“Because it’s the law.”Thanks for reading The Nature of Things’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Everyone has been the victim of this phrase during their life. We are shut down and refused certain activities or goods because some rule book declares it so. This creates tension with law—and therefore the government. Such friction erodes the unity and trust between the government and the governed and will inevitably lead to revolution.
Honest question: do you think an academic parasite with an affinity for submissive bootlicking of authority at the expense of others has any insight worth a damn into masculinity or law?
Hey! Thanks for commenting! If you have a constructive counter argument, please explain it. I'm not sure I was clear in the paper; I am a bad writer.
Also, I don't think I am arguing that law restricts man. I think I argue the opposite. Law ought to be freeing, just as Natural Law is. I think we agree on more than you want to admit! Thanks!!
If I submit to your "reasoning" then I submit to your authority. So, why would I, even though your logic and syllogisms are unsound, agree with you? Give me a reason. Your argument is by definition a losing one. What should I do? I just want to arrive at the truth. Attack my argument in a concrete way; don't pull this ad hominem attack on me. Take it or leave it. Substack ought to be a forum of intellectual debate, not slander. Let's try and keep it that way.
Honest question: do you think an academic parasite with an affinity for submissive bootlicking of authority at the expense of others has any insight worth a damn into masculinity or law?
Hey! Thanks for commenting! If you have a constructive counter argument, please explain it. I'm not sure I was clear in the paper; I am a bad writer.
Also, I don't think I am arguing that law restricts man. I think I argue the opposite. Law ought to be freeing, just as Natural Law is. I think we agree on more than you want to admit! Thanks!!
Nah, I’m reducing to the conversation to your low level. You wanna play the smug condescending condescending straw man angle against me? You’ll lose.
If I submit to your "reasoning" then I submit to your authority. So, why would I, even though your logic and syllogisms are unsound, agree with you? Give me a reason. Your argument is by definition a losing one. What should I do? I just want to arrive at the truth. Attack my argument in a concrete way; don't pull this ad hominem attack on me. Take it or leave it. Substack ought to be a forum of intellectual debate, not slander. Let's try and keep it that way.
Don’t infect my posts with your feminized passive aggression again. I came to substack for quality comments, not trash. So long