Justice Not Mercy | Forum

nice 

To get closer to understand human nature we need to look at those we share ancestor with. The chimpanzee are the closest as we share 99% DNA with them, so the question is if the chimpanzee have mercy towards wrongdoers in the herd.

What? 

1) A pear is very closely related to an apple.

2) In order to better understand an apple,

3) We must study a pear. 

4) Because pears share much of their DNA in common with apples.

5) Therefore, to better understand an apple:

6) We do not need to study the apple. 

7) To learn about pear nature is to learn about apple nature.

Human nature goes far beyond Chimps. Polarizing, and structuring natural primordial consciousness begins at the dawn of time. Natural organization of force to form.

According to some scientists, the human penis is shaped the way it is (that lip where the shaft meets the head) so that competing early humans could scoop out the sperm of another male in hotly contested rounds of mating. I don’t think that one of those many males would ask the female for permission before he would pin her down and have a go at her in that scenario. So it’s possible that we evolved through rape. Thank god we’ve evolved.

Quote from Tom Riddle To get closer to understand human nature we need to look at those we share ancestor with. The chimpanzee are the closest as we share 99% DNA with them, so the question is if the chimpanzee have mercy towards wrongdoers in the herd.

Well, maybe how precivilized humans behaved. Everything changed once they all gathered by the Tigres River and made society.  The formerly autonomous family groups were made to cooperate with others and behavior started being scripted by rules of social order. Mesolithic era people are WAY closer to chimp groups, and that ended only 5000 years ago.  Go back to the Upper Paleolithic (20,000 years) and the behavior (group roles and casting) is almost identical to great ape groups. 

Still basically the same Lucifer principle casting but in a much more complex and artificial way now. 

Like this:  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

Quote from Phil_LopianWhat? 

1) A pear is very closely related to an apple.

2) In order to better understand an apple,

3) We must study a pear. 

4) Because pears share much of their DNA in common with apples.

5) Therefore, to better understand an apple:

6) We do not need to study the apple. 

7) To learn about pear nature is to learn about apple nature.

A rose by any other name.  Or avocado.  Same family. You can learn a lot with all the genus in that family.

* Usually when I encounter that family of persuasive examples it's a fallacy used in an evolution debate and mostly taken by the learned  "as is" intelligent design position. 

Someone will inevitably bring up taxonomic classifications and point out: 

Since 'hominidae' is equal to a 'rosacaea'; a rose is equal to a strawberry like an orangutan is equal to a human. 

Not sure we've evolved. The chimp society may be more direct and fair than you could imagine. Sometimes I think the perfect society one could imagine could just have been something that has already existed, or still exists. A utopia, but still inside the limits of a life cycle. So, in a way the chimp society could have been an utopian society, only with a slightly smaller life cycle.

How's that Sect of Goat Horns doing old boy?

Upwards. Getting better by the hour.

Mercy is a weakness; the revelation of hopeful wishing come true. Such exemptions to the law of nature create an unfair existence by which law cannot be faithfully adhered to. Without the good will faith in a standardization of the law, people stop adhering to the law. A society cannot survive without a consistent rule of law. A break down of legal integrity inherently emits injustice. Justice is doing the same to all for all. Equality for all isn't just, as no one is born the same or into the same ascribe status, class, race, ethnicity or with the same opportunities. Life and existence simply is what it is without giving rhyme or reason.

-

Therefore we must ask: "Is the product of our perceived necessity in consistency of justice worth the price we pay when considering what is to be lost to the unfair, merciless fate life dishes to those potentially productive individuals based on nature's choices? Where can such a balance be struck to gain the most on behalf of society and the betterment of mankind without being a detriment to those who don't deserve to be negatively affected?"

-

IN SUMMARY:

Justice is more important than mercy; as mercy shouldn't exist. However, what/who are we losing in the form of great individuals and ideas due to not giving mercy and equality for those people and ideas to be realized. The very people and ideas which would only spur on productivity and advance mankind.

"To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven."

There is a time to be savage. And a time to be noble. A time to be merciless. And a time to be merciful. 

There is a time and place to be empathetic and to have mercy. With family, friends, associates, and sometimes strangers. There is a time and place to step out of character:

Things like Mercy, Metta, Caritas, Empathy, Sympathy, are found in certain breeds of people according to their Nature, Ethos, Culture, and Upbringing; and like intelligence, capacity of mind, are found in people at various unequal measures/amounts. 

 

Bullshit. When you can help you help. When you can't , you make a philosophy about it.

As above, there's a lot we can say. There's a lonely line we can follow, or we better chart ourselves in a conclusive map of compassion. What is there going to be? A solely member with no land to be tossed with, or a second hand religion to make us realise we're human. The aftermath is there is no alignment of the soul with the heart, thus making it all frustrating, keeping it from being real, but yet as a part of the whole still makes you sigh about it.

Yeah,
I never had thinking as my core function.
Prefer publicK explosion over nitty-pricky twisting of semantics.

To put it simple, destroy. Then eat the remains.

That is a very simplistic way to put it. In fact there's a lot to do before pushing the button. And what do you think will remain? Nothing that anybody could consume. Meaningless wonderings and pointless meanings. People with no real purpose wondering aimlessly through a vast desert. Seeking for the single oasis they will never find.

Satanism is largely copied from C.G. Jung. It is a pop religion. Now, learn this.

I respect LaVey. Individualism would be a utopia for only a certain kind of people. In retrospective, LaVey was right. Like we seek serenity in an empty field. There will not be serenity, like it will not be an empty field. There will not be an individual, like it will not be a whole. 

Hmm, sorry but this seems to me pretty subjective pondering (or my english once again legendarily sucks), and I don't get the point really. Have you taken into consideration  other implications of an 'empty field'?

OK, Jung was a mastermind. I don't see the connection with Satanism. Yet, Satanism IS a popular religion. I mean I wish.

Meow. Pasture. Cows gone for a holiday to Fiji Islands. Then the field is empty.