New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
60
posted 1 month ago by fourleaved on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +60Score on mirror )
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
PurestEvil on scored.co
1 month ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
> It seems like you agree.

Then I misunderstood. Yes.

> What makes something good or bad is how someone interprets it.

Well, yes. What's good for you is bad for the cow - its meat.

> that morality is relative

Yeah, it's a bit weird. There are some steps in that thinking that are reasonable, but it ends up with some weird conclusion like "therefore we have to consider the feelings of the pedophile rapist sandnigger."

> And from there you have to ask what is more important: MY being alive, or YOUR being alive?

That is very simplified. In fact we have a collective symbiotic relationship and have to consider societal norms. What you describe is a thoroughly calculative way of thinking. Which isn't necessarily bad.

I have no issues calculating the net positive of a given nigger to our people and deciding that it's negative, therefore it has to be taken care of. I also have no issue to declare every single nigger a net negative simply based on large-scale factors, including its future and potential. The dangers of race mixing included.

As of my people, even if a given person isn't particularly a net positive, his children or theirs may be, or in the future he might turn his life around. So by default everyone gets the benefit of the doubt - or of unforeseeable factors. But this is not the way I'd approach it with Whites, I treat people normally with respect. I treat subhumans with certain distance to avoid having to deal with them.
Toast message