Brutal..
Write the essay on pedophilia instead tbh
Why do you want that damn post so badly? JFL
Blackpill [Hard To Swallow Edition] There Is No Such Thing As An "Innocent" In Society [NOT EVEN CHILDREN]
Why do you want that damn post so badly? JFL
Because it would be highly entertaining lol.
Ok I'll write it.
This is an astronomically retarded take, I’m disappointed bro.
Pedantically speaking “Innocents dying” in regards to a mass murder odoes not mean that they were pure hearted angels, just that they were innocent of any transgression. If you have a gang shootout and the Pajeet gas station attendant is shot and dies that’s still an innocent dying, even if he goes home at night and beats his kids or whatever. If the two tyrones kill each other neither of them are innocents, even if both were acting with clear consciousness and doing something arguably righteous like avenging the unpunished murder of their brother.
Pedantically speaking “Innocents dying” in regards to a mass murder odoes not mean that they were pure hearted angels, just that they were innocent of any transgression. If you have a gang shootout and the Pajeet gas station attendant is shot and dies that’s still an innocent dying, even if he goes home at night and beats his kids or whatever. If the two tyrones kill each other neither of them are innocents, even if both were acting with clear consciousness and doing something arguably righteous like avenging the unpunished murder of their brother.
Kids are always assumed to be innocent because it’s perceived that they do not have control over their action because they lack maturity and are therefore not responsible for their actions. This is why kids always receives lesser sentences after committing crimes and tend to be placed more frequently in rehabilitation programs. Every society has their own arbitrary cut off of what makes someone an autonomous individual responsibility who is held responsible for their actions and an innocent child who just hasn’t matured and been socially conditioned enough. Maybe children are viewed as innocent because society allocates them a set period of time to get their shit together and become functional members of society
Last edited:
D
by that logic so is evil, therefore no child ''inherently evil'' the same way no child is innocent
D
I went to an all boys high school so I can't compare.
Part of the reason I went was because the bullying
I’m not innocent tbh
Based. Evil max
Agreed, human nature is the root of most problems. That's not to say that we can't work with it or that humans are horrible, but claiming that innocence is default ignores the fact that many of the evils in society stem from out nature given to us at birth.
U are actually low iq disguised as high iq
Yes, that's exactly my point, I'm only using terms like "evil" to phrase things within the context moralfags would understand, as far as I'm concerned things like "justice", "honor", "deserving", etc don't exist, they are just made up concepts to control and restrict peoples actions
Babies yes...anything older than 6 is fukin evil.
ERfuel
Didn't read but finally a blk pill pres thread I agree with. At least the title.
Wouldn’t bullying be more severe in an all boys school?
Bullying doesn't make somebody a degenerate.
Until age 10. Afterwards, puberty begins and so does degeneracy.
Mt Everest IQ
D
Yes it does what are you on about?
Do you even know what a degenerate is? You clearly don't. A degenerate is a premarital sex-haver, alcohol drinker and/or drugs user.
D
A degenerate is someone who is morally bankrupt in the traditional sense. I would consider picking on someone for your own sadistic pleasure to be quite degenerate.
B
Why do you want drama? Foid trait.
Also, this is just moral nihilism repackaged to be edgy and have shock value. It's nothing new or special. These threads do have some value, however. They make it easier to see who's high, average and low IQ.
Last edited:
D
not everyone who is a moral nihilist is just trying to " be edgy for shock value".
D
I'm mostly amazed by how a somewhat serious thread has serious replies and barely any postmaxxer tbh
Last edited:
D
you still have never defined what objective morality is. You just evade and reference how people for thousands of years have been debating social constructs which are just meant to control people
B
Postmaxxers have greener pastures than this thread imo.
k
D
B
Computer, how do I use a search engine?
Also, why are you bringing that up? What does that have to do with me, or this?
D
Based Alex Jones
Adam Lanza is a Saint. He managed to see past societies façade and the programming society tries on you to make you comply and never question.
I agree with everything @BlkPillPres says.
Personally I am inclined to think of Ayman Aziz and Salman Abedi as some of the more cultured Saints of our time. But that is just me. Both of them will always have a place in my mind. They give me pause for thought and I remember that yes, Toilets will suffer, all I have to do is wait and watch, silently from the shadows. I wonder if I should make a shrine to Aziz and Abedi.. that'd be quite a nice memory for me.
He managed to see past societies façade and the programming society tries on you to make you comply and never question.I agree with everything @BlkPillPres says.
Personally I am inclined to think of Ayman Aziz and Salman Abedi as some of the more cultured Saints of our time. But that is just me.
Both of them will always have a place in my mind. They give me pause for thought and I remember that yes, Toilets will suffer, all I have to do is wait and watch, silently from the shadows. I wonder if I should make a shrine to Aziz and Abedi.. that'd be quite a nice memory for me.
D
I'm "bringing it up" because you have never answered the question, and neither has any place on the internet.
B
@CuckedRedditor This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. It's gone from sad to entertaining.
D
see, you are completely evading the question, just as suspected, because you KNOW deep down there is no such thing as an OBJECTIVE wrong or right.
@CuckedRedditor This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. It's gone from sad to entertaining.
We all like to pretend we care, but when the opportunity arises, we have no problem stepping on others for our own personal gain.
[/QUOTE]
Serious answer: from religion if you believe in it.
B
I'm telling you to take 10-15 minutes to use a search engine and educate yourself, but you're too dumb to do even that. Instead, you expect me to spoonfeed you. Even then, you'd be too lazy/ignorant to discuss the topic, so you'll tag others to do it for you when you quickly hit that ceiling.
JFL
D
I HAVE used a search engine, and what I have found is that there is no such thing as an "objective" morality, and that it is all a social construct.
Dude you really are just evading the question and at this point you are just trolling, I would not bother responding to him @Personalityinkwell
There's obviously no such thing as objective morality, all morality is subjective, even if God exists its still subjective because morality is just the rules he came up with for a world that he came up with, the rules are just as imaginary as that world which did not exist till he created it, everything is subjective from God's eyes as none of it is really "real", its like a programmer looking at lines of code
B
It's OK, go postmaxx bro. Don't think too hard about it.
You guys are so fucking retarded.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=objective+morality+definition
Literally the first few links cover the basics. For more rigorous definitions and formalisms, consult an encyclopedia.
Last edited:
D
Those link are shit, I looked at this one:
"There is a need, at least a felt need, for clear, definite moral lines".
So he's saying that the need is FELT. Feelings=subjective.
And he didn't even define what makes something objectively moral or immoral. He referenced harm, but did not say what harm is okay and what was not okay.
Here's a link on why objective morality is garbage:
Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense
Whether morality is an objective property of the universe, or instead the subjective opinion of humans, is one of the longest running issues in philosophy. Jerry Coyne recently returned to the them…
coelsblog.wordpress.com
See, I can link to stuff too.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that morality can be "objective", because the concept of morality has ALWAYS been changing over different times and places, depending on what people FEEL.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=feminism+is+about+equality
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=personality+matters
Well would you look at that, I guess if you just search anything and find some sources agreeing with it, it must be true
This is when I start thinking that a person is trolling, its when they start using arguments that are so fallacious, so obviously false, that there's no way they are being serious, they have to be joking, you can't be this fucking stupid
Last edited:
B
There is no burden of proof, dumbass. This is dialectic. This shit has been established in the moral philosophical literature for hundreds of years.
And if you actually read my five sentence post, I mentioned to consult an encyclopedia for a more rigorous understanding. Psychology today and some dude's blog isn't an encyclopedia.
Try this:
You are the perfect poster child for the Dunning-Krueger effect.
Last edited:
Water is wet... but 100% true ngl.
D
Once again, you are using appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
You're wrong, the burden of proof is still on you.
I clicked on your stupid link and looked up objective morality
I found nothing of the sort. They couldn't even find a precise definition of morality. They even agreed that morality changes over time.
B
Linking an encyclopedia and encouraging self-learning is now an appeal to authority.
I just can't be bothered anymore.
"When one is faced with insurmountable stupidity sometimes there is nothing left but to be intellectually arrogant."
The thing you're looking for is "moral objectivism." Spend more time reading and less time posting.
Similar threads
SupremeGentleCel
Users who are viewing this thread
