what the fuck elab please
RageFuel It is okay to do things that are immoral. Because it is as fair as the universe has unfairly treated us.
If I could become immortal or good looking by nuking 3/4 of the world id do it
yeah I asked him to do that. Probably bsing to set the situation to premise and platform his moral noble nature.
what 1/4th wouldn't you. imagine if you nuked north east asia and europe and argentina, south africa, and central asia where russians and good indian/ persian/ middle eastern foids are... there'd only be bleh to choose from.
Well, the OP was the suggestion that incels have ethical licence to engage in behaviours others can not, because they have had hard lives. But that is very childish and self serving logic. If being poor made it ethically acceptable to rob a bank, theft would not be a crime. Anyone who needed to steal would be justified in doing so, so long as they stole from someone who had more than them. Likewise they would have no right to complain if a poorer person then stole from them.
Because I have prevented rapes, that doesn’t mean I can then commit them. Just as when a man is falsely convicted of murder and serves decades, he is not then owed the right to commit a murder without punishment.
It’s not the way it works.
I must've worded my response incorrectly.
I understand your point, I just wanted the story of how you saved 4 foids from rape, unless I'm extremely low IQ and you were using that as an example when in reality it never happened
What is moral and what is not and why? Are you unhappy with the dominant moral system, which has treated you unfairly and left you in this state of misery that you are in today?! Why would you adhere to a moral system which does not advantage you? ThERe is only one answER!
However, this cannot be said about the sexual market since the sexual revolution. In a purely unregulated sexual market, which we have almost reached, there is rampant inequality, no equality of opportunity, and social instability. Everything that can be said about income redistribution and regulations, which the populace accepts en masse, can be said about the sexual market. We need to introduce regulations regarding the sexual market through enforced monogamy and radical social pressure. In order to do this, we have to give a voice our misery and make it absolutely clear that this society will suffer greatly if no action is taken!
If we lived in a pure capitalistic society, with no income redistribution at all, there would be rampant inequality, no equality of opportunity and extremely high social instability. In order to prevent this we have a progressive tax system and regulations. Even if you are unemployed in the West, you will still have money and live a relatively comfortable life.
However, this cannot be said about the sexual market since the sexual revolution. In a purely unregulated sexual market, which we have almost reached, there is rampant inequality, no equality of opportunity, and social instability. Everything that can be said about income redistribution and regulations, which the populace accepts en masse, can be said about the sexual market. We need to introduce regulations regarding the sexual market through enforced monogamy and radical social pressure. In order to do this, we have to give a voice our misery and make it absolutely clear that this society will suffer greatly if no action is taken!
Last edited:
Well, if you are inclined to disbelieve me there is nothing I can say that will make you believe me anyway.
I have worded that poorly. I didn’t mean four at once, I ment four seperate occasions. And to be even more accurate, I prevented three and interrupted one.
The one I interrupted was at a drunken get together in student accomodation. Two of the international students from Singapore were very drunk. The woman to the point of not being able to walk and talk, the man badly enough that he had lost inhibition. Under the pretence or helping her to the toilet to throw up, he inserted his fingers into her vagina. I know this because he was stupid enough to tell me, like he had done something clever. Legally in my country that is a rape. His plan was to then go to a bedroom under the pretence of checking on her. She had actually bought a friend with her, an older Indian woman. But she was fucking useless. I went to make sure everything was ok and he had locked the door, and refused to answer. So I kicked it down and found him with his pants off pre penetration. I think the only thing that probably delayed him long enough was whiskey dick. He looked like he was going to fight, but I told him that unless he left immediately I would simply call the police. He knew that would mean a lot of problems for him, because he would be expelled and deported, probably after a jail term. So he did, and then I and the Indian woman carried her home. We told her what had happened the next day, but she wanted to just forget about it all. So that’s how a rapist successfully commits a digital rape at a university and attempts a virginal rape on a woman took drunk to speak and gets away with it. Turns out he was arrested and expelled anyway, as his arranged tail came from overseas to visit later in the year and he beat her.
Do you want to hear the other three?
Last edited:
Beneficial according to who and what? According to your own subjective view of what constitutes "good" and "bad"? Also, the fact that we can explain why morality evolved in a certain way doesn't mean that it's objective. It is only descriptive, not prescriptive.
yes
To add some detail to the first one, the reason I went to such lengths to make sure she was ok, was that earlier in the night she had made me a cup of coffee in her unit before we changed venue. It sounds stupid, but there aren’t too many twenty year olds who will make a man one just because he asks her. Not to mention gladly. Women who adhere to their gender roles get extra privileges and protections. She would cook things for me the rest of the time I spent in that degree, which was very nice. After you prevent a rape you walk around high on endorphins for twenty four hours later. It’s better than any drug. It’s the fulfilment of the saviour fantasy. I never felt like more of a man.
Well to be honest they aren’t that entertaining. All but one took place on university campuses, because that is where I have spent most of my time. All of them involved alcohol. The other two were virtually the same situation except without any door kicking and cosmetically different. All male perpetrators working alone, and women who don’t know when they have had too much to drink.
The one that stands out was during an event in my country where people graduating high school all go to have a massive party for a week. I was certainly older than a high school graduate but I was coincidentally staying with a friend who lived there at the time. I didn’t realise it was happening across those dates as we had arranged it a fair while back and I don’t keep track of that kind of stuff. I was actually trying to buy drugs, and had returned to a high rise hotel with the person who was selling them to me. While we were conducting our business around a coffee table in the living area, I heard muffled screaming from an adjoining room. Going in there was probably one of the most reckless things I ever did, as the person I was dealing with was not school aged - and anyone who is there to move product is probably not someone you want to fuck around with. It was three late teens/early twenties men and one woman on the bed. You would assume they were all eighteen as that is when people graduate, but the event attracts people who are of similar age. They had a blond woman pinned, with her skirt up and underwear off. One was trying to cover her mouth and avoid being bit, while leaning across her torso to pin her. The second was holding her legs. The third rose and came at me as soon as I entered the room. With the shock of the scene I swung instinctively and got in a solid hit to his nose with my right elbow. The other two let her go and came at me, the first one tacked me to the ground and the second piled on. By this time the one I had connected with originally was up again and trying to kick the shit out of me, but hitting his friends more often. I don’t even know exactly how it happened, if I was twisted in the wrong direction or Mr. gushing nose managed to stomp on it, but my right knee got hit pretty badly. The dealer came in and pulled them off. I’m fucking lucky he did, because I was down for the count. There was no way I could have recovered, they might have beat me to death. He told me to get the fuck out, and I was more than happy to oblige. I quickly cleaned up as best I could in the en-suite bathroom as I had flecks of blood all over me from the guy I hit spraying it over everyone. My glasses were bent too badly to wear. I could hardly walk, I kind of had to hop to the elevator leaning against the wall. After the fight started I never saw the woman again, so I’m assuming she left the room while the fight was going on. Calling the police wasn’t really an option, as it would come out I was there for a drug deal. Likewise I didn’t even know the woman’s name. She might have been a school leaver or an escort hired for the party, I don’t know. I’m sure that’s the only reason I got off so lightly, that it all happened in a hotel where cameras would have been able to identify everyone if anything had been reported. I got downstairs and called a cab. That knee has always given me trouble since. It aches and I can’t do anything high impact without really paying for it.
That was probably the most unsatisfying time I intervened. I lost my money from the deal because it was already out on the table when I went into the bedroom, and I didn’t dare ask for it back on the way out. I took an injury that has given me pain for the rest of my life, and I didn’t even get thanked because the woman never spoke to me. To be honest, I’m not sure I would do the same thing again had I known how that would turn out.
People can have subjective views on this and that, but you can objectively determine what is good for someone purely based on science and data. This whole "everything is subjective" meme, is just another Marxist root designed to corrupt and destroy society.
For example cutting off someones healthy arm for no reason other than for pleasure, objectively a bad thing to do. Why? Because even from a pure evolutionary perspective, this harms your status among other humans, this harms the productivity of the other human, alienates you from your species, aswell as a myriad of other factors. You might gain subjective enjoyment out of it, you might subjectively believe it's good, but just because you have a different subjective view, doesn't mean objectivity doesn't exist or has a base, that just makes you objectively retarded even if you subjectively disagree.
Last edited:
No now you are making the same mistake again even though I pointed it out in my last post. You cannot determine what is good and what is bad for a person based on science and data. Again, what is "good" and what is "bad" cannot be objectively proven. According to you what is morally good is what raises your status in the male hierarchy, what raises productivity etc. You can prove through science and data what kind of actions will elevate your status in the male hierarchy and what will raise productivity. However, you cannot prove that these goals are objectively good or bad. That's the point.
What is a species or subspecies purpose other than to thrive, strive, and grow? Just because there's some nihilistic philosophical quandary, suspiciously made up and pushed for by people from Semitic origins, to castrate humanity, and make them not follow their genetic duty, which is the most objective basis we have for anything outside of religious and philosophical theories and moral systems, doesn't change that.
Misunderstanding as usual. Pompous oaf.
It's not self serving logic. It's rational reactive observance of the logic around us.
In distribution to the most powerful currency that affects all around us in society, which is primal value halo effect. Like looks, money, status, competence, achievement, dominance, power, etc. then how can we live in a society that does us unfairness without it being fair for us to be unfair to it as well?
I'm just talking about a few knowing this is justice, while everything tries to make you into a drone pleb.
I'm talking about not making this unfairness publicized.
This shouldn't BE publicized. Just like how the state of the power is unknown, they want to make the state of the weak be unknown.
It's not in relation to how we treat all society because we cannot help everybody.
It's in relation to how we treat those who are directly against us.
There will never be an equal treating social system. Not unless we're a hive mind. But then there's a question of semantics, relation, philosophical debate. What is equal? If we were all a hive mind, still, some people would be closer to the city centers and get more of x than those in the farm. Or less than.
We all know the system as is, with primal individualists are looking for power, prominence, power, resources, dominance, etc. When some people have a better shot at it than we do, and will try and shred the ladders to getting where they got, then we should give them a taste of their own medicine.
There's social sphere morality, and then biological primal morality.
Most would be willing to know that shooting someone on the street is wrong by social morality. But it's biological morality to shoot someone to save someone in our own family.
Where we would rather be entitled to a hair transplant than to use the money for helping those in hunger.
What I'm talking about shouldn't be what society lives by. It shoudl be by what WE live by.
The real basis of mankind's moral system I'm getting at are biological. Happy Finality is only in movies and storybooks.
In real life primal imbalancement happens no matter what.
It's pointless to care about social balancing when even now after all the humanitarian crusades that have occured the fundamental societal primordial norms cannot be changed.
That's why I'm saying it's not about being treated fair in a societal fashion, and then using the societal idea of getting even. It's about primal imbalancement regulations. While plebs can be occupied with caring about social equality, we know the truth. And so we must be the ones who feel it is right because of primal imbalancement to be treated with an exemption from any moral constraint. Because incels are lacking in the department by which real
Balance is irrelevant. The moral crux of justice and injustice isn't balance. It's primal hierarchy dominance. When we are given less of it, then we need to make all social morality abidance irrelevant. That is if we plan to upsacle. Our investment to social morality is a privilege if society treats us right. We don't have to give it to them.
When they don't distirbute primal capital blessing for us, then we need to take it through appropriate means.
Real morality isn't meant to be fair. So we shouldn't consider it a moral factor whether we are being fair or unfair to others. This is primal morality. It's for US. And when society is in a state where primal halo effects are in the incel's disfavor, then the incel doesn't owe them any favors.
Even by societal morality, again, we are entitled to fairness. We can skip out from a few of society's moral constriants, for ourselves. But society will retaliate. Again, I'm just saying we don't need it to act on our conscience. But society's regulations are not our conscience. They wil remain in place unless changed. But we shouldn't have society, or constraints from getting ahead affect our conscience in virtually any way.
Last edited:
That’s the path to a happy pervert and a happy society.
That was a real pretty speech. Must be too high IQ for me. Perhaps the judge or magistrate will understand you better.
Last edited:
Bottom line is that human morality caring about society is a farce. And pointless. There will always be those who rise above in it, and those who don't. It's on part of feeling before thinking.
In reality you should have biological prioritizations. On a biological level, you should be entitled to a great life. An easy life. Everyone should be. If you tear down the powerful, then you make things more equitable.
The world is unfair. And so it is only equal if you gain unfair advantages at the expense of morality. Because morality is a secondary force to primal resource distribution.
Human morality can't stop these inequalities. It especially doesn't stop it from making people incel.
All I'm saying is that the demand for primal resource equality should transcend human morality. They just don't want you to know that.
There is no good and evil. There are those with the resources and those without them.
Happy Finality doesn't exist. We're merely matter in motion.
Social Morality is just a guilt game/ normifying tranquilizier.
It has its place but the intelligent can understand what to do without it.
Us just being alive is already immoral.
In a sense
Was that just a cleverly disguised bump, if so thanks
I'm against such things.
Well thanks anyway I didn’t get to read all of the arguments
Okay further elaboration. This is a misinterpretation.
And I hope you don't parry the pindown of my points with similar methods.
Anyway, this isn't about one single incident like a bank. This is existential.
Human morality is a system that doesn't cover and balance out things. It has wiggle room for a ton of inequality.
Sometimes there are sanctioned unfairnesses that are in relation to merit.
You can have any moral spin you want. But independent of the morality of humanity we don't have a system of incursion to make things fair.
It's not about morality. It's primal hierarchical fairness.
Not everyone can know this. As it would destabilize things.
Morality needs to be in place to make norm schmoes of people.
Primal equity is evolution not morality.
Morality can't hold us back because it's a flawed system that has resulted in our downfall.
Morality has served us. Still, it suited others better. So we need unfair advantages in order to get things right for the unfairness they had.
It's not societal, it's biological. Even one person who takes the place of alpha or dominarch against us has us at their mercy. We can't do that. It's for our own biological dignity and oppression.
Let the normschmoes embrace morality. But we can see and pierce the veil. We shouldn't, as incels be subject to it.
Is there any seriousness to this slander? lol Implying that book has merit, and all I said really stems from it.
You're really trying to project irrationality on me? lol well elab.
I'm not into the tea drinking brit and his unthorough armchair musings. But go ahead and tell me where you take issue, and am not congruent with science findings.
Last edited:
D
Have you read the book?
A
well if we had no morals, then it doesn't add that we could be morally offended at how society has treated us immorally. If we accept total moral relativism, then, no moral wrong was ever done to us, since right and wrong don't exist. Building societies that promote hypergamy couldn't be evil, wrong, whatever.
Furthermore, how many of you are against legit pedophilia? So am I, and that is a moral stance. How many of you are race nationalists? Personally I think it's stupid for an incel to care about race, but nonetheless, you've got some sort of morals built around it.
What I will conclude, is not that we are necessarily immoral, but we should rightly, selectively practice morality only to those who are deserving of it, not to a society that has treated us immorally. So, selective morality. I have no sympathy for those who don't deserve my sympathy.
Furthermore, how many of you are against legit pedophilia? So am I, and that is a moral stance. How many of you are race nationalists? Personally I think it's stupid for an incel to care about race, but nonetheless, you've got some sort of morals built around it.
What I will conclude, is not that we are necessarily immoral, but we should rightly, selectively practice morality only to those who are deserving of it, not to a society that has treated us immorally. So, selective morality. I have no sympathy for those who don't deserve my sympathy.
I don’t know. But what I do know I’ve started acting more immorally since being blackpilled. (Such as refusing to help people, lying more etc...)
Society shits on me so I will shit on it.
Society shits on me so I will shit on it.
Apparently not. I can get on it if I wanted. But say I had. What makes you say I misunderstood it? lol
We do have morals. We're not just factoring in society's moralistic system. We have our own moral system in keeping with primal resources/ primal treatment. Something the moral don't want us to know. See what I'm saying?
We wouldn't want other people to understand this.
YO=ou may think there's no justice behind us not telling many people about this perspective. Or that we would put down others.
That's why it's essential you strip away the morals society has taught us, and develop a more... universal codeset of morality. Primal morality that emphasizes we be treated with primal resources with the halo effect of primarchs who have LMS like chad/ stacy are essential.
This moral system engages in not societal morality, but our primal value treatments, and how it's inequally distributed by society. There are wrongs done to us. It doesn't need to be an empathetic or understanding moral system. And you might ask how do they expect to be virtuous when we aren't graceful?
There is very little grace in nature.
It's primal hierarchy. People have ferality.
It's just an undertone in society.
And if we are disadvantaged in it, which impacts us on a passive level negatively constantly, far more than the system of typical morality does, then it is only wise and resourceful to exceed societal morality for primal capital equity.
It technically makes us immoral, but it makes us justified on primal morality where grace isn't a thing. Where it takes care of cold harsh nature, the underlying darkness done to us.
Last edited:
The selfish gene makes the claim that its not the individual person that is selfish but insteadbit is the gene. A gene will act selfishly to spread its dna. Sometimes the gene will allow the individual controlled by the gene to act altruistic if it means his gene will spread. Its hard to explain but Dawkins gives a great explanation and great evidence in his book. Before his work evolution could not answer why a world under darwinian law and natural selection woild sprout altruistic animals. He and his colleagues amsweredbthat question.
And what implied I didn't know this? Our bodies are like shells to the snail of our genes. The genes will do whatever is necessary to advance and gain survival. I get it. But I'm going on something totally different.
1
Sometimes, I purposely neglect to bag the dog poo that my K-9 charges leave on the lawns of neighbors, even though the place is dotted with "PICK UP AFTER YOUR DOG/$100.00 FINE" signs. Yeah, I'm a rebel; society made me this way.
Nigger my english isn't bad lol. I just have a bunch of terms. The syntax of my grammar is punctuating a tone. I don't feel it is powerful enough under typical conventions of writing. Maybe I'll make a new profile to have more formality behind it.
Subject = perceiver.
Object = thing itself.
The object of humanity and its biology gives rise to itself being a subject. But that does not mean that it is universal.
So hence it is still subjective. The universe is cold, indifferent, insofar as we know. We can highly lean and glean it towards being without a conscious will. And hence there is no objective morality.
There is sentient morality that is genetically programmed. But again, it can blind us. Our feelings can hold us back. You have to see the patterns beyond how the object distorts your subjection to reality.
Last edited:
Anyway, all morality doesn't equate to fairness.
If oyu are moral and eveyrthing gets fair htere are still those more distinct than others. So when you look at it in terms of primal greatness and primal destitution, it's on behalf of primal unfairness we do this. Not on behalf of societal morality, because that ignores hte plights of the incels.
Morals don't encomapss all reality, but primal hierarchy does. AND IF WE MISS OUT ON THAT, then we ought to be angrier than if we were treated unfair by moral conduct. Even if people didn't do us wrong, the universe did.
So yes, you can't rob a bank if you're poor and expect it to be justified
It's immoral.
But again this is so great an infringement on us, not just financial, social, but existential, we're not even society we're saying did is wrongly. That's not the thing of it. It's just that it's completely unfair.
This isn't about a shared principle. NO MATTER WHAT life has wronged us.
So we don't need societal permission to say this is good.
This is just the resonation of life, and we can feel we should get what we want outside of society.
You don't need agreeance with everyone to say something for yourself is right. The agreeance field doesn't have to be rational or social for everyone for it to be right. NOthing can be right for anyone anyway. You can have a self serving logic/ morality that works out. You can feel you are entitled ot better justice than others, and when people are wronged, then it still doesn't matter. It's still right.
If oyu are moral and eveyrthing gets fair htere are still those more distinct than others. So when you look at it in terms of primal greatness and primal destitution, it's on behalf of primal unfairness we do this. Not on behalf of societal morality, because that ignores hte plights of the incels.
Morals don't encomapss all reality, but primal hierarchy does. AND IF WE MISS OUT ON THAT, then we ought to be angrier than if we were treated unfair by moral conduct. Even if people didn't do us wrong, the universe did.
So yes, you can't rob a bank if you're poor and expect it to be justified
It's immoral.
But again this is so great an infringement on us, not just financial, social, but existential, we're not even society we're saying did is wrongly. That's not the thing of it. It's just that it's completely unfair.
This isn't about a shared principle. NO MATTER WHAT life has wronged us.
So we don't need societal permission to say this is good.
This is just the resonation of life, and we can feel we should get what we want outside of society.
You don't need agreeance with everyone to say something for yourself is right. The agreeance field doesn't have to be rational or social for everyone for it to be right. NOthing can be right for anyone anyway. You can have a self serving logic/ morality that works out. You can feel you are entitled ot better justice than others, and when people are wronged, then it still doesn't matter. It's still right.
A
In a practical sense. What op means is to cheat, lie and steal, leech off government benefits. The line is drawn at animal cruelty and hurting equally disadvantaged members of society
Mhh, that's ambitious, let's see..
Ambitious AND edgy..
LOL SURE, """obviously"""
Make up your fucking mind, are you a tradcuck or an "objective science™" fag? You're honestly terrible at being either but based on your interview you are an "objective science™" fag desperately trying to appeal to tradcucks
JFL at your relativistic absolutist nonsense. But yeah, when in doubt just blame the jews.
No. I mean to do it without a scratch or getting pindowned by the law and punished. Or whatever may give you fair compensation for what the primarchs get. But to not be affected by morals. Because life has evidenced for it to be unfair, and following morals will make it fair for the surrounding society, but that is inevitable that unfairness will incline itself back. So just have an favorable unfairness for yourself. It's a proper form of intellectualizing that overceding with compassion and conscience would be irrational and stupid.
Equally disadvantaged people are also fair game. They put the people like them in power, and abide by the same logic that would disfavor us. We must leave them disadvantaged so that we are on the same distinctfulness as chads and stacies/ primarchs.
Remember this is primal morality. Society's true center is every man for itself with peripheral offshoots, but are exceptions.
WE were the ones meant for greatness.
Nice strawman
Traditionalism and Objective Science are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they're a natural duality.
Hmm
My conscience died along with my hope for relationships.
If society wants to treat me like trash then I have no problem playing the part of an undesirable member of it
If society wants to treat me like trash then I have no problem playing the part of an undesirable member of it
so its ok to murder, eat human beings, rape, commit genocide?
YIKES!!!! EDGY!!!
j/k I'm in
also atheists and jews should be first to die. why? because you ever notice liberal jews are mostly atheists and "non-practicing". that's why. collateral damage? eh, statistics.
YIKES!!!! EDGY!!!j/k I'm in
also atheists and jews should be first to die. why? because you ever notice liberal jews are mostly atheists and "non-practicing". that's why. collateral damage? eh, statistics.
You're in love with bold generalist statements but based on all the contradictions you clearly don't actually know what you're talking about.
You said:
"you can objectively determine what is good for someone purely based on science and data"
and also said
"an objective moral system, based on biological and cultural evolution obviously including certain Religious aspects, none of the modern iterations"
That does not at all make sense, how can you have an "objective moral system" (the term itself makes very little sense without qualifications btw but @DahmerBoy rightfully pointed that out already) based on "science and data" that also somehow includes "certain Religious aspects". All you are doing is mentioning buzzwords trying to appeal to tradcucks/science folks at the same time without actually concretely stating how that "objective moral system" would actually work.
Religions are a natural part of evolution, it's part of the social and cultural evolution of an advanced species, to keep it in check, and allow for more growth and stability, we can then examine Religions, see which one encourages, and has the best long term outcomes for a species/subspecies of humans.
For example, oh I don't know, a society where the 80/20 rule, became the 80/80 rule, in just about every civilized traditional society in the west from the 1850s to the early 1900s. This happened because of certain Religious and Moral reasons. Everyone can breed, and be productive, not just the warrior class (Chad), who should only have a lockdown on sexual markets during a primitive era, where it might be necessary for the survival of the species in general.
I don't care about some philosophical quandary, I care about what is a net positive for the species and sub species' within it, if anyone is against that, they're self destructive for the species, and we can pinpoint where that Nihilistic, suicidal mindset originates from, and its not from Whites, Asians, or Blacks. Inceldom clearly isn't a net positive for a species, and Inceldom, which existed in the past, in more primitive eras, had a solution, and that solution was traditionalism, laws, morality, religion, societal evolution, only recently when we've thousands of years of cultural and societal evolution have devolved have they brought a clear net negative to society, and basically all the positives, are fumes, from the progress made from the traditionalist past.
This objectivity has a clear basis of how it actually works, it's all laid out.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
