Hiroshima & 9/11

"The 9/11 attacks? Retaliation for U.S. bombing and blockading Muslim countries? How dare you suggest such a thing? What kind of low-life justifies terrorism?!"

"I'm not shedding a tear for Hiroshima or Nagasaki, let alone the firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, or Cologne. The Germans and Japanese perpetrated atrocities. They had it coming."

~Same people.

Alas, it is Americans themselves who have a spun a dire lore of terror-apologetics, which dates back to FDR's war if not Lincoln's. For what were the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Dresden and Frankfort and Hamburg, and Sherman's March to the Sea if not acts of terrorism? Terrorism means nothing if it doesn't mean targeting civilians to advance political goals.

Truman, FDR, and Lincoln all had good reason, the court historians solemnly assure us, for targeting civilians. Indeed, they showed great leadership in resorting to it. Whereas the 9/11 terrorists had no good reason for taking out 3,000 American civilians on Sept. 11, 2001. They did it to lower their golf scores.

This much is sure. That whole "collateral damage" thing looks a whole lot different gazing up the barrel of a rifle. Here's hoping terror apologists of every stripe start puncturing those separate, watertight compartments of their brains.

Rights & Rights & Rights & Rights

Anybody claiming to speak on behalf of Rights will be shunned, ostracized, and persecuted. Much as libertarians in their right minds are shunned, ostracized, and persecuted by professed libertarians who admire Anglo-American imperial lackey and Iraq War apologist Christopher Hitchens. And there is no limit to the number of people who can make the claim to speak on behalf of Rights, thereby making any such claim effectively meaningless. 

Therefore, nobody will ever be recognized as speaking on behalf of actual Rights, only people claiming to speak on behalf of Rights. Even if Rights objectively exist, speaking on behalf of Rights will result in shunning, ostracizing, and persecution again and again and again. Just as what has happened to every Rights-Theist down through history.

The Rights-Theist Paradox: 

That a Rights-Theist claims to speak on behalf of Rights effectively precludes anyone from ever believing in the Rights-Theist. Why would anyone have to speak on behalf of Rights. If Rights inhere in our humanity, they ought to be self-evident, right?

Rights-Theists believe in the claim, not the reality. That's why people belonging to a sound School of Rights are shunned, ostracized, and persecuted, while a flaky School of Rights has hundreds of millions of followers. Never mind that adherents of both the sound School and flaky School are claiming to speak on behalf of the same (apparently schizophrenic) thing.

-------------------------------------------------

Religious anarchist: "religion is voluntary, whereas the state forces their rules and overlords on you."

Religious anarchist: "My Lord Jesus Christ".

Voluntary: of one's own free will.
Lord: one having power and authority over others, a ruler.

If your god is your Lord and has power and authority over you, rules you, then it's no more voluntary than the state.

~Con Duper

Irreligious Rights-Theist: "Rights are voluntary, whereas religion forces its rules on and lords over you."

Also Irreligious Rights-Theist: "Rights are non-negotiable.They are eternal and immutable." 

Voluntary: Of one's own free will. 

Non-negotiable: Not to be compromised; having power and authority over others; a ruler. 

If your god is Rights and has power and authority over you, then Rights rule you. Rights are no more voluntary than the State.
-------------------------------------------------------

Rights are beliefs. Beliefs are convictions. Convictions turn you into a convict. They imprison you. 

You can leave a job. You can't leave a prison. .

Rights and state! State and rights! They're one and the same thing!

-------------------------------------------------------

Pivetta's Corollary to Godwin's Law:

If an online discussion with a Left-Libertarian Atheist Rights-Theist (LLART) goes on long enough, sooner or later LLART will accuse you of being "religious," at which point the discussion promptly ends.

Rights With Me (With Apologies to St. Patrick)

Rights with me,
Rights before me,
Rights behind me,
Rights in me,
Rights beneath me,
Rights above me,
Rights on my right,
Rights on my left,
Rights when I lie down,
Rights when I sit down,
Rights when I arise,
Rights in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Rights in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Rights in every eye that sees me,
Rights in every ear that hears me.

With apologies to St. Patrick, whom I've wronged.  

Rights in the Cupboard

Oh, look! My rights! Right there in the cupboard! I'm marching those babies down to city hall! When  the mayor and city council get an eyeful, they'll have no choice but to refund all the property tax I've paid over the years!

Rights are real! Not like that silly Sky Wizard you worship! Early retirement, here I come!