Thread 82261091

Because all the programming they've watched makes them believe in the just world fallacy. They can't for a second fathom that the world might be inconsistent, irrational and ruthless. It never even really intrudes into their feeble little heads that they could have a horrible life of torture with no reconciliation or redemption arc at all. As in it could all be bullshit and then you die. They don't want that so they run away from it by implicitly supporting the status quo in typical cattle fashion they are cattle prod in whatever direction need be by the all go rhythm the purveyor of the much sneeded cattle feed. Me? I do it for free.

>>82261091 (OP)
>Because all the programming they've watched makes them believe in the just world fallacy.

Wrong. What is worse is the fact that they only believe in the just world fallacy in specific areas. Most normies have no problem admitting that your life can get fucked up through no fault of your own in other arenas of life such as economics or the criminal justice system. But the moment you start talking about sex and romance, these same people instantly turn into the most bootstrap boomer republicans, repeating talking points that wouldn't be out of place on Fox News about black people or immigrants (just change black people or immigrants to men/incels). I could have SOME respect for them if their beliefs were at least consistent but they can't even manage that. They do this because it benefits them (or a group they care about, like women) to support free for all capitalism in the sexual marketplace but to also support redistribution of wealth (to help women) in the economic marketplace.

It's this realization which is what turned me from a fairly leftist person to as much of an amoral sociopath as I can manage.

>>82261091 (OP)
>Just world fallacy
It's not psychological it's biologically ingrained in the average person. You will NEVER get them to concede because they can't and probably never will comprehend the fact that happy endings aren't for everyone

>>82261091 (OP)
>leftist meme
it's funny that people like you will talk about sneeding cattle and how life is randumbbb and then you'll dye your hair blue.

>>82261091 (OP)
>someone correctly calls you out for choosing to watch porn and ruin your life instead of doing something fulfilling
>"Yeah but what if i was a tortured cow!"
lol are you sexless and childless?

>>82261141
>It's not psychological it's biologically ingrained in the average person

No it isn't. Most of these people can accept that the just world fallacy is just that, a fallacy, when you talk about it in the context of economics. A poor person most likely will stay poor no matter their personal virtues. The biologically ingrained part is to support the interests of women at all costs, which is why they have no problem using said just world fallacy when to do so would benefit women.

>>82261091 (OP)
Most people are actually determinists, they only shift responsibility onto their opponents when it is convenient
All forms of communication today is just warfare and gay antics and mental gymnastics, everyone is both the victim and bully

>>82261164
It's not really a fallacy if it's true for most people. The entire point of justice and getting what you deserve is that actions have consequences. To pretend that you can do whatever you want without being punished or rewarded is crazy.

>>82261190
>To pretend that you can do whatever you want without being punished or rewarded is crazy.

You can, though. If you're strong enough you can quite literally do anything you want without getting punished, no matter if it's against the rules. If you're stronger than anyone else how could they ever punish you?

There is no such thing as justice. Simply strength and weakness.

Mentioning a good job, wife, house, and kids really dates this meme.

>>82261091 (OP)

Anon, most people are NPCs without an inner monologue. It's not worth enlightening them even if you get the opportunity to which you rarely do. Let them suffer in their own ignorance as their disposition to the truth has made them that bed.

>>82261211
It's a might makes right kind of world

>>82261221
Correct. To quote Thucydides:

>You know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

>>82261211
>being strong enough has rewards
So then its not a fallacy to say that actions have consequences you retard.

>>82261091 (OP)
Neurotypicals like said in the pic OP posted just flow through life. No need for introspection. Theyll never get it. Just stop trying to black pill them.

>>82261282
Actions have consequences but that's just causality. We're talking about justice which is a moral judgement: what "should" happen if you do something, and that judgement is simply irrelevant if you are strong enough that no one has the ability to punish you.

>>82261331
And I said it's not a fallacy if it's true for MOST PEOPLE, not the strongest man in the world.

>>82261349
How do you define what people "deserve" then? And why is your definition the correct one out of the billions of other definitions?

>>82261381
1. Morality is objective, not subjective. People understand at a basic level what is right and wrong from birth, and you can find how morality emerges from the basic functions of how our bodies operate at the cellular and individual level, let alone cultural.

2. What people "deserve" may be a fluid discussion, but that discussion is just part of the lessons and knowledge we have carried for tens of thousands of years as a species. How do you define what "electricity" is when everyone can have their own definition? We still operate in a world where we can use electricity to allow you to trollpost pretending to be a relativist. Cause, and effect.

>>82261464
>Morality is objective
No it isn't.

>>82261464
>People understand at a basic level what is right and wrong from birth

Do they? Then why have humans had such enormous variation in what they consider to be right and wrong over history?

>What people "deserve" may be a fluid discussion

No it isn't. Not if morality is innate, like you said. If morality is concrete then we can simply always judge people by those concrete laws. For example, it was perfectly moral for Roman fathers to sell their children into slavery or kill them, so, would you agree that those are correct moral beliefs?

>>82261487
Then neither is age or time in general. Yet somehow, we magically know when someone is a baby or an old man.

>>82261519
Time is indeed not objective. That's the whole point of general relativity. Time passes slower the higher gravity is, at least from the perspective of an outside viewer.

>>82261519
It might be a useful fiction to have I'll give you that, but to say it is objective is nonsense.

>>82261515
>Then why have humans had such enormous variation in what they consider to be right and wrong over history?
They haven't. They have applied moral agency and moral consideration variably, and they have justified doing wrong things for the greater good, but nobody was confused in history nor are they confused now about what is right and wrong in general. The same stories we tell kids today which are almost instantly understood were told 3000 years ago about morals.

>Not if morality is innate
Morality is obviously innate. I was talking about how you apply morality and respond to the moral and immoral actions of others. The level of punishment or reward, etc. These are fluid discussions which are continuous throughout our history. People can easily justify eating factory farmed meat for example, but it's generally harder to justify slavery.

>>82261296
Thats Chad hes anything but the average neurotypical

>>82261551
>Morality is obviously innate.
Believe that if it helps you sleep at night I guess.

>>82261539
you're out of your element. in a physics model, yes everything is subjective and probabilistic. you don't exist, and even the laws of physics don't exist. we are just clouds of particles that randomly appear and move randomly with no pattern or determined effect on anything in the universe.

in the real world where we talk about "objective" and "subjective," 10:44 UTC is an objective point in time that we can measure and agree on. If a baby and an old man are placed together, I can sometimes tell which one has lived longer.

>>82261571
What does sleeping at night have to do with anything? Are you someone who made too many wrong choices in life and now you have to deal with the repercussions?

>>82261551
A skyspook and the idea of morality might be useful social fictions, but that doesn't make them objective. There are many gods and many ways to skin a hueman.

>>82261591
Just because you said something doesn't mean it's profound.

>>82261583
>Are you someone who made too many wrong choices in life and now you have to deal with the repercussions?
Projecting much are we? Is that why you hide behind a quasi religious beliefs?

>>82261605
Wait are you the guy who was talking about sleeping at night? lol that's actually funny now that I think about it.

>>82261551
>but it's generally harder to justify slavery.

If that is the case then why has slavery been a near constant in human history? Since morality is innate and slavery has been something most people in history have considered moral, wouldn't you agree that slavery must be moral? How could people go against their innate morality for so long, after all?

>>82261576
>10:44 UTC is an objective point in time that we can measure and agree on.

Sure, until one of us is basing that determination off a clock that we took up into a jet and the other is basing that determination off a clock that stayed at ground level.

>>82261598
Did I say it was? Maybe it was profound to you, but you can't reconcile that fact with you wanting to win some stupid argument when there is nothing to argue about at all.

>>82261609
>slavery been a near constant in human history?
because they justified it. they didn't see slaves as equal humans for the most part. they still knew it was wrong, hence why they didn't enjoy being slaves themselves or in prison maybe. you'll figure it out in high school.

>until one of us
nope. UTC is universal. that's kind of the point. your baseline cannot be independent when we're talking about objective framing.

>>82261619
Just because you say there was an argument doesn't mean anybody was arguing.

>>82261637
Alright Mr. Objective, I'll leave you to wallow in your stupidity and take tips from a mentally insane nigger stuck in the middle of the desert that almost killed his son because the "Objective Morality" told him to, but hey he was a good Judeo-Christian because he haggled the voices in his head to the low low price of everyone's foreskin.

>>82261664
the irony of you thinking morality somehow comes from a religion or god is utterly hilarious, stupid. who came up with gods, dumbass? LOL

>>82261678
What I am saying is that morality is not objective. There are many ways to skin a hueman. Some go for the tip, some think that is backwards and barbaric. Moral of the story? It is not objective, DUMBASS.

>>82261689
>the concept of barbarism has something to do with morality
are you a woman?

>>82261712
Are you an imbecile?

>>82261764
you're the idiot who thinks there is any moral ambiguity to skinning a human, absolute peak retard.

>>82261773
You are either trolling, stupid, but most likely both. The point I'm making is that everyone has their opinions on how to inflict force. Some people cut your hands for stealing an apple for example.

>>82261773
There is moral ambiguity to skinning a human. There is simply no one right way to do it and that is the fucking point. It is SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE fucking retard.

>>82261796
>some people know that stealing is wrong
wow it's almost like you are starting to learn something. i already addressed the "opinion" part of how to deal with the realities of right and wrong.

riddle me this, cuckbrain. is someone who is severely brain damaged to the point that they cannot physically function "subjectively" unintelligent? or is there some objective reason that you would consider their cognitive function at the lower end of human intelligence?

>>82261804
>ESL clown thinks that the phrase "the right way to do something" is related to morality
bet.

>>82261773
>skinning a human
I meant it more as a metaphor, but I guess an idiot wouldn't understand the distinction.

>>82261824
Yeah you were probably also the moron who randomly started babbling about your religion.

>>82261810
(*imbecile uses fallacious reasoning to pivot to another argument that has nothing to do with his defense of muh objective morality*)

>>82261845
>being a zoomer who believes in moral relativism in 2025 after already seeing what happens to that belief system.

>>82261832
Okay, let me try to take you seriously. What basis if any do you have for saying morality is objective besides the bullshit you pull out your ass?

>>82261853
It's not really a belief system, but if it is it is one informed by the fact of many different cultures and traditions each with their own opinion on how to properly skin a hueman bean.

>>82261857
On the basis that it's programmed into our genes and how our cells function at a lower level, and it's core to how society operates at a higher level.

It's not programmed into the external universe so you can use meme language to diverge into a trillion conversations of where to draw the actual lines and why you don't necessarily get punished by divine laws or nature or why some people need spirituality to guide them, but my example is that people know the basics of right and wrong from birth. My kids knew it, my friends kids knew it, I was thinking in those terms when I was a kid before I heard any moral lessons, etc. There are boundaries that apply to moral agency and we know the direction of what is right and what is morally wrong. We can also justify doing wrong for a million reasons which can cloud the discussion of why doing good is important or meaningful. Without getting into the weeds, yes you can have a subjective framework of why something is "more wrong" within an objective framework of wrong is wrong, no matter who you are. If you point to a dead body and say that it's can subjectively still be alive, you'd be objectively wrong. But maybe it's more dead than some other body.

>>82261872
you would actshually be surprised why people do the skining of their enemies and trophies. i guess you are agreeeing with me.

>>82261899
David Hume rejects objective morality, arguing instead that moral judgments are based on subjective sentiments our emotional responses of approval and disapproval rather than objective facts or reason. He believed that when we examine actions like murder, we find only motives, thoughts, and physical details, not an inherent quality of "wrongness". For Hume, morality arises from our human capacity for sympathy and shared emotional sensibilities, which, while not rooted in objective truths, provide a basis for a functioning social order.

>>82261091 (OP)
You really really love that picture and that post. You are obsessed with it.
> They can't for a second fathom that the world might be inconsistent, irrational and ruthless.
If you study animals and nature in general you learn this shit pretty quickly.

>>82262018
>David Cum claims that the child-parent relationship is not objective, for the sperm and the egg could just mysteriously come from any random place in the universe, there is no biological process that objectively creates life i think

>>82262040
>If you study animals and nature in general you learn this shit pretty quickly.
I guess not all do.

>>82262056
Yes, somehow this "process" means objective morality to you, right? Forget all the unwanted babies tossed into a fucking dumpster or yeeted into the canyon. Remember, it was moral for the Spartans to practice eugenics after all.

>>82262081
No I was just quoting David Cum who said that there's no reason to believe that human babies come from sperm or eggs.

>>82262058
Most people dont even know where there food comes from. City slickers are normies.

>>82262040
>You really really love that picture and that post. You are obsessed with it.
Yes, because it says it how it is so clearly. It cuts through all the bullshit post hoc rationalizations for why some people get fucked and others live well.

>>82262140
Well to be fair, they fucked themselves usually but it's the same message. Once you fuck your life too much, it's over.