i still can’t reblog it as text for some reason! My browser is all messed up
yeah it is
Out of 100 Circumcised boys:
75 will not readily breastfeed post-op
55 will have adverse reactions from the surgery
35 will have post-op haemorrhaging to one degree or another
31 will develop meatal ulcers
10 will need to have the…
This is fucking important
"There is no legitimate purpose for a killing death hell machine like an AK-47"
"Lol your AK-47 couldn’t protect you from the government it’s not deadly enough"
What I read:
- You’re a proud misandrist and misogynist
- You’re a proud baby killer
- You are anti RIC (and I don’t even know what that is)
- You want me to cite a source for some unknown thing
Routine infant circumcision?
Wrong is a subjective term. So how can I define a subjective term?
My argument is based on the idea of self ownership. It’s based on the a priori fact that by me using my hands to type on my keyboard I’m asserting my self ownership. Sense I have to own myself to make arguments.
You, by addressing your asks to me are also asserting my self ownership. Otherwise you’d just be asking these questions and statements to no one. The fact that you are addressing them to me you are asserting that you own yourself, as you are making the arguments, and then you are asking me, thus you are asserting that I own myself.
Thus since we both own ourselves we both have the best use and control of our own body. Any restriction of that would be immoral.
You should look up Hans Herman Hoppe’s Argumentative Ethics.
"Thus since we both own ourselves we both have the best use and control of our own body. Any restriction of that would be immoral."
I think that you skipped a step here. I think it’s better to say “Since we both necessarily must use self-ownership to justify or try to refute self-ownership, it is self-contradictory to try to refute it by using it. If it is self-contradictory, then moral claims against self-ownership cannot be justified — meaning they cannot be true.”
I don’t think there are any “we best control our body” or “restricting that is wrong” . It is 100% a presupposition that you MUST own yourself to argue therefor arguing that you ought not own yourself is a self-defeating self-contradictory argument. No “bests”. Cause “best” is a value argument. Argumentation ethics is supposed to be value free.
One little correction. If I’m wrong myself correct me. I appreciate AE getting mentioned since I believe it’s under-appreciated. I’m not an expert so I could be wrong. moralanarchism
I’m such a nice girl, I’m so sick of being fuckzoned!!!!!!!
What’s the fuckzone you ask? it’s this zone that guys put you in where they only want to fuck you; they don’t want to have a friendship with you and they aren’t satisfied with emotional commitment, they just want sex!!!!!
I’m a nice girl!!!! Stop putting me in the fuckzone!!!!!!!
Is there somewhere I could still watch the videos?
Fuck off. Tell a soldier that to his face and see what happens. People like you are responsible for the fact that more service people have died at their own hand than in actual combat since the beginning of the so called war on terror.
I agree with Anon.
The reason more “service people” have died is because of over prideful, egotistical, greedy people who are willing to set aside their morals and act as an obedient agent of the government. They live in families where “bravery” is ideal, even if you have to invent your own boogieman. That’s why they’re dying. They’re certainly not dying because of those who want to avoid war. The government plucks poor, and politically ignorant young men to do their bidding for them. This is no coincidence. And ignorance of what is right and wrong is no excuse.
I have personally said this to the face of retired soldiers before. Not a single one of them met me with violence or hostility. I suspect they didn’t expect someone to have enough balls to say what needed to be said… to their face.
I used to have a YouTube channel where I would approach police and military and question them and their character.
that 1st one is actually a belief by a lot of philosophers haha, pretty crazy but not necessarily inherently idioticThat’s a little extreme.
One idiot said that all empirical work in science isn’t empirical, but just one big logical fallacy (correlation is causation).
Another idiot called Hong Kong market socialist. I didn’t even bother reading the rest of his response to me.