smarterthanone

Lol. I am not asexual... so... nahhhhh

How is killing a "child" from rape not murder but euthanasia? A child from rape is no different than a child from normal relations. I am assuming you only want to allow abortion from rape to spare the mother... in which case that is proof that the mothers feelings and autonomy is more important than a child. Still not logically consistent.

Nobody is saying go monk. lol. Just not get married. My parents always say this to me... I say, I don't think I am going to get married. They say, so you don't want a girlfriend? Um yeah a girlfriend, not a piece of paper.

Wait what? *facepalm* I am not going to respond because you didn't address really anything I said, while introducing other concepts without explaining... such as genocide.

Not objective. That is your opinion. Definition of human: having human form or attributes. Definition of being: the qualities that constitute an existent thing. Neither of these terms expressly defines a combined egg and sperm as a human being. Combined sperm and egg do not have the form of a human and but they share one major attribute of DNA, so certainly they fall under the realm of human but not so much of human being. They are both words dealing with whats called "essence." When I say I am wearing a shoe, you can look at it and know, yes it is a shoe. It might be made of leather, or pleather, or fabric or rubber... but it goes on my foot and I wear it to protect my feet. If I put a hat on my foot, it may be made out of fabric and have a piece of rubber on it AND be on my foot, it is not a shoe. If I have just a shoe lace, it is not a shoe. If I have a raw piece of leather and a raw piece of fabric and a raw piece of rubber... still not a shoe. A shoe is a shoe, not something else. Just as a human being is a human being, not cells. So you don't have a right to not be murdered? Then why are we even arguing over abortion? LOL If the mute cannot speak, or write, or do anything at all to communicate, then sure, same category as an infant or coma person. If they speak a different language that would enable them communicate No now wouldn't it? We are talking about their ability to mentally function, not your language education. If you believe in voluntary society, why would you pretend to know what is best for someone else? Do you believe they should just pay taxes too because its only such a small amount of money that does a great amount of good? Same logic. You didn't answer my question. Who mandates they have to care for the infant? Who would hold them responsible seeing as nobody cared enough to take the infant?

Your exceptions break your argument. If all infanticide is murder, even in situations of rape, you would be a murderer. Change your logical reasoning, yours is not a good argument as is, unless you also argue that sometimes its acceptable to be a murderer. But that would require its completely own argument and one I don't think anyone is up to the task for.

You can say it over and over and over. You believe it is a human being or person. It is not objectively a human being. A functioning person is objectively a human being because they have all the characteristics of a human being (such as everything a fully functional adult human being would be able to do). Note I said "being" after human. Like Descartes cogito ergo sum, the being/or thinking is what differentiates a human being from an animal or human blood on the floor. The ability to do human things ie think causes one to be. Egg and sperm, either combined or separate, are genetically human but they do not have all the characteristics of a being. Look carefully at what you said "...it would become a human..." so even you casually talk about it as not being a human being already. If it is not a human, how can you murder it? Where do rights not exist? Do you not recognize the natural rights to life, liberty and property? Way to be literal. Communicate. Mute people can communicate, believe it or not, they can write or use sign language. So scratch that from your list. People in a coma and or infants, correct, they can not communicate. But they are however only one entity involved in voicing lack of consent. Being an infant in and of itself does not make it ok to kill you just because you cannot say no. If nobody who has an any responsibility for you is willing to say no on your behalf then it would be ok in a voluntary (dare I say ideal, we are on FDR) society. Example: You and a woman have a newborn. You do not want the infant, the woman does not want the infant. Nobody in your family wants the infant. Nobody in your town wants the infant. You post on the internet, still nobody wants the infant. You try to put him up for adoption, nobody wants the infant. Is it now ok to leave the infant on the side of the road? OR do you have a mandate that the infant must be provided for? I mean sure a responsible person would take the kid but hypothetically here, who issues this mandate? Who will protect the infant from being left on the side of the road? Nobody seeing as nobody was willing to take the infant. This could only be enforced with a government.

I always say the woman worth marrying is the one who refuses to get married due to the involvement of the government in marriage.

Marx said all sorts of random junk. I wrote the argument. Is that what you are asking? A decent number of commies will follow this argument though. Try it in your favorite facebook anarchist group. Just make sure you keep saying you are a strict supporter of Marx when delivering it and they will eat it up.

Unfortunately this. But its been said, that its a beautiful sight to behold, when you see a spark in their dark, dead eyes and they turn on like they are a new Christmas toy you just shoved batteries up its derriere.

When you deal with retards, sometimes you need retarded arguments. Here is one for you to use when you talk to someone spouting the Marx LTV. 1. Only labor creates wealth 2. Metal ore in the earth is not inherently valuable, metal ore dug up and refined is the value. It comes from the labor. 3. Labor only exists in the present, when the labor is being acted out. 4. The refined metal is the value created by the labor the person. No capitalist should be able to steal the metal from the laborer because their physical labor is now converted into the metal. 5. Workers are entitled to 100% of their labor, therefore the metal is private property owned by the laborer. (*The only place you will probably get some push back due to use of term private property*) 6. The laborer builds a machine out of the metal with his own two hands. 7. Nobody else is entitled to the machine (MOP) because it is the workers labor. To do so would be theft according to Marx LTV. I have used this argument on commie retards before with decent success. Almost everything Marx says supports capitalism if you really think it through.

Say you have a net worth of $2 million, the woman thinks she is worth a $1,000,000 purchase price? Lmfao

Child support being the only remaining issue to deal with. Well don't get common law married either. It isn't magic like it just happens. I live in a common law state, there needs to be proof you are married still. You aren't going to get a room mate and you are married the next day. Why would you want joint ownership of assets? That's the point, to not have joint ownership. Hospital visitation can be assigned with power of attorney documents. Presumably if you are in a relationship the custody of the children is not an issue. You mean he tried to have a contract instead of being married OR he tried to have a contract to nullify the legal ramifications of being married?

For society. Be selfish for a minute... there is more variety for YOUR dna.

If marriage comes with all sorts of legal issues, why not just not get married? I don't mean not have a relationship or even kids. If you don't get married: 1. No alimony 2. No dividing assets 3. No divorce Once your assets are protected, your girlfriend is less likely to leave you when she is the one who will have to live on her friends couch or stay at a cheap motel instead of your nice house. What is so special about marriage? It is just a commitment. How is the filing of government papers important?

You can't just remove services and then wait a few months and expect everything to be taken care of. You need to let people actually figure out how to solve the problems. Also one of the biggest concerns was street lights, well if people don't want to pay for them, then they are not valuable enough. The end. It isn't a bad aspect but a positive feature.

Women have lowered their SMV so low as a whole they aren't valuable any more. Even a high SMV is so risky they will crater themselves randomly you can't bank on even if you find a quality woman, all she needs is some feminist to be friends with her and she might flip practically over night. So even with a high SMV, there is a chance it will become 0 on any given day.

I mean going off many of the principles Stef is for... they do support building a harem. Not all of course and I am pretty sure Stef has never advocated for it, but with a few tweaks to the logic it does make sense. Having lots of kids Wide genetic variety Obviously male is head of the household and such his principles and teachings of life would be upheld Only a strong, intelligent, wealthy male could pull this off to a high level. So these children would not be exposed to beta cucks. Financially beneficial. (# of women would provide lots of supervision and make it easy for home schooling without any external help) ALSO: There will be less female logic issues because instead of a man telling them 'NO', the man can also have the support of the other women saying 'NO'. ie say one man, three women, two kids each. If one woman wants to leave, the other two will be very hostile to the idea because the child support will take away from them and their kids. So instead of one man fighting it, its one man and two women. Now say she leaves and does get child support, I believe she will get significantly less since he has so many other children he supports. This is a win both in prevention of child support AND in asset protection of child support. (Not sure exactly how it works in general about the amount, but just guessing)

I don't think so. It would be like an adoptive relationship. One big family. And sure maybe a little but its not like they don't have their own biological mom as well. Kids get baby sitters and such so its not like they don't spend time with someone who doesn't treat they as their own anyways. Do they listen to baby sitters, aunts, etc. yes they do. They also would have their own biological mother don't forget. It takes a special kind of man to do this. If you don't know the how... don't worry about it. I don't think it makes sense for one woman to have multiple men because it doesn't help reproduction.

Yeah I was doing 80 hour weeks at certain points. No overtime pay, at minimal hourly rate. Just has to be done.

I had three people I learned the most from in my life. All three required I work for free. 1. I met through an acquaintance a woman who owned a small but successful b2b financial company. I was not qualified to work a job there, I had no degree or any experience, I think I was like 19 or 20 at the time. I said, let me work for free and if I prove myself I get the job. She said ok. I trained for 2 months with no pay, and I worked for about another 2 months with no pay. Then I finally closed a deal and she gave me salary + commission. First year I broke $100,000. I learned a lot about the finance world and sales. Unfortunately the real estate downturn 2. I met a guy who was starting a tech company. Yeah he was all talk. He had no employees, office, or anything at all... except he had 3 investors and already raised $1,000,000! He must know something. So I said lets give this a try, I asked if I could join into the company. He said sure but he wasn't ready to hire people and start paying yet. Well I saw the value in being involved since day 1 so I offered to work for free. So there I was working for free. Next thing you now I am the #2 guy there and managing multiple departments and over 40 people. I got to go to investor meetings and do pretty much everything there was to do there. I learned a ton and was offered a piece of ownership of the company but decided to go in another direction. 3. My father, since I was about 10, he made me work for the family business. If he hired someone to clean leaves up outside he gave them a leaf blower and gave me a broom, just to save a buck. I didn't catch any breaks. I worked for him off and on over the years... for free or later on at very low wage. Now I built my own company in the same niche as the family business and am quite successful. I used things I learned from the prior two experiences to be even better at my business and taught my pops some new tricks that really helped him. Each of these experiences I learned more than a full college degree worth of valuable to the point actionable knowledge and got the experience to back it up. My whole life, whichever opportunity I was in, people were always like, how did you get that job, or start that business or whatever... well certainly not by applying to some job on a job website or anything like that. I highly suggest thinking about what you want first, then figure out how to get it, and when the opportunity is there, if its any good, it should be a stretch for you to reach, so yeah, you may have to offer up your work for free.

I understand one good woman is a very good scenario but why not 2 or 3? Tbh I see it as a great way to have a very large family like 10+ kids with sufficient supervision at lower cost.

Work for free is the most important thing on the list IMO. I would be nowhere today if I didn't work for free multiple times.

I don't know about parasites but the higher the IQ the higher the propensity for the "retard" gene. Like you know the people that are so smart but they miss completely obvious stuff? Many FDR followers are like this.

Jeez, I am not saying give her a black eye. You don't slap a girls butt when you have sex? No difference.