Because the only inherent value of women is producing babies. Men have done everything else throughout the history so people expect more from them.
Blackpill Masculinity is an actual social construct and More - Studies
i actually commend you for having the guts to admit some sort of faith in a higher power at all. Many people will jump at you immediately for this, mostly with zero counter arguments, and after a while you just get so tired from mud fights with retards that you dont say anything anymore. There are actually many believers and interesting faithcels in blackpill spaces, but they mostly keep it hidden because gigafaggots will lunge at them. As if men didn't have it bad enough.
mods always hate me and my threads
ok I have multiple things to say on this
1. "making babies is a valuable trait" - thats a moral value judgement requiring justification on some level. Just because everyone believes this or would agree with this, doesn't make it true. In fact, appealing to the crowd is a logical fallacy. It is entirely possible to have or make a worldview that denies this claim.
The same applies to your second claim
2. "men create things so people have higher expectations from them"
a) what about the act of creation makes it so that we ought to believe creative people hold more responsibility? I don't think there is anything inherent in the act of creating things that tells us that "creating = more responsibility"
That's just another assumption you make that requires justification.
Is–ought problem - Wikipedia
Now, please do not fall for the easy trap of thinking that I am trying to compete with you, dismantle you or attack you.
I am not saying your claims are wrong, I am saying they need proper justification before they can be considered valid.
It's the same with people claiming men are disposable because one man can impregnate multiple women.
Why? These arguments would not last ten seconds in a formal debate.
Again, multiple things are conflated in one sentence:
"Men are disposable | one man can impregnate multiple women"
moral claim | observation
ought | is
moral claim | observation
ought | is
One is a moral claim, the other one an observation.
One is about how we ought to act and judge, the other is simply an observation.
Prescription | Description.
The two are not connected by anything but a misandrist worldview that presupposes men to have less value than women from the outset.
The presuppositions of the worldview shape the judgement of the observation. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
The observation does not inform the judgement, the judgement is formed prior to observation.
So the worldview making this claim is anti-male from the outset.
For a final demonstration, let's assume I have a different worldview and I observe that one man can impregnate multiple women:
"Men are inherently valuable, one man alone can impregnate many women."
Same logical error, same observation, completely different value judgement.
So lets tread carefully with our arguments and think things through. I am by no means good at this, but these are just basic things everyone should consider before forming their beliefs.
@tulasdanslos @NorthernWind @Murder Mario
Last edited:
B
This thread is next level. It has given me a lot to think about, and has even highlighted the flaws in some of the views I had held and have now changed.
@TheLastandtheFirst @ResidentHell @CantEscapeYourFate @IncelCatechumen @Orzmund @Ahnfeltia @Transcended Trucel @gymletethnicel @cvh1991 You brocels need to read this. Tag anyone else who you think might be interested.
@Master @Fat Link @TheProphetMuscle @The Enforcer @Dregster @proudweeb This needs to be in Must-read. It adds perspective on what it means to an incel in society.
@TheLastandtheFirst @ResidentHell @CantEscapeYourFate @IncelCatechumen @Orzmund @Ahnfeltia @Transcended Trucel @gymletethnicel @cvh1991 You brocels need to read this. Tag anyone else who you think might be interested.
@Master @Fat Link @TheProphetMuscle @The Enforcer @Dregster @proudweeb This needs to be in Must-read. It adds perspective on what it means to an incel in society.
B
I've literally been lying in bed for the past 30 minutes doing nothing but thinking about this topic. I thought I'd taken literally every black pill there was, but the sex (gender) pill is absolutely brutal.
I mean, we all instinctively knew that being born as a man is already a massive handicap, veteran difficulty, with no save/no checkpoint, but holy fucking shit, the reality is so much worse. The reality is like playing Demon Souls for the first time, blind folded, with one hand tied behind your back, and you can't eat, sleep, or drink water until you beat the entire game.
The overwhelming majority of males are simply just born to lose. And there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Last edited:
Thank you for your nice reply earlier.
Yes, its so over and most men never ever realize just how fucked they are.
That's why the only solution is death or putting women in cages, literally. There is no other option.
Of course this goes deeper and deeper into how evil women have to be, if they are at least partially aware of all of this yet keep mumm and silently watch men suffer through the stupid games and lies women create.
From the vantage point of a woman, all men are what ethnic sweat shop workers are to people in the west in terms of status. That also explains their behavior.
I mean, it makes my life easier because it means I have no reason to feel guilt for being NEET and being on welfare. And when I see couples, I know the man is getting tri-fucked in the ass and doesnt even know it.
I made another reply recently where I ramble about stuff:
Life is Just One Big Orgy For American White Women
Even the libcuck interviewer couldn't help but ask multiple times in so many words: Don't you feel like a total worthless whore? LOL Keeps trying to steER her in the right direction. These women aren't redeemable bro. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHTOidin3x8
incels.is
if you don´t play their little silly act they´ll devour you on the spot: that´s the nature of faemel-male dynamics, perfectly exemplified by your threat. Perhaps that´s why the feamel has always been the private enforcers of normativity (and why religious-spiritual thought seems so attractive to them).
This is exactly what I've been thinking for a long time. You're spot on. This is very high IQ.
The solution to all of this is to stop participating in this matriarchy. We need to establish a patriarchy, an actual patriarchy where we make women our concubine slaves. Too bad that won't happen with how bluepilled most men are.
The solution to all of this is to stop participating in this matriarchy. We need to establish a patriarchy, an actual patriarchy where we make women our concubine slaves. Too bad that won't happen with how bluepilled most men are.
I agree that women set and maintain the status quo in any society. In the orthodox church, Matthew Raphael Johnson, an orthodox writer, observed that many parishes are not controlled by the priest, but some older woman or women in the community (what we would colloquially refer to as "Babushkas" in our circles). There is also another book called "The Anatomy of Female Power" in which the author writes how in some societies, female power is openly acknowledged and there is a council of women and a council of men that interact as representatives of each gender. He also recounts how young women in these (african) societies were asked if they would chose to be men if possible and they sternly disagreed and said a mans life is horrible. Either way, its over.
The Female of the Species
Rudyard Kipling
Last edited:
B
You got it, brocel. High effort posts need to be appreciated more and given the respect they deserve. There are too many shitposts and low effort trash in the forums (I'm guilty of this myself).
To think that if I was a born a woman with even less intelligence I could have PhDmaxxed in STEM and cruise controlled into whatever I desired in terms of work options, because diversity and affirmative action means I get special scholarships and don't have to work during my thesis. Instead, I had to throw myself into the den of wolves and fight for my existence, because I needed to get a career and support myself. Dreams of being a researcher were just that: dreams. No rich family to live off of, while I hermitmaxxed and finished my graduate degree.
If I was good looking, I'd just marry into money with a low tier becky, while working some braindead administrative job. But as a woman? Get your PhD and become a researcher? No problem. Professors are writing you reference letters left and right and employers are literally fighting over you. Marry a betabuxx engineer, while I get to enjoy life and have my expenses at home and abroad paid for? I could do that half asleep. Marry a billionaire? This is the final boss for holes, but with a bit of finesse it's beatable. Look at Bill Gates' ex wife. She's average or below average in looks, yet she picked a winning horse.
Existing as a man means everyone either sees you as a threat or a tool to be used and discarded. You're either competition or you have your uses. The only solace you have is in forming male bonds with men who legitimately empathize with you and your struggles, because they too know the pain and difficulties.
Last edited:
in the post i made that I linked you in other reply, I mentioned how one of my three sisters did exactly that.
Complete whoredom for her youth, then buxxes an engineer who works for Audi. lmao.
This also can not be stressed enough.
These communities, this forum has prevented an untold number of suicides, including my own. When I first came here, I was like a boiling kettle whistling for relief. This forum finally took the lid off.
Even after that, my continued contact with fellow members got me through an extended period of homelessness and more. There is also the element of relief when you begin to grasp how society shames men into action while denying their suffering. You don't have to feel guilty for falling short of unrealistic standards that are set up to hurt you.
Every man lays claim to his own pain, but there's an even worse pain that only a man knows, and that is the pain of becoming a liability. The blackpill can take that pain from a man and act as a salve on his bruised soul.
For instance, I failed at virtually every milestone expected of me.
I am weak, ugly and suffer from autism spectrum disorder. I was held back twice in school, barely graduated, failed another school after the first year, then lost two jobs in a row and spent time in a mental asylum in-between everything. Then I wanted to put a stop to myself and became homeless.
Let us assume I had no understanding of the blackpill and all I had were societies expectations of me. How would I hold up against that standard? 25, not a penny to my name and no ability to make a dime. I would almost have to commit suicide out of sheer pragmatism.
The blackpill saves lives.
We already live in one, men being considered inferior and having no intrinsic value is a patriarchal belief. This will continue no matter how much neo liberal our society becomes.
Women will have a value and privileges no matter what system they live in, patriarchy protected women, neo liberalism protects women, ancient hunter gatherer societies also valued females and protected them. Thus as incel revolutionaries we must strive to create a society where men supremacy reigns supreme, and females are enslaved .
This is a false patriarchy. Men don't have the power. We're simply work horses. Women are the ones with the power. We live in a society with matriarchal beliefs being disguised as a patriarchy.
B
The snake hides in the bushes.
We've had patriarchy for thousand years yet men were still expected to provide, work while females enjoyed privileges by virtue of them having a hole between their legs. In no patriarchy could a bottom of the barrel unemployed man get a wife.(who most likely wouldn't even provide anything at all)
Yep. This guy could teach a blackpill course and I'd listen to it, lol. I only linger on this faggot infested forum to read high INT posts like this.
Maybe I'm using the wrong word. Technically all the rulers and leaders have always been men, but they never had men's best interests in mind. They always created gynocentric female worshipping societies.
I'm just saying we live in a society where women have the power and we always have throughout history. Yeah the 1% of men who are kings and leaders make the decisions, but those decisions are mostly for the benefit of women as a whole rather than for men as a whole.
Thank you.
B
@uo89997
B
It truly does. The black pill gives context to a man's suffering and sheds light on why. No longer would he wonder if he's doing something wrong and be in the dark as to why women treat him like a leper.
incredible read. sadly normies are too retarded to read or understand the intricacies of his surroundings.
I agree that the denial of the existence of an absolute morality is a metaphysical supposition. However, how exactly is that itself an absolute morality? How do construe "morality"?
ThERe's anothER solution, namely speciocide. In an "empty society" there's no need for judgment.
"Morality doesn't exist" is an absolute truth claim. It has to be true for every single human on earth for all eternity. That means, you are imposing a moral law on everyone ever. This presupposes an absolute authority. No law without a lawgiver. It's the complete opposite of what it says its doing.
its like saying "Oranges do not exist." Can this be true and not true at the same time? No, because that would violate the law of non contradiction. Morality either exists or it doesnt. The problem is that the claim that morality is subjective is inherently moral in nature. So even the claim would be subject to subjectivity, thus rendering it null and void. It is simply self refuting.
Why is it moral? Just because it pertains to humans? Is any claim that pertains to humans moral in your book?
This is very homocentric thinking. Who's the lawgiver for, say, gravity?
I'm asking you why that claim is inherently moral. Your notion of morality does not seem to line up with mine.
It relates to morality and how we ought to act. If there is no morality, we can not act as there is no decision to make if any given action is neither positive or negative. Not making a decision is also a decision. Saying morality does not exist is the same as saying "nobody can act in a moral way." -> This is clearly a prescriptive moral law. It presupposes that nobody has the ability to engage in moral actions of any kind. It is a preemptive value judgement of the whole universe.
Further, if you say morality is subjective, then why would my claim that it is objective be wrong? There is no right or wrong if morality is subjective, hence all claims are neither valid nor invalid. If you are a moral relativist, you are not able to make moral claims from within your own worldview.
For instance you say: "Your notion of morality does not seem to line up with mine."
Why would that be wrong if morality is subjective? It couldn't be. And again, the same for you next statement, "this is very homocentric thinking" -> Why would homocentric thinking be wrong if morality is subjective?
I don't you know your position on morality, but assuming you are a moral subjectivist, your own worldview does not allow for the making of any claims about whether someone else is right or wrong on anything.
For instance, "who is the lawgiver for gravity?"
Why would it matter? It doesn't, there are no positive or negative outcomes, regardless of what the answer to that question is.
I could say its God, the easter bunny, I could say I dont know, it would have no implication for anything, since everything goes.
Also, This is a category error. Different things are justified differently.
We are talking about morality, not an empirically observed natural phenomenon.
Morality can not be established based on observation of the natural world. The problem is that you can not derive and ought from an is. For instance, why is pain morally wrong? There is nothing inherent about pain that tells us that pain is morally reprehensible and so we should always avoid pain. To assume that pain is morally wrong and should be avoided is a faith-based claim that needs justification.
So, if we can not derive moral laws from observation of the natural world, where are we supposed to get moral laws from? They are necessarily projections of each individual. At this point its an easy trap to say, aha, so morality is something every individual person invents for himself, hence it is subjective. The problem is that Even that claim, that everyone inventing their own morality makes morality subjective, is a subjective claim. Why would your claim be right, if everyones moral claims are supposedly subjective? You can only think that your claim is right, if you make an exception for yourself.
Aka, you believe you have a monopoly on objectivity and absolute moral claims. That means you think of yourself as an absolute source of authoritative judgement, aka an absolute law giver. This position is inherently flawed and self-refuting.
Most men lose in life. I think that only the Joos created effective system in which men can thrive on the same level as females.
Some thinkers wrote that Jews are feminine. In reality, not every Jew is feminine but maybe there are high percentage of Jews with feminine characteristics and it's one of reasons of their success.
honestly, jews are not even high iq. Like the entire askhanazi hyper IQ shit hsa been critiqued for ages. IMO from what ive gathered their avg IQ is the same as the rest of the middle east which would make sense.
What gives them an edge though is their retarded level high in group preference, which is rooted in their insane levels of inbreeding. Around 800 years ago, there were only 500-800 Askhnazi jews. Now there are 10 million, they form the majority of the modern jewish population. This implies super high inbreeding, which is also reflected in the bucket list of genetic diseases they carry.
I think especially wealthy jews and men in general are very effeminate. Money is very effeminate. Chasing power over people is very effeminate. Why cant they be happy? Its such a weak thing to strive and strive and never be satisfied. Thats bitch shit.
Why cant they sit on their ass with a can of Budweiser and they dick in their hand and be 95% happy?
How is permanent dissatisfaction a sign of mental fortitude? "Stay Hungry." -> How sick is that?
Also, escorts and shit will tell you how these rich dudes like getting pegged in the ass and shit. It doesnt surprise me.
Women operate much in the same way. Their in group preference, narcissism and generally materialistic, amoral disposition gives them an intense leg up to men, who are hampered in every venue that women are ruthless in, meaning: Men dont have in-group preference, men do not have narcissism and are less materialistic. And they are concerned about morality.
All of these factors prevent you from materialistic success. If you have too much morality, if you care about non-material things, if you care about others and not just yourself, you will have much harder time to succeed financially.
As I pointed out in my OP, the majority of the money women spend comes from men. This alone highlights that men dont give a shit about material things. They are wasting all this money for something immaterial which is the idea of love and affection from women. Woment dont do that. They are extremely self-serving. Women dont compromise. Women dont spend 3 weeks grinding smash bros, dying over and over again until they succeed. They dont sacrifice.
The second a woman has to compromise, shes gone. The second the betabuxxer becomes useless or is replaced by a better model, shes gone.
Briffaults law, all benefits rendered to the female are null and void the second they are rendered. You can't built a rep with a woman, everything you do for her is not appreciated. They dont have a concept of reciprocity or justice, honor, debt, having a duty to return a favor, abstract guilt.
I recommend this video, he talks about it in terms of the education system. Men try to get an education for abstract reasons. Women for material reasons, which defeats the entire concept of education.
View: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3uris4
It’s not all due to that, men can rape women to spread their genes. Men’s status in society today is mostly a cultural phenomenon.
i also already answered this doofus claim that men are disposable because of eggs and sperm in my other reply in this thread:
Masculinity is an actual social construct and More - Studies
"You're not a real woman!" Said no one ever. Why? Why does that only work on men? Because the only inherent value of women is producing babies. Men have done everything else throughout the history so people expect more from them.
incels.is
I could literally just inverse it: "Men are more valuable than women because one man can impregnate many women."
Thats equally as logically wrong but means the inverse.
Sounds like pseudoscience
Okay, first things first, I don't consider myself a moral relativist, essentially for the reasons you mentioned. What I meant by "Your notion of morality does not seem to line up with mine" is that you seem to construe morality more broadly than I do. To me, a moral claim is one that either encourages or disavows a certain kind of behavior. Claiming there is no absolute morality neither encourages nor disavows any specific kind of behavior (the key word here being "specific"). For example, denying absolute morality does not necessarily disavow that others cannot act as though there were one. It would merely mean that those who do are misguided, but I don't consider judging someone to be factually wrong a moral judgment. To me, morality must always pertain to behavior, not to being.
Secondly, what makes you think that "If there is no morality, we can not act as there is no decision to make if any given action is neither positive or negative"? It's not like humans always act in accordance with their moral beliefs (insofar as they truly believe in them). Many of us consider certain situations to be morally grey areas, yet we are often forced to make a decision despite not knowing right from wrong in such contexts.
Thirdly, regarding the idea that "nobody can act in a moral way" is a prescriptive moral law, as per my definition of morality, this claim ceases to be true.
If "No law without a lawgiver" doesn't apply to natural phenomena, then why would it apply to metaphysical notions? Besides, "No law without a lawgiver" is stated in such generality that I thought you considered it a generic dictum.
I fully agree.
Again, using my definition of morality, the claim that "morality is subjective" is not a moral claim.
FIrst off, thanks for your reply.
I want to say this: I am fucking mad as fuck right now RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Ok, now I will reply:
1. How does the claim that nobody can act morally not pertain to behavior? If you are kept from doing something by virtue of it being impossible, that is also a restriction upon the behavioral choices you can make.
2. It is impossible to make a decision while not making a decision. Further, the idea of morally grey situations existing is a presupposition contingent on your worldview. It is merely a presupposition. For instance, let us take the classic example of saving one person as opposed to 1000, the one person having to be sacrificed in order to save the 1000.
Most people would immediately say this is the correct choice. Yet, if probed they can not justify this. Why is one life less valuable than 1000?
It is simply a presupposition they hold without justification.
The same applies to so called morally grey situations. They are only morally grey because of the presuppositions you hold. Another person in the same situation would not view it as morally grey at all. In fact, you could even have a worldview based on presuppositions that completely excludes the possibility of morally grey zones.
For instance, if you are a Christian, then everything that happens is good. You may not be able to discern why things happen, but you can rest assured that everything is good in the end since your presuppositions are
a) God is omni-benevolent
b) God is all-knowing
So, when you confront a Christian with a moral dilemma such as killing one person as opposed to another, or one of them will be killed by your captor, this is not even a question for the Christian since he does not rely on his own assessment of the immediate situation, which he assumes to be faulty anyway. He will simply refuse to murder and his captor may or may not shoot one of the persons.
Further, if God is real, then he also knows about the internal struggle and the position the christian is in and as such will automatically not judge him if he is pressured into a situation he can not escape. You can't trick an omni-powerful God, that would be contradictory.
You are misconstruing my words.
I did not say that natural laws do not have a lawgiver. I do in fact believe they do.
But to conflate two unrelated categories such as physics, metaphysics and ethics is a logical fallacy.
The problem with morality is that as I have explained, moral laws require a person to make judgements based on presuppositions. You already agreed that you can not derive moral laws from observation of the natural world.
So, in order to for moral laws to exist, we require a person making presuppositions about how we ought to act.
Without personhood, there is no morality since there is no person judging anything. Without value judgements, there is no value.
The question of whether metaphysical laws or physical laws require a law giver is answered in a whole different way, physical laws of course presupposing metaphysical ones. If I can not even justify why the external world is real or if causality is merely human projection, then how I can make any judgements of the eternal world?
For instance, in order to answer these questions we would have to go back to David Hume, look at the problem of induction and so forth.
This would then lead to questions about epistemology, how we justify beliefs, what constitutes valid justification and so on.
I will grant you this though: As you know, the classic three branches of philosophy are epistemology, ethics and metaphysics. These are intrinsically so heavily interlinked that making a claim in one of the branches triggers a cascade of presuppositions that leads to the other two branches.
For instance, if you presuppose morals exist, then you have to justify how you know that and how you justify that. Relativism, as you have agreed, is not possible. So if morally is person independent and not relative to personal judgement, where is it and where does it originate from? Utilitarians and humanists such will reduce everything to pain and pleasure or "the greatest possible good" etc.
But these are just cloaked versions of relativism.
Like you already agreed, how would we know pain or pleasure are good/bad?
So, if we have wonder whether morality exists in some indistinct person-independent space, we are already are slipping into metaphysics and of course epistemology, because how would we know something is true without access to truth? And then in metaphysics we have the problem of universals and if they exist, and if, where.
I'm just a layman on all of this, and I always want to learn more. Can you please lay out your position in full?
I also posted this pdf earlier in here I think, not sure:
(R. M. Manion) - The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory Theism.pdf
The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory Theism Copyright © 1999, 2005. By R. M. Manion. Introduction There are two fundamentally different ways to understand the world, intentional and accidental. An intentional world is one that comes about on purpose and for a purpose. It is a world that...
www.docdroid.net
Its an interesting take.
I understand. The issue here is that we are arguing on a "meta" level meaning, on the paradigmatic, presuppositional level.
That means that we are not arguing strictly right or wrong, but the coherency of worldviews.
Everyones worldview is based on faith-based presuppositions.
The only question really is whether the worldview is coherent and can account for for the maximum amount of problems we face, like
problem of induction
problem of external world
problem of morality
problem of identity over time
etc.
That means we cant "disprove" each other (cringe term) but only do internal critiques of each others worldview to highlight inconsistencies or point out presuppositions that require justification. For instance, if you say morality "just is" (im not saying thats your position) or as Hume did, you just go well we just have to assume apriori truths are real and we can use inductive reasoning despite having zero justification, "they just are" - then "it just is" becomes a valid justification for truth in your worldview. And then you have no way of critiquing me when I say for instance, "Ronald MacDonald is real, and you have to be believe me because he just is, also I had sex with him last night, prove me wrong"
I am really afraid of slipping into pseudo-intellectualism and talking about this just for egos sake. I really really dont want that to happen. I had a few really smug teachers and a very smug father. I can't stand that. I just want to get closer to the truth. So if you can, please lay out your worldview for me, I am curious. Don't be afraid of judgment.
in beginning of post
@Ahnfeltia the fuck, im not mad at YOU, i literalyl wrote in the post, im having a bad time, bad diet, stress and im stressed, so I apologize for being a dick if i am in advance. Did mods delete that part of post what the feck?
@Ahnfeltia the fuck, im not mad at YOU, i literalyl wrote in the post, im having a bad time, bad diet, stress and im stressed, so I apologize for being a dick if i am in advance. Did mods delete that part of post what the feck?
I sorta figured it wasn't directed at me based on your tone throughout the rest of your reply. Also, I only saw your reply just now, so don't worry about it.
It pertains to behavior, but doesn't restrict any specific kind of behavior by itself (remember how I said that the key word was "specific"). Acting morally is not a specific action.
You're right, but I meant this in a more pragmatic manner. Most people don't have their morality entirely fleshed out and virtually everyone changes their stance on at least a few moral quandaries in their lifetime. Morally grey areas are virtually unavoidable in practice. Heck, isn't that exactly the reason we have a judicial system? Because even laws that have been cultivated for thousands of years aren't airtight.
You're right, my bad.
For the record, I generally use metaphysics in its broadest sense -- i.e., in the meaning of "anything beyond the empirical realm". In that sense, it subsumes both epistemology and ethics. This is how I intended it to be understood in my previous post.
Do you? At some point, everything boils down to the metaphysical (in my broadest sense) suppositions held. Justifying one metaphysical supposition necessarily requires the evocation of another, and is, as such, a fruitless endeavor. The existence of morals are precisely such metaphysical suppositions and are therefore unjustifiable as far as I'm concerned.
I never agreed to relativism being impossible. I merely stated I'm not a moral relativist myself. With your definition of morality, I suppose moral relativism is self-contradictory, but with my definition, it's not. Even with my definition of morality, however, moral relativism disallows you to make judgments with any real gravitas.
I fully agree.
bro wtf
you really ain't in a good place, huh? If I came across as a smart aleck, sorry, that wasn't my intention. While I'd be more than willing to outline my worldview, perhaps such discussion would be better suited to PMs? I don't much fancy the idea of derailing a must-read thread (any more than I already have). If you agree, I suggest continuing this discussion privately.
Ok, pm me ur worldview mehIt pertains to behavior, but doesn't restrict any specific kind of behavior by itself (remember how I said that the key word was "specific"). Acting morally is not a specific action.
You're right, but I meant this in a more pragmatic manner. Most people don't have their morality entirely fleshed out and virtually everyone changes their stance on at least a few moral quandaries in their lifetime. Morally grey areas are virtually unavoidable in practice. Heck, isn't that exactly the reason we have a judicial system? Because even laws that have been cultivated for thousands of years aren't airtight.
You're right, my bad.
For the record, I generally use metaphysics in its broadest sense -- i.e., in the meaning of "anything beyond the empirical realm". In that sense, it subsumes both epistemology and ethics. This is how I intended it to be understood in my previous post.
Do you? At some point, everything boils down to the metaphysical (in my broadest sense) suppositions held. Justifying one metaphysical supposition necessarily requires the evocation of another, and is, as such, a fruitless endeavor. The existence of morals are precisely such metaphysical suppositions and are therefore unjustifiable as far as I'm concerned.
I never agreed to relativism being impossible. I merely stated I'm not a moral relativist myself. With your definition of morality, I suppose moral relativism is self-contradictory, but with my definition, it's not. Even with my definition of morality, however, moral relativism disallows you to make judgments with any real gravitas.
I fully agree.
bro wtf
If I came across as a smart aleck, sorry, that wasn't my intention. While I'd be more than willing to outline my worldview, perhaps such discussion would be better suited to PMs? I don't much fancy the idea of derailing a must-read thread (any more than I already have). If you agree, I suggest continuing this discussion privately.
Ok, pm me ur worldview meh
C
How can I philosophy maxx and critical thinking maxx in my free time? Can you give me recommendations
Ok I thought about this for a moment.
I don't know you, so I cant really tell what I can recommend and what direction you are coming from.
One easy to digest channel I found this year is made by jimbob.
He does long livestreams where he logically dissects talking points of different positions.
He is also very entertaining, its not as dry as it sounds at all.
You can also call in at any time and have a chat with him, he will help you on anything.
Other channel that is good but harder to get into:
Jay Dyer
He's done many debates and you can also reach him and ask questions on discord and twitter:
Orthodox Christian Discord
Orthodox Christian Discord Server is a channel on the social media platform called “Discord,” a platform that is generally used for messaging, connecting users to themselves via various channels within Discord, sending videos and photos, uploading media, etc. However, we used this successful...
www.patristicfaith.com
On the discord there is also tons of free information, books etc. on philosophy + there are always giga IQ people online to ask questions.
Initially, it can be hard to understand what they talk about but over time you pick up the lingo and understand what is happening.
So if you are interested, stick with it, ask questions and watch a few debates.
Another good video to get into it:
View: https://youtu.be/EEfc36NtaFo
Church of eternal logos is also good channel.
You can really get lost in this stuff because its not just an intellectual hobby you do on the side, it is life impacting the more you learn. So it naturally begins shaping you as a person. It's true widsom, if you will. So have fun and stick with it.
B
Learn formal logic and the structure of arguments. Learn common errors in reasoning and how they relate to improper logical structure. Once you get a good grasp of this, ask big questions that you're interested in (including why questions) and explore the fundamentals of the topics that question leads to or originates from.
Unlike @GeckoBus 's and @based_meme 's answers, I would recommend you just jump in headfirst. I'm sure there are plenty of ethical quandaries you'd like to tackle. Honestly, I suggest you take a favorite ethical quandary, take a whack at have a critical think about it, and to just make a post about it. You see, critical thinking is a skill just like any other, and the only way to get better at it is to learn from your mistakes. While studying by example is conducive to this end, trial and error generally tends to work better. Bouncing your philosophical arguments off another critical thinker with similar interests is probably ideal, and this forum happens to be a pretty decent place for doing so. There's no shame in making mistakes so long as you own up to them, so I encourage you to get down to the nitty-gritty.
Last edited:
B
This is a valid and viable approach. It depends on how you learn best. Some learn best in a formal and structured manner, while others learn best in a more free-form and unbounded way.
L
Chad's mum could eat pizza and produce a healthy baby. Some people are genetically superior. That is an objective fact.lmao at people invoking DNA all the time when even the hypersoy WHO reports that 2/3 of children worldwide are not even breastfed for the recommended time of 6 months, 6 months being too little already as you surely know.
Like jfl. at thinking chads mom could eat pizza all day and still make a chad, this is such foid worship holy fuck. Thats why I dont like these arguments, they fall apart in like 2 steps of thinking. "Men are disposable" - how many fucking times do you hear that and how many times does this claim go unchallenged? So ALL women are valuable? ALL women are capable of making chads? And if we just let chads fuck ALL women, everyone would be chad?
This is simultaneous foid worship and misandry. Somehow the man is 100% responsible and the woman is perfect and 100% irresponsible.
Besides, a lot of the DNA shit people bring up is retarded. People dont understand how worldviews shape our own confirmation bias. For instance, I saw something on twin studies recently and I looked up the studies and they literally omitted the control group. Like what?
It was fucking ridiculous.
There was other fudgery as well.
Basically, every time any claims are made, you have to look at counter-arguments to your own view immediately. When it comes to purely intellectual stuff like philosophical argumentation, this is not necessary as the evidence is in the logical justifcations given but with other things, its not that easy.
I have literally looked into retarded shit like pollution being real, because I dont trust anything anymore. Every single side has an interested in pollution being real. Yet for a lot of shit there isnt even evidence. For example, some say Asbestos wasnt even toxic. It was a jew insurance scam that made people billions of dollars for the removal of the shit. But different interest groups will hijack the same story for their own views.
You cant trust anything.
For instance, another one is dropping fertility rates. Most of the time men are blamed somehow. Nobody ever goes, women are becoming infertile from birth control, drug abuse, lifestyle choices and constant rodeo of getting STD-Medicating, STD-Medicating...
Stuff like that just makes me suspicious as fuck.
very old website that got me interested in asbestos:
Links about how asbestos damage court cases and asbestos removal is a billion dollar clusterfuck making kikes rich:
Asbestos Removal: Our Most Costly Environmental Scam - The Heartland Institute
This article is the tenth in a continuing series excerpted from the book Smoke or Steam: A Guide to Environmental, Regulatory and Food Safety Concerns, by Samuel Aldrich, excerpted and abridged by Jay Lehr.heartland.org
Asbestos Mesothelioma Scam
Asbestos Mesothelioma Lawyers and controversial legal battles. Although not many people get into a mesothelioma lawsuit, it's one of the most sensitive legal cases subjects in human history. Especially since the mesothelioma survival rates are small.www.scam-detector.com
Asbestos Trust Corruption and Fraud Runs Rampant in 2020- Here are the Lawyers Involved in Extensive Asbestos Trust Fund Fraud
Asbestos Trust Corruption and Fraud Runs Rampant in 2020- Here are the Lawyers Involved in Extensive Asbestos Trust Fund Fraudwww.mesothelioma-lawyerblog.com
L
I noticed that too. Girls never bullied other girls. The ugliest most disgusting girls were equally popular even with the most beautiful girls. That never happened with guys.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
