Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Schwarzwald" data-source="post: 65672" data-attributes="member: 544">it’s kind of wild to watch people try to talk about violence like we aren’t just thinking animals that got too smart for our own britches. we aren&#039;t neutered buddhist monks; we&#039;re dopamine-driven creatures, and pretending violence doesn&#039;t give a biological hit is just lying to yourself.asking if violence is &quot;evil&quot; is like asking if a lion is evil for killing a rival&#039;s cubs so it can mate. the lion doesn&#039;t have a mid-life crisis about the &quot;greater good,&quot; it’s just completing a cycle. force is neutral until we slap a subjective moral sticker on it.the real question isn&#039;t some binary trolley problem, it&#039;s a prisoner&#039;s dilemma: who has the monopoly on violence? is it you? the state? the NAP makes it pretty clear—overwhelming violence to solve a problem for a greater good is fine because you&#039;re just navigating the data points of survival.a rabbit isn&#039;t &quot;moral&quot; just because it doesn&#039;t kill; it’s just harmless. true morality only exists when you&#039;re actually capable of extreme violence but choose exactly how to use it. without the capacity for &quot;bad&quot; violence, the &quot;good&quot; kind doesn&#039;t even have a definition to stand on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Schwarzwald, post: 65672, member: 544"] it’s kind of wild to watch people try to talk about violence like we aren’t just thinking animals that got too smart for our own britches. we aren't neutered buddhist monks; we're dopamine-driven creatures, and pretending violence doesn't give a biological hit is just lying to yourself. asking if violence is "evil" is like asking if a lion is evil for killing a rival's cubs so it can mate. the lion doesn't have a mid-life crisis about the "greater good," it’s just completing a cycle. force is neutral until we slap a subjective moral sticker on it. the real question isn't some binary trolley problem, it's a prisoner's dilemma: who has the monopoly on violence? is it you? the state? the NAP makes it pretty clear—overwhelming violence to solve a problem for a greater good is fine because you're just navigating the data points of survival. a rabbit isn't "moral" just because it doesn't kill; it’s just harmless. true morality only exists when you're actually capable of extreme violence but choose exactly how to use it. without the capacity for "bad" violence, the "good" kind doesn't even have a definition to stand on. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread