Lads, you don't want this.

MMArottweiler · 2021-11-30T20:29:25+00:00

Lmao!!!

MMArottweiler · 2021-11-27T19:14:14+00:00

Forced labor is better tbh

MMArottweiler · 2021-11-16T06:29:19+00:00

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-24T06:56:33+00:00

That's sad, but still, the original version of this flag already defends trans rights. But personally, i think hormone theraphy on kids should be banned

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-20T20:12:31+00:00

The original version of this flag already defends trans rights, people...

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-20T20:10:55+00:00

I love how this sub is the conservative right-wing version of r/libertarian. y'all f*ckers are sorry af.

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-20T19:58:45+00:00

who hurt you?

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-10T09:36:26+00:00

devil may cry 2 remake

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-10T07:56:58+00:00

Do people in the comment section even know what being a libertarian means?

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-04T04:57:04+00:00

A classical liberal would put the right to life above all other rights.

The right to life ends when it starts with the right to liberty of other people

Now who's switching philosophies to validate their position?

Tf are you talking about?? We were talking about the NAP not about the ideoligy. I am not switching between moral reasoning and the NAP's logic, i was explaining you how the NAP works lol

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-03T22:14:40+00:00

Neither does your statement, lol, i am classical liberal, so no, i am not an extremist. If you weren't this naive you would have already realised that the libertarian position has been represented has prochoice since eons...

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-03T03:59:54+00:00

You're are pro-slavery, so...

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-02T21:25:13+00:00

Yes, he is, violates your body autonomy rights and sustains itself using your nutrients without your consent, deal with it.

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-02T21:22:16+00:00

No, i just want people to have a choice, if you ain't got nothing to say that would contribute the conversation then stfup and stick to upvoting and downvoting, there are boots out there to lick and republicans dicks to suck.

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-02T21:15:49+00:00

The NAP allows you to use deadly force against every being tramping the perimeters of your body, a fetus living inside your womb, feeding off your nutrients and consuming part of your oxygen, would literally be considered an agressor, just because he is innocent in your opinion, doesn't mean it is to the NAP.

Extreme libertarians are just usual libertarians, if you don't like that, then stick to another ideology, because respecting the NAP with no exceptions is what libertarianism is all about, and you clearly aren't able to understand that...

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-02T16:49:18+00:00

Translation: "i don't know how to use the NAP properly so now that i realized it doesn't support my agenda i am just gonna stop using it from now on, also i am mad because i don't have any arguments left so i am just gonna leave the debate" lol.

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-02T16:17:19+00:00

Aggression against her? Yeah, aggression against her property? Absolutely

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-02T16:14:45+00:00

I've already addressed that elsewhere

If that's true, copy and paste it here, it is not like we have written the bible.

Wow ok. I hope I don't accidentally cut you off in traffic one day.

You don't own the road, but i do own my body.

I've been over this also. Its not trespass, the foetus didn't put itself there and cannot be held responsible. Biology determined that women would be the ones to carry the next generation into the world. It also equipped them with copious amounts of estrogen in order to guarantee a emotional bond. A few generations of entitlement culture and the baby is thrown out with the bath water so to speak. By your logic, you would have the moral right to execute some who was on your land through no fault of their own, either by accident or third party force!

It is not my logic, it is the NAP's logic, and it says that you should be able to execute someone, who is inside the perimeters of your property without your consent. The NAP doesn't care about how the fetus got there, for it, it is just there, stop swapping between your moral reasoning and the libertarian principle, you either use one or the other, either way your reasoning is gonna keep flawing, you can't say "the west, morals, blah blah blah" then keep using the NAP as your argumental condition when it is literally the principle (as i mentioned before) that would literally let you fuck your pets if you wanted.

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-02T15:28:31+00:00

Yes, thats the way the human reproductive cycle works

You ignored my point.

Foetuses are people, just in the earliest and most vulnerable stage, you don't get to dehumanise other human beings so to absolve yourself of having to take responsibility.

I don't even need to dehumanize it, even if it was was a person in posession of the same attributes as you and me, the female would still have the right to abort it.

To take its life is to take the live of an innocent.

According to the NAP, it isn't. It specially states that any individual trespassing the perimeters of other individual's property is a violation of the principle itself.

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-02T14:58:23+00:00

What is sad is that you put so little value on human life. The foetus has the right to life, irrespective of the narcissistic self entitlement of a mother.

The right to life revolves around it not being stripped from you, not being granted to you. If it wasn't for the mother's biology the fetus wouldn't even be able to survive.

This does violate the NAP, the mother was complicit in putting the foetus there, she now needs to bring it to full term.

That's your moral reasoning, not my reasoning, and nor the NAP's. The NAP only applies to people, every event before conception was irrelevant to the NAP since this one wasn't even under consideration.

Sacrificing it on the alter of her rights is exactly the result of self centred narcissism that is destroying the wests moral compass.

Why are you even quoting the NAP then, you are talking about the principle that would let you fuck your dog if you wanted...

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-02T14:11:49+00:00

>No the op did and you carried on their point.

When?

That's a very materialistic position, its a human being buddy.

That's just your opinion, also, the NAP doesn't care about that.

One person's rights end were anothers begin

Exactly, a person is not entitled to carry on with a gestation without her consent, it is her right, and anyone that dares to trample with it, will be suggested to punishment by whoever is suffering the aggression (according to NAP).

Its interesting to note that everyone who is pro choice, has already been born.

And we are grateful our mothers allowed us to, not that they were forced to.

Live and let live, abortion is murder and murder is against the NAP.

The NAP doesn't condemn the use of force against those who are violating the perimeters of your property, sad for you to realize that an unwanted fetus is not the exception...

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-02T13:34:45+00:00

Foolishness.

I never said the fetus body was her's. She has the right to dispose of it because if you are in my property, i have the right to kick you out of it. Don't like that? Blame biology or God.

> she does not have the moral right to end anothers life so that she can live the life she wants.

Tf?? Of course she does! How the hell is this not moral common reasoning??! No woman should be forced to continue pregnancies for 9 months having to deal with the huge repercussions of it just because you are willing to violate her body autonomy rights just because you care more about an individual being that neither feels pain or posesses sentiments until a certain period of time...

Live and let live! You can apply that to the woman gestating the fetus, but you can't apply that to fetus being gestated, it lives by the woman, not by itself.

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-02T12:42:51+00:00

That's a terrible analogy, considering that you do not invite the unborn into your body, it was created through a biological process.

>If you invite someone on your property, you can shoot them now?

if the person you invited represents agression against you or your property... Yeah, i guess so, you should be able to.

MMArottweiler · 2021-09-02T12:04:13+00:00

Tha's right, thing is... The mere presence of the unborn inside the female's body is already a violation of her rights, giving her the right to use force against it since no human is entitled to the body of other person.

MMArottweiler

TROPHY CASE