Search results

1. Because seriously harming another, even with their consent, is fundamentally different than harming yourself. 2. Because it opens the door to massive amounts of abuse. Have fun getting the mob in trouble for roughing you up when they forced you to sign a consent form to your beating before...

The difference is not meaningless, and yet again you are drawing false comparisons. Removing a leg or sexual organs is inherently crippling. Getting a tattoo is not. Smoking a cigarette is not, and also is something a person does to themselves. Even professional fighting is high risk activity...

...Are you actively engaging in bad faith, or are you really that blind? The standard is not 'insanity, as defined by whoever,' the standard is 'a person crippling another person.' I have said this before. To quote myself:

Your inability to recognize the flaws in your own logic is getting rather tiresome. 1. I do not want 'daddy government' involved in education in the first place. Punishing people for injuring others is one of few roles I believe the government should be involved with, which is why I am arguing...

And this is why 'pure' Libertarianism will never be a meaningful political force. You do not seem to be able to comprehend that it is inherently good for a person to have a healthy, fully-functional body, and that anything that violates that is to at least some degree bad, even if different...

And this is why the concept of limited government is so important. The government is not the arbitrator of all morality in society, it is not its job to enforce all moral law and punish every moral infraction. However, permanently crippling someone is a pretty serious thing to do. I do think it...

We are not talking about someone doing something to their own body. We are talking about someone doing something destructive to someone else's body. I believe it is immoral to mutilate yourself because you're pursuing an insane dream. It is your body however, and even if it is immoral, you...

Do you not see an inherent moral problem with this kind of self-destruction?

The question here isn't 'are you allowed to do something stupid to yourself?' It's 'is it lawful for a doctor to knowingly conduct a surgery that in no way benefits you, and in fact permanently harms you, because it conforms to your personal madness?'

Thank you, Skitzyfrenic, for both drawing out King Arts tyrannical nature for others to see, and saving me the trouble of being the one to try to explain to him how he understands basically nothing about Americanism, or the Christian ethos it grew from. Dealing with those levels of ignorance...

When on the one hand you project onto me beliefs I do not actually hold, and on the other hand you advocate for the exact same things as hardline leftists, it's pretty clear that you are not currently up to the task of making a coherent argument. The worst part, I think, is you seem to hold...

Apparently, they've been so successful in destroying our society that you have no idea what a healthy society even looks like. At this point, I'm not sure what the difference between liberal atheist communists and you even is.

Treating people as 'not really people' is one of the best ways to tear a society apart. It's also one of the best ways to smear your own political movement as being absolutely the worst kind of people.

You really just are determined to be as destructive as possible, aren't you?