they don't see any contradiction in this because they are simply applying the rules you made up to you, and they don't believe in them.

@sickburnbro The answer is easy.
"Colonialism bad" can only apply to Whites.
It's the same reason "slavery bad" also only applies to Whites, despite all of human history having used slavery.

@Alex1488 the problem is that whites like universal rules, so it's either going to end up "ok, no slavery is bad and we will stop you from doing it" or "fine, they slavery is ok and you are our slaves"

@sickburnbro I know, moral philsopher Immanuel Kant laid a lot of the groundwork for western morals with his universal moral rule theories.
Unfortunately, kikes love their double-standards, and will whip Whites with their own morals, while giving different ones to any non-White.

@Alex1488 it's not just kikes that love double standards, indians and africans do as well.

@sickburnbro @Alex1488 completely the wrong way to think about it.
the idea that universal reciprocity forms the bedrock of a valid moral system is the result of a specific gene mutation from northwest europe

the idea of a double standard as a concept, let alone being a bad thing, is completely alien to 99% of the planet. double standards do not exist, they are standards. had a whole rant about this

@All_bonesJones @Alex1488 @sickburnbro
That actually sounds like an interesting theory.
Do you have more info on it?

@LukeAlmighty @All_bonesJones @Alex1488 I think many groups understand having standards; Code of Hammurabi even really gets into this - you can't expect to injure someone in the same way as justice, as it will never end. The main difference is the delineation of the 外人 - literally outside person - most groups recognize that where there are no rules about what you can do with them. For westerners, only outlaws fit into that category.

@sickburnbro @LukeAlmighty @All_bonesJones >you can't expect to injure someone in the same way as justice, as it will never end
How does that make sense?
If somebody is punished for a crime they committed, by having the same thing inflicted upon them, how does that never end?

@Alex1488 @sickburnbro @All_bonesJones
Because you create an oscilation. Each punishment causing oposite reaction forcing your hand to add even more energy into the conflict.

@LukeAlmighty @sickburnbro @All_bonesJones Justice doesn't have a scientific formula. This isn't how rightous punishment looks in a just society.
If somebody killed another person, that person should be put to death.
If somebody stole, they should return what they stole or be fined an equal amount of the value they stole.
If somebody raped, well, that gets a bit tricky. Do we rape rapists? Anyways.
The idea of "an eye for an eye leaves the world blind" is a fallacious argument, because somebody getting punished for a crime, doesn't then justify punishment on the punisher for having delt out said punishment. It doesn't make sense in any way you spin it.

@Alex1488 @sickburnbro @All_bonesJones
You cannot put the "same value" punishment, exactly, because the world isn't a math formula.

If punishment for stealing is returning, then you made stealing 100% profitable no matter how successful you are. If you rape a rapist, he will win twice. Do you really not see the issue with 1:1 justice?

Ok, so what do you do then? Well, the anwser is 100:1 justice. It is also called deterrent or punitive justice. With punishments at a 100x severity of the crime, the criminal does everything he can to avoid said crime. But once he is punished unjustly, he will feel justified to push out 100 times his pain back into the world. To avoid that case, the bast solution we have is still just the presumption of innocence. The famous "beyond reasonable doubt" standart, that we game up on as a society 15 years ago.

So, my point simply is, that justice is insanely complicated shit, that will never be balanced. 🤷‍♂️

@LukeAlmighty @sickburnbro @All_bonesJones >100:1
Why does it have to be an extreme 100 times worse? That doesn't make sense, bro.
What punishment a perpetrator deserves is one discussion, but ultimately my issue comes down to the idea that punishing somebody escalates things. There's no way a just punishment will then result in the perpetrator wanting retribution, without it simply being rooted in bitter resentment at having been punished for a crime.
I don't know where the presumption of innocence comes into the argument here. We're talking about punishing crimes, where the criminal was proven guilty.
Do you get what I mean here?

@Alex1488 @sickburnbro @All_bonesJones
I am sorry, but I don't know what you mean. The example is way too precise and full of perfect solutions for me to understand.