Truth To Power wrote:Well, sorry, but that's what the dictionary says justice is.
Why would I ever let a dictionary dictate my reality. The concept of justice has been discussed for thousands of years... and you're willing to take a dictionary explanation as a fact? That's low-tier.
However, even with the dictionary explanation of justice, it still supports my claims.
Truth To Power wrote:What you really mean is that you prefer injustice to justice. I.e., you prefer evil to good; you think evil is better than good. I don't know any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.
No I don't. I prefer justice, and I prefer good. You are the unjust and the evil one. You seek to give to others according to their needs, and not according to their merits. You seek to break the nature's law. You seek to deny the beauty and strengths of the great ones, in favor of the weak ones. You give to those who do not deserve, and take from those who do deserve. You, my friend, are unjust.
Evil can not be better than good, by definition. And one can not praise evil, for one can only praise good.
Truth To Power wrote:No, that merely vacates the word, "justice" of meaning. Your world is simply the world of the sociopath, who is unable to regard others as having rights.
I already explain that I fully believe that people have a right. But not rights (plural). The only right any living organism has, is the right to fight.
As far as you calling me a sociopath, I'll just quote this paragraph from wiki:"According to Nietzsche, masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master morality with their slave morality. Unlike master morality, which is sentiment, slave morality is based on re-sentiment—devaluing that which the master values and the slave does not have. As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it VILIFIES its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as "good". "
(quick note! At the bottom of that wiki article there is a mention of a guy called Walter Kaufmann. It says "Walter Kaufmann disagrees that Nietzsche actually preferred master morality to slave morality. He certainly gives slave morality a more thorough critique, but this is partly because he thought of slave morality as society's more imminent danger. Can you guess the background of that person... what a coincidence
Truth To Power wrote:I.e., you prefer to live as an animal, robbing, enslaving, torturing and killing your fellows to the limit of your ability and desire, just like every evil person in history and fiction. I get it. You don't understand what rights are, and consequently prefer evil to good. But testosterone anarchists like you make me laugh: you wouldn't last five minutes without the state protecting you against the real sociopaths.
Jokes on you, we would probably ally with each other and hunt in packs.
I prefer to live as a human and a human is an animal on steroids. I have no interest in denying my own nature. I don't support robbing, enslaving, torturing and killing of the innocent. But, I also don't see those things as evil in themselves, but only judge them according to the results they produce.
Truth To Power wrote:Yes, there is, which is why people evolved moral capacity. Sociopaths, who lack moral capacity and thus perceive the world as you do, are throwbacks to the earlier, sub-human animal species we evolved from.
No there isn't. You shouldn't be standing for that which is weak, but only for that which is powerful. If power is good, then weakness is bad. And those who support weakness, are bad. Might I even say, evil.
I'm not a sociopath, nor do I lack moral capacity. In fact, my moral compass is far superior than yours. You're the only praising weakness.
Truth To Power wrote:But that doesn't mean anything coming from you, because you have already admitted you seek to vacate the word, "just" of meaning. You also haven't understood the whole point of rights: the weak having rights is better EVEN FOR THE STRONG.
I didn't vacate the word just
. I fully believe and support justice.
"the weak having rights is better EVEN FOR THE STRONG." You don't know this. This might or might not be true. We can only know this based on the results of it.
Truth To Power wrote:I oppose socialism -- let alone communism -- even more than capitalism. So your assumption about my beliefs is just factually incorrect. Are you willing to learn from your errors?
I am. Forgive me senpai.
But, like @Scrooge McDuck I also support hyper capitalism and understand that any system which does not align with nature is designed to fail. So far, your system is destined for failure.
Truth To Power wrote:As societies that do not protect the rights of the weak have learned by their extinction.
Ummm, I dunno about that. Great people build great nations. Weak people build weak nations.
Truth To Power wrote:Wrong again. The responsibility of others to protect the weak is an acknowledged characteristic of human society. What you advocate is a sub-human society, the kind one researcher into gibbons' social organization called "a grisly existence I would not wish on my worst enemy."
No it isn't. I you are weak, I have no responsibility to protect you. In fact, I might even have higher responsibility of making fun of you, in attempts to expose the weakness. That doesn't mean I don't want to, or won't protect you. If I can, I'll seek to help you overcome your weakness. But, I'll never accept, or support you just for being weak.
What I advocate for is a Heaven on Earth. And there can be no corruption in Heaven.
Truth To Power wrote:I guess that must be why chimpanzees, gibbons, wolves, etc. pursue it....
And every nation is the world, every business, every man, every woman. Even you. You're just so weak, you can't even see yourself doing it.
Truth To Power wrote:No one said anything about government solving all one's life problems. Just securing individual rights against the sociopaths.
I approve this, as long as the people who run the government do so according to the right principles.
Truth To Power wrote:Government is what ensures others fulfill their duty not to harm you.
That's what weaklings, like you, think.
The purpose of a government is to fulfill the desires of people who make it. Government is also used to kill people who stand against it.
Truth To Power wrote:Nope. Wrong again. A price is what an item DID trade for, as determined by the individual buyer and seller. Value is what it WOULD trade for, which is determined by the market. Two different things.
First part is true, because I said the exact same thing.
Second part is not true, you're talking about the average market price of a product. Value is, like I've said, a survival power a subject sees in a certain thing.
Truth To Power wrote:But not that much.
Truth To Power wrote:You are apparently addressing someone who advocates communism. That would not be me.
It doesn't have to be you. This is "communism" thread, so it applies to anyone who advocates communism.
Truth To Power wrote:That absurd claim is easily disproved. If I create wealth by growing some food, it increases the total amount of food, relieving the scarcity of food for all. If I just accumulate food by taking it from others, it doesn't relieve the scarcity, it only inflicts greater scarcity on others. That is a big difference. You stand refuted.
You can accumulate food without taking it from anyone, lmao
For some strange reason, you joined accumulation with taking from others.
But, even if you do accumulate food by taking it for others, you still created food. But, only for yourself, and not for others. It relives your own scarcity.
You can create, or you can accumulate food for yourself and for others. And you can create, or accumulate food for yourself at the expense of others.
Truth To Power wrote:See above. I just drove a freight train full of food through the difference.
I was talking about how "accumulation of wealth" is a noble thing, and how it's very close to the highest ideal one can strive for. So close you could barely fit...
Truth To Power wrote:Three main reasons: their choices, luck, and thieving by sociopaths.
Luck is hard to deal with, since many wealthy people had unlucky things happened to them.
"Their choices", prove they were weak.
"Thieving by sociopaths", why didn't they steal from them? And why didn't they protect themselves against those sociopaths? Because they were weak.
Truth To Power wrote:The question is meaningless, as God does not exist.
One day, you might be ready for this question.
Truth To Power wrote:They most certainly did. Thatis how our ancestors survived for millions of years.
They most certainly didn't. They survived on that land because they protected it. History of any nation is riddled with wars over territory.
Truth To Power wrote:Get a better dictionary.
Truth To Power wrote:No, land can't rightly belong to anyone, as that inherently abrogates the liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.
Your liberty ends, where my liberty starts. That is, where my desire starts. If I want the land you have, I have every right to take it from you.
I said "Land and territory is similar to women."
Truth To Power wrote:No it isn't.
50 Shades of Land Ownership.
Truth To Power wrote:Women have rights and choice. Land doesn't. But the people you seek to rob and enslave by depriving them of their liberty to use land by forcibly appropriating it do.
But, what about my liberty? I want to liberate myself in their land, and liberate myself with their women. Who are they to deprive me of my liberty?
Women know very well that their rights and choices can be taken. Property is anything you are able to have and control. You can control women and you can control land. They're the same thing, from ownership aspect.
Truth To Power wrote:So you admit you are wrong.
No. Power has only advanced. If someone hits me in the face, I might hit them back. Or I might sue them. Take money from them. Put them in a jail and bribe some policemen to make sure that person gets some prison ass action.
Of course, I wouldn't do that, because I'm not a little Kant. But, that's possible in an evolved society as ours.
Truth To Power wrote:You just got through claiming there were no such reasons.
Truth To Power wrote:Rightful ownership is only obtained by an act of production, never by an act of forcible appropriation. You might want to talk to the communists about why you agree with them that rightful ownership is obtained by forcibly taking.
There is no rightful, or wrongful ownership. You either have control over something, or you don't.
Even, in a capitalist society you don't have the right to own every item you produce. For example, if you started producing nuclear bombs in your backyard, the government will most likely cease it and arrest you. That's because your ownership of that item threatens the power levels of the government (of other people).
Truth To Power wrote:I read a lot more than I think, but I still think a lot more, and to far better effect, than you, as demonstrated above.
Then you need to start reading some good stuff, because they way you think atm is not working.