New Testingstan

Losonti Tokash wrote:your mistake was giving anything to your wife, altruism is the deepest evil

oh shit

should i have made her sign a receipt??????

sorry but this shit is gold, will do more copy pasting when i get home

No dude, you are buying, and thus owning, your wife in exchange for the money

you know its funny right

because i have to insist to sherry that things i give her do not represent one half of an accounting double entry

they're gifts

no reciprocation is required or expected

OH SHIT I RUINED MY LIFE WITH ALTRUISM

Losonti Tokash wrote:To deny a human the fruit of his or her labor is to deny him or her the very reason why he or she undertook the tasks of thought and effort in the first place. Thus when someone takes another persons property, what they have done is denied them the payment for their toil. (Working without payment is slavery.)

did marx write that

starku wrote:they're gifts

Man, I guess gifts are a big deal all across Asia.

It's time for a new friend, los.

Losonti Tokash probly didn't wrote:While the right to life is a given, their is no right to survival. Humans possess no survival instincts whatsoever and thus to ensure one's own survival it is necessary to engage in constant, rational thought. In fact, personal survival is predicated entirely on one's own ability to analyze surroundings and respond to situations. Once survival has been obtained, happiness is the next pursuit. The parameters of happiness can only be defined on an individual level. Happiness is just as essential as basic survival, because without the option to pursue one's own happiness, there is no reason to go on living (to perpetuate one's own life would be to perpetuate one's own suffering). Any thought or action taken in the interests of one's survival and happiness is defined as <liberty>and is essential to human survival. (abolish this individual liberty is to abolish all reason for individual existence)

what is even the difference between "right to life" and "right to survival"? can you somehow live without surviving? oscar wilde once said most people survive without truly living

humans do not possess "survival instincts" as such

but they do have a desire to live, a drive if you will, even if they are miserable

it would also be kind of foolish to say that surviving by "analysing surroundings and responding to situations" is dependent on rational thought

and if liberty = "any thought or action taken in the interests of one's survival and happiness", then slaves have tons of liberty (they would die if they didn't do their slave actions), in fact people that don't "have liberty" or whatever would somewhat ironically include people who kill themselves

naturally, non-ridiculous people define "liberty" as the ability to what one wants, regardless of the purpose of these actions

Losonti Tokash wrote:To deny a human the fruit of his or her labor is to deny him or her the very reason why he or she undertook the tasks of thought and effort in the first place. Thus when someone takes another persons property, what they have done is denied them the payment for their toil. (Working without payment is slavery.)

hence the COMMIE! term "wage slavery"

it would be awesome to hear his conception of capitalism where things produced are sold at a profit, yet the workers are somehow paid exactly the value of that they produced. where would the profit come from?

wait i think i know

god would descend upon the world and reward the lolbertarians for their ideological purity with money

humans have plenty of survival instincts, though in the tradition of objectivists everywhere he appears to have redefined the term to mean "knowing how to farm" and "knowing which plants and animals are safe to eat"

which are skills, and not instincts

i means humans clearly do have instincts, or babies wouldn't cry for food or grab on to you when you hold them up or any number of things

it seems like some weird kind of human exceptionalism and implies at some point our ancestors just stopped having them for some reason

not super surprised since in high school he was a young earth creationist and then turned into some weird "god exists but doesn't give a shit or hates people" so basically he just latches on to weird shit as a worldview

Dooey Jo wrote:what is even the difference between "right to life" and "right to survival"? can you somehow live without surviving? oscar wilde once said most people survive without truly living

You mean fatty nerds?

Losonti Tokash wrote:i means humans clearly do have instincts, or babies wouldn't cry for food or grab on to you when you hold them up or any number of things

it seems like some weird kind of human exceptionalism and implies at some point our ancestors just stopped having them for some reason

yeah babies have some instincts, but they are supplanted by learned behaviours pretty early, and babies aren't very interesting for the discussion anyway

instincts are complex but specific behaviours (more complex than reflexes) that all members of a species do under certain circumstances, save perhaps for some genetic aberrations or something, without needing to be taught how to do it, nor being able to prevent it. cats going out at certain nights and screaming and fucking, for example.

that humans don't really have such behaviour is a matter of observation (it is also not true to say that animals rely only on instincts and not on learned behaviour, unless we're talking about insects or something)

i realise there is a common usage of the word "instinct" to mean something like "intuition", but when speaking of survival instincts, a drive for self-preservation is not strictly the same thing as animals playing dead in very specific ways, or whatever

the point though is him saying humans have none whatsoever

babies are the example i used because rhea is going through courses on child development and evolutionary anthropology so they're fresh in my mind and they're pretty good examples of humans that don't have constant rational thought and for the most part only have instincts and reflexes

there's some neat stuff like how the difficulty of childbirth in humans selected for mothers who are more likely to want emotional support during and after pregnancy but i'd need to have it in front of me to talk about it any detail

F.J. Prefect, Esq wrote:

starku wrote:they're gifts

Man, I guess gifts are a big deal all across Asia.

yup

Losonti Tokash wrote:the point though is him saying humans have none whatsoever

babies are the example i used because rhea is going through courses on child development and evolutionary anthropology so they're fresh in my mind and they're pretty good examples of humans that don't have constant rational thought and for the most part only have instincts and reflexes

there's some neat stuff like how the difficulty of childbirth in humans selected for mothers who are more likely to want emotional support during and after pregnancy but i'd need to have it in front of me to talk about it any detail

meh, we are probably dealing with a confusion of terms here rather than any genuine disagreement anyway

i'm mostly just curious what the difference between life and survival is and why only the former is a "right"

does it mean babies have the right to be born, but after that those little fuckers are on their own with their rational thought?