Open Letter to Woke Students

[henry quirk]

Immanuel, and Henry, though they have incommensurable belief-systems, derive their notion of human rights from the assertion that God did and said thus-and-such, etc.

Speakin' for myself: no. I surmise the Creator's existence, in part, becuz of the reality of natural rights.

And since that God so defined is the author of all things, and the owner of Reality Existence and Destiny, there can be no conceivable opposition to the Will of God — except through diabolical rebellion.

Speakin' for myself: no. Being a free will, in part, means you can be a son of bitch. It also means you're wholly responsible for being a son of bitch. It does not mean God is waitin' to rap you on the knuckles in the afterlife. It does mean the one you wronged, in the here and now, might come after your ass (cuz your wrong-doing is your wrong-doing).

Also: I am not owned, by God or anyone. I am mine. He is not my keeper: that's my job.

[Harbal]

Speakin' for myself: no. I surmise the Creator's existence, in part, becuz of the reality of natural rights.

How many real natural rights do we have, and how can we find out what they are?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel, and Henry, though they have incommensurable belief-systems, derive their notion of human rights from the assertion that God did and said thus-and-such, etc.

Speakin' for myself: no. I surmise the Creator's existence, in part, becuz of the reality of natural rights.

And since that God so defined is the author of all things, and the owner of Reality Existence and Destiny, there can be no conceivable opposition to the Will of God — except through diabolical rebellion.

Speakin' for myself: no. Being a free will, in part, means you can be a son of bitch. It also means you're wholly responsible for being a son of bitch. It does not mean God is waitin' to rap you on the knuckles in the afterlife. It does mean the one you wronged, in the here and now, might come after your ass (cuz your wrong-doing is your wrong-doing).

Also: I am not owned, by God or anyone. I am mine. He is not my keeper: that's my job.

I am aware that you view your outlook as “self-evident” and also that you have written many posts that you present as sufficiently evidentiary that your views are ‘true’.

So I opt not to counter or oppose your views. To do so seems to rile you.

To me your views seem idiosyncratic. That is, personal. Decided on through your own choices. And really for you alone. That’s how I look at your general philosophical position in respect to man’s rights.

[henry quirk]

Speakin' for myself: no. I surmise the Creator's existence, in part, becuz of the reality of natural rights.

How many real natural rights do we have, and how can we find out what they are?

We've done this already.

As I say (over and over): a man, any man, every man, has an exclusive moral claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

That's it. That's all. Full stop.

You belong to you. No one can justly, legitimately, lay claim to you or use you as they see fit.

Your moral claim (more accurately: you, as moral claimant) can be violated but never negated or amended or revised.

How do you know? What is your gut response to being murdered, raped, stolen from, or being held without your consent? What do you imagine every one else's gut response to these violations might be?

As I say, we've done this already. I won't spend a whole whack of time repeatin' myself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Speakin' for myself

That is why I said that your views are incommensurable with Immanuel’s. The clarification is valid.

[henry quirk]

I am aware that you view your outlook as “self-evident” and also that you have written many posts that you present as sufficiently evidentiary that your views are ‘true’.

Anytime you wanna tussle over what you believe are flaws in my position or the evidence that undergirds it: we can have a go.

So I opt not to counter or oppose your views. To do so seems to rile you.

So, having conviction, being willing and able to defend that conviction, that's being riled?

To me your views seem idiosyncratic.

As natural rights are everyone's: this is a silly assertion.

[Harbal]

Speakin' for myself: no. I surmise the Creator's existence, in part, becuz of the reality of natural rights.

How many real natural rights do we have, and how can we find out what they are?

We've done this already.

I know, but it's one of those things that one never tyres of.

As I say (over and over): a man, any man, every man, has an exclusive moral claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

But where can I go to get this in writing, so that I can produce it when someone tries to deprive me of my life, liberty and property? They may well be unaware of my natural rights.

How do you know? What is your gut response to being murdered, raped, stolen from, or being held without your consent? What do you imagine every one else's gut response to these violations might be?

So if I have the appropriate gut response to getting wet, do I have a natural right not to get rained on?

As I say, we've done this already.

And I'm already looking forward to next time.

[henry quirk]

I'm already looking forward to next time.

Don't hold your breath.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Anytime you wanna tussle over what you believe are flaws in my position or the evidence that undergirds it: we can have a go.

That would be entirely fruitless.

Your belief is explained here, clearly and succinctly. Nothing more need be added:

How do you know? What is your gut response to being murdered, raped, stolen from, or being held without your consent? What do you imagine every one else's gut response to these violations might be?

For you, no countering position is possible. You present what you are certain is a “self-evident” truth.

No “conversation” or “debate” is possible.

That's it. That's all. Full stop.

[Harbal]

I'm already looking forward to next time.

Don't hold your breath.

[henry quirk]

As you like, AJ.

[Alexis Jacobi]

As you like, AJ.

No, it is as you establish it.

I do not agree that your reasoning, in relation to this issue, is sufficiently sound.

But I do agree that most men do not desire (give assent to) being killed, raped, robbed or imprisoned.

[henry quirk]

I do not agree that your reasoning, in relation to this issue, is sufficiently sound.

You won't debate so: moot.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If this reflects or expresses the “truth” …

What is your gut response to being murdered, raped, stolen from, or being held without your consent? What do you imagine every one else's gut response to these violations might be?

… that you feel is certain and absolute, and you state it as absolute and certain, there is no counter-argument possible. Hence debate (tussling) would be, for you and for me, fruitless. Nothing to be gained.

I accept that you hold this view. What more do you desire? What more given?

[henry quirk]

Uh, you won't debate: I got it.

Let it go, AJ: I have.