Thursday, December 18, 2008

Does being entertained by this make me a bad person?


WTF?

The natural law are those universal moral precepts knowable through reason alone.

In the political realm, this translates into a regime of natural rights.

To not know of the natural law is to [sic] ignorant of the history of Western ideas.

Shorter Suzie All-Caps: "If you don't know why I'm mad, I'm not going to tell you."

Really, why do you people bother with that cementhead? All you're doing is taking up Suzie's time that could be better spent by her emotionally and intellectually scarring her children for life.

BONUS TRACK: Commenter "mahmood" (who seems to frequent right-wing womens' blogs, defending them and hoping for a mercy fuck in exchange some day) has trouble with big numbers:

Hanging around, such as yourself [JJ], or posting umpteen insane/profane threads on SUZANNE, such as your buddy the Cesspool Boy, seems...well...Wow, sad really.

Apparently, anything over single digits to poor mahmood is "umpteen." Some advice, mahmood -- arithmetic is so not the career for you, so you might just go back to supersizing those fries and praying for that mercy fuck. I'm just trying to be helpful.

BONUS MAHMOOD: Seriously, it's like hunting fish with high explosives.

Mahmood today: "so(JJ)that's you...this is your playmate da Cesspool Boy... "mealy-mouthed douchebag, horrible, duplicitous c**t"..."

Mahmood two days ago: "James Bow, you mealy-mouthed douchebag c**t, you bring up some valid points."

Honestly, this is the easiest job in the world sometimes.

7 comments:

Dr.Dawg said...

All you ever wanted to know about the Catholic concept of natural law:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

Lucky we have the Church to tell us what is in conformity with our natures and what isn't.

Are we allowed to play with our anteaters? Just ask SUZANNE!

Frank Frink said...

Two things kind of jumped out at me...

1) The natural law are those universal moral precepts knowable through reason alone.

OK, so 'reason' is the be all and end all to ALL-CAPS... except, of course, when it's not.


2)"If you don't know why I'm mad, I'm not going to tell you."

Ummmmm... that reminds me why I like being single and unattached. ;-)

LogicallySpeaking said...

But she confuses Natural Law with natural rights (which are a secularist version of human rights), and then later confuses Natural Law with Kantian morals.

I think she just wanted a fancy sounding term to throw around.

The Seer said...

I will explain The Natural Law once I get the time to put it together. But since we're on the subject, does anyone out there know the constitutional status of the cat sanctuary on that hill? Or the natural rights of the incumbent cats? Or the historical privileges of the cats that inhabit parliament? Is "The White Mother" anything like the Speaker? Just like to know.

jj said...

Egads, what an unspeakable cretin.

I hope the nurses at whatever institution mahmood's posting from are coming around soon with his thorazine.

ADHR said...

LS,

I think you're sort of right, but not quite. Natural rights crop up in Locke and are clearly not secular -- Locke derives them from a divine creator. Human rights is a later variant which tries to ditch the god-connection and ground it in human nature. Which is where Kant comes in who, although a religious man himself, didn't think there was such a thing as religious knowledge and considered ethics too important to not have real knowledge associated with it; hence why he tried to pull ethics out of the formal structure of reason itself.

That said, I vaguely recall Aquinas connecting human reason to natural law. So that may be SUZIE'S inspiration rather than Kant.

That said, you have to look pretty hard to find anyone in moral philosophy who takes natural law, natural rights or Kant's grounding of ethics at face value. Even human rights are under attack (from those who reject rights altogether and from those who think rights must be extended to higher primates and other animals, too). So, SUZIE may not be making an error in presenting the historical idea, but she's clearly making an error in assuming that discussion of rights, law, ethics and reason stopped in the 13th century.

deBeauxOs said...

When you read the level of discourse Blog Blogging Wingnut favours, it becomes apparent that discussing rights, law, ethics and reason from the perspective of the 13th century Catholic Church doctrine sounds exactly right.