ITT: things that whitey thinks is immoral but we yellows think is just

>killing all drug users
>bad

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs
bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-36738682
youtube.com/watch?v=jmWnO0ZWnCc
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>putting political dissidents in concentration camps
>bad

Clearly you don't know Ireland all that well little yellow man

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs

Kneecapping dealers erryday. I know dealers who've been drove out of the country by the IRA.

Since when is the punishment for using drugs in Korea death?

>korea trying to make people think he is flip, which he normally hates

Thats just cos the ira want to take over the drug business

If weed became legal in Japan their animus would enter the 6th dimension.

>a modern use for the IRA
I wish them every success.

Aren't other IRA factions funded by drug dealing though?

what if im asian but i live in the us. My parents are from Thailand

>someone does something that has no impact on you whatsoever
>"let's kill 'em"

They were also doing business with infamous Boston organized criminal and well known drug trafficker Whitey Bulger to smuggle weapons. Not very consistent if you ask me.

they take out other drug dealers and deal drugs themselves

If you think the IRA are funded by drugs your very wrong

>lol wtf everyone is on drugs and doesn't know how to function
>how'd this happen haha

DUDE

Multiple IRA factions are heavily involved in the drug trade.

WED

>implying everyone is on drugs
>implying in non-urban cesspits drug users aren't shunned or otherwise shamed into their own little worlds where no one interacts with them expect other drug using degenerates

매일 써.

they are kind of hypocrites though

you know they will let ones stay who give them a cut of the drug profit

i would do the same thing though because its easy shekels

m8...

That's because those dealers are competition

I hate to use an overused term, but recreational drugs are for degenerates.

Yes, I agree. But other people being degenerates is no concern of mine unless they fuck with me - it's completely irrelevant.

Then you get good grads and have favorable odds of getting into an upper tier college.

t. pothead

I don't disagree with you, gook.

Liberalism was a mistake.

>things are only unjust or immoral if they personally affect me or another discrete individual
>I do not care about society at large, its effect on he collective, nor its effect on future generations.
Wew lad.

>seasoning food

t. crystal ball reader
I find it funny since I've not so much as touched a drug in my life or been drunk even once, yet I'm assumed a pothead just because I don't want people to be assaulted for fucking up their own lives. Hilarious.

>everyone is responsible for everyone else's immorality and dumbfuckery
wew lad, tone down the collectivism

Fuck off US colony scum, North Korea is still best Korea

>boil man's best friend alive
>bad

>>everyone is responsible for everyone else's immorality and dumbfuckery
Yes, we are, at least to a reasonable degree.
Civilization and society are a collective effort, it is utterly arrogant to presume that pretending men are independent atoms will lead to a satisfactory outcome, let alone that it won't lead to cancerous degeneration of society generations down the line.

Individualism, in the most pure and base sense of the word, is for those that refuse to have accountability for their people and their society, and see fit to leave our future to the blind hand of natural process.
It is lazy at best, sociopathic most commonly, and misanthropic at worst.

>Yes, we are
So when a nigger rapes or kills your niece, you're responsible for that.

While the nigger is predominately responsible (he is the one who acted in the first place); yes, I am.
I could have been more attentive, or more safe.
My niece could have been more attentive, or more prepared to defend herself.
That nigger could have been above a life of crime if any other of innumerably many variables were different.
Niggers could have been expunged from the nation in the first place decades ago, or might never have been here had there been no slavery.

The niggers is 99% responsible for his actions, but ultimately it is the environment that created the nigger, or that causes my niece to not be safe enough, and so on.

Of course, this is not an argument for having pity towards the nigger; The lion is an animal, nothing more or less; that does not mean we should not kill it for attacking men.

>yes, I am
So why don't we put you in prison with the nigger?

>all this Irish

Are you willfully ignoring the rest of my post, or just trolling?

We imprison criminals for actions, not others ultimately assisting that criminal in some way.
Should we imprison his mother for giving birth to him, since he would eventually go on to be a murderer? No, of course not.
Regardless, however, he is still a product of his mother, of society, and the terribly unfortunate outcome of that crime is also a result of me not being their to defend my niece, nor my niece being able to defend herself.

>not others ultimately assisting that criminal in some way
I'm pretty sure we punish people who are responsible for crimes. An accomplice in a murder goes to court and is punished. You are telling me explicitly you are an accomplish in the hypothetical nigger's crime given you are responsible (magically) for what the nigger did.
If a person is a deterministic product of their environment, I don't know in what world that person can be morally culpable for *anything* they do. Yet you're telling me they are while *simultaneously* maintaining that *so is EVERYONE else* in the universe, yet the nigger should be treated differently for some reason than those other people.

>white people

Leave it to potato nogs to fail reading comprehension.

you niggers (asians) are more racist than white people! but your smart, you keep your mouths shut and just open business in black neighborhoods. white people talk to much and make less money. good tactics yellow user.

>funding violent gangs
>DUDE IT HAS NO IMPACT ON YOU GROW UP LMAO BLAZE IT
Retards like you deserve to be hanged.

tiocfaidh ar la

Our day will come, what a glorious day for Ireland's fighting sons

Tiocfaidh ar la

We will be free, Ireland, our lord and liberty

This is now an IRA thread

The IRA are a joke now.

Kill people who are extorted by the mafia too then, since them working and making money funds the mafia.

sick nasheed bro

>An accomplice in a murder goes to court and is punished.
Is the man who legally sold a gun to someone who then goes on to commit a shooting an accomplice?

>If a person is a deterministic product of their environment, I don't know in what world that person can be morally culpable for *anything* they do
Where did I say anything about determinism? Unless you want to start getting into whether or not free will exists or not (which is a meaningless question with a meaningless answer, but I will assume that free will does exist), a person is still a product (or at least heavily influenced) by their environment.
They still must make decisions based on their values, perceived costs, and perceived benefits, but those values and perceptions are shaped by their environment over their entire life.

Had that nigger never been born, he wouldn't have committed that murder. Had he been raised properly, he wouldn't have committed that murder. Has I been their to defend my niece, his murder would have been unsuccessful. Any number of things could have gone differently to have prevented this murder from happening, or to mitigate the chances of succeeding.
The only reason he is punished is because he is the one that ultimately made the decision on whether or not to kill, and while he and his decision are ultimately influenced by his environment, punishing those who do take those actions is an effective potential cost to dissuade them from taking that action in the first place.

Spoiler: I know, but it wasn't always that way

:(

Yeah busy getting btfo by the kinahan gang
The faggots that tried to muscle in. feeling hard because muh continuity IRA; their leader was assasinated and his little brother was gunned down in his car few weeks ago
Continuity IRA is to the IRA what skinheads are to nazis and inbred hillbillies to americans; not to mention they got cucked and again gunned down for supplying weapons for the hotel shooting from earlier this year

I know we are based.

Great analysis of the IRA splinter groups, thoroughly entertaining post, lots of cuck rhetoric. I like it. Could you provide me with more insight? Irish American here!

boy at my school got kneecapped last year, bled out in the front garden while the family were in the house. Norn Iron obviously. you know they just sell drugs themselves? paras are full of lowlife chavs who have are uneducated and unemployable, hence they do this and pretend to be heroes to someone...

*boy at my schools dad

>someone walks around the streets on meth
>someone drives drunk
>kids get raised in a druggy household and ends up another criminal
>lol just wait until he does kill your kids, prevention is oppressive and we're all islands until someone stabs you

>Is the man who legally sold a gun to someone who then goes on to commit a shooting an accomplice?
I'm asking you that question. Where does "accomplish" start and "not-accomplice" end if *ANYONE AND EVERYONE* is responsible for the stupid nigger's actions? They're all responsible - why aren't they punished? Where is the justice for the mother of your niece when everyone in the world who was also responsible for the murder of her daughter doesn't get even a slap on the wrist?

>I will assume free will exists, but a person is still a product of their environment
Utterly incompatible views. Compatibalist "free will" isn't free will at all.

>Had that nigger never been born, he wouldn't have committed that murder
Correct.
>Had he been raised properly, he wouldn't have committed that murder
Incorrect. He may have committed that murder no matter how he was raised. But these points are just more chatter poised around a kind of environmental determinism that I have no reason whatsoever to accept as true.

>he is the one that ultimately made the decision
We punish tons of people who didn't "ultimately make the decision" in life constantly. And here you are, telling me that *EVERYONE* shares responsibility for *EVERYONE ELSE'S ACTIONS*, yet you seem completely against the idea of punishing them. What does punishment or justice even mean to you?

Forcing people to integrate and not putting up with stupid religious bullshit.

bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-36738682

>Where does ... actions?
Ideally, it would depend on intent.
Did that gun-shop owner intend to sell that nigger a gun so he could shoot my niece?
Did that nigger's mother give birth to that nigger with the intent that he'd kill my niece?
Did I willfully and negligently ignore my niece's safety?

>They're all responsible - why aren't they punished?
Who says they're equally responsible?
Is someone who donates ten dollars to Clinton as responsible as someone who donates ten million towards potentially getting her elected?

>Utterly ... will at all.
If you are born in Saudi Arabia, you are most likely to be raised Muslim.
You are likely to be taught Muslim and Arab values from the moment of your birth, all through your childhood, and all through your life from before you were even sapient, to when you were mentally mature and beyond.
You had no choice in where you were born, and all of your further thought from thereon is through the bias of the culture and environment you were raised in.

>Incorrect. ... he was raised.
Possibly, but had his family been a nice middle class nuclear family in the safe suburbs who drove him to chess club, he may have turned out an entirely different man.

Humans are ultimately entirely the product of their environment, of their memories, of their subconscious analyzation of those memories, of their experiences. Ultimately, however, all action is caused by someone deciding what to do based on what they know, and that decision making is sometimes faulty, or sometimes in opposition to decisions that others have made.

>We punish ... constantly.
Could I have an example?

>What ... to you?
Creating a suitably high potential cost for an action that we don't want to occur relative to anyone who might do so, and carrying out that cost as a further disincentive to those who might do the same.
Executing the nigger that killed my neice won't bring her back, but it will show other niggers that murder gets you killed.

I only really know what every Tom, Dick and Harry does over there
Two crime families are at war; Continuity IRA and other IRA groups still publicly operating are in the business of drug dealing, providing weapons and extortion
They were meant to be providing protection and weapons for the Hutch gang and did their job with the regency hotel attack, however since they have been btfo (Ryan's little brother was shot dead sitting outside his kid's school after just being released from prison) the man who supplied the guns to the hutches has since been killed.
The kinahans who are at the other side are one of the most powerful and notorious cartels GLOBALLY, supply most of the gear entering the UK and opperate out of costa del sol in spain to stay off the grid.
>youtube.com/watch?v=jmWnO0ZWnCc

뭔 잡소리야
said worst portugal
doing things our way.

It's not.
It's just like, a trillion years in prison. SK shits on drug dealing even harder than the US does.

You can't judge intent. You're existentially incapable. A person can confess to an evil intent and have had none whatsoever, or a person can deny intent and be acquitted while having been guilty of wicked intent all along and you'd never be able to discern in either case.

It doesn't matter the proportion of responsibility for an evil (I don't know in what world you could ever quantify that to begin with) - if someone is responsible for an evil they're responsible for it. If they're not punished, then what does your "responsibility" even do? You're not willing to act on it. It seems to me it means nothing at all except "please feel as if what other people is do is your fault so we can all feel like we're together (happy face)". Which is not something I'm going to take seriously in the least.

There's no likelihood of anything. You are something or you aren't. Something is or it isn't. There's no such thing as probability given that. That's a very real, old, and valid philosophical stance, and if that's one's position your conjecture about environmental determinism functioning around likelihood of circumstances is irrelevant - people are who they are. They're not who they're not. And none of that is determined by their environment.

Saying
>had his family been a nice middle class nuclear family in the safe suburbs who drove him to chess club, he may have turned out an entirely different man
is the equivalent of saying "if he was a different person he'd be a different person", which is rubbish in that it tells you absolutely nothing important. *Of course* if someone weren't oneself they wouldn't be oneself.

>Could I have an example?
A woman who lives with her boyfriend who is a previously convicted felon overhears him talking about wanting to murder another man constantly. He asks her some time to go through the process of getting a gun. She does. One day he storms into the home asking for the gun and yelling about how he's going to kill that man. cont-

yes, a man is responsible for protecting his family.
if a nigger rapes his niece, that means he has failed to protect his family.
he is not guilty of the crime. the nigger is. but he is guilty of failing to protect his family.

regarding drugs: drug dealers bring misery and degeneracy to society for the sake of making money. their activity has a big negative impact on society, and serves as a catalyst for a ton of other antisocial and criminal behavior. punishing them harshly is a just cause.

Testimony is unclear about what exactly happens next, but a grand jury (say this case came to them after an appeals process convicting the women of being an accessory of murder) finds sufficient grounds for the charge and the women is sentenced to prison. She did not "ultimately make the decision" to kill anyone. The man did. She's still punished.

>yes, a man is responsible for protecting his family
So I'm responsible for the death of my father during my undergrad years at the hands of a thug sixty miles away. Is that right?

Having inferior penises

>killing all Muslims Christians and Jews
>bad

Killing gook drug users is fine b/c ant people are replaceable cogs

Killing white drug users is immoral b/c even white druggies have potential and worth

Torturing your food right before you eat it to heighten the sensations you feel as you eat it's freshly killed carcass

nigger stop trying to jew us. we both know that you know exactly what we're talking about.

Eating dogs.
Stepping on puppies & kittens with high heals.

Yep. Kill yourself tripfag

>forced to give up money to gangs =/= give gangs money for illicit substances
potheads really are this retarded

>a nigger is alive, and then he gets killed
>bad

>You can't judge intent. You're existentially incapable.
We need not be, only reasonably certain.

> It seems to me it means nothing at all except "please feel as if what other people is do is your fault so we can all feel like we're together (happy face)". Which is not something I'm going to take seriously in the least.
But it's true; everyone is influenced by their environment, and everyone else is part of the environment. People are not atoms, they are not islands; they just aren't.

>There's no likelihood of anything. You are something or you aren't. Something is or it isn't.
Sure it is, at least when taken according to other data. Does anyone grow up knowing that they will commit a particular crime? Are people perfectly rational beings, with no element of probability or chance in their thought? Are men not subject to passion?

>is the equivalent of saying "if he was a different person he'd be a different person", which is rubbish in that it tells you absolutely nothing important. *Of course* if someone weren't oneself they wouldn't be oneself.
The concept of oneself is always in the past; you are constantly changing. Every new experience, every new memory, and every thought on that experience, on that memory, on that though, and on that thought and on that thought, changes who you are.
No one is destined to become a particular person, but their are most certainly likely paths of development that can be manipulated as too avoid unfortunate states of mind.

>She did not "ultimately make the decision" to kill anyone. The man did. She's still punished.
She still made the decision to procure the gun for that man, knowing full well that he had the intent to kill that man, and that is enough to consider her an accomplice in his murder.
Also, there's something to be said about procuring a weapon for a known felon in itself, even if he had not made his intentions known.

>And none of that is determined by their environment.

Brilliance demonstrated.

It's right they're not equivalent, but the basis of what the guy is saying isn't that it's the drug users giving money that's bad, it's what the gangs are doing with it. Otherwise he'd have (and presumably you'd have) no objection with drug users buying from completely non-violent gangs.

thanks op, I now have a file in my computer called "chinkpepe"

Hey dipshit if weed is legal recreationally (which Emperor Trump has stated he will allow) it's funding the government and small businesses instead of violent games. Fucking double standards when mother fuckers still drink alcohol and claim other drugs to be intrinsically more degenerate. Grow up or get the fuck off Sup Forums your cancer isn't needed here and I'm not going to allow you to spread your ignorance on this board of mainly good people intent on bettering society.

>Otherwise he'd have (and presumably you'd have) no objection with drug users buying from completely non-violent gangs.
Violent gangs aren't the problem, it's the drugs themselves and the attitudes they spread and foster amongst the population that is truly concerning.

Why is it good if it's for the sake of small business? It's still weed.
Also, alcohol is degenerate.
Also, >on this board of mainly good people intent on bettering society
>intent on bettering society
Hah

That being said, MAGA my brother.

You can't be reasonably certain. You're making a complete guess, which is anything *but* certain, and certainly not reasonable.

I have no relation to you. What you do is entirely your responsibility. I may choose to interact with you. You may choose to interact with me. Neither of us is obligated to, and when we're not interacting we can't even possibly have responsibility for what the other is doing.
I'll ask again - what is your "responsibility" even *doing*?

>Sure it is
I demonstrated that it isn't. Something is or isn't. Something will be or it won't be. Those are 100% tautological truths, and they leave no room whatsoever for the existence of any possibility outside true/false. Which means likelihood as a concept doesn't exist, since 100% or 0% don't allow for likelihoods, only certainties.

"The concept of oneself" is one's identity, and a person is identical only to that person's soul. Soul = identity = essence. A person is essentially oneself. The environment is irrelevant to identity.

>knowing full well that he had the intent to kill that man
Did she? What if she'd thought he was lying all along and that he'd never do it? That state of affairs would make your statement objectively false.

killing a Starcraft cheater

>Violent gangs aren't the problem

Kill first all who sells it!

Them when the market it's empty the drugadicts would return to normal.

I'm an Asian drug user. I barely consider weed a drug nowadays, I hope it gets legalized in the US soon. I really hope the western world doesn't get consumed by the backwardness of the Middle East or Asia.

I'm leaving to China for a few months for work. Christ, I hope they don't fucking kill me if they somehow pull a fucking microgram of grass off a shirt I didn't wash.

I can agree that recreation drugs are probably essentially degenerate but prohibition, and the modern era have essentially proved that banning weed or alcohol is extremely ineffective. Trump himself said "The war on drugs has failed miserably" There is a lot less degeneracy surrounding an activity that doesn't have to be done illegally in secret. If it was out in the open we would know the degenerates from the good people and we could openly shun them.

>being blatant ethnonationalists and not caring what minorities think

only israel comes close

This back and forth is really boring. The entire problem is that literally every response each of you has given has been filled with Strawman fallacy. C'mon son it's the top of Sup Forums everytime you open it.

>You can't be reasonably certain. You're making a complete guess
I'm guessing you think that the entire legal system and that psychology is nothing more than a guess as well, then?

>I'll ask again - what is your "responsibility" even *doing*?
Hopefully fostering a sense of civic obligation of oneself to one's fellows and nation.

>I demonstrated ... won't be.
You assume that the universe is deterministic, which it is most likely not.
In any case, even if it was, something will be or won't be only from the perspective of an omniscient observer; from our perspective, the future is fluid and ever changing. Regardless if our actions are already set in stone in an attempt to change the future, from our perspective and our knowledge, we are writing our own future.

Wrong, a person is their mind; nothing more, and nothing less. They are their thoughts and memories, and all the little subconscious quirks that color those thoughts.
>A person is essentially oneself.
Only for that instant; a minute later they are a new person, so infinitesimally changed by new thought and new memory, and the person that existed a minute ago is nothing more than a memory.
New thought is, for the most part, derived from new experience. New experience comes from the environment.
A child is born in India, and is flown to either America or Japan. Would they be the same person when they grow up, in either possibility?
A man is at a fork in the road; on the left is a million dollars, and to the right is an extremely romantically compatible woman.
Is he the same man, a few years down the line, having chosen only one path?

>Did she? What if she'd thought he was lying all along and that he'd never do it?
Then that was a gross misstep in thought on her part, and if she can reasonably explain why she thought he was lying, then perhaps she can get off the hook for that.
Still doesn't change the fact that she procured a weapon for a felon, weather or not he killed someone.

The chinks got that one right.

You violate the law, the law violates you.

>Implying is a push and not a pull demand
Iñaqui pls

That's why we must target the demand for drugs, and not the supply of it.
Shunning isn't enough if someone doesn't care, because then they are still a potential influence on future, potential drug users.

Also, check em

Dayumm respect for trips. But what do you reccomend we do to end the degeneracy? I'm with the movement if you have an effective method of handling it.

>westerners criticize china after going after terrorists (literally bbqing them) for mass knife attacks and suppressing the muslim region of xinjiang.
>no fucking around with drugs dealers/smugglers
>Using authoritarian governments to improve economic conditions

Well, there is always what the Phillipinos are doing; execution, but I personally consider that a bit too heavy handed.

DARE was an example of what could have been done, except it was terribly mismanaged and just generally caused even more interest in drugs thanks to its retarded souther-sex-ed tier education.

A preferable solution would be to simply change peoples minds so that they don't want to do drugs; foster a culture that celebrates sobriety and rationality, rather than hedonism and new sensual experience.
That, however, falls under the purview of social engineering (if it's to be done in any effective manner), so that could ultimately also be considered as immoral as just straight up execution, depending on your viewpoint.

It is. You appealing to authority/tradition in trying to validate your faith in it won't do away with the objective fact that people can't make 100% certain judgements, and "the entire legal system and psychology" are just people making judgments. They may be right. They may be wrong. I won't put my faith in them because.

>Hopefully fostering a sense of civic obligation of oneself to one's fellows and nation
Ad hoc constructions aren't respected in philosophy for a reason. I think it's a manipulative lie to try and convince people they're responsible for what other people do when they simply aren't.

>You assume that the universe is deterministic
I don't have to assume anything for an a priori logical tautology to be true. Either A or not-A. It's true period.
Our perspective is irrelevant to truth. Utterly irrelevant.

>Wrong
Not wrong. A person is their soul and are essentially themselves. Their perspectives and memories are, once again, irrelevant.

>Then that was a gross misstep in thought on her part
"Gross misstep"? Really? What if the two men constantly hung out, were friendly, and bantered "Oh you faggot I'm gonna kill you hahahaha" constantly? What if they appeared to be best friends and she thought it all along that is was nothing more than a big joke? Is it only a "misstep" in hindsight? Consequentialist drivel.
>procured a weapon for a felon
Or she got it entirely for herself, and her boyfriend stole it from the case one night and neither she nor him wanted to admit it ;)
Either way - she's punished.

>You appealing to authority/tradition in trying to validate your faith in it won't do away with the objective fact that people can't make 100% certain judgements
You're right, they can't.

Have fun living in abstract objective philosophy land; I'll be out here in the real world.

>Ad hoc constructions aren't respected in philosophy for a reason.
Who says I was trying to be philosophically rigorous? I honestly don't give a shit about rationally derived philosophies, simply because they don't survive contact with the real world.

>I think it's a manipulative lie to try and convince people they're responsible for what other people do when they simply aren't.
People are responsible if they believe they are responsible, and it's up to them to decide whether they believe that or not, based on people like me and you trying to convince them otherwise.

It's more useful for people to believe they are responsible, and people in this case means everyone, including me.

>A person is their soul and are essentially themselves.
The soul doesn't exist. A person is their mind (or can be approximated as such), and is a constantly changing, malleable state of being. The self is not continuous, only infinitesimally fine.

>Is it only a "misstep" in hindsight?
Pretty much, and even then, I would believe she would be absolved of blaim. If she can reasonably prove herself, that is.

>Or she got it entirely for herself, and her boyfriend stole it from the case one night and neither she nor him wanted to admit it ;)
You think the police couldn't figure out if the safe was broken into or not?

You've retreated so far up your clean, perfect, philosophical ass that you've forgotten what reality is like, and what people are like.
You do know that cows aren't spherical, correct?

stop chewing on johnson

>why don't you have faith in other people
>"because they're idiots"
>lol have fun living in philosophy land xD
So convincing.

>Who says I was trying to be philosophically rigorous?
Not me ever.

>I honestly don't give a shit about rationally derived philosophies
And I don't give a shit about sentimentalist collectivist commie guilt-driven dumbfuckery. I figured this would be a waste of time, and I figured correctly - collectivists *hate* logic. Bye.

>So convincing.
Too bad, son, you're gonna have to be dealing with people for the rest of your life. Better to think of ways to mitigate their stupidity than pretending they aren't stupid.

>Not me ever.
Neither did I

>And I don't give a shit about sentimentalist collectivist commie guilt-driven dumbfuckery.
Thankfully, people with the same mindset of you are rare. It'd be shame to see what becomes of humanity if everyone were so selfish and cynical as you.
>commie
How rude.

Have a good night, tripfag.

Affects my etire country men