Blackpill [Hard To Swallow Edition] There Is No Such Thing As An "Innocent" In Society [NOT EVEN CHILDREN]

[Personalityinkwell]

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.

"Objective morality" or "moral objectivism", whatever, you get what I mean.

You still can't explain yourself why anything is OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. I gave you a link to why things are NOT objectively moral or immoral, and you still evade that question.

 

[BlkPillPres]

You are the perfect poster child for the Dunning-Krueger effect.

Ever notice how great you are at responding to arguments while purposefully refusing to actually address them, all while pretending as if you aren't the idiot in the equation?

You literally never address anything directly, seriously go read through the last few posts, you don't address arguments, you merely assert you are right and add in a few insults, the only idiot here is you and you laughably lack the self awareness to realize that

You still haven't addressed the point, does merely finding a source online for something mean that thing is valid?

Obviously no, I can do the same with anything, with feminism, I can find sources saying the black pill is false, etc

The thing you're looking for is "moral objectivism." Spend more time reading and less time posting.

The thing you're looking for is "confirmation bias". Spend more time reasoning arguments using your own logic rather than looking for sources that already agree to your biases, and hailing them as absolutes because you agree with them (that's circular reasoning idiot, you agreeing with the sources that fit your argument doesn't make them accurate)

 

[based_meme]

"Objective morality" or "moral objectivism", whatever, you get what I mean.

You still can't explain yourself why anything is OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. I gave you a link to why things are NOT objectively moral or immoral, and you still evade that question.

Spend more time reading and less time posting.

.

Ever notice how great you are at responding to arguments while purposefully refusing to actually address them, all while pretending as if you aren't the idiot in the equation?

You literally never address anything directly, seriously go read through the last few posts, you don't address arguments, you merely assert you are right and add in a few insults, the only idiot here is you and you laughably lack the self awareness to realize that

You still haven't addressed the point, does merely finding a source online for something mean that thing is valid?

Obviously no, I can do the same with anything, with feminism, I can find sources saying the black pill is false, etc



The thing you're looking for is "confirmation bias". Spend more time reasoning arguments using your own logic rather than looking for sources that already agree to your biases, and hailing them as absolutes because you agree with them (that's circular reasoning idiot, you agreeing with the sources that fit your argument doesn't make them accurate)

WORDS. MORE WORDS. NOT ENOUGH WORDS.

Maybe if you spent a fraction of the time and effort into finishing your education as you spend into making these low IQ threads, you'd have a better understanding of this subject and not post rehashed edgy nonsense.

 

[GoffSystemQB]

.


WORDS. MORE WORDS. NOT ENOUGH WORDS.

Maybe if you spent a fraction of the time and effort into finishing your education as you spend into making these low IQ threads, you'd have a better understanding of this subject and not post rehashed edgy nonsense.

Dude just engage on this subject one time. Outside of a religious worldview it is indeed contentious and up in the air.

 

[Personalityinkwell]

.


WORDS. MORE WORDS. NOT ENOUGH WORDS.

Maybe if you spent a fraction of the time and effort into finishing your education as you spend into making these low IQ threads, you'd have a better understanding of this subject and not post rehashed edgy nonsense.

Dude just engage on this subject one time. Outside of a religious worldview it is indeed contentious and up in the air.

"I'm right, go look it up on the internet."

"You're edgy, I'm better than you because I follow brainwashed norms"

 

[based_meme]

Dude just engage on this subject one time. Outside of a religious worldview it is indeed contentious and up in the air.

I'm sorry, but no. I've already put in a shit load of wasted energy in good faith into "debating" this here on the sub previously already. The arguments for and against moral relativism, absolutism and objectivism are already there in the literature.

It's unproductive - and frankly unreasonable - to engage here when the other side admittedly has no background on the subject. Do you really expect me to make an honest effort to make an attempt at discourse using this calibre of argumentation: https://philosophynow.org/issues/83/Our_Morality_A_Defense_of_Moral_Objectivism (which by the way I couldn't do impromptu, as that takes a lot of work) when the other side doesn't know the basics and spends literally less than five minutes (posting time stamps JFL) with resources I've given them? C'mon son, I ain't down with dat bullshit.

 

[Sheogorath]

A lot of people, even incels, are against mass murders based on the false perception of "innocents", I'm here to argue there's no such thing

Innocence is not a false perception so long as you acknowledge it to be a subjective concept rather than an absolute one.

Much like strong/weak or rich/poor you could draw lines in many different places, so the words are not very useful on their own without a context.

Aren't we all aware that pedophilia and rape is rampant in Hollywood?

depends on what you mean by "rape" and "rampant" and "pedophilia"
or "we all" or "aware" for that matter.

Could you refine your statement?

Most people living in areas with drug king pins know who is running the area yet do nothing until a close family member or friend is affected (or they themselves)

Etc, etc, etc

There are many things about the reality we live in that we "just accept" because it doesn't affect us enough for us to care

Caring/Uncaring is also a false dichotomy you're promoting here.

A lot of people care (have some regard / empathy) for a situation yet still do not attempt to intercede because of competing cares which hold greater importance to them.

For example: if I saw a gang of thugs curb-stomping some yowling kittens, I would definitely care and be very sad. But I still may not choose to intercede because I would be terrified: caring more about my own well-being than risking harm to myself (perhaps getting killed) trying to save the kittens: especially since they'd probably kill the kittens anyway after defeating me.

Society doesn't care about the things that affect men (divorce laws, child support, alimony, etc), so the entirety of society is complicit in this

Again too much of an absolute: many in society "care" about this, but they care about other stuff more.

For example: some women probably think it sucks that there are mean women who exploit divorce/CS/alimony, but they care more about retaining their special female-only privilege (thus why it's called feminism) for their own protection more than they care about protecting men. They prop up an unjust system probably more due to their selfishness outweighing their empathy. It's relativistic apathy rather than absolute apathy.

ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT IF EVERY PERSON BANDED TOGETHER TO GET THESE LAWS CHANGED IT WOULDN'T CHANGE IN A MONTH?

Of course we could get things changed as a collective

But we don't, and that's because we don't really give a fuck unless something affects us directly, that's how humans are, AND THAT MAKES US ALL COMPLICIT IN THESE SYSTEMS

I think most give some care, though perhaps not enough to match the quanta you define as "a fuck", when it comes to motivating us to organize to make changes and oppose those who actively resist the changes and target changers.

Everyone is fucking aware of what is going on in some sense but they do nothing about it because it doesn't affect them and/or they come out on top in the scenario, so THEY ARE COMPLICIT

THERE ARE NO INNOCENTS

There are degrees of innocence and degrees of guilt.

The man unaware of kitten-stomping is more innocent than the man aware and wanting to stop but afraid of dying in the process... but he too is more innocent than the actual kitten stompers.

If you just want to have a false dichotomy of innocent/guilty then you are wrongly lumping people together with different degrees of causality for crimes.

Now onto why children aren't "innocent", that has more to do with THE NATURE OF WHAT IT IS TO BE HUMAN

WE ARE INNATELY SADISTS AND SELFISH (FROM BIRTH)

Children are not innocent, they are somewhat ignorant but not innocent, kids engage in the same vile acts adults do, just "lesser" forms of them, and we label these lesser forums as "acceptable" because "its a kid", its all based on emotion and us as a society avoiding an existential crisis, THAT CRISIS COMING FROM US REALIZING WHAT WE REALLY ARE

The distinction here is not what impulse we have, but what knowledge we have to temper it.

There is no difference to a 10 year old girl telling the ugly kid in class to get away from her because "he's icky" and that same 10 year old (at the age of 20) telling the incel at her college to get away from her because he's an "ugly loser who is stupid enough to think he had a chance with her"

I think there is: the twenty-year-old "ought to know better" to a greater degree, since she has had more time to learn empathy.

Her failure to learn empathy/civility/politeness counts as a greater failure and demerit against her worth as a person. She has likely had and passed by more teachable moments to do an about-face, whereas the ten-year-old has had fewer learning opportunities (fewer missed chances to change) to demonstrate being worthless.

There is no difference between a 15 year old bully that takes children's lunch money, and a 35 year old that makes the local small businesses in his area pay a "protection fee". BOTH are forms of "racketeering", one is just treated as "lesser" and basically ignored because "its a kid"

There is obviously a difference here too: we're talking about more money, a greater degree of threat, and two decades worth of abstained opportunities to learn empathy and alter behavior.

ALL OF THESE "LESSER FORMS" OF ACTS/THOUGHTS ARE INDICATORS OF HUMAN NATURE AND THAT PERSON'S MINDSET

I agree with you here, but since nature (while an overwhelming trend) doesn't utterly set in stone (people can change, even if they only do it 1% of the time) it's okay to philosophically recognize a distinction.

Having a more "advanced understanding" of your thoughts and actions don't make you more or less innocent, because at the end of the day, you comprehended the act/thought on some level,

The "some level" is different though, so the level of guilt/innocence is linked to that understanding.

I for example am far more guilty of contributing to the deaths of cows because I know what a burger is made of. Some 4-year-old who doesn't even understand the process of a burger obviously is more innocent in regard to the act of eating it.

If I choose to hit some innocent kid in the face, I would be more guilty of it (knowing the damage blunt trauma can cause) than some stupid kid who only knows that punch=pain but might have a false sense of ramification as to minimizing the potential deadliness of a punch.

That's a cultural problem too. It's not just cartoons, you have people trading punches like raindrops during action movies, leading people to instinctive view humans as less fragile than they actually are.

and you enjoyed what you were doing, so how the fuck can you be "innocent", its just special pleading BECAUSE HUMANS DON'T WANT TO ADMIT TO OURSELVES WHAT WE ARE, HOW INNATELY CRUEL AND FUCKED UP WE ARE EVEN FROM CHILDHOOD

They can't be innocent in the sense that absolute innocence rarely exists for a person given that absolute lack of knowledge rarely exists.

In cases like that, we usually refer to it as accident or coincidence.

I agree with you that there is some guilt in children who cause each other pain, but I also view them as less guilty compared to adults given their lesser knowledge of the ramifications of suffering.

There's no such thing as "innocent", we just label these "lesser acts/thoughts" that children have as innocent because we want a "just world" perception of things

If innocence can't exist then guilt can't either. They're linked together as antonyms.

I think what you're struggling with is that neither is an absolute but we often talk of them that way.

Absolute innocence can't exist just as absolute guilt can't exist. Both exist in partial relativistic quanta.

Ever notice how babies laugh while "playing" with their parents if said parent makes a pained face after they hit them, that's an indicator of the INNATE SADISM we have as a species

Some do, I guess. We should be concerned about those that do that.

Considering something innate makes us struggle with viewing it as guilt/sin/crime though.

Like it being in the nature of lions to devour gazelles.

Why I think we judge humans more harshly is because we have competing memes we expect to temper such impulse.

The more time passes in which someone could learn but where they do not, the greater they alarm us in their failure to become civil.

We go on to label that act/thought as "innocent" because "its a baby", but that's ridiculous, its really fucking sinister when you think about it, the fact that a baby laughs because you are in pain, the fact that its wired into a being to find enjoyment in an expression associated with discomfort

I would find it more alarming, though I wouldn't term it sinister, as that adjective to me denotes a more learned/intellectual malice rather than an instinctive one.

Though maybe that's just the eponymous film's antagonists influencing my attachments to the term?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INNOCENCE

That's like saying there's no such thing as shortness or tallness.

Sure there is, but it's not a yes/no discrete dichotomy.

If you think that way, you think "all innocents are equal" and "all guilty are equal" which obviously isn't true.

We're all innocent of some things and guilty of other things. It's situational and in degrees.

What ever you'd like to call "evil" is "inside of us" FROM BIRTH, its just that some age groups get excused, while others are judged for it

We have genetic predispositions to different thinking patterns, but experience/nurture/memes do influence the final result to. No need to simplify one or the other.

Its the same reason why a "child" can be "charged as a minor" for murder rather than charged for murder like every other adult, and its because "they don't know any better, its a child"

Complete BS, we all know on some level, WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHY

"on some level" is the key thing here.

If a 5 year old boy pushes down some 90 year old dude he might just be thinking "ha ha funny" or "make him upset, hurt him"

He doesn't understand like I do how easy it is for the 90 year old dude to fracture his femur and suffer infections and likely die from the fall.

That doesn't mean I'm arguing for lesser punishment though (euthanize the little fuck) just that I acknowledge he is more innocent of it: I just don't care, I'd rather breed such impulses out of society brutally rather than waste further resources on bad ingredients that will end up worse.

That 15 year old school bully who gets off on beating kids knows what he's doing, he just isn't completely aware of why he enjoys it

I don't know if they ever do become fully aware of why they enjoy it.

I also agree remove those fucks from society forever.

At the same time, while some people tend to learn little over time (sometimes even become dumber) there are points (though moreso pre-teen, not aging 13 to 15) where you gain greater knowledge of the consequences of suffering and how permanent the ramifications are.

That 15 year old girl in school that publicly rejects guys so that they get mocked and teased knows what she is doing,
she just isn't completely aware of why she enjoys it

Some speculation involved here: do you know for certain the reason she would answer publicly is to induce mockery?

That is very often the case but I like to keep an open mind, maybe she's having a bad day because her mom just raped her pooper with a carrot and she is snapping at anyone.

Humans are fucked up, society likes to pretend that children aren't because then nobody has to admit to themselves that they were always fucked up, they can give themselves the excuse that "SOMETHING CHANGED THEM" and "were not all bad"

fucked-up / not-fucked-up is another false dichotomy.

We're all fucked up to varying degrees, or maybe nobody is if you can't establish a baseline from which you need to deviate to be wrong.

Nobody is 100% bad, but we all have some % of badness... however you want to define that. It can be unclear which the latter statement you made is expressing.

 

[BlkPillPres]

It's unproductive - and frankly unreasonable - to engage here when the other side admittedly has no background on the subject. Do you really expect me to make an honest effort to make an attempt at discourse using this calibre of argumentation: https://philosophynow.org/issues/83/Our_Morality_A_Defense_of_Moral_Objectivism (which by the way I couldn't do impromptu, as that takes a lot of work) when the other side doesn't know the basics and spends literally less than five minutes (posting time stamps JFL) with resources I've given them? C'mon son, I ain't down with dat bullshit.

By your logic:
"You can't argue whether gender studies is invalid until you study gender studies"


Are there more than two genders?

If you say no, then why, you aren't a gender studies major are you?

How many hours have you dedicated into studying authorized gender studies material? (I'd say not a lot, if any at all)

Therefore you have no say over whether there are two genders or not, and anything you have to say on the issue is invalid


YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY TAKEN TO THE EXTREME

Its not only - "These important people have said X", its "you haven't studied the works of these important people so you can have no say on the issue"

Its appeal to authority squared, you are a master at making fallacious arguments I'll give you that, and again, you have no self awareness to realize what you're doing

 

[Personalityinkwell]

, you have no self awareness to realize what you're doing

that or he is a government shill trying to keep incels in check

 

[HateCurry]

Children are not innocent, they are somewhat ignorant but not innocent, kids engage in the same vile acts adults do, just "lesser" forms of them, and we label these lesser forums as "acceptable" because "its a kid", its all based on emotion and us as a society avoiding an existential crisis, THAT CRISIS COMING FROM US REALIZING WHAT WE REALLY ARE

This is the problem with stupid people and children (btw by stupid I mean it as someone who isn't experienced and doesn't know much about a certain field)

Things are merely what you sense them as up until you develop knowledge about them

They merely don't know what they are doing

There's a weird _thread that I made_ on this exact issue when this site got down for a while and me being a new user I was very much in the driver seat of this guy who kept blaming the people who knew more about it and I had no way to contact them but, great thread in my opinion:

POP blaming and life isn't fair; Should stupid people die? An analysis

I've noticed I blame the people in positions of power for whatever happened in something I know nothing about. Today, this site had given me no posting privileges for over 2 hours (I'm writing this 11 PM Friday, 16th September 2022) I blamed the admin, the mods and so on, when there was some...

incels.is

Excuse the weird colors spreading around everywhere it's dramatic I was experimenting but yeah, this is a weirdly worded 'realization'

I make these weird threads often when I realize something different, I'd love if it would've happened/taken place more frequently but, thought I'd write it all out before I forget stuff.

I can't really edit the titles, I do have regrets with this thread as well: as with my other threads but I just say I posted another thread discussing this exact issue:

The more threads I create; the stupider I *appear* to be (The benefits of Nihilism)

In order to create a thread you have to really believe something and I was checking my earlier threads: there are things I don't believe to be true anymore and part of nihilism is the reject in belief, this can really protect you. You can learn after you believe in something, later on, like me...

incels.is

This was a thread about my frustrations with my life for some reason I don't know why I create these but I do, they seem pretty fun I mean they're not that entertaining but I just say they do be changing my life, if not someone else and also I don't know what I'm saying actually I do I guess I'm just retarded that's why I'm writing this to you even though you'll probably never read it. If you do read it know that I went on a writing streak due to extreme mental anguish which brings me to my next thread which takes about my thread about I'm sorry not my thread I think it was a thread called BlkPillPres High IQ? Yeah that was the thread I guess it's just quite fabulous that we have these problems in our society where we just like to break down things and overcomplicate things when we just need to be listening to ourselves I really don't know where I'm going with this maybe I don't need help but I'm just crazy? I guess I have to much time with NEETbux I'm just kidding I obviously don't neet are you kidding me I'm literally a chatterbox I mean that sounds pretty funny I mean it sounds gay but I'm not (I promise) and btw I remember the MGTOW monkey guy a guy advertised me to him just yesterday and dude I was cracking up bro lololol he legit be saying that dude more OG than some guy but I forgot the name. Anyway, end of typemaxxing.