Do Libertarians support pit bull and chicken fighting?

[Bern80]

The animal is the owner's property. He can do what he wants. What if the owner wanted to crash his car against a brick wall so that no one else can be hurt? A narco-libertarian would support his right to do so. The animal is also his property so no different.
What about children? Children in common law are property of their parents. So the narco libertarian position ought to be that whatever the parent wants to do is fine. Unless they want to say that children are in fact people with all the attendent rights. In which case they would have to support children suing parents for not giving them ice cream and the like.

There is no end to the absurdities inherent in the narco-libertarian world view when properly explored.

Except you aren't properly exploring them. How can you claim to do so when you have to resort to made up terms to support your position?

 

[2Parties]

Except you aren't properly exploring them. How can you claim to do so when you have to resort to made up terms to support your position?

99% of libertarian critics and 100% of internet troll libertarian critics have brains that are about as developed as a snail. They do not have the capability of elementary reasoning.

 

[The Rabbi]

The animal is the owner's property. He can do what he wants. What if the owner wanted to crash his car against a brick wall so that no one else can be hurt? A narco-libertarian would support his right to do so. The animal is also his property so no different.
What about children? Children in common law are property of their parents. So the narco libertarian position ought to be that whatever the parent wants to do is fine. Unless they want to say that children are in fact people with all the attendent rights. In which case they would have to support children suing parents for not giving them ice cream and the like.

There is no end to the absurdities inherent in the narco-libertarian world view when properly explored.

Except you aren't properly exploring them. How can you claim to do so when you have to resort to made up terms to support your position?

Of course I am. You cannot refute a single point.

 

[2Parties]

How is one supposed to "refute" incoherent rambling?

 

[Bern80]

The animal is the owner's property. He can do what he wants. What if the owner wanted to crash his car against a brick wall so that no one else can be hurt? A narco-libertarian would support his right to do so. The animal is also his property so no different.
What about children? Children in common law are property of their parents. So the narco libertarian position ought to be that whatever the parent wants to do is fine. Unless they want to say that children are in fact people with all the attendent rights. In which case they would have to support children suing parents for not giving them ice cream and the like.

There is no end to the absurdities inherent in the narco-libertarian world view when properly explored.

Except you aren't properly exploring them. How can you claim to do so when you have to resort to made up terms to support your position?

Of course I am. You cannot refute a single point.

You haven't made a point for starters. Secondly the arguments you've tried to make are epic failures. Take the above. To make an anology, the two things you are attempting to draw from have to actually be analogous. A living creature is not analogous to a non-living machine.

I also find it hilariously convenient that your made up group has a black and white position on what someone can do with their property. I would make the same point I made to Ravi in that it is humorous watching the opposition tell a group what they must believe when the only reason for making such a demand is to make their own argument semi-plausible.

 

[manifold]

Nope, I really believe it. I doubt libertarians could oppose someone putting nukes in their back yard, or a landfill...not sure where you get your ideas that they don't. Look how the oil spill is somehow no big deal because people CHOSE to live on the gulf coast.

Have you met dud?

dude is a fraud

I thought you knew that

Ask Paulie what he thinks about animal torture, back yard nukes and landfills, if he's ok with them then I'll publicly eat crow right here in front of god and everyone.

Pauli is only a cafeteria libertarian.

Anyone that isn't a cafeteria <insert any ideology> is an extremist whackadoo.

I'd say Paulie's views represent typical libertarian principles more than anyone else here, at least among the posters I think I know pretty well.

 

[Bern80]

Except you aren't properly exploring them. How can you claim to do so when you have to resort to made up terms to support your position?

99% of libertarian critics and 100% of internet troll libertarian critics have brains that are about as developed as a snail. They do not have the capability of elementary reasoning.

I don't get it honestly. There is a lot for even a leftist to like about the libertarian stance on a lot of issues (gay marriage, use of the miliatary). If they would quit pretending they know what it is, they might actually like it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Except you aren't properly exploring them. How can you claim to do so when you have to resort to made up terms to support your position?

Of course I am. You cannot refute a single point.

You haven't made a point for starters. Secondly the arguments you've tried to make are epic failures. Take the above. To make an anology, the two things you are attempting to draw from have to actually be analogous. A living creature is not analogous to a non-living machine.

I also find it hilariously convenient that your made up group has a black and white position on what someone can do with their property. I would make the same point I made to Ravi in that it is humorous watching the opposition tell a group what they must believe when the only reason for making such a demand is to make their own argument semi-plausible.

I've made several points. You inability to understand them, much less refute them, is not my problem.
We are not making an analogy between a living and a non living thing. We are making an analogy between two types of property.

 

[The Rabbi]

Except you aren't properly exploring them. How can you claim to do so when you have to resort to made up terms to support your position?

99% of libertarian critics and 100% of internet troll libertarian critics have brains that are about as developed as a snail. They do not have the capability of elementary reasoning.

I don't get it honestly. There is a lot for even a leftist to like about the libertarian stance on a lot of issues (gay marriage, use of the miliatary). If they would quit pretending they know what it is, they might actually like it.

Leftists are into control over people and telling them what to think. They don't want to legalize gay marriage, they want to make it mandatory.

 

[sangha]

Most libertarians seem believe they should vote for the republican.

Libertarians are all over the place politically, they are more disjointed then the dems.

Many proclaimed libertarians are just embaressed republicans, same with many independents.

Have any examples you'd like to share with the class, or are you just talking out your ass again?

No need to go to the upper hole when the ass speak can cover things with many on here just fine.

Don't want to talk over some of this crowds heads.

I think it's hilarious that Dud is asking someone else to defend their claim when Dud is too scared to ever defend his claims.

 

[Bern80]

Of course I am. You cannot refute a single point.

You haven't made a point for starters. Secondly the arguments you've tried to make are epic failures. Take the above. To make an anology, the two things you are attempting to draw from have to actually be analogous. A living creature is not analogous to a non-living machine.

I also find it hilariously convenient that your made up group has a black and white position on what someone can do with their property. I would make the same point I made to Ravi in that it is humorous watching the opposition tell a group what they must believe when the only reason for making such a demand is to make their own argument semi-plausible.

I've made several points. You inability to understand them, much less refute them, is not my problem.
We are not making an analogy between a living and a non living thing. We are making an analogy between two types of property.

No you haven't made a point. For the record in this thread basically all you have done is make up a group of people and then ask that other people provide evidence as to said made up group's position.

The fact that one piece of property is living and one is alive would make a significant difference to most libertarians. However is probably irrelevant thinking there should be no laws preventing people from treating animals cruelly, or not, doesn't make a libertarian less of libertarian. An answer you didn't accept and proceeded to tell libertarians what they are required to believe.

 

[sangha]

You haven't made a point for starters. Secondly the arguments you've tried to make are epic failures. Take the above. To make an anology, the two things you are attempting to draw from have to actually be analogous. A living creature is not analogous to a non-living machine.

I also find it hilariously convenient that your made up group has a black and white position on what someone can do with their property. I would make the same point I made to Ravi in that it is humorous watching the opposition tell a group what they must believe when the only reason for making such a demand is to make their own argument semi-plausible.

I've made several points. You inability to understand them, much less refute them, is not my problem.
We are not making an analogy between a living and a non living thing. We are making an analogy between two types of property.

No you haven't made a point. For the record in this thread basically all you have done is make up a group of people and then ask that other people provide evidence as to said made up group's position.

The fact that one piece of property is living and one is alive would make a significant difference to most libertarians. However is probably irrelevant thinking there should be no laws preventing people from treating animals cruelly, or not, doesn't make a libertarian less of libertarian. An answer you didn't accept and proceeded to tell libertarians what they are required to believe.

Animal rights is not a libertarian position.

The libertarian position is that animals are property

 

[Bern80]

I've made several points. You inability to understand them, much less refute them, is not my problem.
We are not making an analogy between a living and a non living thing. We are making an analogy between two types of property.

No you haven't made a point. For the record in this thread basically all you have done is make up a group of people and then ask that other people provide evidence as to said made up group's position.

The fact that one piece of property is living and one is alive would make a significant difference to most libertarians. However is probably irrelevant thinking there should be no laws preventing people from treating animals cruelly, or not, doesn't make a libertarian less of libertarian. An answer you didn't accept and proceeded to tell libertarians what they are required to believe.

Animal rights is not a libertarian position.

The libertarian position is that animals are property

Not true. animal rights could just as easily be applied the libertarian principle of non-aggression as it could be to the concept of property rights.

 

[sangha]

No you haven't made a point. For the record in this thread basically all you have done is make up a group of people and then ask that other people provide evidence as to said made up group's position.

The fact that one piece of property is living and one is alive would make a significant difference to most libertarians. However is probably irrelevant thinking there should be no laws preventing people from treating animals cruelly, or not, doesn't make a libertarian less of libertarian. An answer you didn't accept and proceeded to tell libertarians what they are required to believe.

Animal rights is not a libertarian position.

The libertarian position is that animals are property

No you haven't made a point. For the record in this thread basically all you have done is make up a group of people and then ask that other people provide evidence as to said made up group's position.

The fact that one piece of property is living and one is alive would make a significant difference to most libertarians. However is probably irrelevant thinking there should be no laws preventing people from treating animals cruelly, or not, doesn't make a libertarian less of libertarian. An answer you didn't accept and proceeded to tell libertarians what they are required to believe.

Animal rights is not a libertarian position.

The libertarian position is that animals are property

Not true. animal rights could just as easily be applied the libertarian principle of non-aggression as it could be to the concept of property rights.

I don't see how and you're merely saying it's true does not persuade.

Libertarianism is based on the idea that "free will" entitles people to be free to exercise their choices. Since animals do not have free will (according to those who first came up with libertarian philosophies) and since libertarianism makes no mention of animal rights, I don't see how you came to that conclusion

Also, "non-aggresssion" is not a libertarian idea. It's been around for thousands of years and it doesn't include animals.

 

[JWBooth]

I can't speak for anybody but myself, I find each to be barbaric and unnecessary. As these are events that seem to find their greatest following among the lowest classes of society and immigrants, doesn't it behoove those who would force upon the rest of society the need to respect other cultures as equal to our own to eat crow and justify these blood sports as something we need to have an understanding of?

 

[HUGGY]

Do Libertarians support pit bull and chicken fighting?

I don't think a chicken would last very long in a fight with a pit bull.

 

[The Rabbi]

Animal rights is not a libertarian position.

The libertarian position is that animals are property

Animal rights is not a libertarian position.

The libertarian position is that animals are property

Not true. animal rights could just as easily be applied the libertarian principle of non-aggression as it could be to the concept of property rights.

I don't see how and you're merely saying it's true does not persuade.

Libertarianism is based on the idea that "free will" entitles people to be free to exercise their choices. Since animals do not have free will (according to those who first came up with libertarian philosophies) and since libertarianism makes no mention of animal rights, I don't see how you came to that conclusion

Also, "non-aggresssion" is not a libertarian idea. It's been around for thousands of years and it doesn't include animals.

Thsi thread is a good example of watching narco-libertarians twist themselves into pretzels to wrap libertarianism around liberalism and avoid the obvious conclusions of their warped philosophy.

 

[Ravi]

I can't speak for anybody but myself, I find each to be barbaric and unnecessary. As these are events that seem to find their greatest following among the lowest classes of society and immigrants, doesn't it behoove those who would force upon the rest of society the need to respect other cultures as equal to our own to eat crow and justify these blood sports as something we need to have an understanding of?

But should there be laws banning it?

 

[2Parties]

You inability to understand them, much less refute them, is not my problem.

Internet trolls are very difficult to understand. Their posts are treasure-troves of examples of logical fallacies that a community college Intro to Philosophy teacher could hand out the first day of class. They then keep responding with fallacy after fallacy until the person with any type of common sense or basic reasoning ability leaves. The troll has accomplished their goal. They "win" because someone stops talking to them, no knowledge was gained by them or the other person, and since these types of behaviors make the troll happy they continue it until all that is left on a forum is a bunch of trolls drooling on each other and hurling insults.

The internet troll is a strange species.

 

[2Parties]

Libertarianism is based on the idea that "free will" entitles people to be free to exercise their choices.

False.

Since animals do not have free will (according to those who first came up with libertarian philosophies)

False. (shocking considering the first sentence was so accurate)

Also, "non-aggresssion" is not a libertarian idea.

No one ever suggested it was.