/dis/ - Discussion

Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1580260532421.jpg (42.37 KB, 375x452, heh.jpg)


So she asked gay men to rape straight men and one did.

So he hates all women and wants to murder them all.

So they upped and murdered all those Iraqis.

So they slammed me against a wall and played with my ass.

So someone else did another thing to someone. Another shooting spree, another rape, some torture.

Now who is fair to kill who? Do you forgive and forget?
If a "good" genocide targeting only "bad" people regardless of blood or creed but borne in deeds, is possible to pull off, if you can kill every last "bad" person for what they do, how is left?

So I was told "We all do things!" to "just pick someone and do it already" but I think that's unfair to people who do better and put in effort to be better people.

So if everyone who isn't a monster is left alive, then can an alright guy raise his kids to not be monsters? Or will there just always be evil in the world?


>then can an alright guy raise his kids to not be monsters?
you are very likely to raise monster while being a good guy. probably even more likely than while being a bad guy.

read some psychology studies and maybe the bible too ;)
just because you do not do bad things it does not mean you are not a monster.


Tbh, morality is fickle nowadays. And if someone who is “bad” gets murdered, why should we care? People are replaceable. They’re like food. If one is gone, oh well. Not like they made an impact.



To me, a “good” genocide will clean out the “bad”. Even if the bad is apparently “innocent” as they claim, they must not forget the crimes they’ve committed are also the crimes others have as well. They should learn that the cleansing is to basically justify their existence being void, and their deeds to be rightfully punished. They need to know they must earn up to the consequences and live with the fact their lives mean nothing.

And there is more evil out in this world than good. However, the ones who are evil are just doing their job and the so called good ones are the criminals. They are not the victims, the evil ones are the victims because they were pushed to where they decided to lash out and hurt in retaliation. The hurt is understandable, because if you bottle it up long enough, you desire to take it out and show them no mercy.


If you'd pardon the necro, I believe good and evil are vague and subjective traits which are hard to properly quantify. The answer to this question depends heavily on your personal definition of them.
To give my own answer, I feel killing everyone deemed evil will not prevent future generations from performing evil acts, nor will it prevent them from being deemed as evil themselves. People deemed as good can perform evil, and vice versa.


File: 1582971207902.png (4.33 MB, 1577x2060, kantsche_imperativ.png)

Moral and ethics are two different pairs of shoes.

That aside, Kant said: "Do not do unto others what you do not wish to be done unto yourself." Most religions agree in one way or another (see picture).

Neither Kant nor the people writing thoose sacred texts knew anyone like the people who visit gurochan though, e.g. a masochist living by that standard would hurt others because they themself want to get hurt, someone who wants to be eaten becomes a cannibal and so on.

Thus, Kant needs to be augmented with an additional constraint: The minimization of suffering.

Thus we arrive at another bunch of dilemmas - e.g. people who act against society must be stopped, but to do so, one must inflict force and thus suffering on them. No one would want to get killed, but is a life in suffering/prison better than a swift death sentence?


Golden rule is a lie, the right version is "people treat you the same way as they want to be treated."
If someone hurts you they *really* want to be hurt back in the same way even is they say otherwise. (except when you are fighting for some resources or in case of misunderstandings) If you refuse to hurt them back they actually suffer more.

>The minimization of suffering.

If that's the case you should terminate existence of humanity and there will be no suffering.
alternatively it is possible to reprogram brains with drugs to eliminate suffering entirely. Opium is known to do that.

The real moral dilemma is exactly between suffering and existence. Just that even smartest philosophers are brave enough to admit it and thus talk various nonsense.
this survival of the species seem to be the taboo topic which is universal in all religions including atheism/evolutionism.

The god is nothing else than evolution and moral rules are rules of optimal survival of the species.


At large, the behaviors people exhibit are determined by crystalline (unchanging) genetic traits. This is a well known fact, easily exhibited by looking at racial crime stats for any group you wish; they are all different, not just in magnitude but in type (ie. mexicans are more likely to do kidnappings, black people are more likely to do rapes, white people are more likely to do extortion and embezzlement…)
If you want to raise a kid to be a good person, learn about psychology and try to become more mature yourself. (Maturity = ability to handle stressful situations. You should be able to answer just about any question your kid asks you, no matter how tough, and provide a good explanation for everything you ask them to do.)
Finally even if we had a 'perfect' world where all crime was eradicated, evil would still exist because of resentment between different people groups which always pops up. Basically, 'evil' is something that always springs up either when a person is pathological or when two people-groups can't get along. In the first case you can theoretically fix it with societal organization but in the second case there is no solution except competition.


Bullshit. Black people are more likely to get arrested but the Du Pont heir can rape his own 3 y.o. daughter and buy the judge.


Genocide is usually a good thing. Think about it. Let’s say a new law is passed in which there must be more men than women. This would mean men would rise up and stand up against the evils of females and reduce the population to not very much. They would not be seen as evil murderers or criminals, but heroes for purging the world of such evil and inferiority.

So yes, it is moral and just. It is a way of cleansing out impurity.


Who exactly is "pure" here? People who think like you? What must one do to become impure and worthy of death?


There is nothing moral in this world. Every so-called intellectual and free-thinker should seek for help by the supreme libertine himself, Marquis de Sade; he wrote sentences which made moralists kill themselves(applause!), its his works which shine out such a bright colour of liveliness, it stands out in the shelves of world literature. Clearly there is an impregnable difference between the civilizing culture and nature itself - the civil culture wants to establish slave traditions upon the simple men when actually the only natural law is the law of natural selection - the weak die and the strong keep on living. There is no good nor evil, there are variations in quality of acts. The only thing which matters is the quality of the act; how well-thought the culprit has thought up his plan, how much sorrow the victim had, at which (technical, but also psychological)qualities the victim screams, it's all about those qualities. There are no moral standards to behold; moral standards are slave norms for slave normals.



What causes them to be impure and worthy of death is their stupidity, horrid behavior and decisions, and let us not forget incompetence. That, and their hypocrisy. Because of this, they are therefore reflecting that they are not changing any time soon and that they are asking to be put to death.

What is pure is realizing that if a genocide like this happens, it is simply for the better. The cleansing will wipe out their evil actions and make sure that if anyone replicates their bad decisions, they die as well.

Again, let’s say there’s a law that we need more men than women in this world and the only solution is to kill off a majority of women and leave men alive so that way, we can have purity and a balance. The ones performing these killings would not be seen as evil. They would be seen as moralistic heroes who simply cleansed the world of evil.

So yes, genocide is the way to go. Fuck off with this “genocide isn’t moralistic” bullshit. It actually is full of truth and heroism.


Spoken like a true ISIS recruiter.

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]