Jump to content

What is a Christian nationalist?


Boss Hogg

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

A right is a very specific thing. It must be enforceable and recognized by the relevant authority (whatever form that may take). 

So your entire argument is circular as others have pointed out. You are saying that natural rights don't exist only legal rights because to be a right it has to be a legal right so natural rights don't exist. 

This is the reason you can't convince anyone of anything. You are only saying this is the way it is because it is this way. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Lol wut. Sorry but this is not a winning argument. 

Not trying to win. Trying to distinguish between the origin of the rights we seem to value and the enforcement of those rights. Not shit I as a queer as fuck woman have no interest in visiting St Petersburg square, their enforcement of basic rights are abominable. 
 

but conversely the reason I may pick up and leave my birthright of Texas and move to another state is because I believe in my bones that I have the inherent right to be me. That isn’t man made - that’s inherent in my being. 

Edited by troph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:


That dog is just waiting on some strange woman lying on her back in the water to throw it a sword, but that dog has no right to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at it.

That dog was in his happy place going 25 mph with his nose in the wind.  He ain’t got no time for these trivial matters. Hastag winning hastag best life hashtag insta whatever the fuck. This dog has him sum rahites!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, softlynow said:

If that was your argument, then you weren't making it clearly. The following quotes do not support you currently stated thesis, but rather my interpretation:

 

 

 

In any event. I disagree with that thesis as well. Like most rheotorical devices, the concept of natural rights just made persuasion easier. 

 

Now the next part:

 

 

Which leads us back to a definition of rights. You are, here, working with a different one than the generally accepted one. Your "right" is really just shared compunction. Does that exist? Absolutely. Does calling that a right make any sense? Yes, to the extent that it is persuasive to get societal buy-in to give force to others to cofiy that feeling with a mechanism to level the playing field at the level of the more temperate amongst us.

 

And the last:

 

 

Cool. That doesn't seem to address anything I said. It may be pointed at DixonHur and his cite of Çatalhöyük (yes, I know it was in modern day Turkey, for those who would proceed to argue like my mother).

The conversation meandered a bit in the intervening six hours or so. My first posts did focus on the perils of taking a hacksaw to the framework and were not focused on proving the framework existed or whether it was the right one to build. 

“It’s useful to convince the rubes and get consensus” is interesting, but doesn’t really get us farther down the road of “why do they need to be convinced to comply.”  And we can talk about general definitions of rights but the fact is that the framers and the writers of our legal documents that protect rights treat them as “fundamental and inalienable” and not as though they are created by these documents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate re the origin of basic rights - not the right to modern shit, the basic rights will not end in this thread. Some believe natural, some man made, some believe some theological shit ok whatever. It’s Saturday night and I’d like to feel good so I’m not up for trying to win. For this reason, I’m out  (for now). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

You’ve gotten yourself ensnared in a discussion grounded in Marxist Theory. 
 

It may be cold comfort to know that that each time the cage of bourgeois morality and ethics, the reptiles inside usually eat the theorists first. They’ve reasoned their way into this but the lizard-brained among us just FEEL it. 
 

We can all concede that all of human interaction and society boils down to a biting contest but not many of us want to admit that the crocodiles always win that one. 

IMG_6785.thumb.jpeg.e936f22d801b0e17585490e3a7d66682.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is actually correct. You stumbled upon why you're wrong about natural rights existing. 

No, I'm not.

But let's expand on your observation. Does that mean non-human animals have natural rights?

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The conversation meandered a bit in the intervening six hours or so. My first posts did focus on the perils of taking a hacksaw to the framework and were not focused on proving the framework existed or whether it was the right one to build. 

“It’s useful to convince the rubes and get consensus” is interesting, but doesn’t really get us farther down the road of “why do they need to be convinced to comply.”  And we can talk about general definitions of rights but the fact is that the framers and the writers of our legal documents that protect rights treat them as “fundamental and inalienable” and not as though they are created by these documents. 

Good for them. They knew you should use shared feelings to give weight to your document. Much like the legislatures used in secession documents when citing their citizens’ understanding of the moral imperative to maintain the legality of chattel slavery and codify the superiority of the white race.

Who said we needed to get further down any road, other than the question asked? That question is yes/no, and the “yes” camp keeps spinning its wheels or relying on bare, unsupported assertion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Good for them. They knew you should use shared feelings to give weight to your document. Much like the legislatures used in secession documents when citing their citizens’ understanding of the moral imperative to maintain the legality of chattel slavery and codify the superiority of the white race.

Who said we needed to get further down any road, other than the question asked? That question is yes/no, and the “yes” camp keeps spinning its wheels or relying on bare, unsupported assertion. 

I think you’ll find a lot of bare, unsupported assertions in this thread and the ones you choose to fix on reveals more about the biases you’re bringing than the rigorous justifications you see:

Quote

All rights are man made. Full stop.

I think it’s interesting you fixated on the articles of secession.  Have you read through them? If you add up the appeals to natural rights to keep humans in bondage vs. positivistic appeals to the founding legal documents (excluding the Bill of Rights) of the United States and/or utilitarian appeals to its importance and centrality, which do you think take up more space? Which arguments did the abolitionists refer to more often? 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I think it’s interesting you fixated on the articles of secession.  Have you read through them? If you add up the appeals to natural rights to keep humans in bondage vs. positivistic appeals to the founding legal documents of the United States and/or utilitarian appeals to its importance and centrality, which do you think take up more space? Which arguments did the abolitionists refer to more often? 

I don't care. All of them are man made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, I'm not.

But let's expand on your observation. Does that mean non-human animals have natural rights?

I believe they do and our flippant ignorance and violation of their rights is going to fuck us hard. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, David Dennison said:

Pulp Fiction Burger GIF

Do you eat meat?

Yep. And eat and be eaten is part of the natural world. But pick another topic to find my disrespect for the rights of others - human and non-human - I’m part of the problem I’ll readily admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, troph said:

Yep. And eat and be eaten is part of the natural world. But pick another topic to find my disrespect for the rights of others - human and non-human - I’m part of the problem I’ll readily admit.

At least you're honest.

Just now, DixonHur said:

Yes...and so do many of them 

So what are some of the natural rights enjoyed by animals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

At least you're honest.

So what are some of the natural rights enjoyed by animals?

In the wild?  All of them.

I only eat animals that have been domesticated.

Edited by DixonHur
By the way, that last part was a joke, but speaks to the issue at hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

In the wild?  All of them.

I only eat animals that have been domesticated.

Humor me and list one or two natural rights of wild animals.

Then tell me some enjoyed by domesticated animals.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, David Dennison said:

Humor me and list one or two natural rights of wild animals.

Why don't you tell me the rights they don't have?

Perhaps also you should give us your definition of a right.

To me a right isn't something without consequences, but it seems like that's your stance, but perhaps I'm misinterpreting your definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Why don't you tell me the rights they don't have?

Perhaps also you should give us your definition of a right.

To me a right isn't something without consequences, but it seems like that's your stance, but perhaps I'm misinterpreting your definition.

A right is that to which one is legitimately entitled. Legitimacy and entitlement both being man made ideas, I don't believe animals have any rights independent of man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

A right is that to which one is legitimately entitled. Legitimacy and entitlement both being man made ideas, I don't believe animals have any rights independent of man.

So if man didn't exist would animals have rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that a good number of posters fundamentally disagree with this statement?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

A right is that to which one is legitimately entitled. Legitimacy and entitlement both being man made ideas, I don't believe animals have any rights independent of man.

Science is continually proving our ignorance regarding the sophistication of animal behavior. You need to catch up. as for animals I think they can feel entitlement or at least some sense of expectation or reliance on the natural order. Embedded in that existence is where I believe natural rights are found. 

 

I don’t think rights are sacrosanct and only proven to exist with legitimacy or protection, if that were the case human sense of what their rights are would vary depending on the state of the law but that’s not how it works, humans have a sense of right even when it’s violated with impunity. I think rights are fragile and  are constantly exposed to threats and can be violated in gross and shocking ways, without the smallest of impact on whether the right exists. 
 

 

Edited by troph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, troph said:

Science is continually proving our ignorance regarding the sophistication of animal behavior. You need to catch up. as for animals I think they can feel entitlement or at least some sense of expectation or reliance on the natural order. Embedded in that existence is where I believe natural rights are found. 

I don’t think rights are sacrosanct and only proven to exist with legitimacy or protection, if that were the case human sense of what their rights are would vary depending on the state of the law but that’s not how it works, humans have a sense of right even when it’s violated with impunity. I think rights are fragile and  are constantly exposed to threats and can be violated in gross and shocking ways, without the smallest of impact on whether the right exists. 

Name a few of those rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Seems that a good number of posters fundamentally disagree with this statement?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Well, the person who wrote it fundamentally disagreed with it, so . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Humor me and list one or two natural rights of wild animals.

Then tell me some enjoyed by domesticated animals.

Why engage with you? You think rights exist only if established by law and protected by law. You don’t see a scenario where laws confirm rights and protect them because they inherently exist and the violation of them is something we abhor. 
 

so engaging with you on such topics is like purposefully stubbing my barefoot toes on a steel post.  Except the steel post would have to tell me I’m wrong with incredulity to be apropos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I think you’ll find a lot of bare, unsupported assertions in this thread and the ones you choose to fix on reveals more about the biases you’re bringing than the rigorous justifications you see:

I think it’s interesting you fixated on the articles of secession.  Have you read through them? If you add up the appeals to natural rights to keep humans in bondage vs. positivistic appeals to the founding legal documents (excluding the Bill of Rights) of the United States and/or utilitarian appeals to its importance and centrality, which do you think take up more space? Which arguments did the abolitionists refer to more often? 

Fix on? Fixated?

Mentioned once. But, OK.

You, though, are quite obsessed with your white whale of positivism. As someone who lacks the rigidity of philosophical thought to be such an adherent, and who has made no assertions here holding me in that camp, I suggest that you find someone else on whom to fixate.

 

What concerns me more than this spiritualism of natural rights is the strength of our legal rights. I'm happy that there are multiple ways to convince folks to preserve and strengthen them, whether it is by an appeal to God, an emotional appeal to something innate in carbon based life, an appeal to the utility of the happiness they bring to many, or an appeal to the pocketbook if that is what it takes.

What good is a natural right or natural law if the default setting for humanity is to violate them with impunity? History tells us that violating every natural right anyone has concocted is just about our favorite pastime.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Seems that a good number of posters fundamentally disagree with this statement?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Yep. Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 @softlynow

Quote

What concerns me more than this spiritualism of natural rights is the strength of our legal rights.

This is provocative and intriguing. Because if legal rights are superior to natural rights then no wonder our planet is burning and we are careening toward a great mass extinction. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, troph said:

Why engage with you? You think rights exist only if established by law and protected by law. You don’t see a scenario where laws confirm rights and protect them because they inherently exist and the violation of them is something we abhor. 
 

so engaging with you on such topics is like purposefully stubbing my barefoot toes on a steel post.  Except the steel post would have to tell me I’m wrong with incredulity to be apropos. 

I really don't mean to be cunty. I love these freshman year type bull sessions, but I'm really here so Huckleberry can tell me I'm stupid. That's the good stuff.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not high enough for this thread

I spent some time fighting. Getting shot at. All that. 

Y’all don’t want it. For real. 

Do your religions in your kitchen. Keep your shit to yourselves and be nice 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, troph said:

 @softlynow

This is provocative and intriguing. Because if legal rights are superior to natural rights then no wonder our planet is burning and we are careening toward a great mass extinction. 

I'm glad someone engaged on that point.

I tried to find spirituality. I tried and found myself totally disinterested in those thoughts, techniques, teachings, and so on. But I know myself to be very empathetic and also know my many limitations. Sprirituality does not speak to me. The call to natural order or of its rights does not give me solace or ring true with my experience and knowlegde of the present or past. For any that it does, I only hope that the practice of spiritual thought gives them insight into the needs of others. I believe it does for you. I believe it is the justification of evil thoughts and deed in others.

I do not take issue with your conclusion. We will end ourselves. I'm not sure Hollywood has showed us how yet, but it would probably make for a good epic trilogy for a successor sentient being.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I really don't mean to be cunty. I love these freshman year type bull sessions, but I'm really here so Huckleberry can tell me I'm stupid. That's the good stuff.

That he doesn't do it with advanced statistics anymore is the real sign of decay of our community.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh I’m struggling with my phone … this is supposed to be a response to @David Dennison sorry for the call out I meant to quote.

I walked right past those convos thought them a waste of time. I took one philosophy course and it was really just an argument class, no formal philosophy theories were discussed.

i honestly am arguing on the fly about it. I like to develop my own theories and do so not by playing a game outside jester but instead think through my thinking based on what you all say. So maybe it’s personal to me because I’m choosing to be open minded and malleable at the moment.

my earnest view is that there is something innate about the right to life, to work - that is to say put forth effort for basic sustenance, to procreate and to rely on a natural order - and for humor let’s call those rights. I think those are the basic animal rights. I think human rights extend farther but are still based on a natural order. if you think I’ve oversimplified this well I’m not writing a book. So I’ll ignore the obvious contradictions except to say I see them not as contradictions but exceptions like the cheetah feeding on the gazelle does not mean the right to life was violated, instead the right to life is subject to the natural law of the food chain.

my working theory is that rights are fragile and frequently ignored. But I believe the root of our ills is the violation of and failure to adequately protect these rights for both man and our fellow inhabitants of the earth. 

 

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, troph said:

Eh I’m struggling with my phone … this is supposed to be a response to @David Dennison sorry for the call out I meant to quote.

I walked right past those convos thought them a waste of time. I took one philosophy course and it was really just an argument class, no formal philosophy theories were discussed.

i honestly am arguing on the fly about it. I like to develop my own theories and do so not by playing a game outside jester but instead think through my thinking based on what you all say. So maybe it’s personal to me because I’m choosing to be open minded and malleable at the moment.

my earnest view is that there is something innate about the right to life, to work - that is to say put forth effort for basic sustenance, to procreate and to rely on a natural order - and for humor let’s call those rights. I think those are the basic animal rights. I think human rights extend farther but are still based on a natural order. if you think I’ve oversimplified this well I’m not writing a book. So I’ll ignore the obvious contradictions except to say I see them not as contradictions but exceptions like the cheetah feeding on the gazelle does not mean the right to life was violated, instead the right to life is subject to the natural law of the food chain.

my working theory is that rights are fragile and frequently ignored. But I believe the root of our ills is the violation of and failure to adequately protect these rights for both man and our fellow inhabitants of the earth. 

Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, softlynow said:

I'm glad someone engaged on that point.

I tried to find spirituality. I tried and found myself totally disinterested in those thoughts, techniques, teachings, and so on. But I know myself to be very empathetic and also know my many limitations. Sprirituality does not speak to me. The call to natural order or of its rights does not give me solace or ring true with my experience and knowlegde of the present or past. For any that it does, I only hope that the practice of spiritual thought gives them insight into the needs of others. I believe it does for you. I believe it is the justification of evil thoughts and deed in others.

I do not take issue with your conclusion. We will end ourselves. I'm not sure Hollywood has showed us how yet, but it would probably make for a good epic trilogy for a successor sentient being.

I’m less spiritual than I used to be. Currently I find solace in the laws of biology and nature. It’s probably why I have so much climate change induced anxiety.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was at an event yesterday attended by the representative from Galveston. Not being familiar with her, I looked her up.

1. Not born in Texas and didn't move here until an adult (holy shit does this seem to be a fucking theme)

2. image.png.06c274bfe73f56e235ea044eba6f7108.png

 

So what sort of compassionate, Christian ideal does this representative stand for? Here's where "Terri Stand"

image.png.021e40f9757f35133713d781c5822050.png

 

She won with two-thirds of the vote in her non gerrymandered district. Voted against Paxton impeachment. Also, retired school teacher and vote FOR vouchers.

Penned an op-ed in the Galveston Daily News pushing them to vote yes for chaplains in schools. Included this lovely paragraph:

"The constant drivel regarding the separation of church and state is a hollow one. Serious students of history and the first amendment understand that the founders intended to keep the state out of church affairs, it was never meant the other way around."

 

Edited by FirstTimeCaller
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...