It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Dark Ghost
How does the concept of the "natural man" relate to rights though? We probably both agree on everything except the definition of what a right is. I thought I cleared this up in my definition of "right" earlier, but obviously there is still confusion.
If nature has not given man dominion over other animals, why are you stating you have a right to kill and then eat animals according to nature itself? Can humans survive without eating other animals? Yes, they can. (I am NOT a vegetarian or a vegan btw, I am playing devil's advocate) In this example of yours, are there other options to explore for food that don't involve killing and eating another sentient creature? If an advanced alien race landed on earth tomorrow and started hunting humans, would you feel they are morally justified (even if you do complain and resist their attempts) in doing so?
Hmm, do you really believe the state of nature on planet Earth is perfect? In what sense, a reasonable, moral or fair sense? You should be very careful about the argument at the end this last paragraph of your reply. You are advocating that if I am a homeless person with no food or money, I am within my right to break into a home, kill the family pet and then eat it (assuming the homeless guy likes that type of meat) because if I didn't, my survival would be threatened.
So then why do we humans even consider morality as a worthy topic of discussion, and worth taking seriously before we do things? Is it possible that humans are not strictly a part of nature in the way you are presenting them to be? If so, why include human and animal in an example about rights?
Jones’ case is emblematic of our current age of “alternative facts,” echoing the surge of fake news that occurred around the time of the 2016 election. One of the most prominent disseminators of said fake news was a man named Paul Horner, whose past experiences include tricking the internet into thinking he was the famed anonymous street artist Banksy.
“There’s nothing you can’t write about now that people won’t believe,” Horner, who considered himself a satirical writer in the vein of The Onion, told The Washington Post. “I can write the craziest thing about Trump, and people will believe it. I wrote a lot of crazy anti-Muslim stuff — like about Trump wanting to put badges on Muslims, or not allowing them in the airport, or making them stand in their own line — and people went along with it!”
It's fantastical how you lot are trying to spin away the Alex Jones catastrophe. He is a "performance artist." And many readers here are his audience.
The responsibility of the public is not to shut him down, but to question his work in light of these new admissions.
]The label “artwork” does not make Jones’ statements any less dangerous or vitriolic. And as Linzy noted, the next question we should probably ask is: What does this teach us about Jones’ audience — including our president?
It is never the duty of the writer or publisher to weigh in advance the future possibility of violent reprisal for writing or speaking—it is always, and always will be, the duty of the offended to get over their feelings before they start beating people to death.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
And where did I say there should not be consequences?
I've said many times there are no consequences.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
In no alternate reality is a spoken word a justification for violence, unless you hold your own feelings above the sanctity of life.
Hitler would be proud. Just saying.