I can only react to this by pointing out the obvious: it does not reference any particular facts relating to any particular context in which a discussion of morality might be expected.
There are objective facts that rational people can find agreement regarding with respect to gun ownership in America.
Now, given the facts that are able to be accumulated, what can in fact be concluded in turn regarding the moral obligation of the American government [federal state local] insofar as regulating gun ownership amongst its citizens?
If I walk down the sidewalk and stub my toe, I am in no way using English incorrectly to say that violated my consent. I am also not using English incorrectly to state that the stubbing my toe is evil, I can call mere objects evil without even anthropomorphising.
I gave you a context iambiguous, a very down to earth one in fact:
Existence is the context.
Consent is the self evident checking in.
The context of existence is violating (in one way or another) every beings consent.
Thus, given that very real world, down to earth analysis, we can objectively say that existence is some pretty evil shit. All of us know that nobodies toe ever had to be stubbed in existence, yet millions are. Existence violates consent.
what a curious use of language. is it even possible to give one’s consent to a concrete sidewalk? would it be okay for the sidewalk to stub your toe only after you’ve given it permission? it makes no sense to speak of ‘against consent’ unless we can also speak of ‘with consent’, but to give consent requires that the thing being given the consent can understand the permission it has been granted, and act accordingly. but alas, the sidewalk can know nothing of your desire to avoid stubbing your toe against it, and cannot therefore be accountable for violating your consent.
now if you’d rather generalize your statement to mean ‘life sucks because there is pain’, that would be more acceptable… or at least more sensible.
analogously, if i do not indicate that a piece of property is mine, and someone takes it, has that person stolen it? they’ve taken it, but have they ‘stolen’ it? to consciously perform an act of theft, one must know the property belongs to someone.
to consciously perform an act of consent violation, the sidewalk needs to know in advance that you don’t want to stub your toe. did you tell him before you started walking on him?
and btw, i’m pretty sure he didn’t appreciate you walking all over him like that.
You either agree or disagree with what’s happening to you, irrespective of the sentience or lack thereof, of what’s causing or not causing grief.
You keep trying to assign agency to the external, when consent is only judged internally.
So, you know the whole “define your terms and I’ll debate with you?”
I’m not using consent in a peculiar way when I state that the consent violator need not be sentient, however, you accused me of that, and it’s a bad straw man.
okay you got me. it’s just so idiosyncratically human to say a sidewalk violated your consent, ya know? just doesn’t sound right. it compounds an otherwise normal reaction to toe-suffering with the claim that the sidewalk is intentionally evil. it’s just tacky, man. sidewalks are your friend.
btw, have you heard the joke about the sidewalk? well you should have, because it’s all over town.
okay. the universe is neither good nor evil, practices no teleology, and is perfectly indifferent to your toe. the calculus of your suffering is determined solely by your own constitution, and while suffering to some degree is always inevitable, you simply cannot pass judgement on the entirety of existence because of that.
it’s not your fault that you suffer… but it ain’t the universe’s fault either, bub.
Everyone has one thing that cannot be taken or stolen from them, even if they are in chattel slavery, they always have the power to check if something is violating their consent or not. Every dictator who’s ever lived hates this, every espouser of god who’s every lived hates this, they loathe this one power that no being can take from them.
And you, are one of those beings trying to take it from them, “existence is violating my consent”
You hate it too. I would spend some time seriously examining that if I were you
Fight til the death. It may actually work, to be a consent appreciator. I make no promises, but it is the honorable life. The honorable life is to realize that the one thing we all have in common is consent violation, and just throw up a giant fuck you and make the world a better place.
If you stop posting here, then you can avoid violating my consent. Therefore, you will be doing less violating. Which has to be better than continuing to post.
I am compelled to speak truth to power, you are compelled to censor it. Trying to live the least consent violating life, dictates that I speak about and post this stuff.
In the equation you violate more consent by wanting false to power.
You think you’re being clever phyllo, but you’re just not.
I am evil. So are you. Existence has it no other way.
I however, am less evil than you. It’s objectively true because I speak truth to power. I’m the guy who says “fuck you” to an existence like this, you kowtow to false is power