Jump to content

BrickHorn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    5854
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by BrickHorn

  1. If he weren’t running for President, I might actually root for Trump. He’s conning a bunch of stupid greedy assholes who deserve to be fleeced.
  2. The amazing thing is that each of those endless permutations is the one and only True Religion.
  3. Is that the one where Tim Conway walks around on his knees pretending to command an artillery unit?
  4. That guy should have responded: ”Our apologies, Aubrey. We mistakenly believed you were an undocumented immigrant. As a US citizen, you are only allowed one vote. To avoid an arrest for voter fraud, please mail any extra ballots you have to the Soros field office in Eagle Pass, Texas.”
  5. “This reasonable gun regulation would deny Americans the time-honored ignorance defense,” notes moron.
  6. Texas has done this in the most counterproductive (and most Texas) way possible. Delta 8 THC and Delta 9 THC are widely available and completely unregulated here. There is a proportional weight limit, but I don’t think there’s an absolute amount limit per serving. And you can buy that shit anywhere, including shady independent businesses whose employees are more likely to sell to minors compared to the regulated dispensaries that operate in legal states. So weed is nominally illegal here. But it’s functionally far more available, especially to children. Which is completely fucked up.
  7. BrickHorn

    High

    What is the psychoactive ingredient in those? The manufacturer claims they do not include any THC, psilocybin, or even CBD.
  8. A utilitarian approach is more likely to convince the CCP than is “the creator said so” or “Mother Nature decrees.”
  9. “I have a natural right to life,” insists person doomed to die in accordance with natural law.
  10. I bet all those Chinese kids who got steamrolled to death in Tiananmen Square are relieved to hear they have the right of free speech.
  11. Right. I will never dispute that the state should be structure such that free speech is a protected right. But this hocus-pocus about deriving it from natural law or a divine creator is a distraction. And deferring to the whims of a make-believe deity or subjective notions about what nature decrees is dangerous, because those concepts are untethered to reality. It’s much safer to advocate for rights on the basis of the good outcomes they generate and the bad outcomes they avoid in the real world.
  12. Yeah, I should have been asking more questions all along rather than explaining why the idea of natural rights is absurd. The answers from proponents of natural rights make the absurdity of their concept clearer than I ever could. It’s a natural right because we (read: I) say it is! What do a billion Chinese know? Or Russians? Or anyone who lived before 1783? The right to free speech was enshrined in the fabric of the universe at the very moment of creation. You won’t find it everywhere, or even in the vast majority of times and places. But the right to free speech is absolutely fundamental and universal and cannot possibly be denied any living human.* * Except in 99.99999999999999999% of circumstances.
  13. “Can be done” is doing a lot of work. Who decides what you can or can’t do? Who clears the way when there is disagreement? Consider the example of free speech. In China, the government does not protect such a right. If you were to attempt to exercise that right without seeking approval to do so, you might find yourself censored, arrested, or even executed. Do you have a right to free speech in China? Why or why not?
  14. It’s not circular. The authority that enforces a right need not be legal (although I listed many examples related to legal authority for the sake of illustration). It can be cultural or supernatural or natural, to give a few examples. The point is that the word “right” has meaning. It conveys an entitlement. It’s something more than just an aspiration about how things should be or a judgment about what is or is not moral. And the term “natural right” implies that a particular right somehow derives its authority from nature (which the Enlightenment thinkers who advocated this concept attributed ultimately to a supernatural source). My question is: in what sense does nature enforce any natural rights? If anything, nature seems hellbent on violating them. We all die, for example. As it pertains to life, the only inviolable law of nature is that it will inevitably be taken away from you. So how is the right to life in any sense protected by nature? From the time we’re born, nature is out to kill us. But maybe I’m assuming too much. Maybe those who claim natural rights exist merely mean something like: there are certain moral principles that seem obviously correct. Okay. If that’s your view, fine. But you’re talking about something else entirely and the word “right” is just misleading propaganda. That something is morally correct is insufficient to give anyone an entitlement to the morally correct outcome. Which makes labeling these concepts as “rights” misleading or at the very least confusing.
  15. The announcers are openly calling out VAR for stealing the game. This season has been outrageous for just corrupt officiating. Unreal.
  16. The record speaks for itself, no matter how badly you wish to put words in its mouth after the fact. Regardless, I’ll make it crystal clear: my point is not limited to nation states. Any societal authority that has ever existed, down to mutual agreement and respect for custom, will suffice. Now please tell us how it’s important to note that 99.9% of modern political entities are nation states, for some weird reason.
  17. Good lord what a pile of nonsense. You stated that my point only existed in the present, given a relatively recent political development. That is a fucking temporal distinction, and it’s entirely irrelevant as I noted. Have fun continuing to confuse yourself. I appreciate your posts on other threads, so I’m going to politely withdraw from this weird Who’s on First? routine I seem to be in with you here.
  18. Why not? Who says so? What law of nature draws that line? And the serial etceteras are doing some work there…
  19. It’s an irrelevant point anyway. Every society has some authority, even if it’s merely mutual agreement between equal members.
  20. Can you please pay attention to what you post? What you wrote was: Emphasis mine. Your point was that my argument only applies since nation states emerged. And when I rebutted that, you got confused about what your original point was. But it’s there in black and white for everyone to see, so I don’t see the sense in debating it further.
×
×
  • Create New...