So, in conclusion, claiming any part of a man is considered violence if the claim can be backed by force. Claiming a part through reason is absolutely voluntary and not violent.
Feel free to address any holes.
Thank you for being patient. I appreciate your time discussing this with me. I apologize for my anger and disrespect.
Feel free to address any holes.
Thank you for being patient. I appreciate your time discussing this with me. I apologize for my anger and disrespect.
So you're saying if a simple man creates an object from gold, and then a witty man comes along and convinces him that he should give it up, that is justified?
People are generally not rational, look at the state of the world today and the sheeple that inhabit it. Global governance has convinced most that the systems we currently have in place are the best and they go along with it voluntarily but it does not make it Right.
Sorry for picking, I'm just interested.
Most organisms are hardly sentient. What is not moral is to claim the ignorant are entitled to the service of the competent. That is simply not a compromise.
We either let the will of the competent serve the ignorant (which they naturally will out of human empathy) in addition to letting the ignorant stumble upon knowledge as man has always done.
I see what you're saying, but how can you justify your argument on just letting things happen naturally? We've had natural societies for thousands of years, by that I mean questions of morals and so on haven't applied to the common man, and whilst there has been a great deal of empathy shown by the competent, the reverse is also true.
If your moral presuppositions are good and virtuous, as I suspect they are, it works and I'm happy to help develop this online presence you wish to get going.
