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

[Shadowferal]

Man, the fact that you even waste time with transparently bad-faith arguments like this speaks volumes. We've been over this already, but I see that it was a waste of time on my part.

To quote;

I don't give a shit if people agree with me.

Wll, considering the GOP have a 6-3 majority in the SCOTUS< it's only a matter of time.

Oh..so like primary and his Star Trek it's a fantasy.

[Ivanstone]

Consumers are harmed by not having properly-performed abortions. .

Correct. Medical procedures should be properly regulated and enforced.

[Machismo]

Yet here you are, making it on their behalf. Instead of not making them on their behalf because they're bad-faith arguments, as we've already discussed in addressing the qualitative analysis of regulations rather than just broad generalities that are pretty useless to discuss.

I'm making it against them, which is going to be very interesting in the next few years.

- - - Updated - - -

To quote; Oh..so like primary and his Star Trek it's a fantasy.

If you think abortion restrictions are a fantasy, then you haven't been paying attention.

- - - Updated - - -

Please, feel free to dispute any bit of it. Never mind. I forgot your rules. I’ve made the claim multiple times and you haven’t refuted it. Therefor it’s true and your true colors are there for everyone to see. Have fun with the corporatism!

Already have, it was around the time you were calling me an anarchist.

- - - Updated - - -

Correct. Medical procedures should be properly regulated and enforced.

Yep, and they will be even more regulated in the next decade in the United States.

[Shadowferal]

If you think abortion restrictions are a fantasy, then you haven't been paying attention.

*looks around...checks hospital* nothing to see here.

So..like primary you can predict the future.

[Edge-]

I'm making it against them, which is going to be very interesting in the next few years.

...against who? I'm super fucking confused now, because I haven't seen anyone in this thread make these arguments, and I'm not sure how this is arguing against the peoples whose arguments you literally just repeated?

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, and they will be even more regulated in the next decade in the United States.

Man, this is such a fucking meaningless statement.

Regulated how? In what way? Will they actually improve safety? Will they expand access? Will it limit access?

"regulations" is meaningless, you need to specify what types of regulations you're cryptically hinting at.

[Ivanstone]

Yep, and they will be even more regulated in the next decade in the United States.

You didn't even read the link did you?

[Machismo]

*looks around...checks hospital* nothing to see here.

So..like primary you can predict the future.

Once again, have you not been paying attention over the past few years?

- - - Updated - - -

...against who? I'm super fucking confused now, because I haven't seen anyone in this thread make these arguments, and I'm not sure how this is arguing against the peoples whose arguments you literally just repeated?

- - - Updated - - -



Man, this is such a fucking meaningless statement.

Regulated how? In what way? Will they actually improve safety? Will they expand access? Will it limit access?

"regulations" is meaningless, you need to specify what types of regulations you're cryptically hinting at.

Well, ask the people pushing those regulations, they seem to be very proud of them.

Those regulations have long ago been covered. Wider hallways, mandatory ultrasounds, admitting privileges, and even restrictions based on gestation.

[Machismo]

You didn't even read the link did you?

Oh, I'm well aware of him.

The GOP are going to push even more.

[Machismo]

Liar. You confirmed it in this thread. For instance, my desire to actually do something to block such actions is painted by you as being opposed to liberty. That’s you openly supporting the abortion restrictions existing. Add in you saying you support the group’s right to push such legislation through even more lax election laws. Add in you supporting the access to any such clinic coming with tolls. Yeah, you’ve shown us all how two faced you are. You claim to oppose legislation that you openly desire more of. You aren’t morally superior by saying you oppose things when you don’t do anything to actively oppose them. What you actively do supports them. Feel free to point out where my reasoning is wrong. We’ll all be waiting for your lip service with nothing backing it up.

And yet, you shilled for a gigantic corporation... in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Good thing you openly support them being owned by special interests so they can.

Tell me more about you shilling for JD.

[Edge-]

Well, ask the people pushing those regulations, they seem to be very proud of them.

Naw dog, I'm asking you. Again, you keep trying to deflect every time you get asked questions about things you post. Their your posts and your words you typed. If you can't answer for them, then just copy/paste from elsewhere so we know you're not actually saying anything.

Those regulations have long ago been covered. Wider hallways, mandatory ultrasounds, admitting privileges, and even restrictions based on gestation.

Some of which we've addressed already, and some of which you haven't addressed as to why we should take the notion that these regulations are for the safety of patients seriously.

The way you speak of regulations lacks any specificity, nuance, subtlety, or really any basic understanding of what they are. You speak of them generally as if they're some restrictive bogeyman that needs to generally be gotten rid of.

[Machismo]

Naw dog, I'm asking you. Again, you keep trying to deflect every time you get asked questions about things you post. Their your posts and your words you typed. If you can't answer for them, then just copy/paste from elsewhere so we know you're not actually saying anything.



Some of which we've addressed already, and some of which you haven't addressed as to why we should take the notion that these regulations are for the safety of patients seriously.

The way you speak of regulations lacks any specificity, nuance, subtlety, or really any basic understanding of what they are. You speak of them generally as if they're some restrictive bogeyman that needs to generally be gotten rid of.

Ask the people making the initial argument, dog.

The people pushing it are claiming that, and they will likely have the votes to make them legally stick. And, as has been discussed, the government is the arbiter in such things, and is the final justification.

[Machismo]

Tell me more about you shilling for every corporation ever.

- - - Updated - - -



It’s weird how he refuses to even try to dispute the counterpoints. He just sticks his fingers in his ears like a first grader.

I was literally opposing this legislation JD was pushing.

So, I guess you can take JD off that list.

[Ivanstone]

Oh, I'm well aware of him.

The GOP are going to push even more.

He's pretty much a shining exemplar of deregulation. He had the liberty to run his legal business anyway he wanted.

Speaking of which how about that deregulated opioid industry?

The GOP will at least deregulate other stuff.

How's those electricity prices in Texas working out? There's low taxes everywhere in the Deep South! Florida has almost no taxes at all. Its a veritable liberty bonanza. Surely that must be worth decreased abortion access right?

[Machismo]

You literally don’t. You say you do, but you support the ability for corporations to purchase legislation. Or did you forget that’s what you support?

So, I support JD by being literally the only one opposing them?

[Shadowferal]

...against who? I'm super fucking confused now, because I haven't seen anyone in this thread make these arguments, and I'm not sure how this is arguing against the peoples whose arguments you literally just repeated?

Typical ploy; Libertarian logic 101

Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it. Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms. What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms. They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships". In a phrase I'll probably find myself repeating "I am not making this up". It's important to realized that what might sound like hyperbole or overstatement really, truly, will be found when dealing with Libertarian arguments.

[Edge-]

Ask the people making the initial argument, dog.

Again, no. You repeated it so clearly you think it has validity. Why? I'm responding to you, not someone else. Stop deflecting every time someone tries to get you to start being more specific about your views.

The people pushing it are claiming that, and they will likely have the votes to make them legally stick.

First off, the Peoples Democratic Republic of North Korea claims to be a Peoples Democratic Republic, I guess we just have to believe them since they said it. There's no way we could qualitatively look at the country to analyze if they are in fact a Peoples Democratic Republic or a dictatorship. None whatsoever, I guess.

Beyond that, it's possible, but it's always possible that the courts might do something like that. Again, welcome to reality. That's why it's important that people get engaged and fight for causes they believe in. That's why it's important that legislatures (especially the Federal Legislature) be pressured to ensure legal protections that are not subject to the changing makeup of the SCOTUS.

And, as has been discussed, the government is the arbiter in such things, and is the final justification.

Ok...and? This is another thing you keep saying that like...doesn't mean anything in this context/discussion. That's the kind of axiomatic nonsense that gets passed off as something more than functionally saying, "Water is wet."

[Machismo]

He's pretty much a shining exemplar of deregulation. He had the liberty to run his legal business anyway he wanted.

Speaking of which how about that deregulated opioid industry?

The GOP will at least deregulate other stuff.

How's those electricity prices in Texas working out? There's low taxes everywhere in the Deep South! Florida has almost no taxes at all. Its a veritable liberty bonanza. Sure that must be worth decreased abortion access right?

Opioids are heavily regulated.

The GOP wants to regulate the shit out of marijuana, which is a shame.

How's the water in Flint, Michigan working out?

- - - Updated - - -

Again, no. You repeated it so clearly you think it has validity. Why? I'm responding to you, not someone else. Stop deflecting every time someone tries to get you to start being more specific about your views.



First off, the Peoples Democratic Republic of North Korea claims to be a Peoples Democratic Republic, I guess we just have to believe them since they said it. There's no way we could qualitatively look at the country to analyze if they are in fact a Peoples Democratic Republic or a dictatorship. None whatsoever, I guess.

Beyond that, it's possible, but it's always possible that the courts might do something like that. Again, welcome to reality. That's why it's important that people get engaged and fight for causes they believe in. That's why it's important that legislatures (especially the Federal Legislature) be pressured to ensure legal protections that are not subject to the changing makeup of the SCOTUS.



Ok...and? This is another thing you keep saying that like...doesn't mean anything in this context/discussion. That's the kind of axiomatic nonsense that gets passed off as something more than functionally saying, "Water is wet."

Your desire to ask me shows that your issue isn't with the argument, but with me. That's fine.

Progressives pretend to care about all sorts of things, but we know that's also a lie. Just look at all the rich people they ant to eat.

I am fighting for what I believe in, which is liberty.

[Felya]

Anyone want to start a corporate punk band? I once saw a band, I think it was called Librarians... they read classic literature to thrash metal. Maybe we can read SOP and thrash?

[Edge-]

Your desire to ask me shows that your issue isn't with the argument, but with me. That's fine.

So that's still a nope, gotcha.

Progressives pretend to care about all sorts of things, but we know that's also a lie. Just look at all the rich people they ant to eat.

What does this even fucking mean? Is this a dig at the BLM chick or something? What does this have to do with literally anything I posted?

I am fighting for what I believe in, which is liberty.

I'm sure you believe that, but you've managed to convince precisely 0 people in this thread of it.

You do you fam, I guess I don't have much left to write if you're never gonna actually respond to the content of my posts.

[Machismo]

So that's still a nope, gotcha.



What does this even fucking mean? Is this a dig at the BLM chick or something? What does this have to do with literally anything I posted?



I'm sure you believe that, but you've managed to convince precisely 0 people in this thread of it.

You do you fam, I guess I don't have much left to write if you're never gonna actually respond to the content of my posts.

Take it up with the people making the argument in the first place, mein duden.

You seem to forget, I don't really care if I convince you. I fully expect liberals and conservatives to go on pushing as many regulations as they can when they are in power. I have been saying this for years, almost nobody actually gives a shit about liberty, they just want to be in charge. The cycle will keep on going, until you and the conservatives fuck it up beyond all repair.

I'll be here, watching the world burn.