No.66901
if you had children shop in ancap, will you sell children to a pair of fags or a pair of dykes? why? is the idea that lgbt ppl are no worse parents than heteros cultural marxist fake science?
No.66904
I wouldnt sell children because that woukd violate their freedoms and probably also summon a lynch mob. But if I did sell children for whatever reason, I would sell them to gays cause I mean homos have money too and it's be retarded not to take good money.
No.66907
>>66901
>will you sell children
You can not sell that which you do not own, and nobody owns children, but they themselves. The parents are just legal guardians that have the responsibility to properly raise the child, until adulthood. If the parents do a poor job, they could easily get sued, loose the status of guardian, and the child would end up in the care of another member of the family, or a donation-based orphanage.
No.67049
Cultural Marxism is a term used by the Nazis to impose authoritarianism. People like Ayn Rand, Tolstoy, Sigmund Freud were all considered "cultural marxist" because they didn't support authoritarianism. Didn't matter if you were left or right.
https://youtu.be/vYQo6LI3Y7c
No.67055
>>67049
Hrmm, well I guess since ze Germans said a thing once, that means the obvious, well documented and pervasive influence of the thoroughly Leftist academia on Western culture never happened. It doesn't matter what you're called, Cultural Cancer. You're still all scum no matter the label. No one cares about your quibbling semantic technicalities. You're not entitled to police the terminology for no other reason than furthering your own cynical political designs by casting you in a more favorable light. It's ridiculous if you think about it, considering how continuously you all must smear all opponents and smugly shit on any notion of civility and fair play. I'd venture a guess you only feel comfortable in this idea that you can make such demands of your ideologically enemies automatically, only because the infiltrated academy has long played the same word games in your court too. Default Cultural Marxism just feels normal to you.
No.67056
No.67064
>>67056
>still unironic ad hitlerum
>wikipedia
Why are leftists so uneducated? I prefer to read the likes of Brecht, Breton and Benjamin in their own words.
No.67073
>>67049
Cultural Marxism is used to specifically refer to a branch of academic thinking that can trace it's roots back to the Frankfurt School.
It's an extremely accurate characterization, since they were a) Marxists and b) believed in subverting society by shifting culture rather than immediate revolution.
No.67075
>>67049
Cultural Bolshevism sounds correct though. People who were creating nihilistic art, protesting against the old bourgeois art were basically encouraging socialism, sometimes deliberately
No.67184
>>67075
artists are usually socialists
No.68244
No.68251
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>68244
>being this wrong
Vid related, important part starts at 6:40.
You should have picked the ancom flag.
No.68293
>>68251
so what happens in ancap if have children and i believe in pseudoscientific medicine and i dont vaccine my children and i dont cure them properly from cough or whatever?
No.68294
>>68293
You could get sued by anybody and have your children taken away, by almost anybody.
No.68296
>>68294
so come someone can sue me if he is not harmed?
No.68297
>>68296
He can sue you in the name of somebody else, in this case your children. If you steal someone's wallet, he might not have the money to sue you, but he can sell the right to sue to someone else, in exchange for money or something else. That person will now sue you and get the wallet you stole from the original person. As I said, you don't own your children the same way you own a car or a toaster, you just own the right to be their guardian, which implies many things(depending on the community you live in), and if you do not respect them, you can easily loose the guardian status.
No.68309
>sell children
what? I know this happens now but that's against the NAP.
No.68312
>>66901
I thought you were asking if I'd sell a children cigarettes at first because of how you worded it to which I would have responded no, but someone else could.
If you're asking if I'd let fags adopt, the answer is no. If you're asking if someone else would let fags adopt, the answer is yes, but the child could legally run away from the orphanage for a different orphanage, away from the fags, etc.
A child should be raised between a man and a woman. Whether that's the nuclear family (Husband works, Wife stays at home or only works when they're in school, or vice versa on gender roles), old guard (both parents work, grandparents care of children in exchange for food/shelter/payment), or some combination of the above is irrelevant. I might allow an old guard style family where the fags both work and the grandparents (man and woman) care for the child/keep an eye on the fags, but children are shown to be far worse off with a single parent or fag parents than with two parents, even if the two parents are semi-dysfunctional.
Obviously I would fight tooth and nail for people to try to save a broken marriage (if children are involved) and use community pressure to put a stop to the "beating your wife" question, but I would recognize separation as not being a form of child abuse if the relationship was abusive and the spouse showed no signs of trying to stop their abusive behavior, but I would still like to see reconciliation/an attempt at such as a first option, and I wouldn't let a single parent adopt any more children either after their divorce. I also support shotgun marriages if a guy knocks a girl up before you ask about that as well.
No.68313
Also to the people flipping shit about selling children, it's no different than an orphanage asking for a fee to recoup food/housing expenses for the child/to prove that the child's new family is fiscally responsible enough to take care of them.
No.68317
No.68319
>>68293
Absolutely nothing.*
*: Provided that as a responsible parent, you do not intentionally expose your child to others in his/her unvaccinated and sick state, and knowing that if you're dumb enough to do so, you bear the full responsibility for another parent's hospital bill when their child with a compromised immune system from some genetic disorder during the interim when genetic modification of babies has not occured gets critically sick from exposure to your child.
No.68329
>>68312
>children are shown to be far worse off with a single parent or fag parents than with two parents, even if the two parents are semi-dysfunctional.
Not true.
No.68330
>>68329
Straight, unmarried couples do worse than gay couples
No.68331
>>68330
And that's even though not all unmarried couples are necessarily dysfunctional
No.68335
>>68330
1) While I recognize that chart, it's missing its sauce.
2) Let's just ignore all those ***s that don't appear in your image
3) How is the study defining marriage? Religious, Government, and Common Law marriage are all different things, and common law os not technically married. If you split common law and religious from the unmarried group, then I'm almost positive those sub-groups would do better than fags. Not to mention fags get away with a lot of shit undetected, and typically don't "cohabitate" with the same partner for long periods of time in the first place.
Also if you split young teens and early 20s from that cohabitation group the numbers would still come out clearer for marriage and its equivalency. You're seeing and you will see the results of fag marriage over the next few decades. I have no qualms with fags loving one another, but what they want is big brother giving them privileges which shouldn't exist reserved for people making families, and the unclear gender roles/"diversity" if you will, will result in undesirable effects on childrens' psyche. They can love who they want, but they don't have the moral right to ruin other people's lives in their own fetishism and debauchery.
No.68336
>>68335
>hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr how did you define marriage
Oh my god, you are fucking autistic
No.68337
>Also if you split young teens and early 20s from that cohabitation group the numbers would still come out clearer for marriage and its equivalency.
Because excluding them for no reason makes so much sense! Just pretend they don't exist lol
No.68338
>They can love who they want, but they don't have the moral right to ruin other people's lives in their own fetishism and debauchery.
So unmarried couples, single mothers, etc should also lose their rights?
Oh wait I'm bringing reason into your retarded religious ideology.
No.68339
>>68336
>>68337
>>68338
Nigger I'm drunk. I'm surprised I even typed out a coherent sentence right now.
Go be a tripleposting faggot somewhere else.
No.68341
>>68339
>there is a thin line of white between the different sections of your response, I have to therefore call you a homosexual
Just a sane rational person
No.68342
>>68338
As gor this one, see >>68312
I preemptive addressed arguments. сука блять
No.68343
>>68342
So what will you do with all the children when you have ripped them from the single mothers?
No.68344
>>68343
If you read my ppst you'd know.
No.68347
>>68344
You don't address it.
No.68419
>>68317
autists are ancaps
No.68420
Why not, if the children consent to being sold to fags/dikes it's not a problem
No.68812
>>68319
what if i slap my children?
No.68815
>>68293
Vaccination procedures cause autism. It's not the mercury. It's being strapped down and stuck with a sharp by a "trusted" individual who refuses to listen to the expressed discomfort of the child. It's a communicative injury that reduces the child's trust in their ability to communicate and in the ability of others to comprehend communications. This develops into an aggressive desire to control the environment and very pro-actively prevent aversive stimuli.
No.68829
No.75958
>>68829
Kill yourself, kike.
No.75969
>>68813
Ah yes, the cultural marxist genre. My favorite books from it are "Feminizing the Goyim" by Adorno, "Soy as a Weapon Against the West" by Derrida, and the recent classic "BBC for Hegel" by Zizek. /pol/ has never read a single book, let alone a leftist one
No.75999
>>66901
>if you had children shop in ancap, will you sell children to a pair of fags or a pair of dykes? why? is the idea that lgbt ppl are no worse parents than heteros cultural marxist fake science?
Tell them to get off your property.
No.76001
>>68815
Can you provide evidence or even a logical argument for any of your claims.
No.76003
>>68815
An interesting theory.
No.76041
>>75969
While /pol/'s tendency to extrapolate all of society's ills from "cultural marxism" may be ill-informed, you're being willfully stupid to deny that all of the academics you mentioned employed Marxist critiques of western culture. The normative purpose of critical theory is to be a liberatory force, so accusing its extant adherents of being social affectors isn't too far off the money. There is a sizeable contingent among the humanities and social science departments in French and Anglo-American academia who derive their own studies from frankfurt school theorists, as well as other 20th century Marxists like Althusser and Gramsci.
>Inb4 you invoke the Wikipedia referring to a specific subset of Anglo-American Marxists
No.76042
neither because faggots can't raise kids
No.76711
>>66904
>>66907
Children were created by their parents and are the full property of their parents. Until (possibly never) the property owner chooses to emancipate. The head of the family has the right to execute any of the individuals under his domain, particularly if he should believe they are a dead end.
No.76712
>>76711
You can't own a person, idiot. Also rights are a spook so you dont have the right to execute people, double idiot.
No.76713
>>66904
>>66907
I've got a bridge for you
Ownership is an illusion. What you call ownership is control. If I have guns, I control people through fear of death. If they give me resources, i control access to those resources and relinquish control of something in exchange, but only because I like repeat customers.
unless a bunch of islands will take on a continent, I don’t even care what the masses think
No.76719
>>76712
>You can't own a person, idiot
spook
>Also rights are a spook so you dont have the right to execute people, double idiot.
It is my property so long as I have control over it. I have the right to execute whomever is my property. Should I not have the ability tis not actually my property.
No.76720
>>76712
Stirner's primary work is literally called the ego and its property
No.76728
>>76719
>Emotivism is new and original
No.76735
>>76728
>implying emotivism
No.76750
>>76735
You kidding me? Max Stirner is as emotivist as anyone can get.
No.76765
>>76750
Ethics as being greater than attitude is independent of letting it constrain you.
No.76795
>>76765
Same shit, marginally different color. You cannot claim that there is one universal ethic but that you are allowed to arbitrarily act outside of it. "There are universal rules that you should follow but you shouldn't follow them if you don't feel like it" is a contradiction in terms.
Where did you learn to philosophize, Harvard? Because it takes some seriously advanced background in analytical philosophy to have this much fun with totally meaningless nuances.
No.76799
>>76795
>You cannot claim that there is one universal ethic but that you are allowed to arbitrarily act outside of it.
>allowed
kekekekek
>rules that you should follow
>should follow
good and evil existing is independent of choosing being good or evil this is 101 tier
No.76825
>>76799
You nigger. No one ever claimed that it's impossible to choose to act evil, but what I claim is that it's impossible to say you "ought" to act evil, which is what Stirner does (according to you, I'm sure he denied that good and evil are meaningful concepts but that's not important here). A system of ethics is a set of principles that an actor has to follow in his conduct. To say he should only act according to them if he feels like it is to say that they're not really binding, and then we cannot speak of a system of ethics. Substantially, then, Stirner is an emotivist.
No.76842
>>76825
>has to follow in his conduct.
>t's impossible to say you "ought" to act evil
Its not "ought" to act evil. It's act independent of it being good or evil.
>is to say that they're not really binding
They are not binding. Murderers and rapists exist. The restraint is their execution.
>then we cannot speak of a system of ethics
We can absolutely talk about ethics without it being binding. Serial killers can go off kill a dozen people and then talk about themselves being evil in the interview before they are chaired.
No.76884
>>76842
>Its not "ought" to act evil. It's act independent of it being good or evil.
When you advise someone to act independent of good and evil, then you're advising him to act evil in at least some cases. So what I said still stands.
>We can absolutely talk about ethics without it being binding. Serial killers can go off kill a dozen people and then talk about themselves being evil in the interview before they are chaired.
Christ Almighty. For thousands of years, people have known that any kind of law is broken regularly, be it moral or customary, statutory or natural, divine or temporary. Still, they created ethical systems, including pacifist ones that cannot be enforced. So, when people describe an ethical system as binding, they do not mean that you get hit by lightning when you break the law. In fact, most philosophers would say that ethical conduct presupposes the possibility of acting unethically. Hence, no ethical philosopher has ever talked about whether it's ethical or not to fly by flapping your arms around. It's not just an inconsequential question, it's also outside the sphere of ethics.
To say an ethical system is binding is usually to say that you cannot rationally act against it. You can be an asshole, you can even derive pleasure from it, but you cannot find self-fulfillment through it.
No.77005
>>76884
>advising him to act evil in at least some cases
idk about advising bro if they want to I guess they could
>Still, they created ethical systems
sounds like you might be the emotivist
>that you cannot rationally act against it.
If you cant rationally act against ethics, and everything I do is rational for my goals, then I am simply the most ethical person. Egoism is really just the expression of ethics.
No.77008
>>66901
>if you had children shop in ancap, will you sell children to a pair of fags or a pair of dykes?
<selling the children instead of using them as an/to breed an army
Obviously not.
> why?
Because I know right from wrong.
No.77009
>>66901
Why would I sell my children fag? That's unethical.
No.77031
>>77009
Its not unethical to sell your own property
No.77046
>>77031
You may as well be a commie with morals like that.
No.77047
>>77046
You fucking statists always trying to enforce your personal morality on the entire world.
No.77049
>>77047
As a normalfag/commie your comprehension of what's "morality" is questionable.
No.77051
>>77049
>calling others communists for believing property rights
hahahahahah get recked statist scum
No.77052
>>77047
> trying to enforce your personal morality on the entire world.
That's what all men do, soyfriend.
No.77053
>>77052
Well memed my property
No.77063
>>77061
you're right. its not
No.77066
>>77052
Who is this semen demon?
No.77294
>>77061
Who is this semen demon??????
No.77827
>>77294
some ancrap kike, stefan monx or something