@LukeAlmighty @xianc78 NAP cannot be defined with any specificity.

@FreeinTX @xianc78
I take NAP as an argument tool as to say: Your politics are so bad, they cannot even justify breaking the golden rule, so Fuck off.

Sadly, neither commies nor national socialists care.

@LukeAlmighty @FreeinTX Well all moral principles are just spooks in our heads. The egoist anarchists are correct but I don't think I could survive a minute in Stirner-land.

@xianc78 @LukeAlmighty For many, moral principles are carved in stone and penned in indelible ink, not just spooks in our heads. For those without these fixed moral principles, morals are as easily changed as one's opinion. I prefer the company of the former and side eye the latter. There will come a time where those people will justify sacrificing babies on the alter of eternal life and drinking the blood of the innocent.

@FreeinTX @LukeAlmighty @xianc78 What if you think morality is a spook but you also think enforcing and accepting certain principles is almost always good for your own happiness so you effectively carve them in stone anyway? Yeah, you could change your mind buy so could the first type you mentioned

@xianc78 @LukeAlmighty @FreeinTX The egoist anarchists are completely retarded. Really any framework that throws God out the window cannot and should not be taken seriously.

@Tadano @FreeinTX @LukeAlmighty @xianc78 Even if god exists egoism is correct because there's no objective reason why you should listen to god. You can't get an ought from an is

The only objective reason to do anything is the objectively true fact that you subjectively want to be happy. It's not an ought, it's an is, you do want to be happy

@applejack @FreeinTX @LukeAlmighty @xianc78
>there is no reason to listen to the omnipresent and omnipotent father of all creation
Imagine being this retarded

@Tadano @FreeinTX @LukeAlmighty @xianc78 Yeah, there isn't. Can you tell me how you get an ought from an is?

You could even make a decent case that god is evil and you should actively disobey him. In most religions gods are seen more sanely as similar to actual people with their own interests and flaws, so them doing things makes sense.

God creating you evil or inside an environment that makes you evil and then damning you for being evil (free-will logically can't exist), or demanding that you worship him and burn animals for him, or making things happen which he knew would happen and then being angry that they happened (omnipotent + omnipresent just means everything is a plothole), or whatever, actually makes sense this way. It would even be 100% "consistent" with the people to view god as fallible but makes more sense

@Tadano @FreeinTX @LukeAlmighty @xianc78 *100% "consistent" with the bible

@applejack @FreeinTX @LukeAlmighty @xianc78
>how do you get an ought from an is?
The Bible

@Tadano @LukeAlmighty @FreeinTX @xianc78 How?

@xianc78 @FreeinTX
I see abortion this way.
1) It is one of hundred rights that a woman has, and man has no equivalent. So, either abortion for woman has to go, or men need right to financial abortion if we are to pretend the society ain't a pussy-worship center.

2) Abortion is a pointless murder. There are way too many ways to avoid being pregnant. Woman don't get pregnant "by accident", they had unprotected sex. (in case of an actual accident, there is a morning after pill, that is also an abortion, but the earliest one and does not require hiring a butcher)

3) It requires a butcher
I truly wish to know what kind of person studies 6+ years to save lives, and ends up murdering babies...

In short, there is no "abortion debate", since all I hear from the left is screeching of harpies who love killing babies.

@LukeAlmighty @FreeinTX The whole "woman should have a right to choose stance" was actually created by eugenicists and population control advocates. They co-opted feminism just to push their agenda. It's something that progressives refuse to accept.

@xianc78 @FreeinTX
I think they accepted it too much :D

@xianc78 @LukeAlmighty Absolutely. Convice a bitch that your taking something of theirs away, and they'll scream like a 10 year old without a Play Station. But unlike the child, a grown woman can vote, unfortunately.

@FreeinTX @xianc78 @LukeAlmighty For now...

@xianc78 @LukeAlmighty @FreeinTX Egoism is correct but any time I talk with a Stitnerist they themselves treat amorallity like a moral principle

>No, you're not ALLOWED to enforce morality on other people for societal health

@LukeAlmighty @xianc78 It's a good principle, it's only really an issue when people treat it like a religious commandment

@xianc78
Ok... Dies it violate the NAP? Yes. So dies spanking your kid. When you look at a kid as a human being, obviously it breaks NAP.

When you look at a kid as a property, then no. And the kid is kind of a property until it turns 18, and finally gains full rights.

But NAP is not the reason, why killing babies is wrong. There are many things that are wrong without breaking NAP. Drugging yourself till death for example. Or taking debt you don't expect to pay off.

@Tadano Abortion is a huge debate among right-libertarians and other individualists. I just want to see their stance on it.

@ryo Non-aggression principle. Also known as natural law.

@xianc78 I believe that the only time abortion is justified is in case the woman gets pregnant by some random stranger who raped her.
Otherwise the child would be born with no father and no way to track him down even, so he or she will be fucked up for life.
But in every other case, I'd tell them "you better kept your pants on then!".