Why is murder wrong?

[Deleted member 7327]

How can you measure which positive is larger? You can't, that's just an opinion.

Also ending a life or causing someone to cease any further experiences is a net zero because it results in null for them. Null everything. Nothingness is neither good or bad.

By your own logic of not being able to prove with 100% certainty that anyone else exists, then you also can’t prove what happens to someone after they die.

Which means the answer to the question is you can’t know whether it’s a good or bad thing.

“Good” and “bad” are things that only exist based on human perspective btw, so you can’t separate them from emotions at all. There is no such thing as good or bad in nature, especially not a universal definition. The entire earth dying tomorrow would not be a good or bad thing to nature, just a thing that happened. Saying “pfft normies appeal to emotion” as a bad thing in this case is retarded because the entire concept is an emotional one

The actual answer, and the only answer to the question “is murder good or bad?” Is “yes.”

 

[Acee]

nigga, It doesn't matter much.

What doesn`t matter? Verbal IQ? or that I learned english literally 4 years ago?

 

[BrendioEEE]

Talk about dysgenics. Why don't you act more NT?

NT inclinations has lead to dysgenics.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

By your own logic of not being able to prove with 100% certainty that anyone else exists, then you also can’t prove what happens to someone after they die.

Which means the answer to the question is you can’t know whether it’s a good or bad thing.

“Good” and “bad” are things that only exist based on human perspective btw, so you can’t separate them from emotions at all. There is no such thing as good or bad in nature, especially not a universal definition. The entire earth dying tomorrow would not be a good or bad thing to nature, just a thing that happened. Saying “pfft normies appeal to emotion” as a bad thing in this case is retarded because the entire concept is an emotional one

I also wont be able to prove that I even killed them in the first place, this argument you made can't go anywhere.


I defined good and bad as increasing or decreasing happiness in my original post. You can either accept the original axioms of the thread of don't. You wont be making any valid arguments at that point though.

An appeal to emotion is an illogical thing to do in a debate. You use logic, not emotions to prove or disprove sonething.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

What doesn`t matter? Verbal IQ? or that I learned english literally 4 years ago?

Learning english for four years is enough to hit the learning curve and be a naturalist speaker. Only relevant if you've been doing it for like a single year.

 

[Acee]

Learning english for four years is enough to hit the learning curve and be a naturalist speaker. Only relevant if you've been doing it for like a single year.

No offence but you don`t know what you`re talking about. At all. Well, you never had to learn about linguistics.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

NT inclinations has lead to dysgenics.

Cope, you're an autistic spiteful mutant. Your own beliefs if implemented would result in you being exterminated.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

No offence but you don`t know what you`re talking about. At all. Well, you never had to learn about linguistics.

cope.

 

[Acee]

cope.

You don`t know shit about linguistics. Embarrassing take.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

You don`t know shit about linguistics. Embarrassing take.

so embarrassing

 

[Acee]

so embarrassing

Cringe to read this because you`re coping. Otherwise I wouldn`t give a fuck. You`re a smart guy and I don`t give a fuck about your Verbal IQ results. The coping is something I didn`t expect.

 

[BrendioEEE]

Cope, you're an autistic spiteful mutant. Your own beliefs if implemented would result in you being exterminated.

Wrong, also pushing one of the many forms of hedonistic nihilistic philosophies literally originating from Jews who hate you and want you to be a self-destructive pawn, literally makes you a cuck, unless you are a Jew larping.

Literally more of a slave than a nigger on a plantation. Over4u.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Cringe to read this because you`re coping. Otherwise I wouldn`t give a fuck. You`re a smart guy and I don`t give a fuck about your Verbal IQ results. The coping is something I didn`t expect.

How am I coping? Learning a language for years doesnt do shit to iq results. My parent has english as a second language and does just fine.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Wrong, also pushing one of the many forms of hedonistic nihilistic philosophies literally originating from Jews who hate you and want you to be a self-destructive pawn, literally makes you a cuck, unless you are a Jew larping.

Literally more of a slave than a nigger on a plantation. Over4u.

Keep thinking they wouldn't have viewed you as worthless.

 

[Acee]

How am I coping? Learning a language for years doesnt do shit to iq results. My parent has english as a second language and does just fine.

Almost cried from cringe. I'd ignore this take.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Almost cried from cringe. I'd ignore this take.

over

 

[Acee]

over

This test is shit anyway. My real IQ is around 100.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

This test is shit anyway. My real IQ is around 100.

Have you taken an IQ test? You're not a 100, thats larp

 

[Acee]

Muh 144 and 136

Real Einstein.

 

[Acee]

Have you taken an IQ test? You're not a 100, thats larp

No I didn`t. However I know my limits. I`m also extremely retarded when it comes to Math. 144? 136? wow! top 2% bro!

Every retard that takes this tests getting a high result, so what`s the use?

 

[Deleted member 7327]

I also wont be able to prove that I even killed them in the first place, this argument you made can't go anywhere.


I defined good and bad as increasing or decreasing happiness in my original post. You can either accept the original axioms of the thread of don't. You wont be making any valid arguments at that point though.

An appeal to emotion is an illogical thing to do in a debate. You use logic, not emotions to prove or disprove sonething.

If the argument is whether murder increases or decreases happiness then you can almost certainly say it will overall decrease happiness. For one, even if it increases your happiness it’ll decrease the happiness of all of the victim’s family members. But in all likelihood it will decrease your own happiness as well because you’ll probably gain nothing while also being stressed about getting caught. So, if decreasing the total happiness of the world makes it wrong, it's wrong. You're attempting to make an argument that goes in circles forever as a way to shitpost, I skimmed the original post but if you actually defined it as increasing or decreasing happiness then you massively fucked up because that makes the question fully answerable. I would rethink that if I were you. If you define it as increasing or decreasing happiness of the victim only and no one else (I would argue you included your own happiness in that, and the stress/guilt from committing a murder WILL absolutely result in a decrease in your own happiness, again making the question fully answerable. Barring the EXTREME outlier situation of you being a true psychopath which you are not) then you fucked up when you answered in a reply that "I can't prove anyone exists" because that opens up the option for someone else to say "you can't prove what happens after you die" which destroys the question, because a massive part of your argument is that "nothing happens after you die, so it's not wrong" but that's something you can't prove.

An appeal to emotion is necessary if the concept is based entirely on emotion and nothing else, you've fallen for the m'lady fedora meme that appeals to emotion are automatically "muh illogical" but that's demonstrably false. You're essentially saying right now "Am I happy or am I sad?" and when I go "Well, what do you feel like?" you reply, "Oh, nice try. Trying to appeal to my emotion, what's the matter, can't logic your way out of this?" and it's nothing short of retarded. I understand what you're trying to do, the neverending argument shitpost, I get it
but you're bad at it, because the question that you thought had no answer does in fact have an answer, ironically ONLY within the bounds that you set up though, if you had left out the stuff you thought helped (increasing or decreasing happiness, unable to prove anyone else exists) then it WOULD be an unanswerable question with the only answer being "yes and no, based entirely on your own perspective." But since you didn't, it's answerable

/thread

 

[Acee]

If the argument is whether murder increases or decreases happiness then you can almost certainly say it will overall decrease happiness. For one, even if it increases your happiness it’ll decrease the happiness of all of the victim’s family members. But in all likelihood it will decrease your own happiness as well because you’ll probably gain nothing while also being stressed about getting caught. So, if decreasing the total happiness of the world makes it wrong, it's wrong. You're attempting to make an argument that goes in circles forever as a way to shitpost, I skimmed the original post but if you actually defined it as increasing or decreasing happiness then you massively fucked up because that makes the question fully answerable. I would rethink that if I were you. If you define it as increasing or decreasing happiness of the victim only and no one else (I would argue you included your own happiness in that, and the stress/guilt from committing a murder WILL absolutely result in a decrease in your own happiness, again making the question fully answerable. Barring the EXTREME outlier situation of you being a true psychopath which you are not) then you fucked up when you answered in a reply that "I can't prove anyone exists" because that opens up the option for someone else to say "you can't prove what happens after you die" which destroys the question, because a massive part of your argument is that "nothing happens after you die, so it's not wrong" but that's something you can't prove.

An appeal to emotion is necessary if the concept is based entirely on emotion and nothing else, you've fallen for the m'lady fedora meme that appeals to emotion are automatically "muh illogical" but that's demonstrably false. You're essentially saying right now "Am I happy or am I sad?" and when I go "Well, what do you feel like?" you reply, "Oh, nice try. Trying to appeal to my emotion, what's the matter, can't logic your way out of this?" and it's nothing short of retarded. I understand what you're trying to do, the neverending argument shitpost, I get it
but you're bad at it, because the question that you thought had no answer does in fact have an answer, ironically ONLY within the bounds that you set up though, if you had left out the stuff you thought helped (increasing or decreasing happiness, unable to prove anyone else exists) then it WOULD be an unanswerable question with the only answer being "yes and no, based entirely on your own perspective." But since you didn't, it's answerable

/thread

dn read

 

[Deleted member 17791]

No I didn`t. However I know my limits. I`m also extremely retarded when it comes to Math. 144? 136? wow! top 2% bro!

Every retard that takes this tests getting a high result, so what`s the use?

My real life friend got like 110 on average when taking the test. I only know three people who have taken this test, so not sure how accurate it is.

 

[Acee]

My real life friend got like 110 on average when taking the test. I only know three people who have taken this test, so not sure how accurate it is.

It`s not just this one. I got a really high results on the Norway and the Denmark one. But guess what? so is everyone.

 

[Deleted member 7327]

dn read

you weren't able to

 

[Acee]

My real life friend got like 110 on average when taking the test.

He did it drunk?

 

[Deleted member 17791]

If the argument is whether murder increases or decreases happiness then you can almost certainly say it will overall decrease happiness. For one, even if it increases your happiness it’ll decrease the happiness of all of the victim’s family members. But in all likelihood it will decrease your own happiness as well because you’ll probably gain nothing while also being stressed about getting caught. So, if decreasing the total happiness of the world makes it wrong, it's wrong. You're attempting to make an argument that goes in circles forever as a way to shitpost, I skimmed the original post but if you actually defined it as increasing or decreasing happiness then you massively fucked up because that makes the question fully answerable. I would rethink that if I were you. If you define it as increasing or decreasing happiness of the victim only and no one else (I would argue you included your own happiness in that, and the stress/guilt from committing a murder WILL absolutely result in a decrease in your own happiness, again making the question fully answerable. Barring the EXTREME outlier situation of you being a true psychopath which you are not) then you fucked up when you answered in a reply that "I can't prove anyone exists" because that opens up the option for someone else to say "you can't prove what happens after you die" which destroys the question, because a massive part of your argument is that "nothing happens after you die, so it's not wrong" but that's something you can't prove.

An appeal to emotion is necessary if the concept is based entirely on emotion and nothing else, you've fallen for the m'lady fedora meme that appeals to emotion are automatically "muh illogical" but that's demonstrably false. You're essentially saying right now "Am I happy or am I sad?" and when I go "Well, what do you feel like?" you reply, "Oh, nice try. Trying to appeal to my emotion, what's the matter, can't logic your way out of this?" and it's nothing short of retarded. I understand what you're trying to do, the neverending argument shitpost, I get it
but you're bad at it, because the question that you thought had no answer does in fact have an answer, ironically ONLY within the bounds that you set up though, if you had left out the stuff you thought helped (increasing or decreasing happiness, unable to prove anyone else exists) then it WOULD be an unanswerable question with the only answer being "yes and no, based entirely on your own perspective." But since you didn't, it's answerable

/thread

Answered same argument in first paragraph multiple times. Go read the thread before posting next time.


Not an argument. Do you know how to debate? Do you not even know what an appeal to emotion is and why you don't use it?

 

[Deleted member 17791]

He did it drunk?

No.

 

[Acee]

Do you know how to debate? Do you not even know what an appeal to emotion is and why you don't use it?

Emotional responses are the best responses ngl. If I don`t like it, fuck you. I don`t like that argument..next

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Emotional responses are the best responses ngl. If I don`t like it, fuck you. I don`t like that argument..next

No, he means trying to use emotional techniques to convince opponent.

Example: If you're a communist, you'll probably be put in a mine lol. No comfy party job for you.

 

[Acee]

No, he means trying to use emotional techniques to convince opponent.

Example: If you're a communist, you'll probably be put in a mine lol. No comfy party job for you.

It`s great. I love this technique

 

[Deleted member 17791]

It`s great. I love this technique

 

[Acee]

View attachment 1712693

Read The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831) it was hitler favorite author. It`s a parody book btw.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Read The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831) it was hitler favorite author. It`s a parody book btw.

 

[Acee]

This guys you argued with on VC mogged you hard ngl. Part of that is because they actually took the time to read books. You have the brain, fill it!

 

[Deleted member 17791]

This guys you argued with on VC mogged you hard ngl. Part of that is because they actually took the time to read books. You have the brain, fill it!

books are for faggots. never

 

[Acee]

books are for faggots. never

You watch Tokyo mew mew while they read books tho...you will always lose to this guys. Unless you don`t care to lose

 

[Deleted member 17791]

You watch Tokyo mew mew while they read books tho...you will always lose to this guys. Unless you don`t care to lose

Nigga, all they read is racist ashkenazi stuff. Not good knowledge.

 

[Acee]

Nigga, all they read is racist ashkenazi stuff. Not good knowledge.

They were anti semites what are you talking about? they just claimed objectively that Jews are smarter than Arabs.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

They were anti semites what are you talking about? they just claimed objectively that Jews are smarter than Arabs.

One was a jew and liked that stuff, other guy was a nazi.

Those types are degenerates. I've read all about that kind of stuff years ago, racists are the most pathetic types I ever met.

 

[Acee]

One was a jew and liked that stuff, other guy was a nazi.

They were both Nazis. What Jew?

 

[Deleted member 17791]

They were both Nazis. What Jew?

Maybe, I dont remember much, I was tired.

But only shit you should be reading is economics, coding and other things for making money. I'm always listening to the news and shit. Important stuff.

Philosophy, history and race (knowing more than just basic stuff) is only good for impressing your aspie friends.

 

[Acee]

Maybe, I dont remember much, I was tired.

But only shit you should be reading is economics, coding and other things for making money. I'm always listening to the news and shit. Important stuff.

Philosophy, history and race (knowing more than just basic stuff) is only good for impressing your aspie friends.

Being a robot that makes money theory

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Being a robot that makes money theory

Make money and get surgeries. Become a hedonistic fuck, simple as.

 

[Acee]

Make money and get surgeries. Become a hedonistic fuck, simple as.

If your only goal is to maximize joy and minimize pain, kill yourself. That`s the most logical option for 99% of people.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

If your only goal is to maximize joy and minimize pain, kill yourself. That`s the most logical option for 99% of people.

Just spend hours brainwashing youself to adopt someone else's beliefs theory.

 

[Acee]

Just spend hours brainwashing youself to adopt someone else's beliefs theory.

You read many people and you form your beliefs based on their beliefs + your instincts and experience. What, you think you know it all? what`s wrong about reading about the opinions of other people? You know why you have 2 ears and 1 mouth right?

 

[Deleted member 17791]

You read many people and you form your beliefs based on their beliefs + your instincts and experience. What, you think you know it all? what`s wrong about reading about the opinions of other people? You know why you have 2 ears and 1 mouth right?

I just look at raw data and make my own opinion, Im intentionally blind to other's opinions.

 

[fauxfox]

It's immoral because you've broken the social contract. Everyone else is bound by the social contract so when you break it by murdering someone you're exploiting the social contract and reaping it's benefits while disregarding it's rules, which is unfair to everyone else. This is why mob mentality and mob killings occur.

 

[Acee]

I just look at raw data and make my own opinion, Im intentionally blind to other's opinions.

''Your'' (which isn`t even yours) could be improved by smart exposure.