Do you believe "might makes right"?

I believe that "right makes might," not the other way around. Strength accumulates like other spontaenous processes that occur in nature. Nature rewards morality with strength in the same way that it rewards substance with gravity. The laws of thermodynamcis are immutable and uncompromising. Matter always tends to its lowest energy state. The phases of matter in which the internal collisions are most prominent are also the most volatile. Nature rewards internal order and harmony that is characteristic of solids with strength. Likewise, those societies in which internal conflict is minimized are rewarded with strength. A society who by its morality acts to extinguish internal strife will be rewarded with power. A society that is characterized by internal violence, persecution, and intolerance will be weak.

Morality is like gravity. Societies that have substance will draw more substance in proportion. A moral society tends to draw auspicious individuals. People do not migrate to a society that is violent and liable to persecute them. America draws accomplished and wealthy individuals from all over the world because America is objectively a more moral society than their origin. They do not expect to be persecuted and their wealth will not be stripped from them. Countries like China have auspicious and wealthy individuals, but those individuals will naturally migrate toward more moral societies. Ones that will not persecute them, or strip them of their liberty or property. Countries that have an immoral internal environment will drain their most auspicious individuals. Those that are moral will gain them.

Finally, a moral society will always have an advantage in the battle of the hearts and minds. People will naturally align themselves with whatever society they perceive to be the most moral. The consequence of the natural order is that moral societies will be rewarded with strength and those that are immoral will wither.

tl;dr. Toph_Girl250

tl;dr. Toph_Girl250

[QUOTE="Toph_Girl250"]tl;dr. PWSteal_Ldpinch

Hey, thats no way to talk to a lady!

Also TL;DR

fvck you.PWSteal_Ldpinch

Zeviander

[QUOTE="Toph_Girl250"]tl;dr. PWSteal_Ldpinch

Stop dicking about and read the OP.PWSteal_Ldpinch

You're wrong.thegerg

Thbbbt

[QUOTE="Toph_Girl250"]tl;dr. Zeviander

I think it's pretty much a fact rather than something you believe it or not. All you have to do is take the last two centuries of history as evidence for that.

pseudo-intellectualism detected

It's my opinion that dinosaurs were killed by their own machines.

I'm sorry to tell you but the world you're describing does not exist. America is not objectively more "moral" a society than China; I'm not sure how you would go about quantifying that kind of thing to begin with, but I doubt if even we utilised the framework of your conception you could make a coherent argument explaining that point. Resources draw powerful men, draw people, draw the men who control other people. Power is not derived from virtue. Societies without internal conflict by definition are not strong unless unified in external conflict. People will naturally align themselves with whatever society is convenient/available/meets their needs. Your conception of moral border crossing, that is, "outward mobility" is essentially Randian and not realistic.

I'm sorry to tell you but the world you're describing does not exist. America is not objectively more "moral" a society than China; I'm not sure how you would go about quantifying that kind of thing to begin with, but I doubt if even we utilised the framework of your conception you could make a coherent argument explaining that point. Resources draw powerful men, draw people, draw the men who control other people. Power is not derived from virtue. Societies without internal conflict by definition are not strong unless unified in external conflict. People will naturally align themselves with whatever society is convenient/available/meets their needs. Your conception of moral border crossing, that is, "outward mobility" is essentially Randian and not realistic.

jethrovegas

This has nothing to do with the vikings, sorry.

My name is Thrasymacus and I approve of this thread.

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]You're wrong.thegerg

That's not a debate, you just contradicted me.

My name is Thrasymacus and I approve of this thread.

SUD123456

no, but it tends to solve problems.

Peasant rebellion?  Send in the troops!
Radio on the fritz? Give it a whack on the top!
Someone disagreeing with you? Threaten to kill them!

None of those solutions is really the appropriate or healthy solution (in fact, theyre all short term solutions with dire long term consequences), but they do work.

I think if I was ever a leader in old times, I'd be the sneaky kind.  Kill my enemies with kindness face to face, manipulate from the shadows, let them kill eachother, then strike from the darkness when theyre weak.  Direct confrontation had its place, but is overrated.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

My name is Thrasymacus and I approve of this thread.

Toph_Girl250

moral societies are rewarded with strength........

Nazi Germany was either weak or moral then? 

moral societies are rewarded with strength........

Nazi Germany was either weak or moral then? 

BossPerson

Germany lost two consecutive world wars.

I don't think you thought about this for more than 2 milliseconds.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

moral societies are rewarded with strength........

Nazi Germany was either weak or moral then? 

PWSteal_Ldpinch

Germany lost two consecutive world wars.

I don't think you thought about this for more than 2 milliseconds.

Anyone who believes might makes right is morally bankrupt

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"] Can you elaborate? You can at least return the courtesy of presenting an argument.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

That's not a debate, you just contradicted me.

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

moral societies are rewarded with strength........

Nazi Germany was either weak or moral then? 

GamerForca

Germany lost two consecutive world wars.

I don't think you thought about this for more than 2 milliseconds.

Are you trying to prove my point? Their aims were so in conflict with the natural order that they had no hope of winning. They alienated their top physicists who were disproptionately Jewish like Wolfgang Pauli, James Franck, Otto stern, Fritz London, and of course Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein who migrated to the United States and worked on the Manhattan Project. 

They also managed to unite Western and Eastern Europe against them by their racist and imperialistic policies. Germany could not have possibly won the second world war even with a million chances.

pseudo-intellectualism detected

mAArdman

Just because you lose a world war, doesnt make you "weak" 

I believe that "right makes might," not the other way around. Strength accumulates like other spontaenous processes that occur in nature. Nature rewards morality with strength in the same way that it rewards substance with gravity. The laws of thermodynamcis are immutable and uncompromising. Matter always tends to its lowest energy state. The phases of matter in which the internal collisions are most prominent are also the most volatile. Nature rewards internal order and harmony that is characteristic of solids with strength. Likewise, those societies in which internal conflict is minimized are rewarded with strength. A society who by its morality acts to extinguish internal strife will be rewarded with power. A society that is characterized by internal violence, persecution, and intolerance will be weak.

Morality is like gravity. Societies that have substance will draw more substance in proportion. A moral society tends to draw auspicious individuals. People do not migrate to a society that is violent and liable to persecute them. America draws accomplished and wealthy individuals from all over the world because America is objectively a more moral society than their origin. They do not expect to be persecuted and their wealth will not be stripped from them. Countries like China have auspicious and wealthy individuals, but those individuals will naturally migrate toward more moral societies. Ones that will not persecute them, or strip them of their liberty or property. Countries that have an immoral internal environment will drain their most auspicious individuals. Those that are moral will gain them.

Finally, a moral society will always have an advantage in the battle of the hearts and minds. People will naturally align themselves with whatever society they perceive to be the most moral. The consequence of the natural order is that moral societies will be rewarded with strength and those that are immoral will wither.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

Excuse me but what planet are you from?  Wake up the universe is amoral.

What is the point OP is even trying to make? I read the whole thing and still don't get the core point. 'America is great' maybe?

My name is Thrasymacus and I approve of this thread.

SUD123456

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"] Can you elaborate? You can at least return the courtesy of presenting an argument.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

That's not a debate, you just contradicted me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

http://faculty.cua.edu/hoffmann/courses/201_1068/Plato-2%20Socrates%20vs.%20Thrasymachus.pdf

thread over.

Just because you lose a world war, doesnt make you "weak"BossPerson

Anyone who believes might makes right is morally bankrupt

wis3boi