nogodsnomasters85
Not Stirred
I'm gonna have to take this one at a time...
I think most women would take offense at being called hosts, but I know what you mean. I wouldn't say the zygote/embryo/fetus is the woman's "property", like a handbag, or a pair of shoes exactly. However, she MUST carry it, in HER body, for NINE MONTHS, there isn't any reason why I should have the right to make a woman go through with that if she doesn't want to.
It takes two people to create a life and therefore, they are both EQUALLY the child's parents....no more, no less..it is absurd to support your reasoning based solely on your argument...until women are capable of Asexual reproduction, Men will be equally responsible as women for the entire reproductive process from insemination to birth....[/quote]
Close but not quite, both equally are responsible for the creation, one could argue males are more responsible, but CARRYING the child is all her, and thats' the issue.
You would have us all live in a lawless society, free from rules or regulation where people abide by a code of Darwinian Mastery, which would allow for the selfish acts that you are proposing...Anarchy is a practical thing for your stereo or to discuss philosophically in a classroom...but it has no place in the real world[/QUOTE]
No, no, no.. Ok, there are a couple of problems here.. One, you seem to be invoking what I call the "human nature argument", best exemplified by Goldings' Lord of the Flies. Great book but his fundamental logic was deeply flawed. This thinking asserts humans are too inherently wicked and violent to function together without rigid social control mechanisms. This doesn't philosophically follow, see? It amounts to "people can't responsibly handle the power to govern they're own lives so a smaller group of people should have control over everybodys' life." Human nature is not like a land survey, you can't just mark out it's borders and topography with aqny exactitude. Moreover, I don't think it would be productive or meaningful as humanity is constantly developing. However, we can make inferences. The best guides to understanding the nature of the human animal is by studying social constants. If one looks one can find a basic, objective morality and pattern of behavior that transcends culture. Humans naturally strive for community and stability if possible, unless deterred by larger forces. As for selfishness, thats' much more clearly expressed in western, atomized cultures than in more collective social organizations where people know and depend on they're neighbors. As for no place in the real world, first I'd express that I wouldn't remotely desire a shift directly from our present social organization to an anarchist one, it would be incredibly destructive, I hold anarchism as a far off goal, more like a set of philosophical principles than a precise program, which must evolve organically. It also seems you have a misunderstanding about Anarchist philosophy, in itself complex because there are many different varieties. Chomsky's "Anarchism" does pretty well if it is a little dry, for a primer you might want Emma Goldmans' classic "Anarchism: What it is and what it stands for."
And getting back to real world examples I'd point to the Israeli kibbutzim, or the spanish Anarchist collectives which functioned quite well. I'd also point to any number of grassroots political action groups like SDS, role playing clubs, hunting groups, etc., humans are capable of a remarkable degree of cooperation organically. Also, I'd say that the liberal philosophical ideals this nation was founded on are in principle pretty close to Anarchism. Read Tom Paine or Jefferson, it's very similar, the belief that the state is at BEST a necessary evil, people should challenge power structures at all times, most of the founding fathers were agnostic/atheists, add socialism, which is truer to this school of thinking than neoliberalism which is primarily a far-right fetish, and you've basically got anarchism.
I think most women would take offense at being called hosts, but I know what you mean. I wouldn't say the zygote/embryo/fetus is the woman's "property", like a handbag, or a pair of shoes exactly. However, she MUST carry it, in HER body, for NINE MONTHS, there isn't any reason why I should have the right to make a woman go through with that if she doesn't want to.
It takes two people to create a life and therefore, they are both EQUALLY the child's parents....no more, no less..it is absurd to support your reasoning based solely on your argument...until women are capable of Asexual reproduction, Men will be equally responsible as women for the entire reproductive process from insemination to birth....[/quote]
Close but not quite, both equally are responsible for the creation, one could argue males are more responsible, but CARRYING the child is all her, and thats' the issue.
You would have us all live in a lawless society, free from rules or regulation where people abide by a code of Darwinian Mastery, which would allow for the selfish acts that you are proposing...Anarchy is a practical thing for your stereo or to discuss philosophically in a classroom...but it has no place in the real world[/QUOTE]
No, no, no.. Ok, there are a couple of problems here.. One, you seem to be invoking what I call the "human nature argument", best exemplified by Goldings' Lord of the Flies. Great book but his fundamental logic was deeply flawed. This thinking asserts humans are too inherently wicked and violent to function together without rigid social control mechanisms. This doesn't philosophically follow, see? It amounts to "people can't responsibly handle the power to govern they're own lives so a smaller group of people should have control over everybodys' life." Human nature is not like a land survey, you can't just mark out it's borders and topography with aqny exactitude. Moreover, I don't think it would be productive or meaningful as humanity is constantly developing. However, we can make inferences. The best guides to understanding the nature of the human animal is by studying social constants. If one looks one can find a basic, objective morality and pattern of behavior that transcends culture. Humans naturally strive for community and stability if possible, unless deterred by larger forces. As for selfishness, thats' much more clearly expressed in western, atomized cultures than in more collective social organizations where people know and depend on they're neighbors. As for no place in the real world, first I'd express that I wouldn't remotely desire a shift directly from our present social organization to an anarchist one, it would be incredibly destructive, I hold anarchism as a far off goal, more like a set of philosophical principles than a precise program, which must evolve organically. It also seems you have a misunderstanding about Anarchist philosophy, in itself complex because there are many different varieties. Chomsky's "Anarchism" does pretty well if it is a little dry, for a primer you might want Emma Goldmans' classic "Anarchism: What it is and what it stands for."
And getting back to real world examples I'd point to the Israeli kibbutzim, or the spanish Anarchist collectives which functioned quite well. I'd also point to any number of grassroots political action groups like SDS, role playing clubs, hunting groups, etc., humans are capable of a remarkable degree of cooperation organically. Also, I'd say that the liberal philosophical ideals this nation was founded on are in principle pretty close to Anarchism. Read Tom Paine or Jefferson, it's very similar, the belief that the state is at BEST a necessary evil, people should challenge power structures at all times, most of the founding fathers were agnostic/atheists, add socialism, which is truer to this school of thinking than neoliberalism which is primarily a far-right fetish, and you've basically got anarchism.
Last edited:
I didn't understand because nobody had explained it to me so eloquently, thanks, Dave 
