You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
Stranger: LENIN
You: JOHN
Stranger: VLADIMIR
You: C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKAH
Stranger: *cymbal crash*
You: Really is there a point to this
Stranger: What, life?
You: Seems kind of random
Stranger: Life?
Stranger: If so... yes.
Stranger: Completely pointless, mate. ^.^
You: Well thats good back to randomness
Stranger: It's pathetic how we attempt to instill order in anarchistic complex systems, no?
Stranger: The most we could do is cause the system to colapse into decoherence and anarchy.
Stranger: *collapse
You: Like $chan
You: 4chan
Stranger: *is unfamiliar with that term*
You: Its for the best
Stranger: I suppose so.
Stranger: BADGER BADGER BADGER BADGER BADGER BADGER BADGER BADGER MUSHROOM MUSHROOM!
You: TAKE A RIDE ON MY HORSE MY HORSE IS AMAMZING
Stranger: Narwhal narwhals swimming in the ocean, causing a commotion 'coz they are so awesomee!
You: GIVE HIM A LICK MMM HE TASTES JUST LIKE RAISINS
Stranger: pretty big and preetty white they beat a polar bear in a fight!
You: WITH A STROKE OF HIS MANE HE TURNS INTO A PLANE*forgets the rest*
You: Just don't let Narwhals near your balls
Stranger: Like an underwater unicorn, they have a kickass facial horn, they're the Jedi of the sea! They stop Cthulu eatin' ye!
Stranger: Inventers of the shish-kebab!
You: Truly Weebls stuff is great
Stranger: YOS.
Stranger: JEREMY IRONS
Stranger: LENIN
Stranger: MARX
Stranger: TROTSKY
Stranger:
You: OH NOES YOU ARE ON A ROLL
Stranger: For what? D:
You: I don't know just felt like stopping you for I'm EVIL
Stranger: SOCIALISMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
Stranger:
Stranger: ...
Stranger:
Stranger: Good and evil don't exist. >.>
You: Oh yes it does for I'm the most EVIL bastard EVAR
You: *shoots a puppy*
Stranger: *sighs*
You: .......
Stranger: If by the standards of society, evil exists, then I'm positive I also qualify. ^.^ But those concepts are imaginary, love.
You: Meh we can make our own standards
Stranger: I do.
You: It's better that way for society is going to hell in a hand basket
Stranger: But that doesn't work too well. ^.^
Stranger: Hang on for a minute, I'm about to rant.
You: *hangs on*
You: .......
You: *colllapses*
Stranger: wait, goddamit.
You: lol
You: Sorry but I must go
Stranger: There is no difference between right and wrong, because right and wrong do not exist. I could lend any desired import to these terms, and who could tell me I am wrong? Concepts are ideas, fantasies; products of the imagination. There is no absolute meaning in any of it, no truth, no purport; no actuality. And this is proven by how often society?s notion of morality changes, how often they amend what is considered acceptable and what is considered taboo. In the end, all morality is is a set of directives put in place to support self-preservation. And those shift and morph and alter as needed. If the law no longer serves to uphold people?s survival, then that law is either modified or eliminated. But people don?t actually care about these things, about their notions of virtue or honour or benevolence; of good or evil. They simply wish not to perish, or to suffer. When religion propagated foreordination, a divine decree predetermining all souls to either heaven or hell, people endeavored to engage in all manner of ?morally questionable? acts, at least in relation to what today is considered improper or unethical comportment, because there existed no fear for their immortal essence. If, by this belief, all people are preselected by God to eternal salvation or damnation, without consideration of their actions, there then is no occasion for them to act in accordance to any code of supposed proper conduct. And when you have nothing with which to threaten, that is when you lose control. And control is power. The church soon realised this. If people truly believed, as they did, that to their actions there was no consequence, then when presented with the choice to lie, or steal, or cheat, or kill, they would not hesitate to involve themselves in such deeds, especially if said deeds in some way proved beneficial to their overall wellness or prosperity. The entire concept behind society is to rule and direct and contain. And if that ability to command is challenged in any way, by any thing, then whatever that thing is, presenting said challenge, it must be done away with. Which is why you see today?s prevailing belief to be that your actions do indeed significantly impact your course of destination. Funny how fickle divine law can be, isn't it? There is no such thing as conscience, of inherently knowing right from wrong. Those feelings are ingrained in us from the time of our birth, onwards. And people are cowardly creatures. They?ll do or say just about anything to save their own skin. So if you beat them over the head long enough with what you say they can and cannot do, they?ll start to believe in their subconscious mind that what you?ve said is indisputable fact, the be all and end all of universal principle. And if they believe you able to form their suffering, to cause them harm, emotional, physical or otherwise, and if they believe in your willingness to exert this capacity over them if ever they should confront or disregard what you?ve told them is and is not acceptable, well, then then they are yours to control. And it?s all based on fear, all based on a primal, animalistic instinct to survive. Not off of some inner sense of integrity, piousness or an intuitive comprehension of what is virtuous and what is iniquitous. Not on purity of heart or kindliness, but on people?s fear. Fear for themselves, for their lives, for their freedom, their health, their happiness, and for their souls. The things people would do if they didn?t think they?d get caught! But they know they will, they?re afraid of what may happen to them, and so they live out their pathetic and meaningless existence in misery, in the death grip of a system which cares only to bridle their lives and exercise determination over who they are, where they go and what they do. And the lemmings that they are, they actually believe all that hoopla they?re fed about how freedom isn?t free and about having certain, inalienable rights. I am without fear. Self-preservation has, to me, never been a source of motivation. I am just not concerned, one way or the other, with how I end up or where. In my eyes, I just am, as is everything else. And there is no sense in trying to fit it to any purpose, or meaning, or worth. I do not care. How do you stop someone like me, then? When they show total disregard for everything that had ever been established as sacred, as having merit or significance, when they place no value on anything? Not on themselves, not on anyone else, not on any set of morals or principles or rules? Not on life? It would be impossible then to persuade them, impossible to bribe them, impossible to coax, or blackmail, or inspire them; impossible to control them. This is why it is that I am so feared. It is because they have no power over me, and I thus pose a danger to their rule and their conservation. So, now, remember what I told you. No difference exists between right and wrong because right and wrong, in application to action, does not exist. Thus is must go, without saying, that killing cannot be determined absolutely as either. Society would have you believe that to take a human life is categorically wrong. Sinful, immoral, evil. Yet even in labelling the act with such superficial and vacant words, they, in the same breath, will tell you there are indeed exceptions to the rule. Killing becomes suddenly acceptable if committed in what they deem the proper context. If, for example, two countries are embroiled with one another in war, killing not only is considered excusable, it is expected and even encouraged. Still, of course, within the perimeters they have outlined, with the weapons they have provided, just so it appears as something controlled and civil. Still, the end result remains the same. You have still taken a life. Nothing more, nothing less. Or, let us say you find yourself the target of some attack, your physical well being under threat, well, then it is alright to kill too! After all, it was either you or them. Why, they have even produced an excuse for themselves committing what has been deemed the ultimate trespass! If one executes the expiration of another, then that in turn gives justifiable cause to carry out the same upon them, the death penalty, they like to call it. Killing validates killing. When done within a certain set of boundaries, within a milieu they?ve determined proper, it no longer is referred to as murder, no, now its self-defense, man-slaughter, enemy-fire, punishment, so on and so forth. Still, as I said, the outcome is immutable. It seems a tad hypocritical, does it not? If it is an irrefutable truth that killing is wrong, then how can it ever be right? And why then is it considered an act of evil when only people are involved? It isn?t called murder when we kill an animal outside our own species. It isn?t called murder when other animals kill each other. They may tell you those animals don?t possess the mental capacity to comprehend what death is. And that makes their demise somehow less profound then our own, less meaningful? Don?t other animals run when faced with danger too? Don?t they fight to survive the same as we? Of course they do! People don?t understand what death is either. That?s why they?re so afraid of it. It isn?t something they can contain or rule or explain away with fanciful terminology. And when confronted by it, they react as any creature would. The will to live is rooted in nothing more intricate then instinct. People are animals too, and we all are governed by the same basic principles. Not the precepts which keep managed the pretentious world we?ve created around ourselves so that we might feel some form of significance, but the order of nature! The answer is that killing is neither wrong nor right. It just is. The laws people have created, the way in which they qualify everything by assigning it a meaning, a definition, a reason; it all is for one purpose and one purpose alone. To keep them alive. The great joke of it is, despite the immense effort they put forth in trying to stave death off, they all inevitably will perish, regardless! Like any great artist, my purpose is to reflect life unerringly. But people, they regard themselves far too gravely to accept the truth, that we?ve all been made fools of. They choose instead to overlook that truths existence. They say I?m deranged. But insanity as a concept is for identifying the deviants. It's not because I am of unsound mind, as they say, but because they wish not to be faced with the falsity of their standards. If, by their determination of madness, I am mad, if by their basis of reality, I cannot discern what is real, then to uphold the pretense of those conclusions, the illusion that they hold some value, they never can concede to any summation of my sanity, and they thus can never, truly punish me as they would punish others who have engaged in similar conduct. I serve only to remind them of what they cannot do if they desire to maintain the front of their civility and their assertions of what is true. And they do hate me for it.
Stranger: HAH.
You: *hit by f***ing wall of text*
