Christianity

[FlashDangerpants]

You do this because you are aware that the surrounding culture has given you a sort of *right* to come down with both feet and with a full intensity of moral opposition on anyone who does not accept the Party Line.

What I do know is that...
1. You will not explain the manner in which you don't accept that "party line"
2. You do believe in a Jewish Conspiracy to Rule the World.
3. You do not accept that holocaust denial is a conjspiracy theory on the same terms as flat earth and fake moon lnadings.
4. But you dare not say why because we both know your account would get an insta ban.

[Harbal]

I have to confess that I haven't read everything he has written.

Why does this bloody not surprise me!

Because it isn't surprising?

[FlashDangerpants]

I too suspect AQ is on a recruiting mission for some unpleasant political movement. I wish someone more politically aware than I would spell it out. I meant that that the effort to understand AJ exercises my brain. I believe there may be more than sound and fury in his posts, though what they signify escapes me. AJ's prose can not be helping him to recruit sympathisers.

For what it's worth I just accused him of believing the holocaust wast justified as an act of self defence against jews and he avoided denying that point.

Also appropos of nothing, when he directed me to a video of some guy casually explaining why there is a jewish plot to take over the world, the comments section was full of references to something called the Thule Society, so that's quite likely who he is recruiting for.

This is their logo...

[henry quirk]

I have a right to associate with who I choose based in whatever criteria I find moral & sensible.

You often pull out the word 'right', henry, and I have never been clear about what, exactly, you mean by it. I would define a right as a permission or privilege that has been granted to you by an authority with the power to protect and guarantee your freedom to exercise it. Would you be kind enough to give your definition of the word?

You have not read what he writes then. He defines the right he speaks of as part-and-parcel of natural being and existence. It is not a right granted by anyone or anything but one intrinsic to being itself. It is intuitively obvious and you could prove it yourself: you do not require an authority, a State, a god, or the Baal Shem Tov, to grant you the right to the sovereignty that you know is yours when, for example, someone tries to grab you, take something from you, inflict harm on your body. You know you have a right to your very self. And no one else does unless you grant it.

This is what I have gathered from what Henry has expressed (in numerous long posts).

Yes, exactly right, AJ. Thanks for that.

[henry quirk]

You have not read what he writes then.

I have to confess that I haven't read everything he has written. I have, however, challenged him several times over his use of the term, 'right', and, as far as I remember, he hasn't provided a proper definition for it in any of our exchanges. I do acknowled the possibility that he may have done, but I wasn't paying attention.

He defines the right he speaks of as part-and-parcel of natural being and existence. It is not a right granted by anyone or anything but one intrinsic to being itself. It is intuitively obvious and you could prove it yourself: you do not require an authority, a State, a god, or the Baal Shem Tov, to grant you the right to the sovereignty that you know is yours when, for example, someone tries to grab you, take something from you, inflict harm on your body. You know you have a right to your very self. And no one else does unless you grant it.

This is what I have gathered from what Henry has expressed (in numerous long posts).

Thank you, Alexis. Of course, henry would have to approve what you have said on his behalf before I could accept it as his view.

Accept it. AJ is on target.

If you like, I can post links on natural rights.

[Harbal]

Yes, exactly right, AJ. Thanks for that.

In that case, henry, can I ask what is the value of a right that someone more powerful than you can violate with impunity?

[henry quirk]

He's a Holocaust denier

No, not so.

I followed that conversation (before I put flash in the penalty box). I don't recall any denial on your part.

[FlashDangerpants]

He's a Holocaust denier

No, not so.

I followed that conversation (before I put flash in the penalty box). I don't recall any denial on your part.

erm....

Why not do 3 at once? Why not do those 3?
They are absurd conspiracy theories are they not?

The alien theory you can safely dismiss.

So too the flat-earth theory.

The Shoah narrative has some fictional elements which are still contested. But the general picture (the destruction of European Jewry) is a certainty.

The manipulation of historical narrative is simply put par for the course.

So each theory (your term) would need to be examined one by one. Our view of history has been tweaked and molded. But I assume you know this.

He is quite incapable of explaining that sentence. I've only ever required that he explain what "elements" those might be.
You aren't allowed to even ask him the question without a detailed bilbiography attending the request.

[henry quirk]

Yes, exactly right, AJ. Thanks for that.

In that case, henry, can I ask what is the value of a right that someone more powerful than you can violate with impunity?

First off, where do you get violate with impunity from? I never said that. You come to me, in my home, in the street, with the intent to take my life, liberty, or property: you'll see, lickity-split, how impune you'll be.

Second, what is the value of a permission or privilege that has been granted to you by an authority, when that authority can and will violate, amend, or take away that permission or privilege with impunity?

Overall, what good are natural rights if they can be violated? is akin to what good is fire if it can be extinguished?

Moreover, to ask what good are natural rights? is to place utility before reality. Fire, for example, exists. It is a feature of the world. Its utility extends from its realness. Natural right, as part & parcel of personhood, exists. It is a natural feature of each of us as we are each in the world. As Bastiat put it: it was the fact that life, liberty, and property (and the right to them) existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

[Alexis Jacobi]

4. But you dare not say why because we both know your account would get an insta ban.

First all your summations are off the mark and I don’t accept them.

But here is my question about #4: if you know that is the case, why would you ask any of the questions you do ask? To anyone? You know that answering in any way contrary to the Standard View would result (as you say) in banning. Aren’t you then baiting? Why? What is to be gained?

I am aware that in Europe it is forbidden to express various views on that particular topic, right? This is an English site, right? Thus those restrictions apply, right? The owners of the site could be fined or punished if they did not remove offensive ideas or expressions, right?

So again why do you bring up such a dangerous topic? By your own admission none of it can be openly discussed. What then are you trying to achieve?

Finally, I am American and we can — technically — discuss any topic freely (within national boundaries). So the larger issue, for me, is Why is it and How is it that limits are placed on what one can think, believe and understand about anything and all things, not only either revisionist history or historical denial.

I am aware all all sorts of ideas, views and perspectives because I’ve made it my business to do so. And I am aware that ideological wars are going on over what is licit and what is illicit to perceive, think and express.

And that is the topic that interests me.

[Harbal]

Moreover, to ask what good are natural rights? is to place utility before reality. Fire, for example, exists. It is a feature of the world. Its utility extends from its realness. Natural right, as part & parcel of personhood, exists. It is a natural feature of each of us as we are each in the world. As Bastiat put it: it was the fact that life, liberty, and property (and the right to them) existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

We can both see that fire exists, but you haven't explained in what way a 'natural' right exists. If I were to accept that they did exist, and wanted to take advantage of them, how do I find out how many natural rights I have, and what those rights entitle me to?

[FlashDangerpants]

4. But you dare not say why because we both know your account would get an insta ban.

First all your summations are off the mark and I don’t accept them.

But here is my question about #4: if you know that is the case, why would you ask any of the questions you do ask? To anyone? You know that answering in any way contrary to the Standard View would result (as you say) in banning. Aren’t you then baiting? Why? What is to be gained?

I am aware that in Europe it is forbidden to express various views on that particular topic, right? This is an English site, right? Thus those restrictions apply, right? The owners of the site could be fined or punished if they did not remove offensive ideas or expressions, right?

So again why do you bring up such a dangerous topic? By your own admission none of it can be openly discussed. What then are you trying to achieve?

Finally, I am American and we can — technically — discuss any topic freely (within national boundaries). So the larger issue, for me, is Why is it and How is it that limits are placed on what one can think, believe and understand about anything and all things, not only either revisionist history or historical denial.

I am aware all all sorts of ideas, views and perspectives because I’ve made it my business to do so. And I am aware that ideological wars are going on over what is licit and what is illicit to perceive, think and express.

And that is the topic that interests me.

Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, not in Britain.
You break no laws anywhere by just telling us what elements of the shoah story you dispute.
The mods might not even ban you from their forum for it. Usually the worst they do is lock a thread.

Why are you so afraid?

[henry quirk]

Let's look at utility.

Morally, natural rights (I have an inviolate claim on my, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property) establishes what is permissible between and among men. The utility is obvious. You are in the wrong if you kill me (without just cause), or slave me, or rape me, or steal from me, or swindle me. Like it or not, the idea that my life, liberty, and property are mine (as your life, liberty, and property are yours) is foundational to what is erroneously called democracy or democratic society.

As aside: the whole push to frame things as democracy or democratic is a ploy to degenerate natural rights, to make your claim to your life contingent on what others allow. It's a scam meant to reduce you and me and him and her to cogs in a machine.

Simply: if a man has no right to himself then he is a commodity to be used by the powerful and their agents. And if he has no right to himself then he has no true objections to offer about being used as a commodity.

Finally, I believe I am a person, that I do, as fact, have an inalienable right to my, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. And I believe the same about you, that you are yours. But, even if I'm wrong and have only dreamed, or made up, all those things...Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real one. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom...is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. (I may be only) making up a game...but playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. the last bit is Lewis's, hacked up a bit by me

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why are you so afraid?

First I do not ‘deny’ the Shoah. You make an unethical and an immoral assertion.

To imply fear as a motive for avoiding revealing what you believe are “immoral” views, thoughts, perceptions or ideas, is also part of a game of ideological and psychological coercion. That is what interests me — for sociological and political reasons.

You are chasing a spectre of your own creation, Hot Pants. What I do is avoid playing your game but I do not stop you in revealing its terms so they can be seen.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I’ve only ever required that he explain what "elements" those might be.

So if I provide one and one alone you’ll be satisfied I take it?