This has nothing to do with shark finning, unless someone already owns the sharks.
So an animal (a shark, dog, etc.) is accorded the right to different treatment depending on whether it is owned or not by the one mistreating the animal?
Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 23. (Read 105875 times)
So an animal (a shark, dog, etc.) is accorded the right to different treatment depending on whether it is owned or not by the one mistreating the animal?
So, have these measures, regulations, treaties, etc. of yours stopped shark finning? Drug trade? Illegal downloading?
I'm asking if you support the deliberate killing of a human for the act of shark finning.
I support measures, regulations, treaties, etc. to prevent shark finning. I cannot claim to be completely aware of what jurisdictions exists where, but where the rules are clear, and individuals are caught, I support fines, and possibly arrest. Said shark finner has the opportunity to comply. I then support coercive force to get said shark finner to comply. His resistance is his choice. Since I wouldn't mourn him falling overboard into a feeding frenzy of sharks, it's unlikely that I would mourn his death if it occurred in another manner.
Consider the notion of living in your libertarian land. You run a dog kennel on your property. Some guy keeps coming onto your property and cuts the paws off of your dogs because, apparently, some culture believes their foot pads to have medicinal value. After about the fifth dog maiming, he's caught on video. Next night, you catch him red handed. But he escapes. Is not escalation and death possible in this scenario?
Thanks for explaining how you accept murder only if is preceded by attempted kidnapping and extortion.
In this scenario, he is infringing on my property. Attempting to defend my property with the minimum required force is justified. If he escalates the use of force, I would be justified in doing rhe same.
This has nothing to do with shark finning, unless someone already owns the sharks.
I'm asking if you support the deliberate killing of a human for the act of shark finning.
I support measures, regulations, treaties, etc. to prevent shark finning. I cannot claim to be completely aware of what jurisdictions exists where, but where the rules are clear, and individuals are caught, I support fines, and possibly arrest. Said shark finner has the opportunity to comply. I then support coercive force to get said shark finner to comply. His resistance is his choice. Since I wouldn't mourn him falling overboard into a feeding frenzy of sharks, it's unlikely that I would mourn his death if it occurred in another manner.
Consider the notion of living in your libertarian land. You run a dog kennel on your property. Some guy keeps coming onto your property and cuts the paws off of your dogs because, apparently, some culture believes their foot pads to have medicinal value. After about the fifth dog maiming, he's caught on video. Next night, you catch him red handed. But he escapes. Is not escalation and death possible in this scenario?
So you support the killing of humans who fin sharks?
The honest truth? Any scumbag who makes a living slicing the dorsal fins off of sharks, and then tosses the sharks back into the water to die, and does this repeatedly, without remorse, all to make a buck, does not have my sympathy. If one day, said individual fell overboard into the water amidst a feeding frenzy of sharks, I would not shed a tear.
Honestly, would you? Or are you not entirely familiar with the process of shark finning?
I'm asking if you support the deliberate killing of a human for the act of shark finning.
I would not feel sorry for him if he died, but I do not support the deliberate use of violence, no.
So you support the killing of humans who fin sharks?
The honest truth? Any scumbag who makes a living slicing the dorsal fins off of sharks, and then tosses the sharks back into the water to die, and does this repeatedly, without remorse, all to make a buck, does not have my sympathy. If one day, said individual fell overboard into the water amidst a feeding frenzy of sharks, I would not shed a tear.
Honestly, would you? Or are you not entirely familiar with the process of shark finning?
Until you demonstrate that your libertarian society guarantees no escalation will occur during the resolution of contract violations, lawsuits, and general property rights violations, I don't see the need to defend or refute the sad result of someone engaging in selfish, cruel, unproductive and damaging activities.
Going to take one from your playbook here...
So you support the killing of humans who fin sharks?
Horrible... horrible...
Quote
Out of curiosity, who is 'we'?
My family.
Who, in your family, paid for the dogs, cats and refrigerator?
Why is that relevant to intellectual property?
I'm trying to get a sense of the households in which hardcore libertarians live. It's not an unreasonable question.
My family is diverse in their views. Dad is more of a libertarian hippie, mom is more christian conservative, bro is ex military UFC fighter. Three dogs, two cats, in the end side of a townhouse compex. Huge three story house with plenty of space. Oh, also a fish aquarium and a newt. Parents both have backgrounds in biology, and love animals, so we've always had lots of pets. The house is a $600k+ one in a very upper-middleclass area, too. I moved out a long time ago, though, and live with my husband in our own house. No pets, partially because I'm allergic to cats, but mostly because we travel so much and have little time for them. I used to have a hedgehog though. Back in USSR we had one dog, one turtle, one bunny, two parakeets, one finch, one large fishtank, one small one, two hamsters, a white mouse, and a walking stick bug. All that in a medium sized 3 room apartment on the 8th floor.
Thank you. Very interesting.
It's not a behavior that I would engage in, nor would I support those who engage in it. Are you willing to kill someone for finning a shark?
Is that your solution to shark finning? Kill those who engage in it? It's not mine, but to each his own, I guess. I suppose if you claim someone sneaked onto your property and cut off the legs of your dog, I could then immediately ask you if you were willing to kill the guy who did it, but I don't really see how that furthers the conversation.
I meant that I responded to your question "are you then its owner": "yes", before moving on and posing my own. Very often you neglect to answer a question or respond to a point (as you just did) and skip right on to your next absurdity.
Rather than randomly mention hypothetical absurdities, continue with this conversation, and preferably without jumping to killing people right from the get go.
A death sentence is the logical conclusion of your statist system. Man fins shark: fine. Refuses to pay fine: arrest. Resists arrest: violence. Defends against violence: death.
Just because he was killed for using violence against an agent of the state doesn't change the fact that it was over the finning of a shark. Please defend or refute this conclusion.
Until you demonstrate that your libertarian society guarantees no escalation will occur during the resolution of contract violations, lawsuits, and general property rights violations, I don't see the need to defend or refute the sad result of someone engaging in selfish, cruel, unproductive and damaging activities.
My family.
Is your family is entitled to torture the dogs and cats it bought?
Sure! But we don't do it because we love animals. (Except when we forget to walk them and they poor all over the kitchen)
Since you've already said you are OK with killing babies, I suppose it was silly to ask your position on torturing animals.
In terms of politics and society, you're advocating a type of society that will never be accepted. Its a purely intellectual exercise. Have no you interest in things that are likely to matter in the real world?
And you are delusional in believing that laws against neglecting/hurting kids, torturing animals, or stealing IP actually prevent those things from happening, when they are all done in private. You are also putting words in my mouth as well regarding that baby thing, btw. Specifically, I said that if YOU were to try to kill a baby, and neither I nor society at large cared about that baby, I wouldn't try to stop you. Key point you purposefully pretend to miss every time is the part about me actually caring.
Quote
Out of curiosity, who is 'we'?
My family.
Who, in your family, paid for the dogs, cats and refrigerator?
Why is that relevant to intellectual property?
I'm trying to get a sense of the households in which hardcore libertarians live. It's not an unreasonable question.
My family is diverse in their views. Dad is more of a libertarian hippie, mom is more christian conservative, bro is ex military UFC fighter. Three dogs, two cats, in the end side of a townhouse compex. Huge three story house with plenty of space. Oh, also a fish aquarium and a newt. Parents both have backgrounds in biology, and love animals, so we've always had lots of pets. The house is a $600k+ one in a very upper-middleclass area, too. I moved out a long time ago, though, and live with my husband in our own house. No pets, partially because I'm allergic to cats, but mostly because we travel so much and have little time for them. I used to have a hedgehog though. Back in USSR we had one dog, one turtle, one bunny, two parakeets, one finch, one large fishtank, one small one, two hamsters, a white mouse, and a walking stick bug. All that in a medium sized 3 room apartment on the 8th floor.
Anything else that could help you form a more informed opinion?
It's not a behavior that I would engage in, nor would I support those who engage in it. Are you willing to kill someone for finning a shark?
Is that your solution to shark finning? Kill those who engage in it? It's not mine, but to each his own, I guess. I suppose if you claim someone sneaked onto your property and cut off the legs of your dog, I could then immediately ask you if you were willing to kill the guy who did it, but I don't really see how that furthers the conversation.
I meant that I responded to your question "are you then its owner": "yes", before moving on and posing my own. Very often you neglect to answer a question or respond to a point (as you just did) and skip right on to your next absurdity.
Rather than randomly mention hypothetical absurdities, continue with this conversation, and preferably without jumping to killing people right from the get go.
A death sentence is the logical conclusion of your statist system. Man fins shark: fine. Refuses to pay fine: arrest. Resists arrest: violence. Defends against violence: death.
Just because he was killed for using violence against an agent of the state doesn't change the fact that it was over the finning of a shark. Please defend or refute this conclusion.
It's not a behavior that I would engage in, nor would I support those who engage in it. Are you willing to kill someone for finning a shark?
Is that your solution to shark finning? Kill those who engage in it? It's not mine, but to each his own, I guess. I suppose if you claim someone sneaked onto your property and cut off the legs of your dog, I could then immediately ask you if you were willing to kill the guy who did it, but I don't really see how that furthers the conversation.
I meant that I responded to your question "are you then its owner": "yes", before moving on and posing my own. Very often you neglect to answer a question or respond to a point (as you just did) and skip right on to your next absurdity.
Rather than randomly mention hypothetical absurdities, continue with this conversation, and preferably without jumping to killing people right from the get go.
R
Deflection hat trick!
Also, yes. Otherwise fishermen should be, what? Killed for animal abuse? Relieved of their catch at gunpoint?
P.S. See how I responded to your point before setting forth my own?
In response to your P.S.: No, I don't see how you responded to my point.
So, when you catch the shark, you're then the owner of it. What is your opinion of shark finning?
It's not a behavior that I would engage in, nor would I support those who engage in it. Are you willing to kill someone for finning a shark?
I meant that I responded to your question "are you then its owner": "yes", before moving on and posing my own. Very often you neglect to answer a question or respond to a point (as you just did) and skip right on to your next absurdity.
If you go catch a shark in the ocean, are you then its owner?
Deflection hat trick!
Also, yes. Otherwise fishermen should be, what? Killed for animal abuse? Relieved of their catch at gunpoint?
P.S. See how I responded to your point before setting forth my own?
In response to your P.S.: No, I don't see how you responded to my point.
So, when you catch the shark, you're then the owner of it. What is your opinion of shark finning?
It's not a behavior that I would engage in, nor would I support those who engage in it. Are you willing to kill someone for finning a shark?
I meant that I responded to your question "are you then its owner": "yes", before moving on and posing my own. Very often you neglect to answer a question or respond to a point (as you just did) and skip right on to your next absurdity.
If you go catch a shark in the ocean, are you then its owner?
Deflection hat trick!
Also, yes. Otherwise fishermen should be, what? Killed for animal abuse? Relieved of their catch at gunpoint?
P.S. See how I responded to your point before setting forth my own?
In response to your P.S.: No, I don't see how you responded to my point.
So, when you catch the shark, you're then the owner of it. What is your opinion of shark finning?
If you go catch a shark in the ocean, are you then its owner?
Deflection hat trick!
Also, yes. Otherwise fishermen should be, what? Killed for animal abuse? Relieved of their catch at gunpoint?
P.S. See how I responded to your point before setting forth my own?
Humans are not beasts of the field or vice versa. I personally believe we should treat animals with respect, but Law should not be used for that purpose. Laws are for men. Mankind's liberties should not be superceded by the animals that "serve" him.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Conflating human law with animal law foments a confiscatory and manipulatory means to underhandedly destroy human rights. I don't see how it's possible for them to coincide and not destroy property rights. Sorry to disappoint.
Bummer that life is more complex than property rights.
Follow the logic to it's conclusion, reductio ad absurdum. Given I own the animal. If I were to torture my animal, and you were to prohibit that action, then you could fine me. If I resist your fines, you attempt to confiscate my property. If I resist your efforts to confiscate, you attempt to arrest me. If you arrest me and I resist, you may kill me.
If you go catch a shark in the ocean, are you then its owner?
Sure, if a dog or horse could speak or write, I'd take his petition too.
They both will squeal if you push them far enough. Is that not enough to make it obvious that cruelty is unacceptable, and that they deserve some rights?
Humans are not beasts of the field or vice versa. I personally believe we should treat animals with respect, but Law should not be used for that purpose. Laws are for men. Mankind's liberties should not be superceded by the animals that "serve" him.
Conflating human law with animal law foments a confiscatory and manipulatory means to underhandedly destroy human rights. I don't see how it's possible for them to coincide and not destroy property rights. Sorry to disappoint.
Follow the logic to it's conclusion, reductio ad absurdum. Given I own the animal. If I were to torture my animal, and you were to prohibit that action, then you could fine me. If I resist your fines, you attempt to confiscate my property. If I resist your efforts to confiscate, you attempt to arrest me. If you arrest me and I resist, you may kill me.
Is my life of less value than my animal (my property) you're trying to protect from me?
Sure, if a dog or horse could speak or write, I'd take his petition too.
They both will squeal if you push them far enough. Is that not enough to make it obvious that cruelty is unacceptable, and that they deserve some rights?
You don't have the right to dictate that. We already have mechanisms for dealing with animal cruelty and its not your place to tell us what we "should" do. If we want to be told what we "should" do, we'd invent a god.
Wait a sec. You're saying I can't contract with another person? Wow. Weird. I can't dictate what anybody can do with their things -true- and then you tell me I can't do what I want with my things, hence dictate. Who's dictating to whom here? I advocate contract. It promotes consent, then, in almost the same sentence, you try to take that away. I just don't get you sometimes.
Flip, flop, flip, flop.
Jump to: