{•_•}

You rush to give away British territory at the behest of Russian and Chinese judges. You invite Brussels to set our laws and offer to pay for it. You refuse to board Russian vessels in UK waters “over concerns it may breach international law”. Don’t you dare talk about the British national interest.

Why is there a Ramadan question on the UK citizenship test 💀

I can’t believe I’m posting this, but I believe the Irish Government has FROZEN my Bank Account. My bank card has not been working since yesterday - when my posts about the current protests in Ireland began to go viral. This is insanity. The Irish Government is drunk on power.

If London is so safe, swap your bulletproof jeep and armed bodyguard and travel around on a bike like Boris did. Prove us “wrong” Sadiq.

@Jonas_Ceika Ok you now need to ask it to name your track.

@triffic_stuff_ Imagine if we had a Prime Minister who looked at world events and then made the necessary adjustments to domestic policy in order to shore up defenses both militarily and economically. No we have a feckless human rights lawyer who thinks lecturing people to behave will work.

So the Green Party want to open borders, make drugs legal & abolish prisons! Wow. I genuinely think you need to be missing your marbles if you vote for this.

@ArchRose90 Not far right, just right so far.

People like this are calling you “far-right”. I’m happy to be on the opposite side of whatever this is.

@Daisy_Dook He blinks only 3 times in the space of that 30 seconds. Psychopath.

@OneloveninjaJoe @kaizen000000000 And I'm saying that the absence of a tyrannical dictator God who forces you to do the right thing in every scenario no matter your personal will does not disprove the existence of a loving God who grants free will. That is a denial of the antecedent.

@NameInteger @kaizen000000000 I'm saying this "all knowing, all loving God" isn't real.

@marshallpittman @kaizen000000000 So I can have a different morality to you?

@marshallpittman @kaizen000000000 What is morality?

You don't have to discuss any particular named philosophy, so that you can ascribe all kinds of things that I am not saying, but that would be included in any ideological lexicon of that named philosophy. I have read Rand, and she spoke to the people of her time, but many would easily mischaracterize her words because they no longer know the context. I am not an adherent, though it is a good place to start your own thinking. Evolutionary biology studies this development of morality. EB is not my specialty. By studying animals we can see the precursor to morality, like empathy, consolation, social concern, cooperation, and reciprocity. When a species becomes highly interdependent (like new world monkeys and human), there a group survival advantages to moral behavior. These elements of morality are not unique to humans and have evolved many times on the earth. Gene-level selection is a major mechanisms that contributes, so it is not just group benefit. Genes are propagated by kin selection, reciprocal altruism, moral emotions, and physical structures like mirror neurons, or our lymphatic system to warn of danger before our brain realizes it. Humans layers our ability to reason, plan, and imagine on top of these physical systems. We have moral intuitions such as disgust at harm, fairness, loyalty to a group, etc., that are rooted in cognitive "modules" shaped in the Pleistocene to solve recurring social problems like cheating, kin investment, and coalition-building. We can build modern morals on these systems, but sometimes discover conflicts with our reasoning when we try to expand our circle of care. We were evolved to have relationships with about 150 individuals, and loving the entire world might be a stretch that confuses our intuition. Culture, language, society, our personal experiences help us to produce a moral code. You can copy and paste one from your religion or political ideology. You can set to the task of deliberately developing one yourself. Or, you can lead an unexamined life and follow you own wants to desires, which usually leads to harm for yourself and others. Most people are successful, at least in the US, if they grow up in a home with both parents, finish high school, and get married before they have children. Other paths lead to limited choices, ignorance of the possibilities, or responsibilities beyond an ability to meet them. Of course, belief in a god *can* be a way to obtain a moral system. But, then it would be an arbitrary system that you have to negotiate with ("do I get to 'utterly destroy' my neighbor because my church says he is evil?") and you still have to study to see if the adopted system matches reality. But, god is not the origin of morality and is not necessary to develop a morality, meaning, or to value another life. This is brief, an overview, but hopefully gives you a flavor. Any one of these subjects was probably someone's PhD. paper! There is plenty of research, like Frans de Waal's pioneering work demonstrating through experiments and observations: for example, capuchin monkeys rejecting unequal rewards.

@marshallpittman @kaizen000000000 So now we've established there is law of nature, explain to me how humans have developed empathy, altruism and self-sacrifice for strangers and enemies, without relying on Randian philosophy.

I am not ignoring natural law. I am invoking it many ways: -- "Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory that holds there are universal moral principles or rules of justice inherent in human nature and/or the structure of reality. These principles are discoverable through reason (rather than solely through revelation, custom, or arbitrary human decree) and serve as a standard to evaluate, guide, or limit human-made laws (known as positive law). In essence, natural law theory asserts that "right" and "wrong" are not purely subjective, cultural inventions, or matters of power—they are objective and rooted in the way things are (nature). Actions or laws that violate these principles are considered unjust or defective, even if enacted by a legitimate government." [britannica.com/topic/natural-…] -- Reality would be the authority, not some divine being. Even if the divine being gave us laws, they would have to agree with reality in order to be valid. I am also not projecting. This is not something that feel or have made up. These statements are based on scientific research and empirical evidence. Evolutionary biologists have established these traits.