Blackpill Morality Is Ironically Why Society Is Corrupt and Degeneracy is Flourishing

The ideal society would be driven primarily by logic. I think the reason society is so immoral is ironically because we are trying to be moral and not logical.

The basis of all laws that are good for a society, is logic.

Take murder for example, the law should not be "you should not kill because its bad/evil", it should be - "you should not kill because you also do not want to be killed". We should hate murder as a society because if we allow other people to kill others haphazardly, then we might be next, sounds fucked up but if society ran on cold logic like that, then everything would be more peaceful.

Basing laws on morality is ironically why society is flawed, its because MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE. Even criminal organizations like the Yakuza or the Italian Mob, etc all have "codes of honour", that are things that even the average citizen would agree with. They have their own set of morals, for example the Mob usually doesn't allow killing women and children, its an emotional and subjective "rule", they have let their emotions create an illogical ruleset, but ironically they can kill men, steal from families, sell drugs, etc.

This is the problem with morals, everybody thinks their moral code is "good enough". If we all had to operate on logic, there is no such thing as "my logic" or "your logic", a choice either is logical or it isn't, logic is based on whats objective, not on how something makes one feel. We need a logical society not a moral one, "true morals" are inherent to logic, because logic usually yields the greatest collective rule set

Imagine how much the rates of rape and human trafficking would go down of prostitution was decriminalized, think about it, its completely illogical that paying for sex is illegal, there's no logical reason why it should be, yet despite all the income it would generate for a country if taxable, despite all the people it would alleviate from suffering, society keeps it illegal due to moral reasoning.

You see that slut on instagram, a lot of you moralfags on this site would say that she is being immoral, but you would be wrong. She doesn't kill, she doesn't steal, she doesn't <insert "bad" thing here>. That's her morals, as far as she's concerned "the times have changed" and she can be a slut and "it isn't hurting anyone". She is completely moral FOR THE ERA SHE EXISTS IN.

Again MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE, they change from person to person, country to country, era to era. Morals are pointless, we need to be driven by logic not morals, morals can be altered and therefore THEY CAN BE CORRUPTED.

You can't corrupt logic, you can't corrupt objectivity. It always is what its going to be, it will never change, any changes to a law based on logic, will also be logical, but changes to a "moral code" can easily become corrupted.

In fact modern society is the greatest example of this, Christians influenced laws using their moral code, that's why gay marriage was illegal, today morals have been changed due to EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS. People against gay marriage are seen as "bigots", "evil", etc. Now today gay marriage is legal.

ANY LAW WITH A FOUNDATION BASED ON EMOTION, IS "STRUCTURALLY WEAK" AND CAN BE ALTERED USING EMOTIONS.

MORALS CORRUPT A SOCIETY, THEY DON'T HELP IT

 

[Deleted member 25707]

@based_meme you can't label moral actions as variables. It's just not possible. How do you plan on "well-defining" those variables?

Your idea lacks universality.

 

[based_meme]

@based_meme you can't label moral actions as variables. It's just not possible. How do you plan on "well-defining" those variables?

Your idea lacks universality.

Universality is the goal, albeit seemingly impossible to reach. Defining a variable is labeling an action to it. All actions would be well defined. The action would be the same in all instances, but the values might not necessarily be the same. Stealing to become richer vs stealing to feed your family, for instance. The action is the same. The moral value is different. Of course, you have to factor in things like harm, intent etc., but those aren't defined and that's getting way ahead of ourselves.

Feel free to give your own advice and input.

 

[gsmcel]

Logic is not objective in itself. Something can only be logical in relation to something else. If you want to reach a certain goal, it is evident (logical) to take a certain action.

Outlawing something like prostitution is logical if your goal is to uphold a certain moral standard. Allowing prostitution is logical if you don't have any objections to it / or want to do it yourself.

Implying that there is a objective "logical" way to run a society implies that there is a objective moral standard (goal) that logic can be applied to, which would have to be discovered somehow.

Logic is merely a metric. An action is more "logical" to execute if it brings you closer to your chosen goal, and seems "ill-logical" if it places your further away or if there are better options.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Logic is not objective in itself.

Yes it is, something is ONLY LOGICAL IF IT IS OBJECTIVE

Something can only be logical in relation to something else. If you want to reach a certain goal, it is evident (logical) to take a certain action.

Outlawing something like prostitution is logical if your goal is to uphold a certain moral standard. Allowing prostitution is logical if you don't have any objections to it / or want to do it yourself.

1. No that's a retarded argument, its like saying - "cutting your foot off with a hacksaw is logical if you think that foot is possessed by a demon because YOUR GOAL is to not have a demon possessed foot"

Something is logical because it makes sense, I know you want to play bullshit semantic games, but no, not every reasoning "makes sense", some things are clearly illogical, "relation to something else" has nothing to do with anything, because that VERY "SOMETHING ELSE" COULD BE ILLOGICAL (how do you not immediately think of something this obvious?)

Case in point - "my foot is possessed by a demon so in relation to that reality cutting it off by any means necessary is logical"

You literally sound like an idiot with the argumentation you are using, it is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE, I can't believe I'm even humoring this nonsense, in fact I'm going to say a lot less than I planned on saying (you have to be trolling right now lol)

2. Morality is subjective, so nothing done on the basis of a moral code is being done for a "logical" reason, its completely arbitrary

 

[Deleted member 20195]

Shariah Law is not subjective. It's remained the same for centuries. That slut on Instagram would be whipped 1400 years ago and that slut on instagram would be whipped today. Shariah law is conflicting with modern western "morality" which is why the West invests trillions every year in trying to change it.

You see that slut on instagram, a lot of you moralfags on this site would say that she is being immoral, but you would be wrong. She doesn't kill, she doesn't steal, she doesn't <insert "bad" thing here>. That's her morals, as far as she's concerned "the times have changed" and she can be a slut and "it isn't hurting anyone". She is completely moral FOR THE ERA SHE EXISTS IN.

Again MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE, they change from person to person, country to country, era to era. Morals are pointless, we need to be driven by logic not morals, morals can be altered and therefore THEY CAN BE CORRUPTED.

Logic is also subjective. Scientists from every country were given the task of coming up with a logical response of combating coronavirus, some said herd immunity others said to shut everything down.

 

[zaitar124]

Shariah Law is not subjective. It's remained the same for centuries. That slut on Instagram would be whipped 1400 years ago and that slut on instagram would be whipped today. Shariah law is conflicting with modern western "morality" which is why the West invests trillions every year in trying to change it.

Logic is also subjective. Scientists from every country were given the task of coming up with a logical response of combating coronavirus, some said herd immunity others said to shut everything down.

I am sorry but this is such a low IQ response

 

[BlkPillPres]

Logic is also subjective. Scientists from every country were given the task of coming up with a logical response of combating coronavirus, some said herd immunity others said to shut everything down.

Logic is not subjective

Your analogy is false, you are falsely confusing two concepts

1. Optimal/Best
2. Logical

Logic doesn't mean you have the absolute best/most optimal answer, logic just means that your answer is reasonable

The example you gave is not an example of logic being subjective, all of the answers were logical, the distinction between having the "most accurate" answer doesn't make any of their answers "less logical" it just makes them "less optimal"

The person with the best out of ten doesn't have an answer that is "10 times more logical" , that's not how it works

Here's a simple example:
Some asks - "How do you figure out what is 40% of 1000"

Person A: "Multiply 1000 by 40 divided by 100" = 1000 * (40/100) = 400

Person B: "Multiply 1000 by 0.40" = 1000 * 0.40 = 400

Person B's answer requiring less steps doesn't make Person A's answer "illogical", the reasoning of Person A's solution is still correct and it yields the correct solution, Person B's answer is just more optimal

I am sorry but this is such a low IQ response

That is the sad problem with religious people, they don't really think things through, because they have a God to do the thinking for them, their life is just about listening and following a set of rules, and ironically 1000 years from now all religions will be pale shadows of what they are now (and even today they are pale shadows of what they were before), most people won't even be religious

 

[Deleted member 20195]

Logic is not subjective

Your analogy is false, you are falsely confusing two concepts

1. Optimal/Best
2. Logical

Logic doesn't mean you have the absolute best/most optimal answer, logic just means that your answer is reasonable

The example you gave is not an example of logic being subjective, all of the answers were logical, the distinction between having the "most accurate" answer doesn't make any of their answers "less logical" it just makes them "less optimal"

The person with the best out of ten doesn't have an answer that is "10 times more logical" , that's not how it works

Here's a simple example:
Some asks - "How do you figure out what is 40% of 1000"

Person A: "Multiply 1000 by 40 divided by 100" = 1000 * (40/100) = 400

Person B: "Multiply 1000 by 0.40" = 1000 * 0.40 = 400

Person B's answer requiring less steps doesn't make Person A's answer "illogical", the reasoning of Person A's solution is still correct and it yields the correct solution, Person B's answer is just more optimal



That is the sad problem with religious people, they don't really think things through, because they have a God to do the thinking for them, their life is just about listening and following a set of rules, and ironically 1000 years from now all religions will be pale shadows of what they are now (and even today they are pale shadows of what they were before), most people won't even be religious

It still doesnt explain how logic is not subjective. It's fair to assume in the mathematics we use logic to come to a conclusion yet students end up with different scores. What seemed logical to one student seemed illogical to another, when laws are made similarly what seems logical for your reasoning of making laws will seem illogical to another and this time there is no one to mark your logic(working out) and conclusion(answer).

 

[gsmcel]

1. No that's a retarded argument, its like saying - "cutting your foot off with a hacksaw is logical if you think that foot is possessed by a demon because YOUR GOAL is to not have a demon possessed foot"

Yes.

1. You dont want a demon foot.
2. You have a demon foot.

In that situation it is only logical to choose an action that will solve this conflict. Of course one would choose a method which seems to be the best value, and if there are no other options than a hacksaw, and you really dont want a demon foot, well. Logical to take that action. Not doing anything would be ill logical as it would be working against your own stated interest.
To clarify, I was pretty tired when posting yesterday, but I think basically using logic is only a way of reaching a goal. But that goal is subjective, so wanting a logical society is merely wanting a effiecent society, but not clarifying effiecence towards what goal. Could be efficiently killing itself for all that matters.

 

[ChronicPaincel]

Prostitution was illegal BEFORE feminism, its religious moral values that made it become illegal in society

What you wrote here is a perfect example of moral-relativism........ SUBJECTIVE morality lol......

 

[ChronicPaincel]

If people understood and lived by Natural Law OBJECTIVE MORALITY you wouldn't have problems like what you listed.

Individuals actions reflect to the aggregate, making the world more free, or more enslaved. It is common sense.
We live in slavery because the majority believe in moral-relativism instead of knowing the cause and effect relations of Natural Law for example.

 

[bigantennaemay1]

I disagree. The reason degeneracy is so rampant is the lack of enforcement of morality, legally and socially. That kind of behavior used to be looked down upon and punished, and that kept degeneracy under wraps for the most part. If you make an example of somebody who does something wrong, others are not as likely to follow in their footsteps. Meanwhile, in modern Western civ, when degeneracy is encouraged all over and there are no legal or social ramifications for being a drag on society, obviously degeneracy is going to flourish.

And corruption has nothing to do with anything. There will always be corruption, no matter what systems are in place, no matter who's in charge, it has nothing to do with the enforcement, or lack thereof, of morality in a society.

 

[Honeypot]

Take murder for example, the law should not be "you should not kill because its bad/evil", it should be - "you should not kill because you also do not want to be killed". We should hate murder as a society because if we allow other people to kill others haphazardly, then we might be next, sounds fucked up but if society ran on cold logic like that, then everything would be more peaceful.

LowIQpress

Use evolution and biology for your arguments not shit like this with no scientific basis whatsoever.

Do you know why there are predators/killers animals in our world and also other animals that don't murder? looks no brainer taking fighting capabilities in evolution but being a predator is also a downfall as much as not killing, do you know why? because fighting is a risky evolutionary trait, if you fight and the other fight back you both are dead at the end regardless of who wins because injuries but if you aren't a predator you can just run and avoid a dead end.

This is the origin of collaboration in evolution and some other human traits.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Yes.

1. You dont want a demon foot.
2. You have a demon foot.

I'm just going to block you for this retarded ass response, there are actually some arguments so stupid that I won't even bother addressing it any further

LowIQpress

Use evolution and biology for your arguments not shit like this with no scientific basis whatsoever.

Do you know why there are predators/killers animals in our world and also other animals that don't murder? looks no brainer taking fighting capabilities in evolution but being a predator is also a downfall as much as not killing, do you know why? because fighting is a risky evolutionary trait, if you fight and the other fight back you both are dead at the end regardless of who wins because injuries but if you aren't a predator you can just run and avoid a dead end.

This is the origin of collaboration in evolution and some other human traits.

1. How the fuck does "not wanting to die" need a "scientific basis", what you are saying makes no sense (ever heard of occam's razor?)

2. Evolution theory is ironically better used as an argument in favor of complete chaos, another person could alternatively argue that based on evolution theory we should just let the weak die because in the long run that will lead to humans evolving in the most optimal way, people who are physically weaker and less intelligent will die at the hands of crime, poverty, corruption, etc, and people who are intelligent and/or physically fit (and violent) enough to survive in such a world will reproduce and go on to create humans that are the "peak of humanity"

Everyone surviving and "having a fair chance" is the exact opposite of evolution, in fact one could argue our species is devolving as we allow people who are born with physical and mental defects to keep living, we supplement their disabilities with welfare (wasting resources that could go to "better stock") and we allow them to reproduce and keep passing on those defects

What you wrote here is a perfect example of moral-relativism........ SUBJECTIVE morality lol......

If people understood and lived by Natural Law OBJECTIVE MORALITY you wouldn't have problems like what you listed.

Individuals actions reflect to the aggregate, making the world more free, or more enslaved. It is common sense.
We live in slavery because the majority believe in moral-relativism instead of knowing the cause and effect relations of Natural Law for example.

Retard there's no such thing as objective morality, its exactly why literally ALL moral codes REVOLVE AROUND EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS

For every so called "objectively moral" stance you could give me, I can give you a scenario in which the alternative could be considered the "moral choice" by some, and everybody has their own "special rules" for morality, its just that retards like you like to proudly assert:

"Well all those other people are wrong, objectivity morality exists, and I'm the arbiter of it, I know what is true objective morality, and IT JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE THE RULES I LEARNED BECAUSE I WAS BORN IN X COUNTY, IN X ERA, IN X FAMILY"

The moral code you have is nothing but the result of a sequence of events causing a domino effect, had you not been born the exact race you are now, in the exact era (as in decade), in the exact country, in the exact family, as the exact sibling (oldest, middle or youngest get different treatment and responsibilities, that shapes your mindset and beliefs), met the exact friends at the exact school, had the exact religion, etc, etc, etc you would not have that same moral code, its completely subjective and it would differ slightly for you if any of these variables are altered

 

[Foodistzen]

@BlkPillPres If laws should be made using cold logic, what does cold logic dictate the age of consent should be?

the only objective answer would be to not have one. logic is based on objectivity and a rule like an aoc is subjective and based on emotional arguments which is why the number is different in other countries. its like saying a body count of 3 isn't that bad when compared to 5 or 10 when the objective truth is that they are both too high and there shouldn't be a body count in the first place.

 

[BlkPillPres]

@BlkPillPres If laws should be made using cold logic, what does cold logic dictate the age of consent should be?

The age of consent should be like holding a mirror up against society. Anonymous surveys will be conducted every 2 years to ask men and women what age their lost their virginity. It will be completely anonymous and worded in such a way to not make anyone (women) feel self conscious.

If we live in a society where women are allowed to be degenerate from a young age then the age of consent will be low, and if society adjusts and the number starts to increase over time, then the age of consent will be high.

Basically peoples actions will determine the age of consent, not their personal beliefs.

If after the survey it comes back that the average age for a female losing her virginity is 15, then the age of consent will be 15.

If society is so outraged by such a low number, then it (the human collective) will be forced to take an honest look at itself and admit that it allowed "degeneracy" to become a norm in society, and parenting will have to become more strict, slut shaming will have to become a norm, etc to police females (and males) into getting the number higher.


If I was going to go with a less complicated and simpler method, I'd pick the average age a female first has her menstrual cycle, I'd let biology decide like it's been deciding for most of our species existence. But I like the above method more because it forces the human collective to be honest with itself and not try to pass around blame. If you think a low age of consent is disgusting then you'll have to acknowledge that it's your fault for not policing female sexuality and letting young girls go around chasing Chad dick.

There are obvious holes in this, parents will likely push their daughters to lie, this is why the survey has to be anonymous and accessible to teens outside of the observation of a parent or guardian.

It takes away peoples ability to complain, because the outcome is determined by peoples collective actions.

 

[Deleted member 38579]

another example would be how moralfags advocate for the worst type of criminals to have all sorts of freedoms, which ultimately lead to them not getting punished at all and thus them being encouraged to commit more crimes. if murder would be actually punished with death there wouldn't be as much cases of people getting stabbed 20 times just to get their phones stolen.

 

[BlkPillPres]

another example would be how moralfags advocate for the worst type of criminals to have all sorts of freedoms, which ultimately lead to them not getting punished at all and thus them being encouraged to commit more crimes. if murder would be actually punished with death there wouldn't be as much cases of people getting stabbed 20 times just to get their phones stolen.

This is a perfect example. It's a complete waste of money to keep criminals jailed, fed and clothed anyways. Make it be the death penalty for murder (not accidental, but malicious) and watch how quickly those murder rates go down lol.

 

[trying to ascend]

This premisse is arbitrary per se, therefore this whole ethical system would be as arbitrary as the libertarian or kantian one. You are just evaluating actions based on a premise like everyone else, it's still morality.

Also, how would you address inaction problems? Once every non consensual action is forbidden under that principe, since you would always not want the action to be done to you (since you would be the non consensual part). How would you deal with situations such as a mother abandoning her kids (thus letting them starve), a father not paying child support, someone refusing to help one that was a car crash victim or even taxation?

Basically, how would you enforce any kind of duty?

 

[NobuNagahirohichi]

Low IQ thread. Can't believe this is pinned. Our society degenerates due tuo lack of morality. Morality is what keeps the society going forward.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Low IQ thread. Can't believe this is pinned. Our society degenerates due tuo lack of morality. Morality is what keeps the society going forward.

You clearly can't read. Morality is subjective you and that's exactly why it's so flawed and always gets subverted and changed over time. But if you had a society structured around logic and objectivity then those norms, values, laws, etc would be concrete and unchanging.

Morality comes down to emotions and who people care about.

That's why once homosexuals could be stoned and killed, and now they are to be loved and respected, because morality changed.

Same with women having rights.

But if homosexuality was frowned about for objective reasons like high STD rates, rampant sexual deviancy, the statistically high levels of pedophilia among homosexual males, etc rather than the bible or some religious nonsense, those norms and values would never have changed, because the rationale behind them would remain the same (logic and objective reasoning).

Same thing with women's rights. Giving women rights has led to this shit show we have now. If women were prevented from having rights based on how they affected society in the long run, rather than "God said so", women would not have rights today.

Society being structured around morality is exactly why it's so unstable, because morality changes over time, logic on the other hand does not, a fact remains a fact regardless of someones feelings, morality changes based on peoples collective feelings all the time.

 

[NobuNagahirohichi]

You clearly can't read. Morality is subjective you and that's exactly why it's so flawed and always gets subverted and changed over time. But if you had a society structured around logic and objectivity then those norms, values, laws, etc would be concrete and unchanging.

Morality comes down to emotions and who people care about.

That's why once homosexuals could be stoned and killed, and now they are to be loved and respected, because morality changed.

Same with women having rights.

But if homosexuality was frowned about for objective reasons like high STD rates, rampant sexual deviancy, the statistically high levels of pedophilia among homosexual males, etc rather than the bible or some religious nonsense, those norms and values would never have changed, because the rationale behind them would remain the same (logic and objective reasoning).

Same thing with women's rights. Giving women rights has led to this shit show we have now. If women were prevented from having rights based on how they affected society in the long run, rather than "God said so", women would not have rights today.

Society being structured around morality is exactly why it's so unstable, because morality changes over time, logic on the other hand does not, a fact remains a fact regardless of someones feelings, morality changes based on peoples collective feelings all the time.

Morality is not subjective. Morality is a set of behaviors that are evolutionary beneficial. Any society that practiced something like homosexuality eventually collapsed and does not exist anymore. The 2 primary forces that propel society forward are survival and procreation, and any type of behavior that damages these forces is amoral.

 

[Mainländer]

Take murder for example, the law should not be "you should not kill because its bad/evil", it should be - "you should not kill because you also do not want to be killed". We should hate murder as a society because if we allow other people to kill others haphazardly, then we might be next, sounds fucked up but if society ran on cold logic like that, then everything would be more peaceful.

That's a stretch. The real cold, logical thing to do is not "I won't kill because I don't want to be killed", but rather "I'll find a way to kill the people I don't like while simultaneously not being killed".

So what if society becomes a mess, if someone gets enough power that he manages to kill who he wants and get away with it, he'll do it. Just take a look at the atheistic communist regimes in China, USSR and so on. Dozens of millions were killed and the dictators got away with it completely unpunished (at least in this life).

Basing laws on morality is ironically why society is flawed, its because MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE. Even criminal organizations like the Yakuza or the Italian Mob, etc all have "codes of honour", that are things that even the average citizen would agree with. They have their own set of morals, for example the Mob usually doesn't allow killing women and children, its an emotional and subjective "rule", they have let their emotions create an illogical ruleset, but ironically they can kill men, steal from families, sell drugs, etc.

Have you ever asked yourself why even most criminals have codes of honor, limits they won't cross, etc? Have you ever asked yourself why people, being those collective of cells evolved from monkeys like atheists believe, have a natural sensibility to evil, injustice, etc?

Many people ask why God allows evil and injustice, but little ask the even more pertinent question, "how am I, along with most humans, able to naturally detect and be put off by evil and injustice. Is there some God-given thing inside of me that allows me to do so? How, if I'm just a collective of cells wanting to survive and reproduce?"

You see that slut on instagram, a lot of you moralfags on this site would say that she is being immoral, but you would be wrong. She doesn't kill, she doesn't steal, she doesn't <insert "bad" thing here>. That's her morals, as far as she's concerned "the times have changed" and she can be a slut and "it isn't hurting anyone". She is completely moral FOR THE ERA SHE EXISTS IN.

You just gave an example of how religious morals work and your alleged pure logic doesn't while arguing against the former, JFL.

Yeah, according to the "just don't hurt anyone" logic, there's nothing wrong with being a whore. But according to all major religions, there is. Religion works against society becoming a promiscuous mess, "pure logic" doesn't.

You people's atheism, in the metaphysical sense, is dumb, but a harmless form of dumbness. In the eschatological sense, will only have consequences for your individual selves as in the damnation of your soul. But in the pragmatical sense, it's really dumb and a disservice to society and us incels. I'm amazed this dumb thread got put in the "must read" section.

Religion is and will always be the only thing that counters stuff like gynocentrism, feminism, widespread promiscuity and others. Religion is also the only thing that builds minimally sane civilizations (contrary to atheist dystopias like communist dictatorships).

 

[LesscoBlob]

The ideal society would be driven primarily by logic. I think the reason society is so immoral is ironically because we are trying to be moral and not logical.

The basis of all laws that are good for a society, is logic.

Take murder for example, the law should not be "you should not kill because its bad/evil", it should be - "you should not kill because you also do not want to be killed". We should hate murder as a society because if we allow other people to kill others haphazardly, then we might be next, sounds fucked up but if society ran on cold logic like that, then everything would be more peaceful.

Basing laws on morality is ironically why society is flawed, its because MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE. Even criminal organizations like the Yakuza or the Italian Mob, etc all have "codes of honour", that are things that even the average citizen would agree with. They have their own set of morals, for example the Mob usually doesn't allow killing women and children, its an emotional and subjective "rule", they have let their emotions create an illogical ruleset, but ironically they can kill men, steal from families, sell drugs, etc.

This is the problem with morals, everybody thinks their moral code is "good enough". If we all had to operate on logic, there is no such thing as "my logic" or "your logic", a choice either is logical or it isn't, logic is based on whats objective, not on how something makes one feel. We need a logical society not a moral one, "true morals" are inherent to logic, because logic usually yields the greatest collective rule set

Imagine how much the rates of rape and human trafficking would go down of prostitution was decriminalized, think about it, its completely illogical that paying for sex is illegal, there's no logical reason why it should be, yet despite all the income it would generate for a country if taxable, despite all the people it would alleviate from suffering, society keeps it illegal due to moral reasoning.

You see that slut on instagram, a lot of you moralfags on this site would say that she is being immoral, but you would be wrong. She doesn't kill, she doesn't steal, she doesn't <insert "bad" thing here>. That's her morals, as far as she's concerned "the times have changed" and she can be a slut and "it isn't hurting anyone". She is completely moral FOR THE ERA SHE EXISTS IN.

Again MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE, they change from person to person, country to country, era to era. Morals are pointless, we need to be driven by logic not morals, morals can be altered and therefore THEY CAN BE CORRUPTED.

You can't corrupt logic, you can't corrupt objectivity. It always is what its going to be, it will never change, any changes to a law based on logic, will also be logical, but changes to a "moral code" can easily become corrupted.

In fact modern society is the greatest example of this, Christians influenced laws using their moral code, that's why gay marriage was illegal, today morals have been changed due to EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS. People against gay marriage are seen as "bigots", "evil", etc. Now today gay marriage is legal.

ANY LAW WITH A FOUNDATION BASED ON EMOTION, IS "STRUCTURALLY WEAK" AND CAN BE ALTERED USING EMOTIONS.

MORALS CORRUPT A SOCIETY, THEY DON'T HELP IT

The problem with this is that things like hypergamy are in fact 100% logical. The dual mating strategy, with women having kids with *Chads* and lie to their beta-provider that it's his kid makes a lot of sense, evolutionarily speaking, The son (if it's a son) in that case will inherit his biological father's good looks (unless the woman is some ugly ass Becky) and will get his fake father's "good" personality, making the ideal man for women. But this, while being logical, enrages us sub-8 men who are aware of it. And the reality of the situation is that we are dominated by our emotions. All of us. A human trying to control his emotions is like a man trying to ride an elephant. Sure, you can kind of steer it somewhat, but the elephant will ultimately go where IT wants to go. We are 80% emotions, 20% logic. And by the way, our morals influence the way we think of something as logical or illogical. It makes sense for a woman who doesn't believe in traditional marriage to act this way, but it doesn't make sense for eg. a Conservative woman to act the same way, IF she really does adhere to her moral principles. Also, just like cultures, not all moral values are equal.

 

[over4men]

This is a perfect example. It's a complete waste of money to keep criminals jailed, fed and clothed anyways. Make it be the death penalty for murder (not accidental, but malicious) and watch how quickly those murder rates go down lol.

Singapore is the best example , despite being a diverse country it's one of the safest , the criminals there are treated as trash who should be disposed

 

[BlkPillPres]

The problem with this is that things like hypergamy are in fact 100% logical

That's a stretch. The real cold, logical thing to do is not "I won't kill because I don't want to be killed", but rather "I'll find a way to kill the people I don't like while simultaneously not being killed".

You guys are either being disingenuous and pretending not to get the point, or you aren't reading properly.

I mean logical in terms of "it benefits the collective and ensures social order" not logical in terms of "it benefits the individual". Obviously this is what I'm talking about since were speaking about society, not peoples personal lives.


@LesscoBlob - No, hypergamy is 100% natural, but women do this based off of emotions, not logic, because in the long run this does not benefit society, and this will result in men not caring about society and opting out, we can already see this happening. Less and less men are going to college, more and more men are leaving the workforce, the "red pill" is spreading like crazy, birth rates are going down, etc.

It is not logical to alienate the most productive members of your society and make them not give a fuck, that's not going to have long term benefits to society. At some point you'll end up with an aging population like in Japan.

You see people like to say "one man can impregnate 100 women", but that's stupid when you really look at it, because only the top 1% of men have the income and wealth required to provide for 100+ households/children. This is why when your average males start opting out because they don't see themselves as "part of society" your birth rates are going to decline and you'll end up with an aging population.

Same thing is happening to Japan as we speak. Harems aren't "logical" because you require the participation of average men in society in order for society to sustain itself.

You guys need to stop with all this "Chad meme" logic lol, it doesn't work on a large scale and it doesn't work in the long run. All the guys monopolizing sex with women right now don't even really want children anyways lol.

The west is on it's way to have an aging population soon too, the reason why it happened so fast in Japan is because they have a culture that caters specifically to pacifying male losers and which pushes them into opting out even faster.


@Mainländer - Very few people would take part in that, and that isn't really "logical" on a societal scale, you are re-framing the argument to something I'm not even talking about. Of course doing things that are individualistic will be logical on that scale. But it won't lead to a stable society.

Also I'm talking about laws here, not personal beliefs. There would never be a "you can kill so long as you get away with it" law lol. That would lead to chaos and anarchy within society.

You just gave an example of how religious morals work and your alleged pure logic doesn't while arguing against the former, JFL.

You clearly didn't read properly or you don't understand, religious morals have yet to prevent whoredom because morals change and even religion changes, are you fucking blind?, most Americans claim the label of "Christian" today lol.

Lastly, the logic behind repressing female sexuality was already explained by me:

Same thing with women's rights. Giving women rights has led to this shit show we have now. If women were prevented from having rights based on how they affected society in the long run, rather than "God said so", women would not have rights today.

Women being whores has long term negative effects on society, as it lowers the "civil" and active participation of average males.

 

[gimmedatrope999]

I believe that a society ran primarily on logic would wipe itself out. Existence is hell for sentient creatures, especially humans.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Existence is hell for sentient creatures, especially humans.

That's literally because we have a society structured around emotions and morality. You are kind of using circular logic. Things are "like hell" because morality was running the show from the get go.

If prostitution was legal right now and had been legal for centuries, it would be a normal part of culture, and the extreme majority of us on this forum right now would not even be here, because prostitution would be cheap and normalized, there'd be no shame behind it so there would be a bunch of ego driven retards refusing to take part because "muh morals" or "muh ego" ("I want female validation").

Religious values is ironically the sole thing that has prevented the #1 outlet for male sexuality being made illegal. Prostitution was a norm in the far past, it's known as the oldest profession for a reason. Religion is why it was made illegal, logic would dictate that it should be legal and taxed, as it would be a vital part of the economy, and it would keep men in society who can't get GF's or wifes as active, satisfied and contributing members of society.

By making prostitution illegal society has essentially alienated a significant and growing portion of their society to be treated as "less than". They've also ensured that sex trafficking, sexual assault, rape, etc will remain high because these crimes only really take place because most men do not have a proper sexual outlet, and NO, porn is not enough.

 

[gimmedatrope999]

That's literally because we have a society structured around emotions and morality. You are kind of using circular logic. Things are "like hell" because morality was running the show from the get go.

If prostitution was legal right now and had been legal for centuries, it would be a normal part of culture, and the extreme majority of us on this forum right now would not even be here, because prostitution would be cheap and normalized, there'd be no shame behind it so there would be a bunch of ego driven retards refusing to take part because "muh morals" or "muh ego" ("I want female validation").

Religious values is ironically the sole thing that has prevented the #1 outlet for male sexuality being made illegal. Prostitution was a norm in the far past, it's known as the oldest profession for a reason. Religion is why it was made illegal, logic would dictate that it should be legal and taxed, as it would be a vital part of the economy, and it would keep men in society who can't get GF's or wifes as active, satisfied and contributing members of society.

By making prostitution illegal society has essentially alienated a significant and growing portion of their society to be treated as "less than". They've also ensured that sex trafficking, sexual assault, rape, etc will remain high because these crimes only really take place because most men do not have a proper sexual outlet, and NO, porn is not enough.

I'm not disagreeing with you that society making prostitution illegal isn't based on reason, but you seem to not think that existence on earth itself is inherently negative- think about it; we live on a planet where creatures have to eat other to survive. Think about all the suffering that occurs for seemingly little to no reason. Schopenhauer said it best: " if children were brought into the world through pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the next generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?" Do you honestly think that life is okay, incel or not?

 

[BlkPillPres]

I'm not disagreeing with you that society making prostitution illegal isn't based on reason, but you seem to not think that existence on earth itself is inherently negative- think about it; we live on a planet where creatures have to eat other to survive.

It's bad but it's better than not existing. There are certain aspects of my life that is shit, but other aspects are really enjoyable, for example I'm about to eat some chocolate, you can't experience this if you are dead or you were never born, you can't experience anything.

 

[gimmedatrope999]

for example I'm about to eat some chocolate, you can't experience this if you are dead or you were never born, you can't experience anything.

I believe non-existence is best. If I have to suffer and die to receive some temporary pleasure then i’d rather not exist in the first place. The philosopher David Benatar talks about this very dilemma in his book: “Better never to have been”.

 

[Deleted member 40050]

That's literally because we have a society structured around emotions and morality. You are kind of using circular logic. Things are "like hell" because morality was running the show from the get go.

If prostitution was legal right now and had been legal for centuries, it would be a normal part of culture, and the extreme majority of us on this forum right now would not even be here, because prostitution would be cheap and normalized, there'd be no shame behind it so there would be a bunch of ego driven retards refusing to take part because "muh morals" or "muh ego" ("I want female validation").

Religious values is ironically the sole thing that has prevented the #1 outlet for male sexuality being made illegal. Prostitution was a norm in the far past, it's known as the oldest profession for a reason. Religion is why it was made illegal, logic would dictate that it should be legal and taxed, as it would be a vital part of the economy, and it would keep men in society who can't get GF's or wifes as active, satisfied and contributing members of society.

By making prostitution illegal society has essentially alienated a significant and growing portion of their society to be treated as "less than". They've also ensured that sex trafficking, sexual assault, rape, etc will remain high because these crimes only really take place because most men do not have a proper sexual outlet, and NO, porn is not enough.

I think feminism is more why it was made illegal than religion. religion has existed for a long time, feminism is relatively new, and they made prostitution illegal. There's a reason unpaid sex is legal while paid sex is illegal, and thats because of the leverage women have in one area over the other.

 

[BlkPillPres]

feminism is relatively new, and they made prostitution illegal

Wrong, prostitution was made illegal due to religious institutions, not feminism.

 

[Deleted member 40050]

Wrong, prostitution was made illegal due to religious institutions, not feminism.

When was prostitution made illegal exactly? Where and what time period?

Even today it's legal in some places. It's mainly illegal in america, but that happened around the time of feminism

 

[BlkPillPres]

When was prostitution made illegal exactly? Where and what time period?

Depends on the country.

Feminists are definitely glad that it's illegal, but the religious have been going against it from the start, even before women had rights or the feminist movement started religious people were protesting against prostitution, doing things to get brothels closed down, petitioning, etc.

 

[Deleted member 40050]

Depends on the country.

Feminists are definitely glad that it's illegal, but the religious have been going against it from the start, even before women had rights or the feminist movement started religious people were protesting against prostitution, doing things to get brothels closed down, petitioning, etc.

yeah, and when did those religious people succeed?

around the time of feminism? so doesnt that suggest that feminism was the straw that broke the camel's back?

 

[BlkPillPres]

yeah, and when did those religious people succeed?

around the time of feminism? so doesnt that suggest that feminism was the straw that broke the camel's back?

Correlation does not equal causation.

Either way I'm pretty sure women in those times were more focused on being able to work and vote than taking away other women's ability to make quick money off of men. Rallying against prostitution at that point wasn't really to the benefit of the female collective.

Notice you don't see any feminists going against OnlyFans, and that's because it's women making millions at the expense of sexless men.

 

[Deleted member 40050]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Either way I'm pretty sure women in those times were more focused on being able to work and vote than taking away other women's ability to make quick money off of men. Rallying against prostitution at that point wasn't really to the benefit of the female collective.

Notice you don't see any feminists going against OnlyFans, and that's because it's women making millions at the expense of sexless men.

comparing prostitution to onlyfans is like comparing prostitution to porn. and you said before porn is not a solution.

most men do not have a proper sexual outlet, and NO, porn is not enough.

 

[YBP Yxngcel]

I believe non-existence is best. If I have to suffer and die to receive some temporary pleasure then i’d rather not exist in the first place. The philosopher David Benatar talks about this very dilemma in his book: “Better never to have been”.

Cmon. Think of all the pleasures we couldn't experience if we were non existent.
Sex/Masturbation
Delicious Food
Lots of entertainment/art/creativity
Laughing

It's worth living once to atleast experience these things.

 

[thiswillpass]

Being an objectivecel is a massive cope. Saying that society should be governed by logic, and not morality is pointless and futile.
There are underlying assumptions that one must have, such as if you want a society with the most happiness and least amount of pain, or if you want a society that provides equal rights, which cannot be justified logically.
As someone mentioned before, you can use logic to justify any action, as long as the logics support your underlying assumptions.

 

[BlkPillPres]

As someone mentioned before, you can use logic to justify any action, as long as the logics support your underlying assumptions.

You really can't, the important words here are "functionality" and "efficiency". You can use logic to justify a dictatorship or police state at face value, but when you take into consideration the poverty, civil unrest, possible riots, assassination attempts, all round economic instability, etc, you can't justify it logically.

IF the end goal is a stable, functioning, perpetually optimized society, then there are few paths that one can take to reach that goal.

 

[thiswillpass]

You really can't, the important words here are "functionality" and "efficiency". You can use logic to justify a dictatorship or police state at face value, but when you take into consideration the poverty, civil unrest, possible riots, assassination attempts, all round economic instability, etc, you can't justify it logically.

IF the end goal is a stable, functioning, perpetually optimized society, then there are few paths that one can take to reach that goal.

A dictatorship/police state doesn't necessarily have to have poverty, civil unrest etc, since you can say the same thing for countries with democratically-elected leaders. The United States, also has poverty, civil unrest, possible riots, assassination attempts, all round economic stability etc.
You can outweigh the oppression of the dictatorship/police state by demonstrating that it provides more security and resources than a democracy in a logical manner.

 

[BlkPillPres]

The United States, also has poverty, civil unrest, possible riots, assassination attempts, all round economic stability etc.

Don't be disingenuous, that's not the kind of "poverty", "civil unrest", "riots" and "economic INstability" I'm talking about lol. What America has is not serious, it's nothing like you will see in some countries like Africa. That's what I'm talking about. Or something you'd see in North Korea where the people are basically brainwashed slaves and at some point all that shit is going to fall apart, there will be a rebellion. As technology advances a government can control it's people less and less.

JFL at you trying to add in "assassination attempts" though, where the hell did you see that in America recently. There are warlords in Africa right now ruling small areas that are facing assassination attempts as a norm.

The general low IQ culture superstitious culture in Africa is exactly why these countries are so poor and have all of these problems. The more "spiritual" and "moral" a nation is and the less logical it is, the more all these problems pop up. Logic is what balances the world. You'll tend to notice that the places we all consider to have "sexual degeneracy" are the more advanced and developed countries, that's not a coincidence.

The more a country abandons morals and embraces logic, the more it advances and the more stable it becomes.

You can outweigh the oppression of the dictatorship/police state by demonstrating that it provides more security and resources than a democracy

When has that happened?

 

[thiswillpass]

Don't be disingenuous, that's not the kind of "poverty", "civil unrest", "riots" and "economic INstability" I'm talking about lol. What America has is not serious, it's nothing like you will see in some countries like Africa. That's what I'm talking about. Or something you'd see in North Korea where the people are basically brainwashed slaves and at some point all that shit is going to fall apart, there will be a rebellion. As technology advances a government can control it's people less and less.

JFL at you trying to add in "assassination attempts" though, where the hell did you see that in America recently. There are warlords in Africa right now ruling small areas that are facing assassination attempts as a norm.

The general low IQ culture superstitious culture in Africa is exactly why these countries are so poor and have all of these problems. The more "spiritual" a nation is and the less logical it is, the more all these problems pop up. Logic is what balances the world.



When has that happened?

I'm not going to argue about which country has it worse. No shit the U.S. has economic stability compared to African countries and dystopian countries.

About the assassination attempts, why are you limiting yourself to recent times? We're talking about society as a grand scheme. Several U.S. presidents were assassinated, such as Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy, which haved significantly shifted history.

My point is that saying that morality should be governed by logic is JFL. Logics doesn't provide a framework for moral values. You can use logic to fulfill your moral principles, but logic cannot provide them. You'll have to solve the is-ought distinction if that's the case.

 

[BlkPillPres]

About the assassination attempts, why are you limiting yourself to recent times? We're talking about society as a grand scheme. Several U.S. presidents were assassinated, such as Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy, which haved significantly shifted history.

Seems like you don't understand the context of the argument. My argument is that the more religious and "morally inclined" a society is, the more shit like this happens and the less stable it is, because the overall population is less logical.

So looking back in history doesn't go against my argument it agrees with it, as past cultures are always more religious and moral, whereas the future ones become more "atheistic" and "secular", and that leads to more advancement, a greater focus on science, and a more logical society. Things become more stable the further people drift away from religion. At least with respect to things that don't pertain to human sexuality.

My point is that saying that morality should be governed by logic is JFL.

You definitely aren't reading. I'm not saying morality should be governed by logic. I'm saying morality should be removed completely and logic should take it's place. Morality is not needed, it's an inferior tool, it was useful for when we were less intelligent and less advanced, but at this stage in our existence as a species it has served it's purpose and it's no longer needed, in fact it is an impediment at this point when it comes to us moving on to other stages.

If decisions were made based on cold hard logic with the goal in mind of having a functioning, stable and efficient society. The world would change for the better, slowly but surely.

Think of the most obvious thing like prostitution. It's only illegal for moral reasons, and since morality is subjective there is no consistency, because I can legally take a woman out on a date, buy her food, drinks, entertainment, gifts, transportation, etc FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GETTING HER TO FUCK ME, but that isn't treated like prostitution WHEN IT CLEARLY IS THE SAME THING.

A logical society would just legalize prostitution, and from there like magic, rates of sexual assault and rape would go down, human trafficking would go down, the economy would get a boost from a new market no longer being underground. Incel mass shootings would also go down after a decade or so as it becomes normal for men to pay for sex, etc.


If morality was objective I would agree with you, but the problem is that it's subjective, and people tend to pick and choose where it applies and how it's applied, and that just leads to unfairness and chaos.

It's the reason why you have convoluted constructs like the "Nordic Model" for prostitution, where it's "legal" to sell sex, but illegal to buy sex.

As a society we'd never do this with drugs. We'd never make it legal to be a drug dealer but drug users get arrested and jailed .

This is all because of moral (emotional) thinking that frames men as "evil predators" and women as "helpless victims", so the laws get structured around that "moral framework" rather than on the pure logical reality that men have always been paying women for sex and/or companionship since the beginning of time, and no matter what society does it's going to happen.

Logics doesn't provide a framework for moral values. You can use logic to fulfill your moral principles, but logic cannot provide them. You'll have to solve the is-ought distinction if that's the case.

You really are unable of looking at things outside of the framework you were indoctrinated to believe.

You are using circular reasoning right now and you don't even realize it. You are presupposing that morality is required at all, that's why you are framing your thoughts as "logic can't be used to fulfill your moral principles". My point is that you don't need moral principles. You need specific goals that you want for your society, and then you come up with logical solutions to get to those goals. You want those solutions to be as beneficial as possible to your citizens, not for the sake of "the greater good", but for the sake of "stability" so that your society functions.

Let me put it this way. The cells in your body don't need a "moral code" to function for the sake of keeping your body alive. They do what they do because it is to the individual benefit of each cell and to the collective benefit of the body (that the cell exists in, which again really just comes down to individual benefit).

We all want a stable society, not because were "good", but really it's because a stable society means our lives can be SAFER and EASIER. It's really just about self interest and peace of mind.

Now there's no point in me arguing this any further, you can believe what you want, I don't expect to convince a moralist of anything.

 

[Linesnap99]

if prostitution is legalised and taxable then the institution of marriage will vanish as both cannot co exist. the wives and daughter will flock into prostitution as it will generate more money for them and the normies will be without any wife and so no child. legalising and taxing prostitution will decrease population. only chads will have sex without paying in that case.

 

[BlkPillPres]

if prostitution is legalised and taxable then the institution of marriage will vanish as both cannot co exist.

The two always have co-existed, and why hasn't the institution of marriage vanished in the countries where it is legal?

Also a lot of countries with traditional values have legal prostitution or the government just treats it as "illegal" on paper but they know it's an essential part of their economy so they allow it (e.g. Thailand)

the wives and daughter will flock into prostitution as it will generate more money for them and the normies will be without any wife and so no child.

Most women who go into prostitution were either sexually abused in their youth and/or NEED money (NOT WANT), they need it and they lack job opportunities. So no, your crazy scenario of everyone's wife and daughter becoming a prostitute won't happen.

Also, even if it did happen, there's this little thing called supply and demand. The more whores there are, the cheaper sex will be and the less money women will make, which will take away their incentive to become prostitutes. No woman is going to be sucking dick for $2 and ruin her chances of getting married in the future lol.

Keep in mind once prostitution is taxable these women's professions will be ON RECORD. So becoming a prostitute will be something reserved for women who are in "the dregs of society". They will pretty much be on a "never getting married" list. That's how it should be, that's how it was in the past.

legalising and taxing prostitution will decrease population.

I wanna know what kinda drugs you are on lol

only chads will have sex without paying in that case.

Isn't that already what's happening anyways?

It's not really average men getting "one night stands", it's attractive men doing that. Even men who are pumping and dumping are still having to pay an "entry fee". Sex has never been something free for the male sex, it's only the few exceptions that get to fuck for free in a night and never give the woman anything or see her again.

 

[thiswillpass]

Seems like you don't understand the context of the argument. My argument is that the more religious and "morally inclined" a society is, the more shit like this happens and the less stable it is, because the overall population is less logical.

So looking back in history doesn't go against my argument it agrees with it, as past cultures are always more religious and moral, whereas the future ones become more "atheistic" and "secular", and that leads to more advancement, a greater focus on science, and a more logical society. Things become more stable the further people drift away from religion. At least with respect to things that don't pertain to human sexuality.


You definitely aren't reading. I'm not saying morality should be governed by logic. I'm saying morality should be removed completely and logic should take it's place. Morality is not needed, it's an inferior tool, it was useful for when we were less intelligent and less advanced, but at this stage in our existence as a species it has served it's purpose and it's no longer needed, in fact it is an impediment at this point when it comes to us moving on to other stages.

If decisions were made based on cold hard logic with the goal in mind of having a functioning, stable and efficient society. The world would change for the better, slowly but surely.

Think of the most obvious thing like prostitution. It's only illegal for moral reasons, and since morality is subjective there is no consistency, because I can legally take a woman out on a date, buy her food, drinks, entertainment, gifts, transportation, etc FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GETTING HER TO FUCK ME, but that isn't treated like prostitution WHEN IT CLEARLY IS THE SAME THING.

A logical society would just legalize prostitution, and from there like magic, rates of sexual assault and rape would go down, human trafficking would go down, the economy would get a boost from a new market no longer being underground. Incel mass shootings would also go down after a decade or so as it becomes normal for men to pay for sex, etc.


If morality was objective I would agree with you, but the problem is that it's subjective, and people tend to pick and choose where it applies and how it's applied, and that just leads to unfairness and chaos.

It's the reason why you have convoluted constructs like the "Nordic Model" for prostitution, where it's "legal" to sell sex, but illegal to buy sex.

As a society we'd never do this with drugs. We'd never make it legal to be a drug dealer but drug users get arrested and jailed .

This is all because of moral (emotional) thinking that frames men as "evil predators" and women as "helpless victims", so the laws get structured around that "moral framework" rather than on the pure logical reality that men have always been paying women for sex and/or companionship since the beginning of time, and no matter what society does it's going to happen.


You really are unable of looking at things outside of the framework you were indoctrinated to believe.

You are using circular reasoning right now and you don't even realize it. You are presupposing that morality is required at all, that's why you are framing your thoughts as "logic can't be used to fulfill your moral principles". My point is that you don't need moral principles. You need specific goals that you want for your society, and then you come up with logical solutions to get to those goals. You want those solutions to be as beneficial as possible to your citizens, not for the sake of "the greater good", but for the sake of "stability" so that your society functions.

Let me put it this way. The cells in your body don't need a "moral code" to function for the same of keeping your body alive. They do what they do because it is to the individual benefit of each cell and to the collective benefit of the body (that the cell exists in, which again really just comes down to individual benefit).

We all want a stable society, not because were "good", but really it's because a stable society means our lives can be SAFER and EASIER. It's really just about self interest and peace of mind.

Now there's no point in me arguing this any further, you can believe what you want, I don't expect to convince a moralist of anything.

I appreciate that you have taken the time to write detailed responses to me.
I love your videos btw and I should wish you post more in the future.

 

[Deleted member 43294]

Low IQ post.

Without morality you can indulge in degeneracy without any guilt. Morals are the key to a productive society

 

[BlkPillPres]

Low IQ post.

Without morality you can indulge in degeneracy without any guilt. Morals are the key to a productive society

1. Morality has nothing to do with guilt, it has to do with FEAR. If the bible said - "Obey God's law or you'll make him cry and feel bad" people would be fucking in the streets lol. Humans can't really be guilt tripped, you need fear to control them, that's why "hell" is in the bible.

2. People are going to indulge in degeneracy regardless, logic brings order to the world and balance so that things don't go to far. Also degeneracy isn't a problem, it's "centralized degeneracy" (as in not "fairly distributed") that's a bad thing. If every body could equally take part, pretty much no one would be complaining.

[Hard To Swallow Edition] DEGENERACY Is A Good Thing, Its CENTRALIZED DEGENERACY That's Bad

I see a lot of blue pilled moralfag copers talking about degeneracy this and degeneracy that, you idiots don't get degeneracy is what makes humans wake up in the morning and go to work to slave away their time to make someone else rich, without degeneracy humans would become extremely...

incels.is