False, I think I speak for all of us when we say we really like you on these forums and want you to stay
… no homo bro 
I’m so sorry, I just had to be ironic
Right, time to roll up my sleeves, clearly.
Probably. I have some very strong objections to the way certain jurisdictions attempt to enshrine the concept of ‘natural law’ (or as expressed, ‘crimes against nature’), because I’ve concluded them to be based on false premises on what is ‘natural’. If my rudimentary history classes taught me one thing, it was that possibly the most succinct expression of our ideal of ‘the free world’, and the reason why we so looked up to the sacred ideal enshrined in what America was conceived as (never mind what it is right now, clearly it needs some fixing regardless of which way you vote), as expressed in the ratified version of the American Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This may pique Kyle’s interest, if he looked away from his burgeoning law schedule.
Certainly the philosophical debate about a) what morality is b) what morality ought to be c) the relationship between the origins of our existence (e.g. theology), our natures and the way we perceive it (ontology), and our ethics (deontology) raged before and after and independent of the happenings of 1776, but that quote above neatly encapsulates a starting point from which the crucial questions spring: where does the freedom of one person start and that of another’s end? To what ends should we regulate behaviour to afford opportunity to all people, presuming they were created equal? What on earth does it mean that they were created equal in the first place because we sure as fuck are doing a poor job of treating all people equal now are we. And from those questions spring the definitions of consent etc. but that’s increasingly murky.
And it’s that murkiness that I’m interested in. Human to human consent is easy enough, at least one might think, but then again apparently a lot of guys missed the memo (see: contested rape allegations, rape culture). Then of course as mentioned earlier, consent in situations where agency is not presumed (minors). Then if you want to get more complex, human → animal consent (ethical vegetarianism, or that Peter Singer suggestion).
How appropriate you bring this up as a natural law: Freedom of expression is currently one of the most hotly contested concepts. On one hand you have people saying they were triggered when you misappropriated their hair style because the acceptance of your skin colour and your hair style together is a microaggression towards people with the same hair style and a different skin colour because they are seen in less sympathetic lights. On the other you have people making fun of SJWs because of their hair colour and saying it’s okay to say offensive things because this world is political correctness gone mad. Then of course the white-collar redneck politicians (see how I trample on everything here) in Australia who want to amend section 18 of the anti Discrimination act by repealing the provision allowing people to litigate on the basis of offensive speech… you get the idea
TNP thinks triggered is a triggering word.
) and I spent several years reading Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy instead of studying (NO RAGRETS), and I’m like nearly twice your age or something so of course this comes natural to me, this is like my actual home element. Please don’t let that stop you (or anyone else for that matter).
