“Morality matters to people like us.”
Lol ok. Good.
@ bloom
If winning is all that matters what is your purpose for aguing ethics?
“what is your purpose for aguing ethics?”
I’m not.
Maybe not this thread but their have been other threads where you claim some things are immoral at least in your eyes. Yet if winning is all that matters to you that’s basically throwing any type of ethics out the window.
I have always said that morality is a secondary consideration for me. But I have values.
But you had just said that winning is all that matters. If you say that, then your values must not affect your choices since your only goal is “winning”.
That doesn’t make sense. My values determine my desired ends. The means I choose to pursue those ends are based primarily on what I think I have to do to achieve those ends and secondarily what I think the moral consequences may or may not be.
You totally are. You say we can worry about whats moral but you play to win. I pointed out that to you, winning is in itself moral, and you are merely playing semantics trying to seperate, for example, “non aggression” from “being the last man standing”.
Please don’t pretend that you don’t have ethics, no matter how distasteful to others they might be. And especially don’t turn around and try to justify yourself, when we know you don’t need to.
“I pointed out that to you, winning is in itself moral”
I place value on winning, yeah.
I place value on winning, yeah.
Not responding to my post is a lose.
I don’t see why you just don’t admit that your a stirinite.
Edit: “stirnerite”
I don’t even know what that means.
an egoist.
That’s giving him too much credit. Liberte and Jackson LaRose are a cut above.
I don’t even know what that means.
The philosophy of Max Stirner. Names he may be compared to that you may know: Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Nietzsche. Don’t make them think you are an idiot for not knowing his name, he is pretty obscure. If you have time and desire to read though, check out his work “The Ego and His Own”, it is one of my favorite works (as my sig shows).
@Capitalist Pig:
You can just edit your post via the “more” key on the upper right hand corner of your post.
Well, apart from the possibility of surviving a direct multi-megatonic warhead hit in a bunker (I doubt it), our dear surviving ruling caste would find itself in a radioactive, EMP-ed, totally destroyed nation and that could turn up to be a little difficult to tax. So personal interest runs against a wide nuclear exchange.
Now it is true that this does not give one 100% security that a nuclear war just won’t happen, but I say that the more nations have nukes, the lower is the probability of nuclear exchange.
“That’s giving him too much credit. Liberte and Jackson LaRose are a cut above.”
True dat.
And you will still lose, bloom.
The future is with the Palestinians. Your women don’t produce enough babies to compete with them. The days of zionists are numbered. That’s why you’ve become increasingly violent over the years. It’s a losing battle, you’d be better served trying to go elsewhere. Like Europe or the US. Youve created too much bad blood in Palestine and the end result won’t be pretty.
Wilmot of Rochester: you’d be better served trying to go elsewhere. Like Europe or the US.
That’s a very ignorant or hateful remark. Which one of the two are you?
Do you know what happen to Jews in Europe? Or are you just regretting that the job wasn’t complete? The US by the way didn’t do crap, so they might as well be considered collaborators (From a statist point of view, of course)
Now, so there is no misunderstanding, I don’t support the ideology of Zionism or the “Jewish State” as a solution to any alleged historical (or current) problem. It’s a misguided and disastrous ideology. But that’s not a problem of Jews per se, but a problem of the entire world. Zionism is nothing but Statism with it’s unique brand of nationalism.