[laws made for everyone.]
LOL! No one is forcing you to join any Social Clubs, or have people over to your house! :)
"The notion of “citizenship” is a non-issue in our discussion"
WRONG!!!! As I pointed out --- it is of UPMOST IMPORTANCE to the nation-state. (IE, certain rules/privileges/constitutional protections apply to *citizens* that do NOT apply to none citizens. GET REAL!
"Since “citizenship” may be applied to an unborn"
I suppose that it certainly could be extended to 'unborn' (presumably exactly what constitutes 'unborn' would have to be clearly defined... else maybe any woman who missed her period could vote twice in elections, or some other such problems and complications could ensue), a Nation has the sovereign right to extend citizenship any way it wants to.
But, to my knowledge, it never yet has been anywhere....
"“Personhood,” is just plain religious horse hockey if it is anything other than heterosexual information that expresses uniquely human proteins and enzymes, which are self-expressing certain higher order expressions such as human cellular multiplication, speech and poetry. There is just nothing else that makes us objectively human than our humanly distinct and objectively determinable biology."
Are you psychotic? Could you POSSIBLY be more ridiculous????? Express your 'concepts' (I use the term loosely) ONE by ONE and I'll be happy to knock them down... but a run-on nonsensical *babble* like the above is best suited for medical intervention, not debate. Trying to 'debate' such gobblety-gook would be like arguing whether there were more 'fish heads or dogs and cats dancing on the head of pins then there were angels'.
"My point was to show the lunacy of employing such nonsensical ...ideas here as your goofy notion of “personhood.” From my vantagepoint, because you are actually going to hell, you really are not so much a “person”....
HILARIOUS, Pilchie!!!!!!! You refute your own claim from one sentence to the next, LOL!!!!!!!!!
First, you say the term 'personhood' (ie, dividing things into the separate classes of 'person' and 'nonperson') is "nonsensical"... then in the very following sentence you say that I am "not a person" which presupposes that there is such a class as 'not a person'! HaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!
You are either arguing here with a 'person', or you are arguing here with something that is 'not a person'.
In merely two short sentences you establish yourself as not only rude, insulting and disagreeable, but also illogical and dense! Way-to-go, Pilch!
[I was talking about SMALL GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES (vs. our current crop of BIG GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES), I wasn't talking specifically about Social Conservatives vs. Social Liberals, or Authoritarians vs. Libertarians.]
"Okay. Whatever. All of these nonsensical distinctions just do not exist...."
LOL! You are free to define your own 'reality' anyway you want to. All I can say is that these distinctions *matter plenty* to the groups involved.
"Your brand of so-called “libertarianism” accepts exceptions to the freedom to associate, for example."
How so??????????? Give me an example of what you are claiming....
"True libertarianism recognizes your right to completely reject dealing with anyone you please and for any reason whatever."
Fine by me... who are you claiming disagrees with this?
"Your brand of libertarianism actually accepts the murder of beings just like you."
NOT TRUE!!!!!! (For example: I am composed of BILLIONS of cells... not just a couple of dozen. I have a brain and spinal cord... not just undifferentiated tissues and stem cells. I speak, write, pay taxes. I have been born, educated, work. I feed myself and am an autonomous organism... I am not receiving all sustenance and oxygen through an umbilical connection to my female parent. 'Just like me' is demonstrably false....)
"The proper name is Libertarian, though I reject it...."
HaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!! (Don't worry, Libertarians wouldn't see you as one of their fellows, either!)
The terms that most accurately *define* your politico-social views are: Theocratic-Authoritarian-Luddite. ('Mystical-wacko-lunkhead' also comes to mind....)
Re: "What would have brought about summary execution in the 1600’s right here in America, today will literally bring adulation."
LOL!!!!! Let's add one more term to the description of your views! You are actually a PURITANICAL-Theocratic-Authoritarian-Luddite-wacko-lunkhead.
GLAD that you finally *explained* it to us!
[NOPE... it's simply ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN in the Ann Rand Objectivist tradition... an opposition to government powers over the individual.]
"But individuals have a right to form associations and those associations have a right to determine who is welcomed on their own property. Associations of associations have a right to the same rights and these have a right to form ever larger associations...."
A few points:
1) Who has the right of free association, individuals or 'associations'?
2) What defines your term 'associations'? Are these PUBLIC or PRIVATE?
3) ("associations of associations ...have a right to form ever larger associations") Isn't our nation a 'larger association'??????
4) Hasn't that 'association' adopted rules for it's members (ie, the Constitution and our legislation)??????
5) If you don't *like* the rules of the association, don't you have the free right to move to change the rules, or else the freedom to give up your membership in the association, even move away if you like?
"Anti-Immigration is a human right simply because humans have an innate right to determine who is welcome in their homes"
LOL!!!! Is the State Department or Homeland Security quartering Central Americans in your *spare bedrooms*? HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!
"The nature of freedom is etched in biology."
Actually, the nature of evolution and carbon-based life are writ in biology... but I doubt that you can show, in the wildebeast being run-down and eaten by a pride of lions, much about the 'nature of freedom.
"you actually reject the natural equality of men"
Now you verge on the edge of outright misrepresentation and lying. I CLEARLY stated that I believe that ALL nations should treat their peoples equally (before the law), and that I believe *strongly* in the individual rights of man.
What I do *not* believe is that 'all who are born' necissarily have equal potential (for example: the severely retarded, someone born missing the higher portions of the brain even... would not generally be considered to have the same potential as an Einstein.) Never-the-less, the less fortunate should not have any less rights before the law then any other citizens.
"Well, this is just to agree with me: there is no real bent toward a “renewal of social conservatism,” but rather a long-term trend toward what you call “moderation” in social norms, what is in truth nothing but rank leftism."
Ha! Others would say, I'm sure, that the advance of society represents a step *away* from puritanical oppression of human rights that is enforced by the power of the State.
[I believe that the anti-Authoritarian ideas of greater individual freedom from government control, expoused by the Libertarian movement, have been steadily rising in the public's conscious for several decades now....)]
"Yes, unfortunately."
You SEE? You ARE an Authoritarian Puritanical, you want to utilize the POWER of the State to enforce over your fellow free citizens your puritanical vision. That is Theocracy and, as we have previously established, your apparent desire to reject the advance of modern technology paints you as a Luddite as well.
[You'll have to define your term a bit more precisely: 'human organism' (I for one have no problems clipping off living skin cells for example....)]
"Humans are heterosexual information, coded in bio-chemical medium, that self-expresses uniquely human proteins and enzymes, which self-expresses certain higher order expressions such as human cellular multiplication (your skin cells, for example), which self-expression produces ever higher orders of self-expression such as body organs (your brain, for example), which self-expresses ever higher self-expressions (such as thought), which produce such natural self-expressions as sight, speech and other behaviors. Anything else is just subjective hogwash."
I notice YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION! (Big surprise, LOL.)
But let's jump in anyway to your rant:
"Humans are heterosexual information"
Say WHAT?
1) Humans, all life, all matter in the universe, all energy expess 'information', that is true. It could even be said that all the universe *is* information. Now you say that humans *are* 'heterosexual information'. Is that *to the exclusion of ALL other information that they also are? If NOT, then it is only PART of what you claim they 'are'.
2) If part of what humans are is the expression of heterosexuality biologically... then does the continual existence (down through all recorded history) of homosexuality, bi-sexuality, 'other' sexuality not ALSO establish that part of what 'humans' are is this as well?
If you claim not to either of the above... then let's see if you can make a cogent argument in support of your 'out-there' claims... one that does not abandon the field of logic for mystical mumbo-jumbo and unsupported assertions....
[Would establishing uniform financial laws so that life-long paired couples can inherit estates upon their partners demise be 'imposing' anything on you?]
"It could."
HOW?
"The owner of property should be free to give her property to whomever she wishes, whether “long-paired” with them or not."
Of course....
"But if the people involved are not true couples as defined by the essential biological character of humans"
You see, there's that LARGE PROBLEM again! The 'essential biological character of humans' does not express itself in unambiguous LANGUAGE... it cannot speak in English (nor German, Chinese, Hutu, etc.) If the 'biological character of humans' tells us anything at all about societies should be organized, it must be subject to interpretation --- for it has no voice of 'it's' own.
I'm afraid that your reading of the MINUTIA of the organization of human societies and laws into biology and physics betrays FAR MORE about your own PERSONAL biasis and predelections then it does anything else.
If you are gonna define what Tort Law or Property Law 'ought to' say based upon what mytozomes are allegedly 'telling' you... then you damn well better be able to explain how you arrive at you 'translation'... or else be prepared a a HUGE HEAPING DOSE of ridicule!
"You don’t even support Jefferson"
Oh contrare, you poor delusional fool!
|
