National Socialism and Moral Faith
We had to observe something far more than once: why, if we project National Socialism onto morality, then we get prejudicial troubles about gays and prostitutes? Not, of course, a * reasonable * nationalist will not bother with this, since there are much more interesting (and more important, by the way) topics.Moreover, a * reasonable * individual does not need morality, since he has enough brains. In turn, a deep knowledge of ethics is the best way to cover up stupidity. It is precisely those nationalists who bother with deep knowledge of ethics. What is your opinion on this? I will make a reservation right away that the nationalist himself is personally almost to the marrow of his bones.
Are this gentleman's words true?
Subject nah! Can I have more details about pussy? XD
Shit-question, anyone interested can read the history of my messages :). By the way, I still do not understand, with the new design of the site, where to look at it now ???
gays and prostitutes are to some extent a shame for their nation, so everything is natural.
There is such a point of view, but it is unsubstantiated.
not quite so and not always so. Deep knowledge means a person is interested.
As exceptions, perhaps. Because somehow with a stretch one can call interest what he did not come to himself, but under the influence of mass culture, and even out of stupidity, he took it as his own views.
I did not understand the author of this topic a little. My misunderstanding began even before the main question "What is your opinion on this?", Namely, God forgive me, with gays and prostitutes. And with their connection with the gentlemen of the National Socialists.
Simply, I will quote an excerpt from the first post: why, if we project National Socialism onto morality, then we get prejudicial troubles about gays and prostitutes?
However, from what follows such a bold conclusion?
Since there are no intelligible reasons for the reasonable to need this very morality.
Do not confuse deep knowledge of ethics at the theoretical level and the masterful ability to apply this very ethics to manipulate people at the practical level.
There is such a way to control the masses by imposing morality. So what?
What is the causal relationship between ethics, National Socialism, gays and prostitutes?
Honestly, that's why I created the topic, because I don't see any connection between * nationalism * and gays / whores. The question is, what the hell is the connection between * the nationalists themselves * (and far from being isolated individuals) and gays / whores.
Or try a new flu vaccine from you. And much more.
By the way, in the Third Reich (and elsewhere) for three years of experience on humans, they achieved results that could not be achieved in decades on rats. But the moral-faulty hryuso-humanists hacked this idea at the root, which is a pity. In a reasonable state, it is advisable to prescribe this as a capital punishment. Do I need to explain why?
RussianQuaker of
course. After all, one day they can test it on you. well, for example, for the wrong crossing of the road.
Certainly. After all, one day they can test it on you. well, for example, for the wrong crossing of the road.
It is clear who will be against such a regime in the first place: those pussies who are afraid to take responsibility for their actions. By the way, for the same pigs, this is generally considered the norm.
RussianQuaker It's not about humanism or anything like that. The fact is that not every vaccine has its own positive / negative effect.
Is it prudent to waste human lives on vaccines if the pharmacist doesn't know how it works?
If you think in a narrow sense, of course.
Nationalism itself is ridiculous, especially from the ethical point of view.
From your words, I can generally conclude that a nationalist = anarchist, only with the letter "N".
Is it prudent to waste human lives on vaccines if the pharmacist doesn't know how it works?
Of course, if all the more, as he himself said, it is not yet known how it will operate in practice (even if the theoretical part has already been derived), then it is prudent. That's why they spend. Otherwise, how else to check. Are there any smarter alternatives to capital punishment? Do I need to explain why it is wiser to carry out experiments on humans, and not on rats?
From your words, I can generally conclude that a nationalist = anarchist, only with the letter "N".
I can’t say anything about anarchy, because I haven’t had to study it yet. It is important that nationalism means everything that will benefit the nation, as well as the destruction of what will harm it.
"Easier, I will quote an excerpt from the first post: why, if we project National Socialism onto morality, then we get prejudicial troubles about gays and prostitutes?"
That's what it means. Well, I have such prejudices about gays and prostitutes: prostitutes do it for money, and gays are "boys who like boys." Actually, these are not even prejudices, but quite our reality.
The main thing is that there are no such personnel in my village.
And there is also such a question: what is morality?
"Since there are no intelligible reasons for the reasonable to need this very morality."
This, in my opinion, is not entirely true. Perhaps some people find it easier to abandon the shackles of morality, motivating this with their outstanding mental development, and looking for clear reasons to adhere to various restrictions on free will is either lazy, or, in the case of a highly developed individual, is simply unprofitable. Simply put, no one is looking for reasons, and therefore there are none.
"There is such a way to control the masses through the imposition of morality. So what?"
And nothing. It works and okay.
"Honestly, that's why I created the topic, because I don't see a connection between * nationalism * and gays / whores. The question is, what the hell is there a connection between * the nationalists themselves * (and far from being isolated individuals) and gays / whores."
So we figured it out.
Actually, this is not even prejudice ... The main thing is that there are no such personnel in my village.
Prejudice is, in fact, an attitude towards certain facts. It is very clear that you value adherence to tradition more than having brains. The point is, in order to evaluate people by their level of intelligence, one must have at least a basic amount of it. In this case, the assessment of people precisely by their minds will not only be considered as a possible version of the worldview, but by themselves there will arise, in a sense, the need to form an opinion about people according to their intellectual qualities.
And there is also such a question: what is morality?
Synonyms: moralizing, moralizing. Roughly speaking, when an individual thinks not with brains, but with morality.
This, in my opinion, is not entirely true. Perhaps some people find it easier to abandon the shackles of morality, motivating this with their outstanding mental development, and looking for clear reasons to adhere to various restrictions on free will is either lazy, or, in the case of a highly developed individual, is simply unprofitable. Simply put, no one is looking for reasons, and therefore there are none.
Characteristically, no specific reasons were given.
"It is very clear that you value adherence to traditions more than having brains. The point is, in order to evaluate people by their level of intelligence, you must have at least a basic amount of it yourself
." I don't even reach the basic level.
However, I do not judge people either by intellectual data or by moral qualities. Why? Because I see both of them only as tools with the help of which a person performs any actions and presents himself to the world. A person can be very smart, but behave like an outright idiot. A person may be a convinced moralist, but act like the last brute.
There is what a person can do. And there is what a person does. And I try to judge people by their actions.
"Synonyms: moralizing, moralizing. Roughly speaking, when an individual thinks not with brains, but with morality"
Thank you for such a timely educational program. I would never have guessed.
"Characteristically, no specific reasons were given."
I'm lazy.
RussianQuaker
It is important that nationalism means everything that will benefit the nation, as well as the destruction of what will harm it.
In this case, you need to destroy the nation. For she gnaws herself from the inside, however, like the rest of the world.
Any form of government other than anarchy implies strata of society. Everything that implies strata of society leads to what we see now (unemployment, drunkenness, drug addiction and other negative aspects of the social world, in other words, society as a whole).
The trouble is that there is nowhere to hide from this. It is part of the person himself - to become better in comparison with others.
Yes, you can destroy alcohol / drugs / unemployment. But who said that it would benefit the individual and the nation as a whole? If they get rid of one, they will find another. It's simple.
why if we project National Socialism on morality, then we get prejudicial troubles about gays and prostitutes? > It is important that nationalism means everything that will benefit the nation, as well as the destruction of what will harm it. - You yourself answered your own question.
A person can be very smart, but behave like an outright idiot.
Is this egocentrism reasonable?
And I try to judge people by their actions.
The source of actions is not always expediency. Also (and quite often) emotions, morality, instincts can appear, which will not necessarily correlate with common sense. This means that if you evaluate people by their actions => you do not evaluate common sense => you yourself do not consider it necessary to always adhere to it => conclusion? :)
Moreover, when someone evaluates people by their actions, he most likely looks at people through the prism of usefulness for himself - rather than selfishness, only veiled. Well, he would also be honestly aware ...
In this case, you need to destroy the nation. For she gnaws herself from the inside
It all depends on the quality of the biomass.
It is part of the person himself - to become better in comparison with others.
Unfortunately, this does not concern everyone. Common views: 1) there is nothing to be too smart; 2) I am a man => I am the crown of creation (like much better).
Yes, you can destroy alcohol / drugs / unemployment. But who said that it would benefit the individual and the nation as a whole? If they get rid of one, they will find another. It's simple.
Examples?
You yourself answered your own question.
It remains only to clearly explain what harm the gays / whores are for the nation.
"Is this egocentrism reasonable?"
This is fine. Not good, not bad, not stupid and not reasonable. Fine.
"So, if you evaluate people by their actions => you do not evaluate common sense => you yourself do not consider it necessary to always adhere to it => a conclusion?"
Conclusion: I am the same mortal person, not devoid of vices and shortcomings.
"Moreover, when someone evaluates people by their actions, he most likely looks at people through the prism of usefulness for himself - rather than selfishness, only veiled."
You're right. Dexterously figured out me, there is nothing to complain about. Yes, I do it this way, I rate a person according to the degree of his / her usefulness to me.
explain what harm gays / whores are for the nation. There are two answers to this question, the first official, the second honest. So, the second answer to this question is this - gays do not breed, therefore they do not breed new slaves who can be milked by the "nation" in the person of its rulers. The power bears direct financial losses. There is something similar with prostitution, there are no taxes, the availability of this service sector indirectly reduces the number of official marriages and again hits the government's pocket. Potential lost profits, something like that.
This is fine. Not good, not bad, not stupid and not reasonable. Fine.
Meaning natural? Naturalness is not an obligatory guarantor of rationality.
Especially this one is more theirs "DIDYVAIVALE !!!! 11"
Yeah, but ask what, for example, July 3, 964 is marked, and do not know such a date. It is not customary to know such dates, since professing the Jewish religion and supporting the thieves' business is always welcome.
Examples?
What will the average Russian village do? Make them work - except for mats you will not hear anything. Take away vodka - they will toil around idle.
It all depends on the quality of the biomass.
Unfortunately, the "biomass" of our country is not something that can be raised to a pedestal, chuckled.
It remains only to clearly explain what harm the gays / whores are for the nation.
REDUCTION OF THE MORAL QUALITIES OF THE COCOCO SOCIETY. I don't know, honestly. It is already necessary to ask the nationalists themselves why, in the moral and ethical terms, they are associated with this. However, gay useless downs crowing about their orientation, and whores, well, they are whores, what to take from them?
My personal opinion: every useless person should do hard labor, because he corrupts the system. No, this has nothing to do with the scoop, just each individual should be moderately useful. But 90% of Raska is useless shit, incapable of the simplest rough work. That is why this system is decomposing from the inside.
And typical nationalists, so far, have done nothing except "KOKOUBIVAYKHACHAY" and beatings of a poor janitor of non-Slavic origin. Let's be objective. Why the hell are they needed, I don't know. Like the same gays. They seem to be promoting themselves, but they don't represent anything. This is also disgusting. I was referring to the notorious downs with the empire in some random area, but not those who think nationalistically. For, a Russian nationalist crowing in the square or on the Internet =! nationalist, no matter how funny it is. Maybe that's why there is such an association.
By the way, this should not be asked on the pegachek's forums, but directly from the society itself.
And yes. A similar topic would be relevant not in a chatterbox, but in society, rather.