Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[Machismo]

This whole thread has been exemplary of your dismissal of any and all evidence, facts, truth... Whatever you imagine is "logic" isn't compatible with the rest of humanity.

Well, we'll see if you Trumpsters get your wish, and you get to heavily restrict abortions in the name of consumer protections.

[Ivanstone]

There's more of your hypocrisy.

I've been very clear that every individual regulation should judged solely on its own merits. Its almost like we're judging them on the content of their character and not what they are. No hypocrisy here!

Now go do your homework. I am genuinely fascinated to know if there's a secret Oak Barrel Cooper Monopoly that's behind all of this. They could be real!

If you wake up tomorrow and see in the news that a comic book retailer was killed by an oak stave shoved up his rectum its probably me.

[Edge-]

Well, we'll see if you Trumpsters get your wish, and you get to heavily restrict abortions in the name of consumer protections.

Medical treatment is not a commodity, patients are not consumers. The only time you could even try to make this argument is in non-medical procedures like plastic surgery, which an abortion very much does not count as.

[Shadowferal]

Well, we'll see if you Trumpsters get your wish, and you get to heavily restrict abortions in the name of consumer protections.

Yes... I'm sure in your mind everyone posting is a Trumpster... Lol... Since no one else believes it. O..yeah..and nazis, fascists, communists... *chuckles*

[Machismo]

I've been very clear that every individual regulation should judged solely on its own merits. Its almost like we're judging them on the content of their character and not what they are. No hypocrisy here!

Now go do your homework. I am genuinely fascinated to know if there's a secret Oak Barrel Cooper Monopoly that's behind all of this. They could be real!

If you wake up tomorrow and see in the news that a comic book retailer was killed by an oak stave shoved up his rectum its probably me.

So, you agree that the motives of the people pushing the abortion restrictions are irrelevant.

Well, I guess the building remodeling and ultrasound machine makers will be seeing a big boost to their business!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Yes... I'm sure in your mind everyone posting is a Trumpster... Lol... Since no one else believes it. O..yeah..and nazis, fascists, communists... *chuckles*

Nope, just you.

- - - Updated - - -

Medical treatment is not a commodity, patients are not consumers. The only time you could even try to make this argument is in non-medical procedures like plastic surgery, which an abortion very much does not count as.

It is a service.

Plastic surgery is a medical procedure, just an elective one. Well, not all are elective, some ae actually required. The same goes for abortions.

Planned Parenthood seems to think abortion is one of the many services they offer.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/up...-web-final.pdf

[Muzjhath]

I've been very clear that every individual regulation should judged solely on its own merits. Its almost like we're judging them on the content of their character and not what they are. No hypocrisy here!

Now go do your homework. I am genuinely fascinated to know if there's a secret Oak Barrel Cooper Monopoly that's behind all of this. They could be real!

If you wake up tomorrow and see in the news that a comic book retailer was killed by an oak stave shoved up his rectum its probably me.

The fact that he doesn't even acknowledge my question about Glass-Steagall feels rather telling to me. Since based on so much of his old posts and opinions he is in the camp that wanted it gone. Yet then... yeah.

[Edge-]

Well, I guess the building remodeling and ultrasound machine makers will be seeing a big boost to their business!!!

This is such a bad faith, nihilistic acceptance of everything as either meaningful or meaningless with no differentiation.

Why not review the necessity of the proposed restrictions? Are they necessary? What additional protections will they provide for patients that are not currently provided for? Will it impact these facilities ability to operate? Are their patients currently at risk without these regulations? Has the medical community been consulted on this to see if these are steps that further patient care and protections without restricting access to medial care?

This is the kind of nuance that should be discussed, not sweeping generalizations and binary black/white situations where all regulation is bad or all regulation is good or "harm" is some nebulous, undefined term.

[Ivanstone]

I can't see anything in this post. Are you blathering about a forbidden subject?

Have you found anything about the Oak Barrel Cooper Monopoly yet? I hate poorly labelled products but I hate anti-trust activities more.

[Shadowferal]

This is such a bad faith, nihilistic acceptance of everything as either meaningful or meaningless with no differentiation. .

You're expecting substance....NOW?

[Machismo]

This is such a bad faith, nihilistic acceptance of everything as either meaningful or meaningless with no differentiation.

Why not review the necessity of the proposed restrictions? Are they necessary? What additional protections will they provide for patients that are not currently provided for? Will it impact these facilities ability to operate? Are their patients currently at risk without these regulations? Has the medical community been consulted on this to see if these are steps that further patient care and protections without restricting access to medial care?

This is the kind of nuance that should be discussed, not sweeping generalizations and binary black/white situations where all regulation is bad or all regulation is good or "harm" is some nebulous, undefined term.

it's his fucking argument. He touted the regulations that required specific things as a boon to those particular industries that were required as part of the regulation. I only used his argument.

So, if you don't like it, take it up with him.

Were the restrictions I pointed to necessary? I don't think most regulations are necessary, so welcome to libertarianism.

So, for all your questions, ask the same for the new whiskey regulation. Ask the same for every single regulation in existence.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't see anything in this post. Are you blathering about a forbidden subject?

Have you found anything about the Oak Barrel Cooper Monopoly yet? I hate poorly labelled products but I hate anti-trust activities more.

Try refreshing.

[Mayhem]

I'm not using a guy with a gun, and calling it marketing.

if the motives are irrelevant, then the motives of those pushing the abortion restrictions are irrelevant.

And neither am I, I gave you the definition, you apparently ignored it and rather cling to your pointless argument.

The motives are irrelevant, what they do is what counts. That was my position from the start hence why I've asked you a number of times, who was harmed with your examples and e-voila the conclusion is none. But you couldn't have that so you had to find someone that is being harmed because in your small black and white world then you have a reason to make away with the regulation. You can't grasp that you were so wrong about that the regulations not only didn't harm the one you claimed they harmed but are actually beneficial. You know, something you claim to be in favor of. And that's where you lost, you could've said, my bad I'll find better examples or play stupid semantic games, bring up ridiculous analogies and try to get people to agree with a point you never wanted to make in the first place.

This thread is you failing for almost 80 pages.

[Edge-]

it's his fucking argument. He touted the regulations that required specific things as a boon to those particular industries that were required as part of the regulation. I only used his argument.

So, if you don't like it, take it up with him.

I'm responding to your posts, not his. You keep trying to blame everyone else when you respond to them and people point out that your post doesn't make sense.

Were the restrictions I pointed to necessary? I don't think most regulations are necessary, so welcome to libertarianism.

Yes, we're well aware that you have a non-functioning ideology. Which is why this thread has been dozens and dozens of pages of people trying to show you via example as you contort and twist in every way while remaining wholly inconsistent.

Still haven't defined "harm" yet beyond some nebulous "whatever I think it should be at any given time"

So, for all your questions, ask the same for the new whiskey regulation. Ask the same for every single regulation in existence.

No, it's on you to present a convincing argument to us that they're not worth it. Thus far, you've failed spectacularly. That you remain alone in your opinion while there's pretty widespread disagreement on multiple points should give you a bit of a hint.

[Ivanstone]

Try refreshing.

Nope still nothing about the Oak Barrel Cooper Monopoly. I thought you were good at research?

[Machismo]

And neither am I, I gave you the definition, you apparently ignored it and rather cling to your pointless argument.

The motives are irrelevant, what they do is what counts. That was my position from the start hence why I've asked you a number of times, who was harmed with your examples and e-voila the conclusion is none. But you couldn't have that so you had to find someone that is being harmed because in your small black and white world then you have a reason to make away with the regulation. You can't grasp that you were so wrong about that the regulations not only didn't harm the one you claimed they harmed but are actually beneficial. You know, something you claim to be in favor of. And that's where you lost, you could've said, my bad I'll find better examples or play stupid semantic games, bring up ridiculous analogies and try to get people to agree with a point you never wanted to make in the first place.

This thread is you failing for almost 80 pages.

You claimed it was marketing.

Thanks for making sure we know the motives of those pushing the abortion restrictions are irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope still nothing about the Oak Barrel Cooper Monopoly. I thought you were good at research?

Surely, you must be happy that the building remodeling industry and ultrasound makers will see a boom to their businesses... right?

[Mayhem]

This is the kind of nuance that should be discussed, not sweeping generalizations and binary black/white situations where all regulation is bad or all regulation is good or "harm" is some nebulous, undefined term.

The best part is, he once wrote harm is defined by the one implementing the regulations. Therefore he is on the pro side of these abortion regulations as the government surely claims they are not harming anyone. He lost every argument he ever made but just keeps repeating them ad nauseam.

[Edge-]

Surely, you must be happy that the building remodeling industry and ultrasound makers will see a boom to their businesses... right?

See, this right here. This is exactly the kind of bad faith response and poor argument I'm talking about. He points to one thing, you respond with something completely unrelated to his topic.

Don't be the pigeon in the chess match, dude.

[Machismo]

I'm responding to your posts, not his. You keep trying to blame everyone else when you respond to them and people point out that your post doesn't make sense.



Yes, we're well aware that you have a non-functioning ideology. Which is why this thread has been dozens and dozens of pages of people trying to show you via example as you contort and twist in every way while remaining wholly inconsistent.

Still haven't defined "harm" yet beyond some nebulous "whatever I think it should be at any given time"



No, it's on you to present a convincing argument to us that they're not worth it. Thus far, you've failed spectacularly. That you remain alone in your opinion while there's pretty widespread disagreement on multiple points should give you a bit of a hint.

Well, it's his argument, so take it up with him. He's the one who defended the regulation by cheering on that those whose products are becoming mandatory, would see an uptick in business.

So, if you don't like it, then take it up with him.

I have long said the dictionary definition is fine, and this has been discussed. Try and keep up.

The burden falls on those pushing the legislation. It's up to them to show those things.

- - - Updated - - -

See, this right here. This is exactly the kind of bad faith response and poor argument I'm talking about. He points to one thing, you respond with something completely unrelated to his topic.

Don't be the pigeon in the chess match, dude.

This is literally his argument used against him.

[Mayhem]

You claimed it was marketing.

Quote me where I said the abortion regulations are marketing. Liar.

Thanks for making sure we know the motives of those pushing the abortion restrictions are irrelevant.

Your welcome. Did you read the rest of the post or did your brain snap after that part of the sentence?

[Machismo]

The best part is, he once wrote harm is defined by the one implementing the regulations. Therefore he is on the pro side of these abortion regulations as the government surely claims they are not harming anyone. He lost every argument he ever made but just keeps repeating them ad nauseam.

No, I said it's defined by the government, small but clear distinction.

I also stated I don't always agree with the government, as you probably won't when they implement abortion restrictions.

[Edge-]

This is literally his argument used against him.

It's literally quite not. At all. You're the only person that thinks this.