/lit/ - Literature

But can you refute this: ass makes shit

>>19845202
I can call you a fag and I'm right, and you can't reach me through your computer to force me to say otherwise.

>>19845202
If by right you mean "might makes things happen" then yeah. But might can't make objective truth. How could it?

>>19845202
How much can you bench?

>>19845202
>>19845215

feed makes sneed

>>19845202
Stupid fucking frog posting faggot. Shut the fuck up.

>>19845224
Think again

>>19845202

>>19845215
Shit is made in the intestines, the ass is just where it exits the body

>>19845202
If I kill you, then you are wrong.
Alas, you'll also be right.

>>19845202
If might truly makes right why are you guys so worried about scrawny queers and jews ruling the world?

>>19845202
it doesn't. there are laws. laws have more to do with right than might. you're just one single resentful faggot who wants revenge. bitch.

>>19845280

While pee is stored in the balls

>>19845340
What happens if you break the law because you thought it was wrong?
Fucking retard.

>>19845202
Right and wrong in ethics and morality are objective, right and wrong technically and scientifically are objective. This is all independent of what is being enforced by the people in power. Fucking babies, owning people, murder are all objectively wrong independent of the laws and man-made attempts at behavior control have to say about it. A tranny is an extremely mentally ill man in a dress and no amount of forced acceptance will change it. Might doesn't make right, it forces you to accept wrong.

>>19845340
>It doesn't. There are arbitrary rules enforced by people with more force than you that force you to accept them as the measure of objective morality.

Mental fucking retard.

>>19845340
The other guys calling you retarded aren't spelling it out, so I will. Might is what enforces laws.

>>19845202
You are right

>>19845202
You just said that X makes Y not X is Y - if they were different then they would make one another. Unironically read the Gospels - you finished secular philosophy, congrats.

>>19845202
I literally cannot.

>>19845312
because it would be wrong

>>19845462
>A tranny is an extremely mentally ill man in a dress and no amount of forced acceptance will change it
Exactly, they are weak and therefor wrong. I don't have to accept it either.

>>19845491
Pagan philosophy is more aristocratic and therefor superior.

>>19845202
everybody but special subhumans understand that abusing children is wrong even though you're stronger than them.

>>19845354
that's besides the point

>>19845462
>objective morality
kill yourself

>>19845483
oh so you think you're above the law? you think you're above the state? kill yourself

>>19845515
abusing children comes from a place of inner weakness though

>>19845523
pic related, moral relativists when I fuck their mother's throat with a bowie knife, it's bad now for some reason

>>19845549
>moralfag exposes his seething resentment
somehow i'm not surprised

>>19845523
>that's besides the point
No, it's not, out of all the arguments against might makes right you used one where might wins against right.
At least have the decency to shut the fuck up.

>>19845523
>oh so you think you're above the law? you think you're above the state? kill yourself
I hope you realize you are insanely retarded. As in, and this is not even a joke, this is the singular most retarded post on /lit/ right now and that is saying something. You really better be 15, you inbred.

>>19845529
opening the floodgates to all sorts of semantic nonsense, you lose

>>19845202
When people say this do they mean that might objectively makes right or that might should make right ideally?

>>19845605
I guess it depends on the person.

>>19845560
i'm right. keep seething though

>>19845202
>>19845258
>>19845512
>>19845515
Refuted

>>19845202
What is there to refute? It's unfortunately true. He who holds the raw physical power to impose their will owns everything. The only exception to this is if the power cannot be sustained indefinitely due to physical limitations via nature. (Ex. the powerful army has no more food supplies and starves, canceling their might)

i'm 620 lbs, retarded (72 IQ), and 4'11"
now what if I have a gun and you don't

looks I win. see you next time, lanklet

>>19845866
That's still might, it's the might of the weapon. If you have the weapon you have might you can use to make right.
I disagree with OP but it's a stupid argument,

>>19845693
>you WILL worship the tribal god of Israel

>>19845885

>>19845202
There is might that is greater than might.

>>19845202


1. BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, BUT SINCE YOU CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING, BEING RATIONALLY DEFICIENT, AND BEING THAT ALL THAT MATTERS TO YOU IS MIGHT, THERE IS ONLY THE BURDEN LEFT.

2. I COULD KILL ANY OF MY NEIGHBOURS NOW, WITH NO MOTIVE, REASON, OR JUSTIFICATION; POWER DOES NOT JUSTIFY ACTION; WILL DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ETHICAL CAUSE; ABILITY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE MORALITY.

>>19846324
Whoa this retarded tripfag is still around? Going around lecturing others about "burden of proof" while being a christfag, no less.

>>19846324
>>19846345
Why is he arguing against this notion of might makes right? Even Christians believe in it unknowingly. In their faith, God is the ultimate power. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING can usurp him. Therefore, his MIGHT makes him right. Any being that doesn't fall in line with his will (if they even have free will according to the story is still debated) is summarily thrown into a cosmic blast furnace for eternity. His law is supreme because of his ability to enforce it.

>>19846345
>Going around lecturing others about "burden of proof" while being a christfag, no less.
Atheists haven't refuted Aquinas, so seethe, cope and dilate.

>>19845512
>Pagan philosophy is more aristocratic and therefor superior.
Non-apotheosized royalty is a Christian feature (please fact check me but every other empire said their rulers were divine)

>>19845202
define the terms

Yet,
>the meek shall inherit the Earth.
Try to refute God. You can’t.

Socrates already refuted this. Read The republic

>>19845549
Why do objective morality fags still make the "hehe but what if I kill you wouldn't you feel stupid" argument? I don't see the point you're trying to make.
Are you trying to argue that a moral relativist wouldn't defend himself from physical attacks?

>>19845202
>'Rights I will permit thee to call everywhere "correctly-articulated mights." A dreadful business to articulate correctly!
- Chartism

>Divine right, take it on the great scale, is found to mean divine might withal!
- On Heroes, Hero Worship and the Heroic in History

>Carlyle always denied that he confused ‘‘might’’ with ‘‘right.’’ In the margins of a German biography of himself that he received in July 1866 he wrote, ‘‘What floods of nonsense have been and are spoken & thought (what they call thinking) about this poor maxim of Carlyle’s! C. had discovered for himself, not without a satisfaction of religious kind, that no man who is not in the right, were he even a Napoleon I at the head of armed Europe, has any real might whatever, but will at last be found mightless, and to have done, or settled as a fixity, nothing at all, except precisely so far as he was not in the wrong. Abolition and erosion awaits all ‘doings’ of his, except just what part of them was right’’ (Clubbe 98–99).

>>19848437
Socrates' refutation is based upon retarded semantics that cannot be translated to English. Thrasymachus got the better of the argument, as did Callicles in the Gorgias.

>>19848456
>Socrates' arguments are retarded semantics
Only monolinguals say this.

>>19845340
Laws are nothing if there isn't something mighty enough to enforce it. Just look at what circus international "law" is.

>>19845350

>>19848458
>Proposition
Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger
>Socrates 1st attempted refutation
If a ruler (the stronger party) accidently made laws that acted against his own advantage, would they still be just?
>Thrasymachus first refutation
A ruler does not make mistakes in his ruling. If a craftsman qua craftsman makes a mistake in his crafting, he is failing at being a craftsman. Likewise with the ruler and ruling. Likewise laws enacted (even mistakenly) against the interests of ruler cannot be just as justice is found in the advantage of the laws rather than the laws qua laws.
>Socrates 2nd attempted refutation
As ruling is a skill. Every skill has an object and seeks to promote the interests of this object. Therefore ruling seeks to promote the interests of the ruled.
>Chad Thrasymachus rebuttal
A Shepard looks after the interests of the sheep only so far as the interests of the sheep are in his own interest. There is a difference between the immediate and ultimate object of an action. Likewise the interests of the ruler and the ruled can coincide; Socrates creates a false dichotomy.

Read Kerford's 1947 article 'The doctrine of Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic'

>>19845523
Objective morality is that wich is in accordance with natural law. Natural law applies to all living beings and it only has one goal: survival of the species and making sure that all individuals complete their natural life spans. Murder, slavery, roping kids, stealing and everything that would motivate the individual to cause another harm is against natural law because it threathens the individual's life and the general order in the ranks of the comunity. Objective evil is that wich threathens the natural law, that wich would disturb the order in a comunity and would threathen the individual. Unwaranted conflict, trans kids, jews and women in power are all equally and objectivelly evil because they dissrupt the order and safety of the comunity.

>>19848546
Not reading your interpretation of Socrates' arguments. I can't even remember much of what he says in the argument with Thrasymachus, I only know that every single one of Socrates' arguments which modern people think are meaningless semantics, which I have then read myself, are in fact the opposite. It's just modern people being unable to put themselves into a Greek philosophical position, so truly deep questions are turned into laughable dialectics.

>>19845202
If you really do believe that might makes right then the only way to convince you would be to beat you in the ring

>>19845202
This is just to say what happens, what is actualized, is right, which is nonsense because then there would be no desire to control anything.

Yes.