/cuteboys/ - Boypussy

>leftists supporting pedophilia

Not surprised

>>410238

remember that time the c4ss tard got arrested for cp because he sent his macbook in for repair at the apple store? lmao

>>410243

https://c4ss.org/content/35256

https://knappster.blogspot.com/2015/01/freedom-of-disassociation-sort-of.html

one of the co-founders, iirc the fuckin tard turned himself in after sending in his macbook with evidence of him molesting a child

>>410245

>market anarchist is the same as an ancap

o so ur just a retard, cool

1/2

>>410260

>ideally in a perfect market you wouldn't have job deficits but people deficits which would give people the control ( as opposed to how it is now, which is that you need a job to live and your beholden to you employer) so you cold negotiate better compensation pay and never have a need for such a government program

fucking agreed fam

>right but 'good' is so subjective

eh, i dont think so, at least not in actuality. The Good as a concept is most definitely one of the most subjective things in philosophy, one of my biggest pet peeves with liberalism both as a broad philosophy and as a movement is that its unified concept of the good is a skepticism towards knowledge of the good. the only good it supposes is that of the ontological properties of humans and what must follow from them absent any value judgement, which is retarded as absent any reconciled particular value system you inevitably have the "all things are equal" pop liberalism shite.

>Im just curious if this can be stimulated at all.

aristotle would argue that emotions, being a sort of compiled understanding of particular virtue or lack thereof, are indeed alterable by willful action. the nicomachian ethics is a book im sure youll love if that interests you.

>expand on this.

>i certainly think you can do what is not right but i think that doing so is the only legitimate way to revoke a persons rights(by doing it yourself).

a person can most definitely have the power to do what is not right, but how can it be possibly said that they have a right to? such a thing would suppose a plurality of right as opposed to a unity, which would imply multiple absolute principle goods and without any form of unification effectively make it impossible to actually determine any moral question involving the two.

>but i think retaliation on the wrongdoer can only be done by the wronged party

in an atomistic analysis sure, however the problem is that wrong acting agent is still at liberty until such a time as the wronged agent takes his justice, which may never happen. this, in turn, leaves others vulnerable to the acts of this vicious agent, hence the phrase "an attack on one is an attack on all" and its variations. this agent has already proven that it will do you wrong (by actually doing wrong to another), so why allow it to do so to you in particular? to do so, you would have to suppose a right to do wrong, and if you do then where precisely does this right come from and how?

the rest of that follows naturally from the will of the wronged, so ive no need to address it.

tbh, ive really been hoping for someone to slap me out of that view on force. it puts me at odds with more or less the entirety of western civilisation as it exists now and really with few exceptions for all of its civilised history. where violence was historically permitted as far as i know it was due to reasons of practicality, its hard to enforce restrictions on violence when you simply havent the manpower for it or havent the means to prove it is as it was described. people around the world have fist fights to settle their grievances, but that doesnt mean that the local authorities wont crack skulls if they ever catch one in progress.

2/2

>>410261

>this made me smile because now i get the genuine pressure of learning something.

i wish i was learning solutions to this one. maybe when i get onto kant hell have a thing or two to say on it with his deontology.

>so please anon, the fuck did you mean by this?

so, im not strictly speaking here in terms of this philosophy or that philosophy, but the general gist of things i picked up while sleeping through AI class at uni. thats what i mean by "currently practiced agent theory", and by "currently practiced" i mean that utility functions have kind of been a core part of AI for as long as AI has been a thing and continue to be a thing as far as im aware in any agent that has to make actual judgement based on its internal goal excluding the obvious decision tree types which sort of have an implicit utility function anyway, though thats probably an abuse of the term "function".

by special, i mean as in "species". if you read anything philosophical on categories or metaphysics, youll find this word used in that sense a lot id wager. i know its basically the primary meaning in the works of aristotle and aquinas. hence why i think of morality as more of a matrix of virtues rather than a single scalar of good in raw actuality. to illustrate, if you steal a mans car and give him a pig, you may have provided him with a pig but he remains without a car. thus, without introducing the concept of money into this (which is not a clean solution, selling the pig may indeed bring him money with which he could buy a new car but both of those are separate actions with associated costs of time and effort, during which he is without his car and thus potentially open to the incurring of further losses). im not convinced by the unifying proportional good of justice being the solution either, as it doesnt do anything but impose a proportion on each virtue so as to allow for a meaningful total, i.e. it provides nothing actually new above the underlying reality that is the moral matrix.

>honestly im not sure if i do or dont get it

what im saying there is there seems to be an irreconcilable difference between how agents understand morality (at least in terms of how we think agents work) and how morality exists in actuality. the agent understands morality through a calculation, but morality in terms of right and wrong done is not reducable to a single number because each action is generally categoric in nature. if a man steals a car, unless he replaces it with a car (maybe even the exact same car will be needed) there can be no direct correction of the actual wrong done.

>apologies for being 6 fucking days late.

no worries mate, i appreciate that you replied at all.

>>410260

>why cant some people logically process certain bits of information? my bf/friend is intelligent in information but cant process a intellectual or otherwise technical conversation. Im just curious if this can be stimulated at all. id like to eventually have more technical talks with him since hes the most tolerable human i know and i (obviously) enjoy more technical conversation. but i never find anyone that i can tolerate and converse with in that way.

Sounds like your bf is an aspie.

>but it fascinates me how phenomenally illogical and immune to critical thought some people are. What makes them that way? i don think its low iq, i dont even think i have a particularly high IQ (dna wise i shouldn't) but these people who have no draw to knowledge or study or whatever else. i cant figure out what makes people more critical. the cop out is to say its the way they're raised and the way that their brain take in that information that makes therm more or less curious. so i guess on a physical level its explainable but i dont think we have an answer for things beyond the realm of physical.

Most people only wanna argue politics and discuss conspiracy theories. Actual science education, as in picking up a fucking physics textbook and reading on your off-time is beyond the average prole.

Have you noticed most boomer-oriented non-fiction? It's mainly self-help, counseling, spirituality, or political biographies, or political pro-tips.

>>410236

>ignorant stereotyping

Two can play this game.

<Why does the right support hebephilia?

>"High-school girls are the best brides. Their pussies are still fresh and their hormones are still regulating. Dem feminists are butthurt roasties who want men to sniff their swampy coochies." T. typical rightist

>>410290

>if you suppose a right to bodily autonomy exist

this seems sensible at first glance, but this supposition must in turn have a cause. why should any given thing have a right to autonomy? if it follows from its nature, its in the nature of many things to kill that which is inconvenient to their existence. man has right to life, liberty, and property because it is necessary for his existence, but he doesnt have to exist, another could simply use the force nature has endowed them with for this purpose as they do with animals. there must be some other cause, one prior to it.

what seems to me to be the case is that good, defined properly, is derived from reality first and foremost, but specifically life, and through evolution. life, being a self-perpetuating thing that seemingly exists for its own sake, thus must be the source of good on earth. not all life is equal, however. some life thrives better than others, and thus has a claim of being greater than others. man is the only animal with the capacity to bend to his will all other forms of life, and is thus the best existing form of life and it can therefore be said that all other things serve the good the best when they serve him. evolution implies that all things have developed to be better, thus endowing all living things with a varying level of innate good. interestingly enough, this isnt a million miles away from the christian fundamental understanding of good.

>so ideally you'd be aware of who is and isn't a threat and protect yourself appropriately correct?

the question still remains, why wait? you know this individual is a willfully malfunctioning free agent, why wait til it nearly causes damage before removing it?

>the abolition of force isn't a western ideal its disgust for it

this isnt really something i see a lot of, can you elaborate on it?

>is there possibly a solution to this problem?

no, not really. whether or not one can conveniently solve it however has no bearing on material reality, which seems to bear my position out. in order to solve it, we have to perform some manner of abstraction such as with monetary compensation, which is innately lossy and thus incapable of delivering perfect justice as far as i can see.

>>410505

>this seems like a self explanatory thing and ill admit im frustrated by not being able to figure out how to tell you to fuck off in a intellectual way

in short, the question still remains as to why this particular thing has this concept called a right. animals dont have rights. where then do rights come from? how and why do rights come to be? the problem with the way most people think about rights is that they think them just inherent and unalienable. if that were true criminality would go unpunished. rights, therefore, must be predicated on something prior to mere existence as some thing.

>infact i would argue that bodily autonomy is the fundamental bed rock of what things mean to be a 'right' it is something that simply is

rights are not things you can point to and say they simply are, they are not in themselves sensible entities or else all cultures would know them as all cultures know what say a fly is.

>because he has not aggressed on you and until he does you have no right to aggress on him.

why? you wouldnt behave this way with a robot, or a disease, why a person?

>All im saying is guilty until proven innocent is a bad way to build a society

but were basing this entire conversation on them having been proven to be guilty of some act of aggression to someone.

>and i would add a opposition to force.

i think youre right to add that, but what do you think the core reason for that opposition to force is?

>libertarians who want to outlaw tyranny are tyrants.

in what sense? because opposition to tyranny being tyranny evaluates to P ^ ¬P = 1

>>410522

The people poisoning you have convinced you the antidote is what's been making you sick

>>410507

>in short, the question still remains as to why this particular thing has this concept called a right.

>animals dont have rights.

do animals not have rights? i keep having pig blood dumped on me for no reason? i think all living things have rights

>where then do rights come from?

god? or otherwise just things that we know. im (clearly) not familiar with the probably typical answer to this question but as ive already surmised i would consider a 'right' to be individual liberties people have that can be found through logic and morality. The most famous use of rights being the American bill of rights, they specifically wrote that the United States government does not give you those rights, they simply uphold them. they are rights all humans are born with.

>how and why do rights come to be?

they simply are! see the bottom.

>the problem with the way most people think about rights is that they think them just inherent and unalienable. if that were true criminality would go unpunished. rights, therefore, must be predicated on something prior to mere existence as some thing.

>rights are not things you can point to and say they simply are, they are not in themselves sensible entities or else all cultures would know them as all cultures know what say a fly is.

the more i think about this the less i feel like we can have this discussion on 8chan. it seems way too big to have it. so to skip the part where i throw myself from a building; what do you think rights are? im typing this 13 hours later (than that^ way at the top) so my giving up on this is sort of contradictory. but i feel that rights are things you can logically get to within the proper society and its given evolved morality. i think that somebody who is from Asia has fundamentally different morals from someone who is from GB. but i think people from these regions wish to live good lives and they can all get to it though finding the rights of the people for themselves. so your correct when you say that rights aren't self evident to all people, but European rights are self evident to European people, i image the same would be said of other regions

>why? you wouldnt behave this way with a robot, or a disease, why a person?

i could take this so many fucking directions to answer this but the truth is i honestly feel that it is innate to me. perhaps its not. but i believe i already said it. its simply something that due to the environment i exist in i accept. i dont find this idea entertaining enough to elaborate on any further; it just seems really dull to distinguish living people and their inherent rights, and objects– less than animals, who you've already mentioned dont have rights.

>but were basing this entire conversation on them having been proven to be guilty of some act of aggression to someone.

your correct im stupid and we were having two discussions this whole time (i think) you were talking about punishment for found guilty criminals i was talking about how criminals are to be treated after they were made to pay for their crimes. i dont really have a 'good' solution to what we do about criminals who for whatever reason aren't punished, whats you thinking?

>i think youre right to add that, but what do you think the core reason for that opposition to force is?

there are a lot of reasons. each reason is a bit more unique than the last but i would say that libertariansim is founded in western morality a morality that would suggest that force is immoral to do onto others. it is something that is just generally held to be an erosion to society and is thus immoral as a general rule. their are a lot of reasons but fundamentally its simply immoral/

>in what sense? because opposition to tyranny being tyranny evaluates to P ^ ¬P = 1

that was more a joke. not really gonna argue over what is essentially a semantical opinion oriented joke. to make anything illegal is against the spirit of libertarianism at least in the american classical sense if you need me to elaborate on that statement please refer to any one of the founders of america

>>410509

>I was far-right until I gave up, lefties won. Now I just want a nice dom bf.

admitting to no longer being right wing because your soy and need an alt-right daddy to take care of you. you were larping the whole time anyway

>>410511

>you don't want to be a living contradiction

alt-right faggots arent walking contradictions they're sane enough to find purpose in a family first ideology and are willing to fight for a political future that will get them killed because they actually give two fucks about their people

>>410529

ironic when a faggot who pays for diversity programming on the television is going to lecture us about the right is the thing that been making me sick. its the left. but i suppose the rise in left wing regulations and policy isn't whats been making our counties shitty places to be in for the last 70 years

>man things were so much better back then :)

<whats changed?

>well we had a black president but that was progress not regression; so it must be those frickin republicucks and their 'stop stealing my money' talk

actually end your life

>>410558

>do animals not have rights?

i dunno, do they? if so, how?

>god?

everything comes from god though if you suppose the christian sort. saying rights come from god provides you with no meaningful knowledge of their nature beyond that they exist.

>they are rights all humans are born with.

yes but how? what gives life its right to be? why does any one thing have any kind of inherent value of any sort beyond that of a clump of matter?

>but i feel that rights are things you can logically get to within the proper society and its given evolved morality.

but what makes any one set of rights correct? why is the right to life more valid than the right to a pair of heelies on your 11th birthday?

>its simply something that due to the environment i exist in i accept.

thats the understanding most people have, and i honestly think the lack of understanding of the differentia and the principle of rights as a concept in themselves makes rights weaker. it provides our enemies with a means of forcing us into accepting absurdities like a right to do to another what is wrong, which is something that logically cannot be.

>whats you thinking?

im thinking that while punishment makes sense when assessed through incentives, from the perspective of virtue what matters is that the cause of the problem is addressed. if the person acted viciously out of poor character, our two options are either to reform them (in whatever way we choose, i would take that to mean even surgical methods) or simply destruction. obviously the former preserves more of the existing good and is therefore preferable before accounting for cost, but the latter is clean and guarantees no further malfunction.

>there are a lot of reasons

i would say first and foremost is that force is not reason. force is in fact destructive to the process of reasoning, and western philosophy and even theology is by and large centered around the primacy of reason. elaborating on that would be really quite a bit of writing though, and im sure you know what im talking about here.

>>410560

>i dunno, do they? if so, how?

id say that animals have only the right to not be abused in excess by humans. i cant think of rights for animals that are not just fucking vegan which is fundamentally not what humans were made for so it would seem stupid to go vegan or even believe the bullshit

>everything comes from god though if you suppose the christian sort. saying rights come from god provides you with no meaningful knowledge of their nature beyond that they exist.

i know. it was meant to be a bit of a non sequitur; popcorn.

>yes but how? what gives life its right to be? why does any one thing have any kind of inherent value of any sort beyond that of a clump of matter?

ive addressed this. technically nothing but technically your environment. this is vaguely cultural relativist which is also true. rights are the results of a logical necessity that comes from the thinking you develop from existing in and learning-from your environment. they are not technically inherit or universal, at least not from continent to continent

>but what makes any one set of rights correct? why is the right to life more valid than the right to a pair of heelies on your 11th birthday?

there is no one correct one, i wasn't arguing for one. which is ultimately another reason to be right wing (gotta shill the ideas)

>thats the understanding most people have, and i honestly think the lack of understanding of the differentia and the principle of rights as a concept in themselves makes rights weaker. it provides our enemies with a means of forcing us into accepting absurdities like a right to do to another what is wrong, which is something that logically cannot be.

yeah well people are fucking stupid. i dont exactly think you need much more than that but i see what you mean

>im thinking that while punishment makes sense when assessed through incentives, from the perspective of virtue what matters is that the cause of the problem is addressed. if the person acted viciously out of poor character, our two options are either to reform them (in whatever way we choose, i would take that to mean even surgical methods) or simply destruction. obviously the former preserves more of the existing good and is therefore preferable before accounting for cost, but the latter is clean and guarantees no further malfunction.

reconciling this with 'classical' libertarianism seems difficult, would you agree?

>i would say first and foremost is that force is not reason. force is in fact destructive to the process of reasoning, and western philosophy and even theology is by and large centered around the primacy of reason. elaborating on that would be really quite a bit of writing though, and im sure you know what im talking about here.

i would agree

like how the fag bo deletes the right wing thread but not this

>>410740

I never saw the right-wing thread, but my guess is it’s probably because the right-wing thread went into deliberately hateful shit, as right-wing politics is wont to do.

>>410559

>thinking putting minorities in places of power is somehow left-wing

Lmao you don’t know the first thing about actual left-wing politics do you? What that guy meant about poison and ant idiots and shit is that have the problems right-wingers bring up are problems caused by capitalism, that they wrongly and illogically attributed to literally anything else. Muh globalism and muh SJWs and muh immigrants, give me a break. SJWs aren’t the ones commodifying your culture and exporting your jobs to the third-world; the capitalists are. You people on about some conspiracy of lizard people or (((the Jews))) or whatever else secretly pulling the strings, when the actual globalist rulers are right there in front of you—the big megacorp owners who openly flaunt their connections with governments across the world, throwing money at whatever politicians they can, putting entire nations in debt to them so that they can obligate them to whatever they want. But yeah sure, it’s the SJWs and the (((cultural marxists))) that are ruining your lives yeah that makes a lot of sense.

>>410741

then you ban the posters not delete the thread

>>410759

Dunning Kruger: the post, you haven't a clue what you're arguing against so you flail pathetically against shadows on the wall.

>the left of the political compass.

The 'political compass' doesn't mean shit, anyone can set up a political compass that sets them on one side and everyone they don't like on the other because where one places the centre is completely arbitrary and ideological. You see libs on the left, i see them on the right, you're completely infantile if you 1. think that politics can be plotted on some sort of compass or spectrum 2. expect anyone to take your moronic assertions that actually everyone to the left of you has everything or anything in common with eachother

>All issues "caused by capitalism" literally only showed up after the first wave of democrat presidents following FDR.

This is all just nonsense until you enumerate what you view as these 'issues', regardless of the fact that there was plenty going wrong with capitalism long before some burger president that your bird-brain wants to blame for ruining your prelapsarian capitalism.

>anyway as evidenced by the tax cuts (though not wholly - at al) jobs would stay in our country if not for the "fuck you" taxes you left twats push. look at Ireland. they absorb retarded amounts of money because they have some of the lowest taxes in the world. Look at history you absolute mong. Taxes go up jobs leave. capitalist dont have any reason to leave except bullshit government intervention.

This is utter nonsense, you're so utterly narrow-minded you think taxes are something that concerns or is advocated by the left. There is so much more to economics my dude.

Besides the idea that somehow tax cuts will stop capitalists from relocating overseas is naive as fuck, at very best you can very slightly slow down the rate at which it happens, but unless you actually match the desirable conditions for employment of bangladesh, india and the philippines, ie. having no worker protections, very, very low wages, complete lack of regulations you won't 'bring jobs back' or prevent them being moved or outsourced abroad. It is simply impossible for a western economy to outcompete and be more attractive to investors, especially in manufacturing, than countries in the global south.

Moreover absolutely hilarious that you think Ireland is a model, you might as well say Liechtenstein or Luxembourg is a model. Small countries are able to operate as tax havens and sustain their population at a high-standard of living by providing loopholes to multinationals and banks but this isn't replicable on a real economy of a real country, something that is blatantly obvious if you put even a second of thought into it, you can't scale-up a tax haven. Besides even on the scale of ireland the model is fucking garbage, try living in ireland, their property market is hellish and their economy collapses like a house of cards the moment any economic turbulence hits like in 2008 when they ate shit more than most and the only way their 'recovery' has left unemployment, rising homelessness and austerity.

Finally its laughable that you invoke history while claiming that taxes going up makes jobs leave when historically higher top marginal tax rates have correlated with higher economic growth and lower unemployment.

The rest of your post is inane ranting with not a single argument made but its fairly evident that you have not the slightest idea about economics, history or politics yet you think that garbling cliches with no basis in reality and some pretty telling projection going on constitutes some refutation or argument against anyone's politics. All in all, absolutely pathetic.

>>410762

>Dunning Kruger

lmao i literally said

>> id like to request that you stop thinking you actually know politics because nobody fucking does its all retarded and defending your side is a waste of time

shit bait; fuck off cunt. unironically and genuinely not going to read the rest of your block of text if your going to claim im dunning krugering when i explicitly say that he and I and you dont know shit about politics

tell your nephew Muhammad i said hi and fuck off and die

>>410722

>rights are the results of a logical necessity that comes from the thinking you develop from existing in and learning-from your environment.

i think what this boils down to ultimately, is just legalism. if the law, being the (at least in theory) settled opinions of right and wrong of the culture, say that one must under all circumstances have these rights barring infringing the rest of the law, then that constitutes a right. the problem i have with that is its really just a privilege, one bestowed by being subject to those laws. there is nothing natural about it, no reason it must be, no direct connection to reality, such rights are often arbitrary even. ontological rights seem sensible at first, but reconciling them with any conception of absolute good and not rejecting the existence of evil results in them merely being epistemic at best, if not outright invalid.

>reconciling this with 'classical' libertarianism seems difficult, would you agree?

yes, but classical liberalism is a fucking mess of protestant and actually liberal thought. i still dont quite get why locke forbids killing a man to retrieve your stolen goods but says its just fine to protect them. classical liberalism needs reinventing to be at all relevant now, tbh.

personally, the more i read of aristotle and aquinas the more i think theres probably something to the idea of there being innate purpose in existence and a divine will at work. evolution and divine purpose reconcile nicely, if you forget the plato/aristotle conceptions of eternal substance. man may not have been conceived by god as we might think of, but i dont see why the rejection of eternal substance couldnt result in modern understanding of natural systems being perfectly reconciled with christian views of god as purpose and god as origin.

>>410769

lmao, absolutely arseblasted

read a book burger :^)

Any /cuteboy/ leftist out there that I could give a mercy-kill to is the kind of leftist I love. I would grieve for the fact that being infected with the leftism disease would make it necessary to knock a /cuteboy/ unconscious, string him up, then bleed him out like fresh game from both neck arteries. Allah and other Gods willing, I would do this thing to free them from their cursed leftist fate.

No. This cute boy knows his history and knows that once the left takes power the platitudes they push about pussyboys ceases and often become the first group of persecuted political Undesirables.

I go anarchist, which is either far right or off the spectrum. No one can use a government apparatus to persecute gays and criminalize homosexuality if there is no state.

>>408889

Unfortunately, most of your fellow white men will never agree. The thing about white folks is that they don't even like each other. "Race realism" is just a defense against outside threats. But once the brown people are gone, they will turn on each other.

Look at England. They were so racist, that they enslaved their fellow Gaelic neigbors (Irish and Scots).

Even in America, white racialists will discriminate worthiness by native region.

@NoLimitsSlut289 Kik

@Marz52 (Trans Goblin)#0781 Discord

@Megan89 Telegram

Message me on these if any right wing men wanna use me <3

tfw no bf to breadpill me to fix my pol brain

I'm an anti industrial environmentalist revolutionary nihilist multidisciplinary anarchist that takes a lot of influence from marxism and postmodernism, whats up.

>>411515

Anarchism is the furthest left you can get lmao.

>>412986

What the fuck did you just say

>>405152

>Any nationalist beliefs are, at their core, completely incompatible with so-called "sexual deviancy" and minding one's own business. Traditionalism is a fundamental feature of it. It doesn't matter what people change or don't change, it is not nationalism without those qualities.

Completely untrue.

>>408889

Your ideas remind me a little bit of the alt left. I'm not talking about how GOP types butcher the term to refer to groups like BLM, but the original people to use the name. Are you familiar with them? They were a loose assortment of people into race realism (sometimes extending into white nationalism) but minus the ball and chain of "traditionalism."

I'm probably more right-leaning than anything (if still basically a centrist with strong in-group preference), but I'm sick to death of the right's sexual puritanism, blind adherence to religious traditions, and insecure chest-pounding about how ALPHA they are.

I might support pro-white "identity politics," but I'm not kidding myself that ethnostates are likely to come back in the West. The right makes a lot of valid points about the decline of social trust and the rise in anomie and rootlessness, but is there a practical remedy? Maybe North America will balkanize, but will there be leaders willing to really take on corporate power? And modern technology may have huge downsides, but Pandora's box has already been opened in that regard. I lurked the discussions of a site that regularly discussed these problems for years, and I really don't see much of a way forward for conservatives to remedy these problems.

>>408010

Limonov is a real fagg