[throw10920]

> Being a realist

Factually incorrect. "The only right of the physical world is might." is not a realist statement, because being a realist is when you look at the factual truth of the world - it's a cynical worldview, which is non-truthful and therefore non-realist, by definition.

It's always entertaining to watch evil people try to justify their actions and (lack of) morality.

[scotty79]

> Factually incorrect. "The only right of the physical world is might." is not a realist statement,

It's absolutely correct. Familiarize yourself with concept of "monopoly on violence". That's the physical source of any other arrangements including rights.

You handwave about some vague morality a lot, even after your accusation of envy missed by a mile and you think it's a substitute for a robust argument. It's tiresome and boring.

[throw10920]

> Familiarize yourself with concept of "monopoly on violence". That's the physical source of any other arrangements including rights.

Now you shifted the goalposts from "The only right of the physical world is might." - so you can't even be consistent with your own positions.

> You handwave about some vague morality a lot

It should be pretty obvious that an evil person or someone with a repellent ideology's claims on morality are invalid, and how that's relevant to assertions about the function of the government, for instance.

The "might is right" ideology means that you believe that every tyrant, like Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini, was justified in their genocides and war crimes, because they were powerful enough to effect them, and therefore morally right by definition. That is, as any sane person would tell you, a perverse and evil morality.

I don't really need to go on further, because I know that I can't convince an evil and immoral person that they're evil. My only goal is to convince future HN readers that that idea is evil, and that therefore your assertions are invalid, and I think I've succeeded at that, given the downvotes on your other comments, and the general HN understanding that "might is right" is an abhorrent ideology.

So, my goal is fulfilled. Feel free to continue digging yourself a hole for future readers, if you wish :)

[scotty79]

> Now you shifted the goalposts from "The only right of the physical world is might." - so you can't even be consistent with your own positions.

I was just trying to get through your confusion and reach thinking part of your brain. I repeatedly failed.

> It should be pretty obvious that an evil person or someone with a repellent ideology's claims on morality are invalid

You are so deep in your confused morality that you didn't even notice I made no moral claims except for "Being a realist doesn't make someone evil".

"The only right of the physical world is might." is not a moral claim same way "Acceleration due to gravity is indistinguishable from any other acceleration" is not. It's a factual claim. The fact that it's more vague and general and uses the word "right" doesn't turn it into a moral claim.

> The "might is right" ideology means that you believe that every tyrant, like Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini, was justified in their genocides and war crimes, because they were powerful enough to effect them, and therefore morally right by definition.

Again you are so confused that you can't tell apart narrative from a factual state. Saying that Mao had was justified because he had might is a moral claim (a wrong one) and is of no interest to me.

What I'm saying is that the only reason Mao could have awarded any rights to himself, his enforcers or his victims was because he had might. In this aspect he doesn't differ from any post WWII president of US. If you don't have might you are not the one who can create and award rights. Not in the real world. It has nothing to do with morality. Morality comes later to evaluate how benevolently the entity with might used its right to create further rights for themselves and others.

> My only goal is to convince future HN readers that that idea is evil, and that therefore your assertions are invalid, and I think I've succeeded at that, given the downvotes on your other comments [...]

Sorry to interrupt your victory lap, but not a single of my comments, on the path between the first one I made and this one, has karma below 1 at this moment. Even in theory, all you did was basically use ad hominem "you are evil" to declare my points invalid.

I had no goal in this thread other than being understood by you and I failed. If that makes you a winner, I don't really care.

> Feel free to continue digging yourself a hole for future readers, if you wish

I think it's plain to see which side tried to make arguments and which started and ended by flinging accusations of immorality, greed, envy and resentment and pretty much avoided the point altogether.