Hey pol

Its early as fuck and i am bored fuck lets get some kind of debate going

KYS YOURSELF

okay.

topic number 1: is OP a faggot?

It's wrong to violently force people who haven't hurt you or really had anything to do with you at all to comply with your arbitrary dictates.

jews are subhumans yet control everything how is this possible

Aaaa thanks yous guys i appreciate it i feel loved and cared for when i see that people actually comply to my demand for.conversation

Hi Alexandros

Easy they have a lot of money

Hellow kostas how's your morning going

I just had a deja vu
And no work ofc.

Are these the same Pepe?

Get tourism job summer is commin up and its good pay for 3 months from what my greek buddies tell me

Probably not from the lines you can tell the smug pepe is made in ms paint

I meant metaphysically, not artistically.

Yes

Whats so bad about civic nationalism my dudes?

Its like you've never met a Based Black Dude before

Then yes all the pepes are the same pepe because pepe is an individual who has a wide range of emotions and beliefs it is Sup Forums incarnate

Faggots are illegal

Do they exist?

Wtf I love Albania now

Yup met one he moved to america though

Ok, I got you senpai. Here is my proposition. In order for an OBJECTIVE Morality, or idea of right and wrong to exist, there must by necessity exist a supreme being, or God, to make it so. Otherwise all morality is merely a relativistic abstraction.

According to Sup Forums they do

Why need god or supreme being when we can have free market deciding whats wrong

Give one reason why your country has any right to exist as a nation state and shouldn't be partitioned between Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia.

If god exists why aren't we banding together to fight the Muslim threat?

As an addendum to that, an afterlife, or some other state of consciousness that equates to a continuity or awareness after death must exist or else all actions are inherently meaningless and trivial.

Let me answer that with a question why isn't your nation.giving back all the land to indians?

We are divided at home by squatters and niggers.

Question: If you pleasure yourself with a piece of
beef, is it masturbation, bestiality, or necrophilia?

dumb frogposter

Because we basically already have. Look up "Tribal Sovereignty in the United States," it's quite interesting. It's the reason why they're so well known for running Casinos, they aren't accountable to gambling laws, and many other laws. They're basically independent in all matters except self defense and foreign relations.

I believe in God, but bear with me here: think about the creation of man, generally you think of it as God creating Adam, but if you look closely God appears to be surrounded by a heavenly host that could be seen as brain-shaped. So is God creating Adam or is Adam creating God? Whether God in reality is the creator or a creation is a moot pointless to someone with faith, simply following and believing makes their objective morality real in their own individual world

Is Macedonia even a real country?

lets start on the #1 reason macedonia has nothing to do with macedonians
go

Oh wait

1.) fuck niggers and fuck jesus christ

debate this

Hmm. Trying to follow along here, correct me if I'm misinterpreting. You're saying that whether or not a God actually exists is irrelevant to establishing an objective morality, but instead merely faith is necessary?

How does it feel knowing your society was only noteworthy for Philip II and Alexanders reigns

Lolbertarians are a subversive element on par with commies and anarchists, facilitating the downfall of western society and culture.

No.

Maybe they're the REAL master race.

What's the situation like with the albos there is war coming? Should I start preparing to come help fight?

Why does your country have Negro in its name? Are you black?

Why is globalism seen as a bad thing? And racemixing doesn't count

I don't actually believe this shit, but it'll be fun to try and argue for it

Fugg wrong country nvm

Yeah, but I think it could also apply to faith in yourself and your own ability to be unbiased, not necessarily religious stuff

I'm not sure how much sense I'm making I'm getting schleepy

Confidence is important, but I think too much confidence in oneself can be dangerous when taken to a narcissistic extreme. At that point you're crossing the line from objectivism into randian objectivism there.

An objective morality must be governed by logic.

think about what would happen if you made a club of people you trust. everybody trusts each other and operates in each others best self interest and helps each other where they can. there's a lot of faith put into this system so nobody questions each others motives. now, imagine if suddenly you introduced someone to that club who was out to destroy it, capitalize off them, and turn everybody against each other. thats basically what jews do.

>Macedonia

Is that like.. a suburb of Atlantis?

Cuckoldry is the thinking mans fetish.

But what is logical about morality? Most things that have been deemed moral are inherently illogical. There's no "logical" reason not to murder or rape someone if doing so presents no risk to you.

its literally the only country to have ever been founded on LARP

it's true, alas, even I'm wrong from time to time

Morality, being an abstraction nonetheless, relative or objective, exists if and only if it is defined.

Let there be no supreme being. Therefore one may define good to be X and bad to Y, whilst another may define good to be A, and bad to be B. Let the former person be N, and let the latter person be M.

Person N has defined a morality, and so has person M. Therefore each morality exists. However, each morality may contradict each other. Since N and M are equal in divinity, thus equal in moral authority, it is clear that morality is subjective. Thus, without a supreme being, it is clear that morality is subjective, and that objective morality cannot exist without a God. Therefore if such a scenario exists such that objective morality does exist, there must be a supreme being.

QED

Montenegro is a translation of the Serbian word " Crna Gora" or in English Black mountian

There is no requirement for reality to make sense to anyone.

I should also add that the supreme being has the power to define objective morality. This does not mean, however, that a supreme being is necessary for an objective morality

It is completely logical ass-hat...

You don't do it for the same reason a wolf that just munched down a bambi isn't likely to take a bite out of your ass (assuming you aren't harrassing it)... why expose yourself to unnecessary risk.

Furthermore, it's logical in certain societies so as to maintain some kind of social cohesion. Morality is kind of like this matrix of imperatives that trickles down from on high, either by edict or because the lower class emulate them (presumably so that their master, who can provide protection and sustenance, will accept them into the clan/tribe/etc.)

Think about it... why is it not illegal (in countries that haven't been so much so ravaged by liberalism) to kill a home intruder? It doesn't violate those valuations that are held by most members of that society.

see and

Indeed, that sums it up quite nicely, I think.

Since multiple "moralities" could exist, created by human beings, all of which have equal authority, what would define one as being more definitive then the others would be divine proclamation.

Now, here's a little thought experiment. What would happen in the case that there was more then one higher power or divine being, each of them having their own set of morals?

From the ground up logic is the only truth since we define it to be so, it is not a set of rules but a set of principles.
Logic being truth and truth being reality logic is reality, and reality is logical.
Therefor the only goal and the only real state of mind is also logical, conciseness comes from logical thinking, an animal is less conscious not due to lack of emotion which they have plenty but because they can't think logically.
if the goal and logical state of mind is logical thinking on that we shell build our morality.
morality is but logic in that scenario, built to allow the maximum amount of minds to think logically at a time.
Killing is not just wrong, it is illogical therefore it is wrong.

A small example of something that is generally regarded as bad, but it is hard for people to explain the underlying logic behind it is Blackmail.

In most societies it is illegal or regarded as morally wrong to blackmail someone, but the underlying component actions on there own are legal, and both parties are conceivably better off.

For example if someone witnesses their neighbor having an affair with a woman who is not their wife, it would not be illegal to tell that person's wife about it. It is also not illegal for that neighbor to give money to the person who witnessed it. Also if the person would prefer $5,000 to telling that neighbor's wife, that person is better off with the money, and if the neighbor would prefer giving $5,000 to having his wife learn about the affair that neighbor is better off giving the money.

Yet the underlying action of asking for money to refrain from telling the wife, which the telling itself isn't an illegal action, is an illegal action en toto.

we'll they have been part of both Serbian and Bulgarian empires in the past along with Ottoman, we've all just come to call them makedonci because they live in what was Macedonia in the past.
They're bros

Read my post again, I explicitly said "At no risk to yourself."

If you have $50 in your wallet, and I can kill you and take that money with no risk of being caught or punished for it. There's no reason, logically speaking, why I shouldn't do it. The money is useful to me, and your well being doesn't effect my life in the slightest.

this is some supremely divine mental gymnastics
>if we can assume this impossible standard then we can draw the conclusion at god
there is no objective morality, its only something that we can strive to come as close toward as possible. just like in your world everyone is a sinner :)

...

i'm tired of all this testing, i hope they blow themselves

>Since multiple "moralities" could exist, created by human beings, all of which have equal authority, what would define one as being more definitive then the others would be divine proclamation.
That's a good summation of what I wrote
>Now, here's a little thought experiment. What would happen in the case that there was more then one higher power or divine being, each of them having their own set of morals?
Same thing. In order for a set of morals to be objective, there must be divine proclamation in its favor. Take two divine beings each with a morality contradictory to the other; since they are equal in authority, neither can proclaim with justification that their morality is objective. Therefore in such a case morality would be subjective. If a supreme being were introduced, there would be an objective morality insofar as the supreme being defines one and maintains it

Would you rather to be governed by cucks on the other side of the planet or cucks next door

I don't see why you have a problem with this. Its like proof by contradiction in a way, and that's a valid form of proof

Multiple subjective moralities could be made by humans but only one objective and logical one

I can not think of a way in which an objective morality could exist, without a supreme being to declare it so. Even if every person in the universe agreed that a certain action was wrong, that would still not make that an objective morality, merely a proposition that everyone in the universe agrees was immoral.

Similarly even if every person in the universe agreed that the speed of light was exactly 300,000,000 meters per second in a vacuum that would not make it an objective reality that the speed of light was 300,000,000 meters per second in a vacuum.

everyone on earth agreeing that murder is bad isn't valid proof of god you fucking idiot

>Since N and M are equal in divinity, thus equal in moral authority
>Did not prove divinity is an actual thing

user wasn't arguing for "Is there a supreme being?" user was arguing for "can moral objectivity exist without a supreme being?"

The answer is no.

Yeah... I read it. don't blame me for your inability to think critically.

You have the authority to make that call, but there is a risk in the real world that someone will find out, and you will have violated the established moral order.

Now, I realize that you're probably implying (by saying no risk) that no one will find out. I didn't say that this part of your question was stupid either. I had an issue with you saying there is no logical basis for morality. Well, you've proved yourself wrong. You can see that morality is completely logical, because logic is what makes you obey it, when you're in a community (so as not to offend the community, which is the sourcec of your strength). When outside of the community, your "morality" or your valuations change.So no, there isn't really anything stopping you from killing me, only you're logic. (because I'd beat the fuck right outta ya :))

read

No but one person can change his mind and define a new morality. I suppose God could do the same, in which case morality wouldn't be objective at all, I think. I should have stated before that the supreme being is perfect

>I had an issue with you saying there is no logical basis for morality.
I never said there was no logical basis for morality. You must be confusing me with someone else

fuck wrong person

for you.
sorry, typing with on hand(slow), sliced my finger and cut the ligament with an axe last night

yes, morality is typically based on the usefulness and mutual benefaction of people close to each other rather than afar. this is why there can be no objective morality because people everywhere are subject to this bias. none of this touches on god, which is arbitrarily thrown in there despite this very discussion proving his objective morality is bullshit.

wrong person, see

Thier is no objective reality so no objective morality

Because there is no need to prove that it exists. It only needs to be defined, and its definition is evident. It is clear that human beings are equal in divinity since they have no divinity at all

There is literally nothing wrong with being Jewish.

Logic is a human concept, it's man made. Every "concept" is man made, humans are fallible, therefore every concept mankind has conceived up can't be taken as objectively true, because it might all be false, flawed insights into the world around us made by imperfect minds. If we can't be certain that something is objectively true, why should we construct something as important as morality around it?

Also, killing isn't always illogical, sometimes it is, but not always. If your life is threatened by someone else, killing them in self defense is a very logical thing to do. Generally, however, humans are naturally averse to killing because of instinct and culturally influences. But instinct is oftentimes not logical.

yeah, throwing objectivity into the mix only muddies the water. There are certainly "better" moralities, that help foster spiritual or material progress in a society better than other value sets would. ... but to talk of an objective reality to me is basically claiming that you know the "best" morality (human arrogance will tell you most people believe they have it haha)

but dont sell yourself short by saying morality is bullshit... it is neccesary to understand the processes by which we define something as being "morally good / bad because it helps us create a strong and cohessive society

I have a debate Macaroni. Explain to me why the MODS just insta dropped my thread about the vault 7 countdown page changing? Along with the new pic? It happened in less than 30 seconds.....debate me on why the MODS are cucks...

"In the age to come, the master will be the servant, and the servant will be the master"

>Guilty

...

Prove it.

In order for something to be logical, it must be in agreement with the axioms you make, which are true by definition if there is no objective contradictions to them.
>Also, killing isn't always illogical, sometimes it is, but not always
This depends entirely on the axioms you establish regarding ethics. This is not an objective truth. I can postulate that "killing people is good" and it would follow logically follow that I should kill the person next to me

>muh forms

No, only if the assumption is that you want to be good. :)

What exactly do want proved reincarnation or soul?

Oui

Lewd

both