Re: Homosexual Marriage
None taken, but I honestly see the argument that follows as an attempted formulation of a new rule altogether rather than a mere exception to my rule.
...examples please.
You're actually not affecting a population, because the population is question doesn't exist yet, and its existence is based entirely on an action taken actively. Unless you, completely out of nowhere, have found a way to prove non-existent things can have attributes and that they can have them in advance of their causative inactions..?sdg?A??
Honestly, I can barely even force myself to try to acknowledge that your perspective even pretends to be coherent.
This would be a senseless law, as well as an immoral and coercive law. It's also worse than probably over half of the most invasive laws on the books currently because it's an active invasion of freedom rather than a passive one.
This example bears no similarity to the issue in contention. A road is produced by the government, using money levied from taxes on all citizens. Hypothetically, the road is therefore public property, ownership is shared equally amongst all taxpayers, and because the concept of public property is fundamentally incoherent to begin with, rules inevitably have to be put forth by government to allow individuals to actually utilize the property in question. In the process some number of people inevitably benefit or are harmed more than others.
Now, let's compare this with society, shall we? Who owns society? No one, this is an absurd question and to accept it as otherwise would be to accept the premise that human beings could own other human beings. Who pays for society? This is a more nuanced question, but it's also absurd if carried past a certain point; namely, if we accept the precedent your perspective would set, that human beings are entitled to the existence of a population of other human beings, that would also be a way of proposing human beings could own each other.
Ultimately, all voluntary human interactions can only be said to entitle people to the products of those voluntary human interactions. Anything else is a fundamentally incoherent way of understanding society.
... ... ... ... ;(
This is... an appeal to an economic fallacy of the grandest nature.
No. No it isn't. Aside from this being an absurd misunderstanding of economics, as well as a fallacious confusion of inaction with action, it forgets something else important as well. By driving on the road to begin with you accept the terms of use. Stopping is an active violation of these terms. What gives these terms legitimacy? The fact that they were layed down, even in some overly elaborate, ceremonial, needlessly authoritarian fashion where some people "represent" the populace, in the name of, under the finance of, and for the benefit of some set of people.
NO ONE OWNS LIFE. NO ONE CAN BUY LIFE. NO ONE CAN SUBSTANTIATE AUTHORITATIVE TERMS ON WHICH TO LIVE LIFE.
None taken, but I honestly see the argument that follows as an attempted formulation of a new rule altogether rather than a mere exception to my rule.
There are many things that could qualify as a crime just for an inaction, and all inactions have results.
If you do not have kids, you are, as another person said, affecting the population, even if it's a really small amount.
Honestly, I can barely even force myself to try to acknowledge that your perspective even pretends to be coherent.
They could pass a law, although they probably never will, that you MUST have kids if you are medically able to within 10 years of marriage if you do not already have kids.
This is just like if you just sit around in your car at a green light. If you just sit around all day and never move your car, you can be fined for not taking action and not moving, thus interrupting others in their process of getting from one place to another.
Now, let's compare this with society, shall we? Who owns society? No one, this is an absurd question and to accept it as otherwise would be to accept the premise that human beings could own other human beings. Who pays for society? This is a more nuanced question, but it's also absurd if carried past a certain point; namely, if we accept the precedent your perspective would set, that human beings are entitled to the existence of a population of other human beings, that would also be a way of proposing human beings could own each other.
Ultimately, all voluntary human interactions can only be said to entitle people to the products of those voluntary human interactions. Anything else is a fundamentally incoherent way of understanding society.
This can be related to having kids in that if a considerable amount of people were to be homosexual and a consider amount didn't have kids, it could affect the population. Even a number as small as 1% changes a lot because if 1% of the population is just gone one year, well, 1% of everything is changed, whether it be bread purchased or water used. That's millions of dollars that aren't being spent any longer(or at least aren't being spent on the same things).
This is... an appeal to an economic fallacy of the grandest nature.
I know that argument is a little far-fetched, but it IS possible and even a bit valid for them to make a law such as "you must have children within 10 years or marriage unless you are unable to do so" or something along those lines. At least, it's as valid as saying "you must drive your car up the lane if you are able to do so unless you park to the side of the road."
NO ONE OWNS LIFE. NO ONE CAN BUY LIFE. NO ONE CAN SUBSTANTIATE AUTHORITATIVE TERMS ON WHICH TO LIVE LIFE.
Comment