Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-30 15:04:11.0 alle 2024-05-30 15:04:11.0
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-30 15:03:03.0 alle 2024-05-30 15:03:03.0
> Calenda ha concepito la sua prima figlia, Tay, a sedici anni, da una relazione con una donna che frequentava sin da quando aveva quattordici anni.[19]
>
>
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Calenda 
>
>
Ma se si parlasse di alzare l'età del consenso a 21 anni scommetto che non banferebbe
>
>
>
>
Ma se si parlasse di alzare l'età del consenso a 21 anni scommetto che non banferebbe
Forum Deserto
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-30 15:01:38.0 alle 2024-05-30 15:01:38.0
Scritto da:
> Scritto da:
> > Scritto da: Mattia
> > > Scritto da:
> > > > Cos'è sto muro di teoria? Qualcuno dovrebbe leggerlo?
> > >
> > > Si, dovrebbe! Non vedo che problemi crei la lunghezza: i libri di filosofia sono molto più lunghi di così. Se poi uno è troppo pigro per leggersi testi lunghi allora è condannato a diventare un asino, perché con tre righe di testo si può solo produrre un'argomentazione superficiale.
> >
> > È il gattaccio che dopo un po' è "spompo"
>
> asinaggio selvaggio
Tu l'hai letto? Dimostralo scrivendo un riassunto
> Scritto da:
> > Scritto da: Mattia
> > > Scritto da:
> > > > Cos'è sto muro di teoria? Qualcuno dovrebbe leggerlo?
> > >
> > > Si, dovrebbe! Non vedo che problemi crei la lunghezza: i libri di filosofia sono molto più lunghi di così. Se poi uno è troppo pigro per leggersi testi lunghi allora è condannato a diventare un asino, perché con tre righe di testo si può solo produrre un'argomentazione superficiale.
> >
> > È il gattaccio che dopo un po' è "spompo"
>
> asinaggio selvaggio
Tu l'hai letto? Dimostralo scrivendo un riassunto
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-30 15:00:31.0 alle 2024-05-30 15:00:31.0
> A Palazzo Nuovo
>
>
https://torino.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca/24_magg...
>
> Che bel ricordo che ho di palazzo nuovo
E perché non ci sei rimasto a studiare?
>
>
>
> Che bel ricordo che ho di palazzo nuovo
E perché non ci sei rimasto a studiare?
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-30 12:55:00.0 alle 2024-05-30 12:55:00.0
A Palazzo Nuovo
https://torino.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca/24_magg...
Che bel ricordo che ho di palazzo nuovo
Che bel ricordo che ho di palazzo nuovo
Forum Deserto
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-30 12:42:48.0 alle 2024-05-30 12:42:48.0
Scritto da:
> Scritto da: Mattia
> > Scritto da:
> > > Cos'è sto muro di teoria? Qualcuno dovrebbe leggerlo?
> >
> > Si, dovrebbe! Non vedo che problemi crei la lunghezza: i libri di filosofia sono molto più lunghi di così. Se poi uno è troppo pigro per leggersi testi lunghi allora è condannato a diventare un asino, perché con tre righe di testo si può solo produrre un'argomentazione superficiale.
>
> È il gattaccio che dopo un po' è "spompo"
asinaggio selvaggio
> Scritto da: Mattia
> > Scritto da:
> > > Cos'è sto muro di teoria? Qualcuno dovrebbe leggerlo?
> >
> > Si, dovrebbe! Non vedo che problemi crei la lunghezza: i libri di filosofia sono molto più lunghi di così. Se poi uno è troppo pigro per leggersi testi lunghi allora è condannato a diventare un asino, perché con tre righe di testo si può solo produrre un'argomentazione superficiale.
>
> È il gattaccio che dopo un po' è "spompo"
asinaggio selvaggio
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-30 12:17:50.0 alle 2024-05-30 12:17:50.0
Calenda ha concepito la sua prima figlia, Tay, a sedici anni, da una relazione con una donna che frequentava sin da quando aveva quattordici anni.[19]
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Calenda
Forum Deserto
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-30 12:13:01.0 alle 2024-05-30 12:13:01.0
Scritto da: Mattia
> Scritto da:
> > Cos'è sto muro di teoria? Qualcuno dovrebbe leggerlo?
>
> Si, dovrebbe! Non vedo che problemi crei la lunghezza: i libri di filosofia sono molto più lunghi di così. Se poi uno è troppo pigro per leggersi testi lunghi allora è condannato a diventare un asino, perché con tre righe di testo si può solo produrre un'argomentazione superficiale.
È il gattaccio che dopo un po' è "spompo"
> Scritto da:
> > Cos'è sto muro di teoria? Qualcuno dovrebbe leggerlo?
>
> Si, dovrebbe! Non vedo che problemi crei la lunghezza: i libri di filosofia sono molto più lunghi di così. Se poi uno è troppo pigro per leggersi testi lunghi allora è condannato a diventare un asino, perché con tre righe di testo si può solo produrre un'argomentazione superficiale.
È il gattaccio che dopo un po' è "spompo"
☺
Forum Deserto
Scritto da:
> Cos'è sto muro di teoria? Qualcuno dovrebbe leggerlo?
Si, dovrebbe! Non vedo che problemi crei la lunghezza: i libri di filosofia sono molto più lunghi di così. Se poi uno è troppo pigro per leggersi testi lunghi allora è condannato a diventare un asino, perché con tre righe di testo si può solo produrre un'argomentazione superficiale.
> Cos'è sto muro di teoria? Qualcuno dovrebbe leggerlo?
Si, dovrebbe! Non vedo che problemi crei la lunghezza: i libri di filosofia sono molto più lunghi di così. Se poi uno è troppo pigro per leggersi testi lunghi allora è condannato a diventare un asino, perché con tre righe di testo si può solo produrre un'argomentazione superficiale.
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-30 06:25:12.0 alle 2024-05-30 06:25:12.0
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-30 04:16:40.0 alle 2024-05-30 04:16:40.0
Forum Deserto
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-30 03:32:17.0 alle 2024-05-30 03:32:17.0
Scritto da: Mattia
> The self-ownership: the fundamental right from which all citizens' negative rights derive
>
> Self-ownership is the principle that individuals are the owners of themselves, their body, and their life.
>
> In this post, we will try to understand three fundamental things for political theory:
>
> - Why is the self-ownership a right?
>
> - Why can't private property and the free market exist without the self-ownership
>
> - Why do all negative human rights stem from self-ownership?
>
>
> Introduction: the fundamental basis of ethics
>
> Before understanding why self-ownership is a right, we must first lay the foundations of ethics.
>
> Let's start by saying that ethics is functional to human beings: the universe, space-time, matter, etc., do not care about ethics. It is something that concerns humans, who for obvious reasons have an interest in creating a world that allows them to be happy.
>
> Given this premise, the fundamental basis of ethics must logically be the following: "Laws are meant to create a society that maximizes human happiness." Of course, this is a subjective matter: someone could argue that the purpose should be to destroy humanity, but making such a declaration would be equivalent to declaring war on humanity. Therefore, anyone who supports this cannot complain if humans do everything possible to thwart them: it's simple self-defense!
>
> I believe, however, that this principle is shared by most people, and once accepted, self-ownership is simply a logical consequence.
>
>
>
> Why is the self-ownership a right?
>
> What is human happiness, if not the sum of the happiness of individual people?
>
> Putting the issue in mathematical terms: we assign a score of +1 to each happy person, a score of -1 to each unhappy person, and a score of 0 to each person who is neither particularly happy nor particularly unhappy.
>
> If a given country has 10,000 inhabitants, what is the maximum possible score for human happiness? Obviously: +10,000, which is obtained if every single inhabitant has a happiness score of +1. Conversely, the lowest possible score is -10,000, which is obtained if every single inhabitant has a happiness score of -1.
>
> Once we understand that "social happiness" is nothing more than the sum of individual happiness, we can focus on individual happiness.
>
> Now, let's say we are 20 people in a restaurant. If we order the same menu for everyone, some people will be happy with what arrives at the table, others less so, and others not at all. For example, if we order roast meat for everyone, vegetarians will be out of luck. To ensure everyone is happy with what arrives on their plate, it is necessary for each person to order their meal individually. If everyone receives exactly what they want to eat, then each person's happiness score will be +1, and the overall score will reach the maximum: +20.
>
> The most astute among you should have already grasped the conclusion of this simple observation: for each person to order their own meal, it is necessary that each of us is the owner of ourselves, our body, and our life. In other words, it is necessary that each of us has the self-ownership.
>
> Indeed, if an individual is not the owner of himself, but instead belongs to someone else, then his master must approve his order. If he belongs to the state, then the state must approve it. Only if the individual is the owner of himself he doesn't need to ask anyone's permission to order what he desires. Is it clear?
>
> Now, someone might argue that if a person is barely capable of making sound decisions, their choices might inadvertently harm themselves. In fact, the state provides for the assignment of a guardian to mentally impaired individuals, but these are exceptional cases. Neo-fascists would want to revoke self-ownership from people much smarter than they are. Take Alan Turing, for example: his intelligence was superior to that of all the pathetic neo-fascists in the world combined, yet the state arrested him for homosexual acts. That is, people less intelligent than him decided that he could not do XY with his body. This is why I will reject any such argument: using the case of mentally impaired individuals to counter my argument would be intellectually dishonest!
>
> That said, the guardian assigned to mentally impaired people should aim to GUIDE the person, not to exercise a tyrannical power over them like a master over a slave. In fact, if a guardian treated the person like a slave, the state should remove him from his position. Thus, even these people are not completely stripped of self-ownership: the guardian must still try to guide them in the pursuit of their happiness.
>
> In the previous paragraphs, we understood why self-ownership is necessary to maximize human happiness, but there is also a very simple logical argument that justifies self-ownership.
>
> It is inevitable that someone owns our body, right? Someone always makes decisions about it in any system. If we are not the owners, then someone else is, correct?
>
> Now, why should other people or institutions be the owners of our body and not ourselves? Each of us has, BY NATURE, POSSESSION of our own body, right? This is something that no one can take away from us! If we have POSSESSION of our body and our life, then why shouldn't we also be its owner? In other words, based on what element would a person who does not have the NATURAL POSSESSION of our body and our life have more right than we do to be its OWNER?
>
> Well, I would say the question is quite obvious: no, no human being has more right to be the owner of our body than we do, so it is right that each person be the owner of himself. That is, it is right that every person has the self-ownership.
>
>
>
> Why can't private property and the free market exist without the self-ownership
>
> The free market is the right that allows people to freely exchange goods and services among themselves.
>
> It is obvious that to freely exchange the goods you own, you must be their owner, so the free market cannot exist without private property.
>
> In turn, NATURAL private property is justified by self-ownership. In fact, what is the ethical element that makes a person the NATURAL owner of a good? Very simply: he produced the good with his own hands. It is clear that if our hands did not belong to us, but instead to the state, then the state would be the owner of everything we produce, so private property would not exist. Consequently, neither would the free market.
>
> In the previous paragraphs, we focused on the free market of goods, but let's talk about the free market of services. In this case, the good is not an object, but a person, essentially. A person who makes their hands available for you. The free market of services therefore derives directly from the self-ownership without even passing through private property. In fact, how can the caregiver Svetlana be free to offer you the service of changing your diaper with her hands if her hands do not belong to her? She would have to ask the state for permission to do so. The state could not only say "no, you can't do it," but it could also say: "Yes, you can do it, but only if your client pays the state for your service, not you... since we are the owners of your hands!". So the state pockets 10 euros per hour, then in turn gives 3 euros per hour to Svetlana.
>
> This is why of all political positions, the most idiotic one is that of fascist-like people who are against self-ownership but in favor of the free market. How the hell can a person be the owner of material goods if they are not even the owner of their own body? How can a person freely make their body available to others if they are not the owner of their own body?
>
>
>
> Why do all negative human rights stem from self-ownership?
>
> The answer to this question is easy: all negative rights stem either directly from self-ownership or from private property (which in turn stems from self-ownership).
>
> Why can't the state kill me? Because since I am the owner of my life, only I can destroy it: others cannot!
>
> Why can't the state destroy my car or any other object I own? Because they are mine, so only I can destroy them: the state cannot.
>
> Why am I free to think whatever I want? Because my brain is my property, not the state's!
>
> And so on...
>
> The logical consequence of throwing self-ownership in the trash is to throw all rights in the trash. ALL OF THEM, FROM THE FIRST TO THE LAST! IS IT CLEAR?? This is why we have the moral right to defend ourselves, even with weapons, against anyone who wants to take away our self-ownership!
>
>
> **Modificato dall'autore il 29.05.2024 14:22**
Cos'è sto muro di teoria? Qualcuno dovrebbe leggerlo?
> The self-ownership: the fundamental right from which all citizens' negative rights derive
>
> Self-ownership is the principle that individuals are the owners of themselves, their body, and their life.
>
> In this post, we will try to understand three fundamental things for political theory:
>
> - Why is the self-ownership a right?
>
> - Why can't private property and the free market exist without the self-ownership
>
> - Why do all negative human rights stem from self-ownership?
>
>
> Introduction: the fundamental basis of ethics
>
> Before understanding why self-ownership is a right, we must first lay the foundations of ethics.
>
> Let's start by saying that ethics is functional to human beings: the universe, space-time, matter, etc., do not care about ethics. It is something that concerns humans, who for obvious reasons have an interest in creating a world that allows them to be happy.
>
> Given this premise, the fundamental basis of ethics must logically be the following: "Laws are meant to create a society that maximizes human happiness." Of course, this is a subjective matter: someone could argue that the purpose should be to destroy humanity, but making such a declaration would be equivalent to declaring war on humanity. Therefore, anyone who supports this cannot complain if humans do everything possible to thwart them: it's simple self-defense!
>
> I believe, however, that this principle is shared by most people, and once accepted, self-ownership is simply a logical consequence.
>
>
>
> Why is the self-ownership a right?
>
> What is human happiness, if not the sum of the happiness of individual people?
>
> Putting the issue in mathematical terms: we assign a score of +1 to each happy person, a score of -1 to each unhappy person, and a score of 0 to each person who is neither particularly happy nor particularly unhappy.
>
> If a given country has 10,000 inhabitants, what is the maximum possible score for human happiness? Obviously: +10,000, which is obtained if every single inhabitant has a happiness score of +1. Conversely, the lowest possible score is -10,000, which is obtained if every single inhabitant has a happiness score of -1.
>
> Once we understand that "social happiness" is nothing more than the sum of individual happiness, we can focus on individual happiness.
>
> Now, let's say we are 20 people in a restaurant. If we order the same menu for everyone, some people will be happy with what arrives at the table, others less so, and others not at all. For example, if we order roast meat for everyone, vegetarians will be out of luck. To ensure everyone is happy with what arrives on their plate, it is necessary for each person to order their meal individually. If everyone receives exactly what they want to eat, then each person's happiness score will be +1, and the overall score will reach the maximum: +20.
>
> The most astute among you should have already grasped the conclusion of this simple observation: for each person to order their own meal, it is necessary that each of us is the owner of ourselves, our body, and our life. In other words, it is necessary that each of us has the self-ownership.
>
> Indeed, if an individual is not the owner of himself, but instead belongs to someone else, then his master must approve his order. If he belongs to the state, then the state must approve it. Only if the individual is the owner of himself he doesn't need to ask anyone's permission to order what he desires. Is it clear?
>
> Now, someone might argue that if a person is barely capable of making sound decisions, their choices might inadvertently harm themselves. In fact, the state provides for the assignment of a guardian to mentally impaired individuals, but these are exceptional cases. Neo-fascists would want to revoke self-ownership from people much smarter than they are. Take Alan Turing, for example: his intelligence was superior to that of all the pathetic neo-fascists in the world combined, yet the state arrested him for homosexual acts. That is, people less intelligent than him decided that he could not do XY with his body. This is why I will reject any such argument: using the case of mentally impaired individuals to counter my argument would be intellectually dishonest!
>
> That said, the guardian assigned to mentally impaired people should aim to GUIDE the person, not to exercise a tyrannical power over them like a master over a slave. In fact, if a guardian treated the person like a slave, the state should remove him from his position. Thus, even these people are not completely stripped of self-ownership: the guardian must still try to guide them in the pursuit of their happiness.
>
> In the previous paragraphs, we understood why self-ownership is necessary to maximize human happiness, but there is also a very simple logical argument that justifies self-ownership.
>
> It is inevitable that someone owns our body, right? Someone always makes decisions about it in any system. If we are not the owners, then someone else is, correct?
>
> Now, why should other people or institutions be the owners of our body and not ourselves? Each of us has, BY NATURE, POSSESSION of our own body, right? This is something that no one can take away from us! If we have POSSESSION of our body and our life, then why shouldn't we also be its owner? In other words, based on what element would a person who does not have the NATURAL POSSESSION of our body and our life have more right than we do to be its OWNER?
>
> Well, I would say the question is quite obvious: no, no human being has more right to be the owner of our body than we do, so it is right that each person be the owner of himself. That is, it is right that every person has the self-ownership.
>
>
>
> Why can't private property and the free market exist without the self-ownership
>
> The free market is the right that allows people to freely exchange goods and services among themselves.
>
> It is obvious that to freely exchange the goods you own, you must be their owner, so the free market cannot exist without private property.
>
> In turn, NATURAL private property is justified by self-ownership. In fact, what is the ethical element that makes a person the NATURAL owner of a good? Very simply: he produced the good with his own hands. It is clear that if our hands did not belong to us, but instead to the state, then the state would be the owner of everything we produce, so private property would not exist. Consequently, neither would the free market.
>
> In the previous paragraphs, we focused on the free market of goods, but let's talk about the free market of services. In this case, the good is not an object, but a person, essentially. A person who makes their hands available for you. The free market of services therefore derives directly from the self-ownership without even passing through private property. In fact, how can the caregiver Svetlana be free to offer you the service of changing your diaper with her hands if her hands do not belong to her? She would have to ask the state for permission to do so. The state could not only say "no, you can't do it," but it could also say: "Yes, you can do it, but only if your client pays the state for your service, not you... since we are the owners of your hands!". So the state pockets 10 euros per hour, then in turn gives 3 euros per hour to Svetlana.
>
> This is why of all political positions, the most idiotic one is that of fascist-like people who are against self-ownership but in favor of the free market. How the hell can a person be the owner of material goods if they are not even the owner of their own body? How can a person freely make their body available to others if they are not the owner of their own body?
>
>
>
> Why do all negative human rights stem from self-ownership?
>
> The answer to this question is easy: all negative rights stem either directly from self-ownership or from private property (which in turn stems from self-ownership).
>
> Why can't the state kill me? Because since I am the owner of my life, only I can destroy it: others cannot!
>
> Why can't the state destroy my car or any other object I own? Because they are mine, so only I can destroy them: the state cannot.
>
> Why am I free to think whatever I want? Because my brain is my property, not the state's!
>
> And so on...
>
> The logical consequence of throwing self-ownership in the trash is to throw all rights in the trash. ALL OF THEM, FROM THE FIRST TO THE LAST! IS IT CLEAR?? This is why we have the moral right to defend ourselves, even with weapons, against anyone who wants to take away our self-ownership!
>
>
> **Modificato dall'autore il 29.05.2024 14:22**
Cos'è sto muro di teoria? Qualcuno dovrebbe leggerlo?
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-30 03:29:53.0 alle 2024-05-30 03:29:53.0
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-30 03:27:38.0 alle 2024-05-30 03:27:38.0
> https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:AN...
>
> Detto tutto
Quante storie. Hai chiesto se un certo scritto andava bene, e ti ho risposto di no. Quello scritto mi ha fatto incazzare sia perché rivela tante cose su di te che una persona avveduta non vorrebbe rivelare, sia per cosa rivela.
>
> Detto tutto
Quante storie. Hai chiesto se un certo scritto andava bene, e ti ho risposto di no. Quello scritto mi ha fatto incazzare sia perché rivela tante cose su di te che una persona avveduta non vorrebbe rivelare, sia per cosa rivela.
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-29 20:28:43.0 alle 2024-05-29 20:28:43.0
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-29 17:32:57.0 alle 2024-05-29 17:32:57.0
Scritto da:
>
>
> https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:AN...
>
> Detto tutto
Sei messo meglio di cazzo selvaggio? Non eri tu il rosikatore seriale?
>
>
> https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:AN...
>
> Detto tutto
Sei messo meglio di cazzo selvaggio? Non eri tu il rosikatore seriale?
France in free fall
Ad
https://sheikyermami.com/2019/01/france-in-free-fall/
Ennesima vittoria liberale in Francia. Clicca qui per saperne di più!
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-29 17:10:21.0 alle 2024-05-29 17:10:21.0
Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2024-05-29 16:44:19.0 alle 2024-05-29 16:44:19.0