No.99183 [View All]
>gay is okay
>fucking animals is okay
>polygamy/polyamory is okay
>freedom of speech/freedom to promote communism
>freedom of religion
>racial equality under the law
>democracy
So when did you realize that you're basically just a moderate leftist?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101754
No it's not. It's a mental disorder that has a huge suicide rate and spreads decease.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101808
>>101293
>hint hint Mememakers of magic…
First off, kill yourself. Second, Tumblr beat us to that ages ago when the White House turned into a rainbow that one time.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101816
>>99183
Modern leftists coopted and bastardized the liberty movement.
this is a power move by the elite to undermine the west. Using our own systems of freedom and democracy to remove our liberties. The only way to stop them is to abandoned our liberties for authoritarianism, or join them in total fascist authoritarianism.
The liberty movement pushed back against this notion, only to be swarmed with sophist radical authoritarians pushing radical leftist immoral propositions to push the destruction of our culture and society.
What we must do is ban together as Christians and walk in the light of Christ, not devolve into internal division and civil war. This is the desire of the powers at be. Do not play into their hands.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101823
>>101816
Religion is outdated thing destined to vanish in a modern society. More and more people realize praying etc. is just waste of time and that religion was just a tool to control masses
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101831
>>99185
>I don't like something therefore it must be illegal and everyone who does it must be killed
>This is your mind on statism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101832
>>101831
>I want to keep undesirable people off my property.
>If a group of like-minded property-owners live in the same place, we can all establish a social order free of such people.
<duh, that's statist, you just want to kill black people
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101844
>>101831
What part of those statements says "killed"? It clearly says physically removed, which can be done kindly in a diplomatic fashion before the use of force is necessary. For example, if you have property such as a house, and you don't want me in your house, you would ask me to leave. If I don't leave, you have the right to use force because it is your property. Similarly, if a small group owns a bunch of property and agrees to not allow certain undesirables onto their property, they have the right to do so. Violence is not necessary for the removal of undesirables unless they refuse to cooperate with the property owners.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101846
>>101844
what if all owners don't want black people on their property? where will you put them without killing them?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101848
>>101846
So you're telling me even black people wouldn't want black people on their property?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101849
>>101846
They could homestead their own property. Or offer their labor in exchange for money so they can purchase a cheap plot of land.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101850
>>101831
>WAAA STOP WANTING TO WIN YOU STUPID FASCISTS WAAA WHY U SO MEAN!!??
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101851
>>101846
Why is that my problem? They can figure out where to put themselves all on their own. They can either find a slumlord who's willing to put up with the increased costs of renting to them, or homestead their own property somewhere. Makes no difference to me, once the blacks have been physically removed from my covenant community I don't care what happens to them, so long as they stay out.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101853
>>101848
what guarantees they'll have any property?
>>101849
Define cheap plot of land, land is not cheap nowadays, people work all their life to get 30 m2 apartment in city. It's not about getting land in some shithole, they have to work too. I think corporations would buy out all usable lands and then sell them for any price they'll want
>>101851
>why is that my problem?
With that approach ancap will never happen, ancap has to benefit most of the population to reach revolution.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101855
>>101850
>fascists
>far-right
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101856
>>101853
They already have property, who's going to take it from them?
>With that approach ancap will never happen, ancap has to benefit most of the population to reach revolution.
Firstly, blacks are not the majority in the US, so even if ancap had to benefit the majority it wouldn't matter. The only reason there isn't revolution right now is because the majority is uneducated on the topic. But ancap in reality does benefit the majority, so that's not an issue. The only people it doesn't benefit are those leeches who can't provide for themselves, but with no taxation and the lower cost of goods and services that will come from free market forces there will be more charity. With how things are now, many people don't have the funds to donate to charitable causes because the government takes it in taxes and the price of goods is inflated by government intervention in the free market.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101857
>>101855
You know, you're not half wrong. "Fascists" are about as far from right as you can get!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101858
>>101853
>With that approach ancap will never happen, ancap has to benefit most of the population to reach revolution.
First, revolutions are for gay communists. Secession combined with reformism is the low time-preference white man's way. Second, "you mind your problems and I mind mine" will very much have appeal for most of the population. No one enjoys it when busybodies mess with their shit and private lives.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101865
>>101855
>>101857
>cuckime
That better be bait nigger
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101866
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101867
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101872
>>101856
56% minus feminists, nazis, commies, leeches etc.
i think you could be glad for 10%
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101873
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101874
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101877
>>99183
When I realized that I don't give a fuck about this society. I just want to become rich and oppress the lesser folks.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101878
>>101877
So you work for the government?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101914
>>99185
Private corporations also promote this degeneracy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101915
>>101914
>public* corporations
>legal entity engineered by federal gov
>gets subsidy and tax benefits from federal gov
>gets regulatory capture benefits from federal gov
>populated by, and sells to, normies that come out of public school indoctrination centers
>private
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101929
>>99183
You forgot about how great it is opening up the voting franchise to women and the disenfranchised fellow men. Its so important that in a Democracy to hear equally from these sorts of people, women and fellow men who aren't of your race bring up so many important points of how they need more stuff from you and how you aren't doing enough for them. Democracy is really this great!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101937
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101940
>>100631
>distinct
You have no idea what that means or what evolution even is. I bet you think gravity is just a "theory" too. Jump off a bridge then, we'll see just how much reality cares about your blatant ignorance.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101945
>>101692
>muh free speech
is a nice utopist idea that doesn't work in reality, as it requires all parties to argue in good faith, something lefties are physically incapable of.
That, in turn, means "your" free speech ends up defiled and turned into an exercise of tests for more leftist crap.
Simply put, all ideas are not born equal, and do not desserve equal fair treatment.
>>101940
>can tell them apart
>it's somehow not distinct
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101994
>>101940
dawkins said gravitation is a theory too
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101997
>>101994
I hate to defend that cuck but I'm willing to bet it was gravitational waves and not gravity that he was talking about.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101998
>>101940
Certain monks can levitate once they reach a level of spiritual mastery. Gravity doesn't work how you think it works.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102044
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102079
I like this guy's take on it. Hah, principle. Society is not principled.
>>99185
Honestly the only things mentioned that degenerate our communities are sodomites, animal lovers, puppet democracy and the control organized religions institutions and many false prophets have on people of all walks of life.
As for the first two; different behavior and mating patterns suggest we aren't even the same species not sure how the NAP applies.
Might as well remove the sodomites whole nine generations just to be sure you take care of both the branches and the root of the problem.
When you got a cancer; gotta take it all out or it will just get you again later.
Those that symphasize with the cancer are also cancer; the hardline, remove it all and restructure.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102080
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102089
>>99536
Tell that to my roommate or his brothers. Oh wait they're hicks they'll just shoot you for trespassing. They may OR may not Fuck your corpse afterwards. Just a warning.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102316
>>99191
> The other position would be that they do have rights and therefore must have agency.
Not everything that has rights has agency, therefore your therefore is null. The more obvious example is a baby or someone who is paralyzed. They have no agency, they can't consent and they still have rights. But even non-living entities have rights. For instance, a historical monument has the right to be preserved. A forest has the right not to be burned down. A river has the right not to be polluted with chemicals, etc.
Of course you can be a child and say "It's my private property so I can destroy historical monuments or pollute rivers if I want, because I own the land and everything in it so I have the right to destroy it all if I want". You can try and make that argument. But no one will take you seriously IRL. Bottom line: animals don't need agency to enjoy rights. That's a non-sequitor.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102317
>>102316
> The more obvious example is a baby or someone who is paralyzed. They have no agency, they can't consent and they still have rights. But even non-living entities have rights. For instance, a historical monument has the right to be preserved. A forest has the right not to be burned down. A river has the right not to be polluted with chemicals, etc.
Absolutely wrong. Children and the infirm don't have any rights. They are considered property either of an institution or of their closest kin. It isn't said as such because that would be "dehumanizing" but it is de facto true. Furthermore your insistence that property has rights is just baffling. A forest does not have the right "not to be burned down". Imagine if it was so, would those rights be violated by brushfires started by dry storms? Would the violation of those rights be meaningful? Where are you getting any of this from? Your definition of "rights" are clearly so broad as to be meaningless. Not that "rights" aren't a spook anyhow.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102321
>>102317
>Children and the infirm don't have any rights. They are considered property either of an institution or of their closest kin.
No, children and the infirm absolutely do have rights, and cannot be agressed against. The guardianship contract for such people may be traded, but the people themselves see not property and cannot be traded.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102331
No one has any right you neckbeards. The goverment you so much hate and its mindless white minions are what give you rights. Remove that and nothing keeps people from going back to the natural "might makes right" mindset even if they work together and talk.
No goverment = no major cohesion = collapse = no police/laws = you liberal faggots gonna get murdered like you deserve.
Once all subhumans (like you) get killed people will calm down, self domesticate and tame themselfs in goverment and the cycle repeats.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102335
>>102331
Who are you talking to?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102345
>>99430
They will get removed from my private owned city is that better with you now?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102348
>>102335
He's rambling incoherently like /pol/yps usually do
>>102321
This.
>>102317
>>102316
Rights are necessary constructs which let us play together in a way in which the greatest benefit is achieved for the greatest number of actors, and where no one actor can reliably improve their position by violating them.
They emerge out of repeated interaction, like an iterated prisoner's dilemma. It doesn't matter whether rights really exist or not (whatever that means); they're natural, and we can clearly identify a number of them.
Children and the incapable have rights because they have the potential to be actors, or were actors in the past. It is in the interest of other actors to protect their rights because they may find themselves in that position.
It's ridiculous to say animals or objects have rights because they're not playing the game. They're not actors and never will be.
>>102331
Ancap isn't "noone enforces your rights", it's "rights are enforced in a distributed manner without a monopoly on violence".
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102398
>>102317
>Children and the infirm don't have any rights. They are considered property either of an institution or of their closest kin. It isn't said as such because that would be "dehumanizing" but it is de facto true.
You are clearly mistaking rights with agency and treating the latter as a precondition to enjoy rights. You can dispose of property at will, save a few exceptions like fly dumping etc., but you can't dispose of children or the infirm in the middle of the street. You have to leave them at the care of someone. That's a right that they have, among all the others.
>Furthermore your insistence that property has rights is just baffling.
You are a poster-child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
In places like New Zealand, Ecuador and Colorado rivers have rights of personhood. There have been cases of "rivers" suing companies for polluting them, for instance.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rivers-get-human-rights-they-can-sue-to-protect-themselves/
Just because you're not familiarized with the concept of natural reserves, it doesn't mean you have to act like a retard.
"WATCHU TALKIN BOUT??! I NEVAH HEARD OF ANY OF DAT!!"
>A forest does not have the right "not to be burned down". Imagine if it was so, would those rights be violated by brushfires started by dry storms?
I'm going to assume you are arguing in good faith and that that retarded question is borne out of ignorance. Intent matters. And you clearly know this. If you fall down the stairs due to an earthquake or because you tripped on your shoelaces that's not a violation of your rights. But if someone pushes you down the stairs, that's a violation of your rights.
Intent matters.
>Would the violation of those rights be meaningful?
They are meaningful. If you pollute a river or burn down a forest, you're going to prison.
>Where are you getting any of this from?
LOL. Being this boastful of one's unaware ignorance…
>Your definition of "rights" are clearly so broad as to be meaningless. Not that "rights" aren't a spook anyhow.
LOL. It's like talking with a cartoon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102401
>>102348
Your argument makes a bit more sense. Less edgy, more pragmatic. Of course everybody knows rights are "spooks" like the other retard said. Your explanation of how they came to be is very effective. However, I have to say that "being an actor" is not a precondition to enjoy rights. You mentioned the potential to be an actor in children or having been an actor, in the case of the dying, for instance. You are saying that only humans can and should be able to enjoy rights. I think humanity as a whole is moving away from that notion and expanding it even beyond sentient beings:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/01/its-only-natural-the-push-to-give-rivers-mountains-and-forests-legal-rights
Animals have rights too: You can't abandon dogs and cats, it's against the law. Most people are not okay with eating dogs and cats. A growing number of people think someone who tortures / fucks animals should go to prison, etc.
You disagree with these developments, I assume?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102434
>>101945
>arguing in good faith
Spooky
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102464
>>102398
>In places like New Zealand, Ecuador and Colorado rivers have rights of personhood. There have been cases of "rivers" suing companies for polluting them, for instance.
Your conception of justice is drenched in authoritarianism. There is no such thing as a crime without a victim. When you say "a river sued someone" what you really mean to say is the government arbitrarily decided they had an arbitrary right over a plot of land they had neither homesteaded nor traded for. It's the government that is the actor here, not the river.
> If you pollute a river or burn down a forest, you're going to prison.
<if the government enforces the law, it must be good!
What are you? Are you a libertarian? You sound like a democratic socialist whinger.
>LOL. Being this boastful of one's unaware ignorance…
>LOL. It's like talking with a cartoon.
Oh fucking sod off mate. Honestly, fuck right off with that reddit shit
>>102401
>Your argument makes a bit more sense. Less edgy, more pragmatic. Of course everybody knows rights are "spooks" like the other retard said. Your explanation of how they came to be is very effective.
Oh I'm honored you like my arguments you smarmy, suburbanite american millenial twat.
>However, I have to say that "being an actor" is not a precondition to enjoy rights.
Why?
>You mentioned the potential to be an actor in children or having been an actor, in the case of the dying, for instance. You are saying that only humans can and should be able to enjoy rights. I think humanity as a whole is moving away from that notion and expanding it even beyond sentient beings:
>Animals have rights too: You can't abandon dogs and cats, it's against the law. Most people are not okay with eating dogs and cats. A growing number of people think someone who tortures / fucks animals should go to prison, etc.
Do you have any actual arguments beyond banal waffling?
Because so far you've argued that mistreating animals is wrong because of
<muh society(that we live in)'s feelings
<muh statist laws
>You disagree with these developments, I assume?
I think its a cause du jour for bored teenage girls and anti-humanist eco-crusaders, and you have only made me more certain of that opinion.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.103096
>animals can't consent
Oh? I think you need to not make such false generalizations. What is important is that, in any given case, to examine whether all involved parties consented. If the animal that you fucked consented to you fucking that animal, then anyone else forcing you to stop would be the aggressor.
There is, of course, the other question of proof. If someone violates you, and claims that they were justified because they were protecting the animal which you fucked (or tried to fuck, as the case may be), which they claim did not consent to you fucking them, and you claim that they were not justified in violating you, because the animal did consent, how is the question of who is reponsible for what restitution settled? I'm inclined to go for 'innocent until proven guilty', which would mean that the person violated you would have to prove that you were violating the animal, but then, what if the proof of guilt is too great? Of course, being a careful person, whatever I do, be it fucking an animal or otherwise, I ensure that I have proof that all effected parties consented, but that's me being a careful person.
(Not that I fuck animals or anything. It's all hypothetical here.)
>racial equality
SO. (Ahem.) What is important isn't racial equality per se, but that all discrimination is legitimate. There may be cases where discrimination based on race is legitimate. Of course, >>99186 a government that promotes racial equality is the antithesis of libertarianism, but it's not because that government promotes racial equality, but because it's a government.
[Age of consent]
>Are 14 year olds that different from 15 year olds? Are 13 year olds that different from 14 year olds? Where does it stop?
The point is that you don't look at the arbitrarily chosen property of 'how long has this person existed' to determine whether they are capable of consent, and you don't even look look at whether they are capable oc consent, but whether they did consent (!!), because that's what we care about here. Sure, if they have no ability to consent, then they didn't consent, but that doesn't mean that the question is about whether they can consent. Get your head on straight next time you wake up.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.