>Might is a fine thing, and useful for many purposes; for 'one goes further with a handful of might than with a bagful of right'. You long for freedom? You fools! If you took might, freedom would come of itself. See, he who has might 'stands above the law'. How does this prospect taste to you, you 'law-abiding' people? But you have no taste!How do you respond without sounding mad?
>>542321319>How do you respond without sounding mad?You won't do shit.
>>542321319i kneel
>>542321404>You won't do shi-ACK
>>542321319I mean it’s completely true
>>542322013Do something, faggot :-)
>>542321319you sound like a faggot and your shit is all retarded
>>542321319Might makes right isn’t an argument, it isn’t even meaningful communication. Do you believe a crime is defined philosophically or is a crime just what a powerful entity says it is? Why is crime a crime? Why does that matter? Then why call it a crime, if you don’t actually know how to make a distinction a moral distinction from it and anything else? I’m sure you think you’re just smarter and logic is just meaningless mind games that you don’t need. I can define crime. In order for a maxim to be moral it must be universalizable. In order to be universalizable a maxim must have value intrinsic to itself, to be an end in itself, as opposed to a means to an end, which could stipulate nonuniversalizable maxims. I can’t say that morality is a thing, nobody can, but what I can say that if morality was a thing then categorically it must look like this and it is not up for debate. This is the formula of right and wrong. Anything other than this we will instead call good and bad. The implication is that anything other than a categorical imperative is morally indistinguishable from anything else, so why support it? If you make a pretense to your beliefs being moral but you cannot at the same time distinguish your morality beyond arbitrary qualities, then morality to you is mere material, it’s just a sturdy club you have found to bash your enemies over the head with. From a moral perspective you’re no different than a caveman, and as has been proven through the a priori of argumentation, a literal grunting caveman that makes no meaningful sounds or utterances. When you speak to someone what does this imply? Why have you spoken to a person and not the lamp next to them or the wall behind them? Because it’s a person, you have implicitly acknowledged another persons existence. Now why have you done that? What is to come, what was the goal? Why do you try this to accomplish this and not something other than acknowledging a persons existence?
>>542322228Because it is easier to avoid conflict. Whether that is true to every situation or what conflict is is irrelevant, the point is you must come in peace or at least under a pretense of peace lest there be no reason to talk at all. Now what are the parameters of peace? You could say to me get out of my way or I’ll kill you, and I say ok and then when I do you move along and I don’t get killed and it may appear that communication was successful then but does that constitute a discussion? Had I actually been given a choice my answer would have affected the outcome, instead in this scenario you and I are just secondary environmental details to each other like an antelope getting out of the way of an elephant. Another example could be you wish to debate me on how long an object is but you will only measure it when I’m not looking and you won’t allow me to use the tape measure, this is not a discussion this is completely meaningless noise that you hope I understand enough from to get out of your way. Or even just talking at me expecting me to in some way withhold the use of my tongue, even if you also hold yourself to the same conditions or even however many hands you personally tie behind your back, is no better than animalistic grunting at me to get out of the way, or grunting at me that you’re getting out of my way or whatever you perverts think you are into. What distinguishes a discussion therefore is also the condition of mutual respect for each others self ownership, that no one is to be forced to do anything, and this also justifies the existence of private property as the true value neutral stance.
>>542322266Again, I can’t prove that communication or even knowledge exists, and nobody can, but what we can prove is what truth must be if there is truth and that therefore anything other than what it must be is not it. Since nothing does distinguish you from anyone else other than arbitrarily, it would be most accurate to describe you at your core as a bigoted utilitarian, who supports an arbitrary in group against an arbitrary out group. You are in fact a criminal, and your preferred vehicle of criminality is called government, or in more clear terms you have conceived of the possibility of a firm for the application of unprovoked violence to be used to accomplish your unfounded personal whims. There are only 2 crimes, theft and coercion, each just a method of circumventing cooperation to get what you want, and it’s your way of thinking that conceived and birthed government as an instrument of crime and crime itself. So then, is it any wonder that all our governments members are now wrapped up in a scandal over raping babies? It’s raping babies all the way down, always has been, and you’re at fault.
>>542321319>How do you respond without sounding mad?If you are going to say shit like this make sure the people you are saying it to aren't able to prove you right with a full force kick to the ribs.
>>542322228>>542322266>>542322280TL;DR?
>Might is a fine thing, and useful for many purposes; for 'one goes further with a handful of might than with a bagful of right'.In a lawless (check), Machiavellian (check) world, where money is the only currency (check) and gods are invented to justify all levels of perfidy and depravity (check, check), might does make 'right'.However, that's not a world wherein almost anyone would want to live.
>>542322427https://youtu.be/in3sacFHcck?is=D06yfWKFEF4iIDRY
>>542321319See Socrate VS Thrasymachus (Republic) or Socrate VS Callicles (Gorgias) if you are looking for actual counter arguments
>>542322803I'm not listening to the arguments of someone who let the greek polis kill them out of extreme moralfaggotry.
>>542322544But here we areWhat now?
