Feb 10, 2020, 8:43 PM
by Stephen Thomas
–“What’s your position on (hostile political) ‘critics’ that we have seen Israel, the Saudis, and the Russians execute?”–
1) Is the critic exposing factual information or behavior showing violations of Natural Law?
2) Is the critic simply whining about having failed to have his wants served by others?
3) Is the critic engaging in ORRGSM (subversion) and causing damage to the Commons with their lies?
The first is necessary to protect the Commons from parasites (EMAS).
The second is well… pathetic and sometimes healthy. Venting to avoid potential turmoil.
The 3rd is unacceptable and must be stopped. Assassination is usually extreme but sometimes warranted.
So, the critic defines the validity of the response. A critic should also provide solutions or their words have no legitimacy.
CD: note how Stephen based his argument on the natural law, and used a series(precision), and then answered with the series rather than a single ideal type (average). This is how you answer questions in natural law.