Might is right

File: aryan-race-more-like-lost-the-race-amirite_o_7042663.jpg (84KB, 640x755px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 640x755px

>>2207235

Less euphemistic version of "history is written by the victors"

See? I knew you can't prove me wrong. The truth hurts don't it?

>>2207258
That has nothing to do with the truth I posted fag.

>Anyone who seriously studies history will come to this conclusion. Prove me wrong you beta faggots.

Boy oh boy, a no true Scotsman side by side with /pol/ faggotry
What a find.

"Might Is Right, or The Survival of the Fittest, is a book by pseudonymous author Ragnar Redbeard. First published in 1890, it heavily advocates amorality, consequentialism and psychological hedonism."

How's highschool treating ya?

>>2207448
See, you can't disprove it, you just stoop to your patronizing non-arguments rooted in your own insecurity. How's about you at least ATTEMPT to argue properly bitch?

That's true as far as it goes, but who is "mighty" changes often enough to make that idea moot. Just ask the brits/french/spaniards/etc, etc. A more pertinent idea is that everybody gets a turn to be bossman.

>he thinks he's being profound

File: conquest pepe.png (719KB, 633x476px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 633x476px

>>2207235
>Anyone who seriously studies history will come to this conclusion. Prove me wrong you beta faggots.
>protip: You can't

What's the point of asking people to prove your point wrong when you have concluded that it can't be proven wrong to begin with?

Having said that, "might is right" is a very strong claim. This could've been a discussion on "how" political power shapes cultural values rather than whether is false or true. Unfortunately, you self-sabotaged your own thread by being both uncivil and frivolous.

Next time, you should format your opening post as ""Might is right." How may a serious study of history lead to this conclusion?" It's a how question, not a true/false question.

Protipping isn't a positive contirbution to /his/.

>>2207235
I tend to view the saying "might is right" as the pragmatic realization that history is written by winners as opposed to having a moral foundation.

This being said the tendency of cucked liberals or leftist to view every empire building civilization as evil is pretty pathetic. When you get down to it earth is about a competition of groups for control. Nothing is immoral about strength, victory or conquest.

>>2207460
>that late middle school to early high school level response
Case in point.

>>2207235
You are imposing your worldview on history.
kys

>>2207301
>See? I knew you can't prove me wrong. The truth hurts don't it?

You made a vague claim about an abstract concept that you didn't define, which any philosopher would disagree with, on the slowest board of an anime forum, and after 20 minutes you deduced that since nobody is paying any attention to you, you must be correct.

It doesn't follow.

>>2207550
"Might is right" can easily be debunked by looking at christianity. It began as a minor martyr cult, and the mightier cult of the emperor, which everyone mandatory followed, was trying to end it. The opposite happened. Might did not prove right.

>>2208089
>"Might is right" can easily be debunked by looking at christianity

But why do deusvultards insist that Christianity exterminating pagans and become powerful through military action means they were right?

>>2208097
Because they are larpers and not actual christians.
Christianity is not a war religion.

>>2208097
Hey, your strawmen insist on whatever you want them to.

>>2208100
Ok, just keep in mind not everybody thinks like that. Some do think Christianity is like some weird video/board game and that's why it' "cool".

>>2208105
People being wrong about something doesn't change it.
Christianity is defined by its holy text, which regardless of its many translations still remains strongly anti-war.

>>2208105
>>2208110
Actually I retract that statement. I am not sure about it.

Do people being wrong about something, enough of them, for long enough, change it?
If we assume that X=1 is true, but most people act like its false, for generations, is it still true?
This of course doesn't work for physical/scientific X, but it may for metaphysical ideas.

An example would be symmetry. It is a universal truth that symmetry is attractive, and asymmetry is disturbing.
But because we are fascinated by the wickedness and strangeness of asymmetry, we often use it in architecture, art, and so on, to give it an edge, to make it more noticeable.
Does this mean that a thousand years in the future it is possible for symmetry to now be unattractive, as a universal truth, because enough people thought so for long enough?

>>2207235
it's fucktarded.
And every edgy dumbass that believes this fails to realise acting that way will get him hung by his entrails by the plebs at the first sign of trouble(see aztecs).
I mean, ffs, even organised crime, like the mob or gangs, were smart enough to invest in big charitable projects(why do you think columbians loved Escobar so much?) and be nice to people who weren't part of "business".
Speaking of, the average lifespan of brutal criminal groups members, like the Zetas, is measured in a couple of years.
All their founders are either doing lifetime in prison or, more commonly, dead.

This is even worse when applied to civilisations, since simply being brutal will make everyone you've even ruled over, outside of your core region, discard your cultural legacy like a bad case of fleas, which means you've failed as an empire.

>>2207235

OP states the obvious and sucks dicks, more news at 9

>>2208119
Assyria conquered all the world they were aware of while practicing Might is Right.
Its not completely useless.

>>2208125
and their empire was nuked in a couple of hundred years, and their language with it.
woop-ty-do

File: article-2009487-0092394100000578-122_468x299.jpg (64KB, 468x299px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 468x299px

>>2207235
>Might is right
It depends on what you mean.
Mongols were "mighty" yet all they brung was death and destruction.
Spaniards were "mighty" yet all they did was destroy civilizations.
Ottomans were "mighty" and they're the most detested European/Arab country today.

How history remembers you is more to do with how you treat the literary populace. Saying something like 'might is write' and 'the victors write history' is wrong because victors don't write history, educated people do.

The first emperor of China for example, Qin Shi Huang, did the impossible and united the entirety of China right after 500 years of warfare. However he's usually remembered in a negative tone because he went berserk on most of his literary populace because they didn't follow the same values he wanted China to follow and burned loads of books.

We Brits on the otherhand, are usually remembered in a positive tone because while we did cause a lot of strife, it was kept to the minimal and the local populace benefited from it. We were probably the only moralistic colonial empire/empire.

Tl'Dr: You're a faggot OP

>>2208134
Nothing lasts forever, thats not an argument.

>>2208137
>However he's usually remembered in a negative tone because he went berserk on most of his literary populace because they didn't follow the same values he wanted China to follow and burned loads of books

So Mao was just a reemerging, natural outgrowth of the chinese civilisation?

>>2208147
i don't know.
Vulgar Latin is still spoken across large parts of europe, and people take pride in being from the regions formerly part of the Austro-hungarian empire(well, expect that part where they went full retarded on the minorities).
Everyone loves the achaeminids, and even filipinos consider their colonisation a good thing, iirc.
Romanians had no resistance movements when they occupied Odessa and the surrounding regions, because they didnt treat the slavs like subhumans, and their measures brought prosperity to the local ukraineans.

>>2208164
1. Latin isn't spoken anywhere, we just pretend its italian and read it like we assume it should be read.
2. You just list a bunch of facts and act as if they prove my statement wrong. They don't, they are largely unrelated and it doesn't follow from them that Assyria's conquest of all their known world wasn't impressive nor accomplished in ways other than "right is might" ideas.

>>2208163
Mao was insane so no.

>>2208173
>1. Latin isn't spoken anywhere, we just pretend its italian and read it like we assume it should be read.
meant romance language

>>2207235
>dat Mein Krampf font

>>2207235

>might is right, prove me wrong beta faggots
>m-muh constantinople! we wuz eastern rome! remove kebab! muh devshirme! muh armenians!

Never read it.

In what way does he define might? If you think human history can be summed by "bully wins lol" you've got a pretty shallow view of it.

If might means power, power is derived through many means of legitimacy. A physically weak person can be powerful if he's a masterful communicator, for example. Many 'mighty' states are based on compromise between rulers and ruled, and when the 'mighty' overstep themselves they're overthrown. Of course, then you can just shift and say "oh then the oppressed are the mighty!"

So if you reduce "might makes right" to "whoever is in power is powerful" then yeah no shit.

File: 1461757871506s.jpg (3KB, 125x96px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x96px

>>2207235
You're obviously right, and a humungous faggot for making a thread about it and acting as if this most obvious of findings were somehow an accomplishment.

>>2207235
People only believe in might makes right when they are the one with the biggest might.

>>2207550
even if it were "immoral" is there a magic god enforcing morality and punishing success in this world at the expense of other sentients?

>>2207235
No. What is Right is subjective, while might is objective.

Might of the strongest forces others to conform with his ideas what is right, but that does not mean everyones agrees with the Mighty's morals.

>>2207235
what's the actual premise?