Yeah, after you said JFG rejects NAP.

And my position is that everyone who outright rejects NAP having any value, should be treated as an outlaw.

Even you reject the NAP unless you are Ancap

I don't reject it.

The main part is "Principle"

I just don't think it's absolute.

Why are you so autistic?

You're going against NAP by being anti open borders

Which is also JF's stance, he doesn't take it as an absolute principle

So if that is your criteria of advocating for death of someone, you are also advocating for your own death

I do not see how that follows. JF has made numerous (retarded) statements about evolution. I believe in evolution and have been studying it for a few years. One could assume JF also believes in evolution. And yet I find all of his conclusions laughably wrong.

Well, maybe it should be called NAV (non-aggression value) for those who don't hold it as the only value and absolute and only principle in life (i.e the ancap autists)?

But no-one knows what "NAV" is.

Hence, I prefer to call it NAP even if I don't view it as **absolute and only** principle in life.

Because people know what NAP is, but they don't know what NAV is.

Then its just a semantics issue

Heck people know what NAV it's and it's avionics terminology related to airplane navigation system.

Don't ask more. I don't know. With NAV, NDB, CAS, glideslope indicators, runway beacons, ILS, etc. there's too many to keep track on.

Heck I might actually know how some of those work. I just don't know how NAV mode on autopilots work. GPS navigation I get.

This is the reason why I fly VFR when I fly FSX. Instrument navigation (IFR) in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) where you cannot see what's ahead of you is a bitch.

not sure how many of you have arrived here from the wreckage of the atheist/secular movement, but I'd be curious about your thoughts on this: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/

I like SSC but I can't relate. Movement Atheism never appealed to me at best I found it a disappointing distraction. People I admired like Dawkins writing long useless books about "god no reals" instead of doing serious work.

I'm "here" because of GamerGate. That is, that what created Sargon.

I don't think godlessness failed. But the institutions were set up as an antagonist to Christian conservatives, which made them atheist progressives by being the negative image of that they opposed: communists, socialists, feminists (ironically because feminism has Christian roots).

GG was a lot of fun. If anyone can find a mirror of the old 3Dog hangouts hit me up. Oliver made them private a while back....

Atheist progressivism was set to fail because it opposed Christian conservativism in both economic and social issues, and USA is a bipolar system where you always have to pick between cancer and AIDS.

Atheist activism had it's roots in 1st Amendment constitutionalism, ironically.

They just kept on attaching various other agendas into it, and making it hegemonic opposite to evangelical conservativism.

Freedom *of* religion =/= freedom *from* religion. The former is the US position the latter is the French.

So it's OK to be religious but you could be jailed for being irreligious?

The evangelocon argument to bringing Christian rules to court houses.

Basically, free to be Christian, but no freedom to be not Christian.

1st A protects especially freedom **FROM** religion, mind you.

*"**Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion**, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."*

1st A specifically prohibits theocracy, ensures right of disbelief in particular religion (whether atheist or member of another religion).

1st A is especially and only freedom **FROM** religion, not freedom of.

It does not say you are free to do animal sacrifice or human sacrifice or other freedom **OF** religion.

Not at all. I'm saying that the current liberal atheist position is inherited from European Continental thought and not related to the 1st.

It states that the government cannot impose a religion.

I'm sorry but the latter is also the basisi of US position on religious freedom.

It is freedom from enforcement of state religion.