Category: philosophy

bookmark_border“Don’t give up? That’s what you did at Appomattox.”

Posted on by Marissa

Um, yes.

The Confederates gave up at Appomattox.

So?

The Confederates gave up at Appomattox after four years of being outnumbered, outgunned, and out-supplied. After four years of fighting an enemy that had a larger population, more money, and a more industrialized economy than they did.

Yes, the Confederates gave up at Appomattox.

What is the moral significance of that fact?

What does that have to do with whether the Confederacy was good or bad?

How, exactly, does that reflect badly on the Confederates, as this commenter seems to be implying it does?

The correct answers to these three questions:

There is none.

Nothing.

It doesn’t.

bookmark_border“Twenty-five million Americans…”

Posted on by Marissa
 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

Um, yes. And that is bad, how?

If force or violence is justified to advance an important political objective, that means that killing a person is OK if doing so is necessary to advance the political objective. I don’t get why it’s considered bad or surprising that someone who believes that violence is necessary would actually be willing to use it. And as the Firearms Policy Coalition points out, there absolutely are situations in which violence is justified to advance political objectives, with the Revolutionary War being just one example.

FPC’s caption in the post is so important that I am reproducing it below:

“We believe that natural rights are not granted by governments, a byproduct of majority consensus or majoritarian process, or mere privileges conferred by any government, group, or creation of man.”

(emphasis added)

bookmark_border“Proud of what?”

Posted on by Marissa

Proud of thinking for myself, rather than mindlessly following norms.

Proud of standing up for what is right, rather than what is popular.

Proud of recognizing that these are not the same thing.

Proud of resisting authority.

Proud of having demonstrated tremendous courage in the face of overwhelming odds.

Proud of having moral beliefs that are objectively correct.

That’s what I’m proud of, to give just a few examples.

The real question is, what do you have to be proud of?

Because the last time I checked, being a mindless bully and bigot didn’t really meet the criteria.

bookmark_border“Midland Legacy did last longer than the confederacy…”

Posted on by Marissa

So? And this is relevant, how?

Also, take this similar comment: “The Crunchwrap supreme lasted longer than the confederacy so we should name it after that”

And what exactly is the connection between how long something lasted, and how deserving it is of having a school named after it?

How exactly are these things related?

What exactly is the relationship between how long something lasted, and its goodness or badness?

If a child dies, say of cancer, or an accident, does that mean that the child wasn’t important, and doesn’t deserve to be memorialized, merely because their life didn’t last very long?

Or, if someone is raped, or has their limbs blown off in a terrorist attack, does that mean that these experiences weren’t important, and didn’t actually harm the person significantly, merely because they didn’t last very long?

I’m confused about the connection between how long something lasted, and it’s goodness or badness.

I’m confused about why people think that there is one.

Because logically, it doesn’t seem like there should be.

bookmark_border“honoring white Supremacist Traitors is now diversity, ROFLMAO”

Posted on by Marissa

Yes, actual diversity is now diversity.

How hilarious!

Diversity that only includes people whom everyone likes, diversity that only encompasses non-controversial attributes, diversity that only includes people who conform to norms… is not diversity in any meaningful sense. It is not diversity at all. 

God forbid that anyone who is different from you be allowed to exist in the world, Donald Nichols. Can’t have that. 

P.S. You might want to learn proper punctuation. It would make you look like slightly less of an idiot.

bookmark_border“Traitors”

Posted on by Marissa

In other words… people who are different.

People who don’t fit in.

People who think for themselves rather than mindlessly following norms.

People who rebel, who resist, who stand up to authority.

Yes, we are all of these things.

We don’t value conformity, and we don’t value compliance.

We value what is right, and we recognize that this is not the same as what is popular.

Why do you use this word as if it’s a bad thing?

By using this word as an insult, you reveal yourself to be a bully and a bigot with no mind, no soul, and no capacity for independent thought.

And that is actually a bad thing.

bookmark_border“The ‘woke lemmings’ won the Civil War”

Posted on by Marissa

… and that’s relevant, how?

How exactly does which side won and which side lost, have to do with which side was good and which side was bad? How exactly does winning and losing have to do with which side was right and which side was wrong?

It doesn’t.

Winning and losing have nothing to do with good and bad.

Winning and losing have nothing to do with right and wrong.

Winning and losing are determined by things like strength, power, strategy, and numbers. They have nothing to do with the moral goodness or badness of the people involved, or of the causes for which they fought.

Yes, the Union side won the Civil War.

The Union side used their larger population, their more industrialized economy, and their greater wealth to harm, hurt, and oppress the Confederates, and to violate their rights.

How, exactly, does this reflect badly on the Confederates?

When people harm, hurt, and oppress others and violate their rights, that reflects badly on the people doing the harming, hurting, oppressing, and violating. It does not reflect badly on the victims.

This is such a basic and obvious moral truth that it’s hard to believe it even needs to be stated. But if the comment sections of social media posts are any indication, it most definitely does, time and time again.

Yes, the woke lemmings won the Civil War.

So?

That doesn’t make them not woke lemmings. That doesn’t give them, or you, the moral high ground. And pointing that out, as if it somehow has moral significance, just makes you a mindless bully.

bookmark_border“They plan to cut over 500 ATF inspectors…”

Posted on by Marissa

… and this is bad, how?

A few hundred ATF inspectors sounds like a lot. I also find it hard to believe that the ATF is underfunded, considering that it arguably shouldn’t exist at all, and therefore any funding is a higher amount than what there should be. Additionally, I don’t really get why it’s a bad thing that the ATF cuts will “make us all less safe.” I am tired of our society’s obsession with safety at all costs. What truly matters is not safety, but individual rights. Cutting 500 ATF inspectors sounds like a good thing to me.

bookmark_borderThe immorality of Chris Murphy

Posted on by Marissa

I agree 100% with the following post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

To implement a $4,709 tax on gun products is mean-spirited and despicable. By proposing doing so, Murphy demonstrates his aggressive bigotry and his contempt for people who are different from him. 

Sickeningly, the organization Brady United Against Gun Violence thanked Murphy “for introducing this critical amendment to strike the provision in the big UGLY bill that removed taxes on deadly silencers & other uniquely lethal weapons, and instead adjust taxes to reflect inflation today.”

First of all, Murphy’s amendment is not “critical” – it’s actually critical not to pass an amendment like Murphy’s because it violates people’s rights. Second, the bill in question is not “UGLY” as Brady nastily claims. It is called the Big, Beautiful Bill, and for the most part it lives up to that name. Third, taxes on silencers and other gun products should not be adjusted to reflect inflation. They should be eliminated, exactly as the provision in the Big, Beautiful Bill does, because people are not doing anything wrong by buying these products, and therefore should not be punished with an exorbitant tax for doing so.

Both Chris Murphy as an individual, and Brady as an organization, are dedicated to hurting people who are different from them, punishing people who have done nothing wrong, and violating people’s fundamental rights, They act as if hurting and punishing innocent people somehow gives them the moral high ground, when in reality that is the exact opposite of the truth. Seeing them sycophantically praise each other for their hurtful and mean-spirited actions is disgusting. It’s about time that these actions and words be called what they are: immoral.