Why is moralfagging a bad thing?

[Muttley]

i feel dumber for reading this thread.

 

[Stan]

View attachment 5397936
Are you ontologically retarded?

They’re historical facts (the first two, anyway.)
You can’t choose to support history or not, it just is. Saying “I don’t support the Napoleonic wars” doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.

 

[raspberry mocha]

Can't you oppose all those things without losers on an internet forum validating your beliefs? The big problem with moralfags is they always are trying to persuade themselves the most, as if they don't have sincere convictions about what they're saying, so they hope others agree and upvote them, especially online.

On that note, the rise of moralfagging (particularly of the Christian kind) online surprises me. The internet used to be edgelords. Maybe the userbase has "grown up" and moved on but a lot of it is younger people.

 

[Stan]

i feel dumber for reading this thread.

Snorebert and sad Jewish faggot have that effect on things sadly

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

I'm sorry someone was mean to you on the internet, clearly it hurt you a lot.

She's a woman; her whole body and psyche are ready for a bruise to show off to get someone banned.

But I don't think it justifies your behaviour or your views.

She's a woman; she doesn't need justification or even reason. It's enough that she thinks something. Believe all women, especially graduates from Mommy U.

And then in the next sentence he asks “why should I care about the Holocaust?

Well yeah, why should Westerners be pressured to have an opinion on the Holocaust, but can't be bothered with the Armenian Genocide, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward, even literal concentration camps making shit for Apple in the modern day, when no one even brings up IBM designing the sorting system for the nazi camps.

Non-Jews can care about them equally, but cannot place them above their own horrors, because that wouldn't be loving them as one loves oneself, but more than one's self, contrary to Hillel's and Jesus's commandment.

So why do you think Gentiles have to know the Holocaust like some secular catechism? And not only know it, but repeat the prevailing lefty doctrine, no matter how much fidelity it shows to reason or facts.

 

[OrionBalls]

Moralfags are often hypocritical.

 

[HyperboreanRightsActivist]

They’re historical facts (the first two, anyway.)
You can’t choose to support history or not, it just is. Saying “I don’t support the Napoleonic wars” doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.

I don't support Hitler's genocide of 6 million Jews and 14 million Europeans. Do you?

 

[Geddy Lee's Fee and See]

Personally moralfagging has a place in discussion, but as long as you sren't overbearing or derisive about it and understand where the other person is coming from (in addition to telling when a joke is a joke or at the very least something to be laughed at), who cares?

Two examples that exemplify obnoxious moral-fagging come to mind. A Christian who is adamant that sex before marriage is wrong, but does not seem to discern hormones are real and people no longer marry at 18, 19, 20, thus expecting somebody to abstain well into his 20s or even 30s, which is not healthy (not that hyper promiscuous sex is either) and not practical. It is an unreasonable moral demand that makes no account of the facts on the ground.

I don't know. The deterioration of male-female relationships, and of the family unit in addition to the fact that a lot of men just outright use women for sex and leave them with a baby is good enough proof that sex before marriage is a bad idea. Also, it's understandable that humans have sexual urges, but masturbation is not some secret hidden knowledge and sex is a rather serious thing you really shouldn't bother with until you know you have found a spouse you want to start a family with, not just a girl you have a thing for now but not later on. If anything, the problem is too many people are going to college when they should be going into business and starting families out of high school. That will literally sort everything out in terms of all these generally negative sexual behaviors. The only problem is that it won't happen and will involve some apocalyptic event to happen. I do agree 100% on drinking though: it really ought to not be demonized as it is American culture as it is.

 

[HyperboreanRightsActivist]

The internet used to be edgelords. Maybe the userbase has "grown up" and moved on but a lot of it is younger people.

Maybe the oldfag internet needed their little echo chamber busted to show them the error of their edgelord degeneracy?

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

If you are called moralfag it's usually you not contributing to the subject in any way and obstructing the conversation without any real justification.

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

Oh hey everyone, look it's STAN, aka Marge, trotting out the same tired platitudes and hollow admonitions that have been received so poorly in the past.

It’s not a distortion of this community at all to say the vast majority of kiwi farmers are strongly racist.

As stated before, you engage in the circular logic of the "it's racist and that ends the debate" tactic of so many leftists. The problem with the charge of "that's racist" is that it presuppoes that race does not matter, that there are no real tangible differences among the races. Beyond that, even the most cursory glance at the history of civlization shows that multicultural socities do not work.

And I use the term multicultural by way of different racial ethnic groups with little to know racial, geographic, ethnic, or linguistic affiliation. So yes, Britain is "multicultrual" in that it consists of the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish (and many sub groups and dialetcs within those), but that is not the multiculturalism that is the existential threat of Europe and the West.
As explained to you many times before, race is not skin deep. Different races evolved under different environments, different evolutionary pressures

Don’t act like such a contrarian hivemind and it won’t be so easy for me.

Contrary to what you think, it is those who embrace race realism that possess the individuality and the bravery to think independently enough to break free from years of indoctrination.

boomer

Is this a references to me? I am not a boomer.

boomers who have a problem with life lessons like “churches are meant to be welcoming and affirming places of worship”, and “it’s wrong to be racist and sexist” and similar Sunday school level morality lessons is a compliment.

You call them "life lessons," but it is nothing less than indoctrination that has you and many Americans locked in a "mind prison," as right-winger Devon Stack put it, whereby you and anyone in this "mind prison" will tirelessly look for any explanation other than differences between the races to explain things like 13/50 (actually not 13/60.

https://odysee.com/@Blackpilled:b/stovetop:a?r=CjTrUNAzHE5eJLKdxd29c4yTamsRUeB6

Trillions have been spent on Great Society programs trying to overcome this fundamental but hidden truth, and there will be no progress until a critical mass of whites awaken.
As Devon Stack pointed out, when the Rodney King riots broke out, establishment paid to lose GOP figures like Dan Quayle would grasp at things like children born out of wedlock and tax cuts for the entrepeneur class to explain black's collective "racial commitment to crime."

“is it wrong to be against white genocide?” As if it were a real thing.

It is a real thing, you fat pig. You and your policies will relegate my phenotype to an exhibit in the fucking Smithsonian. As Morrissey put it, mass immigration of black and brown people--who have no fucking right to be in Britain--are destroying Britian (and Europe). "Immigration is washing away the face of Britain.

 

[Thomas Talus]

I don't support ... hololive,

There's your mistake.

 

[gang weeder]

If you posit that moral fagging is bad, you are yourself trying to police others' behavior in a moral fashion, thus making you a moralfag.

Two examples that exemplify obnoxious moral-fagging come to mind. A Christian who is adamant that sex before marriage is wrong, but does not seem to discern hormones are real and people no longer marry at 18, 19, 20, thus expecting somebody to abstain well into his 20s or even 30s, which is not healthy (not that hyper promiscuous sex is either) and not practical. It is an unreasonable moral demand that makes no account of the facts on the ground.

The alternative view is that maybe people should be looking to get married younger rather than sitting around waiting into middle age. The tendency to avoid marriage comes as a result of feminism/general degeneracy and correlates with all of the other corresponding destructive trends and behaviors.

The maxim of no sex before marriage derives from the question of, when people are looking for a standard, what should they err on the side of? Should they try to minimize sex before marriage, or maximize it? You probably can't eliminate premarital sex entirely, but I don't think it's that hard to see why people should be advised to try and keep it to a minimum. We are currently witnessing the result of going in the other direction.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

It’s not a distortion of this community at all to say the vast majority of kiwi farmers are strongly racist. I’d have an easier time naming which of you aren’t racist.

It is absolutely a distortion, you fat fucking retard.

You deliberately immerse yourself in, and expose yourself to, the political elements of the site which are necessarily cast-offs of other websites.
The majority of the site is pretty liberal, just not the parts you gravitate towards in a deliberate attempt to find people to argue with and condescend to, since you're a social media brained nitwit who can't help yourself but to do so.

The actual vast majority of the site doesn't give a fuck about race or even politics for the most part, you just want them to.

If you want to be an idiot who scraps with other weirdos online about stupid shit then do it, but then don't act like a sore loser and try to condemn the site as a whole because the users you intentionally seek out to argue with don't side with you.

 

[Shidoen]

Wow a thread asking why moralfagging is a bad thing has moralfagging in it. I think both @Stan and @Norbert the Tiger are annoying faggots, despite morals or lack thereof.

 

[Molag Bal]

Moralfagging is always bad. Without exceptions. It always is either misguided and applied in one-sided ways aimed specifically at things you don't like, or it is outright malicious concern trolling by people with ulterior motives. All of this nonsense has to go. You like what you like and you should have no qualms pursuing what you like and even forcing it onto others. Most moralfags do the exact same thing, so to not do that is shooting yourself in the foot.

I first realized something was wrong with the world when I saw americans celelbrating killing of Bin Laden. They were celebrating murder. They weren't feeling bad that it came down to this, they didn't feel bad that the world was cabaple of creating Bin Ladens in rows.

This is a good example of what I mean.
>Oh noooo y u no feel bad for Bin Laden? Bin Laden is a person and they killed him, don't you feel bad for him since he was a person?
You know the thousands, possibly tens of thousands killed on his orders were people as well. But of course you either forget or omit that part.

 

[Mothra1988]

Moralfagging is always bad. Without exceptions. It always is either misguided and applied in one-sided ways aimed specifically at things you don't like, or it is outright malicious concern trolling by people with ulterior motives. All of this nonsense has to go. You like what you like and you should have no qualms pursuing what you like and even forcing it onto others. Most moralfags do the exact same thing, so to not do that is shooting yourself in the foot.


This is a good example of what I mean.
>Oh noooo y u no feel bad for Bin Laden? Bin Laden is a person and they killed him, don't you feel bad for him since he was a person?
You know the thousands, possibly tens of thousands killed on his orders were people as well. But of course you either forget or omit that part.

Some of these idiots act like internet Mulsims who have to cleanse the world of everything they don't like, even just leisure stuff that is completely harmless apart from the autism in their heads. The anti-anime people are the fucking worst, and I hope they unironically die. People didn't have to live through all this SJW shit to then hear a new version of SJW shit from a bunch of mad virgins that can't get laid instead of Tumblrinas. Better yet, you'll never see these kinds of people doing anything positive to help anyone. They think they are better just ranting at people on the internet.

 

[Fastest Hand In The East]

This is a good example of what I mean.
>Oh noooo y u no feel bad for Bin Laden? Bin Laden is a person and they killed him, don't you feel bad for him since he was a person?
You know the thousands, possibly tens of thousands killed on his orders were people as well. But of course you either forget or omit that part.

You know well enough this is not what I wrote. Death is a tragedy, regardless. Celebration of violent deaths is a nigger game.
Tomorrow they may string you up on a tree because you dislike trannies and everyone will be clapping and smiling.

 

[Molag Bal]

You know well enough this is not what I wrote. Death is a tragedy, regardless. Celebration of violent deaths is a nigger game.

Has it ever occurred to you that there are other outlooks than viewing everything through a universal 'death = bad' lens.
For instance, you can instead treat it as morally neutral and value the death of each person on a case by case basis.
>Death of an innocent person = a tragedy that should be avoided
>Death of someone who vicariously murdered thousands of people = cause for celebration
>Death of a serial killer in general = any future killings caused by them are prevented = good

 

[Sneed S. McSneedensen]

It's not a bad thing.