Philisophical question:

What deserves death in your opinion?

Talmudic Jews
Luciferians
Satanists
Freemasons of a 17th degree or higher

pedophiles
doctors who practice circumcision without the patients consent
hostile foreign invaders (even non violent ones we should give them the option to leave if they choose not to death penalty for coming here illegally)

i think that covers everyone imo feel free to add to the list

Self-defense obviously.

Yes, communists should all be killed on sight.

people that sit too long at a stop sign before moving

Yes, obviously.
Shit question.

>random acts of violence are not okay
Of course not, violence against those who commit random acts of violence is acceptable, and necessary.
>vengeance i personally frown upon
Vengeance and revenge are the only legitimate reasons to commit murder

Based on your own moral disposition.
Laws reflect the concept of equivalence when relating to crimes. Punishment must be equivalent to the crime committed in its severity.
Murder should always result in Execution or in life sentence as it is the equivalent punishment based on objectivity. The action of taking a life, must then be punished with the removal of a life, whether that be literally or metaphorically in relation to the elimination of ones own personal liberties and freedoms via incarceration till death.
Treasonous crimes, such as espionage for a foreign state, should also result in death, as the actions taken under that espionage endangered the lives of countless people, whether it be government officials, law enforcement, the military or even the citizens of the nation itself.
Other crimes can also justify death, such as Rape of a child, as the child being raped has likely resulted in a metaphorical destruction of that child’s life, and a ruination of his childhood, as well as a limitation on his sociability and therefore handicapping his Adult life.
Death can very much be justified objectively based on equivalence.

If the suffering they would bring to the world is greater and more apparent than the suffering we would bring those around them to kill them. This only comes into play if they have demonstrated willingness to wrong others in a major way, such as murder.
Moral killing is preventative, not vindictive.

Attached: 1529879682554.jpg (2048x1670, 791K)

In your own personal opinion, why should satanists be killed. As there are different forms of satanism that don't practise rituals involving the death of animals and humans.

Why do you think satanists should be killed? There are many forms of satanism that don't do human and animal rituals.

No. We are made in the image of God. Murdering another person is the equivalent of murdering God. Even in cases of self-defense, never fight back. Self-preservation of the body is a sin. We should strive to be like Jesus. He was beaten nearly to death for a crime he never committed but never fought back. He was willing to die innocent than to be alive with sin. Powerful.

Breaking the nap

Why not torture and play satan as well as god

Checked. Devils advocate for a second. If the punishment should be equivalent to the crime shouldn't the punishment for rape be getting raped?

In what sense?
Not killing is just part of a social contract that we all agreed upon to make life easier and advance as groups (like nations) but we may or may not extend this clause to other groups (war).
Now, if you don't agree with this clause you'll have to confront the group of people that did agree upon it and the consecuences will vary depending on their social contract.
It's not the same to kill a person in Mauritania than in Austria.
So, basically, if you want to know if it's OK to kill someone you'd have to read the specific place's law (their social agreement) to know.
There's not a universal answer for this. Morals change. Not only with time but also depending on the cultures and demographics.

It is always okay to kill somone.
>The real question is for what reason?

What happens when the (((state))) classifies treason as anyone who loves their history and heritage and is against mass immigration?

let me rephrase then, vengeance over petty matters that could be resolved without death. you shouldn't kill someone because they stole your cookies in elementary school

because they knowingly act as a shield for the teachings of Aleistar Crowley and those who do. the higher ups of satanism are useful idiots and they know full well what comes from the teachings they preach.

If you want to punish someone death is a relief. If its for avenge or justice theres no justice in letting them go that easy

Attached: BA2CA531-949C-4D19-918E-A6F69956AD34.jpg (919x720, 59K)

they are the reason most people don't believe the ritual sacrifice kind of Lucifarian exist when you say somebody is a satanist now a days they think a weirdo wearing a robe with black horns pouring milk on people in public not the ritual sacrifice of children.

Yes.
Morality presupposes the existence of a Grand Moral Arbiter. Morality is the same concept as free will. Free will is observably true.

Do you base all your reactions on what the law says? What do YOU think?

Human morals are inherent in humans. They are a necessary condition. They have a physical anchor and are not entirely a construct of logic.

>you shouldn't kill someone because they stole your cookies in elementary school
Ok now give me a reason you should be able to kill someone

>Morality presupposes the existence of a Grand Moral Arbiter. Morality is the same concept as free will. Free will is observably true.
Free will does not equal morality, in fact I'd say they're opposites

>Ok, when is it not ok to kill someone?
Just quickly putting together something that I think makes logical sense based off reciprocal morality:

In the case that killing the other party violates the moral code of either party, and there has not been a moral violation by either party against the other previously.

e.g. If we both think it's okay to kill each other, we are both morally justified in killing each other.

If party A thinks it's okay to kill party B, but this is not reciprocated, then it is not morally justified - UNLESS: Party A has taken some action to violate Party B's moral code AND this violation is morally equivalent to killing the other party.

e.g. It's okay for Party B to kill Party A if Party A is performing some action indicating they intend to kill/maim/seriously harm Party B.

I think reciprocal morality is in part defined by the golden rule: Do not do to others what you would not do to yourself(?)

There are probably little logic errors/loopholes you can find in this still, but the essence of this line of thought is that universal morality exists, but is defined as only what the involved parties BOTH agree upon. In this definition we do not actually need to spell out anything specific about the moral code. It's basically a generalization of morality and applicable no matter who/what you run into.

I think.

Anyways, all that said, I also want to add that morality is itself just an evolutionary compulsion that is the product of generations of successful reproduction. In a civilization like ours, we abhor and punish murder because such actions diminish the reproductive success of the entire community if they are not policed. That is our moral foundation, and as such we can see that moral foundations can change depending on the evolutionary circumstances - a wasp which must lay its eggs in a tarantula would have no moral compunction against doing so, as this is how it reproduces and any wasp which DID have issue, would not reproduce

Attached: 1545156400_popuptee_welcome-to-lv-426_1494612722.full.png (1024x1024, 499K)

They rape your wife. They are trying to kill you. They have broken into your house at night. Any of those are sufficient to justify killing.

Absolutely. Following nature's example, killing is a part of the cycle of life. Those authoritarians posing as moralists who claim otherwise are only trying to maintain the unnatural orderliness and stability of a society which preys upon its inhabitants.

youtube.com/watch?v=hLC9rShGXt0

So, tell me what you think?

Does this work?

Attached: 1516614479_newt___aliens_by_jdelgado-d8kcta8.jpg (1280x683, 120K)

...

(OP) #
No, never

All of us experience the world for ourselves, no one else. When we die, our world dies with us.

You have the same philosophical right to live as any other human. To kill someone is to violate that fundamental right. Since human life, at least in a humanist perspective is invaluable, killing one human in countrable to killing all of humanity. When you kill another human, you kill yourself and the world.

No it’s not. Might be necessary but not ok.

They really aren't. Just look at "feral" people behave.

yes

flag checks out

Constructs are a human construct

This is a good post, leaf.
>e.g. It's okay for Party B to kill Party A if Party A is performing some action indicating they intend to kill/maim/seriously harm Party B.
What about party b's friends? Family? Are they included?

Kek

To all those here predicating their answers upon religious belief, I have this question:

If God created nature, and nature by example endorses the act of killing, then why oppose the act of killing when God didn't give you the ability to change the laws of nature?

Righteous killing is different than killing in cold blood, most people can agree with that

I think most people vary their opinion of what's righteous pretty wildly depending on what's convenient at the given moment.

>Do you base all your reactions on what the law says?
Yes? It's better to base my reactions in the legal consecuences than in Jow Forums's opinion, don't you think?
I alredy told you my point of view, draw the conclussions that you want from it. Want it spoon fed to you? The answer is "it depends". Of what? Of all the factors that I mentioned. Are you OK with taking the risks of the legal consequences? Do you agree with the social contract? There you have it.

Communists
Niggers
Jews

Yes! It’s hinestly ethical to kill the clever tribalistic, opinion shaping, media running Jew.

Honestly whoops

I think you defined the constant pretty succinctly: What's convenient at the given moment, e.g. what benefits them.
When is it wrong to pursue what benefits you? The answer under reciprocal morality would be when it involves directly violating the moral code of someone else.

I think every observer is included. So e.g. someone watching a murder is, if their moral belief includes murder being wrong, then morally justified in interveneing - regardless of the moral beliefs of the other parties involved, and if for some reason this violates the moral belief of someone else, they are likewise justified in taking action against the moral crusader.

In other words, universal morality quickly becomes only what everyone involved mutually agree upon.

And this is probably why homogenous societies work so well - we can Trust that others are very similar to us, and have similar moral codes which will not conflict with our own. (particularly as we all come from very similar evolutionary backgrounds which have shaped those moral codes in the first place).

We can therefore expect that anything which comes from a similar environment as us, will have similar morality.

However, because of the reciprocal nature of morality the more you mix and match wildly different moral codes, the more your universal morality breaks down to lower and lower levels of agreed upon morality. Too many different moral codes contradict each other in so many ways that it may as well be equivalent to having no morality at all.

I propose this is fundamentally why different cultures and people cannot peaceably co-exist (e.g. with a minimum of moral friction).

I think this could begin to logically and morally justify keeping different races and cultures separate.

Attached: 1457103862_SEPPING-RED_1024x1024.jpg (768x1024, 175K)

Yes. Especially if someone tries to infringe on yours or your group wellbeing. And if you think that there is some higher morale rather than law of nature you are wrong and also are traitor of your ethnic group

It's never ok, but it's sometimes necessary.

There are only three degrees in regular Freemasonry.

>The answer under reciprocal morality would be when it involves directly violating the moral code of someone else.
Reciprocal morality... an interesting concept that I don't think most people are really acquainted with or live by. We live by assumptions, wildly and erroneously guessing that we share common constants with the people around us. This gives people who choose to behave outside those common constants an advantage, because they can predict the behavior of the people around them while their own behavior is, to observers, erratic. Sounds like a way to earn a bad reputation, but for short-term gains, it works. And repeated short-term gains can turn into long-term gains, especially if your initial action created hardship for the competition.

Satanists any time of the day.

this
he should have said that they are a necessary condition of human society. we are all heavily socialized beings. that socialization defines us. our mannerisms, our interests, our ideas and actions, all based on our socialization(and genetics). non-socialized people who, say, were raised by wolfs, would only display instinctive morality, such as morality towards onesself aka self-preservation, which is the basis of morality.

to stop them killing you, sure.

>when is it not ok to kill someone?
When the consequences outweigh the benefits.

I think most of of you kids have no idea how much your society is protecting your weak-ass from getting killed randomly for the amusement of psychos. Consider how much you see traps, a tiny tiny percentage of the population, and then realize there are way more 'rational' psychos who don't murder you simply because enjoying the ease of life that civilization brings is slightly more fun than killing you.

Now really freak out when you realize that half of the country is currently advocating for police to ignore laws and for judges to stop handing out consequences. Weed, illegal aliens, petty theft, etc. That's just the beginning. The second there is no real pain or murdering dorks you're all dead.

Attached: nice.jpg (797x302, 54K)

>or
*for

We permit killing all the time. War, execution, police shootings, euthenasia, abortion and so on

Rule 303

It depends on an individual's set of morals or the value system of a given doctrine assuming it's absolute. To Batman or a Jainist it's never okay to kill someone. To almost everyone/thing else there are ample justifications.

Of course it is
>when you're a soldier at war
>when you're defending yourself against a threat to your or someone else's life or limb
>when you're a physician euthenising someone with a terminal illness that causes suffering when he or his next-of-kin agrees to it
>when you're a jailer executing a death warrant

To suggest humans constructed morality is different than saying it is a human thing, but humans did not construct morality. All cultures during all periods of human civilization have operated on the balance between our carnal needs and guiding morals. Any tribe that theoretically did not have morals was not successful because a tribe of back-stabbing psychos is only a silly fantasy of R. A. Salvatore and even then it doesn't make sense. All functioning "normal" individuals possess their own morals or conscience. Those who do not must pretend to be a regular person because their anti social behaviors don't cut it after age 4.

Ameribros get it

Attached: 12.jpg (630x630, 73K)

>The answer under reciprocal morality would be when it involves directly violating the moral code of someone else.
Leaf-posting is against my moral code. Kindly cease and desist.

Define "ok"