When you realize there is no faggotty Moral Relativism and accept the fact that the world really is just ruled by evil Satanic pedophiles life starts to make a lot more sense.
So sick of that phrase. Although it's funny most of the people blathering on about it seem to have no idea what it even means. I'd love for people to ask what it means, when it comes up in debates.
Moral relativism is absolutely real. This is because, to quote one of my favorite authors, if you grind down reality to the finest powder and filter it through the finest sieve, you will find not one molecule of justice and not one atom of mercy. These things aren't real, in the tangible sense. We made them up, and we're the only beings in this solar system that engage with them. Nature is red in tooth and claw, and horrific ways to die are the norm, not the exception.
We simply do not, and cannot, have a real, tangible, objective measure of "moral" or "immoral". Every single attempt to identify one always boils down to either emotional appeals with a dash of "I'll know it when I see it" in the secular spheres or "my holy book says so" proscriptions in the religious spheres.
That being said, just because something isn't tangible and real doesn't mean we don't engage with it. Math isn't real either; it's a way to identify patterns in nature using an entirely artificial method of symbology, and make predictions using that symbology.
Ergo, moral concerns and judgements still will, and more or less must, happen, given mankind's unique ability of all animals to engage with metaphysical concepts and thinking. Note I use "metaphysical" to mean "beyond physical", such as math or future planning, and not to mean "supernatural" or "theological" or such.
With terms defined, let's hop back to moral relativism. Moral relativism is the understanding that, given there is no objective morality, we can't expect every person to make the same moral judgements for a given scenario. We must instead understand that other people make their judgements through their own understanding of morality, the same as we (in the sense of you or I) do, and while geographically and culturally similar groups often have similar moral mores, those separated by time, distance, or significant cultural institutions will generally not.
We must, keeping these things in mind, now understand that, from the perspective of the average sandperson goatfucker, they are not only not doing anything wrong, they are quite often doing what is good and moral. Their culture and morals allow, and in some ways require, them to act the way they do. They are not knowingly acting in a way we would define as evil; they act with the full support of both their conscience and their institutions.
That is, in it's entirety, the concept of moral relativism.
Please note that this DOES NOT MEAN you cannot make moral judgements. You absolutely can, and should; the others certainly will. You must simply understand that others are not acting AGAINST YOUR morality, but rather IN FAVOR of THEIR morality.
You can recognize that morality is relative and still absolutely desire to wipe certain moralities (as well as their underlying institutions and cultures) off the face of the globe because what they consider good, right, and proper, you consider bad, evil, and immoral.
Math is in fact tangible, not sure what you’re trying to say there unless you’re talking theoretical mathematics and even then it’s not a great argument.
Moral relativism is a redundant concept and it really only works in the head of atheists and people who believe truth is subjective. If truth is objective, however, moral relativism is a lazy approach to saying not everyone is willing to accept truth and in accordance to that, we should accept their lies.
Also your favorite author is retarded, I could inject you with numerous drugs to make you feel mercy. dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and endorphins are what constitute our ability to be calm and feel affection or mercy for others. Our amygdala and prefrontal cortex flare up when we sense unfairness, this is true of crimes committed against you or ones you see of others. What causes ability to feel mercy and justice are, in fact, tangible.
You're missing the point. The author is saying nature is amoral because morality is a human concept. Has nothing to do with chemicals or whatever the fuck you're interpreting it as.
You’re missing the point. Humans are hardwired to be moral creatures, we’re also not alone in this aspect, there’s multiple mammals that have a sense of fairness hardwired into them which makes NATURE moral. Morality exists objectively, it is not a subjective human creation.
if morality is a "consequence of civilization" then what is civilization a consequence of?
culture is downstream from genes. nature made us care first, then we codified it. an amoral killer caveman did not wake up one day and decide to carve some rules into his walls to follow just because.
Thank you for being that guy so I didn't have to. The fact that we understand the inherent relativism of morality is precisely why we have to gatekeep our culture so strongly, to enforce our morality above others.
Its honestly a pretty easy thing to define even, because its usually just the difference between malice and ignorance. Its only relevant whatsoever when the excuse of "these people are retarded" is enough to defuse the anger at most of what they are doing. Something like circumcision making an iota of sense in a sweaty, desert culture centuries before hygiene became kinda better to prevent much worse conditions, but being nothing but evil without those factors combined.
Problem is that 99% of the people using it are the type of Lefties that would never dare to say the very losers they are describing are ignorant idiots, so it becomes a long convoluted chain of excuses and jumping through hoops to avoid sounding bigoted.
Problem is that 99% of the people using it are the type of Lefties that would never dare to say the very losers they are describing are ignorant idiots
Actually, I mostly hear it from the pro-Israel crowd; it's one of their buzzwords, even though they don't seem to know what it means. Ironically, they're engaging in 'moral relativism' when they accuse their opponents of that. "Murder is bad, whether Hamas or the IDF does it" is not morally relativistic. "Israel murdering men, women, and children is fine, because we've a Democracy™" actually is relativistic.
They seem to think "moral relativism" is just drawing any sort of moral parallel. When it's kind of the opposite. To this group, comparing Israel and anyone, without relativism...that's the real moral relativism. Holding Israel to the same standard as anyone else, that's the real relativism.
Actually, I mostly hear it from the pro-Israel crowd
Ah, I've been able to mostly avoid getting into this particular kerfluffle so I was talking general based on the last decade or so with all SJWs. Where it was meant to excuse the Arabs and Africans for being literally barbarians.
It's why there was a lot of people secretly happy to see both Republicans and Unionists protesting TOGETHER against illegals.
You are at the point where I bet a lot of native British would do the inverse of Muslims and terrorists where they would turn a blind eye to vigilantes and if the IRA decides to do a new troubles targeting the government and immigration centres.
The last thing you want is a population ambivalent to people attacking the establishment with force.
Vigilantism is the greatest threat to government authority, and government authority is derived from the consent of the governed. When the people do not object to vigilantes, the government is on very thin ice.
Someone posted a clip somewhere on this site the other day of Mel Gibson being interviewed and talking about a movie he’s working on about the siege of Malta. I’d never even heard of it, so I looked it up and HOLY SHIT.
What’s happening to Europe today is nothing new, it’s just that now there are far more traitors on our side. In the past it took decades, sometimes even centuries to drive them back - hopefully it doesn’t take as long this time around. Europe needs a dictator, sorry to say. Someone to give them all the choice between, “either you go back or you have to die…” It’s that simple.
I got banned off this sub for six days because I linking to search results for "cartoon boobs" for promoting pornography'. But I guess it only matter which clique you belong to the moderators here, and not reality.
Call me a lolbertarian if you want, i dont care, but the UK is the poster boy for why people need to learn to rule themselves with as little government intervention as possible
Everyone who downvoted me is a homosexual pedophile, because those are the only people who run the government and defend it.
people need to learn to rule themselves with as little government intervention as possible
You're looking at the result of that with the sandjoggers doing what sandjoggers do.
From where they come from, there is little to no intervention to what they do; if they rape people out in the middle of nowhere, no one does anything about it.
If they kill people for stealing goat milk, or cut off someone's arm for trying to pilfer sheep skins, no one does anything about it.
The only time there is intervention is if someone does something heinous enough to get the attention of the Caliphate, otherwise, it is as you say -- little to no intervention. Do you know what the result is? Tribal barbarism.
Im not talking about sandniggers you stupid pedophile. Im talking about Europeans. Getting what I ask for would involve Europeans being able to defend their homeland without getting arrested for it and then restoring order that only they are capable of.
When you realize there is no faggotty Moral Relativism and accept the fact that the world really is just ruled by evil Satanic pedophiles life starts to make a lot more sense.
So sick of that phrase. Although it's funny most of the people blathering on about it seem to have no idea what it even means. I'd love for people to ask what it means, when it comes up in debates.
It's the devil getting you to fall for the old lie that he doesn't exist.
☝️100% this
me in 2005
me in 2025
Sure, I'll be that guy.
Moral relativism is absolutely real. This is because, to quote one of my favorite authors, if you grind down reality to the finest powder and filter it through the finest sieve, you will find not one molecule of justice and not one atom of mercy. These things aren't real, in the tangible sense. We made them up, and we're the only beings in this solar system that engage with them. Nature is red in tooth and claw, and horrific ways to die are the norm, not the exception.
We simply do not, and cannot, have a real, tangible, objective measure of "moral" or "immoral". Every single attempt to identify one always boils down to either emotional appeals with a dash of "I'll know it when I see it" in the secular spheres or "my holy book says so" proscriptions in the religious spheres.
That being said, just because something isn't tangible and real doesn't mean we don't engage with it. Math isn't real either; it's a way to identify patterns in nature using an entirely artificial method of symbology, and make predictions using that symbology.
Ergo, moral concerns and judgements still will, and more or less must, happen, given mankind's unique ability of all animals to engage with metaphysical concepts and thinking. Note I use "metaphysical" to mean "beyond physical", such as math or future planning, and not to mean "supernatural" or "theological" or such.
With terms defined, let's hop back to moral relativism. Moral relativism is the understanding that, given there is no objective morality, we can't expect every person to make the same moral judgements for a given scenario. We must instead understand that other people make their judgements through their own understanding of morality, the same as we (in the sense of you or I) do, and while geographically and culturally similar groups often have similar moral mores, those separated by time, distance, or significant cultural institutions will generally not.
We must, keeping these things in mind, now understand that, from the perspective of the average sandperson goatfucker, they are not only not doing anything wrong, they are quite often doing what is good and moral. Their culture and morals allow, and in some ways require, them to act the way they do. They are not knowingly acting in a way we would define as evil; they act with the full support of both their conscience and their institutions.
That is, in it's entirety, the concept of moral relativism.
Please note that this DOES NOT MEAN you cannot make moral judgements. You absolutely can, and should; the others certainly will. You must simply understand that others are not acting AGAINST YOUR morality, but rather IN FAVOR of THEIR morality.
You can recognize that morality is relative and still absolutely desire to wipe certain moralities (as well as their underlying institutions and cultures) off the face of the globe because what they consider good, right, and proper, you consider bad, evil, and immoral.
Math is in fact tangible, not sure what you’re trying to say there unless you’re talking theoretical mathematics and even then it’s not a great argument.
Moral relativism is a redundant concept and it really only works in the head of atheists and people who believe truth is subjective. If truth is objective, however, moral relativism is a lazy approach to saying not everyone is willing to accept truth and in accordance to that, we should accept their lies.
Also your favorite author is retarded, I could inject you with numerous drugs to make you feel mercy. dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and endorphins are what constitute our ability to be calm and feel affection or mercy for others. Our amygdala and prefrontal cortex flare up when we sense unfairness, this is true of crimes committed against you or ones you see of others. What causes ability to feel mercy and justice are, in fact, tangible.
You're missing the point. The author is saying nature is amoral because morality is a human concept. Has nothing to do with chemicals or whatever the fuck you're interpreting it as.
You’re missing the point. Humans are hardwired to be moral creatures, we’re also not alone in this aspect, there’s multiple mammals that have a sense of fairness hardwired into them which makes NATURE moral. Morality exists objectively, it is not a subjective human creation.
humans coming from nature throws the finest monkey wrench into his finest sieve.
Yea and different humans have different moral systems, and many dont have any at all. Morality is a consquence of civilization
if morality is a "consequence of civilization" then what is civilization a consequence of?
culture is downstream from genes. nature made us care first, then we codified it. an amoral killer caveman did not wake up one day and decide to carve some rules into his walls to follow just because.
Thank you for being that guy so I didn't have to. The fact that we understand the inherent relativism of morality is precisely why we have to gatekeep our culture so strongly, to enforce our morality above others.
Its honestly a pretty easy thing to define even, because its usually just the difference between malice and ignorance. Its only relevant whatsoever when the excuse of "these people are retarded" is enough to defuse the anger at most of what they are doing. Something like circumcision making an iota of sense in a sweaty, desert culture centuries before hygiene became kinda better to prevent much worse conditions, but being nothing but evil without those factors combined.
Problem is that 99% of the people using it are the type of Lefties that would never dare to say the very losers they are describing are ignorant idiots, so it becomes a long convoluted chain of excuses and jumping through hoops to avoid sounding bigoted.
Actually, I mostly hear it from the pro-Israel crowd; it's one of their buzzwords, even though they don't seem to know what it means. Ironically, they're engaging in 'moral relativism' when they accuse their opponents of that. "Murder is bad, whether Hamas or the IDF does it" is not morally relativistic. "Israel murdering men, women, and children is fine, because we've a Democracy™" actually is relativistic.
They seem to think "moral relativism" is just drawing any sort of moral parallel. When it's kind of the opposite. To this group, comparing Israel and anyone, without relativism...that's the real moral relativism. Holding Israel to the same standard as anyone else, that's the real relativism.
Ah, I've been able to mostly avoid getting into this particular kerfluffle so I was talking general based on the last decade or so with all SJWs. Where it was meant to excuse the Arabs and Africans for being literally barbarians.
lol, lmao
Nigel says extremely cringe, boomer cuck bullshit on a regular basis these days.
🌍👩🚀🔫👩🚀
Most just weren't paying attention to him years ago because his talking points weren't yet at the point of a wider public discourse.
To be fair, this comic is a couple of years old.
It's why there was a lot of people secretly happy to see both Republicans and Unionists protesting TOGETHER against illegals.
You are at the point where I bet a lot of native British would do the inverse of Muslims and terrorists where they would turn a blind eye to vigilantes and if the IRA decides to do a new troubles targeting the government and immigration centres.
The last thing you want is a population ambivalent to people attacking the establishment with force.
Vigilantism is the greatest threat to government authority, and government authority is derived from the consent of the governed. When the people do not object to vigilantes, the government is on very thin ice.
Someone posted a clip somewhere on this site the other day of Mel Gibson being interviewed and talking about a movie he’s working on about the siege of Malta. I’d never even heard of it, so I looked it up and HOLY SHIT.
What’s happening to Europe today is nothing new, it’s just that now there are far more traitors on our side. In the past it took decades, sometimes even centuries to drive them back - hopefully it doesn’t take as long this time around. Europe needs a dictator, sorry to say. Someone to give them all the choice between, “either you go back or you have to die…” It’s that simple.
I miss Hedgewik
Is there an archive of all the Farstar88 comics?
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://artoffarstar88.wordpress.com/
Yeah, we need a real archive.
Reminds me of Air Force Blues. One of the best webcomics, disappeared overnight because the creator pissed off an Obama shill general officer.
Life imitates art (or was it the other way around 🤔)
Yeah this is definitely true.
I got banned off this sub for six days because I linking to search results for "cartoon boobs" for promoting pornography'. But I guess it only matter which clique you belong to the moderators here, and not reality.
Call me a lolbertarian if you want, i dont care, but the UK is the poster boy for why people need to learn to rule themselves with as little government intervention as possible
Everyone who downvoted me is a homosexual pedophile, because those are the only people who run the government and defend it.
You're looking at the result of that with the sandjoggers doing what sandjoggers do.
From where they come from, there is little to no intervention to what they do; if they rape people out in the middle of nowhere, no one does anything about it.
If they kill people for stealing goat milk, or cut off someone's arm for trying to pilfer sheep skins, no one does anything about it.
The only time there is intervention is if someone does something heinous enough to get the attention of the Caliphate, otherwise, it is as you say -- little to no intervention. Do you know what the result is? Tribal barbarism.
You are getting what you asked for.
Im not talking about sandniggers you stupid pedophile. Im talking about Europeans. Getting what I ask for would involve Europeans being able to defend their homeland without getting arrested for it and then restoring order that only they are capable of.