10-20-2016, 12:53 AM
I prefer objective truth. Your concession was, IMO, premature and in error. Objective truth can be established, given a standard. Once you have the standard, you have your lefties by the balls.
Begin with the Cardinal Postulate: all men are equally endowed with life. Do they accept this or deny it? It is, you see, a trap you lay for them. If they accept it, you have them. If they deny it, you have them. Allow me to elaborate in reverse order.
If they deny, the direct and unavoidable implication is that at least one man, somewhere, is "more" endowed with life than are the rest. This leads us down a literally infinite pathway of similar questions. I doubt you will have to go there because for a lefty to deny the equal endowment of each man with life would offend their ill-bred notions of "equality". That is a good thing. But if perchance you encounter someone who denies, you then go full-Socratic on them. Begin along the lines of "I see, so if we are not equally endowed with life, who is more so and by what virtue?" They can only answer in two general ways. Either they realize AND admit their error on the spot due to the transparently ridiculous nature of the implication, or the respond with some arbitrary nonsense that provides you with abundant fodder for asking similar questions of the implications of said answer. The problem for the denier is that no matter how they respond with explanations, their answers are PERFORCE arbitrary. Therefore, you keep attacking that aspect by asking "who says?" and "by what standard/virtue is it so?" And once again their responses will by their nature be similarly arbitrary. In theory, you could keep asking the same questions with each iteration of responses and the only choice your opponent will have is to either admit error, come up with yet another bullshit answer, or close their eyes, stick out their tongues, call you "poopy face", and run away. To deny the equal endowment of life to all men is absurd on its face, so much so that it is by these generally simple means that one brings the fool to the slaughter.
If they accept the equal endowment postulate, then you have them by the short and curlies and should be able to thoroughly destroy them in but a few simple and intuitively obvious steps. The Cardinal Postulate leads to the first consequence: if all men are equally endowed with life, then all men hold equal claims thereto. This is axiomatic, for it makes no sense to say that you and I are equally endowed with life, and yet that my claims are superior to yours. How can I claim life more than you if our endowments are equal?
Furthermore, it should be noted that our claims to life are those to our own lives. There is nothing extant to suggest that one man may, under "normal" circumstances lay claim to the life of another. Here we see the rise of the notion of a negative right. Also, the only way one man could establish a valid claim upon the life of another would be to demonstrate a fundamental and irreducibly non-arbitrary basis for it. I am confident that this basis does not exist. Regardless, until such a basis is demonstrated, no man may lay claim to the life of another, all else equal. Just for completeness' sake, an example of where a man may lay such a claim would be in defense of one's life against destruction or other harm. I attack you with a knife in a dark alley and you respond by drawing a pistol and shooting me in the head. You have, in a somewhat tortured sense, laid claim to my life. This notion is readily defeated in argumentation, such destruction working in your favor because it ruins the assertion that one man may claim the life of another as his own. So the sense of claim is a bit different here, but let us not go too far down that rabbit hole.