WTF? (**NSFW**)

[HeloDude]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Who's are they? The state? They do not have agency over their lives.

 

I didn't call them property, but they just certainly are yours, while they are considered minors.

 

In either case that's irrelevant to the point. Children further prove it. You can decide what they eat, but you can't decide to feed them too little. You can home school then, but you *must* educate them.

 

Owning something has never given you absolute control over it in this country.

Children are people, and people have rights.  Animals do not.  And if I can eat something because I want to eat it just because I think it’s delicious, that’s pretty darn close to absolute control lol.

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Children are people, and people have rights.  Animals do not.  And if I can eat something because I want to eat it just because I think it’s delicious, that’s pretty darn close to absolute control lol.

I just we're just arguing semantics at this point. You are not allowed to beat your dog. Depending on how you do it, or the jury at the time, you will go to jail for doing it. If that doesn't mean that your dog has a "Right" then that's fine, but the effect is the same. Both your child and your dog have a right not to be beaten, or at the very least, there is a law preventing you from doing so.

 

They certainly have different rights, but that is because in both instances the line is drawn somewhere between the two absolutes of total and no control, just at different points.

 

It is also illegal in certain states to eat cats and dogs, so those particular animals, both of which you are capable of owning, seem to have "rights" of some sort as well.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Lord Ratner

[jice]

9 hours ago, HeloDude said:

It’s pretty easy—there’s no such thing as “animal rights”, so if you can kill an animal for fun, then why should it be illegal to allow them to fight each other if they’re your animals?  I’m not discussing morals whatsoever…if that were the case, whose morals, and what is ok morally and no ok?  I think it’s much worse to abort an unborn child 2 months before birth than to take two dogs you own and have them fight (even though I think that’s also immoral and sick).  It’s called hypocrisy if you support the ability to do one and not the other.

So I think I understand you to mean: You strongly believe that animals do not have rights. Therefore, laws that treat animals differently are hypocrisy.  For example, if a person supports shooting a coyote (and leaving it to rot, I guess?) but not fighting dogs, that they’re a hypocrite. Therefore your preference is that dog fighting be legal to avoid hypocrisy?

Does this attachment to the idea that animals don’t have rights make your life so much easier to live that you’d prefer a world in which dog fighting is legal? 
 

It’s a strange hill, bro. 

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, jice said:

So I think I understand you to mean: You strongly believe that animals do not have rights. Therefore, laws that treat animals differently are hypocrisy.  For example, if a person supports shooting a coyote (and leaving it to rot, I guess?) but not fighting dogs, that they’re a hypocrite. Therefore your preference is that dog fighting be legal to avoid hypocrisy?

Does this attachment to the idea that animals don’t have rights make your life so much easier to live that you’d prefer a world in which dog fighting is legal? 
 

It’s a strange hill, bro. 

If animals don’t have a right to not be killed by humans for our pleasure, then no, they don’t have rights.  And this isn’t a hill…it’s a fact.  Unless you’re one of those who thinks people who eat animals should go to jail?

Some of you don’t seem capable of having an actual philosophical discussion outside of what is legal vs illegal.  Or “well this is how our laws are so they must be right”…I guess all of our laws have always been perfect.  Again, killing a 7 month unborn baby is ok in many states…but getting two chickens to fight is not ok.  But breeding horses to aggressively race for our viewing pleasure…and if they get hurt because of it and need to be killed, well that’s ok, but eating a cat is not ok.  But eating a pig is ok. 
 

I want to live in a world where you can have your morals and I can have mine…but that we don’t cater to certain people and not others when they’re literally the same thing.  And yes, if you hunt coyote on BLM land then you leave them to rot…they go back to nature.  Or should the coyotes be protected?  If not, maybe a proper burial required after you shoot them for fun?…we could regulate how deep the hole needs to be, a required head stone, whatever makes people feel better.  Maybe if we hit a raccoon on the road we should have to stop and bury it…maybe report it since that might be a crime because the animal had a “right” to not be hit by a car?

If you truly believe in individual liberty then you have to ask yourself uncomfortable questions at times.  Oh and enjoy that steak dinner or chicken sandwich next time!…you heartless person you lol.

[Lord Ratner]

46 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

If animals don’t have a right to not be killed by humans for our pleasure, then no, they don’t have rights.  And this isn’t a hill…it’s a fact.  Unless you’re one of those who thinks people who eat animals should go to jail?

Some of you don’t seem capable of having an actual philosophical discussion outside of what is legal vs illegal.  Or “well this is how our laws are so they must be right”…I guess all of our laws have always been perfect.  Again, killing a 7 month unborn baby is ok in many states…but getting two chickens to fight is not ok.  But breeding horses to aggressively race for our viewing pleasure…and if they get hurt because of it and need to be killed, well that’s ok, but eating a cat is not ok.  But eating a pig is ok. 
 

I want to live in a world where you can have your morals and I can have mine…but that we don’t cater to certain people and not others when they’re literally the same thing.  And yes, if you hunt coyote on BLM land then you leave them to rot…they go back to nature.  Or should the coyotes be protected?  If not, maybe a proper burial required after you shoot them for fun?…we could regulate how deep the hole needs to be, a required head stone, whatever makes people feel better.  Maybe if we hit a raccoon on the road we should have to stop and bury it…maybe report it since that might be a crime because the animal had a “right” to not be hit by a car?

If you truly believe in individual liberty then you have to ask yourself uncomfortable questions at times.  Oh and enjoy that steak dinner or chicken sandwich next time!…you heartless person you lol.

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, just say so. You aren't coming off as obvious as you think you are.

 

So... is there a difference between killing a human in a war and killing them to steal their car? Why

 

Is there a moral difference between killing a deer for food, and drowning a cat in a pond because you like the sounds they make as they die? Why?

[hindsight2020]

apropos of nothing, this "legal vs moral" debate reminded of a skit with ol' billy Burr, about people remarking it's legal for stay-at-home prospectors to financially scalp high earning spouses in divorce:  a woman in the audience smugly throws the rationalization: "well, that's what the law says!"  and Billy goes : "yeah? 100 years ago I could beat you with a broomstick for backtalking! ....tHat's wHat tHe lAw sAiD".  May not "win" an argument in nerd debate club, but he's a winner in my book 😄 

 

 

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, just say so. You aren't coming off as obvious as you think you are.

 

So... is there a difference between killing a human in a war and killing them to steal their car? Why

 

Is there a moral difference between killing a deer for food, and drowning a cat in a pond because you like the sounds they make as they die? Why?

Depends on how bad you need that car I suppose.  A lot of people get killed in war that I’m sure didn’t necessarily need to die for objectives to be achieved.

And though I’m morally against bringing drawn out suffering to an animal, for some people it’s what they want to do.  Like I said a while back, I don’t support what this DoD guy did…but it does beg the question of why things are legal and why things aren’t.

As for this being a philosophical discussion, I thought that was obvious but I guess it wasn’t…next time I’ll say so.

[jice]

59 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, just say so. You aren't coming off as obvious as you think you are.

 

So... is there a difference between killing a human in a war and killing them to steal their car? Why

 

Is there a moral difference between killing a deer for food, and drowning a cat in a pond because you like the sounds they make as they die? Why?

Homeslice just wants to drink a beer, fvck his horse, and catch an episode of “will it euthanize.”

Why are we picking on him?
 

 

[HeloDude]

3 minutes ago, jice said:

Homeslice just wants to drink a beer, fvck his horse, and catch an episode of “will it euthanize.”

Why are we picking on him?
 

 

Nah…you just can’t have a conversation outside of your own emotions.  I used to be that way a long time ago.  How was that steak dinner or chicken sandwich the other day?

.

[jice]

14 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Nah…you just can’t have a conversation outside of your own emotions.  I used to be that way a long time ago.  How was that steak dinner or chicken sandwich the other day?

.

Lighten up. 
 

Delicious? I don’t share your belief; don’t see your point. 
 

Like I said, weird hill. If that’s the one you choose to look down on us from, I don’t think many will bother to charge it. 
 

Cheers. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by jice
Meat is delicious.

[HeloDude]

29 minutes ago, jice said:

Lighten up. 
 

Delicious? I don’t share your belief; don’t see your point. 
 

Like I said, weird hill. If that’s the one you choose to look down on us from, I don’t think many will bother to charge it. 
 

Cheers. 

Careful…some will call you a murderer.  Oh and it’s a good thing to actually think outside societal of current cultural norms.  If we didn’t, gay marriage would still be illegal.  Just one example of many.

https://www.peta.org/media/news-releases/new-peta-billboards-proclaim-meat-is-murder/

[Lord Ratner]

35 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Depends on how bad you need that car I suppose.  A lot of people get killed in war that I’m sure didn’t necessarily need to die for objectives to be achieved.

And though I’m morally against bringing drawn out suffering to an animal, for some people it’s what they want to do.  Like I said a while back, I don’t support what this DoD guy did…but it does beg the question of why things are legal and why things aren’t.

As for this being a philosophical discussion, I thought that was obvious but I guess it wasn’t…next time I’ll say so.

 

Okay, now this is a bit confusing. You don't consider rights and laws to be synonymous, but now it's also not a moral connection?

 

What exactly is a right? If the animal does not have a right to avoid unnecessary suffering, what makes it immoral?

46 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

but it does beg the question of why things are legal and why things aren’t.

Why they are or aren't is simple, because whatever the ruling legislative body is, decided to make it a law.

I assume you meant what should or should not be a law, and in that case I think the general guiding principle is that things that have a negative effect on the society, which results in people uninvolved in the act having a reduced level of human flourishing, are things that we should make illegal. Murder is a pretty obvious one. Driving over the speed limit is less obvious, however the in arguable correlation with accident severity makes for an acceptable argument.

Drug use is another great example, and one where the libertarians start crashing into the limitations of their own philosophy, mostly because libertarians have the luxury of not living around drug addicts. Do what you want with your own body starts to fall apart when the drug you are taking causes psychotic outbreaks that end with bystanders being hurt or killed. Punishing the drug user after the fact does little to help the person who was killed her their family. On secondary level, accepting that we have chosen to live in a society that provides services for those who are most in need, allowing people to take a drug that will overwhelmingly put them in a position of need is a threat to the solvency of that system. Thus drug laws.

 

Prostitution is yet another area where those in favor of legalization have seldom had any direct experience with actual prostitution. There are some places like Amsterdam that have done what they can to clean up the industry, yet even they have struggled. And somewhere like America, the world of prostitution is one of the clearest examples of predators taking advantage of prey. Yet again, libertarians operate on assumptions that do not jive with reality. In this case, that all humans are capable of protecting themselves. This is simply not true, and many of the women who "voluntarily" sell their bodies are usually under the predatory influence of a sociopathic male. Again, it's a bit difficult to frame this within the context of rights and morals because you have not yet defined what you consider a right. If anything you just confused me more.

 

Oh, and they are also usually hopelessly addicted to drugs, another inconvenient reality for the legalization movement.

37 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Depends on how bad you need that car I suppose.  A lot of people get killed in war that I’m sure didn’t necessarily need to die for objectives to be achieved.

This is either moral relativism or you're intentionally dodging the question, which means you aren't at all interested in the philosophical discussion. When someone talks about stealing a car, do you feel it is reasonable to assume they are referring to someone who desperately needed the car for a moral use? If you tell me that you are honestly posing that as a rational response, I will believe you, but I will have to be much more meticulous in explaining arguments that normal people do not usually require clarifications on.

 

As for the war hypothetical, was that also confusing? Did you not understand the concept of killing someone as an act of war in accordance with societally accepted rules of warfare? Again, I just need to know how pedantic you require me to be in order to have this philosophical discussion.

 

Not going to lie, considering this:

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Some of you don’t seem capable of having an actual philosophical discussion outside of what is legal vs illegal.

It really doesn't seem like you are engaging in good faith. 

[HeloDude]

8 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

 

Okay, now this is a bit confusing. You don't consider rights and laws to be synonymous, but now it's also not a moral connection?

 

What exactly is a right? If the animal does not have a right to avoid unnecessary suffering, what makes it immoral?

Why they are or aren't is simple, because whatever the ruling legislative body is, decided to make it a law.

I assume you meant what should or should not be a law, and in that case I think the general guiding principle is that things that have a negative effect on the society, which results in people uninvolved in the act having a reduced level of human flourishing, are things that we should make illegal. Murder is a pretty obvious one. Driving over the speed limit is less obvious, however the in arguable correlation with accident severity makes for an acceptable argument.

Drug use is another great example, and one where the libertarians start crashing into the limitations of their own philosophy, mostly because libertarians have the luxury of not living around drug addicts. Do what you want with your own body starts to fall apart when the drug you are taking causes psychotic outbreaks that end with bystanders being hurt or killed. Punishing the drug user after the fact does little to help the person who was killed her their family. On secondary level, accepting that we have chosen to live in a society that provides services for those who are most in need, allowing people to take a drug that will overwhelmingly put them in a position of need is a threat to the solvency of that system. Thus drug laws.

 

Prostitution is yet another area where those in favor of legalization have seldom had any direct experience with actual prostitution. There are some places like Amsterdam that have done what they can to clean up the industry, yet even they have struggled. And somewhere like America, the world of prostitution is one of the clearest examples of predators taking advantage of prey. Yet again, libertarians operate on assumptions that do not jive with reality. In this case, that all humans are capable of protecting themselves. This is simply not true, and many of the women who "voluntarily" sell their bodies are usually under the predatory influence of a sociopathic male. Again, it's a bit difficult to frame this within the context of rights and morals because you have not yet defined what you consider a right. If anything you just confused me more.

 

Oh, and they are also usually hopelessly addicted to drugs, another inconvenient reality for the legalization movement.

This is either moral relativism or you're intentionally dodging the question, which means you aren't at all interested in the philosophical discussion. When someone talks about stealing a car, do you feel it is reasonable to assume they are referring to someone who desperately needed the car for a moral use? If you tell me that you are honestly posing that as a rational response, I will believe you, but I will have to be much more meticulous in explaining arguments that normal people do not usually require clarifications on.

 

As for the war hypothetical, was that also confusing? Did you not understand the concept of killing someone as an act of war in accordance with societally accepted rules of warfare? Again, I just need to know how pedantic you require me to be in order to have this philosophical discussion.

 

Not going to lie, considering this:

It really doesn't seem like you are engaging in good faith. 

Whoa—you wrote a lot man, which I appreciate, but I don’t have the time to go over each detail.

Big picture:

If it’s something you could do on your own, by yourself on an island, it’s a right.  Now if we’re waking about what is a “government protected right” that’s a totally different animal (very little pun intended).  If the government can suspend the “right” then you never has it in the first place or you never needed the government to physically allow you to do it anyway.  Have you seen how Adams in NYC wants to suspend the “right to shelter”…yeah, that’s because it was never a right to begin with.

The truck piece—if you’re saying if the difference between you and your family staying alive or dying came down to killing someone for a truck and you wouldn’t do it then I don’t believe you…and also look what our government leaders do…they have us kill propel all day long to (theoretically) make our lives better, safer, etc.  Keep in mind that society might want to hold you responsible for taking another person’s life (because…wait for it…humans have rights).  But if you can defeat those who want to take you in then it’s irrelevant.  It’s kind of like of like during WW2…if by some weird chance Japan would have defeated the US with an unconditional surrender after we had already dropped an atomic bomb, do you not think their leaders would have tried and/or executed some of our leaders?  But the winners call the shots.  Hence why very few people were ever held accountable for atrocities committed against the Native Americans.  Trust me, it’s not because the Native Americans didn’t want to.

Prostitution and drug use should totally be legal even though I’m morally against both.  If you disagree, then when are we going to ban alcohol for the same reasons?  

So going back to the animals piece—it has been shown that we can survive without eating animals, so we do we need to do it if it harms the animal?

Side discussion…kind of messed up how I can donate a kidney for free but if I’m not allowed to sell mine if I agree to the terms.  With both examples, I’m out one kidney, but with one, I’m at least getting something else out of it.

[JeremiahWeed]

On 10/9/2023 at 12:37 AM, HeloDude said:

Ever go hunt coyotes?  They’re not “protected” and I know people who shoot them for the fun of it.  Sure one can argue that they’re destructive, but I can make that same argument for a lot of wild animals that are “protected”.

I love pets…I just don’t love hypocrisy when it comes to the law. 

I have not hunted coyotes personally.  Same for feral pigs or other over-populated pests and predators that pose a threat to livestock, personal pets, crops, etc.  It may be semantics, but I don't called culling those kinds of threats to the above mentioned assets "hunting for sport".  There's certainly not any hypocrisy when compared with a dog fighting scheme with losers being strangled.  Really? 

Me going out with a valid license and taking a white-tail for my own consumption or to donate to someone in need and reporting the harvest to proper authorities so I don't exceed my limit is hunting for sport in my opinion.  Our ancestors hunting for food to survive is just "hunting".  😁  Discussing the "rights" of those feral pigs or predators like coyotes is a non-starter when their population has become a threat and been allowed to increase to such levels, sometimes by the misguided but well-meaning actions of animal rights advocates and politicians.

Equating the dog fighting idiot with battery cables to farmers, landowners or helpful gun-owners going out to reduce the over-population of a species that is causing harm is pretty far off the mark.

 

[kaputt]

I reverse read the last two pages of this thread and was genuinely shocked to see that HeloDude’s multi post libertarian flex stemmed from essentially defending a dude who killed dogs with jumper cables. 

What the actual fuck?

And libertarians wonder why they get no traction politically. 

[brabus]

I read the last couple pages and got roughly this out of it…

[Clark Griswold]

The family just keeps giving…

Frank Biden Suggests He Was Hacked After Naked Selfie Surfaces on Porn Site

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/10/10/frank-biden-suggests-he-was-hacked-after-naked-selfie-surfaces-on-porn-site/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arg]

 

[HeloDude]

12 hours ago, kaputt said:

I reverse read the last two pages of this thread and was genuinely shocked to see that HeloDude’s multi post libertarian flex stemmed from essentially defending a dude who killed dogs with jumper cables. 

What the actual fuck?

And libertarians wonder why they get no traction politically. 

Then you didn’t read very well…I said I don’t support him or what he did and I find it immoral.  But I find a lot of things immoral that are not illegal.  And if animals can be killed for our enjoyment and pleasure, why are some protected and not others?  If I find abortion immoral should every woman who has an abortion be put in jail?

[FourFans]

57 minutes ago, arg said:

 

I'm not good enough to be in the army, but smashing the large explosive rocket like that seems unsmart.  Where's our local arty dude?

[Lawman]

I'm not good enough to be in the army, but smashing the large explosive rocket like that seems unsmart.  Where's our local arty dude?

It won’t go off or launch or anything… SRBs are fired by electrical impulse (Needs some level of voltage).


The danger is when they do launch all that abuse will have cracked the solid booster in some way so as it launches/burns it will explode. Not as likely since the way they are hitting it is mostly in line with the booster propellant so it’s transmitting energy through the length of the motor but still.

Same reason you can’t use a rocket/missile that’s green dropped more than 3 ft. It’s actually a warning in most TMs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uhhello]

In my crew chief dasy, at PSAB we had a weapons troop caught carving his initials + his girlfriends initials into the 9's rocket motors.....

[ViperMan]

On 10/4/2023 at 4:20 PM, HeloDude said:

Ummm, I’m all about hunting animals and then eating them.  And I don’t know how many people who like to hunt are trying to kill people and eat them.  A little devils advocate here, but I think you need a better argument.

I got no problem with meat (sts) or hunting for food. I do have a problem with intentional disregard for life and causing suffering for the sake of a more powerful entity's pleasure. Surely you can distinguish this. Tell me you can see the difference between these two things. FFS.

On 10/4/2023 at 5:06 PM, HeloDude said:

Words matter though.  And there are millions of people in this country that do make that argument…PETA members for example.  There are even those that are telling us that the Kentucky Derby is cruel to animals.  I don’t support what this guy did whatsoever, but if you can kill animals for sport alone, it only goes to show that there is no such thing as “animal rights”.

No animals don't have "rights" in the same sense that humans do. But then again, there is no golden tablet floating out there in the universe that enshrines what rights humans have either. But I also know you know the difference between trophy hunting and torturing an animal to death. Those things are different. I know you know that.

[ViperMan]

On 10/8/2023 at 8:57 AM, Lord Ratner said:

Why are people in the military allowed to murder, yet I cannot murder my neighbor for playing loud music? 

Ummm, point of order. People in the military are not allowed to murder.

murder

1 of 2

noun

mur·der ˈmər-dər 

 

pluralmurders

Synonyms of murder

: the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person

[gearhog]

11 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Ummm, point of order. People in the military are not allowed to murder.

Hmm... Debatable.