"X is wrong"

>I'm *choosing* not to starve

It's not a direct explanation of why it's wrong, it's a way to make non-autists understand it.

you heard the man
RELEASE
ALL
CRIMMINALS

>marxist drivel
lmao

>I know X would cause me pain, so I don't do it to others
This doesn't make any sense logically.

It does when you're living in a society.

>I'm *choosing* to participate in a violent revolution to overthrow the current order so some paranoid intelligentsia sociopaths can take control of the country and have me purged.

How?

Because if you establish that you do a hurtful thing to another for your own personal ebenfit, you've set a precedent thta people doing that thing to you is fine, and to act otherwise is hypocrisy.

How is It hipocrytical to allways seek your personal benefit?

Well criminals are supposedly getting what they did done back to them in some equivalent matter. In the past it would have been eye for eye.

Would you like to be in jail?

>using 21st century morals while analyzing history
SHIGGETY DIGGETY DOOOOOO

>Its called emphaty
Psycho

>ir's a baby discovers social contract episode

>Its a first year college student found out about social contracts last month episode

On the flip side it could be reasoned that releasing criminals also allows you to be forgiven should you indulge in criminality. Either we're all allowed to brutalize eachother or no one is allowed to brutalize anyone. Sometimes I think the former would be more effective at taking care of societal problems. The problems have occurred when disparities have arisen in who is allowed to get away with brutalizing others. Wanting anything but complete equality in this is probably tantamount to subservient masochism or maybe some form of purposeful asceticism.

do you want me to argue about how what you said is incorrect, or about how these threads are fucking pointless, once someone brings up social contract, because it's the default (and correct) answer to these stupid fucking questions?

Really you consider letting an evil person continue to harm himself and others empathetic. A good bash in the head to an immolation might be what they need to rid them of their demons. Taoist psychology roots anger in sorrow (over wrong done to you or to others) and considers it a reaction to it.

>I know X would cause me pain, so I don't do it to myself

This isn't a logical statement either.

It is because I dislike pain.

Sounds like a subjective value judgement. Come back when you have arguments.

I don't remember signing anything.

No me disliking pain means I don't want to inflict it on myself logically.
It doesn't follow that others disliking pain means I should not inflict it on them.

You might be retard

The fact that you are still alive and well is all you need
Society conceds protection to your incapable ass

>How do I english?

Most people dislike causing other people pain and therefore logically don't want to inflict it on them logically.

>Most people dislike causing other people pain
Why?

Why do you dislike causing yourself pain?

Thus the laws of karma and methods of dissolving it.

It hurts.

Tautology.

How?

Because if you do X to someone, they will likely do it to you in return. So I guess you better kill everyone as well as you can, so there's no one left to do anything to you.

If you want to see your Philosophy in action, look at the Neo Assyrians. Everyone decided that they were so horrible, that they would rather work with one another, whom they all hated, than deal with their shit.

OP should have the shit beaten out of him, and then be told nothing wrong happened

No but I sure wouldn't want to be the guy killed by the guy who's currently in jail. Not to say you cant goto jail for bullshit reasons but that's the general idea here

>if you murder somone, they will murder you back
I have no reaction image reactiony enough for this level of stupidity

That or their kin group, or their kin group's kin group, or the guy who can rally a bunch of people under the idea that you somehow represent the slaughtered member's kin group.

>Oh hey look goalposts, you haven't been moved in a while. You wanna go for a ride?

I'm not moving goalpoats, If you do something bad, that person will do it to you. If you do something bad to a group, they will do something bad to you.

The only way to get away with it is to murder all of them. If you can't do that, you will receive retribution.

The Golden Rule is literally backed by evolutionary history. It's the core of Kin Selection.

>"would you want X to happen to you?"
But X isn't happening to me. Isn't that the simplest answer? You can't just run everything off of what-ifs.

Actually an eye for an eye was seen as fairness back in the day because before that the standard was "murder the fuck out of them for slight transgressions"

There's no hypocrisy, I'm always looking out for number one. Nothing has ever contradicted that.

Thanks for the consideration, but I can look after myself

>But X isn't happening to me.
but it will if you keep reasoning like a retard and actually convince others to do the same
and once you manage to break society apart and it will be every man for himself, the first two people who don't stab each other on sight are going to be the new bosses of that world

My argument is more against people who say that when we bomb people halfway across the world. They say, "would you want that happening to you family?" Except it's not happening to my family, because my family is in a country whose military isn't shit.

this is just begging for some falling skyscrapers, faggot
do you have any goddamn foresight, or do you get run over by cars on your way to the bathroom as well?

That problem literally only exists because we pussyfoot around the situation. When we fought the Japanese we carpetbombed every city that belonged to them. We would torch villages that were even sympathetic to them. You really think terrorism would be a problem if we didn't just decide to kill them all indiscriminately?

Criminals surrender the right to empathy by their violation of the principle of empathy by their actions.
Furthermore, criminals are to be dealt with on the moral basis of the state and not that of the individual.

Violence the last refuge of the incompetent.

So just don't get caught?

>say a thing
>then change what you said after getting called out on it
Looks like you moved the goalposts to me.

Cool, you wouldn't mind me raping you in the ass until it bleeds then?

I would mind. I don't understand why you assume it must go both ways.
I want your stuff but I don't want you to have my stuff, this makes perfect sense.

>not going both ways
Are you gay or something?

That's wrong af, people eat from their fast food place on break from the employee half off menu every day

It's called "lame liberal rhetoric"
Humanist empathy is for sad, uncaring children. Those that have undergone the Mystical Adolescence come to see the Oikos. Anthropocentric, however, can only orient 'morality' to themselves and thseir pettiness.

>pleasure is good
Why? This just sounds like Ressentiment.
The state is not moral, the state is the Antichrist.

>Because it is. I know X would cause me pain, so I don't do it to others. Try not being a psychopath.

>it is okay to be an hedonist and not okay not to be an hedonist

says the hedonist

>I'm not inflicting the state of working at McDonalds on the person working there.
>I give money to a corporation which uses to thrive and recruit people, but I do not participate in wageslavery

liberal logic 101

>surrender the right to empathy
what a spook by Christians

'social contracts' are pathetic liberal nonsense.
Hurt is essentially the verb-form of pain.
i.e., "I hurt you" and "I cause you pain" are tautological.
By extension, "I cause myself pain" and "I hurt myself" are tautological.

Evolution doesn't happen or exist. Stop shitposting, avatarfag.

>>That problem literally only exists because we pussyfoot around the situation.
yes terrorizing people who do not follow your rules is believed to be efficient by the weakest men. Oddly enough, like you said, you did that before and there is still terrorism today. Makes me think

Yes, 'we' would become the terrorists.

That claim is Antichristian, it is humanist.

>precedent
only according to people who create rules in society

humanist are christians and they hate themselves for this

So? If we terrorize for a good cause, is it not just?

Humanists are not Christians, humanists are anthropocentrics.

>forcing an ideology
>good cause
Burger hypocrisy, everyone.

>force an objectively better ideology than theirs
>not just

>objectively better
Objectivity literally does not exist
Humanism is the worst possible ideology.

>more freedom
>no rapings of foreign countries
How is this not objectively better?

>freedom is good
Wrong
>no rapings of foreign countries
Wrong, the US and majority of other countries do this on a daily basis. There is no person alive not guilty of raping their Oikos.

I meant literal rape, like Nanjing
>freedom isn't good
Whole lot of evidence you got there

I am also speaking of literal rape.
>Evidence
Evidence is nonexistent. What you mean is 'propaganda'.

>evidence is nonexistent
???
Also prove to me the U.S. rape their yogurt everyday

Proof doesn't exist.
You don't seem to understand what I mean by 'rape'. Maybe you should take off that trip, whore.

>proof doesn't exist
>literal rape isn't the rape I meant

That's how human empathy works
We feel empathy for other people because we imagine what if we were in their shoes

No, I meant literal rape. Fucking illiterate redditor.

McDonald's is going to do just fine whether or not I personally go there. (I don't though, because it's shit.)

How the fuck does everyone forcefully sexually penetrate their family unit?

I'm not referring to a family unit you fucking redditor

Then what do you fukcing mean by Oikos

Oikos doesn't mean family you fucking idiot

...

Not in the sense that I or anybody else uses it when referring to oecology.