Meh I'll give it all another look tomorrow, maybe I'll have some new ideas about this. One text wall a day is more then enough

@Vulpes how is this a non sequitur?
C3) Duties must be possible.
8) Outcomes are attained through the fulfillment of requirements.
9) For a requirement to be fulfilled it must exist.
10) Rights are things which ought to happen.
C4) The requirements of duties ought to exist i.e. are moral rights.

if duties *must* be possible, the requirements of the duties *must* exist

> a right is granted to you on the condition of certain duties
this isn't a sufficient definition of right. All you're telling me it is the efficient cause. What is the formal cause?

> If you don't do X then you don't get Y.
If you don't have children, you don't get responsibility over them. Responsibility over your children is now a right rather than a duty under your understanding.

> You can have a duty without a right attached to it.
> Next to go to the point of natural law. It means that all things have a telos. All things and actions have a specific state of being that they should be in, but becaus of the fall we have drifted away from the Natural Law and we are able to break it. We have a duty as men to follow that law. But out of this duty it doesn't follow that we have a right to follow that law. It is the law for all men and all should follow it. It should be followed in what ever condition you are in.
The duty you would have over your children would not exist if you didn't have the possibility to impregnate your wife. You could say having children with your wife is a duty, but then you would not have a wife if you didn't have the possibility to marry her. If you don't fulfill your moral duties, you go to Hell. If your duties were impossible to fulfill, you would by necessity go to Hell. But once again, laws are about regulating what happens. If doing something were impossible, there would be no law for it. But there is a law for it, so the duties must be possible. A duty is impossible if the requirements needed to fulfill it do not exist. So rights to the requirements of those duties must exist.

> Your right will be defended so long as the one who granted them is convinced you preform your duties.
The defender of moral rights would be God, and He is omniscient.

> The thing is that this doesn't make any rights inherent, they are all granted from above.
If they were not inherent, then natural law itself wouldn't be inherent because it is put in place from above.

> "With that reasoning all laws are modernist"
It's mostly me being sardonic, but I don't affirm Natural Law theory anyways. If you seriously believe that natural rights are modernist, existentialist atheism is the most reactionary position you can hold.

> God can take that away at any time for any reason.
1) God is omnibenevolent.
2) To be omnibenevolent is to always do good.
C1) God can only do good.
4) God can take away contingent (privileged) existence.
C2) God can only take away contingent (privileged) existence for good reason.
5) Natural Law is that which is good.
C3) God takes away contingent (privileged) existence based on Natural Law.

@Vulpes I think this is enough

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3932472.html

According to the American edition of "DefenseNews" in the material "Pentagon seeks to cut F-35s , other equipment to pay for Trump's border wall", the US Department of Defense plans to redirect $ 3.8 billion - mainly because of its budget for the purchase of arms and military equipment 2020 fiscal year, to finance the construction of the border wall on the Mexican border at the initiative of US President Donald Trump, according to a request for reallocation of funds received by the US Congress.

Sinn Fein is going to takeover ireland

Fuck the establishment

Yeah would be so great to have a left wing nationalist party in charge which would be nationalist because it doesn't like Britain but still would let the native population be replaced

Ireland is fucked

Unfortunate

Potatoes

@Mr. Nessel we should just close out borders altogether in europe

That will solve the problem

I'd love if Schengen properly enforced its own borders rather than passing on the burden to Greece/Italy/Spain and having Germany bribe Turkey not to open the floodgates

AfD guy (Gauland): "Hanau shooter was **clearly insane**, he mentioned something about "grooming gangs" and "America".

what

idiots everwhere

Massive fag and hypocrite that guy

Also tried to call others out for instrumentalising the attack to go after the AfD for political gain, when the AfD has done the same thing with islamic attacks

https://t.co/U8dkWF4z0M

Based Vaush

@McFansy, @Shekel Stealer or anyone else. Do you remember Barbra Spectre and her infamous speech to the Sweeds explaining how Jews were going to lead Europe into a multi-cultural mode? She said Europe would not survive if they do not. Do you have any insight into the theory of what she was talking about relating to survival? It's easy to dismiss as a disingenuous trick but if I was to assume it was a good-faith argument, in thier mind, what survival is at risk? What does a multi-cultural mode solve relating to survival?

Either it's meant in the "we need migrants prop up pensions ponzi schemes in a shrinking society" sense or Macron's view

Macron would like the EU to remove itself from Nato and become the main neoliberal force on the planet, which is why he also likes the idea of extending the common market to Africa

In the head of someone like him population=power

Though I think that jewish woman isn't that much concerned abotu the survival of Europe. It's vacuous rhetoric more than anything

@MicMac If you want to understand the mindset of the eternal rootless cosmopolitan watch Academic Agent's video on "The World View of Leon Wieseltier".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI7EA8M95ro

@MicMac If I was being generous, I would say she is talking about economic and population collapse, as Nesselblatt said. This is also assuming a lot of things. That immigrants are economically beneficial, that white fertility rates can't be raised etc. But obviously multi-culturalism is advantageous for Jews so she has a strong motive to say stuff like that.

Yeah, the motivation is transparent. I was curious if there was actually anything substantial to an argument.

I could float an unorthodox theory.

In an era of bioengineered weapons having a greater pool of genetic diversity would be an advantage, or by inverse deadly.

The same goes for the complexity in designing a bioweapon.

Monocrops