Topics You Can Never Change My Mind On
Set in my ways
I like some people hold certain beliefs that can not be changed. I want to share those with you. These are not up for debate either.
Abortion is Murder
The above statement upsets a lot of people but I don't care. The only time a woman can choose whether or not to have a child is preconception or if they have to choose between their life or the baby's.
Taxes are Theft
If I don't freely give you my money you are stealing it. Simple right?
We All Deserve to Own a Gun
Everyone has the right to protect their lives in anyway possible even if it means a hand grenade. The only time you have the right to take another's life is to preserve your own.
Free Speech Should Not be Stopped
Everyone has the right to say what ever they like even if it offends another. You just need to be willing to deal with the consequences of what you say. No one has the right to stop anothed from speaking their mind.
Don't Start Nothin' wont be Nothin'
This is simply the non aggression principle. Leave other's alone if they are not doing anything to you.
Wrapping up
These topics are not things I will budge on. This not to say I won't listen to another's opinion, but I am highly unlikely to change my mind. I might be a little contradictory, but I love to hear other's opinions and about them in a respectful manner. That is just who I am. I might not be compromising in my beliefs but I am compromising in choices that affect everyone.
Want to support me?
I accept Dash and upvotes
XnLSs7PFnwKrytCiR1Zchw4ufoCrztQKzu
I hope you don't mind me replying to comments on your post! Upvoted.
Why should your opinion of when a woman can have an abortion override her own bodily autonomy? Who should enforce this, the government? Isn't that anti-liberty for the government to force a woman to bear a child against her will?
The infant committed no trespass by being conceived through no action of its own, and abortion violates the bodily autonomy of the unborn.
Why would you put the bodily autonomy of an unborn child on the same level as a woman of child bearing age? Does a small child have any memory of their infancy, let alone of their pre-birth? Of course it's terrible to end the potential of a life, but at this stage in human development there is no self-awareness. Would you hold a human fetus to a higher standard of ethics than we hold live animals?
Why do you think the stage of development affects individual rights?
I hold adult humans to a higher standard of ethics than I hold animals.
When you pit the rights of a mother against those of a fetus, you must consider other factors to determine whose rights take precedent.
Suppose I own a Cessna
I invite you to fly with me.
I somehow fail to overlook that you have been smuggled aboard against your will by some third party and left inside through no fault of your own.
Suppose some third party threatens to harm me if I refuse to take off carrying you in scenario 2, instead of me merely not noticing.
In which of these scenarios would I be justified in suddenly saying at 3,00 feet in the air, "You're not welcome here," and throwing you out through the door? You have not committed trespass in any way.
That is an analogy for abortion in cases of intentional pregnancy, unintentional pregnancy, and rape.
Hmmm, sorry not sure that's a great metaphor for this. You can't compare on an equal plane a self aware developed human, presumably adult in this example, to a fetus.
Have you ever just simply considered what it would be like if you didn't want to have a child, but you were forced to go through a 9 month body altering process, a potentially dangerous and painful birth, and then have to be responsible for this child for the next 18 years of your life, at least?
Given the modern medical procedures to easily and humanely end pregnancy, it is utterly monstrous to suggest that a woman must be denied the right to end a pregnancy.
Why do you place a distinction on the level of human development relating to the rights held by the individuals in question while at the same time trying to insist that animals have rights? A fetus is a genetically unique human from conception and the first cellular division.
Take the airplane example. I have an extra weight burden and unwanted traveling companion. Does that mean I have the right to "humanely" kill and eject him?
In another example, if I think hunting of all types is murder, should hunting be made illegal because of that opinion? Why are human lives more worthy of protection than the lives of any other sentient being?
Persuade a cat to not hunt mice. Carnivores and omnivores are not unnatural. Make a rational case for why humans should not hunt.
The rational case for why humans should not hunt is that humans no longer need to hunt and kill non-humans to survive. Hunting is a primitive practice, and we continue to develop alternatives to meat consumption. If in the future you can "grow" meat using lab technology, and it tastes just as good, why should we allow the killing of other beings? Unless your value of fetal life is irrationally separate from other beings?
Why do you equate human life with animal life?
Calling something a "primitive practice" is not an argument.
We are animals. We are creatures among all the others. Obviously we have evolved to a point where we have achieved incredible things, but ultimately all creatures, human and non-human, feel emotions, and if we were to ever find ourselves below the top of the chain, wouldn't we beg for mercy ourselves?
I saw a video today of an elephant, using its trunk, very carefully painting a picture of an elephant, and expressing joy throughout the process. If you've ever had a pet that you've cared for deeply, you especially know it's not right to hurt animals, and hopefully it should just be implicit regardless.
I think it's a completely valid argument to say - we don't need to kill animals to eat and survive, so how is it not primitive behavior to continue to do so anyway even though it is barbaric?
We all belong to the "animal kingdom," but we are not all the same species. Many, many species of animals eat other species of animals either as obligate carnivores or as omnivores. Yes, we are the only species capable of reason as far as we know, so there is room for an argument in favor of applying reason rather than instinct to our actions. However, your arguments are not based in reason, but rather in an appeal to emotion cloaked in the trappings of reason.
Snopes among many other sources I have seen demonstrate that these paintings are the result of training rather than spontaneous creativity. My feelings for a pet to not imbue the pet with any unique characteristics. To say that we may not need to kill animals in order to eat and survive does not automatically mean that we should not. You're still failing to present any sound arguments.
Historically, animals have eaten other animals if they need to to survive, just like we as animals ourselves have historically done, and still do to this day. Only, humans don't need to eat animals to survive today. This is not an emotional argument, but simple fact, that you can live the rest of your life without eating meat, and you will be fine. For obligate carnivores, if we develop good "lab meat," then they don't need to consume other animals either. You may not consider this a sound argument, but I don't hear what your counter argument is to it.
And sure, the elephant thing doesn't really help the point I'm trying to make. However, animals have chemicals in their brain that constitute emotional responses, just as we do.
Point being - hunting is murder. So, why would we hold an inconsistent definition of murder across species? Why does species change the way we operate ethically? You accuse me of forgoing logic, but why logically would you hold different species to a lower ethical standard in a world where we no longer need to murder one another to survive?
What do you think society would be like if no one paid any taxes? Aren't you taking for granted all the infrastructure that has been built using public funding? How is it not much more equitable to pool resources via redistribution of tax revenue to benefit all of society, rather than have public utilities function at the whim of the lucky few who were granted wealth by the mixture of favorable conditions in their life?
A government monopoly doing X, Y, and Z does not prove that government is necessary or efficient. It just proves that politicians used coercion to expropriate wealth, and the dregs went to certain projects.
I don't know where you are from, but if you are from a first world country, it is very easy to discount the value of pooled funding systems via a government after you have benefitted from the achievements of such systems. Certainly it's fair to suggest alternative funding systems, but how can you rationally erase the importance of interstate highways, for example? The rail systems in Japan are a marvel. How can you discount the positive impact of the development of public utilities in the 20th century?
Interstate highways were built before government control. Look up the Lincoln and Dixie highways.
You are appealing to the status quo while completely ignoring the economic fact that monopolies invariably promote waste and abuse. Government is not an exception in any case. The lack of alternatives against which to measure government failure does not mean government is a success by default.
I never said that non-government entities cannot build infrastructure. I think they shouldn't, but they can. And of course, this is the extreme capitalist/libertarian vision - free from the shackles of taxation and regulation, free enterprise will provide what is needed. But for whom?
Free enterprise is not beholden to all citizens as their constituents. The growth of American government over the past 200+ years has been characterized by the ever receding ills of free enterprise and the unfettered profit motive. Slavery, child labor, environmental destruction, sugar, salt, fat, objectification of women - all part of the profit motive.
I am most certainly not appealing to the status quo. American democracy must be much stronger. Citizens must use their collective power to bargain for policy that actually levels the playing field in our democratic system. Average people are far too apathetic, and when the only real active forces lobbying the government are for the wealthy and powerful, it's really no mystery as to why the average citizen is being left in the cold. But it's also not a mystery why. Civic education and civic participation are pitiful in the U.S. Union membership is very low and declining. People don't seem to realize that within a representative democracy, you have power when you organize into large groups and participate.
Who would disagree that waste and abuse are bad? I believe the way you break "government monopolies" and create GOOD government is by creating a equally strong "monopoly" comprised of average citizens, who together have a purchasing power that can match or defeat corporate monopolies - all working within our representative democracy.
I also value efficiency. Waste in government is the enemy of progress, I don't think either party would disagree with that. Civic apathy breeds the politically expedient practices that create waste and abuse.
Wow. You have enough strawman arguments and red herrings to start a fishmongery AND a halloween store!
Why shouldn't free enterprise provide necessary services? Why do you think government can provide them better and more fairly? An honest look at current events and history shows how poorly government performs these services it has monopolized, and a basic understanding of economics shows that this result is to be expected. When costs are hidden from consumers, and there is no competition, there is no room for rational economic calculation by anyone. This guarantees poor service and waste even if you assume that government is entirely altruistic. And the psychological effects of power guarantee that the bureaucrats and politicians will never be altruistic.
Meanwhile, your "free market" boogeyman is an absurd caricature with no basis in reality. The "robber barons" were corporate fat cats who enjoyed the protection of government. It is the productivity of the market's technological advancement and competition for better workers that ended child labor, gave us the 8-hour workday, and made a two-day weekend possible. Union membership is declining becaus eunio0ns suck, operating as political machines more than anything else and acting as obstacles to proper work instead of prtectors of legitimate worker concerns, and workers know this.
Good government is a myth. Corporate monopolies and cartels only function because of government. Politics is a cancer in society.
I apologize if I've misrepresented your points in my responses with a straw man or red herring.
Again, private enterprise has no incentive to do well by the general populace. If a company can establish enough of a monopoly, then it doesn't really matter what people think - profit motive is king. Government on the other hand is fueled by elections, and is beholden to the electorate. Plus - government can cut out the profit motive. So, you have incentive, plus the potential for a more efficient delivery for services. I absolutely agree that we are not there - but I attribute that to the sabotage of government by anti-government legislators, plus a apathetic electorate.
If robber barons "enjoyed the protection of the government," then wasn't didn't protection fall apart after anti-trust law was enacted?
Your argument about child labor falls apart when you consider that we've had child labor all along really, market forces just transferred the child labor overseas. That's the beauty of the profit motive!
The 8-hour work day was absolutely hard fought for by unions. Unions began demanding 8 hour work days in the 1860's, and it wasn't until 1938 that FDR signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which enshrined these standards for all workers - good government.
Here's a reference on that - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/09/viral-image/does-8-hour-day-and-40-hour-come-henry-ford-or-lab/
And my wife and I are both members of different unions that serve us both very well thank you very much. The decline of unions can be directly tracked with the decline of manufacturing employment, much of which was unionized, as well as globalization, and conservative policies of the 1980's. Certainly political advocacy is an important part of union activity, which ensures that union members have a voice in government, which is a good thing for the worker.
Further reading on decline of unions- https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/09/economist-explains-19
I agree that American conservative legislators enable corporate monopolies by not pursuing anti-trust, as well as cutting all regulation just for the sake of doing so, and not considering the welfare of the average people.
Again, we need good government, not the republican dominated/obstructed government (including 2010-16 of the Obama years, as well as the Clinton years), since 1980, which leads with the principle that government is the enemy. This has become a self fulfilling prophecy, not a means by which we improve the functioning of government.
"Politicians used coercion to expropriate wealth" - as if you feel sympathy for the plight of the excessively wealthy? I do not understand the defense of excessive wealth. The average human makes $1.5 million over their lifetime. It is mind boggling to me how we allow so much accumulation of wealth by such few people. I'm not saying a government has to enforce this necessarily, although I clearly favor a redistributive tax system. I even think a change in philanthropic culture would be better than what we currently have. It seems to me though, that we are seeing a hoarding of wealth today that hearkens back to the era of "Robber Barons." Luxury items, and unsustainably lavish living are fundamentally immoral in the face of the inequality of this world. Again, wealthy individuals could change this themselves, but they don't.
Political plunder is the means by which the "excessively wealthy" prosper. Wealth alone is not an indicator of immorality. Voluntary exchange is mutually beneficial and the economy is not a zero-sum game. However, corporate fat cats benefit from tax-funded subsidies, bailouts, price controls, and other forms of interventionism as a means to plunder the economy.
The population of the wealthy is so small relative to the world's population, that I don't think you can disconnect "political plunder" with the immorality of hoarding wealth, and living lavishly in the face of global inequality.
I would argue that basic voluntary exchange is not at odds with measures preventing the gross accumulation of wealth.
I believe that you defeat "political plunder" through civic education, civic engagement, and the widespread organization of average citizens to properly participate in self-governance, which is our representative democracy.
Representative democracy is a myth. Self-government is antithetical to politics. Even if there were 100% voter participation in an election, how can the favored candidate of 50%+1 represent the 50%-1 in any rational sense? And where is the agent-principal relationship between those who voted for the winner, much less between the winner and those who opposed him or declined to participate in the sham altogether?
You speak as if every election is won 51% - 49% and that we only have one elected official each. We have a vibrant system, that with a properly informed and educated populace can produce a much better future. The sustained effort to dismantle institutions that benefit the working class has eroded the strength of the electorate over the past 30 years. Divisive propaganda has torn us apart in many ways, despite the fact that most American agree on most fundamental values. The embarrassing spectacle of the republican party presidential primaries over the past few elections makes it not so difficult to see where our problems lie. American democracy is only a sham when good people sit out, abdicate their civic duty, and let monied interests control the show.
None of these "refinements" affect my core arguments.