A Conservative Tumblog

Jul 20 2012

advocates social contract theory

becomes incensed over victim-blaming

Pick one.

11 notes

+
We don’t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein’s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.

25 notes

+

beersf0rqueers asked: I'm voting for Barack Obama. You mad? Stay mad.

Not mad, just disappointed.

10 notes

Jul 18 2012

Obama Bumper Stickers

Gosh, I see those on cars all over the place. It’s like it’s some kind of point of pride for liberals to slap one on their car. Nevermind that they’re depreciating the vehicle—it’s important to them that everyone knows where they stand.

I agree. And I’d like to submit the following for you all. Show your support of Obama and have these printed so you can put them on the back of your car with pride.

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

Seriously. Seriously. Who of you is stupid enough to vote for this jackass in 2012? Anyone? Anyone?

34 notes

+

Anonymous asked: What makes a fetus different from an animal, if it doesn't think or have responsibilities? If I'm hungry, can I eat my fetus? Does that justify it, like hunting? Why or why not?

One of my first posts was about this.  Let’s get this straight: human rights =/= animal rights (where “animal rights = non-existent and “human rights” = existent). If you’re still at this stage in your reasoning, just reading up on the matter—and not smugly seeking rebuttal against your ethics 101 queries from anyone more informed than you until you have—will probably help you.

2 notes

Jul 17 2012

Anonymous asked: Man is never under obligaton to support their fellow, be it welfare programs or abortion. If they do so, it is because of the specific value system under which they make their choices. Preventing abortions and providng welfare are both forms of coercive interaction.

So I take it you’re opposed to child abuse laws? Remember: the principle is that child > fellow. It doesn’t work the other way around.

+

onemoresolo asked: That's one hell of a philosophical hypothetical you've got there. Life doesn't exist in hypotheticals, especially not ones where doctors and music lovers "hook up" a violinist to an innocent person. You can't compare abortion to a ridiculous, thinly veiled attempt to portray abortion differently. Famous or not, it's absurd and irrelevant to the decision of abortion. Clearly you can't be persuaded into a 21st century line of thought. Abortion is a personal liberty, just like owning a gun. Oh you.

Actually, the thought experiment was originally formulated as a defense of abortion—you know, the Defense of Abortion. So you don’t really have much room to complain about intent here.

"Life doesn’t exist in hypotheticals?" Care to elaborate on that one, Rousseau?

1 note

+

Anonymous asked: So you're just gonna ignore those rape pregnancies? The fact that it's half a percent (which, when multiplied by the 1.3 million or so abortions annually, adds up to a LOT of rape victims having to face an absurdly horrifying reminder of their rapes for the rest of their lives) makes it negligible? Honestly, I expected more from you.

OK, I’ll humor you. Even if pregnancy is a fetal infringement on a woman’s rights, does that necessarily mean she has the right to kill to be rid of it?

There’s a famous philosophical hypothetical called “The Famous Violinist.” It goes: a famous violinist is unconscious and in a coma. Doctors and music lovers everywhere decide that you’re the only one that can save him, by being hooked up to him for the next 9 months. And one night while you’re asleep, they break in and hook the violinist up to you. If you unhook him, he’ll die. He’s innocent in all this (he was unconscious, and therefore unknowing when it happened)—so the question is, are you morally justified in unhooking him (and therefore killing him) simply because you don’t wish to be burdened with this for the next 9 months?

Many would say yes. It’s not something you want, and his right to life doesn’t trump your liberty interest in not hosting him for 9 months. However, is that valid? The flipside of that coin is—a burdened right to liberty is better than a deprived right to life. Because let’s face it—the pregnancy is temporary and the abortion is permanent. Whose rights outweigh whose?

Try applying the theft argument as an excuse to stop caring for an extrautero product of your conjugal exertions and its absurdity will become clear. Consider the principle behind child abuse/neglect. We consider it a criminal offense to purposefully harm or refuse to care for your child. Now, obviously it’s not the same as having it physically attached to you—but caring for a child is kind of a pain in the ass. It’s a major upheaval in life that demands your time and energy and attention, and it taxes your health, autonomy, and finances. But, if you don’t do it—we consider that wrongful and offensive to the child’s rights. Pregnancy is similarly a pain in the ass. Now, obviously, the big flaw here is equating a child with a fetus. But for sake of argument, if they are the same, does the proximity of the child really matter in terms of the parental duty to care for one’s progeny?

Not that I’m accusing you of this, but it’s supremely ironic that this argument usually comes from proponents of affirmative duties—the sort who’ll call you a monster for not wanting your taxes going to welfare programs, or for valuing your own time over someone else’s safety. I’d like to see one of them try to justify that contradiction.

11 notes

Jul 15 2012

Anonymous asked: If a fetus is a person, it doesn't eliminate the validity of abortion. A person doesn't have the right to steal from another person their food, water and electricity, so why does this fetal person have the right to take the mothers food, water, and electrical output directly from her body? It'd be like a random person moving into your house without your permission and providing nothing yet somehow you are forced by the government to continue supporting them for nine months.

Theft entails that no consent was given, which, except in the case of rape (which accounts for less than 1% of all abortions), it was.  

7 notes

Jul 14 2012

Anonymous asked: Your Latin definition of fetus is incorrect, it translates as "pregnant, full of young OR fruitful, productive OR of one who has recently given birth; nursing". It doesn't relate to the baby itself.

As an adjective. The word is also a noun. So I guess we’re both right (sort of).

4 notes

Page 1 of 60