Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member  (Read 15769 times)

Amazing Alfredo

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
  • I'm a Calvinist!
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2003, 01:04:18 am »

pghpat26;

When i set up shop in the free state if someone like you comes onto my property, you're gonna wish you hadnt. I dont want this guy as my neighbor. Religious nuts not allowed on my property.

And does that apply to the founder of your group?
Logged
Nothing in life is free except love, and that's not free either.

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2003, 02:10:48 am »

pghpat26;

When i set up shop in the free state if someone like you comes onto my property, you're gonna wish you hadnt. I dont want this guy as my neighbor. Religious nuts not allowed on my property.

And does that apply to the founder of your group?

I would guess that would apply to anyone, including the founder of any group, who trespassed - BUT, that is a diferent thread that helps take into account the following (simplified) example:
 man lost in woods, dying from exposure, comes upon your summer cabin (currently empty) - breaks in to use the phone to save himself..
-- the dabate rages, but, it is generally agreed that the man owes for his trespass, but not so much as it is right to shoot him.  Generally referred to as 'proportional response'.

I am sorry if you believe that I am not moral for believing that gay people should be allowed to 'do their thing' whether this be some kind of martial contract or what have you.

Actually, in regard to abortion, most of my life I have been vehemently apposed to it for probably the same reasons you are.

The explaination for why I am at least open to discussing the 'legality' of abortion is because the arguments are very vague - they ALL have to boil down to 'Where does life begin?' - is it once the baby has exited the womb?  Is it once it is viable (can live without being completely dependent upon the mother for food/air/etc (ie: 7 month births where the child lives)?  What constitutes 'being human' - or is it enough to have the definite potential for being human? and where does that line end? an egg and sperm have that potential also...

Since God never clearly defined these things, and we are obviously unable to figure them out (as witnessed by the division of opinions we humans have on the subject) ourselves in any sort of unanimous fashion, or even a definite majority - this being the case, then I say let each State figure it out for themselves...

if legalized abortion is the one major problem you have with the libertarian philosophy and you are looking for a 'group' that only believes as you do, I would say the FSP is not the correct choice - we are as divided on this issue as the rest of society.  EXCEPT, the FSP is the only choice for you (you are saying, 'wth! you wacko leopard guy, can't even make up his own mind) - let my expand on this:

You desire to live in an area where abortions are not performed, and are openly discourged, ridiculed, 'illegal' - do you have this now?  If, lets suppose for a second, it came to pass that a state was actually able to determine its own destiny, a 'free' state, allowing the federal government only the power to maintain a military (for defensive purposes only, yet another debate).  Within this free state, everything was 'legal' EXCEPT the actions of commiting force or fraud upon another (this isn't the whole deal, but simplyfied) - people within this state are completely free to attach covenants (deed restrictions) to their own private property - these restrictions can range from a simple 'no dogs allowed', to the more inflammatory 'no gays/blacks/whites allowed', to 'no abortions allowed'.  If these were actually to come to pass, you (and all of us) are free to combine with other people that think/feel/believe as you do and would all agree on some basic restrictions in your community.  In this way, you would actually be able to have your ideal environment and live in an area which was 'abortion' free AND gay free or whatever else you and your friends believed was important.  The beauty of it is that a completely different group of people could form another community that was 'religion-free', 'Abortions for free', and just about any other 'abomination' we could come up with.  Sounds scarey?

Do you suppose that you will ever live in a world where abortions will be outlawed everywhere?  Do you really believe that in your lifetime, or even the lifetime of you children, China will abandon its policy of forced abortions?  Have you tried to debate with the chinese the immorality of these laws?  I say, "No", you haven't because you, like everyone else in the world, focuses in on their immediate suirroundings.  Heck, you currently live in an area where each and every one of your neighbors could be having abortions every 9 months - legally!  I would guess this fact does not please you.  It doesn't please me either... but for different reasons - it doesn't please me to know that YOU are being forced (by restricting your choice, biases, discrimminations, etc) to live near, deal with daily, people who are considered by you as being murderers, abominations, criminals, etc.  And this is being forced upon you, not by everyone else in the country, not by a super-majority of voters, but by very vocal special interests who have been able to sway the supreme court, the legislative branch, or whatever to create laws specifically against the very things you hold dear.

Does this sound better or worse than your current situation?

(BTW: please excuse my rambling, it is so hard for me to put together thoughts in a very cohesive manner - I hope you were able to discern my points tho...)
Logged
nothing to say...

Amazing Alfredo

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
  • I'm a Calvinist!
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2003, 11:43:10 am »

LeopardPM;

I am sorry if you believe that I am not moral for believing that gay people should be allowed to 'do their thing' whether this be some kind of martial contract or what have you.

Would it be physically painful for you to address my actual position?

Again, where have I said they shouldn't be free to do their thing? I have no problem with them making contracts with each other. I don't even have a problem (at least not one I'd try to solve politically) with them pretending to be married. What I have a problem is the state granting them a marriage license, making it official state policy that they're normal and wholesome and good.

Argue with THAT. Don't keep pasting your image of a "fundy" over me.

Actually, in regard to abortion, most of my life I have been vehemently apposed to it for probably the same reasons you are.
The explaination for why I am at least open to discussing the 'legality' of abortion is because the arguments are very vague - they ALL have to boil down to 'Where does life begin?' - is it once the baby has exited the womb?  Is it once it is viable (can live without being completely dependent upon the mother for food/air/etc (ie: 7 month births where the child lives)?  What constitutes 'being human' - or is it enough to have the definite potential for being human? and where does that line end? an egg and sperm have that potential also...
Since God never clearly defined these things, and we are obviously unable to figure them out (as witnessed by the division of opinions we humans have on the subject) ourselves in any sort of unanimous fashion, or even a definite majority - this being the case, then I say let each State figure it out for themselves...


I submit that if there were no abortion debate, no one would doubt that a distinct human life begins at conception, and nowhere else. Was a baby any different a moment before birth? No. Being just like a newborn is necessary for birth, otherwise the baby couldn't survive (I'm generalizing somewhat, but you get the point; before modern medicine, premies almost always died). Being able to survive by himself? Well, which exact second does that happen at? That's what you need to make it a legal standard: a clear line, a discontinuity. But there is none other than conception. From that point forward it's all continuous development until death.

if legalized abortion is the one major problem you have with the libertarian philosophy

This assumes two thing that are both false, that I'm merely considering libertarianism -- I am a libertarian-- and that legal abortion is part of the libertarian philosophy -- it isn't.

Within this free state, everything was 'legal' EXCEPT the actions of commiting force or fraud upon another (this isn't the whole deal, but simplyfied) - people within this state are completely free to attach covenants (deed restrictions) to their own private property - these restrictions can range from a simple 'no dogs allowed', to the more inflammatory 'no gays/blacks/whites allowed', to 'no abortions allowed'.

 ::)

And then we can all write deed restrictions against murder and rape and robbery.
Logged
Nothing in life is free except love, and that's not free either.

onyx_goddess

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 227
  • Choking Screams Their Liquid Dreams
    • Robestone
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2003, 12:02:10 pm »

Let me clear up what the LP position on abortion is.

Here's the link to the official platform:
Abortion Platform

Which in part says "we believe the government should be kept out of the question".

Which very very clearly would make it legal.  If the government isn't IN the question, how can it prevent abortion?

Next, I want to point out that there is another very long very boring thread that goes back and forth on many fine points about abortion.  It is found here:
Abortion Forum

Finally I want to reiterate that for someone investigating the FSP, I don't think you should base your evaluation on individual FSP member's opinions on abortion as that is not likely to be a plank in the free state movement in my opinion.
Logged
Happiness is fleeting
When your heart is barely beating

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2003, 01:39:42 pm »

In addition to Onyx's comments -
the Free State Movement is not even 'political' or have any other agenda than to provide a coordinated effort to help 20,000 freedom thinking individuals to move to the same state.  What happens then, will be up to the people that moved and the FSP will officially 'dissolve' - so, really, any discussions re: lib philosophies etc should be done so with the knowledge that the FSP is NOT political nor does it endorse any specific party - it is made up of libertarians, constitutionalists, anarchists, republicans, and democrats (prolly a few others too) - the common thread between these people is that they believe less government is generally good - my views are not necessarily the same as anyone elses involved, in fact, I am currenlt in the process of 'fleshing out' my moral/ethical/philosophical stances and tho I 'lean' toward the lib (small 'l') view, I am by no means someone who represents them in any way.

just a young 'un,
michael
Logged
nothing to say...

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2003, 02:17:48 pm »

somehow I feel as tho I am not communicating clearly on these matters with you... let me try to define my position better...

Quote
Again, where have I said they shouldn't be free to do their thing? I have no problem with them making contracts with each other. I don't even have a problem (at least not one I'd try to solve politically) with them pretending to be married. What I have a problem is the state granting them a marriage license, making it official state policy that they're normal and wholesome and good.

Argue with THAT. Don't keep pasting your image of a "fundy" over me.

Re: 'fundy' - the only reason I might be doing this is that you are using terms like "normal and wholesome and good" which is purely opinion - your opinion, your ethics/morality (agreed, there is a large segment of the population that happens to agree with you also).

re: what you want me to address - ok, I might get this wrong so please correct any non-factual statements... my progression goes like this: Marriage has (in the past) been a construct of and authorized by religions.  It was both a 'contract' and a affirmation of both parties love, devotion, and blending with their God.  This religious marriage contract had three parties involved: man, wife, God.  Control over voiding the contract was in the hands of the Church (whether or not divorce was allowed, persecution of adultery, etc).  Government got involved (or perhaps was used or affected by religious organizations (I do not know the history in regards to why government got involved) to help enforce the contract.  Nowadays, government has taken over the marriage contract and has replaced 'God' with the State.  Religion does not have to play any part in a marriage contract - a simple justice of the peace can by used to effect the contract and all matters in regard to the contract are relegated to the courts.  This being the case, then a marriage contract is just like any other contract and it would be illegal for the state to discriminate against (preventing them from entering a contract) because of sexual orientation.  ANY person is allowed to enter into ANY contract without regard to sex, race, blah , blah, blah..

In regards to your views, I believe that (corrrect me please) that you view marraige through the eyes of your religion.  I don't have a problem with that, and I can see that that view has alot of benefits in helping to enforce the contract.  This is our point of disagreement tho.  I think that the current marriage contract has nothing to do with religion and so should not be considered to have to abide by any particuliar religous views regarding divorce, the contractees (either gay/lesbian/hetero/etc even polygamy and other forms of marital contract), or anything having to do with the said contract.  If your religion (or any other religion) wants to have its own special 'church ratified' form of contract which restricts the entrants (hetero male/female), defines the conditions for violation, etc - this is fine by me!  Just don't try to force your own personnal religous contract down everyone elses throat is all I am saying.

The other problem that we are dealing with is that the State treats people within a 'marriage' differently then it treats single people - this is a big problem and is the main sources for our (yours and mine) contentions, i think.  The state should not be in the business of granting licenses for marriage at all, and in this way, it will not single out one particuliar type of contract as being ' normal and wholesome and good' as you state.

Quote
I submit that if there were no abortion debate, no one would doubt that a distinct human life begins at conception, and nowhere else.

what the heck?! you say if there was no debate then everyone would agree? is this some form of logic or just a misreprestation of what you were attepmting to say?  I can't reply to this until you make your statemen clearer

Quote
And then we can all write deed restrictions against murder and rape and robbery.


I gather this is sarcasm, I believe I pointed out the difference between murder, rape, robbery, fraud etc and items like abortion, discrimination, etc.  This difference is this: we have a virtual universal agreement on the first set of items as being 'wrong' and so we have a basic kind of 'Common Law' - the other items which are in contention by various parties should be reserved to be up to the property owner, or at least as small a government body (the State vs the Fed) as possible.  All people agree that murder is wrong, Not all people agree that Abortion is murder or that abortion is wrong.  All people agree that robbery is wrong, not all people agree that discrimination is wrong.  etc etc

Did this help to clarify my thinking?

yours in discovery,
michael
Logged
nothing to say...

Amazing Alfredo

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
  • I'm a Calvinist!
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2003, 12:22:09 am »

LeopardPM;

Re: 'fundy' - the only reason I might be doing this is that you are using terms like "normal and wholesome and good" which is purely opinion - your opinion, your ethics/morality (agreed, there is a large segment of the population that happens to agree with you also).

First, it's not my opinion. Whether something is good or bad is objective fact.

Second, I used the term to describe what the state would say about homosexual relationships by granting them marriage licenses. That statement, clearly, is as much the point of gay marriage as granting gays the different treatment that goes along with marriage, which we both agree shouldn't exist because the government shouldn't be big enough to be involved in most of those things.

Marriage has (in the past) been a construct of and authorized by religions.

Marriage is in the nature of humans, just as harems controlled by alpha males is in the nature of gorillas.

Government got involved (or perhaps was used or affected by religious organizations (I do not know the history in regards to why government got involved) to help enforce the contract.  Nowadays, government has taken over the marriage contract and has replaced 'God' with the State.  Religion does not have to play any part in a marriage contract - a simple justice of the peace can by used to effect the contract and all matters in regard to the contract are relegated to the courts.  This being the case, then a marriage contract is just like any other contract and it would be illegal for the state to discriminate against (preventing them from entering a contract) because of sexual orientation.  ANY person is allowed to enter into ANY contract without regard to sex, race, blah , blah, blah..

So, having gottem control, the state should now use that control to alter the original understanding of marriage because of political concerns extraneous to marriage.

Which sounds an awful lot like how the government starts paying for health care, and then to cut costs regulates/taxes/bans alcohol/tobacco/drugs/fat, and then to enforce that expands police powers. Each assertion of power makes the next "necessary".

I think that the current marriage contract has nothing to do with religion and so should not be considered to have to abide by any particuliar religous views regarding divorce, the contractees (either gay/lesbian/hetero/etc even polygamy and other forms of marital contract), or anything having to do with the said contract.

I don't know your position on divorce, so this may be beside the point.

A large number of couples alive today, and all of them when no-fault divorce was introduced, entered into a contract forbidding divorce except in a few circumstances, but have had their contract unilaterally changed by the state into one allowing divorce on one spouse's say-so. If you accept that, you have no real reason to complain if the state unilaterally decides to make the terms such that my religion would agree with.

But I'm not asking for that.

If your religion (or any other religion) wants to have its own special 'church ratified' form of contract which restricts the entrants (hetero male/female), defines the conditions for violation, etc - this is fine by me!

We already do.

"Do you, [groom], take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold, to love, honor, and cherish, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, till death do you part?"

Regardless of what the law says, anyone who took the traditional vows is morally bound to do just that.

Just don't try to force your own personnal religous contract down everyone elses throat is all I am saying.

YET AGAIN, where have I ever asked for anything of the sort?

what the heck?! you say if there was no debate then everyone would agree? is this some form of logic or just a misreprestation of what you were attepmting to say?  I can't reply to this until you make your statemen clearer

If the begining of life were only a scientific or academic question, rather than one connected to a political issue like abortion, there would be no debate. Just about everyone would accept that it begins at conception.

I gather this is sarcasm, I believe I pointed out the difference between murder, rape, robbery, fraud etc and items like abortion, discrimination, etc.  This difference is this: we have a virtual universal agreement on the first set of items as being 'wrong' and so we have a basic kind of 'Common Law' - the other items which are in contention by various parties should be reserved to be up to the property owner, or at least as small a government body (the State vs the Fed) as possible.  All people agree that murder is wrong, Not all people agree that Abortion is murder or that abortion is wrong.  All people agree that robbery is wrong, not all people agree that discrimination is wrong.  etc etc

At one point not everyone agreed that lynching black people is wrong. Should there have been lynching and no-lynching zones, based on deed covenants?
Logged
Nothing in life is free except love, and that's not free either.

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2003, 12:34:57 am »

LeopardPM;

Re: 'fundy' - the only reason I might be doing this is that you are using terms like "normal and wholesome and good" which is purely opinion - your opinion, your ethics/morality (agreed, there is a large segment of the population that happens to agree with you also).

First, it's not my opinion. Whether something is good or bad is objective fact.


I knew we'd get to the part where I disagree with you.
Long ago, Hume proved that this is not so.  As Adler states it, "A prescriptive conclusion cannot be validly drawn from premises that are entirely descriptive."

We might agree on some Prescriptive Premise(s), and draw Conclusions therefrom as to what is Good or Bad under that assumption.  But that's the best you can do.

Quote

Marriage has (in the past) been a construct of and authorized by religions.

Marriage is in the nature of humans, just as harems controlled by alpha males is in the nature of gorillas.


Uh, helloooo, as a recovering polygamist I am required to inform you that harems controlled by alpha males is in the nature of humans.
http://pendarvis.org/rants/monogamy-vs-sexual_fidelity.html

« Last Edit: July 24, 2003, 12:48:19 am by Zack Bass »
Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2003, 12:41:34 am »


When i set up shop in the free state if someone like you comes onto my property, you're gonna wish you hadnt. I dont want this guy as my neighbor. Religious nuts not allowed on my property.


You are overreacting.  I understand why, given what you've seen religious nuts do and advocate, but religious nuts like Jason and RedBeard are libertarians and are willing to let us go to hell in our own way even though they despise us.  And so far The Amazing Alf has advocated a libertarian approach, although it may appear that he's itching to get his nose under the tent.

Logged

Amazing Alfredo

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
  • I'm a Calvinist!
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2003, 02:24:33 am »

Zack Bass;

Long ago, Hume proved that this is not so.  As Adler states it, "A prescriptive conclusion cannot be validly drawn from premises that are entirely descriptive."

And Hume's proof is?

Uh, helloooo, as a recovering polygamist I am required to inform you that harems controlled by alpha males is in the nature of humans.

You are mistaken. With only one exception I know of (a band of dissident Mormons in Utah) every polygamist society ever has polygamy only for those at the top; most men are neither polygamists nor unmarried, but monagamous, and most women are married to a man whose only wife is her. Men may want to be polygamous, but generally they aren't, which is what matters.
Logged
Nothing in life is free except love, and that's not free either.

MajesticLeo

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
  • Am neither Dahlai nor Lama
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2003, 07:35:37 am »

Men may want to be polygamous, but generally they aren't, which is what matters.

Uhhhh, if they want to be, doesn't that say it is in their nature?  Just because they aren't doesn't mean it isn't in their nature, "and that is what matters".

Whether something is good or bad is NOT objective fact.  While there is almost universal agreement that somethings are good and others are bad, it is still subjective agreement, not an uncontestable fact.  for instance, the phenomenon that objects will fall toward the center of the earth if dropped from some point above the earth within its gravitational field is a fact.  On the other hand, Buddhists agree that killing anything except plants is wrong while others disagree.  That is a matter of subjective agreement.  
« Last Edit: July 24, 2003, 07:36:29 am by MajesticLeo »
Logged
I'm off to be the Wizard!!!!

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2003, 09:57:27 am »

Quote
First, it's not my opinion. Whether something is good or bad is objective fact.

I will let Zack argue this point because I do not have any historical evidence/theory to contradict you except that the concept of good and bad does not exist in 'nature', only within the minds of humans - being so, it cannot be universal fact.  Even if considered to be a universal 'human' fact, since humans will disagree over what is good/bad and to which degree of goodness/badness an action is seems to me to indicate that the concept is not a fact, but opinion.

Quote
Second, I used the term to describe what the state would say about homosexual relationships by granting them marriage licenses.

By allowing homosexual marriages, the state is not saying they are good or bad for people, but rather that people (all people including homosexuals) have the 'right' to enter into whatever contract they voluntarily desire.  The state allows the consumption of alcohol, whether or not that consumption is deemed 'good' or 'bad' - to continue to force the state to try to subjectify actions (by deeming them good or bad) is an effort to legislate morality.  By saying that the state should not allow gay marriages (as you state "because they are abominations" or evil etc) it is obvious you ARE trying to legislate morality, I fail to see how you deny this?

Quote
So, having gottem control, the state should now use that control to alter the original understanding of marriage because of political concerns extraneous to marriage.

no, you misunderstand me:
Current state of affaris: marriage is a contract between two parties (and govmt) - being so it should be illegal to exclude certain parties from entering said contract by the states own anti-discrimination laws

Previous State of Affairs: marriage was a religious contract (private) and the terms of said contract was totally up to the parties involved (the third party being religion)

Libertarian State of Affairs: 'Marriage' is just another form of legal contract between parties (any parties) - its terms and conditions should be up to the parties and whomever else they deem important.  Religious contracts are valid.  Alternative Gay contracts, Polygamous Contracts, etc.  The states only role is the provision of a court system (even this could be privatized thus getting the state out of the issue entirely) that will resolve disputes of the contract under the terms of THAT particular contract.


Quote
"Do you, [groom], take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold, to love, honor, and cherish, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, till death do you part?"

This particular statement or vow IS NOT REQUIRED for the state to legally marry two people.  You may specify to the justice of the peace to say 'Do you, Mr. man, take, Ms. Woman, to be your lawfully wedded wife until such time as you die or get a divorce?' - people married under your previous vow and my state are EQUALLY married under the eyes of the law.  Whatever additional restrictions or vows added to the basic is regulated to whichever entity (in your case, religous) to enforce, condone, or what have you.  Except that unfortunately, the church has NO POWER these days to enforce or Void a marraige contract under law... this is why I agree that marriage contracts should get the state out of the loop and let private individuals determine the rules they want to play by.

BTW: Just because I am for the granting the right to homosexuals to enter into marraige contracts, I do not condone homosexuality.  I am not homosexual and do not plan on attempting homosexual activities in the future.  I reserve the right to discriminate against homosexuals if I wished in regard to my private property and persons I wish to associate with.

Quote
If the begining of life were only a scientific or academic question, rather than one connected to a political issue like abortion, there would be no debate. Just about everyone would accept that it begins at conception.

but it is not only a scientific question, so whats your point?  In addition, I believe that 'the beginning of life' is not the point in dispute, its the beginning of human life, ie: when does a zygote become a human being with rights etc.

Quote
At one point not everyone agreed that lynching black people is wrong. Should there have been lynching and no-lynching zones, based on deed covenants?


valid point - just because everyone or most people agree on something doesn't make it correct.  As humanity has progressed over the centuries, there are certain activities that have been 'universally' agreed upon to be in mans' best interest - murder being 'wrong' is one of them, abortion being 'wrong' is not (I conceed that in the future 'abortion' could be determined to be 'wrong' or equal to murder, but that will take multiple generations to all basically agree).  Why am I defending murder being illegal or wrong to you?  you are attempting to an 'end run' around the basic disagreement that abortion = murder at all, lets stick to that.  it will save space and typing because we both already (i assume) agree that murder = wrong.
Logged
nothing to say...

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2003, 10:30:36 am »


Long ago, Hume proved that this is not so.  As Adler states it, "A prescriptive conclusion cannot be validly drawn from premises that are entirely descriptive."

And Hume's proof is?


I'll have to get back to you on this, I don't have any reference materials at hand.
But I will say this:  Almost all philosophers, even the ones who go to great lengths to get around it in various ways, accept Hume's position and have done so since long before we were born.  It's really pretty obvious, if you know something about logic.
I hate people who say things like that and leave it, or just give you a link, so I will get back later if you still want proof.

Quote

Uh, helloooo, as a recovering polygamist I am required to inform you that harems controlled by alpha males is in the nature of humans.

  ... every polygamist society ever has polygamy only for those at the top; most men are neither polygamists nor unmarried, but monagamous


True, since there are only so many women to go around.  That is the basic flaw in Polygyny.  We can fix that in the Free State; the technology already exists to select only girl fetuses and cull the males.

Quote

  ... and most women are married to a man whose only wife is her.


Not always.  There are groups in which most of the women are married to a polygamist.
For example, suppose you have 100 women and 95 men (males tend to fight and kill one another - usually over females).  You can have 52 of the women married to 26 of the men, and 48 women married to 48 men, and 21 men unmarried.  Therefore 47 men (fewer than half) are not monogamous, so most of the men are monogamous; but fewer than half of the women are married to a monogamous man.

Quote

Men may want to be polygamous, but generally they aren't, which is what matters.


By that logic, you could say that men may want to be Free, or Untaxed,  but most of them are not, so it is not in the nature of humans to be so.
If men, when given the opportunity, choose to have more than one sexual partner, then that is in their nature, even though most may not have that opportunity.
http://pendarvis.org/rants/monogamy-vs-sexual_fidelity.html
Hogamous, higamous
Man is polygamous
Higamous, hogamous
Woman monogamous.

  --  Attributed to William James - Quoted in Oxford Book of Marriage


« Last Edit: July 24, 2003, 10:34:13 am by Zack Bass »
Logged

Reaper

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
  • Atheism cures religious terrorism!
    • The Reaper's Den
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2003, 10:45:08 am »

I'm not entirely sure I want to wade into this hip deep BS but here goes . . .

First, it's not my opinion. Whether something is good or bad is objective fact.

You claim not to be a "fundy" but you sure talk like one.

Please share with us your proof of your above statement and basis for these "objective facts"?
Logged
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!

"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be?  Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #29 on: July 24, 2003, 11:00:09 am »

REaper!
Glad you waded in... I was wondering why everyone was willing to take the brunt of this on myself as I am still a neophyte at debate and philosophical matters... I need to understand and better my arguments against the blatant, obviously flawed counter-arguments presented by Mr. Alf. (just my opinion Alf, please don't take this personaly)

wishing more would jump in,
michael
Logged
nothing to say...
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up