Necrons are the freest faction in the galaxy, as well as being the most technologically advanced

I mean, at that point, they're just meat robots. Depending on the freedom of the arstocracy/non-meat-robot class, such a regieme could be considered very, very free to live in (so long as you're important enough to not be turned into a meat-robot)

Remember; the definition of freedom is basically "being able to do what you want to do", and by converse, oppression is "preventing someone from doing what they want to do"; as such, the meat-robots are neither free nor oppressed, as they cannot want.

Besides, >implying plebes are people in the first place

While technically true, I hearken back to some bit I'd read where a Necron warrior fell into a magnetic trap and was screaming in agony. Not that the warrior could feel pain anymore, but that the trap had shut off the controls that stopped it from screaming in agony ALL THE TIME.

Not even sure if the plencrons even have enough self awareness to realize they aren't 'free' or was that zapped away too.

I'd put my vote with DEldar - the caveat being that eventually you're gonna be warp fucked for eternity. Before that though it's pretty much murderfuckYOLO

7th Edition codex had a short story where a Necron Immortal remembers his name, and how the damage to his leg now would have killed him in the distant past. Felt genuine anger at the guardsman that damaged him, so he choked the guy slowlike.

Least in ork society you are free to make your own way, even if what you want falls in line with most the others, almost all necrons have 0 choice

> for even a man who is slaved to others is put to higher purpose.

or you know, put to another man's nature. Why would we assume the slave master somehow has a superior nature. Spoiler, the slave master is probably a worse person with a worse nature (I can tell on account of the slave owning).

>make your own way
>what is "being a slave to your own nature"

>Spoiler, the slave master is probably a worse person with a worse nature (I can tell on account of the slave owning).
Cultural prejudice founded upon the elevation of the individual as the supreme good. Try harder.

> put to a higher purpose
Orks do participate in a higher pupose: the Waaagh.

You guys see.

If I was a necron lord and wanted to fill a planet with cheese, I just could.

If I was an archon, I'd have to dodge assassination attempts well doing it.

Orks wouldn't do it.

An inquisitor would get shot for heresy while doing it.

Harlequins would be disowned by ceograth for doing it

Eldar would never do it.

Tau would never do it

>being a slave to your own nature
>cultural prejudice founded upon the elevation of the individual as supreme good

But the epitome of freedom is being able to make your own decisions as an individual and fuck the consequences user.
And what if your nature feels good? You think we should deny ourselves out of some neo-Calvinist nonsense?

>If I was a necron lord
>necron lord
>lord
hint fucking hint

>But the epitome of freedom is being able to make your own decisions as an individual and fuck the consequences user.
And is freedom good? Consequences are consequences.

>And what if your nature feels good? You think we should deny ourselves out of some neo-Calvinist nonsense?
The pursuit of pleasure for its own sake is hedonism, user.

You see, the silent king has the option of freeing the warriors, but won't because he is afraid they will turn on the nobles.

They might not have control over themselves, but if they did they probably would turn on the nobles.

Imperial citizens have worse living conditions, and are so brainwashed that they would never turn on the government, because they work for the emperor.

I'd rather be mind controlled than brainwashed any day

>cultural prejudice

Kek even a good communitarian should be a bit pissed off if he's enslaved serving lobsters to his space emperor

even if that wasn't true, the slave master is still just a human with his/her own nature which will be enforced on the slaves. Why should we assume the slave master's nature is better than the slaves? Is this some sort of might makes right nonsense "Oh I can tell the slave owner is superior and has a superior nature cuz he is mighty" In that case we just don't share moral ground.

>And is freedom good? Consequences are consequences.
Yes. Yes it is. Consequences or not it should still be your own choice, not forced upon you by some prick who dares to call you his master.

>The pursuit of pleasure for its own sake is hedonism, user.
...yes, and? If given a choice it's what the majority of sapient life would prefer over mandatory enslavement.

Why not neither?
Chaos and Orks are the only truly free factions in 40k

>Necrons are the freest faction in the galaxy

If they don't run on free software, you ain't got shit to say.

Chaos and orks aren't free.
In chaos you are controlled by your dark gods.

Orks are controlled by their violent nature.

All eldar are controlled by slaanesh

All tau are controlled by the etherials.

All imperials are controlled by chaos, and the decedent government.

Necrons have a ruling class that are truly free of everything.

And one could argue that age controls all but orks and necrons.

The only truly free race is the necron lordship and the freed warriors

Might doesn't make right, but being right means jack shit if you aren't mighty.

Freedom can lead to evil, though; would you call it inherently good if it can lead to evil?
>not forced upon you by some prick who dares to call you his master.
If you or anyone else have proven themselves of utilizing their freedom wisely, then perhaps you do deserve a master.

>If given a choice it's what the majority of sapient life would prefer over mandatory enslavement.
That only shows that the majority of sapient life is immoral and a slave to animal instinct.
Many people wanting something does not make it good.

Has Carnac started playing Necrons now?

Who am I kidding? This is obviously another one of his imitators.

>Freedom can lead to evil, though; would you call it inherently good if it can lead to evil?

(Different poster but...) Because I'm not a consequentialist. If you believe that you can measure how good something is by the consequences, then that line of thinking might work. If you are not a consequentialist (perhaps you believe in virtue ethics or believe that ethics are derive from following a set of rules despite the consequences aka deontology), then you can believe things have value in and of themselves.

Basically your question only makes sense if you assume that consequentialism is correct, but that is a very contentious cliam.

I wrote that,
Who is Carnac?

But he's right, though; of all the factions, only the (non insane) Necron royals are truly free, and have the power to make good on their will.

One might also extend that privilege to the Ethereals, depending on how much of the greater good coolaid they drink.

A Chaos and Tau shitposter that you suspiciously post like.

> Might doesn't make right, but being right means jack shit if you aren't mighty.

Then your argument still doesn't make sense. If the slave owner can be just as bad a person as the slave, then there is no guarantee the slave is ethically better off following the slave owner.

Wait? He hates them or likes them?

I am a consequentialist; the goodness of actions are determined not only if they do lead to good, but also in general, how likely they are to lead to good.
Actions in of themselves might be good, but only in the sense that they almost always (or at least usually) lead to good consequences.

When applied to a vast majority of humans, freedom is not good.

Rogue Traders and Chaos Warbands can.

A necron lord is able to just go,

Guys I'm going to farm on this planet for eternity

and no one would care, no one else can retire like that

You're right, there isn't; unfortunately, the slave has proven themselves to be far, far less mighty than the slave owner. Unless there's someone stronger (and hopefully more ethical) than the slave owner, the slave is shit out of luck.

What I'm saying is that there's an unavoidable disconnect between ethical behavior and successful behavior.

He likes them and hates anyone who even dares think about liking the Imperium.

> What I'm saying is that there's an unavoidable disconnect between ethical behavior and successful behavior.

If you believe this, then why would you support slavery as a consequentialist. You are admitting that slavery won't necessarily force people to be more ethical since slave masters are not on average more ethical.

That leaves us with two options:

1) People are not slaves. They are generally happier and often unethical

2) People are slaves, they are miserable and still often unethical since the slave masters are bad.

How is option 2 better than option 1?

(I'm just examining your argument, personally I'm not a consequentialist)

Meant to add.

He always posts single line replies.

Like this.

You see?

>Actions in of themselves might be good, but only in the sense that they almost always (or at least usually) lead to good consequences.

But before you said that "The pursuit of pleasure for its own sake is hedonism, user."

If a good action is one that leads to a good outcome, what is a good outcome then? Consequentialists/utilitarians usually define utility as maximizing human happiness/pleasure. In some sense consequentialism is the ultimate form of hedonism, since the goal is to minimize long term suffering and maximize long term happiness. Are you saying you are a consequentialist who does not believe in maximizing utility? In that case what are you trying to maximize over the long run? What is the good consequence?

Fair point, but I'm under the presumption that, over time, the ambitious (and by necessity of power, intelligent) individuals will amass power over the rest. Seeing as how they are almost certainly more intelligent, effectively ruling or having sovereignty over a sufficiently large number of subordinates, it stands to reason that they too will also be more philosophically inclined. Given time, this would lead to the most powerful also having the most ethical and goodly purposes for which they'd set their subordinates towards.

Personally, however, I feel like this is a rather wistful argument; it's the best one I've got at the moment, that ethics are (hopefully) linked to success in the long term, but I'm not all to convinced of it myself.

TL;DR: Eventually philosopher--kings will arise that actually do have ethical claim to sovereignty over others. This probably won't happen, but it's plausible enough that it might.

You're right, I do not define utility as happiness or pleasure.
I'm also not going to pretend that I have my own system of ethics fully worked out, or that I've figured out every possible way it fails or works, but as of now my best answer to "what is the good consequence" is a simple one; a good consequence is knowledge.
Knowledge is good (perhaps the only intrinsic good), for it is only through knowledge that we can have understanding of good and evil itself! It is circular; knowledge is good because to pursue good we must have knowledge of good.
Through this, I also support civilization and related things, as civilization is more likely to foster the growth of knowledge than, say, a hunter-gatherer society.
Civilization requires law and society, and so on and so forth, and you can probably see where the rest of what I've said falls into place.

>Given time, this would lead to the most powerful also having the most ethical and goodly purposes for which they'd set their subordinates towards.

That is certainly possible, although personally I think it is the opposite. I think the political elite will always be tend to be corrupt, ruthless, and susceptible to bribes. I mean look at the world, how many genocides have happened because of psychos in power.

Even the governments of the first world nations endlessly butcher foreigners in proxy wars and drone strikes.

The world is getting better, but it is from a decentralization of power. When you have a centralized ruling class, a few bad eggs can lead to wars and genocides. In your next post you mention knowledge is the ultimate good, but doesn't it seem strange to you that the most educated nations are also the ones with decentralized power? I think history has repeatedly shown that centralized power brings out the worst in people, not the best. For every so called philosopher king, there are many would be despots who come to power.

I'm going to disagree, personally; decentralized power (in that sovereign power is actually spread amongst the population, as per democracy) is what allows for such corrupt and evil rulers and bureaucrats to arise in the first place; in the lawful void provided by decentralized power, the ambitious and unethical can make easy prey of other men, and form their own small states (in the sense that they have power over others), without a more powerful superior to stop them.

Meanwhile, consider the case of pre-enlightenment monarchy or dictatorships (in the sense that they are ruled by a non-hereditary monarch); the royals and aristocrats, although they hold absolute power and sovereignty (they do not serve the citizenry, as in the case of democracy), they are also fully invested in improving upon their sovereignty. Noblesse Oblige.

Consider then this simple thought; only 1% of humanity is sufficiently good, only 1% is sufficiently evil, and the other 98% is just varying shades of moral and immoral. In the case of decentralized power, the good is balanced by the evil, neither can get power over the other, and everything is reduced to a disgusting shade of grey.

Now consider a setup where 1% of the population rules the other 99% with sufficient power; it's entirely possible that a situation arises where that 1% is of the sufficiently good portion of the population, and with sufficient power, could put the remaining 99% to good purpose.

>necron shitposting
>less than 50 posts later
>discussion on the nature of what is good, consequentialism, and power in ethics.

> I'm going to disagree, personally; decentralized power (in that sovereign power is actually spread amongst the population, as per democracy) is what allows for such corrupt and evil rulers and bureaucrats to arise in the first place; in the lawful void provided by decentralized power, the ambitious and unethical can make easy prey of other men, and form their own small states (in the sense that they have power over others), without a more powerful superior to stop them.

If this really resulted in worse societies though, why are all the societies with centralized power much more terrible places to live in with less education?

> Meanwhile, consider the case of pre-enlightenment monarchy or dictatorships (in the sense that they are ruled by a non-hereditary monarch); the royals and aristocrats, although they hold absolute power and sovereignty (they do not serve the citizenry, as in the case of democracy), they are also fully invested in improving upon their sovereignty. Noblesse Oblige.

Most of these societies were absolutely atrocious to live in. People lived their lives as ignorant miserable serfs in huge portions of them.

Also, the premise that decentralized power leads to less corruption is faulty imo. Centralized monarchies have had people conniving for power throughout history. More centralized power means more incentive to steal that power. Look at Roman Emperors. About half were assassinated or exiled. Europe went through hundreds of years of wars and political turmoil because people kept trying to expand their kingly power or murder their family member to be king.

I don't understand how this happens either user.

its fun! duh!

>If this really resulted in worse societies though, why are all the societies with centralized power much more terrible places to live in with less education?
Because, while centralized, they're still based (at least in part) on modern elightenment ideals and philosophy; the concept of noblesse oblige has been lost to the modern ruling class, who instead of seeing their citizens as property and resources to be conserved and utilized wisely, but instead as something to be exploited and used for their gain.

>Most of these societies were absolutely atrocious to live in. People lived their lives as ignorant miserable serfs in huge portions of them.
Atrocious and miserable? Absolutely not; except in times of famine or pestilence (which were unfortunately common, their prevention being a major plus to the modern era), the average peasant or plebeian lived a rather happy and fulfilling life.
Ignorant for sure, I make no claim otherwise, but the discovery and progress of knowledge was suitably advanced by monastic orders or aristocratic academics.

>More centralized power means more incentive to steal that power.
True, which is why is behooves a sovereign to treat their people fairly in exchange for loyalty; an usurper would not claim a throne if they had no reasonable claim to it in the first place.

>Europe went through hundreds of years of wars and political turmoil because people kept trying to expand their kingly power or murder their family member to be king.
True, but those hundreds of years of war were rather mild in comparison to modern warfare.

Now, compare the beurecratic deadlock and stagnancy that has plagued the western world for hundreds of years in its modern incarnation; the fact that politicians seek to exploit their constituents as quickly as possible since they will only represent them for a few years, maybe a decade.
The ruling class has actually been turned against the people, well and truly so.

Another user here: just wanted to add that woe be to the fool who mentions Tyranids in a positive light when Carnac's around, or says that Chaos isn't the pre-ordained victor of the setting.

Good and evil are man made concepts.

Animal instincts is the desire to continue existing in some form or another.

Since good and evil, as well as freedom and enslavement being pure lies, it's your decision to apply what value you may ever find within them.

If you feel the need to free yourself from what you are to better control yourself, and to control others for the so believed good, you have no control because you can't even see past what gave you the ability to change in the first place, seeing it as weakness.

Get fucked commie.

That makes no sense whatsoever, and you give far too much credence to base animal nature.

Yes, suppressing and restricting animal nature is necessary to better control and direct oneself to noble pursuits.
Yes, it is a virtue to assist (by force, if need be) others in escaping their animal natures.
No, animal nature did not give me or anyone else the ability to change in the first place. Nature is dumb and blind; it has no will or mind, it has no teleos.
I find it funny that you say developing control over oneself means that you have no control at all.

>get fucked commie
Not a commie tbqh; given sufficient technological development it could be a valid economic model, but I have no ideological support for it.

Also,
>muh moral subjectivism
>muh good and evil are man-made, and thus don't matter lmao
>muh NATURE, MAN
Get fucked hippy.

>more Necrons than guardsmen
>still can't do shit
>get BTFO by tyranids who they should hard counter
Necrons are a joke

>The majority of the Necrons are sleeping.
>It's said that only a small fraction of the Necrons have awoken. This small fraction already carved up the galaxy into huge empires
>Necrons do not a lot of lore about fighting Tyranids. In the few cases that Tyranids and Necrons met in battle, it ended up with the Tyranids being soundly defeated

>noblesse oblige
>implying this ever stopped medieval rulers from fucking the poor on the reg
>also, being this blind to the suffering of the peasantry

Cromwell was right to do what he did, our only mistake was allowing them back

>All those people talking about Necron warriors

Necron warriors are basically dead. They are purged of memory and personality. Their minds dulled to the point of mindlessness. Factoring them into the equation is like factoring Tau drones. Stupid.

Focus on the Necron nobility and and cryptek caste

>Boy it sure is fun to like a race other than space marines

>Be billions of years old
>Some faggot on the internet is upset you're mostly apathetic to the galaxy at large and its petty little problems.

It's not them, it's you.

>They are purged of memory and personality. Their minds dulled to the point of mindlessness.
>meanwhile, Tau drones are purpose-built and if they have any emotional programming at all it's probably happy in its role
>these are the same thing
You fucking disgust me

How is your pursuit Noble?

Because your animal instincts say so? Because your mammal brain says it is?

Why pursuit anything if it's impossible to escape the heat death of the universe?

Why do anything if it's your conceptions of noble, good and right, those little lies you believe which are highly illogical at all when it's your animalistic that has created these concepts.

And saying you must remove any opposition to be pure is saying that you are so weak, so disgustingly low and insignificant, such a slave to your own primal desires that you can't function otherwise. It sounds like religious bullshit. Don't think for yourself, let god do it for you. You don't know what's right, be a cog in the machine. That even though you may apparently achieve peak performance by shedding yourself, you need a million other cogs along side you because you're not even a cog, you're not even a gear, you're a screw who can do little but be a part of a machine greater than yourself because deep down you know you're nothing more nor could you ever be more.

It isn't your own wit, your own tenacity, your own charisma, your own brilliance that you can achieve something, you need others to share the load so you can pretend you can achieve the greatness a fraction of what those have done alone.

And no matter what "you" think could be achieved, still wont change you're a faggot who got shit on by Chad their entire life and cries themselves to sleep because they couldn't even work the courage or effort to tie themselves a noose.

>Because your animal instincts say so? Because your mammal brain says it is?
Ah, of course; all our thought and philosophy is utterly meaningless because it was born, at the start, from animal brains.
At risk of sounding like a technorapturefag, bootstrapping is a thing. We can rise above what we are, with the assistance of what we are, use this new position to evaluate what we were, and discard or manipulate it as need be.
You pretend that man's core nature is immalleable, that we can not possible rise above or natures (or at least control them).

>Why pursuit anything if it's impossible to escape the heat death of the universe?
Because the pursuit of perfection, even if perfection is impossible, is a noble virtue.
Because the stubborn desire to keep going, even in the face of fate, is a noble virtue.
Because holding on to that last sliver of optimism, that things might just work out in the end, is a noble virtue.

>And saying you must remove any opposition to be pure is saying that you are so weak, so disgustingly low and insignificant, such a slave to your own primal desires that you can't function otherwise.
Again, you're saying absolutely nothing at all. Obviously I can function, obviously most people can function, but "good enough" is not an excuse.

>It sounds like religious bullshit. Don't think for yourself, let god do it for you.
I'm an atheist too, but you're tipping your fedora so hard I can feel the breeze.

(cont)

>You don't know what's right, be a cog in the machine. That even though you may apparently achieve peak performance by shedding yourself, you need a million other cogs along side you because you're not even a cog, you're not even a gear, you're a screw who can do little but be a part of a machine greater than yourself because deep down you know you're nothing more nor could you ever be more.
Ah, here we go! Yes, user, at their core, people are small. People are so, so, so very small; even the greatest of men are ultimately nothing without their followers, without their armies, without their friends, families, and allies. We are all part of the machine, and we have been since the day some nameless man before history stuck a seed into the ground.

>It isn't your own wit, your own tenacity, your own charisma, your own brilliance that you can achieve something, you need others to share the load so you can pretend you can achieve the greatness a fraction of what those have done alone.
You pretend that anyone has actually done anything "alone". Mankind is not standing on the shoulders of giants, it is standing on the shoulders of countless billions who have, through incremental progress, raised the living and yet unborn even higher.
Except for people like you, of course; those disgusting subhumans who well and truly believe that each and every man is an island; that he bears no responsibility or debt to his predecessors, to his peers, to his society, and to his successors.

>And no matter what "you" think could be achieved, still wont change you're a faggot who got shit on by Chad their entire life and cries themselves to sleep because they couldn't even work the courage or effort to tie themselves a noose.
Jokes on you, I've lead a pretty good life, all things considered.
And suicide is cowardice.

you both are retarded.
your "noble pursuits" and "group-mentality" bullshit are both just reactionary behavior that holds some use to keep humans alive.
All the shit you typed just happens and none of is meaningful or consequential in the slightest.

>your "noble pursuits" and "group-mentality" bullshit are both just reactionary behavior that holds some use to keep humans alive.
Not just alive, but progressing and developing as well.
Individualist-mentality is the death knell of civilization.

>All the shit you typed just happens and none of is meaningful or consequential in the slightest.
Understanding how and why things work is pretty important to manipulating them, user, even if they do "just happen".
If something is done naturally, given sufficient understanding, it can probably be done better unnaturally.

>suicide is cowardice
>a single human life is essentially worthless and should just mindlessly obey the consensus
Fuck you and everyone who thinks like you

"things just happening" is not limited to nature.
or in other words everything is reactionary.
progress, developement and civilisation are also just happenings with no importance whatsoever.
"understanding" things is not something you do, it is a reaction aswell.
"manipulating" things is an important tool of humans per human definition, but this too is reactionary and not an act done to achieve anything of important.
naturally and unnaturally are both unneccesary words. there is noone to judge whether or not an act is natural or not.

>suicide is cowardice
It is.

>a single human life is essentially worthless and should just mindlessly obey the consensus
Nowhere did I say that a single human life is worthless, nor that anyone should mindlessly obey the collective.
Human life is amazingly valuable, and it only gets moreso as more and more people are united in common pursuit.
Secondly, having your group be comprised solely of dumb proles is a good way to have a dumb group; it should be obvious that fostering personal and intellectual growth among the populace, while also having them care about their fellows and the whole, will lead to even greater things.

A single human life is only "worthless" in the context of, funnily enough, the standards humans have set for themselves. A singular man is unlikely to build, say, a car all on his lonesome; he cannot mine and refine the metals, fabricate the components, learn automotive engineering, etc etc, all while feeding and housing himself. By necessity of how complex and interconnected human civilization and human endeavors have become, it is all but impossible for an individual to truly live individually, without reverting to a near-primitive quality of life.

Saying everything is nothing says nothing at all, user.
"Oh, nothing is important, boo hoo woe is me it's just reactionary."
Welcome to nihilism 101, user; get over yourself.

> there is noone to judge whether or not an act is natural or not.
There is yourself and your fellow man; if nothing is intrinsically important, let us decide what is.

ok, my man.
Do something actively then.
Anything at all and i will call you god.

I don't need you to call me anything, nor should you.
And I think I get what you're trying to trap me with; the fact that I, nor anyone else, can do something truly "actively", and you're right.
We are all products of our experiences and environment; everything we do is formed by the sum product of everything we are. Even if the universe is not necessarily deterministic, we are still defined by our experiences.

However, that only matters from an outside perspective; within our own context, we are undoubtedly free willed and active agents. God can think us automata if he likes, if he even exists, but from my (and from everyone who isn't driven to apathy by nihilism) point of view, we are active intelligence.

>I don't need you to call me anything, nor should you.
The sentence was over the top on purpose and i didnt plan to call you anything, as you already stated the impossibility to actively do something.

I am not trying to trap you: this is not an argument i am trying to win.
It is not my goal to "drive you to apathy", and apathy (or anything for that matter) as a consequence of "nihilism" is laughable.
What I am stating here is not "my belief".
It is something i can not deny, nor is it deniable at all.
This does not tell you what to do.
It doesnt tell you what is right or wrong.
It is not a code you can follow or an idea.
And this simply is because "you" are just the sum of your past.
What importance is there to you when "you" are just a logical reaction to a large number of things you had no control over?

Also
> somebody gets a choice between A and B
> he chooses A because he likes it better
> it was not his choice to prefer A over B

>"but from my (and from everyone who isn't driven to apathy by nihilism) point of view, we are active intelligence."

From the point of view of an organism that does nothing but react and cant act on its own, it itself is active intelligence? Doesnt sound like an authority to "me".

>What importance is there to you when "you" are just a logical reaction to a large number of things you had no control over?
There's an argument to be made as to whether it's deterministic or probabilistic, but I digress.
From an absolute, overall, universal point of view? None at all.
But from my point of view, from each individuals point of view, from humanity's point of view? That's what matters.
Even if, yes, "We" don't exist as things that actively choose what matters to us or not; what matters, matters.
In order to avoid falling down the rabbit hole of "nothing matters because determinism/probabalism", one must say "Okay, but let us instead assume that we do have free will."
Even if we don't have free will, and even if our choice to say we do wasn't a choice at all, that's okay. It is the one lie that is entirely reasonable to afford ourselves.

>From the point of view of an organism that does nothing but react and cant act on its own, it itself is active intelligence? Doesnt sound like an authority to "me".
The secret, user, is that it isn't an active appearance. It just appears to be so from its own point of view, and seeing as how it's logically impossible to truly see anything from other than it's point of view, that works well enough.

>Doesnt sound like an authority to "me".
It doesn't have to be, but it's up to you to decide (even if it's not a choice at all) whether or not you want to believe you are in control, or if you're just a particularly clever biomechanical machine that's just clever enough to look in the mirror.

Of course, since nothing is a choice at all, you may never make that non-choice; you might just be broken forever.

TL;DR: Speaking on the topic of "we're all just deterministic meat-robots" is a useless discussion since, by extension, it means the discussion itself is deterministic. I say what I say, you say what you say, and there was never really any argument at all; just a mindless universe speaking to itself and saying nothing at all.
I think that sounds rather boring, don't you?

>Boy it sure is fun to like a race other than space marines
This is a lie, all Warhammer players only like Space Marines, anyone who likes a faction other than Space Marines is just a xenos loving fag, closet furry or traitor scum and those aren't people so their opinions don't count.

You can't argue with me, that's literally GW's official policy so suck it.

as already stated, im not trying to tutor.
the belief that you have to change your actions based on this "determinism" is just not there, as nothing is.
There also is the thing that even tough you cannot act actively, you can not "not" act at all.
This, again, is because you have no choice.
However, all of this does not change anything, because it is not a belief you learned about some time in your life or a religious belief you have for as long as you can think.
This is simply a fundamental fact, it has always been like this and always will be.
Time is retarded because of this aswell, by the by.
>TL;DR: Speaking on the topic of "we're all just deterministic meat-robots" is a useless discussion since, by extension, it means the discussion itself is deterministic. I say what I say, you say what you say, and there was never really any argument at all; just a mindless universe speaking to itself and saying nothing at all.
could not have said it any better :^)
Only because your brain is able to speak and act on experience does not mean you are.

also, the human ability to share information to increase the chance of survival for the biological body is what leads you to have these discussions.
bacteria does it, animals do it and humans do too.
we are simply a little more complicated.

All true, which is why I (do not) make the not-choice to believe that I, and everyone else, are not bound by determinism.
But in any case, it doesn't even matter; under the (reasonable) assumption that this is all true; I am fated to say this, you are fated to say that, we are fated to enforce law just as it is broken, even if we are all fated to one day know that there is no choice at all.
It is a useless argument that we don't even have the liberty of ignoring.

It is from this that I am (fatefully) thankful that I can ignore this, and why I (fatefully) pity the people who are broken by it.

True, but humans are complicated enough that we're built to reflect on our status as meat-robots. A cruel design, perhaps, but a significant difference from even our most complex of animal cousins.

>brutalized people aren't brutalized people because once they've been brutalized they're dead and subsequently no longer people!
Brilliant logic.

>It is from this that I am (fatefully) thankful that I can ignore this, and why I (fatefully) pity the people who are broken by it.
"you" do nothing of this.

I (read:my brain) can also not comprehend why you would think this information in a head would break a person. "nothing matters" is not followed by a noose or desire to kill yourself, nor is it followed by depression or a hedonistic rampage.
The sentence "nothing matters and we are not free seems to have a negative connotation for you.

You happen to be an organism that likes to think "it is". I happen to be an organism that can live with the fact "it isn't". This makes neither of us better or worse than each other and in the end we both are completely without consequences.

I live a relatively normal human life, as does every human, because we are, well humans.
Of course the realsiation that all acts are reactionary can be straining on some organisms, however the realisation is not the point where everything becomes pointless, everything is and always will be.
You are welcomed to disagree with me, nobody cares and nothing will change based on your stance to this. That said, the same is true for me.

>I (read:my brain) can also not comprehend why you would think this information in a head would break a person. "nothing matters" is not followed by a noose or desire to kill yourself, nor is it followed by depression or a hedonistic rampage.
>The sentence "nothing matters and we are not free seems to have a negative connotation for you.
I'm more surprised that you think it wouldn't break most people.
>This makes neither of us better or worse than each other and in the end we both are completely without consequences.
Exactly, which is why I (and most others) would instead prefer to create our own meaning and consequences. It is ignoble to be nothing more than a machine in a mindless universe.

Free will or not, I (and many others) refuse the position that man cannot create his own meaning.

They are not people anymore. They are machines made out of the dead.

When talking about Necrons being free, we don't talk about their machinery

>I'm more surprised that you think it wouldn't break most people.

i can see that. I guess my idea it would be easily acceptable may come from my social environment aswell as the fact i usually dont discuss this face to face with someone.

>Exactly, which is why I (and most others) would instead prefer to create our own meaning and consequences. It is ignoble to be nothing more than a machine in a mindless universe.

This is the exact reason why i dont discuss it openly. I realize it is of no importance whether or not a person thinks about this, accepts this or anything. As already stated: it is no believe, it is fundamental but at the same time of no importance at all as it just is.

Also, it is not like you have a choice in this either.

To see people as the sum of their past is to understand their imperfections, is to understand the lack of influence they had to bring them to their current position in existence.
I like this tought because with this all men are created equal.Everything is, in fact.

That sounds totally metal. Sauce please so I can read.

I fucking love Veeky Forums