Not being religious, and for the most part, feeling everything to be subjective anyway, how can they feel to have a say in morality based problems?
What is wrong with oppressing certain groups of people?
What is wrong with discrimination on the basis of race?
What is wrong with men and women not having equal rights?
What is wrong with intolerance towards sexual deviants?
How can one assume these things to be wrong without a believe in objective morality?
Other urls found in this thread:
Hollywood, a proxy of the jewish elite.
Marxism is rooted in occidental philosophy.
Name a moral system that allows the discrimination of races.
First explain to me what's immoral about racism.
>What is wrong with oppressing certain groups of people?
What is wrong with oppressing white scumbags?
>What is wrong with discrimination on the basis of race?
What is wrong on the discrimination on the basis of intolerance?
>What is wrong with men and women not having equal rights?
What is wrong with men doing all the work while women sit at home doing absolutely nothing?
>What is wrong with intolerance towards sexual deviants?
What is wrong with intolerance towards the intolerant?
>How can one assume these things to be wrong without a believe in objective morality?
How can one assume these things to be wrong without a shred of respect for others?
>respect for others
Why is "respecting others" an objectively moral stance?
>What is wrong with oppressing white scumbags?
I would say that speaking out against racism against one group, but supporting it for another is not necessarily wrong, but it is hypocritical. Wether conscious hypocrisy is immoral or not is difficult to decide, but it's certainly a topic worthy of discussion.
>What is wrong on the discrimination on the basis of intolerance?
I didn't say it was, however, because intolerance always trumps over tolerance it will always lead to more economically stable and morally consistent societies. Intolerant societies have less diversity which equals less social, cultural and moral frictions. This will make it easier for people to have a identity and give a clear meaning to life that's in accordance with their ideals without these being constantly undermined by the interests of minorities who feel their own culture, naturally, to be superior over theirs.
>What is wrong with intolerance towards sexual deviants?
Already went over this.
>How can one assume these things to be wrong without a shred of respect for others?
Why do i need to respect other people?
Those who want respect give respect
Consider this:
Being a conservative inherently entails a mentality of COPE. We live together and have to make it work.
Leftist/Radicals don't live like that. They consider only their internal states and wants as valid.
What's wrong with that? It's because you are the bad guy if you do that stuff, and when people have nothing, all they have is being the good guy. A weakened population will always cling to ideals which make their petty existence meaningful.
Not leftist either, but I think I can answer your question.
>What is wrong with oppressing certain groups of people?
Well, if you want to be opressed because of that, then sure thing, believe in that. However, you will quickly see how terrible it is. I could go on and on, but in general, the simple explanation for that is that they do not want a conflict (even though they are really violent when someone questions them)
>What is wrong with discrimination on the basis of race?
t. jew. A white person who is redpilled would never say this because it would contradict to his narative that whites should be protected.
>What is wrong with men and women not having equal rights?
Not really in a favor of equal rights but truth to be told, I believe that dignity of both sexes must be preserved. Equal rights can wait little bit longer though, we aren't really sociologists, aren't we?
>What is wrong with intolerance towards sexual deviants?
Depends on what you consider a sexual deviant. If you refer to a sexual deviant as "queer", then I don't mind it excessively, however, as for other such as homo/bisexuality, I don't think it needs to be necessarily called "deviant behavior", like, even at my country, we had a tradition that was called "Pobratimstvo" or something like that, which was related to relationship between two men, however, I goddamn doubt that my ancestors would allow stuff like pride parades to take place.
>How can one assume these things to be wrong without a believe in objective morality?
Because they are hypocrites.
>Those who want respect give respect
This is implying that because you desire a specific thing it makes it moral.
Does desiring to rape make it moral then?
>Does desiring to rape make it moral then?
>Equivalating rape with respect
That's purely stupid, dear user. Also remove flag.
It is haughty and indignant to name just two. Now you!
user said that because one wants respect it's good to show respect to others.
His implication was that desire determines wether something is moral or not. If i desire to be hurt is it then moral to hurt someone else? It's a fallacious argument.
bourgoise narcissism
But respect is often not reciprocated.
Is it moral to respect those who wish to harm you?
And now I ask you is it moral to ignore my request to remove flag?
Might is right.
If they believe in something and are willing to lie, cheat, steal and crack open your head, then it gets done.
The rest is bullshit.
>It is haughty and indignant to name just two. Now you!
What makes these immoral?
Without God there's no objective morals but also there are no rights (they're the privileges conceded by the strongest).
They give everything for granted and that's why they are so entitled, demanding everything without any responsability.
That's why leftism has turned into a cult, because otherwise their principles don't stand. If you question them, they crumble.
Fascism, in the other hand, allows atheism and agnosticism, because it believes in the natural order of things. So everything follows a logic and is understood from the point of efficiency and practicality.
>Fascism, in the other hand, allows atheism and agnosticism, because it believes in the natural order of things
WTF, I LOVE ATHEISM NOW
This is analogously part of the occidental moral codex. Be not haughty. Be not indignant. Racism is haughty and indignant.
Now you name a moral codex who explicitly allows racism.
>This is analogously part of the occidental moral codex.
Why should i believe occidental morality to be correct?
>How can one assume these things to be wrong without a believe in objective morality?
They don't have a morality, they do whatever it will get them in power, be it using "minorities" or using conservatives
>What is wrong with oppressing white scumbags?
This doesn't contradict anything, all scumbags should be opressed.
>What is wrong on the discrimination on the basis of intolerance?
This is a paradox.
>What is wrong with men doing all the work while women sit at home doing absolutely nothing?
The fact that women should be taking care of children and doing whatever work they can? Otherwise nothing.
>What is wrong with intolerance towards the intolerant?
You're not even trying at this point.
>How can one assume these things to be wrong without a shred of respect for others?
I see you've mastered the art of blanket statements.
Kys
Could you please finally tell, which moral you are referring to?
Leftism and Conservatism is mainly rooted in occidental philosophy as mentioned before.
... and how would you falsify occidental moral?
>Could you please finally tell, which moral you are referring to?
Humanitairism.
>Leftism and Conservatism is mainly rooted in occidental philosophy as mentioned before.
Nobody denies this. I'm asking why being rooted in occidental philosophy makes it correct.
>... and how would you falsify occidental moral?
It's subjective morality.
They base them on popularity and punishment.
They don't follow some intricate, ethical system. It's literally just:
X feels good -> X is good
Y feels bad -> Y is bad
Pay attention to the way they word their statements. It's emotional hedonism, all of it.
And how is Humanitarism a moral system?
OP implied, that there is a moral system, that affirms discrimination of races.
My question was, what moral system would that be.
All the other parts, as discrimination of homosexuality, is written in the Bible.
If you don't refer to the Bible or what we call occidental values, which a priori model forbids homosexuality?
>Why do i need to respect other people?
Because you're weak.
And apparently severely autistic.
>And how is Humanitarism a moral system?
We misunderstand each other. I claimed that humanitairism is the ideology which drives most of our current social norms and i'm asking what's moral about it.
>My question was, what moral system would that be.
Moral systems have nothing to do with the question wether something is moral or not.
Answer me; what decides what is good and evil?
Good and evil is a godgiven dualism.
Homophobia or rascism is not reasonable.
Left and right are just morally in their most basic layers of premises.
State is godless and fixated on rationalism. Population is godless and fixated on hedonism.
From what I can tell, a lot of atheist beliefs draw their morality from the idea that humanity is "progressing" towards somewhere. They believe that if humanity, as a whole, can hold a certain set of values and live by those values, then we will achieve a utopia and eliminate suffering. These "silver bullet" values can be discovered by science and reason alone.
It's understandable how this belief came about. When you look at the improvement of life in the west over the past 70 or so years, it's easy to extrapolate on that and come to the conclusion that things for everyone, everywhere, are going to keep on getting better and better. Just as long as we are diligent and humanity all has this same belief (interestingly, this makes atheism one of the very few belief systems, among Christianity and Islam, that necessitates proselytization)
>Homophobia or rascism is not reasonable.
Why not?
But there are a few problems with this.
They believe that objective moral values can be arrived at with reason. But whenever people do use reason for this, they all come up with different conclusions.
Of course, it's easy for almost everyone to reason to the conclusion that murder or theft is wrong. But when it comes to things like abortion, border control, freedom of speech, power of the government etc ect, people using valid logic and reason come to different conclusions. Which just blows away the idea that an objective morality can be arrived at with reason and logic alone.
To be absolutely fair though, you see the same lack of consensus with people who draw their morality from divine revelation. So you really can't say that either moral system is superior to the other.
It is unreasonable, because the premises for hierarchy based on DNA-differences is good or sensual attraction to the same sex is bad, is not based on valid facts.
Cultural phobias are not reasonable.
In before: The population is low, therefore gays need to be punished because they waste semen, that could have impregnated (white) women.
Disclaimer: I'm not a leftist.
>It is unreasonable, because the premises for hierarchy based on DNA-differences is good or sensual attraction to the same sex is bad, is not based on valid facts.
How do you define the validity of a fact?
How do you determine the value of something?
And once again, as you still haven't answered the question, what makes something good or bad?
And Humanitarism is a morally concept because it demands humans to be human to other humans.
It is rooted in ancient philosophy, but is mainly a mammal instinct.
>demands humans to be human to other humans
>implying humans are ever not human
>blatant dehumanization of what the "humanist" deems undesirable
Absolutely disgusting
victimhood
I answered your question. Good and evil is a godgiven dualism. Everything contains both. So the question if something is good or evil is useless in this context. The separation of good and evil is a fallacy. It is a metaphysical queation, which can't be answered - verified/falsified in a reasonable way.
Human in a humanistic (as the concept) way.
If there is no good and evil what do you propose we base morality on?
Hedonism
If you would suffer under any of this it's wrong.
That means people should act "good" and helpful in a defined way, which is a fundament for human civilizations (and other mammal rotts.)
Acting helpful is only of value to society when it contributes to the stability of the communities. Acting helpful to people who's emancipation will only create social disorder is therefore not helpful to society in the long run.
Behaviour that is irrelevant to society: good
Behaviour that is negative to society: bad
Behaviour that is positive to society: good
The terms positive and negative need to be defined obviously. The aim is a stable population that doesn't starve.
"some things go better for some people, and worse for others, and that creates exclusivity."
"This exclusivity is bad and dismantling it is the only way to reduce suffering in all levels of society"
That is their belief, that suffering of some people can only be alleviated by poking others who are doing well for themselves, be it a billionaire or a white boy who can access education and a stable life.
No offspring, no future. Culturally speaking, europeans are screwed, even, and especially, the straight ones, because many of them don't see kids as a necessity.
Eliminating Whites. That is the moral foundation of the left. If it helps hurt and eliminate whites, it is morally good. If it doesn't, it's "Nazism", i.e. ultimate evil.
morally? -
>What is wrong with oppressing certain groups of people?
- nothing
>What is wrong with discrimination on the basis of race?
- nothing
>What is wrong with men and women not having equal rights?
- nothing
>What is wrong with intolerance towards sexual deviants?
- nothing
it's """wrong""" to oppress people because they might retaliate. (i say, fuck them and just get rid of the oppressed people)
nothing is wrong with men and women not having equal rights... however the big guys wanted to have more people to do their work. so they pushed for equal rights.
i don't personally like sexual deviants. and i will punch any actual pedophiles i meet. and if one of my peers would turn out to NOT want to punch pedophiles, then he would be punched as well.
this is subjective morality.
you say what's moral and what isn't by punishing those things that aren't and rewarding those things that are.
Pretty arbitrary aim there but as good as anyone's suggestion ig
Haven't expected we would go d'accord.
What is good for a society in the long run?
Cosmopolitanism would be a concept that needs to fail practical, as communism, fascism did before.
The left has made a morality out of epistemological solipsism.
Everything the left stands for can be summed up in "dont judge"
The biggest taboo to leftists is one who mantains values and prejuidices--by no means is one allowed to care about another persons behaviour
This video covers a few leftist supposed values and shows that really they are values devoid of meaning
>Acting helpful to people who's emancipation will only create social disorder is therefore not helpful to society in the long run.
Define social disorder.
The suppression of individual emancipation creates even bigger social disorder. Example: Totalitarianism
Homosexuality itself is neutral to society, like doing sports or collecting stamps.
>How can one assume these things to be wrong without a shred of respect for others?
okay, now we're actually getting somewhere.
If your definition of a moral action can be summarized as "that which is respectful to others", then might I remind you that your existence is depriving others of resources they could use for themselves.
Hinduism, nigger.
Not wrong=right i suppose.
If it is not wrong, why is it right?
Why is it right in an universal way and not just out of the perspective of a white, straight male, who could have a benefit of a darwinistic scenario as described by OP?
>Define social disorder.
A division within society characterized by a constantly growing inconsistency in moral convictions.
>The suppression of individual emancipation creates even bigger social disorder. Example: Totalitarianism
Wether totalitarianism is disorder depends on the dictator. Some totalitarianist societies were ordered, like Nazi Germany. Some totalitarianist societies were not, like late ancient Rome.
>Homosexuality itself is neutral to society, like doing sports or collecting stamps.
There is a correlation between the normalisation of infertile sexual behaviour and the lowering of birth rates. So no, it isn't neutral to society, as a stable population is necessary for a stable economy. Also, 3% of the homosexuals are responsible for 60% of the venereal infections. That is not neutral to society either.
The indian castes are not rascism because every caste contains indians.
Caste system is comparable to the european estates of the realm.
Caste system originally was probably a form of Apartheid considering the DNA found in higher castes of Indian society corresponding with DNA of eastern Europeans, who likely migrated to india during the Aryan migration thousands of years ago.
>>Homosexuality itself is neutral to society, like doing sports or collecting stamps.
>There is a correlation between the normalisation of infertile sexual behaviour and the lowering of birth rates. So no, it isn't neutral to society, as a stable population is necessary for a stable economy. Also, 3% of the homosexuals are responsible for 60% of the venereal infections. That is not neutral to society either.
The correlation between infertile sexual behaviour and homosexuality is not valid. The so called "sexual revolution" of the sixties is. Sex isn't primarily designed to reproduce (like the bible says) than to experience sensual joy in their understanding.
Rome failed due to barbarians at the outside borders and social disorder caused by decadence and an invasive jewish sect. Compare: Europe today
>The correlation between infertile sexual behaviour and homosexuality is not valid. The so called "sexual revolution" of the sixties is.
I never said it was the only correlation, however,
the gay emancipation is still an extension of the sexual revolution and played a considerable and disproportionate role in spreading venereal disease.
>Sex isn't primarily designed to reproduce
It is.
The positive feeling is only there to make reproducing more attractive.
>Rome failed due to barbarians at the outside borders and social disorder caused by decadence and an invasive jewish sect
Yes, and it was still an totallitarian state. pre and post Christianity. Bear in mind, Christianity was forced upon the Romans by Constantine, who willingly converted and used totallitarianism to spread it through the empire.
Egalitarianism
The lower castes are the descendants of abbos and the higher ones descend from aryans. You can see the difference to this day.
Nothing
It’s from the post modernist conclusion that no group has a higher claim to ideology than any other and all that’s left is power, the marriage of neo marxism and post modernism to the left basically tell those on the left it all comes down to a power play it’s all about power. A lot of lefties don’t even realize they’re influenced by these ideologies they’re just indoctrinated or subscribe and and become ideologues. How do you defeat a philosophy that throws away reason and logic and rejects the structural premise of logic which the enlightenment established?
>>Rome failed due to barbarians at the outside borders and social disorder caused by decadence and an invasive jewish sect
>Yes, and it was still an totallitarian state. pre and post Christianity. Bear in mind, Christianity was forced upon the Romans by Constantine, who willingly converted and used totallitarianism to spread it through the empire.
Homosexuality in ancient Rome an Greece was accepted until it was stigmatized by Christianity. The christian monopol of straight marriages was at least a part of the hegemonic claim of Christianity. The main positive reinforcement was the promise, that there is life after death.
The timeline i would be interested in: how would Europe look today, if the mosaic narrative wasn't told. A non-humaistic pagan civilization for example. With advanced technology.
Power. The acquisition and abuse of power is the basis for their moral conviction.
The small minded have not and hate those that have. Feminists hate that men can create things and beautiful women can have beautiful chiodren and attract the best men.
So they degrade and destroy male creativity, female beauty and human fertility.
It is thwir nature, ad in the parable of the scorpion and the frog.
At the leadership level it is religion, just not the toychy feely variant for the masses. The worship of Tanit, Osiris , Baal and Saturn are real and organised.
Tanit required castration of her followers and child sacrifice. What are the two main leftist pushes? Abortion and killing of newborns and the castration of males.
Baal is the god of the Masons and many, if not most international leaders are masons. The Pope, Ergodan, Princes of the UK etc
Obviously they don't say it outright because they don't want the future sacrifices panicking.
>What does the left base it's moral conviction on?
Nothing. It's all about moral relativism. Taking a moral stance on anything is immoral to them.
>What is wrong with oppressing white scumbags?
How can whites be a scumbag race if non whites have human rights?
>What is wrong on the discrimination on the basis of intolerance?
This is paradox you cannot shill for tolerance while being intolerant yourself
>What is wrong with men doing all the work while women sit at home doing absolutely nothing?
Men built society the slaves should be women not men.
>What is wrong with intolerance towards the intolerant?
It means you dont really care about tolerance
>How can one assume these things to be wrong without a shred of respect for others?
You have no respect for other white people you hypocrite.
It’s ok to steal from white ppl
>What is wrong with oppressing certain groups of people?
I dont know how much you are behind, but obviously everything they do is ranking groups, which is the precise and exact opposite of what they blabla