Saturday, October 4, 2025

For Your Amusement

 https://youtu.be/xBHPlMYKH88?si=_nBqV8WnkXUly5UR

Her "arguments" remind me of Dan's "arguments".    A society organized like her utopian fantasy would be horrific.   The point that the only guarantor of both rights and law is force seems completely beyond her ability to comprehend.   Much like Dan's incomprehension that the luxury of him clinging to his strict pacifism is guaranteed by those in society willing to use force to protect him.  

 https://x.com/cl4ws_out/status/1973917243839779268?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 I'm sorry, I don't care who you are, this is funny.  

 https://x.com/langmanvince/status/1974433158574797083?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

The exposure of the huge pile of bullshit about her having a "panic attack" and somehow being able to pull off the road and set up her camera to film herself.  Is pretty hilarious.  

 

2 comments:

Marshal Art said...

---Yes indeed. Very Dan-like. And it's not a good look on her any more than it is on Dan.

As to shooting one who steals one's property, I would agree with the dude that it's a just response, even if I personally would hope for another option which would mean no loss of my stuff. We work to have things we both need AND want. That means we give a part of our lives to acquire both. To take without my consent that which I've given part of my life to acquire is to effectively take that part of my life I sacrificed for the purpose. I think the founding fathers had that very attitude as they were so heavily concerned about private property rights. And more importantly, "Thou shalt not steal" suggests it as well.

There's this naive position, however well intended, that the lives of the thief is of more value than property of ours they seek to steal. Superficially, that sounds as if it's an appropriate position to hold, and definitely sounds "Christian". But I think it's total disregard for the self-determination of the property owner and the thief is the one who must truly weigh whether my property is more valuable than his own life.

---Yes it is! No doubt some would see it as disregard for all the horrible suffering of illegal aliens discovered and repatriated to their home soil. But those people would be stupid.

---Oh yeah! This is even more hilarious than ICE, ICE BABY!

Craig said...

Yeah, incredibly Dan like.

I agree with the principle that my property is worth defending at any cost to those who would cause me, my family, or my property harm. Yet, in practice, I can't see myself shooting someone over theft of property. I agree that both the founders as well as scripture support the concept of private property.

I agree that the comparison is bullshit, yet I agree with the principle that life is more valuable than property. The problem is that when someone breaks into an occupied home in the middle of the night, those who's home it is have no idea what their motive is. The problem is that people don't understand that concept of assuming risk. If you break into someone's house, you automatically assume the risk of being justifiably injured or killed by the person who's property you've violated. Likewise, if you attack someone, you assume the risk that they're better/stronger/faster than you or are well armed. I don't think that the "mental toll" that a break in takes on the victim is taken into account in these facile comparisons.