ProfessionalTeabagger

Remember in that conversation it was pointed out that despair often arises from an acceptance of a false dichotomy. The very title of this post is a dichotomy. Hope or reason. What could be a third option?

What does "good for the world" mean?

Last I heard the call-in shows were the most downloaded. I'm reading that Reddit thread. Are we libertarians such bitchy little tossers?

Wow. I just gave you an argument for why your question has problems. Your question uses vague terms and your variations on it have different premises. Sometimes it vague language like "needless suffering" and other times it's a child kicking a puppy. Just because you can ASK a question doesn't mean there's a yes or no answer to it. I have just proven this to you with my example which you do not address. Until you address my argument I hold that you have been proven wrong and are simply resorting to shaming tactics and emotional manipulation.

If I get my dog fixed at the veterinarian's it's for my convenience because I don't want to always have to worry about it getting pregnant. So I've made it suffer for my convenience. Is that wrong? If fact not having my dog immediately and painlessly killed is causing it needless suffering. It doesn't need to exist and it suffers to some extent every day (hunger, normal aches and pains). I can kill it and it will never suffer again. The only reason to keep it alive is for my amusement / convenience. So I'm not sure it IS wrong to cause an animal "needless" suffering for amusement or convenience.

Again you display an insufferable sanctimony. I asked you a question. What's wrong with killing a cow? What's wrong with it? Go on, tell me. Yes I am certain it isn't immoral. It isn't immoral and it doesn't become immoral no matter how much shaming language you use. There's no moral prohibition against killing a cow or eating meat in and of itself. It doesn't follow that by not eating meat I'm doing less harm. Maybe I'm doing MORE harm by with my vegetarianism. There's no way to calculate that and harm is often subjective. If you have "thought it through" then you will provide me with the objective proof that killing a cow and eating meat is morally wrong, right? No shamming language or manipulative appeals to emotion. Because right now the only reason I have to remain vegetarian is habit and some possible health benefits.

I've been a vegetarian for 3-4 years. After listening to Justin K's insufferable sanctimony and inability to answer a simple question I am considering eating meat. If I can find some beef that's been farmed humanly I might indulge. Right now I'm only vegetarian because I'm mindlessly committed to it. I'm pretty sure now that, in and of itself, eating meat is not immoral.

Here is an article by Robert Kuttner. Have at it. http://prospect.org/article/libertarian-delusion

I'm just asking questions. From the down-voting I'm getting it looks like they are questions some of these guys don't want me to ask.

Perhaps YOU are part of such a conspiracy and this is disinformation. Can you prove you aren't involved in 9/11?

Pollution, by definition, is the introduction of a harmful chemical substance into the biosphere. It's not. Farts could be consider harmful chemical substances. But farts are not necessarily pollution. Your definition is therefore wrong. "Aggression is any willful action which causes or seeks to cause harm (a reduction in the quality of life) to a conscious biological organism. " It's not. Aggression is the initiation of force. If it was "any willful action that seeks to cause a reduction in the quality of life" then defensive force would also be aggression. Aggression cannot logical also be defensive. Therefore your definition is wrong. " Maintaining and striving to improve the biosphere is Universally Preferable Behavior. " You only read the title, right? Our actions today determine the quality of life they will enjoy." Just as past polluters greatly improved our lives.

Can you prove you are not part of the conspiracy?

Is this a response to ME. Because if it is you've made a mistake. I did not ask about factory farming. I asked what was wrong with killing a cow.

Oh please do not start playing the victim and stop with the obnoxious passive aggression. You are being responded to exactly the way you would on any average forum like this one. You are being treated more than fairly. Take your idiotic numerology nonsense to an actual atheist or skeptic website and see what they say. You'll get torn apart just for the title alone. Where do you get off calling us intellectual snobs just for daring to criticize your nonsense? Also please do not insinuate that if we don't take you seriously that we are somehow living up some cult-like reputation of "shunning" or ridiculing those who do not agree with Stef. We're not going to be manipulated by that crap.

What's wrong with killing a cow? What difference can it ever make to the cow? If you can prove the cow is being tortured then that's another matter.

They advocate coercion which is a form of violent rule so they are not anarchists. But they get around that in their heads through the rejection of private property and/or self-ownership. It's not theft because you didn't own it in the first place you see.

Are you using the equatorial radius or the polar radius?

What a win life.

You can send a message to Mike.

Can sex between a competent adult and an incompetent child be UPB? No, because one is competent and the other is not. That breaks with universality right away. A big fat UPB fail.

Jesus wept, I hate determinist trolls. I guess it was determined that you'd be thick as well.

Then there would be still no point in discussing it.

There's no point in you discussing it then. Bye.

If it has agency and/or free will. That's what makes us a person. If we didn't have those things then morality, contracts, freedom are illusions. C-3P0 had free will (or at least agency) as we see him make choices. Same with R2.

Hello from Norn Iron.