Category: philosophy

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.

bookmark_borderRespecting people’s fundamental rights is not “weak”

Posted on by Marissa
 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

“A gunman from a state with weak gun laws”

As a commenter on the post wrote, “‘Weak gun laws’ you mean states that don’t infringe on the 2nd amendment.”

Yup. States that actually – gasp! – respect people’s fundamental rights. Can’t have that, apparently.

News flash, Governor Hochul: Respecting people’s fundamental rights is not “weak.”

It’s a basic moral obligation.

It’s basic human decency.

There’s nothing “strong” about punishing innocent people for the actions of others.

There’s nothing “strong” about violating people’s fundamental rights.

How about, when a person does something bad, we actually blame the person, rather than blaming the government for not violating the rights of all people in an attempt to prevent a person from doing something bad?

Just a thought.

bookmark_border“Hate has no home here”

Posted on by Marissa
 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Glory Glory (@oldgloryglory)

Bingo!

I would also add, hate for people who have trouble making friends, people who are bullied, people who don’t fit in, people who think for themselves, people who hold minority views, people who resist authority, people who decline medical interventions, and people who are different from the norm in any way.

bookmark_border“To ban guns because the criminals use them…”

Posted on by Marissa

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D. (@maryjruwart)

No one’s rights or liberties should ever, ever depend on the conduct of other people.

No one should ever have their rights or liberties taken away because of the actions of others.

To do so is to punish one person for the actions of another. And punishing people for the actions of others is never, ever okay.

bookmark_border“No kings in America…”

Posted on by Marissa

No kings in America…

But yes to mandatory medical procedures.

Yes to society collectively making decisions about which risks people should be allowed to take, rather than people making decisions about risk for themselves.

No kings in America…

But yes to viciously tearing down statues of those who fought for the losing side of a war.

Yes to obliterating all representation of people who are different from the norm, in our public spaces, in our society, in art and culture.

No kings in America…

But yes to the criminalization of political dissent.

Yes to demanding unquestioning, unthinking submission.

Yes to mindless compliance with social norms.

Yes to morally condemning the entire concept of rebellion, of revolution, of resistance to authority.

Yes to using the terms “insurrectionist” and “traitor” as pejoratives, as if the concept of resisting authority is so self-evidently shameful and bad that it ought to be used as an insult.

No kings in America…

But yes to tyranny, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism.

That is the message of the “No Kings Day” protests.