Earth is the wrong planet because of the Nazis and the Commu

Post Reply New Topic

a royal TL;DR and W T F here, what the hell was that about???

i'm so confused. you won't like me when i'm confused

The OP posted some controversial things and people responded accordingly.

And let me reintroduce to you a previous quote of yours:

Your own words make you a fool. I feel no need to elaborate further on this topic, as your claims are self-evident absurdity.

On what basis do you make that statement? I read every word of Cambell/Reece/Mitchell's Biology 7th edition, and I remember nothing about a "continuum." Two populations either can interbreed or they can not. And why would memebres of one species be born to parents of another species? It just doesn't happen. I just checked my 5th edition textbook and the glossary defines species as a particular kind of organism, sharing anatomical similarities and able to reproduce with one another. This means Aspies and NTs are the same species, namely Homo sapiens. It also provides six alternate definitions of a species in the evolutionary biology chapter, and not one of them supports your view. We are different from most other people, but we are not a "new species."

Homo aspergus is frequently delusional unfortunately and also frequently out of touch with reality, due to neurologically being locked in an egocentric hall of mirrors causing delusions of grandeur, as well as false belief in their own superiority as a defense mechanism for their suffering. I like to call this the planet sized ego effect(tm). A defensive mechanism built to insulate child like minds from the real world.

As these forums can attest. If you want to know the TRUE HOMO ASPERGUS, go look at socrates and plato... The philosopher kings are the true ASPERGUS, not the trite ramblings of the animal egos of rand, that woman belongs back in the animal kingdom, with a bullet in the back of her head and a quick death.

All human societies are collectivist, even capitalism is collectivist, everyone is forced to participate via COMMUNITARIAN principles, they are just well hidden -- i.e. the money supply for instance is TOTALLY COMMUNITARIAN. Everyone must agree to certain basic rules or laws before any trade can take place

I would rather not have philosopher kings and sooner take Rand. Perhaps I am odd for these forums. Philosopher kings sound like a perfect opportunity for eternal slavery of humanity, at least Rand seems to value freedom.


Now, that is merely a matter of using bad definitions. Communitarian usually means a small cooperative or collectivist economy, which is not what we are dealing with. The money supply is not collectivist but rather a medium for exchange, you may argue that it is regulated, but money doesn't have to be regulated to be money. Actually, in order for trade to work only the groups trading must agree to terms, there will be a rise of order, but it isn't a communitarian process so much as an emergent individualistic process as we will have identifiable individual actors with personal control and ability to abstain from the process or contribute according only to their desires. That is not collectivist, and scarcely communitarian. You assume that all social interaction must be communitarian though and we do not agree with that assumption and see it as merely a matter of poor definitions as nobody is asserting that man literally is to live on an island, only that men need a system in which they own themselves.

Orwell,

Did I say that I want to breed humans, or did I say that I find it occurring naturally?

Do you suspect that speciation occurs only by absolute reproductive isolation? If thirty percent of the members of two populations copulate, while the other seventy percent find each other boring, do you suspect that speciation will never occur? If only one member per hundred thousand copulates with the other population, even then do you suspect this?

BS, you don't even know what a philosopher king is, there was no definition at all, if you knew what it truly was, you most certainly wouldn't have made that statement at all.

Freedom is a empty concept. It's based on animalistic egoism and lower cognitive conceptions of the world. It's the idealogy of barbarians. It's based on feral psychology, feral networks of neurons... the truth is human 1.0 is going to go extinct very soon so I have no worries about rand. Most people in this world misuse their freedom because they are chasing after their feral hunger. People do not think rationally, they sit on their instincts and then backwards justify what makes them feel good and rewards their psychology, and then they codify and conceptualize these baser instincts into simplified words, into statements, and finally tracts, essays and novels.

The only freedom a person has is his abilty to increase is power to survive within a system of power and resources, and this sometimes (and often times does) come at the expense of others in the system. Your idealogy is based on feral hunger of an organism that amounts to glorified bacteria. You're simply too immature to engage me.





Nonsense, I was showing you how all human societies exist based on a balance of co-operation and discrimination (often wrongly percieved as competition). You just feel the need to argue because I caused you to be irate while attacking someone you personally value, who's words and ideas are so integrated into your core identity it rankles your feathers. I can see your identity, and it is of the immature variety... I know because I used to be like you.

I can see through your wordisms, you are a wordsmith and a misrepresenter. When I was talking about collectivism, I was talking about the desconstructed superstructure of the concept itself, and how words obscure the true structure of meaning of things, because they are poorly conceputalized and most people can't even see the structure behind the word and concept itself... because they are not wise enough to know that there exist data-structure of sub-concepts in the compnentry of a concept, word or statement that goes beyond the mere text itself.

You are not truly independent or an "individual", what you percieve as an individual is co-operative and discriminatory collective, all human beings are collectivist organisms and species, it took two people and trillions of cells co-operating for you to exist right now.

Between 50 billion and 70 billion cells die each day due to apoptosis in the average human adult. For an average child between the ages of 8 to 14, approximately 20 billion to 30 billion cells die a day.

Billions of cells killed themselves today so you wouldn't look like the hunchback of notre dame and be healthy.

You're what milton friedman called a "wordsmith", someone who can't see the structure of how things really are. All economies are culturally constructed from the deep animal psychologies of the men that populate them.

Life is about one thing only: Power, and those who have it get to define the rules for those who don't. Freedom is an illusion, those who have a monopoly on money assets, DESPITE their lack of ability, can ensure that profits return to them by strategically controlling the laws of a country and threatening to leave it.

"Freedom is an illusion," said the wannabee dictator. Run from the first person who tells you that freedom is an illusion.

Philosopher king is a poorly defined concept, but those who invoke it seem to assume away the issues with a ruler with such power.
All human concepts tend towards a certain level of emptiness, this includes freedom, however, despite that I still value the idea of a decentralized power structure that lacks the ability to direct human action. I never said that freedom was used correctly, I never said that freedom had a correct usage, I said that I valued freedom. Your attack on freedom still does not reach my position which is more anti-totalitarian, subjectivist, than a claim of freedom's absolute value.

Now that is a ridiculous claim, it assumes a common human goal. The freedom that human beings have is found in actions, which can be incredibly heterogenous and includes waste and decay to assertions of power and all human beings can be found doing both at various levels. My ideology? I never said what my ideology was, nor did I say what I valued other than that I saw freedom as valuable, but even that lacked ends. I never said I followed Rand either, I only said that I would prefer Randians as allies than people who thought as you did. Frankly, the dismissal of my attitude as too immature seems more of an arrogant statement and perhaps an ad hominem than it does an actual argument.


HA HA HA HA HA!! !! !! Wow, I find that funny. You claim that you know who I am because you have been me, yet I would counter-argue that I have been you and proclaimed the evils of the capitalist system and the utter importance of the overall human society above the individual. You haven't really shown any communal action though, you have merely shown that individuals tend to act based upon common opinions. I do not feel the need to argue because I am irate though, I am not even threatened and I see absolutely nothing wrong with the commune, I merely see things wrong with your intellectual misrepresentation of the world/my ideas.
Wordisms? I would prefer the term sophistry. Also, none of that paragraph is anything but pedantic rambling and arrogance.
Umm..... that does not mean that a unit known as a human being doesn't exist. I am interconnected with the atmosphere and as long as I am in the economic structure I am interconnected with that, but I can be independent of my fellow men and I can certainly have a relative amount of autonomy from them. The fact that I had a beginning and am comprised of thousands of cells with a common purpose doesn't detract from the fact that I am a separate entity.

Ok, so what? I am not a cell, and am not comparable to a cell. Your entire idea of society is disturbing on some level given how you equate human beings to expendable and relatively useless beings that can be killed at a totalitarian whim. That reduction is not one that anyone would accept, cells are interchangeable, people are significantly less so and people know that. In fact, one of the best arguments for my cause is that some will view human society as we do the body or a factory.

I see the structures of the world better than you do. I would prefer if you used Bastiat and "sophist" though, Friedman is not known for calling people "wordsmiths" but Bastiat is known for calling people "sophists", but the former is better known than the latter. I never said that economies were disconnected from the people within these economies so really you are attacking something I never said, I merely said that individual people do exist and would tend to view culture as more of a view of an aggregate of opinions or interconnection of individuals than an individual entity. I prefer the atomic structure in other words because I put value in the atom.

No, life isn't. If it were then all actions would be towards power, we know logically and empirically that they aren't. I reject your paradigm as deeply confused and lacking in understandings of the individual man, and thus leading to a very confused structure comprised of multiple men, and I would suggest that you improve your thinking system by introducing methodological individualistic assessment methods and THEN moving outward as such an approach will lead to a more complete understanding, if a man understands every brick in a building and how they are bound to each other then he knows more about it then a man who merely sees the building.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 10 Oct 2007, 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, especially if they tell you that men are cells. Such a construction leads to very destructive views as the non-cellular nature of men will lead to a psychotic body that amputates away appendages without concern.

This quest to transcend words sounds like Zen Buddhism to me. My ignorant ancestors would have preferred news and science to promises of enlightenment, I dare say.

I could argue this, as you at the very least implied that certain people should reproduce and others should not. However, I will choose simply to acccept your most recent and explicit statement on this topic. So... do you find it occuring naturally? Tell me, which groups in modern society have you observed experiencing the greatest Darwinian fitness (meaning reproductive success)? And tell me what favorable aspects that group has that permit them to have greater reproductive success, while you're at it. Do people with superior intelligence generally have more children than those with lesser intellectual capabilities?
As for speciation... as long as there is still gene flow between two populations, they would not be expected to diverge. Several populations of humans were isolated from each other for thousands of years without diverging into different species. The less gene flow you have between populations, obviously the more chance for speciation. The thirty-seventy split you proposed would not lead to speciation. The one per hundred thousand would have the POTENTIAL for speciation, given enough time. But even with time, there is still only potenttial for speciation; if both groups stay in stable environments to which they are already well-adapted, speciation will almost certainly NOT occur. As today we live largely in constructed environments built to suit our needs, I doubt that speciation would occur. It very well could, given enough time, but I would consider it unlikely. In any case, my main points still stand strong against your attempted rebuttals. Aspies and NTs interbreed regularly (my father is Aspie and my mother NT). NT parents sometimes give birth to Aspie children. Aspie parents occasionally give birth to NT children. The last time I wiill try to explain this to you...this would not happen if we were separate species. Dogs do not give birth to litters of cats. Eagles do not hatch from eggs laid by ravens.

I disagree, if you studied cell biology you know that any organism has to balance COLLECTIVIST (i.e. co-operation, working together, unifying) versus discrimination (that is, competitiveness and individuality.

You see this in two areas:

-Human organ formation (discrimination, competition)
-Apoptosis (alturistic self sacrifice, collectivist)

Go too far in either direction and society will melt down, you have understand that UNIFYING (collectively unifying) versus individuation (seperation), is holistic cellular function of the properties of physics and the universe at large.

Societies unify or split depending on the circumstances (or perceived circumstances) of the times.

Individuality, collectivism, co-operation and individualism, are just "wordisms" as I like to call them, more often then not they are empty of visually modeled reality, they don't tell yo much at all. Nature is a systematic process of gathering and separating of matter and energy according to the circumstances.

People get trapped by words, and forget that language is vulgar, visual mechanics is superior to language, language is a piss poor way to understand a 3 Dimensional reality... That's what lead einstein to say:

"If I can't visualize it, I can't understand it!"

Anything you can't visually model in your head, it's a safe bet you don't understand the mechanics very well.

Well, I'm probably over my head here since I have never read a book by Ayn Rand, (but I have seen her quoted enough to get a feel for her philosophy I think), and do you mean Herbert Spencer as in "The father of social Darwinism"?
I get a sense that the statement "We must use analyses of mans actions within the observable universe to determine what makes us happy and prosperous." to be directly influenced by Rands philosophy. She was, it seems heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and while I value Logos I feel we are missing the greater picture to discount Muthos.
One of her greatest influences seems to be Aristotle who (thought women were idiots), and made the statement "...no one is able to attain the truth adequately, while, on the other hand, no one fails entirely, but everyone says something true about the nature of things, and while individually they contribute little or nothing to the truth, by the union of all a considerable amount is amassed." Wouldn't this assertion be almost directly contradictory to her idea about the benefit to the whole being better served by a selfish pursuit of prosperity (and knowledge perhaps) vs. collective cooperation?
As far as Social Darwinism I have always felt that it was that particular survival of the fittest (i.e. most ruthless) instinctive push that has historically caused "us"/homo aspergus (cute, by the way, did you come up with that yourself?), to be pushed to the fringes of societies or actively exterminated by those governments that wanted pliable masses and so cracked down on those that could think thoughts above a certain caliber.
On a personal note (and a bit off topic, I apologize) I feel that the "meaning of life" is not something that is within our grasp to understand and yet, we will always be driven ruthlessly to pursue. As you said we will always find a way to ask "why?" or even ask "why...anything?" So, wouldn't happiness be at least possible if we contented ourselves with the mere pursuit of "it" i.e. truth, knowledge, family, security, procreative dominance...whatever. As individuals don't we have a responsibility to answer those questions for ourselves as well as acknowledging our responsibility to those around and how our actions affect the group as a whole? If we focus completely on endeavors that are self-indulgent without introspection, empathy, or compassion we will be shut down by the whole one way or another and unable to contribute to it. Also I'm sorry, but I don't understand how your first sentence and your second correlate.
Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding your point out the lack of in depth knowledge of your source material, (or sheer idiocy).

That is a gross misuse of the term "collectivist". Collectivist is not a biological term and is simply for the use of animal organization and economy. The use of collectivist in your manner is akin to using the term "molecular bonding" for familial relations and "ionic bonding" for codependent relationships.

They are not wordisms at all though, they describe the actions of individuals within a system. If individuals are the atoms then these terms tell us whether we have a solid, a gas, a liquid, a chemical reaction, etc. They are cognitively useful definitions for modeling reality as well, all that has to be done is an understanding of the human being and his relationship to his environment must be seen.

Language is imperfect, however, that does not mean that the language does not tell us what the mechanics of a system are. When people think of individualism they see human beings working for personal goals with less regard for the goals of other human beings or of the perceived common good, when we hear "co-operation" we think of 2 or more humans working towards with each other for goals that are relatively common. The list continues onward, even though language is vulgar, the paths it takes are based upon understandings.

That has some truth to it. The issue is what we need to understand as well, there have been divides in economists on whether descriptive realism or predictive accuracy are more important in systems analysis, and frankly, the pro-market side has had people take both positions rather strongly (Austrian school vs Chicago).

I don't agree with all of his points (or even most of the source material for his social philosophy), I would have to agree that your use of language and the vehemence of your responses without any sort of cohesive argument to back them up means... Yeah... You're probably scared. I'm not sure of what exactly, but this thread is obviously hitting a nerve. Say something worth while instead of just (half-assed) expletives.