All societies rise and fall on their morals, and merits

The Roman Republic rebelled against the Etruscans, and won because the Etruscans were decadent, and amoral, and the Romans were not.

The Roman republic fell to Julius Caesar because it was corrupt, and weak and he was not.

The US rose to power because it was comprised of moral men, who valued hard work. It is now falling into an ochlocracy because it is not.

Japan was invaded constantly, nuked twice, had its cities burned, and is surrounded by enemies. Yet their civilization is improving. The Japanese value merit, and strictly adhere to the law.

Attached: 042c7fd7762b9d468d14120389f41701.jpg (2048x2048, 218K)

Society dies because society breeds dependence on society which kills society.

Stop being a faggot and a retard.

Attached: ass.jpg (200x325, 26K)

Society dies because people do not contribute to society. You know, like when societies stop valuing merit.

Never give women power.

Agreed. A woman's value is best measured as her value as a woman.

Go on and explain what the muchness of merit is.
what color is merit?
how much does it weigh?

What is it that you give value to?

>give value
have you ever read a book in your life?

Every country should be nuked at random location once in 50 years. This would ensure that every generation faces enough hardship to remain strong.

the brazilian men are strong, hard workers and strong men, behold the brazilian men

Did you not ask me to give value to something?

Aristotle never said that.

No, I asked you to explain what it is and as a result how society can worship it.

What would you consider "worship worthy" for a society?

Answer the question "what is merit".

If the context is society, then would it not be that which adds value to society?

>that which adds value to society
what is value?
if it is "that which benefits society"
what benefits society?

>Apathy is a virtue
This is either flat wrong or a translation problem

If "dependence on society kills society," then wouldn't the opposite benefit society?

Wrong

Attached: downloadfile.jpg (1910x1000, 152K)

>I don't have anything to say
think for yourself shitbag.
what do you define merit and value as
why is "benefiting society" a good thing
why is benefiting society a good thing for the individual?

>why is benefiting society a good thing for the individual?
Would you say that a society which doesn't benefit the individual has no merit?
>think for yourself shitbag.
If you don't ask questions, are you really thinking, or simply assuming that you know something?

You apparently know the definition of merit and value, cocksucker, or you wouldn't assume to know that a lack of worshiping "merit" is what kills society.

>You apparently know the definition of merit and value, cocksucker,
,but don't you say that I don't know?

You sure as fuck haven't answered the question "what is merit".
That would lead me to believe you're retarded.

>what is merit
For the society, or the individual?

Attached: brazil-m00vIM0-PPMa-a61710q0.jpg (373x1920, 204K)

> Yet their civilization is improving. The Japanese value merit, and strictly adhere to the law.
and soon I will be joining them, no more niggers no more exploding achmeds, no more traitors, no more dying society.
I will finally enjoy what life was meant to be

Attached: resolution.webm (320x240, 2.84M)

Tolerance is the highest moral among those with no morals.

What is is?

I was just asking him questions because his assertions contradicted themselves. He was saying on the one hand that "dependence kills society," but still trying to say that there aren't merits. Clearly dependence is a demerit, and since the opposite of dependence is independence (self support) that would be a merit.

You do know that the japs don't want you, right?

>"dependence on society kills society,"
Best argument for individualist freedoms if I've ever read one.

"Ask not what your country can do for you" ~ JFK. Any society must be built upon those whom are strong enough to carry themselves. This is why the traditional view is that society should only provide for those whom can not provide for themselves, and that which the individual can not provide for themselves. Any more, or less than this, and society is worthless.

I had intended to mock his evasive pilpulry, but it seems I was unclear in that regard. I should have expected that, using only text on a Mongolian knot-tying imageboard