Is he right?

Is he right?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=XdoUT0Sdyac
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I can barely fucking read the bottom part, why are Tumblrcunts so fucking retarded? Also he's right, morality and good and evil are spooks.

"And those too weak to seek it"

Technically, yes. Assuming there is no God or gods, then the only true constant above man is nature. No matter how much man becomes advanced he will always just be a human animal. Therefore, the ultimate moral/law/principal that truly governs man is the Law of Nature. The weak die so the strong survive. Evolution.

By natural law, there is no good nor evil. A hyena is not bad for "stealing" the kill of a lion. A gorilla is not bad for killing a rival, killing that rival's babies and eating them and then taking the females and impregnating them all.

Yes. If you're dead, your moral position is indefensible and irrelevant... because you're dead.

Jeez your so smart anan

crabs in a barrel: the post

...

>There is only... flesh.

What did he mean by this?

Animals are not bad when they do those things because they are not sapient and they are not us.

Any of those things are considered bad were a Human to commit them.

We're animals as animals are plants.

What the FUCK does that mean

It's a reference to eating crabs legs at the cinema.

Good and evil is nothing but selflessness vs selfishness

If dumbledore was there at the end, could he have ended Voldemort?

Ah shit how could i forget the auce crab legs i snuck in in my duffel bag under my prego wifes dress

>weak leftist detected
humans aren't special snowflakes that don't have the rules of evolution apply to them, we play by the same rules as every other organism, you just have to decide if you want to win or lose.

by applying the labels "good" and "evil" to selflessness and selfishness respectively you're implying people shouldn't be selfish, when selfishness is clearly helpful in evolution and thus survival.

It all really depends on the context at which you approach the situation

Many people have power and simply choose not to use it because they prefer the peaceful life. If Chad wasn't content with his trust fund, the internship daddy got for him and partying every Friday and Saturday night, he could be just as ruthless, and he would win because he is superior and has charisma. No one would be willing to follow any of the edgelords and aspies here.

>Any of those things are considered bad were a Human to commit them.

Not during war, conquest and self-defense. Nobody is right nor wrong in war and genocide. War doesn't determine who is right, war only determines who is left. And history is written by the victor.

That is why Nazi Germany is bad for its concentration camps and holocaust against the Jews but the US is not bad for it's concentration camps and nuclear holocaust against the Japanese. Because the US won so they are the self-declared good guys.

This is why it is meaningless to argue about who's land belongs to who between the Native Americans and the whites and the Jews vs Palestine and the Chinese vs Tibetans. Objectively, it belongs to those that won. Nature rewards the strongest, not the kindest.

Moral debates and self-victimization are the arguments of the weak.

So saying "those too weak to seek it" is him, being selfish, saying anything but selfishness is wrong, cowardly, illogical, etc. Thats obviously just his opinion though

No im not implying that. What the hell. Dont project

Typical nihilistic response that equates the human species to animals. Simply not the case, also your leap in logic is baffling. Therefore the ultimate moral principle is nature? On what grounds? Above man? What does that mean? You're so full of shit.

>On what grounds?

>Assuming there is no God or gods,

I just answered this part in my first post. So if you argue that you don't need a God to tell you right from wrong, fair enough. However, if there is no higher power above me then the only higher powers above us is ourselves and nature. You also answered your own question as well.

>Who ARE YOU to tell me right from wrong?

Exactly, so how do we determine who's morality is the right one between us? War. Might IS RIGHT. Who am I to tell you what to believe? The strong one, that's who. Or maybe YOU are the strong one and I have to submit to your will.

Yes, humans are animals. Remember that humans are 99% Chimpanzee? How do chimps solve their problems of morality? War.

I wish they kept Voldemort's voice from the first movie, shit was nightmare fuel.

You're such a retard

The word good comes with baggage, sorry if I misinterpreted you.

explain how humans are not animals, you just say it's "not the case."

...

Predetermination, self actualisation, able to build tools, cities, advanced civilisation, ability to produce art. There are numerous things, we do not simply just live to survive, eat and feed off of our basic instincts.

Honestly... it's not as compelling without the copypasta.

>Predetermination
Pretty big assumption, how do you know this is the case, and even then, assuming you're correct, how does this make us any different from animals?

>self-actualization
Elaborate on how this makes us different than animals

>able to build tools
>cities
>advanced civilization
monkeys use tools, ants build cities, where's the dividing line of "advanced civilization"

>art
monkeys throw poo at walls and it looks better than most Rothko paintings

>we do not simply just live to survive, eat and feed off of our basic instincts
most people actually do. They like it when dopamine tickles their brain and that drives most of their decisions.

Somebody post it

>/lgbt/eftypol/

fuck off pol-tard

>where's the dividing line of "advanced civilization"
Literally at muh fee fees.

It's an even bigger assumption to say that they do have predetermination. It makes us different because we can perceive things, plan for things, internalise things in ways that animals simply cannot outside of the immediate. An elephant does not think about its future, it simply lives.

Self actualisation makes us different because humans strive to achieve goals that aren't inherently linked to hedonistic pleasure. A philosophical study found that most human beings would reject living in a virtual world of eternal pleasure and dopamine fixes because it would not fulfill their goals in the real world.

Monkeys don't hunt with tools, obviously ants have cities but they aren't on the same level obviously.

You're making a blanket generalisation about "most people". Obviously dopamine drives our decisions but the more important question is why it drives our decisions. Reproduction is part of it sure, but it also serves purposes that are not inherently animalistic.

How come Voldy had a nose here? Also, I never read the books, and it's been forever since I watched these movies, but how did he go from being on the back of dude's head, to being the fetus thing in Goblet of Fire?

>"dude power is all that matters lmao"
>people find power by working together for a common goal
>"TH-THATS CHEATING!"

Because that's just how they designed it in the first one. Voldemort is supposed to resemble a snake. When he gets his disfigured body back it looks like a snake because he had done that to his body with the dark magic and he's the heir of slytherin

youtube.com/watch?v=XdoUT0Sdyac

>that acting

wew

magic

Of course not, that's literally something lonely fedoras think. Look at Voldemort, the lamest villain ever, doesn't it spell it out for you?

no, moral relativism is not considered legitimate

But Voldemo had no problem working together with his terrorist cell to take over britain, he wasn't quite as autistic as you.

He's right in the sense that if you really are a sociopath there's nothing stopping you from doing whatever the fuck you want outside of practicality (but they're in fantasy land so of course practicality is whatever the author wants it to be)

On the other hand Rowling has admitted the story is basically just a book about "a mother's love" so it's only pitting Harry against the "absolute evil" where his only super power is that his mom loved him.

Isn't the whole point of this movie franchise that love, friendship and sacrifice can defeat anything

>Isn't the whole point of this movie franchise that love, friendship and sacrifice can defeat anything

It's more like love, friendship, and sacrifice equal power.

It's a coming of age story really.
Voldemort was just a euphemism for defeating your inner demons being an orphan and becoming an adult.

what kind of monumental fuck nugget would even BAIT a list as bad as this?

I Hope you realize how edgy this Sounds.

The kind that shitpost on here 24/7

edginess is a spook