1/6 and John Locke

Anons, I’m writing an essay on John Locke and 1/6 for school, what do you guys think?

Attached: 135AFE94-88DE-4DFC-B1CD-89B97E21973F.jpg (3024x2927, 3.79M)

If you're in college, just go along with whatever the professors want and get your A's. Don't screw yourself pissing off petty tyrants and waste your money.

You’re a dogshit writer.
>t. Poli Sci moron who didn’t become a lawyer.

You’re grammar, diction and embellishment is horrible. 5 obvious mistakes in the first double-space sentence.

It really depends. I tend to go against the grain on everything my professors say, as long as it's logical and supported by cited research. Several of my papers were commented on as highlighting important knowledge gaps in the field and I was told I should go for a Master's degree. Other times a professor commented that my contrarian views are very interesting and original. Most professors are just bored as fuck and when they see some new thoughtful stuff cross them they love it.

That said, there are some purely cancerous professors that I do not dare move past the line. I did move past the line on one such professor, they still gave me an A but they spent time red marking and criticizing almost every sentence I made, but they had no ability to criticize in a meaningful way because everything was cited. It was like reading a baby crying about everything I said.

I took an ethics 101 philosophy course and talked about John Locke and what not. I did okay in the course but I was much too bored, I would have preferred a different course since I knew everything being taught there, but it was the only course left that fit my schedule.

Philosophy is basically all bullshit and a complete waste of time. Empiricism and mathematics are really the only forms of philosophy that actually matter.

Must you choose John Locke? Thomas Hobbes is, in many ways, a much more realistic thinker. When I was taking my ethical philosophy course I was so bored I just picked the most aggressively realistic philosophers I could.

John Locke is inhibited by his axiomatic basis in the existence of God as the origin of natural right. His entire philosophy is a "left wing" reactionary response to the royalists defending the Monarch and as a response to Divine Rights. Also, John Locke is grossly over rated, people think he laid democratic foundations but his ideas existed before him and practically all the fathers of the democracies that came about relied heavily on the writing of writers before John Locke (but sounded a lot like John Locke). IIRC, one of the US founding fathers said that if they were to base the constitution on John Locke then taxation would be illegal, thus they pretty much threw John Locke's thinking out the window and went for their own stuff mixed with the philosophies of similar but more pro-state philosophers. John Locke's writings was so pro-freedom because he was part of the democrat side of the English Civil War.

Hobbes was much more realistic, because even though he was the most fervent supporter of the monarchy, he was often accused as an atheist because Hobbes did not need to appeal to any God or make any axioms about his philosophy. His philosophy was more like a postulated simulation of human/organic nature.

>Hobbes did not need to appeal to any God or make any axioms about his philosophy
Not building a foundation and not needing a two different things
careful to not to mistake the two because you presuppose the same unstated axioms.

> Not building a foundation and not needing a two different things

Hobbes built a foundation, which is the simulation I just talked about, he just didn't need God to justify his philosophy.

> careful to not to mistake the two because you presuppose the same unstated axioms.

Uh, be careful guys, this guy can't parse out the word "need" in context.

Lmfao. Philosophical thinkers are such a fucking waste.

no, sir, you are gramma is bad

Thomas Hobbes and Max Stirner are probably the two most realistic philosophers, borderline thought-brothers. They came to the closest conclusions of how organic beings naturally behave and organize in nature. They both made some degree of spiritual errors, Max more so than Hobbes (ironically), but they were so damn close to correctly defining observed organic behavior.

A Max-Hobbes synthesis would be nearly perfect.

I'm pretty sure Grammarly is free you nigger
In French, we don't have anything as accurate as Grammarly because English is a simpleton language, and here you are.

The free Grammarly service is pretty weak, it's about as good as Microsoft's Word Editor.

English is the most versatile and information dense language on the planet. Soon everyone on Earth will speak one language, English. French deserves to die, as do all other Vulgar Latin languages, they fail at conveying information efficiently and have utterly failed at securing their own world shaping colonies.

>HJuehuehuhu I suck for abstract stuff giv me linguistics and mathematics and shit
You will read these metaphors and you will like them, squarehead.

Bitch stfu whenever I write in your dumbass language it makes squarelebong cunts angry when I use He instead of it cuz fuck you cunts in French the masculine form has priority
Anglos were feminists all along

for gods sake learn how to use semi-colons and colons. I will rewrite it for you: "Locke posits that given a majority of people face legitimate threats to life, liberty, and property, and which is originating from the illegal exercise of power by governmental institutions and structures, it is therefore expectant for them engage in civil disobedience against the aforementioned institutions; in the meanwhile providing an implicit support for these actions in defense of civil liberties against presumably tyrannical governmental bodies. Within the context of the events occurring on January 6th, it can be argued that these circumstances represent a highly contemporary example of civil disobedience, but that Locke would support or endorse these actions is not entirely made clear."

Logic doesn't work with retards.
Just pass the class and move on. Your fight starts after school.

Metaphorical thinking is for children, it gets really old really fast.

You will speak the English language and you will not like it. Lmao. Suffer, faggot.

> Your fight starts after school.

Fight in what way? It seems like the only way to win our IRL fight is to vote with the ballot, vote with our money, or vote with our feet. Physical confrontation is almost always a losing proposition unless you can build a unified and widespread movement that seeks out a violent confrontation and we just don't have any of that.

At this point, I'm just more interested in making money, maybe getting a girl and producing some children, seeking out the most peaceful and prosperous places to invest and live free, and living far away from the nuts and niggers.

I understand if you think violence is the only way if you have more limited financial resources.

Nature does the bulk of the fighting for us. Anything that discourages reproduction will die. Time is thus always on the side that reproduces and thus you have no fear if you reproduce.

If you think your people can't reproduce because of some kind of tax policy or marriage law, or the state of the economy, etc, etc. Then, ultimately, your kind will go extinct. Humanity has suffered infinitely worse in the past, if it's the modern world of prosperity that ends your kind then that's a pretty damn pathetic show.

End a verb with 5 different letters and pit the subject after the erb very difficult language so hard like it was designed so mercury induced brain damaged 5 year ilfs could speak it, look at Mexico vs Anglo north America to understand the retarding affects of Latin based languages

Regardless of other anons your in school and at least putting up a fight and using the thoughts of real true great thinkers of western civilization good work kid

>BE A PUSSY
>LIE LIKE A BITCH
>COMPROMISE YOURSELF

NO