Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: guest27
« on: February 02, 2021, 05:44:32 am »

Quote
"Do you find this acceptable?"

It may be or it may not be, depending on who it is.

Oh and ^ 90sRF, this just makes you a selective psychopath. Well done.
Posted by: guest27
« on: February 02, 2021, 05:39:43 am »

Quote
all you have to say is cliches like "reclaiming innocence".

In this thread I've given a brief overview of the concrete, worldly methods I advocate (twice, to my recall), but in case you don't remember, this thread was specifically about the ultimate spiritual and moral implications of our ideology/actions; an important topic in itself.

Quote
You're being inconsistent, you started out by saying that natural methods are completely incompatible with your moral compass but ended up agreeing that killing to end violence is acceptable, but still don't want to hold individuals who initiate violence accountable because of their biology.

Natural methods were considered violent and contrasted with "ideal", non-violent methods, in the original site. Killing can either be violent or non-violent, I only advocate the latter form as I don't find violence consistent with ideal/non-violent goals.

Yet 90sRF revealed he has *violent* goals, despite Aryanism.net apparently preaching *ideal* goals, but maybe I missed something despite rereading the articles many times over. In any case, his ideology seems inconsistent through and through, making hell bedfellows with heaven, cruelty with compassion, defeatism with heroism, non-violence with retaliatory violence, and so on.

I hold everyone accountable in stopping violence, the heroes and so-called villains alike; he who hasn't hurt a fly or he who eats meat, in my ideology everyone is expected to uphold heroic duty and honour their Original Nobility. I guess what you're talking about is "blame", where the only one held truly accountable is simultaneously bereft of honour - he's the only one who could've prevented violence but he's evil through and through, so all we can do is poke him with a pitchfork and maybe we feel marginally better.

Quote
Who should get killed then? Certainly not your own cruel cat?

My cat is not cruel, I know her as she truly is, and I already killed her, she was severely ill and her future looked grim, but what really cemented my decision was my compassion for her prey - not because I blame her, but because friends don't let friends hurt friends. I question my own survival constantly.

Quote
In my opinion, not believing in eternal punishment proves that you lack sense of justice.

Eternal punishment saves no one, and 2 wrongs don't make a right, which surely anyone with an intact sense of justice could understand. I'm broadly in favour of the methods and ideas on Aryanism.net or this forum, just no gratuitous torture, and any actions from hugging to killing must be 100% non-violent/anti-violent (anti-violence specifically referring to intervention, not "retaliatory violence")
Posted by: Ganbaru
« on: February 02, 2021, 12:39:19 am »

"When was this ever even an argument about semantics? When has this been about mere words? Do you people not take the concepts we're debating here seriously? I wouldn't be surprised..."

You're not proposing anything concrete, only ranting about how our ideology doesn't suit your worldview. We have a very precise plan to end violence but when inquired about yours all you have to say is cliches like "reclaiming innocence".

"Alright, the fact you guys see this as "just semantics/word jugglery" proves to me how little you actually care about the concepts we're discussing."

You're being inconsistent, you started out by saying that natural methods are completely incompatible with your moral compass but ended up agreeing that killing to end violence is acceptable, but still don't want to hold individuals who initiate violence accountable because of their biology. Who should get killed then? Certainly not your own cruel cat? I first became hostile because of your post rejecting natural methods (and its implications for victims of initiated violence like children, victims of **** by serial rapists, etc.), but now I'm not even sure what I'm reading.

"I won't take any more of your time. I'm done with your disgusting farce; your mockery of justice and heroism."

In my opinion, not believing in eternal punishment proves that you lack sense of justice. Feel free to outline your plan and/or prove its effectiveness in practice though.
Posted by: guest27
« on: February 01, 2021, 02:06:43 am »

Quote from: Ganbaru on January 31, 2021, 08:59:55 pm
Quote
are you just interested in semantics and word jugglery?
my thoughts exactly.

When was this ever even an argument about semantics? When has this been about mere words? Do you people not take the concepts we're debating here seriously? I wouldn't be surprised...

Edit: Alright, the fact you guys see this as "just semantics/word jugglery" proves to me how little you actually care about the concepts we're discussing.

I won't take any more of your time. I'm done with your disgusting farce; your mockery of justice and heroism.
Posted by: Ganbaru
« on: January 31, 2021, 08:59:55 pm »

Quote
are you just interested in semantics and word jugglery?
my thoughts exactly.
Posted by: guest27
« on: January 31, 2021, 03:40:56 am »

Quote
are you just interested in semantics and word jugglery? I like hearing my own voice too often, but I do it in private and I don't force it on other people.

Also, what a pathetic argument ^

IT ISN'T "JUST SEMANTICS" WHEN THE WORLD IS AT STAKE

Posted by: guest27
« on: January 29, 2021, 03:55:16 am »

Quote
If you truly wanted to get rid of all enemies once and for all you would be advocating for a stop to all reproduction. I do not see you doing this either? Infact, rather than actually fighting any enemies you seem more concerned with staying in this thread than actually helping us fight anyone. Interesting to say the least....

I advocate Aryanization, veganism and antinatalism, among other things. I'm definitely fighting enemies by arguing in this thread. It's crucial our intentions are clear and honourable and our ideology is palatable and coherent. You Aryanists seem to have an awful lot of potential and Aryanism.net helped me immensely on the spiritual and ideological front; maybe I can return the favour. I thought Aryanism was perfect, but finally talking to self-proclaimed Aryanists has been brutally disappointing, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong here, but if there's a slim shot at redemption I'll take it, otherwise I promise to get out of your hair. I don't enjoy this in fact it's stressful and scary but I appreciate the way you've carried yourselves.

It's unethical to violently torture people no matter what and it's a waste of time. Eternal hell is also an absurd, unethical and impossible fantasy. If we focus on weeding out the root of evil we'll surely defeat it. Fighting violence on the material plane by freeing people of oppressive genetics, beliefs, and situations and giving them the necessary tools of nonviolence such as empathy, courage and Aryan metabolism. If we can't ultimately achieve a perfect world we must destroy it for good, ceasing reproduction and extincting life. Hell would perpetuate imperfect material existence, whereas Heaven/Nirvana could see it never spontaneously returning since the soul is permanently detached.
Posted by: guest5
« on: January 28, 2021, 06:49:07 pm »

Quote
Define death how you like, I'm only interested in getting rid of my enemies once and for all, not acting like them.

Any plans or solutions of how we get there, or, are you just interested in semantics and word jugglery? I like hearing my own voice too often, but I do it in private and I don't force it on other people. Unlike most fantasies, your fantasies do not seem to be based in reality at all.

If you truly wanted to get rid of all enemies once and for all you would be advocating for a stop to all reproduction. I do not see you doing this either? Infact, rather than actually fighting any enemies you seem more concerned with staying in this thread than actually helping us fight anyone. Interesting to say the least....

Stop wasting our time moron!



Posted by: guest27
« on: January 28, 2021, 01:32:21 pm »

Quote
Some offender would need to die before they go to hell. Your logic still makes no sense to me.

If he's in hell he's still alive, just in a different state. You didn't really kill him. Define death how you like, I'm only interested in getting rid of my enemies once and for all, not acting like them.

Quote
Nature punishes those who are often not aware of it's laws. So do Jews:

Very true. We should not want to be like nature or Jews.
Posted by: guest5
« on: January 28, 2021, 01:04:44 pm »

Quote
90sRF is talking about keeping the initiator in eternal hell, merely redirecting violence, not killing him. Killing isn't inherently violent; when it ends violence, it's nonviolent.

90sRF would torture the perpetrator first, kill the perp, and send the perp to hell early. Torture, death, and eternal suffering. You know nothing of 90sRF and you clearly have not read his writings.

Some offender would need to die before they go to hell. Your logic still makes no sense to me.

Quote
What kind of monster punishes someone for something they have no control or knowledge of?

Nature punishes those who are often not aware of it's laws. So do Jews:
Quote
According to some opinions, punishment is the same whether the individual transgresses with knowledge of the law or is ignorant of the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah
Posted by: guest27
« on: January 28, 2021, 06:06:15 am »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 28, 2021, 12:22:07 am
"If one is oblivious to the true nature of what they're doing. They aren't choosing to torture an animal. It's also possible a cat is coerced by its instincts. When I watch a predator I'm not sure it's 100% voluntary."

You are in distinguished company:

I'm not in the company of disingenuous pleas of insanity, if that's what you're insinuating. If I were to ever go up against the court for breaking a chicken farmer's neck I'd plead 100% sanity. But if someone poisons me with Salvia Divinorum which throws me into a deluded rage against a poor child whom I tragically mistake for a White Nationalist, of course I'm pleading insanity! What kind of monster punishes someone for something they have no control or knowledge of? What of the actual villain? I understand people can and do use this as an excuse but you'd think we'd try to discern the liars from the truthful and innocent.

That being said, no one should have to plea insanity, everyone committing acts of violence should be presumed insane, and even more insane the more intentional and unrepentant their act, since they're all the more deluded and dangerous. Our current model means the most aggressive and clever offenders are classed as "sane" and merely punished (which only makes them more violent) and released after "serving time", whereas the most passive and flaky offenders are classed as "insane" and given effective treatment and not released until and unless their psychological condition is improved. This strikes me as a lazy and cowardly way to deal with the former; if you can't properly treat their criminality and redeem their life, then just kill them and put us all out of their misery. On that note, in accordance with universal compassion, the death penalty should be reconceived as euthanasia; and it should probably be used a lot more often.
Posted by: guest27
« on: January 28, 2021, 04:23:56 am »

Quote
I don't understand this logic? If the initiator of violence dies in a retaliatory strike does not the initiated violence end with that individuals death? By destroying the initiator how then can that individual ever initiate more violence?

90sRF is talking about keeping the initiator in eternal hell, merely redirecting violence, not killing him. Killing isn't inherently violent; when it ends violence, it's nonviolent. 90sRF doesn't think we can end initiated violence, because it's already been done, and I understand his logic, but that's normie defeatist logic, not heroic against-all-odds logic.

And speaking of noble lions MIGHT I INTERJECT THAT JUNGLE EMPEROR LEO IS THE SINGLE GREATEST CARTOON EVER! He's literally a vegan lion enforcing veganism on his entire jungle (well, he settles for letting the carnivores eat grasshoppers, but he's doing his best, which is the true meaning of veganism) and generally being utterly noble and heroic. They even start growing crops. I recommend the original 60s version, plot and character wise (I'm watching the '93 redub though). The New Adventures has the best fight scenes though. The Lion King was such a ripoff and non-heroic.

(and shoosh about anime not being cartoons)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw_-mA0AtdE
Posted by: guest5
« on: January 28, 2021, 12:43:04 am »

Quote
Retaliating doesn't end violence that's the thing, it just returns it.

I don't understand this logic? If the initiator of violence dies in a retaliatory strike does not the initiated violence end with that individuals death? By destroying the initiator how then can that individual ever initiate more violence?

Clearly not all "cats" are the same either:
Lion Adopts Baby Antelope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7BJeTKrcvo
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 28, 2021, 12:22:07 am »

"If one is oblivious to the true nature of what they're doing. They aren't choosing to torture an animal. It's also possible a cat is coerced by its instincts. When I watch a predator I'm not sure it's 100% voluntary."

You are in distinguished company:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqRwI57_GPA
Posted by: guest27
« on: January 25, 2021, 03:11:29 am »

Quote
In summary, you think it is possible to torture small animals for fun in a pure-hearted way, and to disagree is to demonize the torturer.

**If said torture is unintentional. If one is oblivious to the true nature of what they're doing. They aren't choosing to torture an animal. It's also possible a cat is coerced by its instincts. When I watch a predator I'm not sure it's 100% voluntary. Either way, it's no different morally than when we were unwittingly fed animals as children, and so on.

Quote
No, slave mentality would be ceasing to disapprove in order to feel more comfortable with the conditions of reality.

If you truly disapproved, you wouldn't feel comfortable enough with said conditions to tolerate them eternally.

Quote
Now we also know you are a "300" fan.....

I don't know about the movie as a whole. You're really grasping at straws to criticize me now.