3RU7AL

Of that I'm already aware. Fiat is but a mere note of debt. The money to which fiat is indexed is owned by individuals. And when I say that tax-paying individuals are collateral, I'm not speaking of recompense in the form of fiat money (which may be backed at best by 10% of capital reserve) I'm speaking of recompense in the form of labor. Each tax-paying citizen bears a share of public debt, and they must "work it off." That is, in practice, backing the fiat.

And as such, they would appear to have inherently contradictory incentives.

No, the basis for government is rule.

"Serve and protect" is nothing more than propaganda. If that were its purpose, it would act as a private contractor, not an overly-centralized public institution.

The only difference between modern government (democracy) and, let's say, feudalism is that the populace believes its ingratiated in the hegemony. Governments historically have sought one thing: rule.

Perhaps we should consider some hypothetical system where every citizen is assigned (immutable, non-transferable) ownership of some small, fertile, plot of land.

Who is the "everyone else"? Are you under the presumption that land ownership in the absence of government would be concentrated among a select few?

...in which the liberal left has orchestrated a situation where the leader of the country, the President, is presumed guilty by accusation without any due process by Adam Shiff and the Democrat Party.

This wing of the government is very corrupt, IMO, and is corrupting a massive number of US inhabitants by its use of the media and propaganda.

Its policy of ignoring justice by rewarding illegal activity (i.e., Illegal immigration, abortion on demand or even promoting killing the newborn after birth, drug use, etc),

...ignoring poverty to seize power, and finding any means necessary to obtain power is wrong.

IMO, your country will go in one of two ways depending on the next election. Either this corruption in the deep state will be purged or your country will reap what it sows and head down the road to socialism and big government where the corrupt bureaucracy pads its pockets at the expense of the rest.

If it goes that way it is only a matter of time before you will see the judgment of such actions.

Throughout history, eventually, the fate of nations is decided by the evil of its people. There is a measure beyond which God brings judgment.  

God tolerates our evil actions to a point and no further. Then He judges those actions in some way.

So, your god sanctions abortion in the exact same way it sanctions storm damage.

God does not sanction abortion. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

And they create money out of thin air, so there's no need for them to steal it.

There's plenty of need for them to steal it. The money is not printed out thin-air; rather than a gold-standard, government implements a debt-standard where tax-paying citizens are the collateral. And because of the fourteenth amendment, tax paying citizens are legally bound to the resolution of this debt. What happens when a citizens refuse to pay his or her taxes? With what is law the law codified?

Please explain.

Government is at its core a coercive hegemony which undermines the discretion of individuals to act in accordance to his or her self-interests. There are no "rights" with government; only privileges. Even the process by which governments are selected (democracy, dictatorship, monarchy--which is still a dictatorship, etc) focus on the elimination of individual dissent. Every practice of government therefore is an extension of this undermining if a single individual cannot exit government.

Human rights activists are just busy-bodies who should mind their own business.

What's the human right being violated in the proprietor's exercise of his or her discretion?

Miller concludes, "So, we have international and extreme violence and unusually decadent (and destructive/dangerous) religious practices...." And with this in mind, let's ask the next question: Had the Canaanites been left alone, what would our world be like today?

I can expand on this with a number of reasons and some biblical quotes but I'm running short on time tonight. I will try and remember to follow up on the saving of the virgin girls tomorrow. 

Politically the Canaanites were aggressive and warlike.

Religiously we have this data:

...the list of Canaanite "religious" practices included:

Child sacrifice (with at least some of it in fire)

Incest

Bestiality

Homosexuality

Cultic prostitution--both male and female

God has said, You shall not kill/murder.

And yet this same god demanded repeatedly that "his people" kill every man, woman, and male child of their enemies (saving all of the virgin females to serve as slaves of course).

The OT explains the reason why God brought judgment on them time and time again. These people did evil in God's sight.

They threatened Israel and their worship of God. By conquering the land God eliminated the threats that would have continually come from these people. 

Again, if God takes an innocent life He will restore it.

Or perhaps, throw stowaways overboard?

That's at the discretion of the ship's owner and/or captain.

The government isn't justified in anything.

The government appropriates lands with stolen money.

One person went through all the trouble of formatted headings, effective use of bullet points, etc. Whereas the other had walls of text, missing punctuation, missing capitalization, etc.; while he was still understandable, the comparative presentation in extreme cases like this IMO should be open for a merit of S&G.

If an individual has purchased land, or entered an arrangement where he or she would either rent or mortgage a home, then no institution (even government) should be justifiable in deporting said individual regardless of destination so long as the proprietorship or contract is maintained. With that said, individuals do have the capacity to expel anyone from their lands regardless of the consequences the expelled may face as a result of not being on their lands.

This morning I saw a fine example of a time when someone would be awarded it on this basis: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1601/social-democratic-states-in-europe-socialist-gun-grabbers-are-not-anti-gun

The point is instead that it's nobody's business except for each individual sovereign mother.

And this must always be the case, even after gestation.

Does a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus have any right to one's person?  At what point and by what authority do the gain and or earn that right?

Not authority; morality. It's gained through the adherence of individualist philosophy. So yes, the zygote/embryo/fetus has a right to its person just as much as an infant, child, adolescent, and adult does.

From my position as a voting mod my opinion is that this would qualify as a personal attack and an as hominem - as it is specifically implying that there is a material problem with the person (dumb due to being a movie star)

I don't have many ways in which to counter your statements (not that I would since I cant argue against the fact that you believe everything you just listed.) That being said, I'll state this:

I argue that all individuals are sovereign,

...and that the laws of the lands are currently subverting them.

Instead of letting law reflect a moral economy, common law especially deludes groups into Hobbesian traps, creating a fundamentally adversarial environment.

More to the point, in any interaction between individuals, to maximize--and I'm using this term particularly--any transaction conducted between them, their self-interest ought to/must be respected. Self-interest is the starting point to any interaction.

Furthermore, I'm not going to argue that the zygote/embryo/fetus isn't a life,

...not only because I firmly believe that is not the case, but also it isn't necessary to sustain consistently a pro-choice position.

That is, whether one concedes that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a life [like a tumor or a parasite], it doesn't have a right to its mother's womb. 

Gestation is its mother's gift, not the unborn child's entitlement.

By the same token, I would also argue that rearing is its mother's and/or father's gift, not the infant/child/adolescent's entitlement. 

While some would argue that the termination of pregnancy is tantamount to murder, I would argue otherwise. While in some cases, I'd argue it is, in the case where it's merely expelled, the death of the fetus isn't a result of its mother's malice aforethought, but the undeveloped physiology of the zygote/embryo/fetus. The fetus's incapacity to survive outside of its mother's womb is an unfortunate consequence of nature.

The right to one's person is derivative of individual sovereignty;

...to undermine any tenet of said principle is tantamount to undermining the principle in its entirety.

So despite my personal objection to abortion itself, my sustenance of the pro-choice position is a necessity to my adherence to individual sovereignty.

imo personal attacks are ones that contain either explicit insults directed at an individual; or contain explicitly derogatory or insulting language about some material aspect of the person.

The best scenario that explains the level of expected behavior is probably that of an amateur football team. You won’t all like each other, you wouldn’t start a fight in a game, or screen obscenities at a team mate; but you can understand if someone insults another player of frustration is running high - the manager would tell them both to calm down as the goal is everyone pulling together to win. Like wise in the locker room if you took issue at how another play worked in a game, I think it would be fair to go into detail of what a player does wrong, to explain how it’s bad as to be expressively negative as long as it goes both ways

So any obligation a parent bears his or her child is at his or her discretion? Fair enough.

You need to begin with a dictionary and stop your childish mind games. Maybe a childrens dictionary and work your way to a mature adult dictionary.

So your argument is a lexically semantic one; that is, equality is fair because the dictionary states as much.

In the same way it is illegal to cut down a tree without a permit, but it is not illegal to crush an acorn.

Would you, 3RU7AL, who argues in favor a woman's privacy endorse the position that a mother bears an obligation to her child, and must transfer her obligation by legally sanctioned means?

Not necessarily.

In times and or lands where women are and or were legally considered property, then they have or would have no personal-right-to-privacy.

Does your position reflect decisions of law?

Your logic is particularly twisted and false here - I am being critical of your toxic and obnoxious behavior: and your seeming inability to make meaningful defense of your position, I am belittling your strategy of using accusations in lieu of arguments, and I am criticizing your unwillingness to argue the things you do resoundingly claim to believe in, whilst on a website dedicated to arguing.

A statement like, "You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid"

<br>

Sure, it's neutral.

Pray tell, what, exactly such a comment is intended to produce, if not implicit invalidation of that person's arguments on the topic at hand by attacking them (and or their hypothetical credentials) personally (while ignoring their arguments wholesale).

And here you concede the point.

An attack is a personal attack if it is directed at the person, rather than their arguments.

An ad hominem, taken as a whole, is directed at a person's arguments, it just happens to also contain a reference (an illogical one) to their person.

It is essentially saying:

"Your argument is wrong because of X."

It is a statement about their argument.

That X is an illogical reference to their person is what makes it the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

That it is ultimately a statement about their argument,

...and since there is no requirement that X be derogatory, means that ad hominems are not forbidden by the CoC.

Calling someone a "master hair splitter" is derogatory.

Another special case I believe would be warranted is No Contest debates. When someone spews off topic gibberish without addressing the topic but doesn't technically forfeit, I see no benefit in demanding voters put in significantly greater effort than the losing debater.

I also have a fix for this, CIVIL DEBATE RULE 3 - [LINK]

That said, if you're right you can easily prove it by having several debates under your proposed system (just state a rule in the description that judges can only reinforce the mutually agreed outcome from the debaters, and are otherwise limited to voting a tie).

Of the thousand debates here, you suggest two debates are the norm to be expected (not even getting into how one of those was from years ago on a dead site). Assuming you multiple it by 100, it is still massively in the minority, thus "it would not work" as I previously stated.

The text I responded to with the weird remark, was the "silver rule" you were suggesting. Strangely, you are now now agreeing it is too problematic, so are suggesting we should use it instead because it is so much less problematic than itself...

It is a tumor and or parasite of the mother if the overwhelming majority of its biomass is the result of the food she ingests, up to and until that mass of cells can ingest its own food.

But God has our time (v. 26) in His hands. 

God has said, You shall not kill/murder.

The historical accuracy of an old book does not support any supernatural claims within that same book.

History is a confirmation of what was spoken before the event happened. Is that a reasonable statement? 

What kind of prophecies about real events were predicted beforehand and came about as said?

The privacy of which I speak is not in reference to physicality. I mean her finances and her labor, and her discretion in choosing those whom she provides it.

Why is she obligated to a foreign mass of cells and not her own, presuming the veracity of your premise?

(And please don't state: inside = non-citizen; outside = citizen.)

Speak to the nature of the obligation and the justification of its imposition.

Yes.  100%.

And this precedes law, correct?

Now, if you want reasonable evidence that the biblical revelation is true and logical to believe I can make that argument too.

He also will not take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place, His presence. 

I am saying that nothing happens without God's permissive or discretive will.

Your logic is particularly twisted and false here - I am being critical of your toxic and obnoxious behavior: and your seeming inability to make meaningful defense of your position, I am belittling your strategy of using accusations in lieu of arguments, and I am criticizing your unwillingness to argue the things you do resoundingly claim to believe in, whilst on a website dedicated to arguing.

Everything above the cut was off topic.

It seems to meet this one,

Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitude

It is critical because it attempts to dismiss their presented arguments out-of-hand.

Critical statements about arguments are not forbidden.

It is disrespectful because it attempts to paint the individual as unreliable and or disingenuous.

Incorrect.

"You're always fit and healthy, so your advice about what to do when a person is sick isn't valid."

It's still, Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitude, because it is a statement clearly intended to disqualify arguments by sniping the individual speaker personally, and furthermore it is beyond the accuser's epistemological limits, making it a bald assertion.

Irrelevant. Attacking people's arguments is allowed.

You did everything I say you did and everyone knows it.

I'll phrase it this way: do you believe maintaining the position that a woman's privacy is paramount,

...even to the extent of relinquishing/shirking any responsibility to the sustenance she may bear her unborn child,

...without which said unborn child/fetus/embryo/zygote etc. would likely die,,

...is (logically/philosophically/ethically) consistent with maintaining the position that she is bound to assume responsibility for a born child/infant--

...privacy be damned--

...until she can transfer her obligations to an institution/individual who would relieve her of her duty to the infant as its parent?