Then I will ask you what I stated previous in this topic.
If egalitiarianism is against nature, then why strive for equality on the grounds of rights?
So wait. You postulate that since you love this body you therefore have more sexual intercourse? As I recall you stated these ‘earthly’ individual out-breed the ‘gnostics’ which is truly a quandry. To out-breed the gnostic one must do what they do and more. Therefore let us say the average ‘gnostic’ has one wife/husband. A typical marriage. You would need to engage in that plus more to out-breed us yet you also must concede that increased sex with multiple partners increases the chances of a sexually transmitted disease that could possibly kill you. You love this body yet engage in actions that increase your risk of destroying this body. Quite a conundrum. I could also make some statement about sex and the law of diminishing return but really why waste anymore of my time on such absurd comments?
That wasn’t my point. You made a claim about not using coercion, ostensibly to validate the idea as just. It might be just to the thinnest libertarians, but that does not make the idea valid. You are still struggling to do so. We take it for granted that you, here, would not be promoting a coercive idea.
If you change the nature of man, you no longer have man. You have something else. The mind and body are not separable, and combined constitute what it is to be human.
I don’t really care about the science of it. That is irrelevant to me. I will be long dead before someone finds a way to do this.
I think your ends are wrong, regardless of your means. Egalitarianism is not desirable to me. It is a collectivist idea.
There is no equality of rights. I’m not striving for rights for you. I’m not striving for rights for anyone but myself UNLESS rights in others allow for rights for myself. And so, I look for others with compatible desires for rights, to construct relationships that we can all agree to and benefit from.
You’re creating a problem, that you are then insisting should be solved.
Deduction that is before the fact, that can be right or wrong, is really just an informed rational prediction.
Well your not saying what invalidates the idea [other then nature which I addressed]
The nature of man is in his mind, not his body. Where do we deduce truths of the world? In our arms? Our legs? And the mind and body are not separable…YET.
The same with anarchism, yet we theorize about it.
Yet so is racism, sexism, xenophobia and from what I gather you are implying that such ideas are ambivalent. If you don’t like egalitarianism simply because it is collectivist then you should also be against the ‘isms’ I am discussing because they are also collectivist. The point of cyberization is that a human mind could be placed into any body. Thus the mind is what is important. The only reason we put stake into bodies is because they cannot be changed at will. Placing a mind into a body of choice progresses the individualistic ideology because a great mind could be anywhere. We stop looking at people by their exterior and value their interior deduction and rationality.
But respecting them presupposes that others do in fact have them in the first place. Therefore if A has rights and B has rights, then they are on equal footing [ equality of rights ]
well, under the meaning of egalitarianism which is simply recognising the fact of equality you are right.
but there is a strain of meaning whereby egalitarianism is advocated for, where a poltical levelling is attempted. this is not the same as recognising that everyone is on a level.
In abolishing the state you have to concede results in political egalitarianism because since there is no state, no one can use politics to advance themselves above another.
Apples and oranges. What I am saying is there is no divisibility between mind and brain. That has little to do with such things as machine dyalisis or prosthetic limbs.
Like I said, I think the only right you have is the right not to be aggressed against. I don’t see that as egalitarian. Everything else is a privilege that has to be paid for.