BANNED USER: Repeatedly posting trollish "death to my outgroup"
22122
No bio...
User ID: 1194
Banned by: @Amadan
22122
1yr ago
the low crime areas would arm themselves, build fences and hire security guards to keep the high crime people out.
22122
1yr ago
mugging is just keep calm, get home safe then start making phone calls to see how much it costs to get a video of how they break the mugger fingers one by one with pliers
Can you explain this part, I don't understand what you mean here.
22122
1yr ago
Im pretty sure that cocaine does not turn all of its users into violent criminals, but lets imagine that it does. In that case my response is that I don't want my tax money going to contribute to the state trying to eliminate this trade because I would rather keep that money to myself and do something else with it.
I think people need to stop talking about the holocaust, groups of people kill other groups all the time, and usually they kill them in the ancestral land of the victims, and usually they kill them in such a way that no one hears of those groups again. In fact the jewish scriptures record such events being perpetrated by the jews themselves, why do we never hear about the amalekite or philistine genocides? Why don't we ever hear about all the right wing jews in israel that support the genocide of arabs and other non-jews in their country? What happened to the jews was not that bad by historical standards, and you could argue that they had it coming given that they were taking advantage of another race for 2000 years on that race's land, furthermore the jews had ample opportunities to assimilate into their host societies, the descendents of those jews who chose to become christian were not targetted in the holocaust afterall. The only reason we hear so much about the holocaust is that jews use it as a propaganda theme to make people think they are victims deserving of special treatment or something. The jews are currently the group with the highest rate of geniuses and billionaires and theyre still taking advantage of others, they dont deserve any sympathy.
22122
1yr ago
its not like the romans did not change christianity when they converted to it.
22122
1yr ago
Someone who dies and is buried in a graveyard goes to the grave. But christians also say that he goes to heaven or hell. As far as I understand it, its impossible to go to two different places at the same time, so what gives? If that phrase is not to be taken literally, then they should start using a more sincere phrase to describe that notion, maybe like 'a copy of him is created in heaven/hell', or 'recreated in heaven/hell'.
22122
1yr ago
you can address drug addiction induced violence by punishing the violent people, its unfair to ban the drug thereby punishing nonviolent users.
22122
1yr ago
most of the stories in islam are plagiarized from judaism and most of the prophets mentioned in them are jewish prophets. for example, islam claims that the kibla shrine in mecca (holiest place in islam) was built by abraham, the father of the jewish people, even thought this is false and mohamed said this just to legitimize the place that was previously a pagan shrine.
22122
1yr ago
if procreation is so important then why do so many people not want to procreate? I think you are just projecting your opinion on everyone else and think they are misguided if they don't act accordingly.
22122
1yr ago
If you want to avoid stds then be careful who you are having sex with. Gay people can only spread their diseases to people who are willing to have sex with them, they are not forcing disease upon anybody, therefore they are innocent.
Yes, people like this murderous burgler should be publically executed, but I really do not want people like you driving a "law and order backlash" so much so that my internal reaction to you in particular advocating for it is to defend the other side, even though rationally I can not justify that position to myself. In my opinion people like you, because of your moral and political ideological inclinations are more dangerous over the long run as a group than these psychopathic criminals and should be among those being killed, and yes this is basically me admitting that I want certain segments of my outgroup killed.
22122
1yr ago
I don't get this insistence on labeling the holocaust as undeniably evil when in this same forum you have guys celebrating the fact that their ancestors 'destroyed the Indian nations' and getting a bunch of upvotes for it. If you think that a group being a threat, competitor, or burden to your group is justification to exterminate them, then why would that principle not apply to what happened to the jews in europe.
22122
1yr ago
If its that easy to undermine the norm of monogamy, then that is what should happen. People are naturally polygamous, that is why people take a lot of risk to cheat on their consort, fucking the same person gets old after a while and so less pleasurable. I thought you were gay? Ymttm you dont make it a point to make love with new guys on a regular basis?
Private sexuality is a norm that if dissolved, would allow people to enhance their pleasure by having sex in public if that is what pleases them, and by letting people who want to see other people have sex because it gives them a fluttery feeling that they like and gives them something to think about afterwards be able to satisfy these desires.
Men flashing children on the subway is not bad unless the subway owner does not allow it but I think the subway owner should allow it because of pretty much the same reason as for the prior idea.
22122
1yr ago
don't christians believe that god created the devil? who else could have? weird that god would create a immortal being with magical powers whose purpose is to advance the cause of evil. seems like god and the devil have more in common than christians like to admit...
22122
1yr ago
But everyone is non-consensually born into a particular environment that they absolutely could not have chosen/affected (because they weren't born yet) and inevitably strongly influenced by it (affecting their later choices) before they develop much of a capacity for true reasoning/genuine choice at all. How do you account for that?
I can not account for it, nor do I need to in order for my ideology to make sense. I guess you could use something along those lines as an argument for antinatalism but that is a different story.
So let's say you have Bob. Bob's parents, who are also obese, instead of just giving him normal milk bottles, would sweeten them with heavy amounts of sugar and cream. They also let him drink Mountain Dew at mere months old. Bob becomes a chunky baby, kid, and later adult with a major sweet tooth and issues controlling his diet, which he feels major angst about, lowering his self-esteem, harming his health, etc.
Was it just in the nature of Bob to be obese then? And when he reaches for a donut after another dejected moment of looking at himself in the mirror there's nothing other than his comprehensive free choice driving it? And he's better off than he would be in a world where things were arranged to lead him down the path of being healthy and powerful? He's just lying to himself when he says he'd prefer to be thin?
If I offer Bob donuts thereby tempting him to indulge in his gluttonous habits, I am not coercing Bob in any way, because it is ultimately him and no one else that makes the decision to take a donut. As to the notion that Bob would be better off if he had not been an excessive eater from an early age, yeah Bob is not wrong to think that and he is not necessarily lying to himself, but it is his parents fault for raising him with bad habits. And yet his parents did not necessarily do anything coercive to cause this outcome, so there is no warrant to prevent parents from feeding their children in unhealthy ways. Apart from such measures being uncalled for by liberal morality, it sets a dangerous precedent to allow authorities to control the way people raise their kids, even if there is widespread agreement among other parents that they are doing it wrong.
For a supposed libertarian absolutist you're sure not sounding like one here. "You don't actually know your true preferences as well as my political ideology does!" People making "choices" they regret and didn't really want to on many higher levels than that of basic, animalistic temptation is one of the most documented phenomena in human psychology (and is also the whole reason the word "temptation" exists), but it don't real because of your political beliefs?
You can take a Darwinian "If you don't have the strength to resist your temptations then you don't deserve to be free of them." view, but don't pretend that's protecting people's freedom.
You can never know if you are going to end up regretting a particular choice, and even if you could, if you go ahead and make the choice anyway it shows that at least at that moment you believed that the benefits outweighed the costs. I don't think I agree that living in an environment where you can not avoid being faced with certain unwanted temptations that you are unable to resist means that you are less free. But I think it is clear that the alternative would be a violation of freedom, preventing people from displaying certain images, messages, or products on their property, and thus also preventing those who would like to have those things made visible to them from having this desire fulfilled.
??? People have the right to a "freedom" to tempt others? So if I took chemical castration pills to erase my sexual desire, that would be violating the "freedom" of all of the people I'd otherwise be sexually attracted to? If Bob above undergoes hypnotherapy to change his dietary preferences, then he's violating the "freedom" of the Hostess brand to tempt him with Twinkies? That sure doesn't sound like even orthodox libertarianism to me.
That is not what I meant, the freedom to tempt is emergent from and bound by the law of property rights. If you alter yourself in a way that makes you no longer under the influence of those temptations, you are not denying the freedom of people to tempt in general, which is what I meant, not that they have a right to get you to notice and submit to those temptations.
And after they're addicted? They're still just choosing, just like you might choose to learn Japanese or the piano? Neurology is fake?
Yeah, its not like they unconsciously find themselves consuming heroin, or that somebody is coercing them to consume heroin.
Right. That's why ideally they would be enabled to make better choices the first time.
If by enabled you mean something like warned of the dangers of trying heroin, then I agree with that, and I don't think I would necessarily have a problem with it being required, within reason, to make sure that heroin buyers are aware of the potential harmful side effects of heroin use before receiving it.
22122
1yr ago
There is no absolute true personal freedom in the ideal platonic sense, because one's behaviors are inevitably heavily influenced by the incentives present in one's environment (and one's ancestral environments via the behavioral impact of evolution, instincts that modern environments can trigger or not). The same person born in two different environments will act in completely different ways.
To the extent that people can alter the environment, the environment should be the result of decisions that individuals freely make, as long as they are not denying the freedom of others.
So why not ensure an environment that has a greater tendency to result in men being inventors, athletes, entrepreneurs, sex gods, artists, warriors, powerlifters, engineers, and scholars instead of gluttons, addicts, weaklings, poofters, premature ejaculators, and degenerates? (Unless you're advocating for absolute libertarianism for the youngest children too, heroin for 3 year olds, then you're going to have to make this choice anyway about which kind of adult their young childhood filters them towards being.) Is the second category really "freer" because they were born in a society that made it easier to fall to their temptations and they "voluntarily" did? Free to do what? Rot?
Yes the second category is truly freer because people are not prevented from being tempted into certain behaviors. If you are someone who has a strong desire not to become a certain way, then you should be able to resist the temptation to, if you can not then that just reveals your true preferences meaning you were not understanding yourself accurately when you thought it was something that you dislike.
This is a very naive view of psychology, neurology, and human behavior that denies the definitions of, among other words, "temptation", "procrastination", and "addiction". Sure our desires are a part of ourselves, but so are parasites. It is well-known that humans don't always behave as they would genuinely prefer to in their most decisive thoughts if they had more willpower. Thus willpower is the essence of true liberty itself. So shouldn't a properly libertarian society have as its first aim maximizing the willpower, discipline, etc. of its citizens such that they can always make the choice they'll wish they had made tomorrow?
Parasites are a part of ourselves that we generally desire to get rid of. Now some people could desire to get rid of certain temptations but doing that would conflict with other people's freedom to tempt them, and so would not be acceptable, and no that doesn't mean the tempters are reducing your freedom, it just means you lack willpower. "It is well-known that humans don't always behave as they would genuinely prefer to if they were different people" is approaching tautology.. This is the first time I am hearing that libertarianism is about maximizing willpower and discipline of the populace.
Really? That's the only issue people have with heroin addictions? That they're disgusting and repulsive? Not that they can take over people's lives to the point of precluding engaging in basically all productive and/or prosocial behaviors? That people are driven to buy heroin instead of buying their kids food, driven to do heroin instead of writing that book they had in mind, driven to steal to afford their addiction, driven do heroin instead of accomplishing anything?
Yeah, those are the potential tradeoffs of a heroin addiction, some people choose to go through with it regardless.
Does retroactive choice not factor into your analysis of liberty here at all either? Most people who get addicted to heroin, even if they "chose" to try it at first in the moment, say that if they could they'd love to go back and choose the opposite. Does that choice not matter? Is true liberty merely the liberty to regret your decisions?
They would love to go back and choose the opposite, but that's not a choice that they have.
22122
1yr ago
There is no pedofascist freedom to become a society of weak, effeminate, fat, etc. porn, drug, gambling, etc. addicts.
This statement doesn't make sense. Society's don't have freedom, people do, if you are scared of too many people freely choosing to become those things such that you believe it warrants coercion against those innocent behaviors, then you are not in that sense any different from ideologies that do not claim to support freedom.
In that sense, the pedofascist conception of liberty includes a consideration of what genuinely expands masculine potential (and thus masculine freedom to pursue different avenues of opportunity) as opposed to what is simply "voluntary" (as man can be easily "voluntarily" enslaved by his baser, degenerate impulses).
Why is voluntary in scare quotes? Man can not be 'voluntarily enslaved' by anything because that would be an oxymoron. Those 'base, degenerate impulses' you refer to are a description of their own desires and are thus a part of themselves, so you are effectively claiming that people are able to enslave themselves which if anything is a weird way to describe the notion of self-ownership.
Pedofascist (and all fascist IMO) liberty is far less about the "freedom" to do heroin all day or walk around as a man dressed like a woman as in modern conceptions of it. As with Roman libertas, it is about being a master instead of a slave. And he who is not even master of himself is no master at all.
Isn't this just saying, "your doing behaviors I consider disgusting or repulsive, therefore you must not be in control of yourself", which is a convenient narrative for you, but is not convincing for me.
pedofascism accepts the argument that freedom of choice/exit/association is ultimately the most important freedom, with the reasonable curtailment of certain other "freedoms" within a limited context often being acceptable to achieve particular kinds of polities catering to particular kinds of individuals (with those who don't agree having options to leave).
Isn't this just another way of saying, "if you don't like the laws in this polity, then leave", which is freedom in the unsatisfactory sense of the mugging victim having freedom to give his money to the mugger in exchange for being spared of his attack.
libertAryan = Valuing liberty (the positive, invigorating liberty of the non-gender-traitorous man seeking the reasonable fulfillment of his masculine birthright, not degenerate or effeminate "liberty") + the promotion of Aryan power and recognition of Aryan nobility (There's a character limit on flairs you see so linguistic economy via pun was necessary here.)
Any ideology can say they value liberty if they can limit it to only behaviors they consider virtuous or not transgressive as defined by their non-liberty-focused moral system. The whole point of liberty is that people with different moral beliefs and living preferences and purposes can coexist with minimal friction, so making use of social paradigms like property rights legal framework in order to maximize freedom. If you disagree, how are you defining liberty?
22122
1yr ago
Drawing engagement as I mean it is kind of the purpose of this forum which is to discuss ideas and develop arguments, as well as trying to convince other people of your beliefs and opinions, and maybe change your mind about some of your stances. This only happens if your argument gets responded to, which being a little provocative with your prompt probably makes it more likely to spark something up but like you said it depends on the person.
22122
1yr ago
No. My quote reflects why you were modded.
Just to make sure we are on the same page, I meant the quote within your post where you were responding to the example I gave of a comment that follows the same format as my post that was modded but is directed against woke ideology instead. Not sure why you would be against updating it to match what you are responding to.
22122
1yr ago
first of all, please update your quote to match my edited comment. second of all, i dont understand why you think my comment was more antagonistic than the example i gave, would you mind elaborating?
Would the following comment receive a warning?: "Forgive me for having a condescending attitude toward woke ideology, which argues in favor of disordered sexuality, double standards that unfairly treat my race, and the violation of my property rights and freedom of association."
I doubt it, and I have a feeling it would be highly upvoted rather than sitting at -7.
I don't think his views are unpopular around here, just the opposite, alot of people here have a lot of sympathy for orthodox religions even if they are not themselves believers, and this shows from looking at comment ratings. If you look at his posting history, you will find that posts where he defends or promotes his religion usually garner plenty of upvotes on net. Meanwhile posts on this forum that are critical of religious orthodoxy usually are unable to get off the ground in terms of rating.
Also one of the reasons why it can be productive to say things in a tone that is more provocative than is necessary is because it increases the chance of drawing engagement, which can overall makeup for the unpleasantness of the post that sparked it.
This place has never been free of unpleasantness, just look at how often innocent people get labeled as degenerate by right wing posters and no one bats an eye.
The poster was wondering why people do not approach his religion respectfully, and I explained why, yeah it was a bit snarky but nothing extraordinary for this forum. If a post with a similar tone was made against wokism or some other leftist ideology, I don't think it would be downvoted like this one and I don't think it would have been called out by a mod.
But maybe I am just hopelessly biased to see things accurately.
why would you need to do this if you do the other things? unless you are only talking about violent drug users when you mention abusers, this would end up punishing innocent people too.
Its good for the people gaining money and status from succeeding in it. They perceive themselves as more successful or better off than if they were working some minimum wage job which is the best they can do in the legal labor market.
More options
Context Copy link