Three applicants explain.
And over at Space News, Rod Pyle has the story on why Bernie Taupin had it right: “Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise your kids.” What he doesn’t mention is that the issue came up as a result of a question from me to Lansdorp. I think that it would be bioethically irresponsible, given the current state of knowledge, to send a fertile woman there, at least with men along, and it didn’t appear to me that he’d given the matter much thought. I’ll probably write a piece on this, maybe even today.
You’ve just introduced another variation on the tyrant. Responsibility is an individual issue. Getting back to individual responsibility is almost the definitive reason for going to mars.
I know you’ll do a great job on the piece, but just wanted to put my 2 cents in before reading it.
We will not know until experience tells us which will guide responsible decisions as it always should.
If it’s impossible to bear children on Mars, what is the point of Mars One?
I don’t know — you’d have to ask them, but I’m sure they hope that in the future it can be made possible. The issue isn’t that we know that it’s impossible, but that we don’t know that it is possible, or how to do it yet.
Spending billions of dollars to establish a Mars colony, before spending tens of millions to find out if it’s biologically possible, seems like the wrong order of things.
I would agree, except I’m not sure that they think of what they’re doing as establishing a Mars colony, in that sense. To them, it’s exploration. After all, the first explorers of the New World didn’t (deliberately, anyway) bring women along.
Right at the top of their website, they say “Mars One will establish a permanent human settlement on Mars.”
Assuming they understand what those words mean, their plan seems to be to build the settlement first and then start the research to see if it’s possible.
“Mars is too dangerous of a place to have children now” and “Bearing children on Mars is impossible” are very different things. My impression is that the Mars One people were saying the former, not the latter. Two points:
1) If the first habitats on Mars are anything like (say) the ISS or a submarine, it’s likely that children in them would have to be closely supervised to make sure they didn’t accidentally kill themselves or somebody else. That takes a lot of man-hours each day- can you spare people from farming or fixing the ECLSS for childcare and schooling? As settlements grow larger, you’d hope that a smaller percentage of the population would be doing essential work for the colony’s survival, leaving time for that sort of thing. But it doesn’t seem realistic to expect from (say) a 20 person crew.
2) There are a lot of unknowns about the effects of low gravity, higher background radiation, etc. on fetal development and child growth. From the article, it seems Mars One plans to use non-human mammals to reduce those unknowns before moving on to human reproduction, which seems prudent. If an ordinary child would be a drain on a starting colony’s resources, a physically or mentally disabled kid would probably have very little chance of survival. I’d argue it’s ethically irresponsible to have a child under such circumstances until the “known unknowns” are reduced a bit.
I’d argue it’s ethically irresponsible to have a child under such circumstances until the “known unknowns” are reduced a bit.
Yes, that’s the bottom line in the piece I just wrote for PJMedia. And I put in a plug for Gravity Lab.
If the first habitats on Mars are anything like ISS, the project is doomed from the start.
This is a point which G. Harry Stine hammered home again and again. An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications. Commercial space needs hardware built to commercial specifications.
Unfortunately, the “new space” wonks don’t understand that. They think they can just slap a sticker on the side of Mir or ISS and call it “commercial.”
If the first habitats on Mars are anything like ISS
What will determine that is not technology, it’s ideology. The bad news is that those that plan don’t consider liberty a priority; the good news is people do.
Cow manure. It’s fine for the leaders of the Space Frontier Foindation to say technology doesn’t matter — because *they* don’t understand technology — but that doesn’t make it true.
Being politically correct didn’t make MirCorp a success. Or AlphaTown.
If you believe that line, you’re living in fairyworld.
I’ve worked with engineers my whole life. I did not say technology is not important. What I said, and I’d be very happy to hear your counter argument, is that in the overall scheme of things…
Our ideology has more impact on our future than our technology.
Yes, it is a controversial point. But I do believe that what we believe affects our future more than the tools we use even if the tools play a huge part.
Elon’s forcing function is a very deep concept that is easy to ignore.
So respectfully (and I certainly do) bull pucky to your cow manure Ed. 😉
Okay, technically you didn’t say it, but you wrote it:
What will determine that is not technology, it’s ideology.
Cow manure, again.
The high cost of ISS is built into the technology. That’s something G. Harry Stine drummed into us 20 years ago.
The idea that political correctness is more important than technical analysis and hardheaded financial calculations is not a “controversial point.” It’s nonsense.
You can’t “commercialize” ISS for the same reason you couldn’t commercialize the Shuttle. The upkeep and the operating costs are enormous.
A commercial system needs to be designed from scratch for low costs. Not to maximize the number of jobs created (i.e., the amount of money spent) in key Congressional districts.
A commercial system needs… Absolutely yes.
Ed, we’re talking past each other. I say [write] ideology and you turn in into PC. I am certainly NOT talking about PC.
Technical analysis and hardheaded financial calculations while absolutely essential are NOT the top of the food chain.
TA&FC is about how. Ideology (not PC) is about why? If your plan is not made, no matter how hard headed, without consideration for liberty; Liberty is likely to be lost.
Why we go supersedes how we go. It’s as simple as that. Regardless, that still allows us to screw up how we go as well.
Why we go should be individual choice. It doesn’t have to be, it could be a statist choice. Every plan I see conforms to those statist (and not required choices) with the exception of my nonsense plan based on individual assets and individual liberty (an ideology.)
Oh, and I raise your double cow manure with a shotgun blast of rabbit turds.
If the first habitats on Mars are anything like ISS, the project is doomed from the start.
I should point out that not only do I agree with this; It suggests that you actually agree with my point.
it’s likely that children in them would have to be closely supervised to make sure they didn’t accidentally kill themselves or somebody else.
Children always have to be supervised everywhere. On mars they will have safe playrooms for the young. They will graduate to more responsibility and freedom as they mature.
Not sure what your idea of supervised is. We were out of our parents’ view for hours on end. Our parents were even less supervised. Kids off-planet may need a full-time watchdog–not only could they kill themselves, but they might be able to kill a bunch of others. I suspect that Niven was right, that groundhogs have no idea of the level of paranoia required of spacers.
Letting your kids run wild in the woods, as I did in Tacoma, is supervision (just not the control freak kind that comes first to many minds.)
The equivalent on mars is a large underground chamber with trees and pond and such. It has doors that only open from the outside of the houses connected by this chamber. Because it has a pond, some adult or mature teen will likely have lifeguard duty or not. We never had a lifeguard as we slid down the broken branches of a pine tree into the pond. Bones will certainly break as they do for many kids, but at no time would the environment be endangered by anything they do.
…and their heads will explode if they kiss.
Zero-g is a problem. There is absolutely no reason to think 0.38g is any problem.
The boogie man doesn’t exist. Again, I must remind folks, being born is the most dangerous part of your life… right here on earth. It takes about 80 years for mortality rates to get close to that.
Zero-g is a problem. There is absolutely no reason to think 0.38g is any problem.
With all respect, that’s nutty.
Nutty is not an argument Rand. I am unaware of any study that indicates that 0.38g is harmful to pregnancy.
Nutty is not an argument Rand. I am unaware of any study that indicates that 0.38g is harmful to pregnancy.
There is no data whatsoever. But I wouldn’t propose to do an experiment on someone who didn’t volunteer for it.
That kind of illogic is what I mean by “nutty.”
Yet, we are talking about volunteers, aren’t we?
Does the state have the duty to protect children from irresponsible/ignorant parents?
Yes. Overprotect, no.
It all depends on what the state thinks they have a right to protect people from. Protecting us all from the tea party for example?
Why is it the state can be busybodies but can’t protect children from outright murder? Why do they get away with abortions after a viable birth (still going on regardless of the recent 3 count conviction.)
Agree with essentially everything posted here. In addition to the unknown effects of low G and high rad, there are also the decidedly known effects of long-term inhalation of tiny sharp-edged dust particles. The Martian dust is nasty, pervasive and absolutely, positively cannot be kept out of habitation spaces over the long term. The dominant cause of human death on Mars, if long-term surface colonization is attempted, will likely be “Red Lung” disease. Extraterrestrial colonization should be accomplished in large manufactured free-space environments that rotate to produce pseudo-grav of 1-G. If I may invoke The Bard and Alistair MacLean, here, attempting to colonize the Martian surface is The Way to Dusty Death.
Richard, I worked for a company in Tucson, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, where the air was constantly filtered because machining beryllium oxide producing toxic beryllium oxide dust. Every grind, cut and mill was done under water. Any visible dust that escaped would cause the entire plant to close until cleanup was done but that didn’t happen too often.
They didn’t have an airlock on the LEM and dust did get into their system.
With an airlock and proper procedure (including proper positive air pressure) mars habitats will have less dust in the air than any American home. Just like nuclear subs operate at lower radioactive rate under water then when they surface and open up to the natural radiation we actually need to be healthy.
Some can hide under the bed and fear the dark while real men and woman will do what they’ve always done… overcome. Send marines.
When and where people reproduce is their own damn business. Stop interfering.
Expressing an opinion is “interfering”?
Expressing a moral opinion on something that is none of your damn business, especially if you’re calling for people to be sterilized, or selected to be infertile, is indeed interfering. Why can’t you just trust that they will make the decision that is right for them, when they get there?
Stuff and nonsense. I am entitled to my opinions, and expressing them, and to do so is in no way “interfering” with anyone or anything.
You would probably agree that making a law might be interfering?
How about making policy?
I do not see expressing a point of view as interfering but some (Obama?) do go beyond that (while claiming a sergeant Schultz… I know nutting.)
You would probably agree that making a law might be interfering?
How about making policy?
Since I have proposed neither law or policy, I fail to see the relevance of your comment.
I believe it is relevant because there are degrees of interference from total to none. None has to be off the table here because expressing an opinion is not for naught, but to influence. Regardless of how benign or even ineffective, it can not be counted as none.
Also, no-one is being “sent” to Mars. They’re volunteers.
They’re “volunteering” with other peoples’ money. Those people will set the conditions under which they go.
.. and you think one of those conditions should be that they’re sterile, is that it?
Can you not see how incredibly distasteful it is for someone who claims to love freedom to even suggest such a thing?
Exactly the problem I’ve been trying to express. Are these people to be heros or slaves?
You’re technically correct about setting conditions Rand, but don’t you see the line you’ve just crossed?
It is not like Rand is saying never, just not right away.
There are a lot of things we don’t know about how to live on Mars, seems foolish to rush in and start popping babies out in such a harsh environment.
People decide and live with their choices. Babies have always had to live with those choices. Other people will see the result and alter their choices.
What’s being discussed here is taking choices away from people. Apparently the volunteers are not of the elite choice making class because they are employees or perhaps bond servants.
Infant mortality varies from place to place. Perhaps it should be outlawed except in those few places that get the best results?
Or are we suggesting that because they are volunteers they’re stupid?
The children which may be born with horrible defects aren’t volunteers.
That’s the point of Rand’s statement. That’s why it’s unethical.
Why presume horrible defects? You do realize horrible defects happen here on earth as well? Why do I keep saying this? Because this argument for controlling other lives doesn’t require mars in it.
Sure, there are lots of stupid people I’d like to control (the 47% come to mind) but that is recognized for what it is. How did Trent describe this in his oh so diplomatic way…
“a control freak of socialist proportions”
Because it is the most sensible assumption, given our current state of knowledge.
I can give no better reply than Trent did at May 24, 2013, 4:48 pm.
Then again, perhaps I can. Rand, safe is not an option.
No, safe is not an option. But that doesn’t mean we should do things that are imprudent and stupid, particularly when they affect innocents.
Can you not see how incredibly distasteful it is for someone who claims to love freedom to even suggest such a thing?
No. As I said, they are free to do whatever they wish with their own money. If someone else is paying, they’ll meet whatever conditions are required. If Lansdorp wants to send fertile couples, that is up to him. But I remain entitled to my opinion, and if I were in charge, I wouldn’t do so, at least until we had much more knowledge, any more than I’d send a brother and sister. As I said, there are bioethical issues involved.
I’m not saying you aren’t entitled to your opinion or that you can’t express it. I’m saying you’re a control freak of socialist proportions for having such opinions and should feel ashamed.
Let’s make this abundantly clear: it’s my opinion that anyone who accepts “thou shalt not reproduce” as a condition for going to Mars, or heck, going to Disney Land, is a drone and anyone who imposes those conditions is a tyrant.
Trent,
Sounds like you might find this helpful:
http://www.howaboutwe.com/date-report/top-10-secret-places-to-hook-up-in-walt-disney-world/
heh.
anyone who imposes those conditions is a tyrant.
They didn’t tell you? Mother Nature is a bitch — and she doesn’t care if you say so!
I’m not saying you aren’t entitled to your opinion or that you can’t express it.
Oh.
OK.
So you belatedly realized how dumb your previous comments were.
I’m saying you’re a control freak of socialist proportions for having such opinions and should feel ashamed.
Hilarious.
Sorry, no shame for expressing my opinions.
Protip: “Control freaks” don’t just express opinions.
Great.. do you care to address the topic any more or have you basically put no serious thought into this and now wish you could back away?
Personally, I love all these people inadvertently telling us their true feelings of reproductive rights.. it’s something I long ago found was a true power of sci-fi, it exposes default beliefs that people didn’t even know they had.
Great.. do you care to address the topic any more or have you basically put no serious thought into this and now wish you could back away?
Apparently, I have put much more “serious thought” into it than you have, based on the puerility of your “arguments.”
I love all these people inadvertently telling us their true feelings of reproductive rights
People have whatever reproductive rights they want, wherever they want, if they spend their own money to get there. And I continue to have the right to express my opinion about the ethics of their decisions.
I continue to find your insistence on eliding the issue amusing.
Your argument makes no sense. What does it matter who pays for the trip? I’m asking you why you would even care about where and when someone can try to have children. Please tell us your “bioethical concerns”, and also why it’s any of your damn business.
I continue to find your insistence on eliding the issue amusing.
.. and I continue to find your interest in the personal matters of others distasteful. The difference is, I seem to have held you in higher regard than you’ve ever held me.
What does it matter who pays for the trip?
Was that a serious question? Do you think that someone else should subsidize whatever unethical behavior in which you wish to engage?
I’m asking you why you would even care about where and when someone can try to have children.
I care about children.
Sorry you don’t. So kill me for having an opinion.
Do you have no sense whatsoever of irony?
You know, Trent, you are the kind of libertarian that makes libertarians look like heartless monsters. It’s not enough to not make laws — apparently we’re not even allowed to care.
I’m with Rand on this one, the employer has the right to dictate (yes “dictate”) conditions to the employee, and in going to Mars, at least until a market economy develops, the colonists are going to be employees 24/7.
Rand, you are right to care. After all, it takes a village!
Bob, I don’t know if you can hear that creaking sound where you are, but it’s the sound of my eyes rolling.
My wife used to be Chief Financial Officer of her regiment in the ‘Far East’ of Russia. It was a civil position 2nd only to the base commander. She also had a business selling clothes and fabrics she bought in Turkey. In one hand she had their paycheck and in the other her products for sale. She did an amazing business and it’s absolutely without a doubt certain that one had nothing to do with the other. /sarc
Slaves, even if willing, should not be sent to mars. The cost will never come down enough for most individuals to emigrate. That’s why my settlement charter plan. If you think it’s nonsense, then criticize it. I’m prepared to defend it.
We know how company towns work and only assets in the hands of families can counter it.
I was with you until you got to company towns. What’s that got to do with anything? If you’re trying to suggest that people living in company towns are somehow slaves, I suggest you go actually talk to someone who grew up in one. Homer Hickam Jr., for example.
Homer is a good example because of those he does not represent. He got out.
A company town is defined by its economy. Specifically an economy that is centrally controlled. Trent, I thought you believed in liberty? I know you do.
It’s possible for good people to be in charge of a bad system. This does not make the system good.
Do you think that someone else should subsidize whatever unethical behavior in which you wish to engage?
I am dumbstruck by this statement. Employment is free trade, not an entitlement to micromanage somebodies life. If people are not free to make bad decisions, they are not free.
How does a free trade arrangement (I give you some of my day, you give me money) entitle an employer to decide what decisions a person makes on their own time?
Are you now the elite that decides for everyone else? I didn’t realize the red button was yours.
Rand, you are too smart not to see the contradiction here.
At what point are individuals no longer allowed to reach their own conclusions, but have someone else make them for them?
Employment may be free trade but the employer does have an interest in certain conduct by the employees. For instance, in the construction trade it is perfectly reasonable for an employer to require hard hats on the work site. You are arguing that the employee should be free to make the bad decision of not wearing one. It is bad for business to allow this because dead or injured employees don’t produce very well and cut into the bottomline in terms of insurance rates, loss productivity and so forth. Additionally, it would be unethical NOT to care about worker safety, which a large body of law has developed around preventing just such abuse by employers.
Dead or sick babies at Mars 1 won’t do much for the reality TV show ratings, will consume precious resources, and certainly won’t help morale. It is perfectly reasonable to restrict this activity until more data is available to determine risk, which I think is Rand’s point. The employees will know what the terms of the agreement are ahead of time, will voluntarily (freely) agree to them, and once agreed, will be held accountable to them. This happens in companies all across America. What’s the issue?
You are arguing…
No, I am emphatically not. I’m saying, at the end of the day, you can’t tell an employee to wear a hardhat to bed. Is that metaphor too deep? Anything beyond the work relationship has the potential of crossing a line. Some people have difficulty understanding this. Telling people what they can or can’t do sexually is usually considered crossing the line. It could be a condition of employment, but that’s asking for trouble (and is sure to break existing laws.)
You can of course fire the employee (until you can’t for some political reason.)
It will take a while for a free and open society to take hold on Mars and it will always be tempered by the harsh environment that will require a strong local government.
It will take hold if people believe in a free and open society. Most do not which is revealed in their plans. False assumptions in this regard are endless.
A harsh environment is an excuse for not believing in freedom. “It can’t be done”, the naysayers cry.
Being a free society does not mean they can’t have communal elements. Being free does not preclude sharing.
It doesn’t take time either Wodun. Not really. Day one determines if they will be free. Day one happens before they even go. They have to be determined to respect individual rights because those are often lost in the conversation.
Ownership defines freedom. You own yourself and your property. If that can be taken away without your true consent, you are not free.
Employment freedom can’t exist without the choice to switch employers, so I think a free society isn’t going to to happen with this Mars One indentured labor scheme.
Correct Andrew. There is no reason it has to be. That doesn’t mean we can’t leverage off their scheme. Let’s say they are able to raise the funds so they can add four colonists every two years. According to Mars One, they are all employees (think about being fired by the only employer on mars!) Everything belongs to the corporation.
However, they will be growing food hydroponically from the day of landing. This may technically belong to Mars One, but the colonists are doing the eating. They will expand their lander habitat of linked landers with underground bunkers. This is our starting point. Now we introduce freedom with my plan.
The colonist only have to assert their natural right to claim property and by doing it in an orderly manner in accord with the terms of a charter they provide a foundation with legal weight.
Mars One can now claim 4,000 sq. km. every 26 months which they didn’t have any legal basis to do before just by agreeing to support the charter. Assuming they are already fully funded this is gravy regardless of what they sell those 2 million plots for. Since they have as reality show to market those plots, it should be pretty easy for them to sell plots to speculators on earth regardless of what others on earth say.
The colonists can make their plots more valuable by developing them. This is one of the freedoms they have because they have ownership. Colonists will then begin to trade among themselves and this economy will simply grow as more colonists arrive. A growing economy makes other things possible. Other colonists, not by means of Mars One, will join because a growing economy increases the possibilities. More people increases the value of the land which provides some if not all funds for those that follow.
The people who would volunteer for this would have been perfect recruits for Jim Jones.
Or they could be normal people.
Rand is suggesting that those who pay for the expedition set a code of conduct for those sent. What he shouldn’t have to say is a presumption that those sent agree to the terms up front.
employees 24/7 has another name. I thought centrally planning was bad. This takes it to a whole ‘nuther level.
Yes, there can be a code of conduct. Yes, employees can agree. Yes, employers can fire when that code of conduct is broken.
No, you can not deny people the right to make their own choices which includes changing their minds.
Aren’t astronauts on the ISS employees 24/7 during their stay? Aren’t sailors employees 24/7 while at sea?
Has the navy the right to ban children making amongst the crew while at sea?
For a tour of duty, yes. But if you were not allowed to leave the plantation?
This has to be one of the most bizarre threads in Internet history. The question for Mars One is not whether bearing children on Mars is ethically responsible, but whether it’s even biologically possible. Right now, there is not the slightest evidence that it is. Mother Nature doesn’t give a fig about political correctness.
Sorry, Ken, but the fact that you believe the contrary does not make it true.
And Rand’s opinion will not change the outcome anymore than it will affect the gravitational constant.
It’s Rand’s thread and he never expressed that opinion. But okay..
Is it unethical for people over 50 to attempt to have children? The miscarry rate is extremely high and the chance of birth defects is similarly high.
Is it unethical for people to attempt to have children in a war zone?
Is it unethical for people with heredity diseases to have children?
In my opinion, these are questions for which the only proper answer is “that’s their choice.”
the fact that you believe the contrary does not make it true
Right back at ya.
It’s been repeated a number of times that the Mars One astronauts will be “employees”. They will not. There is the problem in your thinking.
They’re volunteers, not employees. I know many people have a problem with this distinction, but it is an important one.
You should explain the distinction, are you saying no pay? If that’s the case they’re volunteering to be slaves.
You can be paid and still be a volunteer.
Technically they are both. However, logistically they will be mostly independent (assuming it’s done right.)
So you’re arguing these people would be paid but not as employees, as with self employed contractors.
.. or like volunteers. You do know the majority of volunteers are paid, right?
In this country if you’re paid to do a job you’re an employee or self employed contractor. No separate “volunteer” category available.
I refuse to have a semantic argument with you.
This argument is about Rand’s weird position that Bas should be demanding applicants be sterile, or siblings, or something. He’s pretty vague on exactly what he wants Bas to demand of these people, but he thinks Bas has the right because he’s the guy collecting the money.
Thankfully, Bas thinks his crews can make their own decisions.
No, safe is not an option. But that doesn’t mean we should do things that are imprudent and stupid, particularly when they affect innocents.
That is not the question. The question is who decides? You have chosen to take the position that it isn’t the individual, but rather someone that pays for it (own’s them in other words.)
Babies can’t decide. In the history of the world, it is the parents that have that responsibility. Otherwise, it’s nothing but tyranny. I might think sterilization of some is a good idea. I would never suggest if for anybody but criminals and the method I would use there is death.
You are assuming the science is settled (38% g births) while agreeing we don’t know. That’s a contradiction.
Yes, care about the innocent. That includes parents until further data suggests otherwise.
Also, stupid and imprudent is often in the eyes of the beholder. Success often requires it.
Is it unethical for people over 50 to attempt to have children? The miscarry rate is extremely high and the chance of birth defects is similarly high.
Which is higher? 38%g or over 50? We do not have any data on the former. Suppose it’s less. Do we now demand that over 50 be sterilized?
Valentine Michael Smith was born on Mars to just such a group as MarsOne. No kids on Mars? Rand seems to take this position a bit too seriously. Why do you care? Do you have kids, Rand? Why?
I hear so many ‘futurists’ who espouse various points of view from all directions about ‘settling space’ and ‘space fairing societies’ but don’t enjoy the experience of parenthood. There is no future without families and children as the first priority.
No plan to colonize the Solar System or elsewhere will be done without the majority of the humans being born there. You cannot send enough people from Earth, ever.
Ya know, this ugly mess could have been avoided if Rand had simply said “If I was one of the first people on Mars, I wouldn’t consider having kids until a lot of scientific research had been done on their viability and development. I would consider that the responsible thing to do.” Because then he would have been expressing an opinion about his own choices, not about someone else.
Instead, he expressed moralizing, finger pointing and advocated reproductive control over other people.
It could have been avoided even better by you not deciding to get your skivvies knotted up over my opinions on the ethics of having children on Mars, given our current epistemological state.
Rand, I can not believe I’m hearing this from you. You just used the left’s ‘shut up’ argument (but much better said of course.)
Trent has made a very clear distinction. Who chooses? You’ve advocated the ‘owners’ of the employees by virtue of them paying the fare.
Yes, children are innocents, but who chooses? You crossed the line when you say it’s not the parents.
{just heard somebody on the news say Eric Holder can not investigate himself. I hope they have the cojones to keep up the pressure.}
You just used the left’s ‘shut up’ argument (but much better said of course.)
What utter nonsense. So I’m telling Trent to “shut up,” but he wasn’t telling me to shut up? Do you understand what the phrase “shut up” means? And you’re comparing me to a Leftist because I simply point out someone else’s flawed arguments?
This is one of the stupidest conversations I’ve had in a while, I think. Which is one of the reasons I haven’t engaged in it much.
Where has he told you to shut up?
by you not deciding to get your skivvies knotted up
This is your shut up argument very subtlety put. His skivvies being knotted in that he expressed his opinion.
Where is anybody making the argument that opinions are not proper to express? It’s exactly what Trent is saying, “If I…”
This is your shut up argument very subtlety put.
Again, I find this stupid. Sorry. I neither told no one to, or implied that anyone should, shut up.
I was simply responding to Trent in kind, when he blamed me for starting a discussion.
You know, Trent, you are the kind of libertarian that makes libertarians look like heartless monsters. It’s not enough to not make laws — apparently we’re not even allowed to care.
Rand, can you show one comment that indicates you are not allowed to care?
Assume you are absolutely right and both pregnancy and birth are not viable at 0.38g.
Assume, as you’ve already repeatedly admitted we just don’t know yet.
By suggesting the employer decide for their employees you are making an elitist argument which is the same argument government uses for all the intrusions in our lives.
Your argument is the bigger government argument.
Your argument is that individuals can not be trusted to make the right choices.
Liberty requires that we allow people to make wrong choices. That’s the nature of decision making.
Rand, you’re not some Obamanaut. You know all this.
This is how the left makes the right out to be heartless monsters. Letting people make their own mistakes (assuming the worst) is not now or ever been heartless and that is an extremely unfair thing to say.
You think more people should die exploring space. Are you a heartless monster? Of course not.
Ken, I’ve explained my position to you many times. You seem incapable of understanding it, instead insisting on misstating it. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. I’m not going to waste any more time on it.
No worries. The universe goes on. And I can now compile windowed programs on Linux so everything is right with the world.
you’re comparing me to a Leftist because I simply point out someone else’s flawed arguments?
No, I am not.
avoided even better by you not deciding
To talk? That’s the left’s shut up argument.
I don’t want Rand to shut up. I want Rand to express his opinions about other people’s reproductive rights. If he didn’t, how would I know that he’s got a secret desire to control other people’s lives?
This one sentence tells me so much about Rand that I thought wasn’t the case. It’s incredibly disturbing. I read it as saying that Rand thinks women can’t make responsible decisions about their own fertility, that men can’t be trusted with fertile women, and that Bas should be concerned with the decisions of either.
My primary motivation in making such a trip is that it’s the only way I’d have a shot at Kayli McArthur…