Suffer the weak.

Should those who can’t defend themselves be allowed to live or be preserved?

I am under the impression that those who lack strength of convictions on their own will to power should not be protected or allowed to live.

Now tyrants of men glancing at this post may think happily of these remarks because in their view the oppression of the poor and outcasted will be given a free pass but even though I envision tyrants to be a relative expression of the human condition it should be known that such a thought is a double bladed sword since the outcasted poor by this very conjecture may also kill the weak who hide behind their wealth and parasitical laws.

In both instances whether it be the tyrants or the oucasted killing for their very survival lies relativity in any given situation.

Now I am sure there will be moralists who will say that the weak should be protected or preserved and frankly I’m counting on it.

To such sentiments I dare only ask one question, why?

Natural Selection. Only the strong survive.

What if people can’t, and by can’t I mean can’t, help being weak?

And what if this applied to you? Would you still support the impression you have now?

was there not a thread about this awhile back?

Here is my opinion. If you can get past the people that love their weak then remove them , this includes infantcide, But if you want this done you must go bloody your hands with baby blood or you are a coward a weakling and you are not fit to live by your own standards and so must be removed. Go try and slaughter infants or shut the Fuck up.

Natural selection is non-existent amongst civilization since morality killed it a long time ago in it’s inception.

Temper, temper Kriswest,

The only thing about killing infants that may be benificial in a situation would be cannibalism which happens often amongst nature in a wide variety of species when food becomes scarce but other than that I don’t see any reason why infantcide should prevail especially if it isn’t useful.

Your deviating ploy on playing the “guilt trap” failed here Kriswest. :unamused:

If morality didn’t exist with all it’s parasitical laws presently I would be like Napoleon right about now.

As for other people being weak that is their problem with nature and it’s equilbrium being the only thing that can sort them out but luckily enough for the weak their moral dogma has protected them into this century for the time being yet that can change anytime especially if people begin to see morality for the false consciousness that it really is on a wide scale which could be sooner than most people realize.

By having parasitical laws of having other people protect themselves since they lack the strength to their own defences.

( A morality institution.)

Both.

Weak people come in many shapes and classes.

Why does anything matter?

Main question of this thread:

Why should the weak be protected? ( That means all sorts of weak people as I am not trying to get into a semantical distinction.)

Do you feel weakened by injust social institutions? Do they oppress your essence in a way such that without them you feel as though you would have more strength than with them?

The protection of the weak along with parasitical moral systems hinders my individual will to power.

I only condemn such institutions from restraining my natural instincts as they have no right to do so.

( I’m not the only one who is restrained as millions of other people are in the same circumstance. If morality didn’t exist the parasticial elites small in number would perish as there would be a class conflict of the highest number where a new dawn of men would come out from under the ashes.)

If you feel oppressed by the system, go to the woods and build a shack.

I couldn’t imagine your world. I’d certainly like to see your average day in it.

I have already decided that if this world won’t let me live in peace I’ll just declare my own personal war on it.

Interpretate that however you wish.

The kind of rights that you’re asserting that you should have are dependent on the kind of system that you’re against. The only real rights are the ones that can be self enforced. It seems like “hinders my individual will to power” means that you do feel weakened by the system. If I’m reading you correctly, then I ask you, should you be allowed to live or be preserved?

I’m sorry for not applying a timeframe regarding my first post.