"morality is subjective"

"morality is subjective"

Is this the most midwit take?

Morality is subjective, though.

Morality is subjective to Satanists

Morality is objective to Christians

"ye can be as gods"

by having your own moral standard. if you're not submitted to God the Creator's law/standard then you are your own god.

GRRMs problem is hes a giant feminist cuck, so all men are faggots and womyns are badass and stunning.

No it isn't commie.

ASoIaF is incredibly cringe and gay. That being said, I still rather enjoyed the books.

there is an obvious reason for that. Imagine hearing lies non stop coming from the good guys. the pro-democracy, the heroes who saved us from nazism, racism and antisemtism. yet the lie about weapons of mass destruction, baby incubators, gassing people, 40 beheaded babies in an oven, etc...
The good guys fight for democracy, freedom, liberty, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and in the process kill and displace millions. and support dictators and the worst apartheid regime of the era during this process. not to mention fund terrorist militias non stop in a never ending attempt at destabilization and destruction.

Now it's only natural for your story to reflect the world you knew to a degree. And if you lived in a world where even the good guys are demonic liars who commit war crimes and drive joy from their success in destruction. Even the good guys are evil. So of course your story wouldn't be pure good vs pure evil like the old stories. Because that's childish and out of touch with reality.

those stories are natural in the era of unopposed ZOG

Winds of Winter fucking when

Which one is closer to the real world?

best I can do is fire and blood part 2

Never. The gray, gritty, violence and immortality that drew in so many readers with its novelty and subversiveness is the same thing holding it back. You can’t tie a bow on it because it’s an amoral story — there is no teleological end towards which the story is moving.

Everyone is awful and the world is grey and immoral.

Jesus' standard. If you're submitted to HIs standard, you will know the truth as in the objective reality ie. you will know ALL things.

1John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1John 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
1John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

you are undercomplicating things yourself.
the people back then absolutely, and very often, weaved gradients into their narrative, they just also believed things still leaned and were good or evil generally despite this.
it still, however, wasn't this idea of a hard either or for everything.

Because the world when observed obviously reflects the R.R Martin Wojack.

intrinsic value believers are midwits

Dire wolves were brought back to life before Fat Fuck finished the books, it's never happening. The ending of the show is how the books were planned to end. But everyone hated that ending which is why gurm refuses to finish them. Best case scenario is a posthumous release so he doesn't have to deal with the blowback.

/thread

muh billion coomplex amoral bisexual characters

It's like the entire pig is made of lipstick now.
I need to go back and read a ton of old literature because the most recent work I gave two shits about was LOTR. No Potter, no Gay Muh Thrones. I'd rather read a memoir by Joseph Conrad about the trials and travails of toenail clipping.

The women never did anything badass or stunning, though.
After he dies of diabetes

This kek

It could be argued that midwits are those who require their moral framework laid out for them, whether it is good and beneficial or not. It's even possible that people who get their moral values from a book written by people who needed to be told to keep their shit outside the camp and away from their food aren't worth listening to on any matter.

It's also possible that exploring morals through examples of immorality, giving one good reasons for objecting to the behaviors depicted, is more instructive than just-so stories that are expected to be adhered to without question on pain of eternal damnation.

Fucking checked.

But also...

Ye can be as Gods

All my niggas Heil Hitler?

muh moral ambiguity

Pragmatism always wins out over morality in an existential crisis because there's nothing ambiguous about death. Morals are a simplification of outcomes for people who can't act appropriately in real time without a pre-learned checklist because most people are shitty and unreliable. People are neither morally good nor bad, these are post factum sentiments, not valid concepts. People are either behaviorally superior or inferior in the face of an existential menace. Some are more rigid and resilient and they are painted as being moral when what they really have is conviction and the courage of their beliefs.

Modern fiction is more nuanced than classical and, in both cases, the majority of it is shit. For every Tolkien or Martin there are millions of toilet wall scrawling redditors who can barely string together a sentence. The difference in the classical and modern worlds is more to do with the control of the publishing and distribution of literature than the authors of it.

Hey OP
next time make a thread worth reading faggot
youtu.be/f05ghes4A20

morality comes from allah, read the koran

Surely the prevalence of this attitude in modern fiction is totally unrelated to the rise of homosexuality and transgenderism.

FPBP

hitler is god as in the perfect being with perfect moral standard to some people but not to the One who will judge us. we will all be judged according to Jesus' righteousness or moral standard.

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

the prevalence of this attitude

the prevalence of jews

Is this the most midwit take?

Yes.
/thread

Older Literature

You mean everything before the Don Quixote all the way back to the Bible?

It's more related to the fact that the sponsors of literature have changed. Moral ambiguity in prose might have had you blacklisted as a heretic or executed for sedition in the classical period. These days you get bad reviews, low sales or letters of rejection from the publisher.

White men kept the Jew under their heel for most of history. Only when the white mind was poisoned by atheism was the Jew free to clownify society.

Imagine reading the Theon, Jaime or Brienne storyline and concluding "well clearly the message of our autor is that good guys suck and evil pays off lol" fucking midwit take: ASOIAF is more of a subversion to the edgy dark fantasy than to the basic fantasy trope. "The beautifull proud knight is actually evil, wow such subversion" is an ancient trope that GRRM first establishes and then absolutely demolishes via Jaime... Yes the beautifull perfect knight IS evil, and he fucking hates it deep inside and desperately wants to change.

GRRM is a old school feminist and super anti-war, but he certainly isn't anti-good in any way. (He is only against strickt "good" morality when it causes war and suffering, like what Ned stark does in book 1. because GRRM is a hippie that hates war)

Also fuck that fat fuck... Where is winds you lazy bum?

Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Turkish Sultan!

O sultan, Turkish devil and damned devil’s kith and kin, secretary to Lucifer himself. What the devil kind of knight are thou, that canst not slay a hedgehog with your naked arse? The devil shits, and your army eats. Thou shalt not, thou son of a whore, make subjects of Christian sons. We have no fear of your army; by land and by sea we will battle with thee. Fuck thy mother.

Thou Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-fucker of Alexandria, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, pig of Armenia, Podolian thief, catamite of Tartary, hangman of Kamyanets, and fool of all the world and underworld, an idiot before God, grandson of the Serpent, and the crick in our dick. Pig’s snout, mare’s arse, slaughterhouse cur, unchristened brow. Screw thine own mother!

So the Zaporozhians declare, you lowlife. You won’t even be herding pigs for the Christians. Now we’ll conclude, for we don’t know the date and don’t own a calendar; the moon’s in the sky, the year with the Lord. The day’s the same over here as it is over there; for this kiss our arse!

Give me a quick rundown on your objective moral code.

Weak men create hard times.

Frieren is a return to Tolkien. Demons bad, kill demons.

wouldnt it be clever if everyone was awful and the world was grey and immoral

so, real life?

The patrons of the arts today are the same people pushing homosexuality

Midwit would be to try your hardest to simplify an obviously complex reality so that it follows a similar framing as the bible, it is no coincidence that christcucks and other religious insects feel an inherent disgust towards nuanced people and environments, both in reality and fictional leisure.

you don't read fiction to get real life you dumb monkey

If you've only read his mainstream stuff it seems that way. Read his earlier sci-fi stories. I would say that he's less feminist than clever enough to realise that women are also customers. Another distinction between the classical and modern periods.

Why do you think his books have so much sex?

What is the moral alignment of large expressionless bone worms?

he won’t finish it because he’s lazy

He literally cannot finish it. Any ending would fall short. That is the problem with removing morality from your story. The plot doesn’t actually have an ending to advance towards. I think he’s stalling out of embarrassment

They are shitty people. I've lived in the artistic world enough to say that first hand.

Nope, it’s objective

what do you mean?
the modern thing is just as one dimensional
LOVE vs HATE
The progressives are LOVE
The nazis / TRUMP / pol are HATE
Modern world order is that.

my side is good because 2000 year old book that has been through 3+ layers of translation told me so!

Morality is subjective. You can believe morality is objective, but that's still just your opinion. Prove me wrong.

Yes it is indeed the most midwit take.
The most midwit thing about this take is that it's justification usually involves broadly speaking "might is right" arguments while completely ignoring the fact that having an objective sense of morality is not mutually exclusive with the natural law of reality "might is right".
Yes, might will be the thing that decides outcome but that has literally nothing to but that's totally irrelevant to morality.
It isn't the function of morality to decide outcomes, Morality exists independent of them.

BUT THINGS HAVE INNATE VALUE WITHOUT RELATION TO OTHER THINGS BECAUSE, THEY JUST DO OK?

English bad sirs

No matter how objective you think your moral code is, there's always gonna be an extra layer of intricacy you can add that breaks everything apart.
Let's say stealing is morally wrong, something that you should agree with as a conservative person. Is stealing food when you starve still objectively wrong if we live in a society where companies waste millions of tons of food every year because they'd rather throw it away than sell it at a decreased profit/small loss?

Fap time

Your mongolian head is so far up your own ass that you assume everyone reads for the same reason as you I reckon?

midwit

It's closer to an evil and retarded opinion. It's literally false. youtube.com/watch?v=GykkuulgY2E

does that mean the value between a man and the woman are the same? if it doesn't change in relation to what a man is and what a woman is.

What happened in this scene?

I personally lost all my respect for Tolkien when i learned that the "reluctant hero" Aragorn, doubtfull due to the failure of his ancestor and unwilling to follow in his footsteps was 100% a Peter Jackson invention.
Book Aragorn is just like: doubt? I will be king cause that's what I was born for and I am the greatest dude ever! Bow you shits!!

The "RR" stands for "rape".

Yes. Next question.

Could the old man have decided on his own to be nice to his neighbors?

Yes he could have. Thanks for wasting 3 minutes of my life, fagtron.

If anyone has mastered one-dimensional
"my side good, your side evil"
the modern left has.
they portray NATO / Allies / NGO Human Rights organizations as LOVE, opposite side as HATE with dictators and racists.

The video is way above your head. But don't feel bad. Most people won't really get it either.

"reluctant hero" Aragorn, doubtfull due to the failure of his ancestor and unwilling to follow in his footsteps

this would make sense if he was younger and more naive, he's like 87. The book got it right desu

Old literature often made everyone evil in their own ways, actually. You must be the kind of person that thinks Lord of the Rings is old, when really that's very recent.

Dude shut yp

There is almost nothing clever or sophisticated about modern literature. It's total unreadable brainrot garbage. The last somewhat decent writer with a great literary soul and capable of the kind talent that can at least say something meaningful to the world, David Foster Wallace, committed suicide in 2008
The fat greasy overrated fuck GRR Martin can't hold a candle to Tolkien. The rest out there now is DEI trash 'writers'.

Just one great classical writer from the 19th century like a Dickens or Tolstoy is worth more than the entire current crop of shit writers today. That's how bad it is.
And I don't want to even compare titans of literature like Shakespeare, Cervantes, or Goethe to the subhumans today.

Wow turns out the undead ice monsters (climate change metaphor?) are a bigger threat to humanity and we should stop our retarded squabling between ourselves to deal with a common problem that will kill us all. THE END

There I finished it... Also the ending (if it will ever exist) will absolutely have the moral message at the end of "war bad" as thats really GRRMs main thing. However if the message isn't literally "accept jesus christ as your lord and saviour" it isnt moral to some tards on here

He's gonna give her a back massage :D

Is stealing food when you starve still objectively wrong if we live in a society where companies waste millions of tons of food every year because they'd rather throw it away than sell it at a decreased profit/small loss?

Considering our particular society has much less of a problem with people starving, much more with people getting so fat they collapse under their own weight, I'd say you picked a rather poor example. But yes, in my opinion, "because I'd fucking die if I don't" is a good enough reason to do practically anything.

Yes, in fact everyone is stupid except you, my friend. Congratulations, we'll nominate you for a Nobel Prize after mommy picks you up from daycare.

Martin said that he thought about his book ideas from his experience as a child and having to stay inside for longer periods because of winter. Basically, Winter and the ice monsters is just Winter given further character.

The whole book series could be taken as a child's wild imagination of the seasons being interpreted and a bit twisted by an adult mind.

quick skim of the thread shows no one's even discussing the actual topic of moral ontology (the notion of morality being subjective) besides
this based ip poster this muhammadan >truth value of moral claims require minds to be known and articulated, minds are subjective, therefore it's all just opinion
problem with this view is that the truth value of any claims require minds to be known and articulated, so you basically throw out the objectivity of biology/math/etc and slip into solipsism if you hold to this retardation consistently

food analogy

Go back to Anon Babble

doesn't capeshit have definite good and evil

Moral ambiguity in prose might have had you blacklisted as a heretic or executed for sedition in the classical period. These days you get bad reviews, low sales or letters of rejection from the publisher.

No it didn't. That would only happen if you pissed off someone powerful or wrote something extremely provocative.

stealing food when you starve still objectively wrong

there are thousands of food banks in every fucking city
NOBODY steals food. NIGGERS steal TELEVISIONS. Niggers like YOU

yes

You yourself think morality is subjective and everyone who you hate telling you 'morality is subjective' thinks it's its objective. You are all just stupid fucking niggers who are running on spite and shouting the exact opposite of what you believe purely to spite each other.

Listen you fucking retards, the right, the 'morals are objective' crowd, you fuckers act like you think the opposite. Explain how isolating yourself and shouting 'government fuck off and leave me alone' is what someone who believes in universalist morality would do?

Better yet, explain why the lefties who say it's subjective try to turn around and then enforce it harder then anyone else?

They think it's objective, you think it's subjective. You just both THINK you believe the opposite but actions speak louder then words and, in the west, both sides of this debate act like they actually think the opposite of what they assert. Why the fuck would you want smaller government if you thought morals were objective? Why the fuck would liberals want bigger government to enforce morals upon others if they thought it was subjective.

Everyone that isn't me should be put to death for saying this wet load of horse shit, you fucking liars!

I wish contradicting yourself caused your blood to boil in your veins cause I am tired of hearing people shout one thing so fucking loud and carry it like its their fucking religion and then turning around and doing the complete opposite.

Fuck you.

Slippery slope. You can prove 1+1=2, you can't prove moral objectivity; those are two entirely separate matters. However you are close to an actual good point in that on a societal level we sort of have to pretend morality is objective, because when normies hear it's not objective they tend to throw out their subjective morality with it (No objective morality? Yay! That means I can murder and steal all I want! Zip-a-dee-doo-dah!).

Sorry, I was trying to make a funny by assuming "ye" meant Kanye West

Yeah well, that slut was asking to get raped

Winds of Winter announced

3 Trump presidencies

Elden Ring 1

Elden Ring 1 DLC

Elden Ring 1 1/2 <---- You are here

Elden Ring 2

Elden Ring 2 DLC

Bloodborne 2

Elden Ring 3

GRRM dies suddenly

14 and a half pages of notes released as an answer to the J.R.R. Tolkien things released after he died

It all falls down when you realize that modern media is more manichean than the older one (muh nazi).
They didn't bring nuance, they brought superficiality.

Objective morality is cope by retards who want to convince themselves bad people aren't the most moral buman beings on the planet, more so then anyone else.

Evil is caused by wanting to do good and make the world better. If all the hippies in the 70s had stfu and minded their own business, selfishly, we'd have had widespread nuclear power and free green energy nationwide by now. Good is evil. Kill all goodcucks. Wokies and terrorists think they are moral you fucking retards. You cannot be that insanely brainwashed without having good morals. You cannot ever cut the dick off a child WITHOUT GOOD MORALS. Good morals are literally THE SOLE WAY TO RATIONALIZE SOMETHING THAT RETARDED, INSANE AND FUCKED UP.

"Uh, no. How would that be moral."

Cause their moral system says it is, you fucking retard. Why is that so hard to accept when you too cut the dicks of children, just less of it?

American Protestants whining about trannies are just semantics debates about how much of the dick we should cut off.

You cannot ever cut the dick off a child WITHOUT GOOD MORALS.

Even with good morals, child castration is intrinsically abhorrent and vile beyond belief.

subjective is bad

Slippery slope.

it's not though

You can prove 1+1=2, you can't prove moral objectivity;

irrelevant, things don't need to be provable to be able to exist in reality

Yay! That means I can murder and steal all I want! Zip-a-dee-doo-dah!).

that's because that's the logical rational conclusion.
people who hold to moral anti-realism but don't go out murdering and raping are irrational.

Libturds are the biggest moral objectivists. They are just in denial about it.

Also let me remind you faggots that it has been 6 years since GoT's finale and we still don't have Winds of Winter. That much better ending GRRM told us he had planned? Any other writer could have thrown it all away and started from scratch and been done in that time and that's still just a tiny fraction of the time he's supposedly been working on that book.

Did your parents get that memo when they cur off your foreskin?

Yes stealing is still wrong. How do you know where the food was going to go? Now someone else starving lost is food.

irrelevant, things don't need to be provable to be able to exist in reality

So let me get this straight: You're saying morality is objective because if you don't believe it, then you don't believe in other objective things, which you believe are real without proof anyway?

that's because that's the logical rational conclusion.

people who hold to moral anti-realism but don't go out murdering and raping are irrational.

What if I told you you can realize that murder (who's talking about rape?) is not objectively wrong but still opine that it's generally wrong?

my interpretation of said book

The scientific method has already been verified to be scientifically accurate.

It's not even that, morally gray characters existed since the fucking Iliad, I'm pretty sure since the epic of Gilgamesh as well. Retards who praise Tolkien for moral simplicity over everything else are unironically one step above capeshit and harry potter fags.

Does anyone have the screenshot of someone explaining why JRR Martin can't finish his book series because he can't write heroes because he's a villain?

We have a whole industry around murder.
It is called the military.

Tolkien is harry potter and capeshit for rightwingers.

One group thinks he has a right to be a woman if that's what he wants and you are a terrible person for wanting to stop him

The other only cares about money and making money of seing the group on top on child sex changes.

Which one has the greater numbers?

"Dude, it's just evil because it is."

They disagree, prove them wrong.
This bullshit argument isn't about moral subjectivity vs moral objectivity. It's about deintologists being in firm denial about how all the shit they hate in life is 100% caused by them. You must be good to blindly commit evil at no gain to yourself. Anyone who cares about the moral good is one of you. You just can't bring yourself to admit their intentions are noble and it is that step where they failed because we are really fucking defensive about it being the thought that counts for some reason.

No you stupid fuck. The thought doesn't count, just the result, and you are no different from the trannies when you pretend otherwise.

he can't write heroes

He can.

You have to be 18 to post here.

murder is wrong

Any society that didn't attach an asterisk to this statement was eradicated and the aaterisk in question differs widely from society to society.

In the US veterans are fellated and their job is literally to murder. We don't punish people for self-defense (or at least, we used to not do it. I don't know about anymore)

it was older so it was better

And you have to be uncircumcised to not be considered jewish.

keyed

I guess it's more of a problem with the show than with Martin's writing but he certainly set-up a world that actually doesn't make sense.

In a world with constant backstabbing where oaths don't hold any value, people in leading positions wouldn't act like they do. I guess it's because Martin is a Jew and the writers of the show are Jews that they don't understand that loyalty means something and treason is never looked kindly upon.

You're saying morality is objective because if you don't believe it, then you don't believe in other objective things, which you believe are real without proof anyway?

no but that's close, i am specifically shitting on the notion that the ontological position of moral anti-realism is true due to reliance on minds to know them. which was a strawman against you (erected because that's one of the more common ideas for shitting on moral realism and you were like "that's just your opinion maaan") but you rolled with it anyway.

i hold to moral realism (the notion that morality is objective) because of theological reasons you wouldn't find interesting.
your post is funny if it's a joke and funnier if it's not

capeshit is so fucking cringe and leftist

murder is always wrong no matter what by definition, the word basically means unjustifiable killing
vets and people defending themselves haven't murdered since their killings were justifiable

Hitler would have been one of the bad guys according Tolkien. Also the narrative is boring as fuck. Everyone is a 5 gorillion year old immoral hardened veteran with plot armor and no depth. There is zero tension, drama or character development.

i hold to moral realism (the notion that morality is objective) because of theological reasons you wouldn't find interesting.

I'm sure I'd be interested, I just probably wouldn't agree with them. I do agree that moral objectivity, if it did exist, would imply the existence of God, because anything being objective implies an objective reality, which implies an omnipresent state of being, which implies something you well might call God.

You need to have good morals and a strong sense of identity in order to stand up to those kinds of people.

You are subjectively and objectively gay

what is this schizobabble? Didn't read & opinion rejected.

The morality of the Middle Ages were closer to George's tale. A lot of Royalty, Nobility, and Clergy were backstabbers, liars, murderers, traitors, oath breakers, warmongers, fornicators, adulterers, and retards.

Just look at King Richard who fought his own father over and over again. Or at King Charles who attacked his own men in a psychotic episode.

If anything, ASOIF is pretty tame as far as Medieval politics (or personality more like) go

Pic related

There is zero tension, drama or character development.

three foot tall midget famous for being the nephew of another midget who is sllghtly odd traverses the entire map with his fat gardener companion to destroy the most powerful evil entity in the known world.
no character development at all...

Dude's sister disguises herself as a man because she falls in love with a king but is rejected so she takes another midget with her into a battle that sees them both kill a demon lord.

no drama

the internal struggle of a powerful man who is pitted against the allure of an irresistible evil, exploration of the difference between rationalised evil (using the ring) and actual good/ (destroying it)

If you haven't read both works you have no place discussing either.

Is this the most midwit take?

yes and no

Winds of Winter fucking when

that fat fuck isnt going to finish winds much less spring.
he wrote himself into a corner.

the most midwit take is fags who think capeshit stuff is deep and high quality, acting like it's not leftist crap

Literally the first episdoe

Moses, on behalf of Yahweh, commanded his Israelite horde to slaughter gentile baby boys and pregnant women

but the women of the town were sluts!

I agree, but that doesn't justify killing unborn babies

morally grey is just done to death and that is why everyone is mad at it

Martin is Jewish.

a giant feminist cuck

Au contrare, he actually stuck up for his work which was why the feminist showrunners of House of The Dragon showed him the door

I'm going to defend GRRM here because your meme doesn't accurately describe ASOIAF at all.

Yes, most of the characters in ASOIAF are either morally grey or just downright evil, but within the lore the few noble and decent characters are absolutely revered. Many characters - and readers - mock Ned Stark for example, for being so honourable that it got him killed. And yet Ned's honour is remembered long after his death, with most Northmen almost worshipping him and the Starks as a result, as you see in book 5 when one of the Umbers helps rescue Ned's daughter Arya (albeit it's not actually Arya, unbeknownst to them) because they still respect and revere Ned long after his death.

You also have Wyman Manderly, another northern lord, plotting to dethrone the Boltons and make Ned's son Rickon the Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, again because Ned and the Starks were renowned as being good and noble lieges, unlike the genuinely evil Boltons who rule through fear and cruelty.

Stannis offers to legitimise Ned's bastard son Jon Snow and make him Lord of Winterfell. Why? Why, when he could give Winterfell to any old northern lord who had pledged for him - Umber, Karstark, etc.? It's because he knows that a Stark (and a son of Ned) is going to be the only choice that 99% of northerners will agree on, such is Ned's legacy.

In book 3, it's even mentioned how one of the lords of the Vale - a historically neutral kingdom, essentially the Switzerland of ASOIAF - is lobbying for the Vale to join the War of the Five Kings on the side of Ned's son Robb.

I could go on, but you get the message: there are evil bastards aplenty in ASOIAF, and yet people only cheer when they die. Yet those truly good and noble and honourable people like Ned Stark - "a man in ten thousand", as Aemon says - are so respected and revered that their good deeds are remembered long after death, and continue to pay dividends.

I think the problem lies in the interpretation of the context it is applied to, or said differently;

Morality can be both a convenience, and/or a detriment.

And I think this will be the ultimate message of ASOIAF, aside from "war is bad": that, while being good and honourable can lead to your death in a world of evil and honourless men, you will reap the benefits from your noble deeds both in life and death. And while being evil and cruel can certainly be an effective way of ruling in the short-term, it wins you no hearts or loyalty, and no one mourn or sing songs for you after your death.

story is moving

Welcome to history, bud. George's books are supposed to give a window into a part of the history of his fantasy world. Its actually interesting what happens when the old fart kicks the bucket and the rights to his magnum opus brand is in the hands of someone competent. I won't hold my breath because I don't think the pendulum will swing hard enough towards gritty grainy 20th Century sword and sorcery and away from boring clean safe feminist social justice cringe

Yes but I don't think it's for the reasons you claim.
It's just the use of the terms subjective and objective are almost always used by sophists to attack and defend certain things.
What does it even mean to say X is subjective? There is always an objective truth underneath and there is always a subjectivity in our interaction with it. That's why the statement is pointless.

Try Conan series, its pretty good.

Idealism is le gud, Realism is le bad

Who wants to bet that when I compare Ukraine's fight against Russia to Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, OP is going to make a Game of Thronsian argument for how Zelenski is a bad guy, Russia a misunderstood victim and that whoever's right or wrong does not really matter compared to how awful the war is for everyone?

It's because of jews. If they can't demoralize the public and normalize their behavior then people revolt.

the rise of homosexuality and transgenderism.

fags and transvestites have been around as far back as the Glory Days of Rome or perhaps even in Classical Greece. The only thing that rose is their prominence and assertiveness in public and that's only made possible because their only opposition in the West are nu-Christians who tolerate fornication, divorce, masturbation, and prostitution

oldest literature for the Amerimutt is an origin story written by seething Jews exiled and enslaved in Babylon

Go read The Fables of La Fontaine in old french or old english, basically as close to the original version as possible, it a genuinely amazing compilation of literature. The trick to truly appreciate them is to understand the majority of them were meant to be teaching human nature to nobility, and werent meant to be interpreted as infantile stories as the modern interpretation tend to be.

I for one simply like Russia better. Not for objective reasons just out of an emotional reaction. I will never not support Russia. I think that there is way too much try-hard rationalizing going on. In politics in general.

Game of Thronsian argument

I just had three consecutive anal aneurysms from that fucking statement.

bad guy not actually bad, he is just misunderstood

that dude literally kills people

thats just your opinion, and opinons are subjective

checkmate sky father believer.

Jews got bored and started giving work to their new Progressive Atheist LGB golems, encouraging them to inject their own complete lack of moral compass into their stories. Someone who legitimately does not believe in good and evil cannot conceive of the world most normal people live in.

God in the Bible is a pretty morally complex character. One moment, he says "Thou shalt not murder", the next his Chosen "people" are slaughtering women and children under Moses and Joshua, and later their own such as the Benjaminites

Murder is bad

not when god does it directly or through someone else.

what did kikefags mean by this?

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand game of thrones. The politics are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of the lore most of the magic will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also the hound's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from j.d. salinger’s literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of the drama, to realize that they're not just suspense- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike game of thrones truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in house Stark's existencial catchphrase "whinter is coming," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those delapedated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Gerorge R R martin's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Jon Snow tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the night’s watch eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within a similarly noble house of my own according to the “which Game of thrones house are you?” Facebook quiz (preferably lower) beforehand.

capeshit

capeshit is nearly pure jewish shit

He can't finish it because muh morals

He can't finish it because the story is tainted by Dumb and Dumber's ending to the show series

Morality is defined to be objective by some, and subjective by others, but what really is the partical diffrence?
The only diffence is that some people justify their actions by defining them as good, yet they act awully against others because they define them as evil.

What is the "Golden rule"?

Crazy never really viewed it that way but that makes the most sense

theft is bad

why

because it just is! ok!

I guess one can argue that it's bad because it will erode trust in a society, thus unraveling it, making it chaotic instead of ordered, inflicting fear in everyone's mind of each other, contributing to the final destruction of all when a big calamity from God happens (flood, earthquake, war) but even this presupposes that society is inherently good when there are many men who'd rather live on their own with their dog and a harem of underaged sex slaves

killing, in its broadest sense, refers to the act of causing the death of a living being.
it is a morally neutral term that encompasses a wide range of contexts, from accidental or justifiable acts to those deemed unlawful.
murder, by contrast, is a specific subset of killing, characterized by its intentional, unlawful, and often premeditated nature. it is laden with moral and legal condemnation.

all murders are killings, not all killings constitute murder, as the former requires the presence of malicious intent and a violation of moral or legal standards

God, as the ultimate moral authority, defines what is lawful and just. If He tells you to kill you some amalekites, it's just killing, not murder.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand MCU. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Hawkeyes nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike the MCU truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Caps existencial catchphrase "I can do this all day," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as fiegel's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Endgame tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

Tolkien was great but now that he's been dead for decades, all his retarded opinions are overlooked and those that could have been made had he lived longer never aired. I mean the guy hated CS Lewis' work for what it intended to be, a simple story inspired by Lewis' beliefs, and he hated Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves for being family friendly and removing all the adult stuff in the OG tales. Also he got pissed over weed smoking hippie fans of his, when we all know dudeweed is unironically more enjoyable than sooting your areola with tobacco

in this discussion "subjective" just means "thing i dont like" and "objective" means "thing i like"
once you frame it that way you can see through all the bullshit

Morality is defined to be subjective by jews

What is the "golem rule"

murder is bad because it's an unlawful killing and if you live in a society where unlawful killings are permissible, that society will degenerate into a shithole and be conquered by a stronger society
that's the actual objective reason why murder is bad based on a materialist worldview not your subjective interpretation of god

Noone can refute this.

Besides Faust Part 1 and The Sorcerer's Apprentice, what else of Wolgang's works worth reading that wouldn't bore my late millenial mind?

undead ice monsters (climate change metaphor?)

Retarded comparison. There are many situations when two feuding parties unite to fight a common foe. Even LOTR had that when Gondor and Rohan unite to take on Mordor, or when the French and English united to go on Crusade or when the Soviet Union and United States joined forces to fight aliens

Slavshits buckbroken and their little tiny holes are now gaping for everyone to see
Why do we let them speak?
Every time it's an embarrassment

The golden rule is older than the kikes.

the message won't be "war bad", midwit. It would be that pragmatic decision making is wiser than moralfagging until inevitable martyrdom

Morality never changes, good & evil are NOT products of the imagination they have external measurable material manifestation.
It’s not even difficult, why anyone ever had a problem understanding this? Well you’ve seen the mentally ill woke cultists telling you that they are the most intelligent people in the world and they know this because their brainwashers say so. Maybe they did think it was awfully clever to not understand good & evil.

not everyone had a teddy bear as a kid and that’s just sad.

but some people are just cunts.

Someone i used to know who looked after murderers used to say.

Wouldn't it be clever

Kek!

Imagine being fucking eastern European
Goddamn

Yeah, I don't like how the show depicted "Winter". It was just "hey ice zombies" when the real threat was starving and freezing to death in your homes while evil snowmen are abound. Its kind of like how the biggest danger after the apocalypse aren't necessarily the zombies, though they are dangerous, but its also hunger, disease, injury, buildings collapsing and falling apart, gangs of violent self interested survivors, thieves, starving cannibals, traitors in your party, etc

There's no satanism

Explaining how powerful the villain is, or how far they traveled to defeat him, isn't character development. There is no character development because every character is fundamentally the same in the end of the books as they are at the beginning and they would make the same choices. (Minus Frodo having Ptsd i guess) It is an uncomplicated narrative, which is why it is just kinda boring.

Morality is subjective and I'm a subject, anything that I support is good and anything that opposes it is bad.

Retard alert

Omnipotent beings aren't jealous

You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

only slightly older

the most thought-provoking literary classics talk about how everyone is awful and the world is gray and immoral
that has nothing to do with a song of ice and fire being shitty low fantasy slop

idiot redditors always say that until they get punched in the mouth

Slav department
Now we can finally all hate them openly
For all the fucked up shit they've done
And will continue to do
Unless they're kept in check
Like the niggers they are
They only understand pain
*cracks a whip menacingly*
youtu.be/CQWAtviZ1I4?si=-WoMLwCwOFOL-xI4

Pragmatism always wins out over morality in an existential crisis because there's nothing ambiguous about death.

This, but sub 120 IQ brainlets think it means

taking the most self serving action that provides the most immediate benefit to you is the best course of action

Instead of

humans are nothing but a species of social animals that thrive the best when they form and live in small communities where everyone sacrifices some of their immediate desires for the wellbeing of the entire group because in long term the wellbeing of the group is the best guarantee of your own and your offsprings' survival

It is the morality of godless people with porn addled brains. GoT is just porn for degenerates.

Degenerates aren't thinking people, they can't think on a higher level because they short-circuit their brains with mindless hedonism.

A society that is run by degenerates can't function correctly. Things fall apart. Modern civilization is a complex system with many moving parts that requires higher order thinking to both maintain and progress.

A degenerate society is dysfunctional, and dysfunction leads to widespread pain and suffering.

Fucking kek

the Nazis were objectively heckin evil!

Morality is objective, yes. But we are the bad guy, the Nazis were the good guys.

There is no character development because every character is fundamentally the same in the end

You're too retarded to figure it out for yourself so I will explain character development for you.

Frodo starts out as the weird nephew of an oddball Hobbit. Everyone else is more powerful, wiser, stronger etc in every respect. He follows along with the fellowship expecting that the more powerful/wise will know what to do and he will just go along with it

The ring influences everyone in its' presence, including Frodo. Frodo's nature fights back against it, the conflict between them sees him develop leadership ability, courage, resilience etc. It also has an effect on him that makes him wary of his best friend, jealous of anyone coveting the ring and increasingly seduced by the power obtained by using it to the extent that he has to have it bitten off of his finger at the end whereas earlier he just tries to give it away to Gandalf and Galadriel. His character changes entirely, so much so that by the end of the series he is so utterly changed that he has to escape Middle Earth to live in another plane of reality (Valinor). Did you miss that part? Did you skip the entire trilogy and think the summary on the back was the entire book?

just give up hope already, even if it does come out (posthumously) it's going to be shit. he set out to write anti-tolkien but accidentally ended up with genuine heroes and it drives him crazy because he's a fat subversive jew

Did Eve die after eating the apple, before which she had eternal life?

Make your own charming comics germlet

Science is just someone doing something over and over again so that a bunch of his know-it-all friends can see and say "yup datz leegit". You might as well claim Jesus is scientifically real because a bunch of people calling themselves the apostles saw miracles happen over and over again

Meh tolkien had his own problems with depicting orcs as pure evil when they clearly could talk and had their own society. He tried to solve it by saying that orcs know what morality is but cannot apply it themselves and that they have no soul like humans have but they are not full animals. Anyways lotr also has non black and white characters but the narrative is pushed forward by clear goal of removing evil (sauron, melkor) which is why GOT has no clear goal and can turn into aimless expedition

When trump releases proof the election was stolen

en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Genealogy_of_Morals/First_Essay

three foot tall midget famous for being the nephew of another midget who is sllghtly odd traverses the entire map with his fat gardener companion to destroy the most powerful evil entity in the known world.

no character development at all

thats not character development. Nothing about that says anything about Frodo's character. If anything, Frodo's character or personality doesn't change at all, except for the brief moments he is manipulated by Gollum and the Ring

The modern understanding of “Morality” itself is midwittery. And as usual, this is because modernity is oversaturated with pedantic, abrahamic bullshit, aka words over operation.
The greeks and ancients were literally right about everything.

lmao nice try but you obviously didn't even read the books retard

correct

I made this, am I cool now?

Because satanists know they are piece of shits who deserve to be punished so they try to push this

Im actually misunderstood!

grrm gets shit on a bit too much imo. his books pretty clearly have decent, good people (starks) and fucked up pure evil (boltons). and while starks get obliterated they are also remembered and people are fiercely loyal to them so the message isnt '"lol evil wins and good guys are chumps" either.

hmmm, so if God commands you to kill babies after the battle is over because they are male, its just killing and thus not murder. Hmmm, I wonder why even the Israelites kept returning to polytheism and complaining in the presence of "Pillar of light" and "pillar of fire" (totally not a metaphor for sunshine through cloud cover and a whirlwind with lightning above)

Prescriptive and descriptive levels. You are yelling about two separate thing to each others retards

there's always gonna be an extra layer of intricacy you can add that breaks everything apart.

how very kosher rabbi

OP is the ultimate retard take.

Here's this planet, with life having taken place for uncountable amounts of years (whether you believe in the bible or not, whether you are atheist or religious). For a limited amount of time within those uncountable amounts of years humans have developed from cavemen hunters, to bumfuck farmers, to hick traders and warlords, into the modern technocratic society. Even within the life history of our entire species, our current way of life is like 1 millisecond of time compared to the 24 hours of the entire proverbial "day" we have existed. Never mind the time that passed before we even were around (biblical, quraanical, talmudical, atheist, agnostic or otherwise).

But yes, your "opinion" about how the world should work, how humans should think and live is definitely an objective and truthful summary of the fabric of our existence and the entire cosmos.

If you are religious, then claiming morality is not subjective means that you are claiming that you know the workings of your god, who is actually unfathomable, so that's blasphemy, good job. If you are not religious, you are claiming that the odd 20-30 years you have spent alive, with a brain of limited capacity, is enough to form an opinion that encompasses 15 billion years of the universe existing, 4 billion years of life existing on earth, 5 million years of hominin life existing, 100,000 years of humans existing and 10,000 years of human society existing, and what it all should be like. Yes, your 20-30 years here with your limited brain surely know the machinations of all the atoms, molecules and physical processes that have taken place in all that time, that have brought us to this point in time, and what that means for every single human individual out of over 7 billion of them, and how they should think and behave.

morality is based on fear of retaliation.

Huh. This is the first time I've ever even heard of this La Fontaine business. Thank you.

But I think whoever tortured raped and killed those children was probably more happy to torture rape and kill them than they were sad to be tortured raped and killed, the total happiness in the world increased.

so whatever

The whole argument about murder is semantic. No society can and do allow murder because it must be illegal to be murder in first place. Otherwise it would be killing.

No, it’s a dimwit take.

If you're jewish

What is the point of these threads? Everybody pretends like they didn't hear a thing and just goes on to repeat the things they want to be true.

Unironically Modern Media is right on this one. The whole "good bad" dichonomy is infantile, unrealistic, cringe and too predictable.

It's what centuries of aethikike propaganda does.
Tell them that murder or rape is subjective as well(extra point for mentioning pedos) and watch how fast they start virtue signalling. (because they secretly wanna do it and now feel called out)

To remind gaytheists that they're animals.

Funny, proving objective morality to fagtheists is like explaining why it's shameful to be naked to animals.

you got elden ring four years ago (the one with the shittiest lore)

Trannies think their morality is THE morality. Transphobia is a non-negotiable universal metaphysical evil.

which tree produces better fruits
stringing together a compelling sentence is easy enough
stringing together a compelling civilization not so much

and he loved race mixing (beren and luthien), or beastiliaty to be more accurate
no wonder he was such a big fan of the jews
and, like all catholics, he used pagans stuff, only to shoe horn in his version of catholicism
like he said himself, evil can't create, it only can corrupt

western society is a great example of the function of morality and what happens when weak people reject morality.
But yeh, morality is "infantile" because you wanna be a degenerate sack of shit... oblivious lolcow.

Even funnier is their symbiotic relationship with jews.

jews believe they're animals

gaytheists believe themselves to be animals

rabbi shmuley sells buttplugs

gaytheists put them in their ass

like trying to tell the gaygans, homoslims and dykikes to not fuck the animals

this is so revealing

aragorn is a good king

"what are his tax policies?"

good ones

"did he genocided the orcs?"

lets hope so. orcs like to eat humans

"can elves and orcs fuck now?"

i genuinly wonder why tolkien didn't inlcude that

i would argue that your take is the most midwit of all.
when was "the prince" written?

Christianity is low IQ. So is islam btw. Majority of Westerners are non-christian, non-muslim, non-abrahamic atheists. Westerners are high IQ on average. Majority of arabs are hardcore muslims. that's why they're low IQ

Why do people try to pigeon hole "woke" with moral relativism? Woke faggots aren't moral relativists, they're moral absolutists. They think their morality is THE morality for the entire world. A moral relativist would support localism and 100,000 different countries each doing whatever the fuck they want including racism and fascism. Not one world government.

No morality is objectively objective—it isn't based on belief. It's a natural truth, like gravity. Gravity is a measurable, observable fact and truth—and so is morality.

People who're mental 16-22years old love grey morality, it's why all the physically 40 year old men on Reddit love it.

modernity is oversaturated with pedantic, abrahamic bullshit, aka words over operation

trve

The greeks and ancients were literally right about everything.

yes, especially about the abrahamics.

Obviously the idealistic one isnt meant to be a documentary on the world or whatever the fuck, it aims for higher morals as an ideal so the real world has something to aim for. If you never set your aim higher than what the current reality is you'll be always just mired in shit.
Game of thrones is pointless soýjak slop which simply reflect the modern-ish state of affairs in which most of the ruling class are either traitorous psychopaths or mindless vassals of thereof. And its main selling points are MUH PLOT TWISTS for the sake of having plot twists so you can write/record more slop while maintaining its addictivity, kinda like artificial flavours in fast food. omg who gon die this episode?!
though i have to commend the the dwarf guy's acting, he carried the whole thing

Morality isn't subjective, but people are generally awful and opportunistic. Knowing that is not midwittery at all. It's quite literally the opposite of midwittery. Midwits live in a liberal bubble, realists know the truth is not as pink colored and though they strive for morality, it is ultimately just a hobby in the grand scheme of things.

Go worship your disgusting demons

get kidnapped

raped endlessly

tortured every day with extremely painful methods

shows all your loved ones brutally killed one by one

kill yourself to escape once you have the chance

Christians are like:

hurr durr youre a bad person you deserve to burn in hell

If He tells you to kill you some amalekites, it's just killing, not murder

and people wonder how jews got in power
christians are golems

you are small, therefore unimportant

never understood this mindset
that's the opposite of moral

Woke faggots aren't moral relativists, they're moral absolutists. They think their morality is THE morality for the entire world

true, but their moral code in itself is highly relative
one thing can be bad, only to be fine the next day, solely depending on the actions of others

T. Jewish subhuman faggot

Noticed this with tv shows. Every show is just “here is a collection of awful people making awful choices”.

yupp
i asked a devout catholic about a life of undending pain and if suicide is okay in that case
his answer was "life is pain, get over it"
practically victim blaming a victim of gods sadism

But that is reality.

Objective morality is a reflection of goodness, being made in the image of God. It isn't these arbitrary standards out there.
It's God's nature itself. For example, stealing is wrong because God is not a thief.
So it's very hard with to argue against moral subjectivity or for moral objectivity if you don't acknowledge the foundation or lack thereof as you're arguing for arbitrary standards without God in the picture.

No, it was subjective when it was created, like when people realized that eating babies isn't a good thing, it may even be a bad thing, possibly really bad.
Some people might have disagreed; the ancestors of the jews, I imagine.
But it was pretty much settled after that, making it objective.
But objective morality isn't the same as absolute morality either, mainly because it IS NOT black and white. Killing people can be entirely moral. And the "fact" it also applies to nunhuman beings is further proof it is objective; varying by object, as well, but not so much by subject.

No such thing as good and evil, i thought we were done with these religious debates, atheism won

Morality is objective to Christians: do good for jews do not question their power.

The problem of god being a dick.

yeah it's incredibly midwit
just like atheism is good
these people are the definition of 100IQ retards that have had their first second level thought of their life and suddenly think they're geniuses kek

Not necessarily true for all modern media.
For example in the movies the us is always the good guy, ridiculously perfect, benevolent and omnipotent.
There is the standard dichotomy, only it us based on a lie.
While the real world is more like game of thrones, everyone is a piece of shit and whoever says otherwise is a propagandist.
The question is how interesting is to read about the same shit that you experience daily.

It immediately makes you a liar when you claim there isn’t one for starters.

Gods doesn't really do all that much, besides watch maybe.

The Golden Rule is a good starting point,
but basically: Don't do shit to people that they didn't deserve.
Also do the things they deserve.
That's it.

genre fiction from the 1950s

"older literature"

Oh boy I sure loved it when the good guys killed the bad guys and saved the day in uhhhh... Don Quixote, War and Peace and Moby Dick... yeah...

there has to be some kind of subversion intended in a lot of modern-ish movies where the bad guys are bad without given much justification, are well organized, intelligent and prepared and the good guys win through plot armor, 1:10000 odds of luck despite being random clueless retards.

that's the opposite of moral

Ever hear the phrase absolute power corrupts absolutely?

I believe that human morality is rather subjective, although I also believe that there exists an ideal of objective morality.
I believe it to be moral to strive to achieve that ideal and base our subjective morality on that unreachable, objective ideal.

Remember, they are reflections, indication, manifestation.
Denying imago dei relegates all things to be merely matter in motion.
All your values ultimately comes down to the fact that things might affect you directly or indirectly.
It's inherently sociopathic.

It's not midwittery, it's malice. If you wish to create an amoral world, you start by making the biggest lie "morality is subjective".

I believe that human morality is rather subjective

It's not entirely subjective. Nobody thinks murdering children for fun is exactly right.

Maybe so when you’re d*tch scum without a soul

morality doesn't exist
Retaliation, however, is real. And it is what people fear, more than anything else.
If a person can do something to benefit themselves without any chance of suffering retaliation, there is a good chance they will do it.

The doors of hell are locked from the inside.

It's not entirely subjective. Nobody thinks murdering children for fun is exactly right.

What about the IDF? Hamas? Jeffrey Dahmer? Dr Kermit Gosnell?

The Count of Monte Christo? Frankenstein?
It's actually quite comical.

The bad guys are bad is a central part of modern western culture. For obvious reasons.
If you would admit that everyone is acting on their best interests, or at least their perceived best interest, which is a totally normal basic assumption btw, it would lead to strange questions.
The most obvious stuff is the genesis of the modern world, WW2, if you would admit Germany had reasons to act the way they did, rather than just saying they were evil without a cause, well, lets just say they have evilness in their blood, alright?

The reason you only mention Frodo, is because he is the one character out of a cast of like 9 who develops even slightly (maybe Samwise does a bit too). Atleast i so far Frodo gets some mental trauma. Most of the characters has zero development. And in fact, even Frodo and Samwise doesn't really develop all that much either. It's a boring story, there is more tension and character development in many childrens cartoons, you are just emotionally invested in pretending it is some narrative masterpiece. It's mostly just the good guys walking from place to place and everything just sort of working out for them and they win.

Maybe so when you’re d*tch scum without a soul

That is 90% of the population. lol

They actually have a reasoning for that. They're ENEMIES. Killing your enemies is entirely justified. The indians used to smash the skulls of enemy babies. They would never do that to their own babies. Big difference.

morally instructive

I don't get my morality from faggy books about elves

well there were bad guys in The Count tbf but a) that book was basically 1800s YA and b) even then "defeating" them wasn't really the point

It's not entirely subjective. Nobody thinks murdering children for fun is exactly right.

Tell that to Adam Lanza

The existence of psycopaths and sociopaths doesn't disprove imago dei, objective morality. That's a non sequitur.
Just because there are people born with one hand doesn't disprove the fact that humans have two hands.

yeah it's a pretty brutal rugpull actually when he reveals himself to the first guy (forget the name, the one who stole his waifu) and you're expecting a big cathartic showdown but he just goes and shoots himself

I need more stupid melodrama with zero moral ambiguity.

I'm on re-read. He was neither. He has his moments of doubt (evident in Bree, Rivendell, around falls of Rauros) and he has moments of being sure of himself (principal one when he got the Palantir).
Eugenics wise Aragorn was purest descendant of a higher race.
It's like a white man being transported to India. Of course he'll have the duty to lead and the sure knowledge he's best suited.

Christcucks allowed the jew to flourish into the state they are in now, during 2000 years.
Romans were this close at eliminating this natural threat until you christcucks protected them.

you are small, therefore unimportant

That is not even remotely what I said.

Is stealing food when you starve still objectively wrong if we live in a society where companies waste millions of tons of food every year because they'd rather throw it away than sell it at a decreased profit/small loss?

Your strawman scenario is false, companies throw away food because of costs of storing it and regulations regarding maintaining its freshness.

And stilling is still wrong despite hunger. In such situation you owe the person you stole from debt, with interest.

BTW, the funny thing that "adding layers" always end when you commies want to free criminals from responsibility for their crimes. Would you say a person that has no money for food because they have wasted it all on drugs, alcohol, hookers, and gambling should be allowed to steal somebody's food?

whoever made that show is an absolute cuck retard

Regarding throwing away food, in Poland there was a casa of a baker who was giving away leftover bread to the poor.
Until the government went after him, claiming he had not paid his taxes for that.

NEW THREAD

fantasy one dimensional world

realistic complicated and multi faceted world

Even if morality is objective, many people who try to be good fall short. Some people’s moral values become corrupted and they commit evil thinking they are doing good or that believed good ends justify their evil means. Some people forego the pursuit of good entirely and only act in their self interest or take pleasure in the harm of others… regardless, in life; you will find that no human is purely evil or good. Many would say that Hitler was pure ‘evil’, but how can that be so when he loved his wife, loved his niece, loved his dog, and loved his people? Tolkien is fantasy for children.

accurate

Sooner the opposite, idiots always use morality as an excuse for their idiocy.

"B-b-but Ukraine/Russia/Israel/Palestine/US/China/EU/Iran bad/good!"

And then they whine about the consequences of their actions as whatever they thought was gonna make their morality mean anything invariably doesn't intervene on their behalf, leaving their moralistic stupidity to remain just that.

You're just at a retard level analysis.
There are deep moral intuitions shared by all non-defective humans (even some animals too maybe). Then there are many layers of learned morality built on top of the foundation. Deeper layers are absorbed from culture at young age. Higher layers are easier to change with context. And finally, human brains are so adaptable due to executive function that with enough brainwashing you can override most of even all of the deep moral foundations.

Yeah

Was it really Jean Val Jean's fault that his sister was a whore? Did he REALLY have to be burdened with those kids? Or should the fathers of those kids have been forced to take responsibility for their perversion?

At the end of the day he was nothing more than a simp, and all that got him was a life of pain.

Game of thrones was meh. We will forget the series existed when GRRM is gone. I like flight of the nightflyer, but it seems i am the only one who knows that movie existed.

white man's burden

Childhood is thinking that white's have an obligation to the lesser races. Being an adult is letting nature take it's course.

Numerous gray characters, with Boromir being a prime example. And Frodo, because he fails at being a hero due to his too strong desire to be a hero.

Fuck christians, fuck jews
same shit

Demiurge worshipper. Yaltabaoth isn't going to fuck you anon.

Subjective morality tends to preclude worship of any kind though, as nothing's good enough to worship.

Before GTA6

nothing's good enough to worship.

God is great and He wants to put us on a thrones alongside His to alongside Him boss around the winged assholes

Morality can only be subjective, that doesn't mean it isn't real or doesn't have value.

You're welcome retards

Go shill for isntreal somewhere else, kike

Math is objective even when you are unable to count

it's the fantasy equivalent of the office, the petty politics and drama in a gray world of normies and sociopaths.
imagine taking anything some weird fat fuck writes seriously. this is the worst normie slop ever produced.

Cool story but the point is subjective morality precludes worshipping demons/god/satan/whatever in equal measure as it precludes the possibility of worship, as all those would-be-things' natures would be woefully inadequate for worship to anyone who genuinely believes in the subjectivity of morality.

Doesn't matter if it's god or some random demon going "Ok so basically i'm the best thing ever." to us.
I'm sure mr. whatever believes in himself, believes that he is, but the chance that he is that to me is zero.

morality is subjective

therefore israel is moral

Retard detected

Math is not morality. Astounding how this needs to be said

Why the fuck would you want smaller government if you thought morals were objective?

Because government isn't the ultimate moral authority. Stop worshipping government like it's God, retard. There's your problem.

Not really he is pretty neutral on the matter, overpowered haughty girlboss brienne is only a tv show thing. His only flaw as a writter really is the absolute hate bonner he has for wildlings and makes them do incredibly nonsense tactical blunders just so they will lose against the feudal structured society. Everything else is pretty unbiased, or at least incredibly refined and subtle about his biases.

Math is not morality

No, but ignorance in either isn't being enlightened

but the chance that he is that to me is zero.

Which is why you wrote a tl;dr post to evade discussing provided arguments for God's greatness.

NEW THREAD

There is an absolute morality, but it's absolute in the sense that mathematics is absolute. The basic rules and guidelines are absolutes but meaningful answers for human beings depends upon the equation ( moral problem) they're trying to solve. So for people to say the morality of an action depends on the situation; that isn't morality relativism, it's actually acknowledging that morality runs deeper than blindly following rules. Once you realize that you understand somebody like GRRM isn't positing that morality is subjective, he's saying that it's difficult, like mathematics can be difficult. It's hard to know what the right thing to do is sometimes if you're honest with yourself, especially if your decisions effect millions like the characters in ASOIAF. And maybe pretending a list of rules written by savage bronze age kikes is the end all and be all of morality is just a little retarded.

What was the in story reason for him not sending the kids to adoption/orphanage if he knew he couldn't provide for them?
Let me guess, one Christian orphanage was depicted as even worse hellhole than the conditions he could provide, so he gave up on looking for another one?
Either way, it was a fictional strawman that exaggerated the situation of the real man it was based on.

If i had seen any i'd have adressed them.

Moral grayness (everybody is a selfish asshole) is not moral complexity (well-intended people are making hard choices for valid reasons).
And GRMM has to first finish his book before we can say that he's making a valid point. Dude doesn't seem to understand that LOTR was an in-universe book and not even the original version of it, but Gondor's re-edition. And Aragorn was based on real life British kings (Alfred and that first king of England with a hard to remember name).

it is clever to continue to not address what he said by pretending he has nothing to address, right?

No, you just establish that my point still stands.