View Single Post
Old 01-26-2005, 05:51 AM   #18
Arnabas
Baaz Draconian
 

Join Date: October 11, 2001
Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Age: 47
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally posted by The Hierophant:
The bone I have to pick is with the morality of current so-called 'democratic' nations, which encourages non-violence, equal-rights (when you can tell that all are clearly NOT equal just by looks alone) and the overall domestication of the wild, animal vitality of our species. Saying that violence is imprudent or non-constructive in a given situation is totally different to saying it is morally wrong. Our current moral 'norms' appear to be a result of slave indignation against violent oppression... going all the way back to Jewish enslavement in Babylon. I think it is imperitive that our moral codes are restructured to once again encourage vitality over tameness.

For instance, I would physically punish these young kitty-killers, not because they hurt a defenseless kitten, but because they were trying to excercise rights beyond their social station. The licence to inflict pain belongs to those at the top of the hierarchy, not the dregs at the bottom. In essense these boys were trying to 'synthesise' social power by torturing these kittens. If these boys were 'naturally' powerful they would have no need to torture kittens, they would 'pick on someone their own size' instead. They should be reminded of their low 'natural' station by physical force if necessary.
I am not quite sure I understand what you're trying to say. I prefer to avoid having a knee-jerk reaction, but it seems to me that you're saying we need to bring more violence back to society (encourage vitality)and that equal-rights are bad. You also mention people needing to be reminded of their "station".

So, if you come across a guy in a wheelchair who is trying to overcome his disability and make himself the equal of a non-wheelchair-bound person (not that they aren't already equal), you would be within your rights to beat the crap out of him to "show him his place"?

Likewise, if you and I were to meet and I realized I was bigger or stronger than you, I could beat the bejeezus out of you and you wouldn't have a problem with it?

When you say "For instance, I would physically punish these young kitty-killers, not because they hurt a defenseless kitten, but because they were trying to excercise rights beyond their social station. The licence to inflict pain belongs to those at the top of the hierarchy, not the dregs at the bottom," you mean to say that torching a kitten is fine, so long as you're strong enough?

There will always be someone stronger, so from *their* point of view, anyone below them wouldn't have the right. They themselves wouldn't have the right, if viewed by someone stronger than them... So who is the final authority? Is the world's strongest man the only one with any rights?

I certainly hope I am misunderstanding your point, because it certainly *seems* that you are saying only the strong should have rights and anyone with any sort of disadvantage should be beat down and kept in their place.

Edited to remove excessive vitriol and sarcasm....

[ 01-26-2005, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: Arnabas ]
__________________
Est Sularis oth Mithas
Arnabas is offline