Dawkins' religious error
And I'll go further than that, since I was severely limited by Twitter's character count. Here's the link to the tweet, in case you're interested.
Taking away someone's "Comfort Blanky" is also something you have no right to do. For the same reason you have no right to take someone's gun, house, car, money, or any other property. You have no right to violate the property rights of others. Period. It's a right that can't exist. Not seeing this is a blind spot caused by religious belief.
I'm sorry if you are offended that I said "thoughts and prayers" are useless. I know that's not quite true-- at the minimum they make people feel better when there's nothing real they can do about a bad situation. And, they can let a hurting person know (if they are informed about them) that someone cares and wishes they could help. I'm unconvinced about any usefulness beyond that, but would love to be proved wrong But I needed some common ground with Dawkins here.
I know Dawkins is famous for his atheism, but you and I know he isn't an atheist because he still believes in The State due to his superstitious belief in "authority" (new link, hope it works now). You can't be an atheist, by definition, if you believe in any gods whatsoever and believe in any religion. Statism is not only a religion, it's the most popular religion on the planet by a wide margin.
I already see people agreeing with Dawkins because they don't understand rights in the slightest, and one guy even believes someone once took away my "right" to own slaves- a right that can't exist any more than a right to steal can exist. People are dumb. I am an abolitionist. I know slavery is always wrong, no matter how you dress it up. It is a violation of life, liberty, and property. Anti-liberty bigots (and theft advocates) are the ethical equivalent to slavers. No, that's not quite right. Statists ARE slavers.
.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
He's given an excellent example of the patronising, paternalistic mindset that informs all statist 'thought'.
You're so lucky to have me; I know what's best for you.
Disgusting.
Dawkins: Mocking your sky daddy while praying to his daddy government. As usual.
I am always admire of your articles carry on.
your content is great.
i like your writing.
carry on.
bro i am not at all offended with the fact of prayer..
really a great and impactful writing skills you have @dullhawk
Who is the right man who runs the affairs of the state and can not be separated from the affairs of the state because those who summarize all aspects of life is the constitution of this nation I am talking about who is the true Islamic.
They say that by 2024, America is going to run out of Thoughts And Prayers.
Currently its best to btfd, but soon a short squeeze is inevitable and don't be on the wrong side of that one, y'all.
Great critic my friend!
"AHH, baby wants its freedoms." Damn right.
The main problem with certain atheists, YouTube Skeptics™ and commies is that they believe (religiously one might add!) in the infallibility of their ideology: if you don't agree with them you are stupid, ignorant, etc. This enables them to be condescending a-holes and ignore facts and avoid a true discussion on rights.
Your right is dependent upon two things: Pragmatism and Defense. If no one can protect your right because it isn't pragmatic, then calling it a right is just hot air. The gun in your hand isn't enough to defend your right to have it. Keep threatening that we'll have to fight you for them. There are better weapons than other guns to take them away.
You should focus on a compromise. We need a solution to the problems people are pointing out that comes from guns, such as how you prevent a 19 year old drop out who brags about his guns and makes it clear that he would be the most likely candidate to shoot up a high school from shooting up a high school.
Fuck Dawkins mocking you. INNOCENT PEOPLE FUCKING DIED. Help to fix it or STFU.
That innocent people died does not give you the right to take away his means of defense......it does not follow. Especially if you take away his means of defense by going to his house with a weapons to take his weapons.