Message from @DrocsidInReverse
Discord ID: 697634551077273740
If that's the passage you take offense at, then I get you. Especially with these reasons. Last time, I think I skipped too much of the first paragraph, the parts where he talks of racism and classicism etc.
Immigration should be invitation-only, and the one who did the inviting (my english fails me at the moment) should be held liable for damages caused. Under a hoppean system, that should work very well.
```This is the Catholic version of those "I love pot and porn" articles that dominate libertarian outlets.```
Don't remind me of this crap. Libertarians ought to argue from the highest expressions of freedom, the freedom of conscience first of all, down to the lower forms, not vice versa, which is what they have often done.
Bernie Bros on eternal suicide watch
<:pepe_down:662852278830628923>
one thing that's nice about the chinavirus is that it's revealed just how worthless 90% of news cycles are
like
have you heard anything about this garbage over Trump firing the Obama IGs
that would have been front-page news in normal times
and literally who fucking cares
also all the 2020 primary shit
From now on we call this the chinavirus
bernibros on suicide watch, yet again
Why is it called chapo trap house what is it?
some podcast, never heard of it
it's the bernibros everyone points to when he fails
Oh
why is it called Chapo Trap House? They could have just called it "Ironic Nonsense Podcast", but maybe that would be a little too on the nose.
now do women
Spiteful mutants are parasites therefore they don’t have rights
no one has rights
YES
Look at me
***I am the Parasite Now***
~
Well Intentioned Reactionary: "I want to make a prosperous and productive society."
*Accidently Invents Consumerism*
>no one has rights
Why? @Skellington
You have rights to that which you can defend
You can talk about natural law and such but de facto human might not human right prevail
That is already presupposing that rights don't exist, and that in fact no moral law of any kind is real.
certainly the modern idea of rights is fake and gay because "human rights" is basically just a stand in for liberal values
I think this idea comes from stretching the analogy of natural and positive law too far. They are alike in that they both prescribe or prohibit certain courses of conduct, but different in that the former is either enacted by God or stems from the nature of things (or both, that would be my position). We can say that a right under the positive law ceases to exist when it is enforced, but the reason for that is that when the state gives you a right and then consistently infringes against it, it enters a performative contradiction, and thus the right can be said not to exist. With the natural law, this same argument doesn't work.
Although it might also come from the is-ought-fallacy(-fallacy), but I doubt people here subscribe to Humes idea, as it vitiates all moral discourse.
Ok. I believe in natural law and Gods commandments. But those laws won't be enacted in reality without the power and will to enact it