!help

!MAGA

:regional_indicator_m: :a: :regional_indicator_g: :a:

https://imgur.com/a/S4g9a

!facebook

:regional_indicator_f: **Check out Sargon of Akkad's facebook page!** :newspaper:

https://www.facebook.com/sargonofakkad100/

!patreon

:dollar:** Support Sargon of Akkad on Patreon!** :dollar:

https://www.patreon.com/sargon

!donate

:dollar:** Support Sargon of Akkad on Patreon!** :dollar:

https://www.patreon.com/sargon

!shekels

!rank

!rank

!levels

Go check **/r/SargonOfAkkad**'s leaderboard: <http://mee6.xyz/levels/372507611284766720> :wink:

.agree

```No thanks. I'd actually like to live forever. As long as there's things to learn I think life will be very interesting. I think if I knew everything, I would probably transcend the need for things to be interesting anyways.```
@JDM_WAAAT

```Gender is just a false dichotomy. If you google the definition of gender or look up the world health organization definition, it will tell you that it's a social construct. That means that the way people behave is given an arbitrary societally defined definition of gender, and it's totally subjective. Anyone can behave as one gender or another regardless of their genitals. Men can behave like women, women can behave like men. I personally think we should just get rid of the concept of gender and let people behave however they want, because then no one would be oppressed for simply expressing themselves in a certain way, and we wouldn't have to worry about all these unnecessary concepts. It's different from sexuality too, because whereas in sexuality you need to have these labels so you can identify who you can be partners with and not guess who's straight and who's gay, you don't really need to know what another person's gender is.```

!rank

If you have a moral, that's basically you imposing your subjective reality onto an objective world. Other human beings, in spite of having subjective perception, are objectively existing beings. Every human being's thoughts objectively exist, and a moral is a command of someone else to change the nature of their reality (which is to say the nature of their being). Since each person can have a different view of what reality is, each person can have a different view of what morality is. Since everyone can have a different view of what morality is, there's no way to say that there's an objectively true morality. Furthermore, the objective reality that exists outside of our heads obviously doesn't care about whether or not we're moral, because it created a world which is profoundly uncaring about our survival. It created a world where animals are basically in a food chain to survive; there is obviously no morality built into the world.

@JDM_WAAAT we got another one

!rank

!roels

!rank

!levels

Go check **/r/SargonOfAkkad**'s leaderboard: <http://mee6.xyz/levels/372507611284766720> :wink:

I don't really like text chats when it comes to having real interactions with people. Any time I interact with someone it's always better when it's in person. Every time I go to a chat room it's pretty much the same nonsense. I get along much better with people in person or in voice, because there's always a bunch of nuance which can be picked up on which makes everything more sincere. Online it's just a bunch of people who say stuff to you they wouldn't say to you because they're behind the mask of anonymity, and they don't actually see you face to face so they can't make real communication. In text chat, I don't really let along with leftists or the right wing, I'm always sort of in this undefinable purgatory in which I seem to piss off whatever group I'm a part of. I don't really have that problem in person, because people can see the expression on your face and know when you're being honest or fucking with them. When people can see that you're being honest then actual dialog can take place.
@JDM_WAAAT GOddamn another one

when will it end

!rank

Damnnn son

!rank

.AGREE

!rank

.agree

.agree

agree

!rank

!rank

one more point

!rank

.agree

!rank

!rank

!level

.agree

!rank

.agree

!rank

.agree

.agree

.agree

!rank

.agree

!rank

!rank

!rank

@JDM_WAAAT ''I just think it's funny that people think the end of net neutrality will be a good thing. Net service providers aren't going to be making the net better through free market competition, they're going to be throttling the speed of certain websites and given arbitrary jurisdiction to limit access to whatever websites they want. Our government is already incredibly corporate controlled, this will just be the last step to an orwellian nightmare where the government controls all the information you receive. There won't be "better internet service", whatever internet you know right now that you love, will be royally fucked. You'll have to pay for "packages" of certain websites, like youtube or whatever, and other websites you like may become incredibly slow or just cease to exist for whatever reason. Right now you can access any website online for free, and the websites can make you pay if they want; that is true free market capitalism. What is about to happen is corporate oligarchy.
'

!rank

!rank

!rank

!levels

Go check **/r/SargonOfAkkad**'s leaderboard: <http://mee6.xyz/levels/372507611284766720> :wink:

.agree

.agree

!rank

!rank

.agree

.agree

!rank

!rank

Here's how morality works. Morals are taken as objective truth by religious people who get their morals from god. Other people get their morals from people who take the law to be objective, yet not religious. Others still see all morality as arbitrary. Now, if the law was based on christian moral law, that would mean that people said the law was passed down from god. God obviously doesn't exist, and human beings wrote the bible. It's not hard to create a society where you realize that there's a necessity to not have people murdered, because that just makes sense if you want to have a society. So if you're an atheist and you don't believe in god, if the world really was as Jordan Peterson said, you would have to inherently desire to rape and murder people if you don't believe in god, so that you fear him and don't do that stuff in fear of punishment. That's the only way that his argument could work, is if it were truly impossible to not rape and murder people unless you fear punishment, and if you had to have rules passed down from god for them to be objectively true. Since morality isn't passed down by god, it's invented by man, and since human beings can not rape and murder even if they don't believe in god, it's obvious that god isn't the absolute source of morality and you can't say that atheists are operating on "christian metaphysics.

Another one for you to add @JDM_WAAAT

And another one
There is no evil.

!rank