Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Too much cruelty?

Too much cruelty?
July 18, 2011, 05:35:32 PM
"If Dave is mentally retarded or criminal, you might do it to his whole family."

I appreciate posts like the ones the words above came from as a kind of "wake up call" not to be taken extremely seriously. But I wonder. Isn't the author exposing his real opinion?

Would the author really think that killing a whole family because of one retarded or criminal individual is good? I mean, one can certainly find great people in families where there are people with down's syndrome or other, or in a family where there is a criminal. But I don't think that's even the point. Murdering a family is never a good idea, unless they're all retarded (I mean really retarded) or criminal. Was that written to justify the fact that there were children's skulls too? Yes, but did the author find this cool?

Let's say you have a friend whose father is a criminal. Would you appreciate that someone who was harmed by his father killed the whole family and your friend?

I would like to know the logic behind this. I think this is relevant.  A lot of people may have been offended by unecessary cruelty. Unless the author really thinks this way, if that is the case, at least he is honest.

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 18, 2011, 11:32:35 PM
"If Dave is mentally retarded or criminal, you might do it to his whole family."

1. It's not about this cruel/uncruel dichotomy. It's about effective results.

2. If the man is a 'tard, he will pass on those defective genes. Kill the fucker. If he has already passed on the genes, kill his family. If you sterilize them, they will resent you and agitate against you, so kill them.

3. Most people are stupid assholes who are cruel by inattention and slovenly mass tastes. Kill them all.

Purge this earth of its proles-of-the-soul and you will have a new plateau for the human species. Also you get to keep your environment and its creatures that way. BONUS!

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 19, 2011, 12:47:08 AM
I'm glad this topic came up. We really need to exterminate anybody with any genetic weaknesses. Even if they are brilliant intellectually, they are a waste if they produce a tard baby or have a family history of physical or mental weaknesses. It should be someone's job to set fire to the hive for anybody with Phenylketonuria, cystic fibrosis, cancer, diabetes, sickle cell disease, Bloom Syndrome, Canavan Disease, Cystic Fibrosis, Familial Dysautonomia, Fanconi Anemia, Gaucher Disease, Mucolipidosis Type IV, Niemann-Pick Disease, Tay-Sachs Disease, open neural tube defects, or turner syndrome to name a few because they are a severe drains of time and resources.

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 19, 2011, 12:53:48 AM
We really need to exterminate anybody with any genetic weaknesses.

This includes anyone under 6' , 185lbs and also the BALDIES!!!!!

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 19, 2011, 01:03:56 AM
oh and don't forget anybody with STDs!

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 19, 2011, 01:08:19 AM
Purge this earth of its proles-of-the-soul and you will have a new plateau for the human species. Also you get to keep your environment and its creatures that way. BONUS!

"proles-of-the-soul"

I used to think you would never top "rape riot on hipster rectum", but then you lay this one on me. Never change, man.

-------------------------------------------------------

...I guess I should say something relevant too...

I have to wonder if it is all practical to be any less cruel than nature would have been. Each incompetent person you bail out, you're indebting the future the cost of their incompetence, and in particular, their tendency to breed unintentionally, with interest.

And if cruelty is defined as excessive, is what ANUS proposes "cruel"? How can "necessary" ever be "excessive"?

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 19, 2011, 01:23:01 AM
"If Dave is mentally retarded or criminal, you might do it to his whole family."

1. It's not about this cruel/uncruel dichotomy. It's about effective results.

2. If the man is a 'tard, he will pass on those defective genes. Kill the fucker. If he has already passed on the genes, kill his family. If you sterilize them, they will resent you and agitate against you, so kill them.

3. Most people are stupid assholes who are cruel by inattention and slovenly mass tastes. Kill them all.

Purge this earth of its proles-of-the-soul and you will have a new plateau for the human species. Also you get to keep your environment and its creatures that way. BONUS!

But, what results are effective? From an objective, scientific biological perspective, effective is about fitness, simple, plain fitness. > 120s are loosing fitness, <120s are gaining it, invariably, Life keeps winning in any simple blind propagation of genes.

There's a moral component in any fashion of Eugenics, which necessarily includes cruel/uncruel dichotomies and so. You can't simply bring a biological theleology to people's face; our human nature is much more complex than that, we have deeply rooted values that are practical.

Less crime, less poverty through negative (State driven) Eugenics? Ok, let's suppose it. That stills being a long term moral decision.

That's the reason why I think that Nihilism fails.

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 19, 2011, 01:31:26 AM
Have kids no later than 30 and most of us should be in the clear, to have a nice healthy baby that is.  Any women serious about having and raising a healthy baby would get an ultrasound before hand and try getting pregnant at a decent age.  As for the man same thing get a CT scan, eat healthy, stay fit, and go fucking wild on your woman.

What i dont get is parents that still want to have kids even though they know it is likely it will have a deformity. Did you know down syndrome kids are being requested and there is actually a waiting list(in some areas) to get one for adoption??

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 19, 2011, 01:36:46 AM
"If Dave is mentally retarded or criminal, you might do it to his whole family."

1. It's not about this cruel/uncruel dichotomy. It's about effective results.

2. If the man is a 'tard, he will pass on those defective genes. Kill the fucker. If he has already passed on the genes, kill his family. If you sterilize them, they will resent you and agitate against you, so kill them.

3. Most people are stupid assholes who are cruel by inattention and slovenly mass tastes. Kill them all.

Purge this earth of its proles-of-the-soul and you will have a new plateau for the human species. Also you get to keep your environment and its creatures that way. BONUS!

But, what results are effective? From an objective, scientific biological perspective, effective is about fitness, simple, plain fitness. > 120s are loosing fitness, <120s are gaining it, invariably, Nature keeps winning in any simple blind propagation of genes.

There's a moral component in any fashion of Eugenics, which necessarily includes cruel/uncruel dichotomies and so. You can't simply bring a biological theleology to people's face; our human nature is much more complex than that, we have deeply rooted values that are practical.

Less crime, less poverty through negative (State driven) Eugenics? Ok, let's suppose it. That stills being a long term moral decision.

That's the reason why I think that Nihilism fails.

Well you have to understand, many of the diehards here don't have much to them besides their internet avatars, so there leaves a gap between practicality and idealism. Because many of them are emotionally damaged, it is easier form them to deny the human spirit beyond black & white objectivity.  Not to worry though, there is a reason ANUS has been around since 1988 and has had ZERO impact on civilization, culture or politics beyond textfiles, and the internet. Not once have ANUSians gotten together and had a an impact on any topics. So, while your logic is sound, it really isn't worth your effort to make much sense here, and is in your better interest to blow of steam and troll.

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 19, 2011, 03:00:48 AM
I would like to know the logic behind this.

I'll tell you the logic behind it: On the internet, every bitter, emotionally damaged social reject gets to indulge his sick fantasies without having to face the horrific consequences of his half-baked social theorizing. It costs nothing but a couple minutes of his time and he gets to feel totally edgy.

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 19, 2011, 03:27:32 AM
According to the first post, the assumption is that nurture is the cause of any direction taken by human development. Some accident of the environment causes retardation. It is truly nobody's fault, therefore make it everyone's fault and just tolerate. By the millions.

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 19, 2011, 04:01:26 AM
I guess the real question is: who makes these decisions, by what criteria, and where do we draw the line?

Whenever the topic turns to eugenics around these parts the topic becomes genocide. The Final Solution for people I don't like (I mean, "stupid people"). always. immediately. why?
Every single goddamn time eugenics is brought up it devolves into The Day of the Rope.
look at the writings. it's a recurrent theme. what does it say about the writer(s) and its readers? why are they attracted to this?

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 19, 2011, 04:05:27 AM

Well you have to understand, many of the diehards here don't have much to them besides their internet avatars, so there leaves a gap between practicality and idealism. Because many of them are emotionally damaged, it is easier form them to deny the human spirit beyond black & white objectivity.  Not to worry though, there is a reason ANUS has been around since 1988 and has had ZERO impact on civilization, culture or politics beyond textfiles, and the internet. Not once have ANUSians gotten together and had a an impact on any topics. So, while your logic is sound, it really isn't worth your effort to make much sense here, and is in your better interest to blow of steam and troll.

I would like to know the logic behind this.


I'll tell you the logic behind it: On the internet, every bitter, emotionally damaged social reject gets to indulge his sick fantasies without having to face the horrific consequences of his half-baked social theorizing. It costs nothing but a couple minutes of his time and he gets to feel totally edgy.

Beyond that Terminator mode, they make sense in other areas, and I appreciate that. It's good to see coherent forms of conservatism, trustful resources on physical anthropology and intelligence studies... things well established IRL that need diffusion and support. But that mass tard death thing is a serious turn off, and yes, it smells like a resentful ghetto that just few guys even here would buy, not to mention the 5% of population.

I guess the real question is: who makes these decisions, by what criteria, and where do we draw the line?

Whenever the topic turns to eugenics around these parts the topic becomes genocide. The Final Solution for people I don't like (I mean, "stupid people"). always. immediately. why?
Every single goddamn time eugenics is brought up it devolves into The Day of the Rope.
look at the writings. it's a recurrent theme. what does it say about the writer(s) and its readers? why are they attracted to this?

Perhaps psychological issues that are not related to the actual infeasibility of "The Day of the Rope".

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 19, 2011, 04:30:27 AM
Whenever the topic turns to eugenics around these parts the topic becomes genocide. The Final Solution for people I don't like (I mean, "stupid people"). always. immediately. why?

Is the statement "I don't like" equivalent in meaning to "good for nothing"? Because it seems to me it is you and a couple of others who each subjectively "do not like". On what grounds is the question you each need to challenge yourselves with. Explain your discomforts.

Re: Too much cruelty?
July 19, 2011, 06:08:50 PM
I agree with jenkemaster, I'm glad he exposed my views: This is a turn off for me. I agree with others also, specially the fact that internet postings are good to fuel the rage about controversial topics, and as I said I think this shock tactic can be good, the problem is, I only take it as a wake up call, but I would never support this. Neither would jenkemaster I think.

And it is bad for everyone, I once read a posting from a well read guy from brazil who likes to give opinion on politics, about a black on white crime that happened in america. He said white americans today are trash anyway and should be raped and beaten by blacks. I mean, what's the point? Did I think it was cool to read that? Yes. Did I find it hilarious? Very much, as I often find those anus blog postings. The human sacrifice one is extremely funny! But when applied to reality I can't see any way, unless in a situation of terrible chaos and warfare. There is a website I like who reviwed the movie "unthinkable" saying it was another brain-washing movies for people to worship america, and to think america can do anything to prepare for the abuses coming in a crisis or something. The reader gets the clear impression that the author is siding with the terrorist, that is, he would think it was a good idea to put nuclear bombs in america. I enjoy the writings on that website and I don't live in america. Why should I care if someone nuked there? That's what this kind of text does.

Of course life and thinking for the people of those times (who made those sacrifices) were different, different morals, etc. The fact is that today people are giving too much emphasis on individual suffering, but if that happened I guess it was a try to cover up for unecessary cruelty in the first place. Few people would agree to even sterelize a whole family, let alone murder one.

Now, if there was a small community, and you knew all the people in the family, and in my opinion only the fact that there is an organic, sacred, small and ordered community can ease a little the terrible acts, because the "collective uncounscious", let's call it that, is more united and simple (but I'm in no way saying that "ancient times were better and mystical and everyone had ego death", but some aspects of decency of ancient times lacking right now cannot cease to be noticed). If you have a small community like I said, and it is more integral with nature, more quiet and without media abuse etc., I do believe suffering like deaths or natural disasters are better handled than in big cities where a lot of people do not know each other and are blinded by television. Maybe I oversimplify, but I felt like putting it this way.

I think this text is relevant to this:

"One of the errors, the mistakes, here is pride: the arrogance of feeling, of assuming, that we as a mere individual can make a difference if we act in a certain way, if we engage in a practical way in matters which are beyond our immediate vicinity and beyond our own personal, individual, lives. That is, if we interfere in some matter which is not directly personal, immediate and rooted in the locality where we dwell and have our being."

"I am still rather pessimistic about the future of both our human species, and the fate of Nature: of the life with which we share this planet. In fact, rather more pessimistic than I was.

Why? Because of the allegory of pride and presumption, which has led to and which leads to non-personal, an abstract, interference in the lives, the affairs, of others. The intentions behind such non-personal interference are irrelevant, for the effect is always, always, suffering, destruction and death: for other human beings; for the other life with which we share this planet; for this planet itself.

Thus, according to this old way of being, there is always, always, some “enemy” who has to be fought but who has not dishonoured us in a personal matter, or nor affected us in a dishonourable and personal and immediate way, and which enemy is or becomes demonized and depersonalized.  There are always, always, “sacrifices” – involving suffering, destruction and death – which have to be made in name of some abstraction, such as some “nation”, or some ideal (such as democracy and/or “freedom”). There is always, always, a striving for some impersonal abstract “progress”  – or some fashionable “change” – which always involves us distancing ourselves from immediacy with Nature, which always is hubris-like and involves a loss of empathy, and which almost always seems to undermine the numinous. There is always, always a following of our own desires, our own perceived needs, our greed, often regardless of the consequences to other human beings, to the other life with which we share this planet which is currently our home.

I am pessimistic because while the causes of suffering are known and understood, while we feel or know the fragility of life, of Nature, while we feel or know our greed, stupidity, arrogance and pride, we keep making the same errors, the same mistakes; keep striving after the same failed ideals and abstractions; keeping stupidly believing that “this time, it will be different…” Thus do we continue to slaughter and maim individuals in impersonal war after impersonal war. Thus do we find some justification – or invent some lies – to invade and occupy another land, or to use brutal force to impose “our” vision, our ideals, our way, upon others, believing we are right. Thus do we give eloquent speeches or write fiery tracts and articles and propaganda to convince and persuade others, appealing to their emotions, or their base instincts – or, slyly in a manipulative way, appealing to their “better nature”. "

So, what has the above text said to me? It says focus on locality. Of course you can give opinion's about world issues, but if you're too confident with that you'll end up looking bad because you are not aware of certain conditions the locals know. And the average person, who has a friend who has criminal relatives, or has one himself, or has a retarded relative, is going to be scared away because he knows this post is calling on his loved ones to be killed. And when I look at my neighborhood, and near localities, I would never want massacres there, only sterelized people. Then the person wonders: "If I support this, that probably means I'm supporting for those people I like to be wiped out." I'm not saying that will happen, but by principle, the person would be supporting that. If the option sterelization is brought up, I think everybody would prefer it than killing.

But I have to say I appreciate the honesty, and the way those postings serve to change the mentality of the one who reads... I just don't know if for the best or for the worst.