/lit/ - Literature

File: 95 KB, 480x298, anal-rand.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 21:51:54 2015 No.6431795 [DELETED]

"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent."
― Ayn Rand

I now get why /lit/ has chosen Ayn Rand to be the queen of /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 21:53:41 2015 No.6431806 I think you are mistaken. /lit/ isn't racist, so it wouldn't adopt Ayn Rand as its queen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 21:54:53 2015 No.6431812 >Private property only exists when I feel like it

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 21:55:30 2015 No.6431818 >>6431795 I know Rand was pretty batshit and said something similar about oil in Iraq (Iran?), but I find it hard to believe she actually said this. There any source for it?

>>	H.Q.S.S.G Mon Apr 20 21:56:01 2015 No.6431821 >>6431795 >Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent. Why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 21:56:31 2015 No.6431822 >>6431818 Source: "Q and A session following her Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974"

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Mon Apr 20 21:56:45 2015 No.6431825 >>6431795 Bitch needed a good fucking. And no sane man would deliver the cock. Thus, this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 21:57:12 2015 No.6431828 >>6431795 I mean she has a point. It's like bringing an entire buffet of food to class, not letting anyone have it, then just sit there and eat 1 or 2 bites and nothing else. What a waste

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 21:58:14 2015 No.6431835 File: 58 KB, 315x310, crylaughing11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6431828 Let the butthurt comments begin

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 22:49:02 2015 No.6432056 [DELETED]

File: 231 KB, 1028x1500, hunter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6431795
>>6431795
But its true.

In order to call something your property you must mark or fence it in an unambiguous way. Just because i go to a forest and sit my ass down on the grass does not mean that entire area of few hundred square kilometers around me is now my property, because "muh ancestors".
How many native americans were there? Like few tens of millions tops. For a landmass of this size...its like saying that the moon is American colony, because they are the only ones to ever send people there and plant flags.
Natives barely had any agriculture going on, they didn't even domesticate animals for fucks sake and that is why they needed massive extents of land to chase pray on, sometimes for days at a time. Tribes worked on hunter-gatherer levels of inefficiency and that is why needed huge spaces to balance it out, but it does not justify their idiocy.

White man coming to the New World raised the bar of natural selection and he was completely justifiable in doing so. Would make sense to you if you didn't get your knowledge about era of geographical discovery from fucking Pocahontas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 22:56:49 2015 No.6432088 >>6431828 Implying the motherfuckers that conceived of manifest destiny were starving. They were greedy, it's obvious. It's like you're actually suggesting that conservation of resources is idiotic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 22:59:32 2015 No.6432100 >>6431821 Because they can

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:01:00 2015 No.6432103
File: 231 KB, 1028x1500, hunter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6431795 (OP)
But its true.

In order to call something your property you must mark or fence it in an unambiguous way. Just because i go to a forest and sit my ass down on the grass does not mean that entire area of few hundred square kilometers around me is now my property, because "muh ancestors".
How many native americans were there? Like few tens of millions tops. For a landmass of this size...its like saying that the moon is American colony, because they are the only ones to ever send people there and plant flags.
Natives barely had any agriculture going on, they didn't even domesticate animals for fucks sake and that is why they needed massive extents of land to chase pray on, sometimes for days at a time. Tribes worked on hunter-gatherer levels of inefficiency so as as the result they needed huge spaces to balance it out and keep resources in circulation, but it does not justify their idiocy.

Then they sold some of their land to white people, cause lol those dumb whities gave us so much vegies and tools for that shit tier field with no waterhole or any animals at all.
And then of course their butts got blasted by jealousy, when they saw how effectively the land they regarded as barren was brought to prosperity by agricultural miracle brought by the newcomers. So they flipped out like 5 year old, cause that is just "not fair".

White man coming to the New World raised the bar of natural selection and he was completely justifiable in doing so. Would make sense to you if you didn't get your knowledge about era of geographical discovery from fucking Pocahontas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:01:03 2015 No.6432104 > and were not using They lived on it Fished and hunted and gathered and farmed from it

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:02:20 2015 No.6432109 >>6431795 You're delusional. It's obviously Virginia Woolf.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:02:34 2015 No.6432110 >>6432100 >might makes right goddamn it, do you even into plato?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:03:01 2015 No.6432113 File: 44 KB, 750x600, 522523523.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I think she was chaotic neutral

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:03:09 2015 No.6432114 >>6431828 Wow what a horrid analogy. Stay in school, kiddo.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:03:27 2015 No.6432115 >>6432103 not a native speaker so sorry if its unpleasant to read or anything.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Mon Apr 20 23:03:53 2015 No.6432116 >>6432103 Even if that was true, the genocide committed was worth it? Giving them small pox was worth it for the resources? Murdering and raping the remaining was worth it in the end? You are looney toons man.

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:03:59 2015 No.6432118

>>6432103
They tribe or clans of a tribe shared in what they used collectively
And they had their territory they lived in and was fenced by geographical features possibly did not care for others to enter without permission or a gift or exchange - is that not a concept of property and boundary?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:04:57 2015 No.6432119 >>6431795 So genocide is permissible if there is a reward of resources to be gained?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:04:59 2015 No.6432120 >>6432113 She's not neutral she's arguing its right to use force So much more libertarian non violence And all because someone has a different concept of property to you

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:05:46 2015 No.6432122 >>6431795 >I now get why /lit/ has chosen Ayn Rand to be the queen of /lit/. Why was I not informed about this vote?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:10:42 2015 No.6432138 >>6432110 Plato uses ideals and a sense of progress which are not relatable to nature, if you can do something then is your right by nature, it doesn't matter if is sustainable for society or if it violates human rights

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Mon Apr 20 23:11:18 2015 No.6432140 >>6432138 Oh shut the fuck up you edgy bastard

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:11:55 2015 No.6432141 >>6432140 Its only edgy if you think nature is edgy

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:12:33 2015 No.6432143 >>6432119 thats how merica have always operate.

Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Mon Apr 20 23:14:29 2015 No.6432151

>>6432141

It's edgy to be a dog and not a man. And you are less than that. Shove your social darwinist shit right up your ass. Nature works on a level above our own behavior you arrogant fool. Man isn't some master actor for a grand plan you fucking uneducated dingle berry.

Humans are a social species, to claim everything is in a level above ourselves is not only arrogance but total misunderstanding of science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:16:35 2015 No.6432154 >>6432151 Plato=BTFO

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:16:59 2015 No.6432156
File: 471 KB, 1600x1218, canada.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6432119
>>6432116
You are talking about what happened way later, after US army already existed. There was no genocide to speak of when the Europeans have just landed on the New World. And that is the subject brought up by Ayn Rand isn't it.

>>6432118
It is not unambiguous. Fencing by "natural features" is bullshit. You have to make a tangible effort to call a piece of the universe... of the natural world your "property". In other words you need to invest some energy output into securing it. That is how it worked since the dawn of time. That is how we divided up the sandbox when i was a kid, it really doesn't get more intuitive.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Mon Apr 20 23:17:55 2015 No.6432160 File: 66 KB, 858x536, 1120.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432156 >There was no genocide to speak of when the Europeans have just landed on the New World

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:21:55 2015 No.6432170

>>6432118
Killing a thing or making going for a walk here and there form time to time, is not a tangible investment.

You might argue that it made sense by their cultural standards, but such argument for me almost falls under the category of an appeal to emotion.

There are objective standards for claiming of property in this world. Its literally the oldest issue there is in human history. We had this shit figured out for quite some time.

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:23:33 2015 No.6432177

>>6432151
I think you misunderstood me, I was trying to say that if its doable then its doable, nature and ours work on the same level I don't understand what you're trying to say with "nature works on a level above", of course man isn't some actor for a grand master plan and I think that gives more weight to what I said, man are a social species but that "social" part shows itself in many ways, it could be domination (and wanting OTHERS to look up to you) or genocide of other groups in favor of yours so I don't understand how anything that you said contradicts what I wrote before...

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:25:13 2015 No.6432180

>>6431828
>It's like bringing an entire buffet of food to class, not letting anyone have it, then just sit there and eat 1 or 2 bites and nothing else. What a waste

That sounds more like hunting the buffalo to extinction, which the "civilized" white man did, than what the tribes were doing with the land.

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:25:53 2015 No.6432184

>>6432156
>. You have to make a tangible effort to call a piece of the universe... of the natural world your "property". In other words you need to invest some energy output into securing it. That is how it worked since the dawn of time.

In other words, you need to initiate force

Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Mon Apr 20 23:26:41 2015 No.6432188
File: 29 KB, 306x423, article-2577897-12D2A716000005DC-848_306x423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6432170

>There are objective standards for claiming of property in this world

Why do you moronic fuckers always believe in the myth of human objectivity?

>>6432177

You are so utterly incompetent. Men are social. To claim that we work behaviorally the same way nature works in a grand scale is a critical misunderstanding of science.

If you make such a claim, you have to remember what other apes do to their brethren who think like this, upset the balance of community. They rip them apart. In my opinion, any claim that selfishness is good should be regarded in the same fashion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:32:47 2015 No.6432214 >>6432188 Then in which way do you think we behave?

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Mon Apr 20 23:34:54 2015 No.6432222 >>6432214 It's pointless to argue how we behave because human nature as you understand it cannot be discovered. Shrouded by linguistics and subtext.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:35:45 2015 No.6432225 >>6432103 >implying agriculture and western civilization is good

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:36:22 2015 No.6432227 >>6432184 No. I mean in kinetic/mechanical way yes, but not against other humans. In other word alter the enviroment in semi-permanent way. Raise a structure or surround an area with a fence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:38:52 2015 No.6432237 >>6432222 Well so explain to me why am I wrong when I think that we behave in an extremely similar (if not identical) way to animals? The way I see it is the same power struggle that we see in the rest of the living beings only with more variables

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:40:44 2015 No.6432244 File: 522 KB, 1672x1772, Spooky ghost.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >rights

Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Mon Apr 20 23:43:51 2015 No.6432253
File: 326 KB, 478x354, 1428844393691.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6432237

>Well so explain to me why am I wrong when I think that we behave in an extremely similar (if not identical) way to animals?

You don't even understand animals.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:45:13 2015 No.6432260 >>6432253 Well if you do then please explain why am I wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:47:17 2015 No.6432264 >>6432227 Except that isn't true. Property is a legal concept.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:48:20 2015 No.6432270 >>6432222 Quads speak the truth.

Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Mon Apr 20 23:49:07 2015 No.6432272

>>6432260

Animal minds operate totally differently than our own and encompass billions of different kinds of vertebrates throughout the history of life on Earth. What the fuck do you mean specifically by, "animal" when you mean animal behavior.

Not only are we not objective viewers, our understanding of ourselves from a biological standpoint is inherently biased from our own short comings in linguistics and bias through subtext.

Your claim you have any "objectivity" is as laughable as an orangutan claiming it can understand its kind's behavior through its own limited vocabulary, if you could call it that.

You are claiming you are scientific when you probably flunked out of high school physics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:55:46 2015 No.6432300 >>6432244 rights qua power to use the land. which is not a spook, and insofar that its an egoist argument about right Rand is correct.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:56:04 2015 No.6432304 >>6432272 Meanwhile, from the left: >CHIMPS BUTTFUCK TOO YAKNOW xD

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:58:04 2015 No.6432309

>>6432272
>Not only are we not objective viewers, our understanding of ourselves from a biological standpoint is inherently biased from our own short comings in linguistics and bias through subtext.

I bet you're going to claim that this is an objective fact

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Mon Apr 20 23:58:14 2015 No.6432311 >>6432304 You are no closer to the meaning of life than the rest of us. That is it.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Mon Apr 20 23:59:14 2015 No.6432314 >>6432309 Oh fuck you got me! Regardless, even if I could (I cannot), it doesn't stop the fact it's objective humans are not objective observers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:00:49 2015 No.6432321 >>6432314 stop contradicting yourself, retard. you're applying different standards to arguments that you're emotionally opposed to.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:01:17 2015 No.6432324

>>6432272
I'm not claiming to be anything, but let's try again, I'll write the whole thing and I hope that you understand what I'm saying now because you misundertood it since the begining, we behave similar in the most general sense (we look for food and social interaction) now because we have of course a different configuration to the rest of the animals (and a deer also will have a different configuration to the rest of the animal species) then other variables will come into play but in essence we do crave those basic things, now depending of our environment we'll try to archieve those things differently as I said before, maybe someone will want to have a lot of power and other person would only want to have a partner to love.
Back on the main topic I agree with you the we are not part of a master plan and that everything has to be "ideal" therefore things that could go against society (genocides for example) are not in contradiction with wanting social interaction, also I never say that selfishness in the most traditional sense of the word was a good thing (although I do believe that everybody moves because of selfish impulses) but if you can manage to be a extremly selfish person and get away with it then it could be considered good for that person independetly of the harm that could cause to the rest of the people. So again my main point is that if its doable then its doable.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 00:02:46 2015 No.6432332 File: 32 KB, 436x436, 1401031100135.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432321 Prove to me that humans are objective observers. >>6432324 Appeal to human nature. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:04:21 2015 No.6432336 literally nothing wrong

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:07:02 2015 No.6432344 >>6432332 prove to me that they aren't. i'm not the one claiming things that are beyond me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:07:33 2015 No.6432346 >>6432332 I'm not appealing to it because I'm not saying if its good or not, I'm just saying that is possible

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:09:01 2015 No.6432352 Any proletarian who brings the element of class consciousness has the right to take over the means of production.

Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 00:11:16 2015 No.6432362

>>6432344

>prove to me that they aren't.

We've been over this. I'll give you one example, Physics. You can't interact with quanta without changing it. Yet you have no way of knowing it's changed.

That's a very simplistic example. On the other hand, you have limits in linguistics. We've been over this.

Scientific objectivity is a long held myth that is one of the many reasons Biological Science can never be the science of Physics.

>>6432346

You are appealing to it still, right now.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:12:53 2015 No.6432367

>>6432156
>Fencing by "natural features" is bullshi

So pretty much all the borders of European and Asian countries are bullshit?

Most borders are done my natural features you fool, especially when you're looking on a grand scale. Fuck all people can be bothered building huge fucking walls over the middle of who gives a shit land, when mountains, rivers, and deserts do that shit for you.

Of large scale manmade borders there are three: The Great Wall of China, Hadrians Wall, and the Gates of Alexander, none of which are even used by their respective countries as borders anymore.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:13:17 2015 No.6432369 >>6432362 We've been over this. You're still contradicting yourself.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:13:31 2015 No.6432372 >>6432362 Not in the moral sense which is when you tend yo use the "appeal to nature" fallacy

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:13:54 2015 No.6432375 blah blah blah

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 00:15:03 2015 No.6432379 >>6432369 Human nature is still bullshit. Scientific Objectivity remains a myth. >>6432372 You are using it in the same moral sense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:16:30 2015 No.6432387 >>6432379 >You are using it in the same moral sense. Explain why please because I don't see it

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:17:51 2015 No.6432392 >>6431795 >Humanism only when I feel like it

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 00:18:18 2015 No.6432393 File: 13 KB, 400x400, e20.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432387 That is the problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:20:23 2015 No.6432399 >>6432379 You're confusing me with someone else. I don't care about "human nature", whatever that means. But don't let me stop you from spamming your retarded metaphysical notions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:22:28 2015 No.6432407 Why do people on this board respond to name/trip fags? And so seriously too?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:22:48 2015 No.6432411 File: 1.10 MB, 1920x1080, comfy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432393 I swear I tried to have a nice conversation

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:24:37 2015 No.6432416

>>6431795
>"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land

So just to clear up confusion with these "savages", you show up and tell them you're now going to run their land the way you did it back in your land? Oh, and be sure to only use "rights" in a way that would excuse manifest destiny.

>What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent?
To be able to live without worrying about someone just turning up in the middle of your tribe and saying "this is ours now, you have to leave the place you've lived for generations because I say so."

>For their wish to continue a primitive existence
>primitive

Ayn Rand doesn't even know fucking cultural relativism. A culture or society's technological capability doesn't determine what they should be allowed to keep as "theirs".

>to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property
It wasn't untouched and unused. They were using agriculture, horticulture, and were hunting way before Europeans showed up. The idea of "property" as Europeans understood it didn't exist in NA because they hadn't been in fucking contact with Europe. They lived in their own country with their own land systems.

>just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent."
So she's also a racist, as well?

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 00:25:01 2015 No.6432417 File: 81 KB, 455x588, 1428976212295.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432399 Scientific Objectivity still doesn't exist and that isn't metaphysics, it's actual physics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:25:40 2015 No.6432424 >>6431795 TL;DR: If I can destroy you, I should. In fact, it is my moral obligation.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:31:44 2015 No.6432439

>>6431795
She's only wrong in that she throws a blanket over natives

The truth is natives hated each other since a lot of them were still pretty tribal
This meant that some took onto to the Euros fairly well had friendly trade the whole nine yards and that others were just niggers
A lot of them didn't fight the white men
A lot of them hated the white
A lot of them didn't give two shits

Also no one has a right to shit and I'm surprised people still feel guilt over/care about shit they had no control over and that happened 100s of years ago
Then again the west gives itself rather well to guilt you know with the whole Christian thing

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:31:51 2015 No.6432440

"[My neighbor] didn't have any rights to the car he kept in his backyard and there was no reason for anyone to grant him right to a car he didn't use. What was he even fighting for in court, if he wanted this car back? For his wish to keep it in his shed, his right to continue to let it rot, unused and untouched? Just to keep it as if it were a junker, or maybe a few steps from that? Any person who saw that car had the right to take it for himself."

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:49:30 2015 No.6432514 >>6432417 nice 'objective fact' there bud

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:03:46 2015 No.6432587 >>6432156 >It is not unambiguous. Fencing by "natural features" is bullshit Look at most nation and state borders, they're defined by rivers or mountains a lot of the time

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 01:05:25 2015 No.6432597 >>6432514 Scientific Objectivity still doesn't exist

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:06:01 2015 No.6432598

>>6432170
Using materials gathered from the land to live
>walking from here to there
>they're all just dumb savages
the Iroquois and Mound Builders and Pueblo and a few others in North America and everyone in South America lived in permanent settlements and farmed the land

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:07:11 2015 No.6432605 >>6432597 objectivity within a scientific framework exists you are confused

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:07:22 2015 No.6432606

>>6432170
>There are objective standards for claiming of property in this world
No, there are modern western legal standards

>you people who have never heard of property registration form a subsection b have failed to register it with my registry office on the other side of the world - you do not own this land you live and work on!

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:08:07 2015 No.6432614 File: 47 KB, 640x329, 1350772532178.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432597 Oh my gentle Jesus. Just when I thought you couldn't possibly be any stupider you reveal that you're believe in naive realism.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 01:08:09 2015 No.6432616 File: 42 KB, 640x360, laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432605 >objectivity within a scientific framework exists

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:08:55 2015 No.6432621
File: 273 KB, 518x700, 1369082726466.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>all of these people sitting in their air conditioned college classrooms trying to talk about how evil colonialism was
I can't be the only one who doesn't give a shit. I mean, seriously, colonialism seems pretty great from here.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 01:09:10 2015 No.6432622 File: 48 KB, 318x375, arturobook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432614 Human nature doesn't exist either bitch.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 01:10:10 2015 No.6432626 File: 22 KB, 320x240, wailbo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432621 You don't give a shit because you're a bitch.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:11:06 2015 No.6432636 >>6432116 Natives gave the white man syphilis to be fair

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:12:47 2015 No.6432645 File: 60 KB, 498x668, 1409830322562[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432616 >>6432622 >>6432626 >being this btfo undergraduate please go

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 01:13:14 2015 No.6432648 >>6432645 If you're a graduate on 4chan you must really be an attention whore

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:13:20 2015 No.6432649 >>6432621 those classes are fun, you learn so many innovative ways to oppress

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:14:16 2015 No.6432654 >>6432648 filtered, you should get back to those exams

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 01:15:01 2015 No.6432657 >>6432654 Did my attention make you wet grandfather

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:19:49 2015 No.6432684 >>6432648 >thinking graduating college changes anything for a 4channer If anything it only gets worse.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 01:22:15 2015 No.6432699 File: 89 KB, 1116x1115, 1344235191209.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432684 I can imagine that.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:39:55 2015 No.6432775

>>6431795

Good quote.

It was beneficial to the Natives to be civilized anyway, and not only that but it was inevitable that eventually someone more technologically advanced would come in and shit stomp them. They're lucky it was someone nice like the British, considering basically anybody else would have been worse.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:41:01 2015 No.6432781 >>6432597 This single retarded liberal though is destroying our culture.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:41:38 2015 No.6432784 Foucault, you so called equality, the negation of domination and power struggles is in itself a dogma There are power struggles, why you want to put everything of them to an end is nonsense

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 01:41:52 2015 No.6432786 File: 41 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432775 >It was beneficial to the Natives to be civilized anyway You Are A Freak >>6432781 Good. Fuck your culture.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 01:42:56 2015 No.6432793 File: 7 KB, 180x212, 180px-Neckbeard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432784 FUCK! You just disproved everything! Rand was right this whole time! Lmao bitch

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:43:38 2015 No.6432795 >>6432786 >>6432784 The biased you have against western society just shows that you want to have domination over it. You want to take a power struggle to put your own one over it, this is hypocrisy

Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 01:46:09 2015 No.6432803
File: 108 KB, 1920x1080, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6432795

>The biased you have against western society just shows that you want to have domination over it. You want to take a power struggle to put your own one over it, this is hypocrisy

Yes. I As A Black Anarchist Want To Harness The Magical Powers Of Western Society To Totally Rape White Women Including Your Mom In Totality Once And For Bearing Black Children All Across Europe All And Make Your Worst Most Terrible Scientific Nightmares A Reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:47:31 2015 No.6432808 >>6431821 The whole idea behind Objectivism is what you can take is yours and rightfully yours since you had the power to take it.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:51:22 2015 No.6432820

>>6432803

I don't understand your point. If someone takes something by power, what do you expect to happen? Why you are debating about nature on this? Do you expect nature to make your brain go insane because you took something by violence and might?

If they were being dominated, they have to fight to free themselves, a la Jews and Egypt. If they can't free themselves, then, what the fuck do you expect? Why do you fight a freedom that doesn't belong to you in the first place?

>inb4 because it's moral

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 01:52:53 2015 No.6432824 >>6432820 It means you're thinking about stupid shit and you're edgy and you need a fucking job. If power is so great, I earned it to fuck the entire human race because I'm just that ripped,

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:57:41 2015 No.6432838

>>6432824

I just wondered why you keep debating about nature and objectivity just because some people where opressed

You don't even need social darwinism or 'being right through dialogue, reason, science, (insert whatever framework of dettached thought)' to use power against others. You don't even have to give reasons to do it or being right. And you definitely doesn't need to be right to free yourself from opression (see again egypt and jews).

Why so obsessed with being right to do things srs

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 01:58:53 2015 No.6432840

Every single human being, if they were in the position that the natives were in when they were uprooted and sent packing, would be against it. Especially Ayn Rand.

Anytime someone says, "might makes right" or "they deserved it" or something to that effect, I just remember how fucking fast they'd shut their mouths if they were ever put in that position. Same with people who insist the poor deserve their situation. How can some people look at reality and just ignore it?

Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 01:59:15 2015 No.6432842

>>6432838
>I just wondered why you keep debating about nature and objectivity just because some people where opressed

Your ethics are terrible, you're edgy, you can't spell, and you're a bitch. It is my objective power to ignore your mad babble.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:03:18 2015 No.6432853

>>6432840

Might makes right works two ways, it's different than "they deserved it".

It means that the natives have to engage in the struggle to get away from it. There is no 'it's just that the native are opressed', it's just they were opressed and they couldn't do nothing against it. I'm not a native, so why should I care?

>>6432842

You still don't engage in what I said. You are literally more obsesed with being right than Ayn Rand

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 02:03:47 2015 No.6432855 >>6432853 >You still don't engage in what I said I wonder why

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:03:53 2015 No.6432858 >>6432180 >le poor iq 10 animal kek

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 02:04:48 2015 No.6432861 >>6432858 You mean Europeans?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:07:51 2015 No.6432868 >>6431795 itt: newtrip shitposts

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:10:08 2015 No.6432874 >>6432855 Dude. This guy you won't answer is fucking destroying your shit tier philosophy and based on how he's writing English probably isn't his first language.

Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 02:12:17 2015 No.6432877
File: 601 KB, 1084x816, f3b6528c5c5513319a3bc32f2931d3c2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6432874
>Dude. This guy you won't answer is fucking destroying your shit tier philosophy

He isn't and I don't care, because I'm right. Once again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:13:20 2015 No.6432881 >>6432874 Yep. youre getting btfo dude, call it quits...

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:13:27 2015 No.6432882 File: 148 KB, 420x440, 4you.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432861 >speaking english Smart enough to cuck you apparently

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 02:14:55 2015 No.6432885 >>6432881 Nah. >>6432882 What about that whole "Whites Are An Endangered Species!" you go on about? You're sure quick to compare yourselves to frogs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:16:04 2015 No.6432889 >>6432882 >cuck A le upvote to you for your dank meme, my good sir.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:16:33 2015 No.6432890 >>6432885 I'm not white you cuck, I'm just pointing out how dumb you look insulting the intelligence of a group who've outclassed you with little effort.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 02:17:27 2015 No.6432892 >>6432890 >outclassed I don't think so?

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:19:11 2015 No.6432896
File: 14 KB, 462x353, 122.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6432877
You are seriously an insufferable cunt. Do you ever wonder why everyone hates you on /lit/? It's shit like this. Instead of engaging with someone who is making valid points you can't refute you criticize their spelling errors and say you're right. Again. I can't imagine what people think of you IRL if you go around spouting your bullshit but I doubt you're able to communicate with people very well. You try to hide your narrow minded ignorance behind pedantic nonsense but it's evident to anyone with any sort of education at all.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 02:21:11 2015 No.6432900 >>6432896 You're not correct I don't care, because I'm right. Once again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ28FcRePAo

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:21:18 2015 No.6432901 >>6432896 you just summarized undergrads in one post

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 02:22:52 2015 No.6432902 File: 24 KB, 500x285, jlqEmdb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6432901

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:27:06 2015 No.6432910 michel spectacularly getting BTFO itt

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 02:30:05 2015 No.6432915 >>6432910 How Do You Do Fellow Kids

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:31:24 2015 No.6432922 >>6432786 >no reply >better cry and throw around some insults Why are all liberals the same?

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 02:35:12 2015 No.6432929 >>6432922 Don't patronize me. You're more liberal than I.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:38:27 2015 No.6432934 >>6432929 >throw out random insults >d-don't patronize me Jesus dude.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 02:39:21 2015 No.6432936 >>6432934 That's what I just said? Don't patronize me. You are a cowardly cock sucker and in no position to patronize.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:42:40 2015 No.6432945 >>6432936 Post feet

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 02:44:36 2015 No.6432948 >>6432945 I'll tell you what. As soon as you post your bushy greasy micropenis covered in a fine sheath of smegma, I'll post my voluptuous. Got the balls for the challenge?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:51:17 2015 No.6432960 >>6432945 >>6432948 i like where this is going....

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:53:55 2015 No.6432966 >>6432948 Nope post feet whore >mfw you admitted to being a nigger Holy lol. Lets see them beetus toes.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 02:54:46 2015 No.6432969 >>6432966 I'm not posting my feet.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 02:59:22 2015 No.6432987 >>6432966 >implying it has feet >implying it isn't just two hands and a penis

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 21 03:00:37 2015 No.6432990 >>6432987 >implying you're not in a skype group right now

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 03:05:45 2015 No.6433003

>read horrendously "racist" statement about how whitey deserved to conquer the reds
>don't care at all about the racism
>just bugs me that her argument is so shallow in terms of its political philosophy

DURRR "HIGHER" "CIVILISATION" GIVES YOU THE "RIGHT" TO CONQUER "LESS" "CIVILISED" PEOPLES

it's not that it's offensive, it's that it's fucking meaningless 5th grader shit

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 03:25:22 2015 No.6433023 >>6431828 the immigrants who arrived could have fucking tried to atleast make peace and show the natives how to advance technology etc instead they killed all in their way and grabbed the land

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 03:43:20 2015 No.6433041 >>6433003 It's not meaningless. If it was meaningless than that wouldn't be how the world works, but it is. >waaah it's meaningless because I don't agree with it

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 03:44:22 2015 No.6433044 >>6433023 No they didn't.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 03:46:42 2015 No.6433047

>>6433041
it's meaningless because those terms and moralisations are completely unnecessary

>the roman empire conquered gaul because it could
vs.
>the roman empire conquered gaul because WELL THEY WEREN'T EVEN FARMING PROPERLY LOL ALL THAT LAND THEY COULD HAVE EXPLOITED BETTER AND OMFG THEY WERE PRESERVING FORESTS??? YOU CAN USE THAT FOREST LAND MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY WOW CIVILISE THESE FUCKS ROME!!

it's meaningless

you're taking a psychological or historical or economic truism (the strong will generally impose upon the weak who have stuff that the strong want) and expressing it in terms of desert or post-hoc justification

it's not that justifying brutality offends me (it doesn't, brutality is part of human nature and 'judging' past empires from a modern perspective is meaningless, deal w/ it), it's that she's being redundant and saying nothing profound whatsoever

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 03:50:41 2015 No.6433050

>>6433047

She's laying some well deserved smack on natives.

It may not be profound but she's right andn we never get to hear things like this in our censored society so it's interesting to hear somebody actually say the thng that everybody was already thinking.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 03:59:22 2015 No.6433058

>>6433023
>Here, we'll show you how to use this advanced technology which you can then use to drive us out once you've modernized, despite having no obligation for us to do this whatsoever!

And honestly, do you think some poor immigrant, risking his life to cross the Atlantic after living in poverty for all his life in some overcrowded disease-ridden city would give a single fuck about a half-naked native that's lobbing arrows at him? It's all well and good making judgement in your comfy 21st Century life about the actions of those in the past, but try putting yourself in their shoes for a moment.

>inb4 is not moral!

Necessity and opportunity fucks morals in the face.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 05:20:33 2015 No.6433154

I've never read Rand, and don't think I'll ever get around to it, but just a question:

Isn't Objectivism self-defeating?

If might makes right, then what is to stop people from using their power of assembly to fuck up those "mighty" übermenschs that are to stupid to use collective power?

If a social democratic state oppresses your freedom, then fuck you, you're not powerfull enough to make your whining matter.

Might makes right seems like nothing but a justicifation of what is the case, like >>6433041

Yes?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 05:22:05 2015 No.6433157 >>6431812 Or >The State is good when it enforces property laws that benefit capital

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 05:24:34 2015 No.6433158 >>6432103 We're talking about forced relocation here, genius. Trail of Tears mean anything?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 07:02:37 2015 No.6433324 >>6433154 Noone? Did I succesfully BTFO Rand? Whats my price? Eternal communist paradise?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 09:10:06 2015 No.6433502 >>6432109 It's Harper Lee you dumb cunt. Jesus Christ you're such a fucking pleb. Go back to reddit. Literally literal the literal.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 09:31:10 2015 No.6433531 >>6433157 Or >private property can't be owned collectively

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 09:36:11 2015 No.6433541 >>6433324 People who say that might makes right are the same people who believe that they can achieve anything and get motivated by courage wolf maymays. You wont get anywhere with them with that reasoning even if youre right.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 10:00:27 2015 No.6433598 Objectivism is retarded because it's fucking nothing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 16:41:32 2015 No.6435101 >>6432990 quit being a goose

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]