AnarchoBenchwarmer

How about it, Stefan? I haven't seen you rip apart an article like this in... Hmm. Well, at least a week. http://www.salon.com/2014/02/02/why_youre_wrong_about_communism_7_huge_misconceptions_about_it_and_capitalism/

I started a blog before I started reading these forums, but I had stopped when it seemed like I had nothing to write about - writing anything invariably felt like I was plagiarizing somebody around here since the active members seemed better-acquainted with philosophy, voluntaryism, atheism, etc. But I decided to start up again. If you'd like to read the blog and tell me how you think I might be able to improve, I would welcome and greatly appreciate your opinions. http://anarchobenchwarmer.tumblr.com/post/73590034869/liberal-hypocrisy-or-why-i-can-no-longer-stand

Dawkins is excellent. I'm partial to Christopher Hitchens myself, though he did unfortunately come down with a case of the dead. It's really too bad that nobody prayed for him...

Ah, yes, that part was poorly-worded. To clear things up, I have reason to believe that my wife's parents have ceased discipline-related physical abuse (I have no idea about emotional abuse). As long as they don't give me reason to believe otherwise, I can tolerate them. Other than that, as far as how it turned out, three of my wife's four siblings who were involved in the conversation did end up apologizing to her. The last seemed to only get ruder and I never even received a reply from her. Now she's on an LDS mission for 18 months, so I have little hope of their relationship being improved anytime soon. Fortunately, I am confident that she will eventually come around - she was subjected to many of the same abuses that my wife was. The other children were not abused to nearly the same degree and in fact, none of them knew that their parents had belted my wife when they were not around except the one that defends them the most. Y'know, this all started when she posted that ridiculous "I was spanked as a child and as a result I have a condition called 'Respect for Others'" thing on Facebook. My wife was prompted to correct that view and it exploded into a huge public debate. Anyway, thank you for your query - the good fight is being fought by those of us who support peaceful parenting and my wife is recovering well from this debacle. Thank you for your analysis, that's pretty much exactly what I had been thinking when I wrote the letter. Tell me if this doesn't shock you though: when my wife actually was raped years ago, she went back to live at home and told her parents about her experience. Her father's first words after hearing about it were, "Were you afraid for your life?" Talk about victimizing the victim... Anyway, none of her siblings have children yet, but it is my hope that they at least take into consideration the evidence in favor of peaceful parenting. I showed them Stefan's "The Truth about Spanking" video, as well as an excellent TED presentation on the subject, but they were not yet convinced last time I checked.

I think you said it best earlier: Tragic.

I think that one of the many, many problems with this is that he actually believes what he is writing. I think that might be more dangerous than if he were actively manipulating his audience.

You guys are good. I came up with similar points. Oh how I wish I could post the debate, this poor guy refuses to be shut down.

http://dinnertimedebates.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-worship-of-reason.html I'm having a debate with my cousin-in-law on the merits of reason and he directed me to his blog. I have a lot of opinions about it, but I'm curious as to what you all might think. Be gentle - he's nice, but misguided, like most Mormons.

What a great idea. Good for Iron Maiden, I always did like them.

I know from experience that that is/was unfortunately likely. Don't lose hope though - we must be vigilant in creating the conversations that lead people to thinking.

Can I just take a minute to express my shock that anybody thinks An-Caps would exclude commies, environmentalists, hedonists, etc.? This is ridiculous. They exclude themselves. If a statist wanted to live in my anarcho-communist society, he would be free to. If he wanted to create an army to defend himself, he would be free to. If he wanted to enforce statist laws and regulations with said army, he would be forcibly ejected in self-defense according to the just principles of the NAP. So as long as he does not try to initiate force (without explicit contract - I could get into this further if you want), he can believe whatever he wants and indeed, anybody that he convinces to agree with him would be free to do so. He would not be expelled just because he believes something different. The more likely case is that the statist would leave voluntarily, off to start his own country somewhere or live under the regime of an existing one. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as he does so voluntarily. I have extreme doubts that capital-minded business owners would refuse to trade with him if he has not done anything to harm somebody. Whoever wrote Democracy: the God that Failed clearly did not think it through. Or, even worse, the author does not believe that adherents to the NAP would actually practice what they preach, which I think is an expression of an extraordinarily depressing amount of pessimism. Edit: Also, you're not a hypocrite for refusing to engage him further in debate. That's pretty narrow thinking on his part - in actuality, your refusal to continue is a showcase of your beliefs, not a denial of them. Edit #2 (Because I want to address your questions): You should have asked him to define "sane principles" and how exactly he plans to organize the economy according to his definition. Really, anarcho-capitalist philosophy has nothing to do with business and everything to do with ethics. A strong economy is icing on the peaceful, mass-appealing cake.

My wife recently converted to a peaceful parenting philosophy (we don't have children yet) after watching "The Truth About Spanking." She was raised by physically and emotionally abusive parents and suffers from most symptoms of PTSD, but she had previously defended spanking, thinking that it worked. After her attempt to convince her three adult sisters and one adult brother (none of whom yet have children, and she has one other teenage sister who is not involved) that spanking is not the answer to bad behavior and doesn't instill respect for others, their communication devolved into all four of them to some degree lashing out at her and belittling her for taking her childhood so hard. It got really messy over Facebook for pretty much all to see. I drafted this message to all four of them after the dust had settled: (Names of her family have been replaced) Okay everybody. I understand that *wife* has cut Facebook ties with all of you. It's not what I would have done, but given her condition last night, I'm not really inclined to blame her. I don't know if she's reestablished them or not (I hope she will), but I have some things that needs to be said - hopefully we can all avoid situations like this in the future and become closer as a family. The first thing we all need to understand is that *wife* has had very a very different experience with your parents than the rest of you. Even if you all received similar abuse, *wife* appears so far to be unique in the way that she coped with it, leading to what is almost certainly a mild-moderate to moderate-severe case of PTSD. (Before I continue, I want to agree on the definition of "abuse." Because I consider even light spanking with an open hand to be physical abuse, we'll NOT use my definition. Rather, Nevada State Law is probably safe: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-200.html#NRS200Sec508 http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-432B.html#NRS432BSec070 Both links should take you directly to the relevant section. Please read as far down as you want to until you are satisfied with the definition) With the understanding that we all hopefully now have, I think it is important to next understand that *wife* is, whether alone or not, a sure victim of your parents' abuse, as confirmed to me by they themselves, her therapist, and a few others. I hope you all know that I am not simply relying on *wife*'s word. My entire philosophy revolves around integrity; I mean it and know from several sources when I say she's been abused. Another fact that I want to point out is that abuse can be subjective. It is normal for all six of *parents*'s children to have six different collections of experiences, memories, and opinions on their treatment as children. As an example, I'll relate an experience from my own family of five kids: my own mother beat the absolute hell out of my oldest sister and damaged her to a severe degree emotionally, and that's probably understating it. I had no clue until I was in my late teens. As I've mentioned to *third sister*, I probably still don't know the extent of my mother's wrath. One last thing before I get to the point: I want to dispel this notion that some seem to have that *wife* only goes around spreading the negative aspects of her childhood. This is false. She recounts good memories of your parents, especially of your father, far more often than she does the bad experiences. Unfortunately, having been made aware of the bad experiences and having an extremely negative opinion on child abuse (having worked in a children's shelter and seeing the effects literally on a daily basis, an experience which I'd be happy to share), I have not in the past been inclined to a high opinion of *parents*. HOWEVER, as time goes on, and as I see your parents try to repair their relationship with their second daughter, I become more willing to forgive them, so long as I continue to never hear about similar treatment of *fourth sister* or *third sister* (while she still lives there). So with all of that out of the way, here is the point that I wish to make: It is NOT okay to minimize the suffering of a victim e.g., to regard the abuse as fair, to write her off because your experience was different, or to accuse her of exaggeration on a public forum without first knowing the lengths of her side of the story. All four of you are guilty of doing at least one of the above-mentioned things, though I was relieved, at least, to see that *brother* made his concerns private (Sorry *brother*, *wife* left herself logged in with your message to her up before she left for work and my curiosity got the better of me - I hope that you and she can forgive me). To do what the four of you have done has left her feeling alone, depressed, and scared. Had I not arrived home from work quickly to comfort her, I am certain that she would have done something rash, or, y'know, MORE rash than the screaming matches I overheard. Pretend for a moment that the exaggeration accusations were all correct. Even if she had been exaggerating or lying outright, it's an issue that I wish all four of you had taken directly to her in a private manner where you could listen to her side and discuss things before making accusations. I am aware that some apologies have been made, but I wanted to make clear the impact of your decisions: Not only have the four of you made some accusations, but several others have messaged, texted, or called her in order to make accusations (all of which were based on assumptions) of their own. I'm not blaming anybody for the privacy thing - I certainly did not make things better by my public comments, and *wife* didn't have to post those two things directly to *third sister*'s wall. But while the privacy issue is a somewhat less-important lesson, "two wrongs don't make a right" is still important lesson for the future, yeah? The really terrible part though, the worst thing that has been said (if I know my PTSD symptoms, and I can confidently say that I do) is when all four of you individually said something like, "Well we all got spanked and we aren't damaged!" This is a highly illogical statement. Not only have none of you (to my knowledge) seen a professional therapist who could assess potential mental damage, I think it's also safe to say that not every Soldier in war gets PTSD when they kill a man or when they see a Humvee get blown up with their best friend on the inside, and not every victim of sexual abuse gets PTSD after they are finally separated from their attacker. Not every child gets PTSD or any other obvious sign of mental damage after being abused. But *wife* did. And at least one of my siblings did, if it wasn't all five of us. So I hope I never have to hear anything relating to the above claim ever again from any of you. More than that, I hope that none of you ever raise a hand to your children in anger or to instill fear or discipline. If only one in a thousand children developed emotional trauma from such a tactic, the risk would still be too high. Nobody deserves to go through what your sister, my wife, goes through. Okay, that's all. Please feel free to respond, but know before you do that my #1 goal as far as my soon-to-be new family is concerned is to become closer, perhaps someday as close as I am with my own siblings. My intent was to chastise the four of you, but I'm hoping that it will help mend your relationships with my wife by way of understanding her. I already love all of you guys and I know that *wife* still loves all of you and I know that you all love her, and you all will continue to love each other for as long as you are still siblings. You guys believe that that will be for eternity, so I hope you take that belief into consideration in the future. How did I do? I'm willing to provide more context, if necessary.

You made a few very good points here that I will certainly research and attempt to verify. I especially like your refutation of the necessity of the B12 vitamin in our society, even if I'm a little confused as to how the ingestion of insects doesn't count as meat consumption. I'm sure similar refutations, if accurate, exist for other supplements that vegans find themselves forced to ingest. But I have to reject your assertion that the burden of proof is on me. The only definitions (I should point out that the term "omnivore" is apparently not yet a scientific classification) that I can find regarding omnivores seem to support the idea that humans fall into that category; that seems to suggest that the current consensus is that humans are naturally omnivores. If there is a better scientific definition, one that excludes humans, then would it not be the duty of a scientific study to now prove that the current consensus is incorrect? And if such proof has arrived already and not been rejected, then why is it not more wide-spread? I also consider it unfair of you to assert that I would not be willing to examine evidence objectively. Have I said anything to make you think that? I admit that I can often come off as rude (I don't do this on purpose) over the internet, but I don't think I've displayed behavior that would make anybody regard me as closed-minded. I'm simply trying to present a case that appears to be logical according to the evidence that I have. Additionally, I find your accusation of cherry-picking to be unfounded. At least I have found sources that support my conclusion. I've yet to see the same from you; indeed, when you do link to a website or video, I have generally found them to support my conclusion as well. Tool-use is no doubt an applied effect of our genetic disposition toward creativity and our intelligence, which is no doubt an evolutionary advantage that we used to become more effective predators/gatherers/what-have-you, which humans, at the very least, seem to have a genetic predisposition towards being (human omnivore tendencies predate our use of tools, from what I understand). I'm stunned and somewhat disappointed that you would interpret my meaning to be something like "we have genes to manufacture TVs." FreedomPhilosophy, I have so far enjoyed our discourse. I know you can do better than simply twisting my meaning, refusing to support your arguments, and implying that I do not respect the scientific method without reasonable support for your accusation.

I'm sorry it feels that way, but, while I appreciate your input, I don't feel very confident that you made an attempt to understand my argument. I try very hard to address each concern that you have as thoroughly as possible and I end up disappointed by what looks like blatant disrespect for my efforts every time you post. I don't mind being wrong if I'm wrong, but I like to have my points addressed concisely and logically. Philosophy is a science - if one can refute my argument using rational points OR by pointing out where my logic fails, then I think that's a great thing and no less than my argument deserves. So like I said, please feel free to read through my argument and try again, and I'll be happy to continue the debate. That's great, I can't wait to see your supporting research and the inevitable scientific consensus! ...Even though there still appears to be plenty of evidence that we wouldn't even be the species we are without generous amounts of meat consumption such as here, here, and this excerpt. Until and unless I see your irrefutable research, it seems that I'm forced to believe that homo sapiens are evolutionary omnivores. It seems that "all of the known facts" better support the omnivore argument. Ooh, I would not so lightly compare this kind of science to creation "science." There is a pretty clear difference in the evidence provided, and there is no consensus as there is against creationism. In fact, nothing that you've cited has given any positive support for a strictly herbivore diet. As I'm sure you know, a strictly vegetarian/vegan diet does not provide all necessary nutrients that humans need to live as long as we do currently. Vegans today have access to B12 vitamins (among others) that would not be found in third-world or pre-industrial societies. Just because you claim that many (the majority, most likely, though that wouldn't necessarily make them right) scientists are not subjecting themselves to scientific rigor, doesn't make it so. Additionally, I submit your claim that I don't know any humans who can or would catch and eat raw animals to be absolutely, beyond any doubt, ridiculous. The only reason that I don't eat raw crab that I catch from the coast is because I have access to easier options. The only reason that I don't collect and eat grubs raw is because it is not necessary to my current survival (et cetera for any animals). But I would bet my life that, put in that kind of situation, I would do it without hesitation. And your claim that the use of tools is not an evolutionary adaptation on it's own doesn't stand up when you account for our evolutionary history. We absolutely developed the ability to use tools to more easily eat meat, and we certainly ate what we could catch before such adaptations. As for unfortunate consequences for meat-eaters? That article makes clear the average life-span of humans to be 25, well after the age of maturity and subsequent passing along of genes. I also wonder just how long the life-span would be if humans in those areas stuck strictly to local vegetation. Cows and sheep don't need to for survival, since their bodies are far more adapted to eating vegetation than those of humans. So I'd still say that my observation is far from worthless. Also... Did I say that human omnivores live equally long and healthy lives? No, I don't believe I did. But conscious and rational choices regarding how much and what kinds of meat surely can and have led to acceptable longevity among whatever modern society I can point to. Even if you're right, it still doesn't solve the issue of morality which Pepin (and, I'd like to believe, I) has effectively put forward, but I don't think that that's an issue that most vegan/vegetarians will fully consider, as morality has little to do with historical or current health benefits.

Look, as much as I love these debates, I would prefer to debate/discuss these issues with somebody who will actually read, comprehend, formulate logical conclusions, and then engage when necessary. You can try again if you like, but I'm not going to bother responding to anything you've written here. You've added nothing to the conversation, you've only reiterated your previous points, which I think I did a good job debunking.

Do rich people have some sort of brain function that prevents them from eating animals to survive? Perhaps their intestines are formed differently because of all that money, and therefore they should be held to a higher moral standard. No, that's not the way morality works. It's either immoral for everybody or it's not inherently immoral. Just because a poor person has no money doesn't mean that person has the moral option to steal in order to survive. If you're going to dismiss the importance of individual survival as "consequentialist", however, you might as well debate that humans don't have the right to move into territory claimed by animals. If killing and eating animals is immoral, then the same can be said of stealing their land from them. Quick question though, how exactly would a human initiate force against another human for survival? If my life is in danger and purposefully killing another human is the only way to survive, that is, in all circumstances, called self-defense. Or, not immoral, in other words. So I suppose I am being consistent when I say that killing for survival does not violate the NAP. Alright, let's go down the line: 1) I think you'll have to prove two things for your first point to make sense: That animals are morally significant and that their suffering is "unnecessary." Since suffering is impossible to eliminate, so you'll have to define what qualifies as necessary and unnecessary. I suppose I wouldn't mind a clarification of your definition of the term "moral agent" while you're at it. 2) Voluntarily murdered? As in, they line up of their own accord for the slaughter? Of course they don't, I've never argued that. Don't put words in my mouth. I believe my argument is that the consent of sentient beings can be assumed based on the actions of the general population. Similarly, I could hardly blame an advanced alien race for assuming the same about humans (at least until we all get behind the NAP), but that doesn't mean I would volunteer to be their food. I recommend a book called Ender's Game (not the movie) for a good summary of why I wouldn't hold aliens morally accountable for my death, assuming communication could not be established. 3) See Point 2 above. Generalized assumptions are not necessarily incorrect just because they're generalized. 4) Not if we could prove their sapience (which we can't, yet at least). Again, we're free to assume that, on a moral level, a species has no objection to being killed for food. However, if and when the time comes that our food can reason with us, that's when the NAP kicks in. 5) Uh, we can reason with individual humans, including the German populace circa 1939. We can't reason with any animal (as far as I know). This point is irrelevant. 6) I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The NAP allows for the defense of innocent, non-aggressing agents. If the elk are non-aggressing, then there is no violation involved with defending the elk from their wolf aggressors. The point was to imply a question: If you're going to hold humans accountable for killing animals, then is there any reason not to hold animals accountable as well? I may be incorrect, but it seems to me that you can't group animals in with human rights if you don't also burden them with responsibility to respect those rights. Indeed, would you not then also have to task animals to defend those rights as well? I've thought of something else in the meantime, which I'd like to run past everybody here. It's not vital to my argument, but it does support the assertion that eliminating human suffering is indeed more valuable than eliminating animal suffering. Humans are the only species on Earth that has the capacity for any given individual to have direct influence on the overall direction regarding the survival of most (if not all) other species. Individuals, or we as a species, could go so far as to end the world if we wanted or we could bring back other species from the brink of extinction. No other creature has that kind of agency. Given that fact, would it not be essential to keep as many humans alive as possible, even at the cost of sacrificing individual animals for sustenance? If any one person or group of specific persons could cure cancer, invent A.I., build an interstellar colony ship, develop a method for breeding sapient pigs, or stabilize the Earth's climate, wouldn't it be more beneficial for every creature on Earth if we as humans took the responsibility to take care of our own species first (now, obviously, this end alone wouldn't justify eating animals if eating animals was inherently immoral, but I believe that I've made a pretty good case against that so this is all just frosting)?

For one thing, I wasn't referencing that site as a, "Look! Here's all the evidence you'll ever need!" deal. I do think that it effectively showed that there is a great amount of debate on the issue of human omnivorous tendencies, and that's even within the vegetarian/vegan community. We should both consider that it may be the case that you have spent a great deal of time leading yourself to your conclusions based on your ethics, and the same may be true of me. Of course you are right about one thing - I am by no means an expert (never claimed to be!) and I should neither claim expertise nor should I imply that everything I say is factual, especially if I have not done the research. I sincerely apologize if anybody thought either of those things based on what I said or how I said it. However, it's still true that anybody can make a logical case for the human omnivore by simply saying that we are, in fact, capable of doing so and living long, healthy lives while we're at it. IF it were as bad as you say (obviously, a meat-heavy or meat-dependent diet isn't as healthy as a vegan diet, but a vegan diet is not always sustainable for many due in part to low availability of certain vitamins and proteins) or IF humans were not deriving any nutrients from meat at all, then I would wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. For another thing, I also never said that humans were predators, and your insistence on attacking the weakest possible point (straw-man fallacy) is frankly starting to get repetitive. Obviously, our teeth and many other traits should not be compared to wolves, lions, or even other primates in order to determine our evolutionary diet; rather, we should be comparing ourselves to other scavengers and omnivores. That said, "none of the biological traits of predators" is stretching it a little, don't you think? Are our eyes not forward facing in the front of our skulls? Are our brains not well-developed? Speaking of brains, many argue that humans have no natural weapons, but I beg to differ - our naturally-evolved brains are far more dangerous than any tiger. I would be glad to go so far as to infer or suppose (don't worry, I'll try not to say anything else that might be interpreted as if I believe it is unequivocal fact in your presence) that homo sapiens and our close relatives' use of tools and fire is only natural, given that our brains evolved to allow us to figure it out. And, of course, as soon as we did, we were able to hunt for larger and larger prey; though, I should point out that even without tools, we were still likely eating carrion, crustaceans, or any other animal that we could catch. I do love TED talks, and that speaker was pretty good. But, uh, I don't see what it accomplished. She didn't make any sort of case for natural solely vegan/vegetarian diets - in fact she straight up admitted that early humans ate meat, just not in similar quantities. She was debunking the ridiculous paleo-diets. Even I could have told you that those diets are not based on factual history. There's that one quote (coming from an archaeological scientist, not a biologist) that supports the case directly and maybe another few things that she says that might support it. I noticed, however, that after she said the part that you quoted, she went on to list human traits that were specifically unique to non-carnivores. That seems to imply that what she meant to say was that none of our adaptations exist solely to eat meat. Her statements around the 5-minute mark appear to support my inference, and if it is the case that that's what she meant, then I agree. Then you bring up the appeal to tradition fallacy or, argumentum ad antiquitatem, which I feel that I need to address. In many cases, this fallacy is used by irrational individuals to assert that, if something has always been done, then that makes it "right" or "okay." This is not always the case, hence this tactic's label as a fallacy. However, it is truly important to note that I'm not arguing from tradition; the entire basis of my argument is that eating meat is not inherently immoral and for reasons other than nature. There are two premises that I've discussed above, but I'm happy to repeat for your convenience. 1) Any given human action is one of two things: it is immoral for everybody (killing, raping, theft, and any extension of those things), or else it is not inherently immoral (drinking, drugs, premarital sex, etc.). Try it at home! If you can come up with an exception to this rule, please feel free to inform the board. 2) It is not immoral for a human to kill an animal for sustenance. This argument is supported by the fact that you cannot rape somebody who does not have a problem with rape (this was detailed further - see my previous comments or Stefan's videos on morality). If you have a problem with this premise, please attack it directly! Show me evidence that animals can function beyond their instincts and have a moral objection to murdering, not simply being murdered. Or reveal some holes in my rationale with some fact that I perhaps haven't thought about! That would be great. Please no more of this straw-man crap, I'm sickeningly reminded of my LDS family. Meanwhile, I just love that you point out a fallacy you suspect me of using in one post, and then use it yourself in the very next post. Yeah, humans have killed throughout our history. I'm saying (and I'm certainly neither alone nor the first to say this) that each and every person who has ever initiated violence against another, non-consenting human was acting immorally or in other words, initiating violence has never been moral, even though humans have always done it. Now your "moral" choices are narrowed to simply avoiding violence by adhering to the Non-Aggression Principle. Anything else that you might consider immoral could perhaps be merely not preferable, and for that argument, I refer you to Stefan's book, Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics. I have made the case in earlier posts that the practice of eating meat in civilized society is, at the very worst, not preferable to a strict vegan lifestyle, but also that eating meat has never been immoral. Thanks, I hope you learned something from my post, as I have from yours.

If there's a problem or a hole in my above reasoning, I would prefer that somebody point it out instead of getting into the semantics. But, since the premise of my argument has been challenged, I suppose an answer is necessary. This is a good place to start: http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm. There's plenty more where that came from and I'm sure that I could spend hours researching (and if you still aren't convinced, I suppose I could dedicate four years to a baccalaureate degree in biology), but if you're going to just ignore your cuspids and incisors, then I don't see how I could show you anything to change your mind. The facts are supposed to speak for themselves, but you seem to not care that early humans and other primates hunted game when vegetation was scarce. Seems like an evolutionary survival trait to me, but whatever. Look, I spend far too much time getting my research ignored by theists to make myself an expert on human diets. You can't change the fact that there have always been omnivorous humans, and all I can do is point that out. That's not to say that our evolutionary traits are behavioral necessities, just taxonomic options. Humans will always have the choice to not eat meat, even though their bodies can handle it. It's true human diets consisting of mostly meat are generally not as healthy as minimal-to-no meat consumption, but the unhealthiness of an energy source does not make it an invalid energy source. Did I say it was okay for lions to kill lions? I don't remember saying that, nor can I find it anywhere in my previous posts. Hmm. I do, however, seem to remember saying that lions apparently think it's okay to kill lions because they do kill each other. So... yeah, I guess as soon as they realize that it's not okay, I'll stop eating animals due to the immorality of it. In the meantime, I'll take your question directly. Why isn't it okay for humans to kill humans if it's okay for lions to kill lions? Well, first of all, it is okay for humans to kill humans in self-defense. I think you meant "Why isn't it okay for humans to violate the NAP if it's okay for lions blah blah blah?" And the answer to that question lies with me telling you that it's immoral to kill me. I don't kill, nor do I steal or trespass, rape or enslave. As my fellow rational, moral human being, you should be able to realize that killing me serves no productive purpose, so you won't. But say I am a rival business competitor that you wish to see dead in order to gain some sort of economic advantage. You must realize that the second you take action to kill me, you have decided that the NAP does not apply to you and therefore you are perfectly okay with taking the risk that I might kill you in defense of myself or others. So there are perfectly logical situations in which it IS okay for humans to kill humans. I'll reiterate: Killing me is or becomes moral to you, and the chance of your own death becomes an inherent part of that morality. Killing you is immoral to me until you take that first action, at which time I can justify my action using your inherent consent. I hope I've cleared things up!

Happy to clarify, Kevin. I never said that animals don't own themselves. Let me put it this way, expanding while I'm at it on some of what I understand to be Stefan's argument (though I also do not presume to speak for him): Are we agreed that it is impossible to rape a person who has no problem with being forced into sex? Would it be morally wrong to rape such a person? No, it would not be wrong, but the person still owns his/her own body. It is from this point that the rest of my rationale lies. Animals do kill, both within and outside of their own species. The sentient animal may have self-awareness (I think) but practices rational killing for survival. We may infer, as I said, that they must not have any problem with that, or else why would they do it? Therefore we are not immoral in killing animals for food. Since animals don't practice or have any concept of torture, there is no rationalization for torturing them. We can't say, "Well, they torture, so they must not have a problem with it" because of that fact. Neither can we simply ask them if they have a problem with it. We can only make rational guesses based on their own actions. So that's the bulk of my argument, but I should also point something else out while I'm at it. If we were to practice the NAP towards animals based on the concept of self-ownership alone and never, ever kill them for any reason, then we also have to look at rational human killings. It is not a violation of the NAP to kill another human in self-defense, nor is it a violation to kill another human in defense of another non-aggressor. From that logic, I could appoint myself the guardian of a wild herd of elk and shoot any wolf that comes near for attempting to kill these elk, because it is immoral to kill, no matter the species. So those wolves will die either way. See the problem? How can we claim that it is wrong for us to kill animals for sustenance (ignoring the fact that we have evolved as omnivores) and not hold other animals to the same standard? Here's another thing I thought of just now: there are many, many people in undeveloped or underdeveloped countries who have no other choice but to kill animals for sustenance and survival. Is that immoral? I submit here that it is not. Are we in the developed world immoral for killing animals to eat? How can we be? How can we be held to a different standard than others within our own species? As we can deduce from philosophical science, what is immoral for one cannot be moral for somebody else. That is the way the politicians think, but it is not justified in any rational way. I hope that explains it, but more than anything else, I hope that you did not come here attempting to justify some action of your own. I don't know you, and I'm trying really hard not to jump to any conclusions, but I need to say anyway that IF there is anybody out there who thinks that it's okay to torture animals for any reason, then I hope those people read this post and come to the conclusion that they need to seek help.

No, I think I can rationalize it. Here we go: So, I think we all know Stefan's analogy of it being impossible to rape somebody who is okay with the idea of rape. In other words, such a person has essentially already given consent, and no matter how I might feel about forcibly having sex with people, it could not possibly be immoral (or, again, possible at all) to "rape" such a person if they have demonstrated that they have no problem with it (I'm obviously paraphrasing - please feel free to correct me if I didn't get the analogy), no matter what emotional response such an act might draw. Let's try to adjust this analogy to animals. Animals have no problem with killing. A bull moose will fight, often to the death, another bull moose in order to win a mate, lions have no problem hunting their prey, and wolves kill for leadership. This is totally natural and we accept all of these things as being "okay" to the animals themselves. We can rationally infer, then, that our natural instinct to kill and eat animals cannot be immoral - it is an aspect of our survival, and though we COULD eat vegan, it is by no means any more moral, just perhaps preferable. We have no moral obligation not to kill in beneficial ways the animals who practice natural, beneficial killing, even if we individually can choose not to. As for their survival instinct, the trait by which they avoid pain and death, well, I don't think these are "desires," I think they're just instincts with nothing inherently moral or immoral about them. So, to summarize this point: There is nothing morally wrong with pursuing our instinctual desire to eat meat. Torturing animals is another story. Many animals that we eat are sentient, which means they have the ability to feel pain, act aggressively, nurture young, etc. To cause them unnecessary pain serves no purpose, and I'm not even going to expand on what Stefan said about psychopathy. Instead, I'll rely again on the assumption that you cannot rape a person who has consented to your forcible sexual advances, but it's possible to steal from them if they haven't expressed acceptance in favor of the idea of theft. See, I've never heard of a sadistic ant. Ants are capable of what we perceive as ruthless killing, but it's merely efficient, not sadistic. I've never heard of pigs or cows killing each other, or any other species, for fun. I'm not sure that "torture" is even a concept outside of irrational human justification. So we can rationally infer that a dog in no way deserves to be beaten. There's no reason to take my time killing a pig for food. We shouldn't test hair or beauty products on animals if there's any reason to suspect that a product is dangerous (though we can and SHOULD test potentially human-life-saving medications and treatments on animals - human lives are worth the suffering of animals, thereby making it necessary unless somebody has a better idea... And I can expand further upon the idea of rational animal experimentation if anybody sees a problem with it or would like me to clarify). Animals have done nothing to indicate that they are in any way okay with inflicting irrational "punishments" or experiments on them. Therefore, it is not just a violation of some "non-sadism principle" (it doesn't exist as anything other than an extension of the NAP), unnecessary cruelty to animals is a violation of the NAP. I hope that's all clear. One more addendum: I am, in fact, a human being and I do, in fact, put the survival, nay, the prosperity of my species ahead of the lives of other species, just as animals do. I hope I don't sound too heartless towards livestock animals, though I'm sure that my compassion means nothing to them.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/many-herbal-products-mislabeled-contain-allergens-as-fillers/ The comment section seems to suggest that people haven't done their research. One of the first commentators even issues a challenge for Libertarians to explain how "unfettered" capitalism has let this happen. I did do some research. Apparently, Senator Hatch (R-Utah) helped write and pass a law awhile back that made it difficult, if not impossible, to punish businesses for selling potentially harmful herbal remedies and labeling them correctly. The way I see it, if somebody ran a business selling herbal remedies, what incentive would they have to make their product as safe as possible if they a) did not have to answer to the consumer and b) did not have to worry about regulation (Just to be clear, I understand that point 'a' is a natural solution and point 'b' is keeping point 'a' from taking place to a large extent)? This is not capitalism running rampant, ruining people's lives. This is more government interference making it difficult for capitalism to operate the way it needs to in order to keep consumers from the knowledge they need to purchase goods safely.

Well worded, RoseCodex. Inflation and minimum wage are some of my favorites of the footnotes you mentioned (in terms of how easy it is to show how they hurt the poor). What kinds of government regulations besides on minimum wage are harmful to the poor, as opposed to letting the rich get away with stuff? And I don't know much about banking cartels. Looks like I've got a fun night of research ahead of me.

http://utrend.tv/v/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact/ I do have a problem with how the current system is (not) working. But I have a bigger problem with the way the narrator seems to imply that there's something the government should be doing, as if they didn't aid and abet the thieves and schemers at the top. I'm looking for thoughts on how best to voice my opinion, though. Thoughts?