• Stop coping, and start posting. Register an account in order to gain full access to Lookism's features.

i dont actually hate anyone

sadburger

Regular
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
1,049
Reputation
136
because the conventional concept of individual agents with free will breaks down when you realize how everything is determined by physical causes and that our brains aren't a special exception from the causal network of the universe.

people dont have any fundamental control or freedom over who they are or what they do.

ive realized for a while that hatred of people is irrational and a needlessly emotional response.

its not nts fault that they hate me or treat me like shit for example.

this means the kind of 'retribution' aspect of the death sentence kind of fades away too, it would only really be to deter crime.

if i grew up somewhere in the middle-east i could well have ended up an islamic terrorist myself, indoctrination is powerful and i wouldnt know any different. most people that blow themselves up are just normal people under the influence of a barbaric and primitive culture and brain-washed into toxic belief systems.

even if someone just happens to be 'inherently evil' or jerkish though, they do not exist as a thing that really warrants any hatred per se, they are just a product of nature.

i still believe punishment for crimes is necessary though obviously and that people have a basic moral responsibility for their actions still
 

RememberMew

Regular
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
1,876
Reputation
4
ugly_mong said:
The surest way to being a miserable pushover cuck is to disregard the primal part of the brain in favor for the intellectual part and strive for a "fair" and "objective" philosophical system that benefits everyone equally. 

All that matters is the perception and experience of the individual from a first person perspective. Worrying about benefiting the collective is something only the losers of society do. 

Individuals are not supposed to be rational, they're supposed to mindlessly & selfishly act on their instincts and emotions and strive for immediate short term gratification and attaining the greatest possible benefit for themselves. 

Morality is an agent for self preservation against the potential consequences of selfishness. And since man is a social animal empathy is ingrained in their nature and caring for others is implicit to self fulfillment. 

If a guy breaks into the store to feed his kids, is he wrong? Is the shopkeeper wrong for shooting the guy breaking into his store? Are either of them wrong for hating the other? It's irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is who can attain the highest possible benefit for himself and defend his own interests. There is no universal right or wrong. Only the individual exists. 

So ultimately trying to place yourself above the human experience and above the individual is pointless and counter productive and will just make you a weak complacent overly tolerant beta male. It's exactly what liberals do.

Assuming scarcity of resources I couldn't agree more. But assuming the opulence and unfathomably top heavy economy of America? Nah. We could reduce so much human suffering while inflicting minimal damage to human pleasure just by moving some numbers around in a thoroughly calculated way.
 

RememberMew

Regular
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
1,876
Reputation
4
ugly_mong said:
I definitely don't believe in government interference at all. Everyone should have the right to make and own as much money as they possibly can. Whether it's 1 million or 1 billion, they don't owe anyone else one single dime. I agree with what you said, but it should still be their own choice to do so or not.

The issue here is also that the left and the poor are spiteful and entitled and self righteous with their whole "the 99% is good, the 1% bad" attitude, and expecting handouts and unfair taxation. That causes the counterproductive knee jerk reaction of the rich wanting to defend what's rightfully theirs. Forcing people into being generous and demanding philanthropy is the surest way to make them greedy.

Do you even believe that laws or government should exist?

[video=youtube]
That would probably be the best long-term solution to poverty. The second best would be covert chemical sterilization of poor communities. However, since neither of those things are going to happen I feel that the government should intervene on a more altruistic level.

If we have a new island nation of 100 people and one of them comes up with the best way to run shit, the other 99 work for him now. He gets a shitload while everyone else gets shit. I'm actually kind of okay with that. Where it gets fucked up is when these people start having children. The children of the one (well, two) will have fruitful, easy lives through no merit of their own while the children of the 98 are essentially doomed to slavery through no fault of their own. Economic anarchy leads to what is basically an oligarchic monarchy, which creates a society that is both full of misery and needlessly stagnant. If someone who had the genetic potential to be anything doesn't have a large enough vocabulary when their age hits double digits there are now a lot less things that kid can become. Given that menial labor should be mostly automated within the century we will no longer need kids to grow up to be ditch-digging nobodies.

Of course, I'm making the assumption that humanity should endure. I'm assuming you don't think it matters whether the species continues or not. And of course, universally speaking, you'd be right. But that level of objectivity is pointless because philosophy is executed by humans. The human perspective should be the one we value most because that's how thought can serve us best.
 

RememberMew

Regular
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
1,876
Reputation
4
ugly_mong said:
Yes I do. But I'm very ambivalent about it, because what I would expect from the government is not realistic or economically viable, so ultimately you always end up with the same broken system. Then there's also human nature, game theory etc. I don't really have the answer.

I added some rambling above.

Pessimism makes the possible impossible. Remember that humanity has made incredible advances within a relatively short time frame.
 

SWERVE

Rotter
Joined
May 27, 2016
Messages
2,693
Reputation
1,073
@"ugly_mong" many of the top 1% made their fortunes exploitatively and unfairly. I have absolutely no problem w/ income inequality if it's an actual reflection of the inequality of talent distribution in the population. I do have a problem w/ income inequality when it's systemic and hereditary and not a reflection of merit.
 

RememberMew

Regular
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
1,876
Reputation
4
SWERVE said:
@"ugly_mong" many of the top 1% made their fortunes exploitatively and unfairly. I have absolutely no problem w/ income inequality if it's an actual reflection of the inequality of talent distribution in the population. I do have a problem w/ income inequality when it's systemic and hereditary and not a reflection of merit.

My conciseness could use some work.
 
Top