/r9k/ - ROBOTcafe

you... you DOUBLE NORMALNIGGER

Mode: Reply
Name
Subject
Message

Max message length: 5120

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 5

Captcha
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(41.89 KB 800x433 white nationalist trump.jpg)
Politics/News Containment Thread Robot 01/04/2020 (Sat) 08:21:05 No. 2203
Keep political autism contained in this thread.
Constant political derailing is the reason why 8chan went to shit so let's try to not repeat the same here.
Why do we need a politics thread? Just don't talk about politics.
(469.30 KB 1024x768 29123790_p0.jpg)
Children can consent. Legalize all drugs. Ban prisons.
>>2203
>Constant political derailing is the reason why 8chan went to shit
The reasons why 8chan went to shit were "being swarmed with stupid retards" and "the entire site getting deleted".
Plato already solved politics, how is this still a problem 2000 years later?
Politics are going to come up naturally in every thread regardless of containment. The discussions on r9k are all pretty much inherently political to begin with since they often revolve around societal issues, our place within society, the future, etc. This thread is pretty pointless. People don't come to r9k to talk about politics specifically, but rather topics that are specific to the robot life experience. Maybe we can make every topic about the robot experience in some way, but that's on the individual poster to make a good quality thread/post. A containment thread like this only serves to enable low effort posting and invite retards into the board. It would be like having a containment tranny thread. I think you just need to understand that r9k conversations are going to be incredibly nuanced and that some political rhetoric will pop up from time to time. As long as people aren't going around demanding that robots become normalfags for the future of the white race it's not really a big deal. It's pretty easy to spot posters who are only here to push narratives.
>>2232
Plato probably didn't foresee the planet having billions of people with a tiny group of elites trying to force them all to fuck each other in order to create a massive slave class.
>>2261
I mean, in his 'Republic', he pretty much says that the elites should lie to the masses in order to keep them stupid and just focused on their jobs. He calls it a 'noble lie', but there it is.
In the dialogues, there's a clear, marked, observable difference between the worldview of the earlier ones (which were most likely very close to Socrates' actual words) and the later texts and dialogues such as 'Republic' which conflict with the earlier ones in many ways.
>>2337
>This passage is not an instruction of committing a crime, but an advice to one who has lost control of his actions and desires. It does not offer a permission to sin, but rather a more indirect form of admonition that is meant for sick individuals.
That's your supposition and nothing more. The text itself says that if you want to do evil, you should go do it in a place where you're not known. It's clearly advocating criminality, and the pure conjecture you've presented as to its 'real' meaning doesn't mean anything because it has no basis.
>Yes, Jews must obey the rulings of their rabbis.
So you agree, that anyone who disobeys a rabbi gets boiled in excrement for eternity.
>The Sanhedrin are the courts of Jewish elders. Their judgements only deal with disputes between Jews, not between gentiles or between Jews and gentiles.
The Talmud and the Code of Jewish Law both prohibit killing and stealing from gentiles.
Incorrect, as Sanhedrin 57a does state what I said it does.
"A heathen is executed for theviolation of the seven Noachian laws; the Divine Law having revealed this of one [murder], itapplies to all. Now is a heathen executed for robbery? Has it not been taught: ‘With respect torobbery — if one stole or robbed30 or [seized] a beautiful woman,31 or [committed] similaroffences,32 if [these were perpetrated] by one Cuthean33 against another, [the theft, etc.] must not bekept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite maybe retained’?"
Kikes allowed to steal from non-kikes, right there.
"It applies to the withholding of a labourer's wage.44 One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted."
Kikes allowed to withhold the wages of non-kikes.
If you quote other passages which contradict this, then you showcase the hypocrisy of the text, but don't negate anything - it still clearly permits those things which it says it permits. Furthermore, quotations from outside of the Talmud are not what we're discussing; Maimonides is irrelevent to this discussion, for example.
>Ketuvot 11b does not permit anything, but explains the distinction of virgins and non-virgins.
Talmud repeatedly and explicitly forbids sexual relations outside of marriage. The Talmud forbids young children without agency from being married.
Lie. Here's what it actually says:
"If a woman sported lewdly with her young son [a minor], and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, — Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit to thepriesthood.4 Beth Hillel declare her fit. R. Hiyya the son of Rabbah b. Nahmani said in R. Hisda'sname; others state, R. Hisda said in Ze'iri's name: All agree that the connection of a boy aged nineyears and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not:5 their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old, Beth Shammai maintaining, We must base our ruling on the earlier generations, but6 Beth Hillel hold that we do not."
Next, Kethuboth 11b clearly advocates fucking young girls of 3 years or less:
" small boy who has intercourse with a grown-upwoman makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood.1 When I said it before Samuel hesaid: ‘Injured by a piece of wood’ does not apply to2 flesh. Some teach this teaching by itself:3 [Asto] a small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman. Rab said, he makes her [as though shewere] injured by a piece of wood; whereas Samuel said: ‘Injured by a piece of wood’ does not applyto flesh. R. Oshaia objected: WHEN A GROWN-UP MAN HAS HAD INTERCOURSE WITH ALITTLE GIRL, OR WHEN A SMALL BOY HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN-UPWOMAN, OR WHEN A GIRL WAS ACCIDENTALLY INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD-[INALL THESE CASES] THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ]; SO ACCORDING TO R.MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY: A GIRL WHO WAS INJURED ACCIDENTALLY BY A PIECEOF WOOD — HER KETHUBAH IS A MANEH!4 Raba said. It means5 this: When a grown-up manhas intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this,6 it is as if one puts thefinger into the eye;7 but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as‘a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.’ and [with regard to the case of] ‘a girl injured by a piece of wood". You quoting Maimonides means nothing since we're discussing the Talmud itself, not extra-talmudic commentators. Kiddushin 41a also doesn't negate it, since we the point wasn't whether the young girl was given in marriage, but merely whether it was permitted to fuck her, which it clearly is.
(cont.)
>>2351
(continued)
>The Halakha prohibits desecration of a corpse. Kavod HaMet (Honouring the dead) is a central concept of Jewish law.
Incorrect, as the Talmud allows corpse desecration in Yebamoth 55b. As I stated earlier, if other rabbinical rulings contradict this, and both rulings are found in the Talmud, then all you do is show the hypocrisy of the text itself; you don't negate anything that it said.
>All of your examples are easily refuted.
Except you've refuted nothing. You attempt to slither out of the truth and explain things away like a typical yid, that's it.
>I said it to mock you.
>m-merely pretending
>Those are Jews as much as non-Jews. While Marx was Jewish, Engels was a protestant.
The overwhelming majority of those who pushed for marxism, feminism, modern psychiatry, etc, were kikes; a minority of non-kikes doesn't negate the vastly disproportionate number of kikes involved.
>You're not doing yourself a favour with rude remarks.
Go find a tree and hang yourself from it, sheenie.
>>2351
>It's clearly advocating criminality
No, it isn't. My "conjecture", which is the most accepted view regarding this passage, is the conclusion you would arrive at if your intention wasn't to desperately infer something negative from the text.
>So you agree, that anyone who disobeys a rabbi gets boiled in excrement for eternity.
No, I agree that the text says it.
>"A heathen is executed for theviolation of the seven Noachian laws; the Divine Law having revealed this of one [murder], itapplies to all. Now is a heathen executed for robbery? Has it not been taught: ‘With respect torobbery — if one stole or robbed30 or [seized] a beautiful woman,31 or [committed] similaroffences,32 if [these were perpetrated] by one Cuthean33 against another, [the theft, etc.] must not bekept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite maybe retained’?"
>Kikes allowed to steal from non-kikes, right there.
And what is a Cuthean (Samaritan)?
From https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2836152/jewish/The-Samaritans-Cutheans.htm:
>When the Assyrians exiled the Ten Tribes, the conquerors brought in a foreign people called Cutheans to populate the vacated territory. These people were idol-worshipers, and G‑d sent lions to decimate them. Out of fear of the lions, the Cutheans converted to Judaism, but the rabbis of the Talmud debated whether their conversion was valid or not. The Cutheans’ Torah observance was spotty — extremely strong in some areas, but very weak or nonexistent in others.
So Cutheans are a group of idol-worshippers who later became Jews. Not a synonym for gentiles.
>If you quote other passages which contradict this, then you showcase the hypocrisy of the text, but don't negate anything - it still clearly permits those things which it says it permits.
And it prohibits what it prohibits. You are bound to have contradictions when you collect the narrations of thousands of Rabbis, as the Talmud does.
>Furthermore, quotations from outside of the Talmud are not what we're discussing; Maimonides is irrelevent to this discussion, for example.
The foremost medieval Jewish philosopher doesn't become irrelevant because you say so. His works have impacted Judaism greatly, so yes, he is relevant when discussing Jewish law.
>Kiddushin 41a also doesn't negate it, since we the point wasn't whether the young girl was given in marriage, but merely whether it was permitted to fuck her, which it clearly is
It negates it because intercourse with the girl is illegal outside of marriage. So if the young girl isn't given in marriage, then you're not allowed to have sex with her.
>>2354
>Incorrect, as the Talmud allows corpse desecration in Yebamoth 55b. As I stated earlier, if other rabbinical rulings contradict this, and both rulings are found in the Talmud, then all you do is show the hypocrisy of the text itself; you don't negate anything that it said.
Good, so we've shown the Talmud to be an ambiguous, incoherent text and unreliable to derive a clear ruling from. So your quotations are as invalid as mine. In fact, they are more invalid since you quoted single sources on each of your points, while I have quoted multiple.
>Go find a tree and hang yourself from it, sheenie.
Impotent rage. And you still haven't proven that all Jews are bad.
>>2351
>anyone who disobeys a rabbi gets boiled in excrement for eternity.
Man, that's hot. I gotta go disobey a rabbi t. scatfaggot
(83.45 KB 492x443 ddd.png)
Wow, a lot of words, every smart. We have some very intelligent individuals on this board everyone. Please applause.
(213.06 KB 1280x1817 1.jpg)
It is depressing seeing how powerful the Jews are. White people have certainly failed to do their jobs properly in completely eradicating these pests, and now the table has turned. Not only cant you kill the Jews, now no one wants to even hurt the jews' feeling. I cannot understand how on earth can the white men can ever win back their true freedom. All these random mass shootings wont help a thing, and the fucking retards either just killed some random locusts or hilariously failed to even tap any. Fuck, such is the life of a filthy peasant.
(11.44 KB 710x606 (you).png)
>>2375
>posts with more than one line scare the shit out of my retard brain
Here's ur clap and complimentary nigger picture budy
>>2375
Is there anything more niggerrey than complaining about the length of posts before saying anything about what they say?
I've been reading Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber)'s writing lately, and I've had a very hard time refuting it. For the past few years, I've become increasingly aware of how many problems modern technology (and the society it creates) has caused, as well as how completely unsustainable it is. However I've always thought that there was a political solution to it i.e. if a group or leader with the right ideas would take control of everything then problems like pollution, overpopulation, people having unfulfilling lives, etc. could all be solved while still keeping most of modern technology. But I think now that this is not possible. One reason for this is that though new technology may solve a certain problem, it very often leads to even more problems in doing so. And as the technolgical system grows more and more complex, and there are less people able to truly grasp its consequences, it just spirals out of control.

And if you look at the state of politics, there is no feasible party that even addresses the CORE problems facing society. They all go after irrelevant bullshit or merely symptoms of a core problem, such as abortion, wealth inequality, climate change, mental illness, etc. They offer nothing but band-aid solutions that in the long-term will be worthless. Even most radical parties/ideologies (such as fascism or communism), although proposing deep-rooted change, only focus on certain problems while ignoring everything else. So far, Kaczynski's solution to ALL the problems of modern society is the only one I've found that is both comprehensive AND actually feasible. Although many people label Kaczysnki as mentally ill and/or a victim of MK Ultra brainwashing, I think if you are a reasonable person and read through his writings with an open mind, it will be the most sensible thing you've read in a long time. If you think you can swallow the final redpill, here is his manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future

It's a bit long, probably takes an hour to read the whole thing (I think he rants about leftists a bit too much). There are some parts of it that you may disagree with, and he's aware of this, but there's one point that he emphasizes above all: The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. The problem I've found with people who criticize him, is that they nit-pick at certain statements, but never offer a refusal of his main thesis that can rival the support he offers for it. They also tend to exaggerate what he claims. And indeed there is some confusion that may arise from reading his manifesto, which he tends to clarify in later writings. For example, many people think he's an anarcho-primitivist because he describes the many advantages that primitive society offers over modern society. However, he never actually advocates for returning to the stone age. In fact, he even has an article which refutes many of the claims of anarcho-primitivists:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

In reading Kaczysnki, you must keep in mind that the ONLY thing he advocates is destroying the industrial-technological system. He does not offer some idealistic system to replace it, he insists that it will naturally fall in place afterwards. That's his whole fucking point, that the industrial society is unnatural and thus cannot continue much longer, and so it's in our interest to hasten its collapse. The collapse of the industrial system is also explained well here:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-why-the-technological-system-will-destroy-itself
>>2465
>The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
My rebuttals include "video games are cool" and "If Nikola Tesla was allowed to turn the Earth into a giant battery we wouldn't need all these societies built around wires." Technology is a tool. The reason it's shit is because people who use it are shit.
>And such an ideology will help to assure that, if and when industrial society breaks down, its remnants will be smashed beyond repair, so that the system cannot be reconstituted. The factories should be destroyed, technical books burned, etc.
"Destroy knowledge; it will improve society", said the normalfag who never cared about knowledge. You can't close Pandora's box.
-Sent from my computer
>>2465
My rebuttal is that Ted is a faggot mouth up his ass moralist retard that just act all edgy and resent his peaceful and civilized life to live in like a fucking hobo because only a retard hippe would do such a thing.
>>2468
As a more nuanced counter to 'Industrial Society and Its Future' I provide 'The Problem of Increasing Human Energy' by Nikola Tesla.
>On the other hand if at any point of the globe energy can be obtained in limited quantities from the ambient medium by means of a self-acting heat-engine or otherwise, the conditions will remain the same as before. Human performance will be increased, but men will remain strangers as they were.
Also you CAN close Pandora's box but the stuff's gone already. You have to find it all and shove it back in and forget about it forever.

>>2489
This guy gets it.
>>2468
>"video games are cool"
You may reconsider this if you ever tire of video games and find nothing else to do with your life. Ted calls such things "surrogate activities", which people pursue in order to stave off boredom when their survival is already ensured. He claims that simply pursuing your survival is the most fulfilling way to live, and in the two decades in which he lived innawoods he says that he was able to simply sit down at the end of a day of hunting and such and stare out the window feeling completely content. However he also says that many people CAN be fulfilled with surrogate activities, but the more unnatural (i.e. your activities having no connection to your survival) life becomes the harder this is. I'm starting to think that if one can live a life of hedonism without suffering mental illness, it may be the best path to go down, since we will likely never see the industrial system collapse whether it's for the better or not.

>Technology is a tool. The reason it's shit is because people who use it are shit.
I definitely agree. I could see some ways in which modern technology could be maintained in the long-term, perhaps if our society was run strictly by technocrats instead of professional liars bribed by greedy kikes. Maybe if the Axis powers won WWII such a system could've been put in place. But now it's far too late. Again this is why I think Kaczysnki is right, because modern (large-scale) technology is simply too powerful for humans to control.

>>2489
Ted is anything but a "moralist retard" considering he killed people to publish his manifesto and he's literally a genius on the level of Einstein. He also talks about morality here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-morality-and-revolution tldr morals are mostly just rules used to maintain order in society, in nature there are only a loose set of biological tendencies (such as compassion) to guide our behavior.
>>2489
I forgot to finish the rest of your half-assed rebuttal.
>act all edgy
Of course he's edgy, he wants to destroy the very system that created the world we know, but being a product of the modern world is the only reason we see rebelling against it as "edgy"
>resent his peaceful and civilized life
His life in the woods was as peaceful as it gets, and the very reason he started the bombing campaign was because civilization kept disturbing his peaceful life.
>to live in like a fucking hobo
It's the way our ancestors lived for hundreds of thousands of years. It may not be as comfortable as modern life, but it's the way of living that your body and mind is most accustomed to.
>because only a retard hippe would do such a thing
A large portion of his writing is essentially ranting about hippies, in particular his critique of anarcho-primitism. He does not think we should all go live in the woods and that this will lead to a utopia where we hold hands and sing songs and there's complete equality and justice and no suffering. He just thinks that modern life is shit and primitive life, or at least pre-modern life, would be far preferable.
>>2520
Hes playing with your mind retard, hes simple a murderous, psychotic genius that made up his moral intention to make retards like you lick his ass.
>>2527
You're an idiot seeking to get a rise out of him and don't actually have an interest in this conversation at all and for the life of me I don't know why he's bothering responding to your cuckbrained normalnigger tier ass.
>>2527
You're the one who lets your mind be programmed by society You don't think, you let the system do it for you. If yoi actually had something worthwhile to say against Ted's ideas, I'd consider them. But the fact that all you (and many others) can do is call him meaningless names only reaffirms his arguments. Btw I don't agree with his acts of violence, and I don't think he's some messiah who speaks only truth. But I've yet to see someone explain the predicament of modern civilization better than him.

>>2529
I just thought he might have something interesting to say, but I guess even robots tend to be retards who don't like to have their worldview challenged.
>>2534
>You don't think, you let the system do it for you.
You don't think; you let the book you read do it for you. If you despise industrial-technological systems so much why are you using a computer to post on the internet? "Necessary evil"? "Ends justify the means"? What's your excuse? Could it be that the problems of society are caused by people and not their computers?

>>2519
>He claims that simply pursuing your survival is the most fulfilling way to live
"Not dying" as the meaning of life is the biggest cop-out ever created. Defining everything NOT not dying as a fake goal ("surrogate activity") means that we do indeed have a lot of fake goals once we decide not to die. Ted uses the very scientifically sound definition of
>would the average person probably feel seriously deprived by not attaining this goal?
Just kidding Ted hates science and scientists because knowledge is unnecessary to survival lmao. No, you can't study marine biology because most people wouldn't care about fish, but you can totally go get a girlfriend!
Appeal to normalcy is anti-robot. Ted's a faggot.
Don't even bother with this retard.
>>2554
meant for >>2534
>>>2537
You're right on most things but in the end knowledge is just as meaningless as not dying or any other activity.

In the end humans are programmed to fuck, eat, shit without a care of the world and only get out of that mindset when forced to suffer.

It feels like all of the good qualities of man are a mistake and normalfaggotry is the natural and psychologically healthy state of man.
I wish we could just get into a simulation and fuck this gay reality instead.
Anyone get stuck digging into some negative event in the middle of the night?
I would have never known the specific details of cannibalism in Mao's Cultural Revolution, Operation Downfall, the Japanese version of the Volkssturm (Volunteer Fighting Corps), a failed coup to try to stop Japan from surrendering after both nukes were already dropped, and the hastiness of the Rwandan genocide if not for this peculiar habit.
>>4098
>nip version of the volkssturm
>negative
Also Japan offered to surrender before the first nuke was ever dropped, but it and all other offers were rejected by burgerstan because the kikes demanded unconditional surrender.

Delete
Report/Ban

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)


no cookies?