@felipeerias@jordanbpeterson Indeed! (And I’m not excluding the possibility they would have been right - just that it requires a leap of faith to believe so.)
Not exactly @holland_tom: the doctrine of rights will soon be shown to be an inexorable consequence of the semantic network of meaning: that its, encoded implicitly into the relationship not only between words and verbal concepts, but stories and also patterns of behavior.
Built into the structure of human being, and perhaps even Being itself.
In other words "rights" are the semantic representation of the archetypal reality that characterizes sustainable upward oriented reciprocally altruistic human interactions.
Not arbitrary at all. Quite the contrary.
@PaulVanderKlay you should take a look at the crown season 6 episode 6 with 13 min left in the episode. It sounds like the Queen is speaking as if she was from TLC.
She is referring to the transcendent préposé of the crown.
By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.
I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.
If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.
Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.
Part of the deceit of some forms of feminism is that women believed heightened masculine types of status would give them all that it gives to men. It does not. OK, I'm now looking to hide in an undisclosed location...
https://t.co/ayPMQnpYfL
@andrewklavan I have loved your most recent episodes covering religion.
@PaulVanderKlay you have covered some @andrewklavan videos recently and I would love to hear your thoughts on this vid and how similar these ideas are to things @vervaeke_john says.