The Philosophy Now Forum

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 9:31 pm I thought i might mention this strange thing happening here. Many, if not most, classic era socialists were atheists quite enthusiastic about murdering people if it were toward revolutionary ends (however much they distorted what that means). Dead people don't matter if you'll recall the wisdom of Stalin. So, murderous socialists aren't all that interesting, really. Gulags, desenter executions, obnoxious farm owners that won't shut the f*** up when you come to take their shit so you just shoot the guy... all that's run-of-the-mill revolutionary stuff, mate.

What's way more interesting is the history of murderous religious programs [insert your favorite from genocide to inquisition] committed by the ones who aren't atheist and so shouldn't be murdering muhfuckas.

Don't you find that odd, sirs?

When I use the word "murder," I use it to mean killing that is not or cannot be justified. I distinguish "murder" from simply "killing". Sometimes killing may be OK, for example, if it's in self-defense as a last resort. However, if killing can be realistically avoided without either the killer or the killed suffering as a result, then it may not be right to kill. And situations can be complex and tricky to sort out. (That's what courts are for.) If someone is fooled into thinking that killing someone is OK (thinks that there is no other resort), but there are (in actuality) viable alternatives to killing at the moment of the deed, then it could be more like manslaughter. But if they kill and they know there are other alternatives to resolve the situation peacefully without harm to anyone, then it is murder.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 9:31 pm ...murderous socialists aren't all that interesting, really. What's way more interesting is the history of murderous religious programs...

So your argument is that Socialist murderers aren't all that interesting, because Socialism always conduces to murder? But religious ones are interesting, because their religion should keep them from being murderers?

Lots of questions. Firstly, which religion? One religion has killed more people than all the rest combined...and you know which one it is. But also, why is religious murder "more interesting," when they can account for only a tiny fraction of the more than 140 million that we know Socialism has killed? Wouldn't one ordinarily think that the much more murderous creed, Socialism, was "more interesting" than any that comprised about 8% of the Socialist total?

What are you trying to "be interested in," if you're not concerned about the number murdered?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 7:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 6:36 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 6:21 pm All murda is in self-defense, though.

That's just the excuse. Socialists define everything as "violence," including words, and including not being a Socialist, just like they define all their opposition as "reactionary," or "Fascist." That's how they justify murdering them, and then still think they can be "good people" for having done it.

All Socialists do not condone murdering other human beings. Most believe in preventing the deprivation and conditions which foster moral corruption and the resulting crimes that come from them.

Actually, historically, Socialists have been overwhelmingly in favour of murder. Of course there were likely a comparative few who didn't think Socialist murders were justified; but there have been a heck of a lot who have been just fine with the murders of anybody "counterrevolutionary," or "reactionary," or just "not Socialist."

However, if you are intent on bearing false witness against all socialists, then that is between you and God (if there is one).

It's not "false witness." 140 million, minimum. That's how many we know for certain have died on the bloody altar of Socialism, just in the last century alone. Statistically, Socialism is the most homicidal creed in human history -- and by orders of magnitude.

Why are people still Socialists? Because Socialists always try to erase their own history. The "can imagine what can be, unburdened by what has been," to quote one of their 'most brilliant' advocates.

"When I use the word "murder," I use it to mean killing that is not or cannot be justified. I distinguish "murder" from simply "killing"."

Well, you gotta tighten your def up, then, because your def is shady af. What does 'justified' mean, and who does the justifying... the prosecutor or the defendant? See what I mean? We'd never make it out of this ambiguous mess.

Just say 'murda' is the unsanctioned (by the State) wasting of a fool deliberately. Accidentally killing someone is like a third-degree homocide or something like that. There is no planning and no intent to waste the fool.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2026 8:22 pm "When I use the word "murder," I use it to mean killing that is not or cannot be justified. I distinguish "murder" from simply "killing"."

Well, you gotta tighten your def up, then, because your def is shady af. What does 'justified' mean, and who does the justifying... the prosecutor or the defendant? See what I mean? We'd never make it out of this ambiguous mess.

Just say 'murda' is the unsanctioned (by the State) wasting of a fool deliberately. Accidentally killing someone is like a third-degree homocide or something like that. There is no planning and no intent to waste the fool.

"Justified" is determined in a court, either by a judge or a jury. "Justified" conceptually means "with good reason" (not just any reason).

I see. And what if two men in different cities with identical crimes receive different sentences because the jury in city x has a different conception of 'justified' than the jury in city y?

Does that mean the objective criteria of 'justified' changes as often as a jury?

You know what else is great about Marxism? It would eliminate half the crimes we spend centuries in courtrooms hopelessly arguing about. In a morally relativistic universe all judges and juries are fools, and nowhere but a courtroom will you find more sophistry.

So, as you can see, it is rather embarrassing to go on about something with no solution. I'd rather try and prevent the crimes than have to endure watching clowns in a court room tryna condemn somebody.

C'mon, man. We did this years ago. You tally up everyone in history killed in the name of a god, and you will easily double any number produced from the body counts of the pseudo-marxists.

What a ridiculous challenge. That you even tried it the first time is hard to believe. Now, here we are again.

Lol. Civilization and religion has existed for almost fifteen thousand years. Pseudo-marxism... couple hunerd. Imagine killing so many people that you pass the number of all religious-related murders/executions that have happened in the last fifteen thousand years. Y'all n*ggaz thought Vlad the Impaler was a badass?

And you could even drop all murdering in the name of religions other than your biblical one, and still you'd take the cake. Oh yes sir. Those jumpin' jihadists blow-em-guys are yours. Straight from the book of Noses.

Next, we could add to your religious killing squads all the capitalists. All you gotta do is find some terrible economic travesty somewhere and all the dying that followed, and you'll find a capitalist lurking... or a whole gang of em.

Shit man by now, you've made chairman Mao and comrade Stalin look like petty thugs.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2026 11:32 pm C'mon, man. We did this years ago. You tally up everyone in history killed in the name of a god, and you will easily double any number produced from the body counts of the pseudo-marxists.

Factually untrue. Nothing close to the truth, in fact.

If you actually run the numbers, the entire population of those killed in "religious wars" and such conflicts tallies around 8%. This was done using the research in the very secular and academic three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars. https://books.google.ca/books/about/Enc ... edir_esc=y.

Lol. Civilization and religion has existed for almost fifteen thousand years. Pseudo-marxism... couple hunerd.

Civilization has historically, prior to the modern period, remained comparatively low. Moreover, the means of mass slaughter have not been available. Moreover, wars fought over religion are actually comparatively rare. What's more common is for a war to be fought over territory, wealth, pride, tribe, resources, or any other variety of causes. But far and away, by number of casualties, Marxist regimes have killed more people than any of them.

Those are the facts. One can know them, or one can be ignorant of them. But the count isn't within orders of magnitude.

I'm glad you recognize Stalin and Mao as your examples of Marxism. That's apt. The former killed no less than 22 million, and the latter at least 42 million, all by themselves. They're only two of the 20th Century's bloody Socialist despots, but the biggest two. By comparison, the crusades, which you will find were largely political rather than religious, and were really counter-crusades against the Islamic ones, are tallied conservatively at 1 million, and very generously at 6. Look it up.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2026 8:22 pm "When I use the word "murder," I use it to mean killing that is not or cannot be justified. I distinguish "murder" from simply "killing"."

That's exactly how all the Marxist murderers do it. They define everybody they don't like as "reactionaries," or "anti-revolutionaries," and then feel virtuous and "justified" for murdering them.

Evil so often cloaks itself in such virtue. The Devil appears as an angel of light, so to speak: that is, after all what the name "Lucifer" means: "the light bearer."

And Socialism is not short of devils.

Search assist tries to weasel christianity out of blame lol....

"Christianity: While there have been violent events associated with Christianity, such as the Crusades and Inquisitions, these are often viewed as actions taken by individuals or groups rather than a reflection of the core teachings of the faith."

A'ight, watch this. You gonna love this. What's the difference between a fabulous knight in the name of christ and a fabulous pseudo-marxist dictator in the name of Marx?

Das Capital and the CM say nothing about genocide and executing non-marxists while you can't make it through a whole chapter in the Bible without running into a genocide somewhere.

If anybody here is encouraging anybody to visit wrath upon men, it sure as shit ain't Karl M.

So, again, you can't call sword wielding noblemen 'fake Christians' while calling ruthless dictators posing as Marxists, marxists. There is such a thing as fake marxists, too.

Yeah I know the numbers. They wanna say nine million wasted in the crusades. Maybe. They had an incredibly accurate way of calculating the number of dead back then, too... coughNOTcough.

There's also this. Minor technicality. There's a difference between murdering someone and causing conditions in which they might die. If all those bum-ass Russians woulda packed they shit up and moved instead of drinking vodka and playing Rummy all day waiting to die on some decommissioned farm in Siberia they woulda lived maybe.

But a murder by a christian? No accident about it, mate. No consequence of a decision made from afar. You die on the blade when you die by the hand of men of the book. Can't get much more up close and personal than that. Sometimes as the fucker is shouting praises to god with a British accent as he plunges the swwword into the infidel's heathen heart, yeah?

And think about this. How many Russians and Chinese peasants were so far the f*** away from Stalingrad and Beijing that not only had they not known about these dudes Stalin and Mao (and vice-versa) but they didn't see a single cop car or airplane or read a single news paper the entire failed revolution, either?

All that happened to them - the terrible atrocity caused by their dictator omg - was the potato trucks stopped coming bi-weekly. Nobody showed up to shoot the men, rape the women, and commandeer the shack. How many millions you reckon died only because the wheels stopped turning and not at the hands of a ruthless pseudo-marxist? Russia is a biiiiiiiig fuckin place, mate. Don't say two or three.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2026 12:13 am Yeah I know the numbers.

If you did, you'd also know there aren't enough excuses in the world to excuse Marxism for what it has done.