Right Wing Discussion Thread IX: The Right Man's Burden

[The Founding Fatherland]

If the teachings are wrong, then they should be rejected. I will not accept anything blindly simply because the Church said it. While I respect the authority of the Church, they aren't always right.

By definition, the Church is always right. We do believe in the infallibility of the Church.

To believe the Church is infallible is to commit an act of grand ignorance. History, science, theologians and even God himself has proven the Church can be wrong. I'd argue it's heretical to suggest otherwise.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Gee, I don't know, because it will kill them?

If me cutting your rope line will save my life and there's no chance to save us both then I'm cutting the rope.
I might agonize over, freak out afterwards over what I did, but I'm still cutting the rope.
Sorry.

He didn't say anything about saving your own life.

[Luminesa]

It's not really chaining someone if they are already chained at birth.

By whom? Who makes the chains? Who decides to chain them? The 'already chained' argument presumes a pre-existing obligation.

I gotta say CM, it's amusing to observe your evolution into a liberal Ayn Rand.

I'm pretty sure I've had this same conversation as far back as '12. It's not an evolution of my views.

Max Barry still didn’t appreciate you cornering him and continuing to rant at him for 10 days. :^)))))

[Conserative Morality]

I'm an advocate for not tossing a baby into the woods because it's convenient, yes.

You're dodging the point.

[Genivaria]

If me cutting your rope line will save my life and there's no chance to save us both then I'm cutting the rope.
I might agonize over, freak out afterwards over what I did, but I'm still cutting the rope.
Sorry.

He didn't say anything about saving your own life.

We were talking about abandoning someone because it was convenient.
Not sure what YOU were thinking of by 'convenient' but a life threatening situation was the most reasonable assumption.

[Conserative Morality]

Max Barry still didn’t appreciate you cornering him and continuing to rant at him for 10 days. :^)))))

What else would be scarier than showing up to a Halloween party dressed as Ayn Rand and condemning everyone to dry lectures for the equivalent of 500 pages? =^)

[Sanctissima]

It's not really chaining someone if they are already chained at birth.

By whom? Who makes the chains? Who decides to chain them? The 'already chained' argument presumes a pre-existing obligation.

I gotta say CM, it's amusing to observe your evolution into a liberal Ayn Rand.

I'm pretty sure I've had this same conversation as far back as '12. It's not an evolution of my views.

By nature.

One can't really decide what biology does. At least, not without extensive genetic intervention. Regardless, the chain is a physical pre-condition. If its removal results in the death of one of the twins, that is murder, by definition.

You basically epitomize what Ayn Rand's ideology would have been had her family not been screwed over by Bolsheviks.

[Hakons]

I'm an advocate for not tossing a baby into the woods because it's convenient, yes.

You're dodging the point.

The stupid series of hypotheticals pro-abortion people throw out to distract that they're killing a human organism?

[Genivaria]

So you are an advocate of forcing people to care for others if their lives depend on it?

I'm an advocate for not tossing a baby into the woods because it's convenient, yes.

There are 2.5 Million children who are homeless in the US alone.
Go help them, unless it's too inconvenient for you.

[United Muscovite Nations]

He didn't say anything about saving your own life.

We were talking about abandoning someone because it was convenient.
Not sure what YOU were thinking of by 'convenient' but a life threatening situation was the most reasonable assumption.

Convenience doesn't mean you will die from it or even be seriously harmed by it, merely that it would be an annoyance.

[Luminesa]

Max Barry still didn’t appreciate you cornering him and continuing to rant at him for 10 days. :^)))))

What else would be scarier than showing up to a Halloween party dressed as Ayn Rand and condemning everyone to dry lectures for the equivalent of 500 pages? =^)

90 if you read Anthem.

[Conserative Morality]

By nature.

One can't really decide what biology does. At least, not without extensive genetic intervention. Regardless, the chain is a physical pre-condition. If its removal results in the death of one of the twins, that is murder, by definition.

Sorry, I got the 'baby abandoning' and 'Siamese twins' argument muddled as I posted.

You basically epitomize what Ayn Rand's ideology would have been had her family not been screwed over by Bolsheviks.

... because I believe in individual autonomy?

[Genivaria]

I'm an advocate for not tossing a baby into the woods because it's convenient, yes.

You're dodging the point.

...I thought you were a crpto-fascist.
You fucking disappoint me CM.

[Conserative Morality]

The stupid series of hypotheticals pro-abortion people throw out to distract that they're killing a human organism?

No, that a person does not automatically have an obligation to give up their life for the sake of the lives of others.

[Hakons]

I'm an advocate for not tossing a baby into the woods because it's convenient, yes.

There are 2.5 Million children who are homeless in the US alone.
Go help them, unless it's too inconvenient for you.

I have helped a few. Since we're still arguing absurdities, I assume the other side of the coin, the one that you're on, wants to round them and put them in the inconvenient's gulag?

[United Muscovite Nations]

The stupid series of hypotheticals pro-abortion people throw out to distract that they're killing a human organism?

No, that a person does not automatically have an obligation to give up their life for the sake of the lives of others.

You're talking about convenience, not dying for other people.

[Hakons]

The stupid series of hypotheticals pro-abortion people throw out to distract that they're killing a human organism?

No, that a person does not automatically have an obligation to give up their life for the sake of the lives of others.

Yep, I totally claimed it was too death.

[Genivaria]

There are 2.5 Million children who are homeless in the US alone.
Go help them, unless it's too inconvenient for you.

I have helped a few. Since we're still arguing absurdities, I assume the other side of the coin, the one that you're on, wants to round them and put them in the inconvenient's gulag?

If you want to assume an extreme go for it, you've been doing it the last couple pages.

[Conserative Morality]

You're talking about convenience, not dying for other people.

I'm talking about giving up your life for life. UMN, you play Total War, don't you?

[United Muscovite Nations]

You're talking about convenience, not dying for other people.

I'm talking about giving up your life for life. UMN, you play Total War, don't you?

You wouldn't die from having a conjoined twin, or from breastfeeding/looking after a child.

[Conserative Morality]

Yep, I totally claimed it was too death.

Not what I was trying to say.

[Hakons]

I have helped a few. Since we're still arguing absurdities, I assume the other side of the coin, the one that you're on, wants to round them and put them in the inconvenient's gulag?

If you want to assume an extreme go for it, you've been doing it the last couple pages.

Such as? CM and apparently you have agreed that it's OK to abandon infant children if it makes it difficult for the family.

[Sanctissima]

By nature.

One can't really decide what biology does. At least, not without extensive genetic intervention. Regardless, the chain is a physical pre-condition. If its removal results in the death of one of the twins, that is murder, by definition.

Sorry, I got the 'baby abandoning' and 'Siamese twins' argument muddled as I posted.

You basically epitomize what Ayn Rand's ideology would have been had her family not been screwed over by Bolsheviks.

... because I believe in individual autonomy?

Because you take it to its logical extreme.

Or at least, close to it. Not quite Anarchist-tier, but you're getting there.

[The East Marches II]

Killing a Siamese twin because their sibling doesn't like them is inherently cold and barbaric. It's taking individualism way too damn far. One doesn't have to be the complete antithesis of a Communist in order to be anti-Communist.

And chaining someone to a human being they have no obligation to isn't cold and barbaric? If my solution is murder, your's is slavery

I thought you supported slavery. Aftetall, you use the labor of the useful to keep alive the useless.

[Conserative Morality]

You wouldn't die from having a conjoined twin, or from breastfeeding/looking after a child.

And you wouldn't die from not having a video game, or a chocolate bar, or by not posting on here.