Free Talk Live 2017-10-24
Oct 24, 2017 at 22:33 · 2:01:35
Cryptocurrecy Deregulation :: Bitcoin Gold Forks Early :: Abortion Question :: NH Secession Plans :: Fears of Secession :: Mexicans and Taxes :: More on Human Life and Embryos :: Artificial Womb :: Not Wanting Kids :: HOSTS - Ian, Mark, Johnson
web: freetalklive.com
link: https://soundcloud.com/freetalklive/free-talk-live-2017-10-24
1 Like
Re: Caller 'Libertarian Banker’
Poor guy waiting on Jaxx for his BCH. I was that guy for a few weeks but I saw it wasnt happening soon. So I stopped being lazy & moved my BTC, then copied old private keys from Jaxx in to Coinomi (Android) and then ShapeShift to BTC.
Bitcoin Gold might be interesting IF its proven totally legit with its CPU mining and Equihash. The pre-mined coins is worrisome, though its not clear as to amount yet (I believe). Sit and watch time.
2 Likes
I doubt they can maintain their mission of “honest mining” even if they try earnestly.
1 Like
I think they’re likely a scam, at best a 
coin… but what is honest mining.
The whole idea is supposed to be CPU mining versus ASIC mining as though ASICs are dishonest.
The abortion topic was lit! It really changed my idea on abortion now. I’m gonna start using fetus eviction now. That’s a good one.
1 Like
I think it’s important to keep in mind that the fetus is created by the acts of two individuals. IMO, individual responsibility comes into play, with regard to the acts of those individuals.
In the case of eviction, two (or more) parties agreed to terms whose violation led to the eviction, thus, I don’t think it really applies. I don’t think it’s a good argument for people who believe in property rights and keeping contracts for that reason.
The best reason I think libertarians have for a right to an abortion is a sincere belief that the fetus is not a person—a belief I do not share.
1 Like
The overwhelming majority of fetuses are invitees. It is in no way consistent with the NAP to invite someone somewhere (and in this case physically put them there without their input) then kick them out in a fatal manner.
I can not invite you into my car, and decide doing 90 that I want you out NOW. I have to pull over in a safe location (as safe as we were- I don’t have to drive to Keene if we were in Chicago in the first place, but not the on-ramp) to kick you out. Yes, this means I have to take the time to pull over and have to tolerate your presence until then. And if I knew damn good and well that it takes nine months to kick you out my car non-fatally when I put you there, that’s my problem.
I think eviction applies to non-invited fetuses (fetuses conceived by rape). But that’s hardly ever what we’re talking about.
1 Like
I don’t think eviction ever really applies, but I’d hope, in the case of rape, the fetus had the same rights it otherwise had, if any (which many people don’t think it has.) I cannot comprehend what it’s like to be the mother, but would hope the technology would exist to remove the fetus and still allow the fetus its rights. I can imagine a future in which technology and charity make this possible.
1 Like
Regardless of whether I’d like it do, I don’t see how eviction doesn’t apply to a person who wasn’t invited. I can tell a random orphan to gtfo my house if I haven’t invited it and whether it lives, under the NAP, is not my problem. I don’t see how the same doesn’t apply to uteruses.
Succession:
“If you are a US citizen, you may continue to receive payments outside the United States as long as you are eligible for payment and you are in a country where we can send payments.” https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10137.pdf
Here’s something interesting.
(Sorry if this was the issue on the topic, I didn’t hear this episode)
Iceland is close to eliminating Down syndrome births through abortion. Since the introduction of prenatal screening tests to the country in the early 2000s, close to 100 percent of women whose pregnancies test positive for Down syndrome have chosen to have an abortion.
“Whatever you learn today, please remember this: I am a man with Down syndrome and my life is worth living,” Stephens told lawmakers on the committee.
“I completely understand that the people pushing this particular ‘final solution’ are saying that people like me should not exist,” Stephens said. “That view is deeply prejudiced by an outdated idea of life with Down syndrome.”
Because eviction is based on an agreement. Someone who wandered into your house is different, and you have the right to remove them. Killing a child for being in your house is absurd, and has been repeatedly addressed in the past.
1 Like
I’m watching right now so I have multiple posts, sorry.
Currently, I’m fairly sure that embryos need to be cryogenically frozen and that the freezer needs to be hooked up to it. So I’d save the kid because the embryos are going to die anyway.
If in the future (or now and I become aware of it) there are mobile cryogenic freezers and the lab would implant the embryos as they otherwise would then I’d save the embryos. These are all random people who have no relation or specialized value to me so I’m going with numbers.
How to deal with murder is an entirely different question than whether murder is moral. Its immoral to shoot every fifth person who walks down the street. And I don’t have to financially support them to say that its moral. If willingness to support is equivalent to moral to kill, then I can not be opposed to murdering anyone other than myself, Bob, our kids, and maybe Edward Snowden. How many people are you really willing and able to support? Do you really have no opinion on random murder?
I didn’t say I’d kill them, I said I could kick them out my house.
Eviction is based on right to be there, not on agreement. I can evict a trespasser even though I have no agreement with them.
Why do people care if Ian has kids. PLENTY of people don’t want to raise kids. The good ones of these are the ones who then don’t have them. People who don’t want kids and have them anyway are heinous people.
Let me know when abortion doesn’t kill the fetus.
With eviction, the right to be there is due to agreement.
The fetus did not trespass. It was created there. If you have a beef, it’s with the rapist. If there is no rapist, you don’t have a beef because it was by consent.
Not sure what the last paragraph has to do with it. It’s killing a human life that’s an issue (if you believe it’s a human life.)
Replaces deleted copy that was not specifically a reply, and people have bitched about that.
If you are going to insist on that then replace “evict” with “kick out.” The arguments are the same.
Ok fine. I come across an orphan one year old in my living room that was placed there by a rapist. Now the one year old didn’t trespass. (Not that they can anyway, because toddlers aren’t moral actors.)
Any claims of self-defense are against the rapist. But that does not follow that non-invited embryos have rights against the woman. The embryo will die without the woman; the one year old will die without me; and people with an IQ of 50 will die without the welfare State. The fact that someone will die does not mean you are killing them. The woman is supplying property to the embryo. If she invited it there then she has an obligation to not neglect it. If she did not invite it there I see no basis on which to demand that she continue to provide it property. Yes, it will die without her property, but so will lots of other people so why is an uninvited embryo special?
It doesn’t. I was randomly replying to the show and the forum told me I had posted too many times in a row.
I explained why they’re different.
You have a right to remove the one-year-old, not to kill him. Mutilating with a vacuum is killing.
I never claimed the fetuses have rights “against” anyone.
As a rule, two people have sex knowing that having a baby is a consequence. People should be held responsible for their actions. I do have sympathy for a woman who is raped, and regardless of my views on the issue, I am against the state being involved, in any way, with abortion, including funding.
1 Like
I wish this kind of logic would work in arguments like this, but the problem is that people who kill fetuses are nihilists who just don’t want to admit they truly don’t give a shit about the life they created.
Mutilating with a vacuum isn’t evictionism. Removing the baby from the woman and leaving it to presumably die is evictionism.
If you are claiming the that fetus has the right to not be removed from the mother then you are claiming that it has rights against the mother. And to the extent that it was an invitee I do believe that the fetus has rights against the mother. I just don’t see how to get there when the woman hasn’t invited the fetus aka in a non-rape pregnancy.
The fact that nihilists (or opportunists don’t give a shit doesn’t change logic. They can scream “But I want to!” all they want, they haven’t won the argument.
You’re right. It isn’t. Abortion is not eviction.
I’m claiming the fetus has the same right to life YOU do, if any.
Rights aren’t “against” anyone.
No idea what the last paragraph was supposed to mean.