What is a Christian nationalist?

Huckleberry · February 25

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.

Huckleberry · February 25

40 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The only external component or driver possible is evolutionary biology.

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

troph · February 25

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 February 25 by troph

troph · February 25

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!!

956 Worldwide · February 25

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.

troph · February 25

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).

Celery Man · February 25

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.

Satchel · February 25

3 hours ago, Walser said:

What the fuck is going on in here?

Getting ready for the high brow discussions that take place on TigerDroppings.

David Dennison · February 25

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 February 25 by David Dennison

softlynow · February 25

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.

956 Worldwide · February 25

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 February 25 by 956 Worldwide

David Dennison · February 25

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.

troph · February 25

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.

DixonHur · February 25

42 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Does that mean non-human animals have natural rights

Yes

David Dennison · February 25

Just now, troph said:

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

Just now, DixonHur said:

Yes

Do you eat meat?

troph · February 25

Just now, David Dennison said:

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.

DixonHur · February 25

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Do you eat meat?

Yes...and so do many of them

David Dennison · February 25

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?

DixonHur · February 25

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 February 25 by DixonHur
By the way, that last part was a joke, but speaks to the issue at hand

David Dennison · February 25

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 February 25 by David Dennison

StassneyHorn · February 25

DixonHur · February 25

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.

David Dennison · February 25

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.

DixonHur · February 25

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?

David Dennison · February 25

Just now, DixonHur said:

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

No.

DixonHur · February 25

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No.

Fair enough. I think the issue is that we have different definitions of a right.

David Dennison · February 25

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Fair enough. I think the issue is that we have different definitions of a right.

Probably.

"Let us celebrate our new arrangement with the adding of chocolate to milk."

Anastasis · February 25

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.

troph · February 25

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 February 25 by troph

David Dennison · February 25

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.

David Dennison · February 25

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 . . .

troph · February 25

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.

softlynow · February 25

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.

softlynow · February 25

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.

troph · February 25

@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.

David Dennison · February 25

1 minute 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.

World keeps turning.

For now.

David Dennison · February 25

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.

safe sex · February 25

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I really don't mean to be cunty.

And yet.

NAVY · February 25

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

David Dennison · February 25

1 minute ago, safe sex said:

And yet.

Right?

softlynow · February 25

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.

softlynow · February 25

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.

ChiTownDoc · February 25

This thread is an abortion. I hope the supremes outlaw it. Christ.

troph · February 25

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 February 25 by troph

David Dennison · February 25

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.

troph · February 25

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.

February 25

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.

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

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 February 25 by FirstTimeCaller

troph · February 25

Biff Tannen · February 25

There has been put forth the idea of wilderness and rivers having natural rights recently. Noodle on that for a bit.

atomheartbevo · February 25

1 hour ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

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

This is a trend with these assholes, and they’ll tell you what it means to be a Texan.

Sign In

What is a Christian nationalist?

Recommended Posts

Huckleberry 32851

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hugo Stiglitz

Huckleberry

Shaddie

Posted Images

Huckleberry 32851

Link to comment

Share on other sites

troph 24783

Link to comment

Share on other sites

troph 24783

Link to comment

Share on other sites

956 Worldwide 34705

Link to comment

Share on other sites

troph 24783

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Celery Man 20934

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Satchel 6938

Link to comment

Share on other sites

David Dennison 18854

Link to comment

Share on other sites

softlynow 1814

Link to comment

Share on other sites

956 Worldwide 34705

Link to comment

Share on other sites

David Dennison 18854

Link to comment

Share on other sites

troph 24783

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DixonHur 11296

Link to comment

Share on other sites

David Dennison 18854

Link to comment

Share on other sites

troph 24783

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DixonHur 11296

Link to comment

Share on other sites

David Dennison 18854

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DixonHur 11296

Link to comment

Share on other sites

David Dennison 18854

Link to comment

Share on other sites

StassneyHorn 6575

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DixonHur 11296

Link to comment

Share on other sites

David Dennison 18854

Link to comment