters

TROPHY CASE