/lit/ - Literature

>>5440405
I agree, OP. It's been that way since life existed even in bacterial form.

>>5440405
"Might makes right" is what crybabies say when someone tells them they're not allowed to do things.
>but i'm stronger, i should be able to push people around.
Obviously you're not stronger, since someone is stopping you and you've been reduced to crying about your "rights." It's like when Neo-Nazis cry "muh freedom of speech."

>>5440531
>It's like when Neo-Nazis cry "muh freedom of speech."
Are you implying that Neo-Nazis are not entitled to express their opinions and beliefs? And might does make right. It's not about fairness, it's about the fact that fairness, justice, honor, morals, etc. don't matter when some person or group of people could just kill you or people you love. Might makes right because it removes your agency.

>>5440545

The capacity to have the last word still does not make you right.

If there were spontaneously to be an anti-intellectual crusade and every person that didn't agree to the square root of 100 being 15 was put to death, the square root of 100 would still be 10 regardless of how many were killed.


violence is the last refuge of the incompetent


You have no idea how mad Socrates be right about now...

>>5440597
Terrible analogy.
Just awful.
Would you please try again?

>>5440597
Like I said, it has nothing to with what is or isn't "correct" or "just". What it means is that your opinion doesn't mean jack shit if I have total power over you. For example, all governments rule through force. If you don't pay the court for your speeding ticket, they'll put you in jail. If you resist, they will beat your ass and then put you in jail. If you continue to resist, they will beat you more and put you in jail. They have completely power over your body.

>>5440405
that there are no true idioms

>>5440545
>Are you implying that Neo-Nazis are not entitled to express their opinions and beliefs?

No, they aren't. And it is hypocritical and stupid of them to whine that they're being oppressed when oppressing others is what they're demanding a right to do.

>And might does make right. It's not about fairness, it's about the fact that fairness, justice, honor, morals, etc. don't matter when some person or group of people could just kill you or people you love. Might makes right because it removes your agency.

That has nothing to do with "rights" or "right." That is just the expression of power, which is already being done and will continue to be done at all times and in all places.
The word "right" invalidates the statement, since it implies the possibility of "wrong" or "unjust."

>>5440656
>No, they aren't.
hahahaha oh wow
And you're seriously posting on 4chan.

I bet you also think that /pol/ should be removed, too.

>>5440644
>They have completely power over your body.

And you think this equates to being right?

>>5440405
Lol read Rousseau fgt

>>5440667
It's not about being right. Idioms aren't supposed to be taken literally; it's about "right" not mattering when you have the might.

>>5440666

>this post
>666

>>5440666
>I bet you also think that /pol/ should be removed, too.

Why would I want the containment board removed? Sure, the toilet overflows on a constant basis, but if there were no toilet there would be shit everywhere.

>>5440691
>I don't agree with them, so they should be locked away...

Liberals, everyone.

>>5440405
I think this idiom fails to grasp the fact that might needs right or in better legitimacy or at least the perception. A man by himself has very little to no power almost all power comes from running other men and to do this effectively you need some form of legitimacy. You can't skimpy always use force, because you need other people to follow you to use that force. So it's a shit idiom like most cause it over simplifies something to make it more catchy.

>>5440717
so what you're saying is

right makes might

>>5440697
Not a liberal.

And it has nothing to do with agreement. It has to do with hypocrisy. I may think that anarchists, conservatives and most left-wing parties are dip shits, but they also believe in a minimum of civil liberties that include the right to speak publicly.

Might makes reality, but it doesn't make "right", since "right" doesn't exist.

>>5440671
Except that might is propped up by the majority of people thinking it's right, so in this case, right makes might.

>>5440745

>>5440728
No they both make each other you need the right to create might which in turn gives you a disproportionate influence over what will be considered right in the future and obviously this still is a generalization

>>5440755
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Child...

>>5440766
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_%28book%29

Infant...

>>5440784
How heavy is your tin-foil hat?

>>5440798
How heavy is your fedora?

>>5440801
You should have said, something like, "classy" or "dashing".
<3

Or even:
>How painful is your virginity

Man...I'm so much better than you. Wonder who's mightier...

>>5440817
Well now that you brought it up how painful is your virginity
Not even the same guy

>>5440697
why would you tolerate the intolerant especially when they spend the whole time shouting what they are going to do to you if they get in charge. Thats the dumbest thing I have heard in a while

>>5440817
>his virginity is so painful he brought it up of his own free will
You really are good, you manage to wreck two posters in one post

>>5440405
>might makes right

Seriously, kid? I thought Rousseau was the bare minimum requirement for posting on /lit/

>>5440405
"Suicide is a temporary solution to a permanent problem" - The Buddha.

>>5440405
Never trust a man named Sally

>>5440671
If you actually had power, though, you wouldn't be trying to justify it. You'd just be doing it. Do you see the Koch brothers sitting around trying to make up pithy sayings? They don't have time for that, they're too busy buying politicians, creating think tanks, and making astroturf campaigns.

Also, the word "might" implies there is some property of the individual that makes them powerful. There isn't. You have power over others only to the extent that they're convinced (by fear or rhetoric or ideology or personal profit or whatever) to give it to you.

>>5440405
What happens if I punch you in the face repeatedly and tell you you're idiom is wrong while mine is correct?

>let the cat out of the bag

>>5440405
"History is written by the victors."

>>5440545
>muh ideology is against free speech
>starts whining when someone restricts his free speech

Hypocritical, childish, immature.

>>5440881
*permanent solution to a temporary problem

confirmed 12 y/o

>>5440883
fucking awesome

>>5440405
with jews, you lose

>>5441811
Would be funny if there was an unbroken line, from the year 2000BC to today, of a secret society of historians, those who collect the "official" version of events and distribute it to other historians. All members of the secret society are all named Victor.

>>5441924
the empire never ended

If you can't eat it or fuck it then piss on it.

>>5440758
posting a picture of a man in a hat does not in anyway refute his claim.

>>5441844
>Confirmed Cartesian materialist.

Get your assblasted philosophy out of my face and realize that the universe is infinite.

Don't forget to bring a towel.

>>5441924
The Victors arranged the revolt of Queen Zenobia in order to have a pretext for burning down the Library of Alexandria because they didn't like the competition.

Right makes might.

Neet makes skeet.

Might is right does not mean "right" as in "correct", but as in "morally right". If you are able to do something, you are "allowed" to do it. Now people might now bring the argument that if you do something criminal you will be thrown in prison, etc, but that would again just be a matter of might - the people putting you in prison are mightier than you. Things become a moral law when multiple (maybe weaker) people agree on something and use their combined social might to force it upon others, even potentially stronger individuals.
So, "might" has to be defined as "the ability to do something" - dealing with the conesquences of your actions may or may not be seen as part of this abilitiy to do.

I recommend Jack London's "The Seawolf" on this subject.

>>5440867
Maybe tolerance is the problem?

>Implying morality exists outside the transcendental imagination
>Believing in right
>Not recognizing that you already recognize a statist/corporate/sociopolitical might that is certainly not morally right

>>5440531
In this case the might is obviously not the Neo-nazis its the people restricting the speech. Christ you're dumb

>>5442479
underrated post

>>5442842
Except that the people in charge aren't saying "Might makes right."
As I said, here >>5440924

lrn2read fagit

>>5440531
well this escalated quickly.

>>5442895
They're not saying it they're actively enforcing it. They have the power(might). They don't like nazis. Therefore nazis aren't right.

>>5440405
I think I penned this but i can't be sure. it's been a very long time since i came to it.

>Wherever you are there you are found, and almost always it's on the groun.

>>5440478
>>5440405
If this is true then why can't humanity into eugenics and nazism?

>>5440531
>Obviously you're not stronger

Strawman, he never mentioned his strength.

>>5440405
"Those who are heartless once cared too much."

>>5441923
/thread

Irish men have the biggest dicks on planet earth

>>5443078
and just the right amount of ass.

>>5443089
hey pal, I have little baseball butcheeks but a big ole potato dong.

We will dong breed all of humanity into extinction.

English, frenchmen, and germans a like will be bred into extinction by our superior potato dongs.

future generations of humans will have little baseball butcheeks and huge dongs.

gemany will become new ireland, and all non irish males will be forced to drink potato jizz from wine glasses daily.

I can't wait for civilization to collapse.

>>5443128
go to bed you drunk

>>5443135
But I need to tell you more about my butcheeks!

>>5440758
You have been visited by le tipping man of existentialism.

Nothing will come to you if you say "GOD IS DEAD" in this thread.

>>5443194

>>5443041
Eugenics would be stupid since culture is a much bigger part of might than genes and has done more work than genes, from the time of its first possibility (prolonged postnatal maturing).
Humanity at this chapter of history prevents itself from getting into eugenics through its moral ideas or evaluations (as seen in the above statement), which are part of might.

In general might prevents itself from doing certain things by evaluating those things negatively. Might is right to itself too.

>>5443783
>culture much more important then genetics

KEK

>>5443830
>banana perfectly shaped for hand
Well, because it was cultivated by humans to do so. I mean, I know the image is b8, but this is actually a common argument that some people actually believe that naturaly bananas are as perfect as man-made ones.

>>5440666
>I want the freedom to express something that denies freedom of expression

>>5440405
>I hate that stupid smug bitch

>>5443830
>from the time of its first possibility (prolonged postnatal maturing)
Genetically we haven't changed as much e.g. brain size. Birth of culture was a huge acceleration. More precisely, certain events within culture (agriculture and industrialization being arguably two biggest events).
You are right in the sense that genetics enabled culture, which in turn can also change genetics but not by much on the smaller time scale.

>>5440405
Mum's the word

>>5443893
What evidence do you have to support this claim?

When has eugenics really been successfully tested over long periods of time?

There is simply not enough evidence for me to say one way or another.

>>5443929
A hypothesis: the "purer" the race, that is, the less breeding with nonmembers of such a race, the higher the chance for birth defects, congenital genetic diseases and other fun things.
Example: Ashkenazi Jews

>What evidence do you have to support this claim?
Which claim are you referring to? I made several, none referring to any eugenics.

>When has eugenics really been successfully tested over long periods of time?
There are some sociological histories. I remember reading one which connected the time of youth (as a sociological phenomenon) to the beginning of sexual maturity, the first bringing some change to the latter in the period of 20th century. But I'm sure there's a ton of study been done in all sorts of areas and subjects.
However these "eugenics" were not conscious choices, so they can't really be called that. The term "eugenics" seems to imply some sort conscious political program. I don't think there are any cases of that except for the good old xenophobia and racism, which I don't think brings any non-superficial changes.

>>5443997
Still don't buy it.

Plenty of people are racially pure and live fine.

also thats completely unrelated to my post.

'Nothing' matters.

>>5444038
>Eugenics would be stupid since culture is a much bigger part of might than genes and has done more work than genes

kek

>>5443997
The statement you make, I suppose is true, to some extent. Still though, even if it was 100% true, why does this support eugenics?

So some Jews get tay-sachs, I had a cousin who did. Wishing him a refua sheliama. Ashkenazi Jews are also wicked smart. There are pros and cons. Much better than averaging out everything across interbreeding.

Either extreme sucks, its about a mix of both, I think.

The only failure in life is the failure to fight.

>>5443871
>I use my freedom of expression to deny freedom of expresion to people who opose freedom of expresion

>>5440405


some mights are righter than others.

the popular memetic force of whiggery in its various guises throughout history is mighty indeed, but not very right

but well enough is well enough

better or worse is better than best or worst

and good with bad is not not bad

>>5443893


youre right that the birth of culture result in a huge acceleration, a huge acceleration of trait selection.

>>5443929


>When has eugenics really been successfully tested over long periods of time?

funny you should mention that...

http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/

>Might makes right
10/lel would tip again

>>5440755
>might is propped up by the majority of people thinking its right

So, right makes might?

It's true, because one with the might gets to define what is rightful or not. For example, racism is not right because the might of the majority -in a democracy- dictates it as not right

>>5445163
but they had to considerer it right before applying their might

>>5440405
I think Right is really more Pathos whereas Might is Logos

>>5445173

It only becomes right as fact after might and authority is applied. Before that it can be anything else, a minority opinion, a stupid idea etc.

>>5440755
>>5445120
>right makes might
Yes, and might makes right. "Truth" and "morality" are dominant interpretations and evaluations. They are dominant because of some power behind them (social, historical, even biological), but they are also themselves powerful, since they are being taken for "truth" and "morality".
But if you remove truth and morality themselves, as concepts, then you simply get the perception that might is mighty and that's all there is to it.

>>5445173
They are considered right because of what might (democratic majority) wants (survival of democracy). Right does not grow out of some indifference.

>>5445173


mere considering does not make right by necessity, just so, for those low in world formation, consideration of that which transcends their envelope often results in grave and henious (but validating) intellectual abominations, like protestantism.

>>5445191
Thats stupid, the whole point of being right means that it is accepted without the threat of violence, what you thinking about is "law", you are just blurring the lines between the two concepts for the sake of being edgy.

Furthermore, "right" can only be understood as an concept inside an individual's understanding, outside forces do not change what "right" is unless you are sincerely convinced otherwise by them.

>>5445214
Have you heard of "ideology"?

>>5445208
It makes it right for the person who imposed his might, right will always precede might.

>>5445221
what about it?

>>5445214
I can't quote the relevant line, because I'm on phone, but your last line is where might comes in.

And law is merely what is right by might enforced by might

>>5445214


>the whole point of being right means that it is accepted without the threat of violence

please, soft power is the surest method of social control. indeed, for the most the adoption of a principle by them may well be a mark against that principle, or signal of caution at the least. the ego monster haunts many, but it is the conditional solipsist that is its slave, blow hither and tither by the winds of validation, reasoning only so far as to rationalize. what sort of principles would such a being view as eminently suitable and correct? very few i would like to contend with.

>>5445227
Ideology defines what is right. When an ideology gets dominant it will also have the might

"Might makes right" is a stupid idiom, as "might" is a temporary condition, and "right" is eternal. Right existed before might, and will exist after it.

If anything, and still with plenty of reservations, you could say that "Might borrows right" but that doesn't sound as good on an anime imageboard.

>hurr durr Rosseau

Rosseau's criticism of the idiom "might is right" is nonsensical because "might is right" is not a value judgment or a moral imperative, it's a description. He is taking issue with the fact that he thinks when people use the term "might is right" they mean that using your power is something that should do, i.e. as far as ethics goes. There is no "should", just an "is". Prescriptive vs. Descriptive.

>>5440765
>No they both make each other you need the right to create might which in turn gives you a disproportionate influence over what will be considered right in the future and obviously this still is a generalization

This in no way refutes the idea that might is right. You're just rephrasing it.

>>5445227
>what about it?
The author of the post seems to have never heard of the concept. Furthermore, the idea that there is an individual outside of ideology or that there exists "right" outside of it is itself one of the biggest and most powerful ideologies: it wants something to be taken as absolute right.

>>5440745
That's pretty much what OP was arguing but te retards don't understand that he's arguing that the idiom transcends te concept of right.

>>5440405
>mfw 100 replies on /lit/ and not a single person knows what an idiom is, what an aphorism is or the difference between them

>truly the pseudoist of pseudointellectuals
>inb4 pedant, this is some real dumbshit

>>5440531
In this case, might still makes right.

The mightiest is still deciding who is the rightest, even if the identity of the mightiest is surprising based on physical or intellectual strength.

>>5445239
That isn't very marxist of you goy.
Sounds like you need to go the reeducation camp.

>>5445239
>"right" is eternal. Right existed before might, and will exist after it.
>2014
>so metaphysical