[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, u no have to worry, Texas will prolly sell you their BBQ sauces anyway, a resource of vital importance, I think we can all agree.[/quote]
No argument there. If not I would not hesitate to lead a military operation for the purpose of securing such a resource of vital national importance.[/quote]
Texas is sub par bar-b-que. There I said it.[/quote]
That is blasphemy. And grounds for secession.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Then we need to have two different terms to distinguish between inanimate objects that limit my freedom versus someone else’s free will that limits my freedom.[/quote]
What is the rational behind that distinction?[/quote]
Because the two distinct ideas have very different implications and consequences and we need to be able to communicate about them in the least ambiguous way.
[/quote]
That is what I’m asking, what makes them different?
A bear comes into your house and kills you trying to steal your food, that isn’t a violation of free will, but if a human does it, it is? Why is that different? [/quote]
I think that we cannot have a discussion about ethics unless we are willing to admit the two events are completely different. Free will only means anything useful if it is referring to our liberty…and obviously the consequence of a bear attacking me versus an other person attacking me would result in an entirely different set of events.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, u no have to worry, Texas will prolly sell you their BBQ sauces anyway, a resource of vital importance, I think we can all agree.[/quote]
No argument there. If not I would not hesitate to lead a military operation for the purpose of securing such a resource of vital national importance.[/quote]
Texas is sub par bar-b-que. There I said it.[/quote]
A guy from Tennessee is one of the few people who can make this statement and be taken seriously. BBQ in those parts is fucking amazing.[/quote]
Sadly, I must admit, Memphis is better than here (Nashville), but here is way better than Texas.[/quote]
I’m dreaming of pulled pork I had in Memphis once. I’m cutting right now, so this conversation is gonna have to stop immediately.[/quote]
Anyone can cook pulled pork. Go smoke a brisket to perfection or a Beef clod. That takes skill.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Then we need to have two different terms to distinguish between inanimate objects that limit my freedom versus someone else’s free will that limits my freedom.[/quote]
What is the rational behind that distinction?[/quote]
Because the two distinct ideas have very different implications and consequences and we need to be able to communicate about them in the least ambiguous way.
[/quote]
That is what I’m asking, what makes them different?
A bear comes into your house and kills you trying to steal your food, that isn’t a violation of free will, but if a human does it, it is? Why is that different? [/quote]
I think that we cannot have a discussion about ethics unless we are willing to admit the two events are completely different. Free will only means anything useful if it is referring to our liberty…and obviously the consequence of a bear attacking me versus an other person attacking me would result in an entirely different set of events.[/quote]
Not really if you end up dead.
What if the person didn’t understand the concept of property and didn’t know things were “yours”
[quote]calebsmitty wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, u no have to worry, Texas will prolly sell you their BBQ sauces anyway, a resource of vital importance, I think we can all agree.[/quote]
No argument there. If not I would not hesitate to lead a military operation for the purpose of securing such a resource of vital national importance.[/quote]
Texas is sub par bar-b-que. There I said it.[/quote]
A guy from Tennessee is one of the few people who can make this statement and be taken seriously. BBQ in those parts is fucking amazing.[/quote]
Sadly, I must admit, Memphis is better than here (Nashville), but here is way better than Texas.[/quote]
I’m dreaming of pulled pork I had in Memphis once. I’m cutting right now, so this conversation is gonna have to stop immediately.[/quote]
Anyone can cook pulled pork. Go smoke a brisket to perfection or a Beef clod. That takes skill.
[/quote]
…but pork tastes better.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Then we need to have two different terms to distinguish between inanimate objects that limit my freedom versus someone else’s free will that limits my freedom.[/quote]
What is the rational behind that distinction?[/quote]
Because the two distinct ideas have very different implications and consequences and we need to be able to communicate about them in the least ambiguous way.
[/quote]
That is what I’m asking, what makes them different?
A bear comes into your house and kills you trying to steal your food, that isn’t a violation of free will, but if a human does it, it is? Why is that different? [/quote]
I think that we cannot have a discussion about ethics unless we are willing to admit the two events are completely different. Free will only means anything useful if it is referring to our liberty…and obviously the consequence of a bear attacking me versus an other person attacking me would result in an entirely different set of events.[/quote]
Not really if you end up dead.
What if the person didn’t understand the concept of property and didn’t know things were “yours”[/quote]
Yes, it would affect me differently to have to kill a bear versus having to kill an other human being that threatened my life.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]
Anyone can cook pulled pork. Go smoke a brisket to perfection or a Beef clod. That takes skill.
[/quote]
…but pork tastes better. [/quote]
Not to mention the fact that a red sauce is just a dressing for sub-par BBQ.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Then we need to have two different terms to distinguish between inanimate objects that limit my freedom versus someone else’s free will that limits my freedom.[/quote]
What is the rational behind that distinction?[/quote]
Because the two distinct ideas have very different implications and consequences and we need to be able to communicate about them in the least ambiguous way.
[/quote]
That is what I’m asking, what makes them different?
A bear comes into your house and kills you trying to steal your food, that isn’t a violation of free will, but if a human does it, it is? Why is that different? [/quote]
I think that we cannot have a discussion about ethics unless we are willing to admit the two events are completely different. Free will only means anything useful if it is referring to our liberty…and obviously the consequence of a bear attacking me versus an other person attacking me would result in an entirely different set of events.[/quote]
Not really if you end up dead.
What if the person didn’t understand the concept of property and didn’t know things were “yours”[/quote]
Yes, it would affect me differently to have to kill a bear versus having to kill an other human being that threatened my life.[/quote]
How is that ethically different?
is it ethically different if it was a brown or black bear.
Does it matter how strong the guy is, or if its a woman?
Real Texas bar b q does not allow sauce at all.
Just to chime in on the original topic. I have read most of the posts. I would like to say I would fight for my State. Being a Texan is important to me. But I don’t feel the state is more important than the country. Could we be an independent country? Sure. But it didn’t work out so well the first time. If it did we wouldn’t have joined the US. The truth is I would fight for the protection of my family above all else. If that meant taking one side over the other that is what I would do.
Real Texas bar b q does not allow sauce at all.
Just to chime in on the original topic. I have read most of the posts. I would like to say I would fight for my State. Being a Texan is important to me. But I don’t feel the state is more important than the country. Could we be an independent country? Sure. But it didn’t work out so well the first time. If it did we wouldn’t have joined the US. The truth is I would fight for the protection of my family above all else. If that meant taking one side over the other that is what I would do.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How is that ethically different?
is it ethically different if it was a brown or black bear.
Does it matter how strong the guy is, or if its a woman?[/quote]
Only human beings have natural rights.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How is that ethically different?
is it ethically different if it was a brown or black bear.
Does it matter how strong the guy is, or if its a woman?[/quote]
Only human beings have natural rights.[/quote]
Why?
But more importantly why do your rights differ between contact with an animal and a man?
I’m not arguing the bear has rights.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How is that ethically different?
is it ethically different if it was a brown or black bear.
Does it matter how strong the guy is, or if its a woman?[/quote]
Only human beings have natural rights.[/quote]
Why?
But more importantly why do your rights differ between contact with an animal and a man?
I’m not arguing the bear has rights.
[/quote]
Because interactions with human beings have the capacity for ethical reciprocity whereas a bear acts only instinctively and has no idea of rights. I do not necessarily have to treat a human being as a wild animal intent on eating me.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How is that ethically different?
is it ethically different if it was a brown or black bear.
Does it matter how strong the guy is, or if its a woman?[/quote]
Only human beings have natural rights.[/quote]
And, what are these supposed ‘natural rights.’ I have high inclination that I’ll say bullshit.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How is that ethically different?
is it ethically different if it was a brown or black bear.
Does it matter how strong the guy is, or if its a woman?[/quote]
Only human beings have natural rights.[/quote]
And, what are these supposed ‘natural rights.’ I have high inclination that I’ll say bullshit.[/quote]
The right to life, the right to express that life through the exercise of free will, and the right to sole use of the products of ones free will; commonly referred to as the right to life, libery, and property.
A corollary to natural rights is the right to self defense against others who would obstruct these rights.
Natural rights presuppose the idea of nonaggression.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How is that ethically different?
is it ethically different if it was a brown or black bear.
Does it matter how strong the guy is, or if its a woman?[/quote]
Only human beings have natural rights.[/quote]
And, what are these supposed ‘natural rights.’ I have high inclination that I’ll say bullshit.[/quote]
Well, there goes the thread. Can we end it here? Can I lock it?
Because DicktusMaximus has made it into a discussion about fucking libertarianism and bitch ass anarchy again.
Fuck you Dicky. [/quote]
Oh, the irony.
The subject of secession is libertarian ethics.
Secession at its core is the idea that we should be free in all of our associations.
That coincides with our natural rights.
All the hypotheses you could possibly discuss vis a vis session are meaningless until you understand this.
Needless to say I’d fuck up in Yankee who decided they were going to try and fuck with my state. Put them in their place in '01, and I’m still standing ready to go ten years later.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How is that ethically different?
is it ethically different if it was a brown or black bear.
Does it matter how strong the guy is, or if its a woman?[/quote]
Only human beings have natural rights.[/quote]
And, what are these supposed ‘natural rights.’ I have high inclination that I’ll say bullshit.[/quote]
Well, there goes the thread. Can we end it here? Can I lock it?
Because DicktusMaximus has made it into a discussion about fucking libertarianism and bitch ass anarchy again.
Fuck you Dicky. [/quote]
Oh, the irony.
The subject of secession is libertarian ethics.
Secession at its core is the idea that we should be free in all of our associations.
That coincides with our natural rights.
All the hypotheses you could possibly discuss vis a vis session are meaningless until you understand this.[/quote]
Fuck you Dicky.
[/quote]
Crybaby.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How is that ethically different?
is it ethically different if it was a brown or black bear.
Does it matter how strong the guy is, or if its a woman?[/quote]
Only human beings have natural rights.[/quote]
Why?
But more importantly why do your rights differ between contact with an animal and a man?
I’m not arguing the bear has rights.
[/quote]
Because interactions with human beings have the capacity for ethical reciprocity whereas a bear acts only instinctively and has no idea of rights. I do not necessarily have to treat a human being as a wild animal intent on eating me.[/quote]
Not all humans have that ability.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not all humans have that ability.[/quote]
But in reality you can recognize that they might…or even might be convinced if they do not already believe this.
And, if you did not believe in the principle of nonaggression, for example, you would behave a lot less civilly than you otherwise do. I am going to go out on a limb, based on the tone of your posts that most of the time you are a well behaved gentleman. Sorry if that comes across with teh ghey (more fodder for Cryingirish).
