4096 characters remaining
Max filesize: 3.00 MB, Max files: 3

/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Habbenings, news and serious stuff
Objectivism generalanon91bcc112/07/2019 (Fri) 03:10:3710395Reply

How was a woman this fucking based? Howard Roarkes closing argument is still my favourite fictional speech, only one that gave me chills while reading it.

The conception of man as a heroic being, bending nature to his will was quite new to someone who grew up in a culture where your entire life is supposed to be about duty. I always loathed the concept of dharma, why must we do what we are supposed to do rather than what we wish to? If Arjuna didn't wish to spill the blood of those dear to him, why must he? Who determined that it was his dharma to do so and what'd have happened at most if he hadn't? A tyrant would have ruled for a few more decades? Big deal, the damage suffered by the kingdom from the war was greater.

Ultimately I don't believe in either because neither can prove soundly their core premises but if I had to, I would rather pick the view that made me an independent being. As an idealist political philosophy, libertarianism conceives man as a autonomous being, capable of recognizing and acting in his own interest as he always has. If one wishes to start a commune without currency, they can in a libertarian state, though the reverse obviously doesn't happen.
Communism sees him as an unit in a cog too retarded to understand his own interest, to be directed by others for their idea of what the collective interests are. These collective interests are ideally the interests of the mean of society, but the interests of a significant chunk of the population must necessarily be subverted even if they are are and they must be forced into servitude to the majority. In the utopian Communist state there might not be any masters but everyone is still a slave.
Why would anyone pick the latter over the former? Do people wish to be enslaved?
anon91bcc112/07/2019 (Fri) 03:41:2110396Reply
*or a cog
anonb362b212/07/2019 (Fri) 06:13:5310399Reply
>Communism and Objectivism/Rugged Libertarianism are the only two choices we have
And this is why not even her fellow philosophers take that foid seriously and the only ones that do are underaged or college aged basedboys. Reminds me of that commie I argued with few days before that said social democracy was the only true centrist philosophy and it's either opperson under capitalism and liberation under communism.
anonb362b212/07/2019 (Fri) 06:21:5010400Reply
BTW anybody noticed how every lolbertarian moved more to the right and every anarkiddie more to the left? I've checked out some of them I checked when I was young and every lolbertarian I remembered now were traditionalists and every anarkiddie I used to watch were Leninists.
anon0c445a12/07/2019 (Fri) 07:07:2610401Reply
Soc Dem moves naturally leftwards as the proportion of population that feeds off of welfare increases, through fertility rates or immigration. You can see this trend in most of Europe now and US will eventually follow in it's footsteps. We were initially supposed to be a social democracy too, yet for votes our politicians rapidly did away with the right to property as the very first amendment and then kept nationalizing sectors right and left, all to supposedly help the garib. Britain's a similar case, for all their state's history they were mercantile but the moment they implemented a welfare state after WW2 their politics pivoted hard left.

The only way to keep a government in check and politics in balance is to limit it's spheres of influence severely, which is what Libertarians advocate. Anyone who disagrees is free to found an organization, raise funds and carry out whatever activity they believe the government should be doing.
anon0c445a12/07/2019 (Fri) 07:10:1410402Reply
>Watching YT political vids
anon9ab10612/07/2019 (Fri) 07:18:5510403Reply
>saving that NEET's anime reaction images
anon12105312/07/2019 (Fri) 07:29:5110405Reply
>The only way to keep a government in check and politics in balance is to limit it's spheres of influence severely
That used to be the principle of American state too. Look at it now. Libertarianism is inherently paradoxical. How can you give people liberty while making sure they don't choose a government that'll take away their liberty? Don't tell me it won't happen, the American state experiment proves it can. People are not that smart, a panic attack is all that requires for them to write away their rights. American civil war was the starting point when the American people gave their rights to the central state. Even in India you can see a parallel, BJP which began its journey on the platform of decentralisation becoming more and more statist day by day.
The problem with many of these 'ism's is that the participating population should agree on its core principles. That's statistically impossible to achieve.
anon0c445a12/07/2019 (Fri) 07:51:4610406Reply
I literally just googled yikes anime girl you tard. Anime isn't something only one NEET on this Chambali chappal making forum watches.

There's an easy way to do that, property based right to vote. Universal adult franchise is basically what Plato talked about when he called democracy mob rule. A republic composed of and voted for by propertied individuals is far better. Of course now that we have gotten to democracy we can only re institute that system after some sort of crisis.
anonab31cc12/07/2019 (Fri) 09:54:5610410Reply
How does only allowing individuals with property the right to vote ensure a population that doesn't elect a government that takes away their rights? Landlords or land owners are not particularly smart. People are prone to panic attacks. Just the mention of a muzzah blowing himself along with 50 soldiers nearly caused us to go to a war with Pakis. BJP is already tracking you through Aadhar. It's too late to implement any form of libertarianism in this cunt.
anon4e77a612/07/2019 (Fri) 10:01:2210411Reply
If the wealthy classes vote, their top priority will be low taxes. With low taxes the government won't have the money necessary to become an overarching organization. Most propertied individuals are white collar workers atm, not farm owners. Other than NW and some cash crops do big farmers even exist any more?
anonab31cc12/07/2019 (Fri) 10:07:5910412Reply
Jatts/Gurjars/Bhumihars say hi. Government is already taxing the super rich at 42% in India. And it's not like we are a paragon of morality. Libertarianism just can't exist in this cunt.
anon4e77a612/07/2019 (Fri) 10:41:5710413Reply
How many are there? Require 20L in assets and 6L in annual income
anond56f5a12/07/2019 (Fri) 10:50:5510414Reply
>BJP is already tracking you through Aadhar.
How is it exactly tracking me?
anonf7925c12/07/2019 (Fri) 16:00:2610419Reply
> culture where your entire life is supposed to be about duty
Idk how you justify this blatantly false statement, don't cite the Gita faggot, our culture is not derived straight from Gita.
> why must we do what we are supposed to do rather than what we wish to?
Seriously, underage fag you tell me. How will you survive in a society without doing this?
> why must he?
Have you even read the Gita or the Mahabharata? Arjuna must fight because he was being wronged, his rights denied by his own cousin brothers. What did you expect him to do, keep quiet and go away?
> Who determined that it was his dharma to do so
Basic common sense, lol. You fight for things that are yours, how hard is it to grasp.
> what'd have happened at most if he hadn't? A tyrant would have ruled for a few more decades?
Tyrant? Are you calling Dhritrastra a tyrant? Justify please.
And where would Arjuna go, live inside a hut being a cuck? Watch Mahabharata and come back, the further I read the retarded you sound.
> the damage suffered by the kingdom from the war was greater
What? Explain this please.
Drop your balls faggot, I am seriously laughing on how shallow your knowledge is.
anon4e77a612/07/2019 (Fri) 16:42:2310424Reply
The four stages of life and the caste system are pretty deterministic even beyond the Gita. Gita is also probably the most influential Hindu religious text at the moment, Vedanta or Upanishads are beyond common people but Gita isn't.

You can be productive without following exactly in your parent's footsteps. Restrictions on one's vocation by the caste system prevented that though. Even now, go talk to say the idol makers in Kolkata, they make less in a far more volatile sector than unskilled labourers despite being skilled but can't even contemplate doing something else. Imagine the whole country being like that.
If he determined his birthright was not worth killing people he cared about, that's his decision no? There have been people who have done so in the past, there was one Roman Emperor who self chakud to prevent a civil war and he's somewhat glorified. Krishna didn't let him, and this was the same character who provided troops to the supposedly adharmic Duryodhana, an act which he was not obligated to do anyway.

Not Dhritarashtra, I believe day to day administration had passed firmly into Duryodhanas hand by the time of the war. What we know of his character would make it likely that he was a tyrant.
anonf7925c12/07/2019 (Fri) 16:54:1310426Reply
Ew, underage nigger.
> The four stages
Ask any bimaru and he wouldn't know about it.
> the caste system
A societal construct, was probably there before Gita.
> You can be productive without following exactly in your parent's footsteps
What? Dharma = listening to parent. Ok faggot.
> If he determined his birthright was not worth killing people he cared about, that's his decision no?
Seriously, you just posted about
> muh lobeterianism
and now this? Wow, yours standards shift quickly.
> Krishna didn't let him
Lmao, what? He just showed him the path, it was entirely Arjuna's decision to fight, and whether or not Arjuna wanted to fight was irrelevant. It was the pandavas Vs kaurvas not Arjuna Vs kaurvas, the war was bound to happen.
> provided troops to the supposedly adharmic Duryodhana, an act which he was not obligated to do anyway.
> What we know of his character would make it likely that he was a tyrant.
Please don't assume things you don't know, read the books. Just read them before you go on ranting about them.
anon4e77a612/07/2019 (Fri) 17:10:5210429Reply
Your caste determines your dharma, your birth determines your caste. See my point about following parent's vocation yet? Even in the Gupta era we hear of highly specific profession based castes like a weaver caste.

He was at liberty to do what he wished to. He didn't wish to fight. He was convinced to fight with the argument that to fight is his duty, because he is a Pandava prince and a Kshatriya. He fought only to fulfill this duty. In doing so he had to kill figures he obviously had great affection for, such as Bhisma. See my point?

How do you think Pandava army's morale would be affected by Arjunas decision to not fight, if he did make it? Your top, high profile general bowing out on the morning of the battle, in full view of the assembled army? Why else did Krishna offer to be Arjunas driver except to manipulate him at times like that?

Duryodhana was envious, as can be seen by his reaction to Indraprastha. He was easily angered, as can be seen by his childhood attempt to drown Bhima. He was lecherous and violated commonly followed standards of decency for no concrete benefit as can be seen in the incident of Draupadi, that act alone would have made him many enemies in the court, not to mention in foreign courts. He was needlessly vengeful as can be seen in his dying orders to Ashwathama. All this adds up to him being a tyrant.
anonf7925c12/07/2019 (Fri) 17:34:0610431Reply
> See my point about following parent's vocation yet
No. What has dharma to do with parent's advise?
> caste determines your dharma, your birth determines your caste
Wrong kiddo, your dharma is not just your profession, it's your entire way of living. You caste determines your profession, but what about your duty towards your parents, wife, children, ancestors, friends etc. Are they determined from birth?
> He was convinced because he is a Pandava prince
> He fought only to fulfill this duty.
Wrong. He fought alongside his brothers, for their kingdom.
> Arjunas driver
Lol, faggot. He was his charioteer.
> Duryodhana's character
That's how I know you haven't read the books, complexity is the main theme of Mahabharata. It's an epic of most complex characters, duryodhana's jealousy can be justified. He wasn't hateful towards others than the Pandavas. He was a good friend of Karna, gave him Anga Pradesh despite him being called a son of a charioteer ( a Sarthi) by everyone. He looked aside his birth and acknowledged his merit. He had a lot of negative traits doesn't make him a typical bad guy or a tyrant. The yagyas performed by him and Karna when Pandavas were in exile expanded the kingdom wasn't what a tyranny. Go read the
books and figure out yourself.
I feel like I am your dad, I will not correct you any further.
anon7cdb3512/07/2019 (Fri) 17:40:0910433Reply
>Your caste determines your dharma, your birth determines your caste. See my point about following parent's vocation yet?
Lmao. This is why Karna the son of a Sita was repeatedly praised for his manliness and skill in war, right? Your dharma is determined by your Varna which itself is determined by your occupation.
>He was at liberty to do what he wished to. He didn't wish to fight. He was convinced to fight with the argument that to fight is his duty, because he is a Pandava prince and a Kshatriya.
Being a Pandavas prince is irrelevant. Being a Kshatriya is all that mattered. And he DID have a choice. Bhimasena and Yudhisthira both told him to hand over his weapons to Vrikodara to fight with them if Arjuna couldn't bring himself harm his enemies. Krishna straight up offered to kill all Kauravas and was even about to do so until Arjuna begged him to stop. Arjuna asked him to stop because he didn't want Krishna to break his vows and become a liar. And that has always been a central point of dharma. To keep your vows, promises and to not be a liar regardless of how difficult it might be. Dharma isn't a set of guidelines you HAVE to follow. It is righteousness itself along with your vows, promises and truthfulness. And THAT is why it must be upheld.
anonf7925c12/07/2019 (Fri) 17:44:3910434Reply
This. But how do you explain this to underage niggers who look down upon Indian philosophies just because they are uninformed about them and all they get from online is western philosophical concepts to fill their brains with.
anonf7925c12/07/2019 (Fri) 17:45:1310435Reply
Correction, Karna was son of Kunti not Sita.
anon7625f812/07/2019 (Fri) 17:53:0510436Reply
>property based right to vote
Again american state used to be like that too. That kind of a system will only work when either the property owning men remain the majority or in a very rich nation where citizenship is severely limited and where the majority working class are first generation immigrants like in the arab states.
anon7625f812/07/2019 (Fri) 17:54:0910437Reply
Good luck implementing that here and not throw the cunt into a civil war.
anonb511ac12/07/2019 (Fri) 17:59:0510438Reply
Stop spamming same image bhangi
anon7cdb3512/07/2019 (Fri) 18:00:0710439Reply
That was a typo. I meant a Suta, not Sita. My bad. Sutas were shudras. Similarly Eklavya and Nala were Nishadas. This meant they were chandalas. They were still looked up to as paragons of manliness and great warriors worthy of emulating. Similarly there is a story of Vishwamitra begging a chandalas to give him a piece of dog flesh for survival from hunger. This horrifies even the chandala who reminds him the duties of his caste. Interestingly the hungry Vishwamitra convinces the chandala to let him eat impure food so he can survive. Dharma is not just about Varna/caste duty. Sometimes pure pragmatism is useful because a dead man cannot keep up dharma. Of course your average Pajeet is an uneducated moron who doesn't read anything other than his enginiggering books. So expecting him to understand nuances of morality is pointless.
anon7625f812/07/2019 (Fri) 18:02:3710440Reply
Most niggers probably linked their adhaars to every fucking thing from mobile to bank by now.
anon4e77a612/07/2019 (Fri) 18:03:5510441Reply
I never talked about advice, I talked about vocation.

Duty towards parents is debatable, though I believe I do have some in view of the resources they expended on me, most people in this country genuinely don't. Their parents were horrible people who brought them into a life of poverty, suffering and inferiority. If I was a poor bhangi I'd definitely hate my parents and abandon them the moment I could.
Duty towards a family you form or friends is something contracted with consent, there's no problem with that. My issue is with duties forced onto unconsenting parties.

If that was his motivation Krishna would have argued along those lines. None of the Pandavas truly gave a shit about the kingdom. Yudisthira was willing to give it up for 5 villages, Arjuna stayed neutral everytime Bhima or Draupadi attacked Yudisthira about his pacifism and Bhima himself was motivated purely by revenge and anger thus the blood drinking.

Duryodhanas only redeeming feature is his relationship with Karna but that merely shows that he could recruit competent people. Compare that with all the incidents I mentioned and lol, do you really think I came to know of all those incidents without reading it? I mentioned that a tyranny would have been the worst case scenario it could very well have also not been the case, in which instance the war would lose further justification.
anon7625f812/07/2019 (Fri) 18:05:5410442Reply
Stop stalking people on a wayanadan tribal welfare and culture forum
anonb511ac12/07/2019 (Fri) 18:09:1610443Reply
Don't pretend you have read anything. Your shit is all reterded, and you talk like a faggot.
> Learn to quote points newfag.
anonf7925c12/07/2019 (Fri) 18:13:2810444Reply
> Draupadi incident
Draupadi laughed at him for being a son of a blind man. He won her in a game and humiliated her, I would do that too if I was Duryodhana.
> Bhim incident
Bhimsena was a bully, he bullied the kaurvas so Duryodhana did the right thing in my opinion.
Everything he did was justifiable from his personal perspective.
> I have read the books
No you haven't, go through them.
anon7cdb3512/07/2019 (Fri) 18:16:5410445Reply
You are pretty much forgetting the part where Yudhisthira decides to retire to woods after the completion of warbecause he was sickened at the bloodshed. Both Arjuna and Bhimasena convince him that it is fucking stupid to opt for ascetism AFTER the kingdom has been won. Yudhisthira had the compassion that made him the most fit among the 5 brothers to be the king. Unfortunately his compassion also made him most hesitant to be one. Dharma shouldn't be upheld just because. But rather because it brings happiness and prosperity to those who uphold it. Hence quoth Dharma rakshati Rakshitah I.e.those who protect dharma are protected by it. The carnage at kurukshetra may seem brutal but in hindsight it allowed Pandavas to live as royalty and perform their duties in administration. Something they had been denied since the gambling incident. Kurukshetra war brought temporary poverty for the kingdom but even that was overcome by Pandavas. Parikshit becomes an adept ruler and so does Janamejay. All this would not have been possible without the war.
anon9ab10613/07/2019 (Sat) 02:47:5710456Reply
Eklavya was the son of Vasudev's brother
He was brought up by nishadas
anone8184413/07/2019 (Sat) 03:07:0110457Reply
Lolwhut. No he wasn't. He was the son of a Nishadas named Hiranyasomething.
anon9ab10613/07/2019 (Sat) 03:10:3010458Reply
Eklavya was lost in a forest where some nishadas found him and adopted him
Read a book bhangi
anon1cff9c13/07/2019 (Sat) 03:55:1510459Reply
Lolno. Stop reading autistic fanfiction.
>Amongst those that came there, O monarch, was a prince named Ekalavya, who was the son of Hiranyadhanus, king of the Nishadas (the lowest of the mixed orders).
>Drona, however, accepted not the prince as his pupil in archery, seeing that he was a Nishada who might (in time) excel all his high-born pupils.
>But, O oppressor of all enemies, the Nishada prince, touching Drona's feet with bent head, wended his way into the forest, and there he made a clay-image of Drona, and began to worship it respectfully, as if it was his real preceptor, and practised weapons before it with the most rigid regularity.
This is literally what we know of him. His lower caste and absurd skill scared Drona so much that he refused to teach him so that he might not surpass his high caste students. Eklavya was just so fucking good that he did anyways.
anon1e724413/07/2019 (Sat) 04:25:2410460Reply
This is really interesting, why would they put that in there? Maybe the epics were edited by ((them)) in distant past.
anon1cff9c13/07/2019 (Sat) 04:44:5310461Reply
Because this epic was supposed to be a composition of all things that happened.
The Brahmanas that wrote it must have have thought it to be truth. Further, if I may be allowed to speculate, Eklavya or a Nishada king like him actually existed and fought bravely with the indo Aryans encroaching upon his land. This conflict was probably with an alliance of Yadu-Bharatas and as such was eventually turned into an enmity with Krishna and Arjuna who were considered the foremost of those races. However his skill was so remarkable that he was remembered as an Autodidact who marched the Kshatriyas in valor
anon1cff9c13/07/2019 (Sat) 04:45:4310462Reply
*matched the kshatriyas
anon70ae4415/07/2019 (Mon) 17:06:4910720Reply
Please stop taking Shill fictions seriously. Objectivism is gay.
anona27ee915/07/2019 (Mon) 17:48:4410740Reply
Point out logical inconsistencies.


(Removes the file reference to the posts)

(Removes the saved files from the server)