Total posts: 14,582
-->
@secularmerlin
I think there are probably a lot of Athogists out there who just don't realize they're already members!
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm considering calling myself an Athogist because I don't believe in Thog.
That way perhaps I can establish some common ground with our more religious leaning citizens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes, 100% fairWhy?
If they pose a credible threat to themselves or other members of society, then they should be isolated and treated humanely in order to facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society.
You don't have to blame a rabid dog for its actions in order to take steps to mitigate its potential danger to society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
1. My neighbor has an armed bomb in his basement that can take out a city block; up until the moment the bomb explodes, my neighbor has done me no harm. However, if that bomb were to detonate, there's no question that I would be affected.
This scenario is beyond your epistemological limits.
And veiled threat? In what context? A veiled threat is oxymoronic--if it's "veiled" then which intention is my threat "stating"? Give an example you believe fits my description.
This is a veiled threat - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTFV78kON9o
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes, 100% fair.Determinism as an axiom, do you consider judging people based on actions they have no control over fair?
In exactly the same way that it is fair to incarcerate a rabid dog.
There is no reason to "blame the dog" for its rabidity.
There is no reason to "punish the dog" for its rabidity.
But it is imperative that we facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society, and a small part of that involves mitigating public risk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If I initiate any sort of physical conflict particularly aggression, I automatically risk my person even my life in an altercation.
So, if you're rude to me or say something that sounds like a veiled threat, I can kill you to mitigate my risk?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Would you consider taxes are form of government coercion?
Taxes are primarily a social-contract that provides services that facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society.
Without public roads, public hospitals, public fire and police departments, and public schools we'd basically be living in the wild west.
So, yes, taxes are coercive to those who refuse to pay them, but the whole point of government is to facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society.
Would you consider rules anti-antithetical to freedom?
Somewhat. Although without rules (wild west) force becomes the rule and is often MORE despotic than LAW. For example, [LINK]
Unbridled freedom inevitably devolves into despotism. In order to maximize freedom, there must be some system of LAW.
Determinism as an axiom, do you consider judging people based on actions they have no control over fair?
Do you believe it is fair to incarcerate a rabid dog?
Do you believe it is fair to blame a broken cog for the failure of an engine to function properly?
There are practical, utilitarian reasons to remove dangerous actors from society (to mitigate harm and facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society), even if the dangerous actors themselves have no-real-choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You brought it up. [POST#116]
And if you think about it, the principle does seem to apply.
(IFF) a woman's womb is her sovereign territory (THEN) a doctor (border guard) can kill a non-citizen within that territory and suffer no legal repercussions.
Why should a zygote/embryo/fetus be afforded greater legal protections (from death) than a fully grown human being standing on a different piece of dirt?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No it isn't.
It certainly is, according to that very recent supreme court case. It just depends on where they're standing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It isn't legal to kill non citizens.
Apparently it is legal to kill non citizens. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You can't charge someone with the "crime" of abortion without violating due process (violating personal privacy).correct
Ok, so your main objection seems to be the involvement of a doctor?
And you don't consider the zygote/embryo/fetus a citizen with full human rights and legal protection?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You are the one fantasizing about registering fetuses doood.
I'm the one pointing out that you can't have laws banning abortion (based on the hypothesis that life/citizenship-begins-at-conception) without ALSO investigating every miscarriage as a potential case of murder/manslaughter.
Enforcing such a proposed policy (banning abortion) necessarily violates personal-privacy on all levels and swings the door wide open to government dossiers that contain all of your medical records and computer files and credit card transactions and banking records and driving habits being laid bare (without warrant) at the whim of law enforcement.
Look, a lot of people do things that I don't like. Let's say hypothetically that you worship Thog. You meet every week with your pals who love Thog. Your Thog meeting-place is gigantic and is very profitable, but you pay no taxes on it because Thog is registered as a charity/religion. I believe my government shouldn't be subsidizing Thog worshipers. I believe that Thog is a scam (not a charity) and at-best some sort of social-club and they are stealing money from the state by claiming a tax exception. You are free to worship Thog as much as you want, as long as it's not on my personal-real-estate-property, but if you purchase land and build your Thog meeting-place on it, YOU SHOULD PAY YOUR TAXES, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.
Look, a lot of people do things that I don't like. Let's say hypothetically that you worship Satan. You meet every week with your pals who love Satan. Your Satan meeting-place is gigantic and is very profitable, but you pay no taxes on it because Satan is registered as a charity/religion. I believe my government shouldn't be subsidizing Satan worshipers. I believe that Satan is a scam (not a charity) and at-best some sort of social-club and they are stealing money from the state by claiming a tax exception. You are free to worship Satan as much as you want, as long as it's not on my personal-real-estate-property, but if you purchase land and build your Satan meeting-place on it, YOU SHOULD PAY YOUR TAXES, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.
It also seems incoherent to lock people in psychiatric hospitals if they say they hear voices telling them what to do, and at the same time venerate people who publicly proclaim that some unseen god gave them a vision for America. The next time you hear someone say, "god spoke to me", just imagine what you'd think if that same person said, "Thog spoke to me".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm sorry, I can't look past what you are defending. You are defending child sacrifice on the grounds that it is a privacy issue.
I'm not defending anything (except personal-privacy and legal coherence).
I've never had an abortion and I don't believe anyone should ever have an abortion.
HOweVER, I AM STRONGLY PRO-PERSONAL-PRIVACY and STRONGLY ANTI-GOVERNMENT-OVER-REACH.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The corporations funnel money into a shell company registered as a CHARITY.So once again, who's putting on the con? The legislators who presume to represent their base, or the lobbyists who represent their companies?
These are con-artists.
The legislators they sucker into thinking they've got great ideas that will appeal to their voters are morons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so now we just need to hire investigators to determine IF each miscarriage was theoretically preventable!due process
You can't charge someone with the "crime" of abortion without violating due process (violating personal privacy).
If this woman had gone to see a doctor immediately after discovering she was pregnant, they COULD HAVE prevented her miscarriage!D.N.R. healthcare proxy
IF DNR protects a mother from potential criminal charges associated with miscarriage, then DNR also protects the same mother from potential criminal charges for abortion.
If this woman had stopped drinking alcohol after she was impregnated, she COULD HAVE prevented her miscarriage!I don't think that could be proven definitely.
I'm pretty sure it's considered "reckless endangerment".
If this woman had NOT taken one of those "morning after pills", she COULD HAVE prevented her miscarriage!ban the pill, however taking the pill is an intentional, willful act so...
Ok,
there is patient/doctor confidentiality which you've talked about but I don't believe that extends to the willful actions of a doctor performing and abortion.
Please explain how patient/doctor confidentiality applies to all patient/doctor interactions EXCEPT one.
In other words they could make it illegal for Doctors to perform non medically need abortions and still maintain the confidentiality for women who have them illegally.
What logical principle would permit such an EXCEPTION?
If miscarriages are permissible and medically supervised abortions are not, then people will do what they've done for thousands and years and simply induce miscarriages WITHOUT a medical professional's supervision. Or fly to a country where the procedure is safe and legal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Abortion has EVERYTHING to do with privacy.Abortion has nothing to do with privacy, this is ridiculous.
Roe-v-Wade is predicated on Griswold and Eisenstadt which are specifically about PRIVACY.
In Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court built on precedent of Griswold and Eisenstadt to rule that laws banning abortion violated individuals' privacy rights.
[The Court] Having defined a certain zone of privacy around marriage and family decisions, it was a comparatively small step to include abortion within this area into which government (both state and federal) could not go. [LINK]
(IFF) you insert the state into private family decisions (THEN) spanking your child is criminal assault
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In 2019, do you really believe you have privacy anyway?You don't have to answer that, it is kind of a half joke.
The fact that personal-privacy is under overwhelming threat is no reason to voluntarily capitulate.
In-fact I would consider it imperative that personal-privacy should be defended now, more than ever.
Do you want to report to the state every time you copulate in order to preserve the rights of the life-that-begins-at-conception?
Do you want to report to the state every time a woman has a miscarriage so it can be investigated as a potential manslaughter or murder case?
Why do you spend so much time and energy attempting to defend the life-that-begins-at-conception, but turn a blind eye to the hoards of helpless immigrant children?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, you are.You are comparing human sacrifice to not being watched when you are using the bathroom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
well by intentional I mean it was caused or of un-natural events.
Ok, UN-natural UN-intentional miscarriage = manslaughter.
Cool.
Alright, so now we just need to hire investigators to determine IF each miscarriage was theoretically preventable!
If this woman had gone to see a doctor immediately after discovering she was pregnant, they COULD HAVE prevented her miscarriage!
If this woman had stopped drinking alcohol after she was impregnated, she COULD HAVE prevented her miscarriage!
If this woman had NOT taken one of those "morning after pills", she COULD HAVE prevented her miscarriage!
NOW WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE EVERY MISCARRIAGE IS REPORTED TO THE INVESTIGATORS SO WE CAN START THROWING WOMEN IN PRISON!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Manslaughter = UN-intentional death of another citizenfrom what you have specified now it is intentional miscarriages = manslaughter therefore it would be logical to say if abortion = murder than intentional miscarriages = manslaughter. I think I would agree with that, for now, I'll think on it more.
Murder = IN-tentional death of another citizen
Intentional Manslaughter = MURDER
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Trust, much like love, is a choice not an emotion.The door is always open. It is of course, your choice.
Error-slave can only make errors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) miscarriage = manslaughtervoluntary abortion is an act, caused by someone, adverb or verb depending on how it's used, intentional, willful, un-natural (non medically necessary is what I'm specifically talking about)
Ok, so do you believe that abortion = murder ?
miscarriage = natural death, not willful, intentional or cause by someone, medical condition
Not always.
For example, (IFF) an zygote/embryo/fetus = citizen/human/child (AND) (IFF) that citizen/human/child DIES under your care (THEN) that death must be investigated as a potential case of criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, and or intentional homicide.
Miscarriage is often the result of malnutrition (high calorie/low nutrient diet), strenuous physical activity or anxiety, or drug and or alcohol use.
miscarriage is no different then a fatal heart attack, stroke, other medical condition.
If someone under your care (especially a child) suffers a fatal heart attack, stroke, or other medical condition resulting in their death (or permanent deformation/impairment), that death (or mutilation) must be investigated as a potential case of criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, and or intentional homicide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Invasion of personal privacy is an abomination, whether done publicly or privately. Whether anyone knows about it or not.
Any "moral theory" that fails to recognize this can only come from satanic influence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
How can anything be considered illegal when you have con-artists writing their own laws?How are they con-artists?
The law should be logically coherent and fair (no respector of specific person's or entities).
When corporations pay legislators (with campaign contributions and endorsements and free PR) to pass laws (that the corporations wrote themselves) that benefit their own interests, they are making a mockery of the people's faith in the law. [LINK] and [LINK]
This legislation is clearly in conflict with the function of a peaceful and civil society.Peaceful society? Doesn't/Shouldn't the state arbitrate the standards which bring about a peaceful society?
The law should be logically coherent and fair (no respector of specific person's or entities).
Does your "individualism" encourage people to shoot everyone they're afraid of with impunity?No, only those who'd initiate aggression (or threat thereof) which necessitates and effective end.
What about implicit threats? What about perceived threats? Are "pre-emptive strikes" legitimate responses to implicit threats, or are they naked "acts of aggression"?
And furthermore, doesn't the law itself derive its legitimacy through threat of force?
Is your "individualism" logically-compatible with a legal framework?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
In other words, the biggest scaredy-cat wins!!Well fear can inform the imperative to defends one's person can't it?
It is also a major contributor to OPPRESSION.
And by the way, if some dude tries to kiss you at a bar, you can kill them too!!That's public knowledge.
How does that mesh with your "individualism" moral framework?
Are some people "more" individual than others?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Excuse me, there are so many problems in the world, and you are choosing to advocate invasion of a woman's privacy (womb).
Forgive me if no argument you make will convince me that this isn't issue that requires you to be a piece of schmidt to stand up for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The only difference is, I sustain that the solution should be subscribed by willful individuals not prescribed by legal force.
Are you familiar with Voluntarism? [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Can you imagine the implications if "the big guy's" death was ruled a suicide?
It could also be considered a suicide if, under Athias' hypothetical moral standard, "the aggressor ('the big guy') is responsible for any and all defensive actions taken against them".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I personally think if we are going to have laws at all, abortion is one of those things that should be illegal.
What's your moral theory?
(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) miscarriage = manslaughter
(IFF) life begins at conception (THEN) the state must be notified at the moment of every possible conception (so the nascent citizen can be protected).
(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) the mother should be convicted of murder.
In terms of willfulness, first degree murderers must have the specific intent to end a human life. This intent does not necessarily have to correspond to the actual victim. A murder in which the killer intends to kill but kills the wrong person or a random person would still constitute first degree murder. Furthermore, under many state laws, killing through action showing a depraved indifference to human life can qualify as murder in the first degree.
The possible first degree murder sentences vary widely by state. In some states, such as Florida, all first degree murder convictions bring either the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Other states, such as California, use a two tiered sentencing structure: the first being a range of years (often up to life) in prison, and the second either life without the possibility of parole or the death penalty (in states that allow it). Which tier of sentence the court hands down typically depends on whether the prosecution can prove any of a host of aggravating factors. [LINK]
(IFF) miscarriage = manslaughter (THEN) the mother should be convicted of manslaughter.
The base sentence for involuntary manslaughter under federal sentencing guidelines is a 10 to 16 month prison sentence, which increases if the crime was committed through an act of reckless conduct. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
That sounds reasonable and consistent with my understanding of a coherent moral theory.the guy in Florida got 20 years for killing the big guy who shoved him to the ground, I'm not so sure the laws are as loose as you are describing.
Can you imagine the implications if "the big guy's" death was ruled a suicide?
Have you ever seen the movie "the purge"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
She bears me no obligation because it's neither my child, nor my womb, just as she bears you no obligation.
Well stated.
If she's committed a tort, then the parties in dispute are the mother and the fetus. And even if you assume the fetus's proxy, you'd have to justify and identify the arrangement or contract which creates the obligation.
Good point. You must establish legal-standing (ostensibly by violating the mother's privacy, and by extension, the privacy of all mothers).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Error-slave wants to be a god-slave.
You claim to be a god-slave but error-slave is not convinced.
The Hindu claims to be a god-slave but error-slave is not convinced.
The Muslim claims to be a god-slave but error-slave is not convinced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
isn't that true with any self defense claim...
No. Historically, "The Castle Doctrine" only applied to the inside of your own home, and later it was expanded to your personal real-estate-territory (trespassers will be shot on-sight).
This has never applied to public areas (before now).
and or claims made by police?
The police play by their own set of rules. Prosecutors often decline to prosecute alleged police crimes, and this is within their legal discretion. Nevermind that they depend on the police to help them solve all their cases, and if they ever want to become mayor (or president) or make zillions of dollars as a high powered defense attorney, they need a HIGH CONVICTION RATE (batting average).
why isn't it logical if you can use deadly force to protect yourself (in accordance with law) inside your home, that being outside it should be the same, is there any difference?
Yes. Owning territory provides certain special privileges to the owner.
One of those rights is to control who enters your territory. Anyone entering without an explicit invitation is automatically presumed to be a hostile threat.
If you see a "scary looking" person walking down your street, NOT intruding onto your real-estate-territory YOU SHOULDN'T SHOOT THEM.
CALL THE POLICE.
If they enter your house uninvited, FEEL FREE TO SHOOT THEM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Did the NRA and ALEC do anything illegal by pushing to expand stand your ground laws in the mid-2000s? And if the State sanctions it, does that not make it legitimate? Is there a standard that should be maintained independent of state arbitration and public participation?
How can anything be considered illegal when you have con-artists writing their own laws?
This legislation is clearly in conflict with the function of a peaceful and civil society.
Does your "individualism" encourage people to shoot everyone they're afraid of with impunity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
"There was a deliberate push by the NRA (National Rifle Association) and the ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council, run by the Koch brothers), to expand stand your ground laws in the mid-2000s, starting with the south — with Florida being the harshest," Light says. The first Stand Your Ground law in American came to pass in Florida in 2005. Beyond offering immunity, it has been expanded with amendments that require the prosecution to prove the individual threatened was not reasonable in defending their property [even if that "property" is walking down a public street]. [LINK]
IT BASICALLY LETS YOU SHOOT ANYONE YOU'RE AFRAID OF, AS LONG AS A JURY AGREES THAT YOUR FEAR WAS "REASONABLE".
In other words, the biggest scaredy-cat wins!!
And by the way, if some dude tries to kiss you at a bar, you can kill them too!!
Can you imagine if women could kill men for making "unwanted sexual advances"? Welp, I guess they should've been more polite, now they're ded.
The gay panic defense[notes 1] is a legal defense that is sometimes employed, usually against charges of assault or murder. Typically, a defendant using the defense claims they acted in a state of violent temporary insanity because of unwanted same-sex sexual advances.[1] Broadly, a defendant may allege to have found the same-sex sexual advances so offensive or frightening that they were provoked into reacting, were acting in self-defense, were of diminished capacity, or were temporarily insane, and that this circumstance is exculpatory or mitigating.[2]
Trans panic is a similar defense applied in cases of assault, manslaughter, or murder of a transgender individual, with whom the assailant(s) engaged in sexual relations unaware that the victim is transgender until seeing them naked, or further into or after sexual activity. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yeah, I'm not sure those two things are "opposites".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
That's kinda my point.
Those "Stand Your Ground" laws are brand new.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
At least WE AGREE that all the "heaven and hell" stuff only makes people into slaves and mercenaries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So we should now fault people for attempting to defend themselves? They didn't ask to get attacked. Had the aggressor not been so foolish, nothing bad would have happened in the first place. They caused a chain of events that led to a death because they wished to assault another. Maybe both are responsible. Maybe just the attacker, but certainly not just the victim of the assault.
Generally speaking, lethal force is permissible when you or other innocent life face an imminent, credible risk of death or grievous bodily harm. [LINK]
Credible risk of death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So we should let all those kids out of prison who shot people after being bullied. Ammiright?If they were defending themselves against aggression, then sure, why not?
Generally speaking, lethal force is permissible when you or other innocent life face an imminent, credible risk of death or grievous bodily harm. [LINK]
Credible risk of death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Not at all, because we certainly believe there is heaven and hell. If fear of hell or promise of paradise is what some peopke need in order to take God seriously, I can't say I am one to judge. It may be a stepping stone for them to love God for who God is.
There's already a name for slaves who "learn to love" their slave-masters.
It's called, "Stockholm Syndrome". [WIKI]
You'd think that if your hypothetical god was so smart, they'd know that already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The person firing the gun is 100% guilty of manslaughter.Submit your reasoning.
It's tautological.
If you kill someone by running them over with your car INTENTIONALLY it's called MURDER.
If you kill someone by running them over with your car UNINTENTIONALLY it's called MANSLAUGHTER.
If you shoot someone to death with a gun INTENTIONALLY it's called MURDER.
If you shoot someone to death with a gun UNINTENTIONALLY it's called MANSLAUGHTER.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Did you shoot yourself dead? No.
But you're claiming that the aggressor is somehow more-responsible than the trigger-man (?).
By that logic, I am guilty of suicide.
Are you morally and criminally liable for the circumstances that concluded in your death? Yes.
So we should let all those kids out of prison who shot people after being bullied. Ammiright?
Now answer me this:If I were the father of a 3 year-old child and my child got into my unlocked drawer which contains my firearm where he'd pick it up, unwittingly discharge it, fatally wounding himself, and upon the advent of this tragedy, the State charges me with negligent homicide, would the charge be alleging that I shot my son?
You're moving the goalposts. A 3-year-old-trigger-man is not LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
If a 20-year-old got into their father's unlocked drawer which contains their firearm and then fatally wounded themself, would that still be considered negligent homicide?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well it is your fault for getting killed. The only question is the intention. Either you were incredibly reckless or you did commit suicide.Are you talking about the Alabama case? If so, a more accurate example would be this: you attack someone, and while they defend themselves, the gun discharges. The bullet hits a completely innocent bystander.
The person firing the gun is 100% guilty of manslaughter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Right there you declared the intent: to increase social standing. If you saw they had a gun and you wanted to die, then assaulted them, it would be.
I had no idea they had a gun.
I initiated the aggression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
...then they can make the case that the circumstances which concluded in her being shot is primarily her fault.
That makes every victim responsible for crimes against them (they should have taken precautions).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wipe the slate clean. Forget about the Alabama case. Read this please.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I'm at a party, and I see some twerp that I don't like, and then I pummel them into the dance floor in order to increase my social standing, and in the scuffle, the twerp shoots me dead...
AM I GUILTY OF SUICIDE??
This is a "yes" or "no" question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Human empathy only goes as far as your ability to emphasis.Apparations of the mind cannot be God, as they are a contingent existence.
Whatever.
At least WE AGREE that all the "heaven and hell" stuff only makes people into slaves and mercenaries (so maybe everyone should redact those references).
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You yourself do not believe this, so why post it forward?If God so wills that I be cast into the fire, I accept God's judgment as righteous.
Your threats of "god's judgment" CONTRADICT your previous, glorious statement!!??
Those who are motivated by fear of hell are like slaves. - NOT ME
Those who are motivated by reward of heaven are like mercenaries. - NOT ME
Then there are those who are motivated by [HUMAN EMPATHY], these are as children of [NOUMENON]. - THAT'S ME!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
My point is that this isn't inconsistent with how legal/criminal liability is currently levied.
This is legally incoherent.
If I'm at a party, and I see some twerp that I don't like, and then I pummel them into the dance floor in order to increase my social standing, and in the scuffle, the twerp shoots me dead...
AM I GUILTY OF SUICIDE??
Created: