Sycabas

@AnastasiiBeaver @BrianAtlas I mean, look at it from @BrianAtlas point of view.This lady is criticizing him and claiming he only has OF girls on his show, so he invites her.If she actually wanted to engage with the issue she seems so passionate about why not actually do the "engaging" part? Seems reasonable.

@BrianAtlas LOL. Like she has any possible reason to engage with you fuckwads.

We sent multiple debate invites to this woman and she has REFUSED to respond. It’s not without a sense of irony that those who criticize our guest selection always conveniently decline when that invite goes out. Cowards.

@_hellolistener @elonmusk Ohh cmon, you can trust the machines...

@elonmusk I mean cap but ok

Yes

@Rach4Patriarchy Those keen eyed viewers could have seen this coming with Candice Owens...

I can’t believe how many people this triggered 😂 I didn’t even hear a single word she said. I had the sound off. But I’m telling you the hair never lies.

@NomadFinancier @ByJimbob Of course it's a joke... though given some of chatter, I understand why you might be confused.

@sycabas @ByJimbob I really hope you’re joking. The bible was put together by the church around 400ad, it didn’t magically fall from heaven

👇🏼

@_hellolistener @ItsBitcoinBruh Pretty sure it involves crystals...

@ItsBitcoinBruh What is “spiritual”?

Notice how most religious people aren't spiritual.. why’s that 🤔

@KEWLV1C What!?, What could go wrong...

You should not be allowed to work in government if you hate our country

Instagram vs reality

@luvkit @Fuckurviews1130 @Kathy4Truth @Rach4Patriarchy I'm following you now. Do you want to make a new post we can continue on so we stop tagging people not involved? Or DM if you want. Or we can just keep going here. But it sounds like you are making a different claim than I suggested.

I would agree that it's a "brute fact" assuming that's not a philosophical term of art I'm unaware of. And as far as justification, I would say they are directly observable via tech or otherwise. Much like any other part of human ontology. My position shouldn't be axiomatic, because I'm not saying "we hold these truths to be self evident." So I'm unsure how you got there. Unless all ontology to you is axiomatic? Perhaps if you can give me an example of something you consider part of human ontology, I can use that to help you understand my position better?

Do your rights come from God... or from men with guns? @Rach4Patriarchy says women only have rights because men allow us to have them. That doesn’t sound like the Declaration of Independence. That sounds like brute force politics. Once you accept that worldview, it won’t stop with women. Next it will be men who don’t own land, retirees, the disabled, and anyone the powerful... or whoever is holding the Autopen... decide has no “skin in the game.” That’s not America. That’s Somalia with better paperwork. Rachel thinks power creates rights. America says God gives rights... and government exists to protect them, not rescind them.

@luvkit @Fuckurviews1130 @Kathy4Truth @Rach4Patriarchy So, on the point of origin. (We don't need to get in to the philosophical meta ethic conversation) You would agree that you don't have a justification for the existence of natural rights. It's just a brute fact, that acts as an axiom for this ethical paradigm, correct?

I would say Force Doctrine is wrong on the *origin* of natural rights. (E.g 'might makes rights') That's my main objection to it. Force doesn't create rights, force can only violate/defend rights that already exists. Also Force Doctrine isn't purely descriptive. It necessarily implies that those who wield the force determine what rights exist or not. Having the power doesn't necessarily imply that you also ought make the decisions. Where I would agree with FD, is that it may be effectively true. As Wilson points out: who's going to stop them? But this is very postmodernist, in the vein of "there is no truth but power." Which is a bit nihilistic and I don't think that's the intent behind FD, but it's hard to see a delineation.

@luvkit @Fuckurviews1130 @Kathy4Truth @Rach4Patriarchy Maybe let's switch gears for a moment and bring it back to force doctrine. It seems like you don't disagree with the descriptive claim and it's social implications. The only thing that stops rights violations is force, and between men and women, men have the monopoly on force.

I'm still unclear why the distinction, but I guess sorta? I'd phrase it this way to make it more clear: the act of K killing J violates J's right to live. Once J is a corpse, then of course J has no ability to exercise any rights, because he no longer is alive and his ontology fundamentally changes.

@luvkit @Fuckurviews1130 @Kathy4Truth @Rach4Patriarchy I mean, K killing J removes his ontological rights (all of them). But if K cut out Js tounge he WOULDN'T be removing his ontological right, just his ability to excersize it. Same with all other removals, short of killing J, K would only be removing Js ability to excersize them.

@sycabas @Fuckurviews1130 @Kathy4Truth @Rach4Patriarchy I'm unclear exactly what you're asking. But maybe you mean J doesn't have a right to live? K killing J would necessarily include violating J's basic physical ontology, piercing his body, smothering him, etc. Does that answer your question?

@DanScavino youtu.be/vdxF48KfYNA?si…

@luvkit @Fuckurviews1130 @Kathy4Truth @Rach4Patriarchy I don't fully understand how this idea of intrinsic possession of a right and the excersize of that right are connected.On one hand K could remove J intrinsic right by killing him. But all other removals of rights would only be a removal of the ability to excersize the right.

@luvkit @Fuckurviews1130 @Kathy4Truth @Rach4Patriarchy Hi there, I wanted to pick back up our discussion, If your are still game. I may have misunderstood when you said "Nothing stops him, as this is an ammoral claim."

@KEWLV1C Here we see the cooler gremlin in its natural habitat. He has found himself on the losing end in a contest with more intelligent males. He flees to lick his wounds and coom. It is his last refuge and only solace. -David Attenborough probably

Destiny rage quits when he realizes he’s losing

@luvkit @Fuckurviews1130 @Kathy4Truth @Rach4Patriarchy Hey, I'm about to head out for a hike with the kids. Thank you, for the good faith discussion. I'd love to pick this up later but, I'm going to be away from internet till tomorrow.

1st part: yes, K removes J's ontological-rights. And yes, a corpse cannot possess rights. 2nd, and yes, you are correct. Ontological rights does not require that K store food for J. K can kill J for extra food, but that necessarily means K violated J's rights for extra food. Nothing stops him, as this is an ammoral claim.

@luvkit @Fuckurviews1130 @Kathy4Truth @Rach4Patriarchy 2 questions on this. If K kills J, is he effectively removing his ontological rights? Because once he is dead, you agreed his ontological rights are gone. Next, even if there was food, could K hoard it away and still kill & eat J? There is nothing stopping him, correct?

@sycabas @Fuckurviews1130 @Kathy4Truth @Rach4Patriarchy Correct.

@luvkit @Fuckurviews1130 @Kathy4Truth @Rach4Patriarchy Agreed, no ought claim, just a descriptic "can" claim. It sounds like you don't dispute K CAN eat J. This is my confusion. You separate the ontological right from the ability to excersize it. No one can remove the right, they can only remove the excersize of the right, correct?

So, lemme make this clear: J is food for K? Because, for K there is no food, besides J. J has no food, because K is his only option, and K beats J. If so, ought K eat J? "Natural rights" make no ought claim. K can and likely will eat J. But K violated J's natural-rights, regardless. It doesn't explain a moral ought, it describes a physical reality.