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.
"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.
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
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?
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?
Follow
@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.
@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?
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.
@LukeAlmighty @sickburnbro @All_bonesJones I raped somebody.
I am found guilty and am justifiably punished.
I am now bitter at having been punished, and want vengeance, despite being the one who enacted a crime upon another to start with.
I am NOT justified in seeking vengeance, even if I really want it, because I was the one that initiated the chain of events.
You with me so far?
I am found guilty and am justifiably punished.
I am now bitter at having been punished, and want vengeance, despite being the one who enacted a crime upon another to start with.
I am NOT justified in seeking vengeance, even if I really want it, because I was the one that initiated the chain of events.
You with me so far?
@Alex1488 @sickburnbro @All_bonesJones
sure...
Let's say, that I consider the punishment insanely excessive.
@LukeAlmighty @sickburnbro @All_bonesJones Okay, even so, he did rape somebody. Excessive is subjective, so I guess we'd have to consider a general census on what is excessive.
It's reasonable to believe, that in a western country, his punishment haven't been excessive.
That leaves the rapist with no grounds to argue he's justified in seeking further retribution for having been punished, except his own bitter resentment.
It's reasonable to believe, that in a western country, his punishment haven't been excessive.
That leaves the rapist with no grounds to argue he's justified in seeking further retribution for having been punished, except his own bitter resentment.
@LukeAlmighty @Alex1488 @sickburnbro "it is impossible for me to perfectly calculate all variables within a situation, therefore it is impossible to figure out good-enough guidelines that work for most situations and trust human judgement (in the form of judges) to figure out the rest"
@All_bonesJones @Alex1488 @sickburnbro
When it comes to something as complex as justice?
Yes
@LukeAlmighty @Alex1488 @sickburnbro well here's your metaquestion that answers your concern: from where does a desire for justice originate, and what determines which senses of justice prevail? there isn't a universal sense of justice, for if there were, there would be one law that all humans arrived at equally. what gave rise to a person's inborn sense of justice?
@All_bonesJones @LukeAlmighty @sickburnbro >what gave rise to a person's inborn sense of justice?
That's a tough question, as we'd have to consider what a person considers wrong or right.
Take example Middle Eastern standards, many are muslim and worship a pedophile, so therefore pedophilia can't be considered wrong by them, and that reflects on the culture, where child marriage isn't uncommon. This is a stark contrast to Western values, that would very much consider pedophilia and child marriage wrong.
There's also the question of whether enforcing equal distribution on society is considered just in society or not. Some consider equal distribution just, while others go as far as calling it theft.
So I'd say there's a cultural component, but culture springs from race. Different races finding different things right or wrong makes sense, considering how different each race is to each other.
That's a tough question, as we'd have to consider what a person considers wrong or right.
Take example Middle Eastern standards, many are muslim and worship a pedophile, so therefore pedophilia can't be considered wrong by them, and that reflects on the culture, where child marriage isn't uncommon. This is a stark contrast to Western values, that would very much consider pedophilia and child marriage wrong.
There's also the question of whether enforcing equal distribution on society is considered just in society or not. Some consider equal distribution just, while others go as far as calling it theft.
So I'd say there's a cultural component, but culture springs from race. Different races finding different things right or wrong makes sense, considering how different each race is to each other.
@Alex1488 @LukeAlmighty @sickburnbro and race springs from genetics, yes?
so genetics determines innate justice. what determines whether or not that sense justice prevails? natural selection. justice is a memeplex (subject to its own survival pressures) build on top of genes (whose innate aesthetic preferences form the building blocks on which law is built).
thus, the "most right" justice is the one that preserves itself, because the less evolutionarily fit justices die off. justices that promote widespread cannibalism or self-destructive activities are selected against, while ones that promote group stability and survival are selected for. subsequently, the various near-universal ethics you can see across human cultures are the result of convergent evolution towards things that promote survival of the genes and the memes
the purpose of justice isn't to enforce good and evil, for even understanding good and evil is downstream from genetics: the purpose of justice is to promote group cohesion and evolutionary fitness
so genetics determines innate justice. what determines whether or not that sense justice prevails? natural selection. justice is a memeplex (subject to its own survival pressures) build on top of genes (whose innate aesthetic preferences form the building blocks on which law is built).
thus, the "most right" justice is the one that preserves itself, because the less evolutionarily fit justices die off. justices that promote widespread cannibalism or self-destructive activities are selected against, while ones that promote group stability and survival are selected for. subsequently, the various near-universal ethics you can see across human cultures are the result of convergent evolution towards things that promote survival of the genes and the memes
the purpose of justice isn't to enforce good and evil, for even understanding good and evil is downstream from genetics: the purpose of justice is to promote group cohesion and evolutionary fitness
@Alex1488 @LukeAlmighty @sickburnbro generally, "good" gets defined as long-term group survival regardless of which group or location, because the sense of justices that don't promote long-term survival die off in the long-term
@All_bonesJones @LukeAlmighty @sickburnbro Indeed, good is ultimately subjective. The winner of a conflict decides what was "good" and "bad".
Like WWII, the good guys won and now we sterilize children for the sake of pedophiles.
Like WWII, the good guys won and now we sterilize children for the sake of pedophiles.
@Alex1488 @LukeAlmighty @sickburnbro the winner of conflict defines good because winning was good, thus their morality is superior because it let them win. a morality that prioritizes letting talent flourish and grow and improve society is going to be more good than one that doesn't because the improved society can conquer its neighbors.
culture and justice are terms humans invent to mentally distance themselves from the ongoing war of all against all, because keen awareness of reality has lower evolutionary fitness
culture and justice are terms humans invent to mentally distance themselves from the ongoing war of all against all, because keen awareness of reality has lower evolutionary fitness
@All_bonesJones @LukeAlmighty @sickburnbro >keen awareness of reality has lower evolutionary fitness
Could you elaborate on this?
Being more aware of reality, means you're more likely to "lose"?
Could you elaborate on this?
Being more aware of reality, means you're more likely to "lose"?
@Alex1488 @LukeAlmighty @sickburnbro sure, here's an easy example at a fundamental level: eyes that accurately perceive information instead of loosely pattern-matching shapes and relying on mental associations (the way human eyes work) require more calories to sustain and are more injury prone. nature doesn't optimize for information accuracy, it prioritizes for "accurate enough to reproduce."
like, humans don't even have color vision in the corners of their vision, they only see color when they directly look at a thing and the brain mentally fills in that color whenever that area enters the corner of vision as long as it still matches the light/dark value (which IS perceived out of the corner of the eye.)
basically every sense you have is an illusion of reality constructed to raise your odds of sex.
like, humans don't even have color vision in the corners of their vision, they only see color when they directly look at a thing and the brain mentally fills in that color whenever that area enters the corner of vision as long as it still matches the light/dark value (which IS perceived out of the corner of the eye.)
basically every sense you have is an illusion of reality constructed to raise your odds of sex.
@All_bonesJones @Alex1488 @LukeAlmighty not quite true, in humans it appears that survival for the group past having sex matters as well, thus its quite reasonable to assume vision is also attuned to make sure your children live as well.
@sickburnbro @LukeAlmighty @Alex1488 that is a technically correct nitpick. yes, humans are a k-selected species so they need to have sex and also meet child rearing investment costs
@All_bonesJones @LukeAlmighty @Alex1488 but given that raising children is part of the general procreation selection, it's quite close.
@All_bonesJones @LukeAlmighty Alright, I think I get you. Sort of like, let's say, optimization in relation to spent energy vs. goals/outcomes.
You want to just exactly, more or less, hit the necessary requirements to breed, so you don't waste energy that wasn't necessary to achieve the goal of procreation.
I was going to say something about our brains making us able to survive better than any animal before us, but you already replied to @sickburnbro about us being a K-selected species.
You want to just exactly, more or less, hit the necessary requirements to breed, so you don't waste energy that wasn't necessary to achieve the goal of procreation.
I was going to say something about our brains making us able to survive better than any animal before us, but you already replied to @sickburnbro about us being a K-selected species.
@All_bonesJones @LukeAlmighty @sickburnbro That all makes an awful lot of sense.
A kind of memetic survival of the fittest, the best system within the concept (in this case justice) survives, because any version of it would eventually have it's faults be detrimental to it's stability.
A kind of memetic survival of the fittest, the best system within the concept (in this case justice) survives, because any version of it would eventually have it's faults be detrimental to it's stability.
.jpeg){kind=link}
@Alex1488 @sickburnbro @All_bonesJones
Also, there is a huge economic problem with value.
--> 💍
This is a ring that you gave your wife. You payed 100$ for it, and it always brings joy into your life.
I stole and destroyed it. Your wife is now depressed, and you are furious. I pay you 500$, and you buy a new ring, but your wife's smile doesn't return. The memories of your honeymoon are forever shattered. Was justice served? I payed way more then what I took.
I hate this imperfect world. 
@LukeAlmighty @sickburnbro @All_bonesJones Yes, emotional value is hard, if not impossible, to assign. That isn't what I'm arguing here, though.
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.