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

Login with username, password and session length

Complaints

Re: Don 't take my tard!
April 23, 2012, 01:18:21 AM
This is pathetic. Who needs to perform character assassination on ANUS when they do it themselves? Good luck leading the charge into the heroic tard-free future when even half of the people on your own forum think you're a bitter asshole whose natural environment is the internet.

Re: Don 't take my tard!
April 23, 2012, 01:36:05 AM
If the proposed alternatives were already in place, you wouldn't have delivered a disabled child into the world in the first place. This thread is a little silly.

Re: Don 't take my tard!
April 23, 2012, 02:10:28 AM
I'll only go so far as to cite the pagan practices that were prevalent throughout the Norse people;



unleash the sock puppet!

Phoenix

Re: Don 't take my tard!
April 23, 2012, 03:12:13 AM
I have an intellectually disabled son and if anyone came around my home with the intent of causing harm, I would feed them their own intestines

If you and your tard wanted to live near me, I'd run you both out with a shotgun for being parasites.

Hook, line and sinker...

Phoenix

Re: Don 't take my tard!
April 23, 2012, 03:18:37 AM

There has always been a tension on this board, going back to its earliest days: between the "leadership" types and the "educators."

The leadership types see a problem, and want to use power for the solution. They are opposed by neocons and liberals, who talk about personal importance, validity, rights, etc.

The most vocal of those neocons and liberals are the "educators." These people acknowledge the problems out there, but are afraid to use power, so suggest that instead we "educate" people so they will avoid the disasters.

They are unable to point to any successes.

Maybe I'm not up to date with current meta-politics around here, but I can't relate to anything you just said. Who are the neocon and liberal educators you speak of? Am I one?

Phoenix

Re: Don 't take my tard!
April 23, 2012, 03:42:00 AM
Oh well it seems my post from the "Educators" thread was moved here, as a confirmation that I am indeed considered to be an educator.

Let's see, I try to come down really hard on ignorance on these forums, and some have taken issue with my direction in this regard. Do I try to educate Crow or the other posters I try to chase out of here? I think Crow will emphatically tell you no. Then again, in my own way, I always leave the door open for education to take place, but to say that's my aim is as backwards as it can be. I remember when I encouraged the mods to start banning more people and cracking down harder, and to my surprise few posters were in agreement with me.

This is why I suspect you're just messing with me: I have serious difficulty imagining that you're so blatantly mistaken.

Complaints
April 23, 2012, 04:59:18 AM
People get fanatical when they're afraid.

Why are they so afraid of this question?

If all people under 120 IQ points died tomorrow, would life be better or worse?

Seems it should be simple, for nihilists or death metal fans.

The way you're using the term 'fanatical' doesn't mean anything. People just disagree with you, and some guy who thinks (quite reasonably) that you'd like to kill his kid decided (quite reasonably) that he'd prefer to kill you.

Seems like somewhere between 30-40% (rough guess based on other threads where you pose the same question) of people on these forums believe that life would be worse if you extinguished all sub-120s tomorrow. They've given you a variety of answers, and then you evade these by pretending that they really mean something other than what they're saying. Every time someone says "No, because it's unrealistic" or "No, because it would have unforeseen consequences" or "No, because these people aren't actually a problem", you fail to address the content of their answer.

This thread is going to produce the exact same responses you've already had elsewhere - what are you trying to accomplish here?

Re: Don 't take my tard!
April 23, 2012, 05:08:26 AM
Anyone who has actually spent time with someone with one of these disabilities can see a purer, more transgressive humanity  - this is the real "threat" to those worthless fucks who would want to murder children
No. You can see this, because it is what you wish to see. I've spent quite a bit of time with several people with such disabilities. All I saw was a guy who ate batteries when he was sad and enjoyed stalking the women's underwear section of CVS for deposits into his spank bank. Transgressive, yeah.

That being said, I find normal, and slightly substandard, people to be much more of a problem. There's more of them, and they have just enough intelligence to band together in harmful behavior. Actual retards are relatively uncommon, and their being retarded is itself a form of damage control.
HE WHO REAPS STORMS, SOWS WINDS. HE WHO SOWS WINDS, REAPS STORMS.

"It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart."
-Ecclesiastes 7:2

Complaints
April 23, 2012, 05:10:17 AM
If all people under 120 IQ points died tomorrow, would life be better or worse?

The answer to this question:

In the short term - worse. As Annihilation mentioned, waste plants, chemical plants, nuclear reactors, plus a whole fucking slew of things that need people to operate would shut down, and possibly blow up. It would be one hell of a trip for the surviving members of humanity; in fact I'd wager the population would decrease even more due to the mountainous piles of dead bodies that would likely harbor diseases in addition to previously mentioned factors.

In the long term - ultimately better, I'd say. A more intelligent humanity overall would lead to greater achievements, smarter people, and a generally better planet.

This does not mean we ignore the short term consequences - because while they may be "short" in a cosmic sense, in a human sense it wouldn't be short at all. A couple decades at least of increased pollution and radioactivity. We need to consider the human factor to some degree. To discard it entirely is ridiculous and short sighted.

The scenario you've described does apply, I suppose, to a situation in which everyone below 120 literally died spontaneously all at once. But the issue here is actually exterminating the populace, which would probably be more time consuming and gradual. It would also probably require direct human agency. So, in addition to the various problems related to maintenance of infrastructure, you can add protracted civil war. Additionally, it's totally obvious to me that even if this absurd scenario somehow did play out, there would be severe psychological and social consequences which would deeply imbed themselves in the newly birthed 'tard free' society. Does anyone here really believe that the dehumanization and trauma of the survivors would not have an impact on the nature of the emergent society?

Everyone would probably convert to Christianity, burn the instigators of the Tardicide at the stake, and spend the next several centuries living in the shadow of what had just occurred.

Re: Don 't take my tard!
April 23, 2012, 05:31:47 AM
That being said, I find normal, and slightly substandard, people to be much more of a problem. There's more of them, and they have just enough intelligence to band together in harmful behavior. Actual retards are relatively uncommon, and their being retarded is itself a form of damage control.

Yeah, I agree with this. So-and-so's tardchild, taken as an individual, is probably about as damaging to our society as a pet dog. On the other hand, it occurs to me that the vast majority of our culture's Bad Ideas are spawned in the minds of 'smartish' people with neurotic impulses or twisted visions of the world. As a group, radical Marxists probably possess much more cognitive agility than your typical horde of WalMart shamblers, but their impact on our culture is much more corrosive, because of their ability to influence the social narrative. Similarly, liberals are typically somewhat smarter than conservatives, but their social policies have less to do with reality.

The failure of contemporary culture has its origin in the bad social policies and warped social narratives of older intellectual movements. Truly stupid people never create anything - they don't even create social policy. They never act - they are always acted upon. They can be taught to do and think almost anything. Some of them can even be inspired to bravery and selflessness. Currently, they eat potato chips and watch TV.


Re: Don 't take my tard!
April 23, 2012, 06:32:17 AM
I'll only go so far as to cite the pagan practices that were prevalent throughout the Norse people;



unleash the sock puppet!

That made us laugh, soon you will join us though. Then we can laugh some more. blah blah we are legion all are vijay prozak blah blah...

Re: Don 't take my tard!
April 23, 2012, 06:45:58 AM
The historical Greeks considered the practice of adult and child sacrifice barbarous. However, exposure of newborns was widely practiced in ancient Greece. In Greece the decision to expose a child was typically the father's, although in Sparta the decision was made by a group of elders. Exposure was the preferred method of disposal, as that act in itself was not murder; moreover, the exposed child technically had a chance of being rescued by the gods or any passersby.This very situation was a recurring motif in Greek mythology.


 If the husband accepted it, it would live, but if he refused it, it would die. Babies would often be rejected if they were illegitimate, unhealthy or deformed, the wrong sex (female for example), or too great a burden on the family. These babies would not be directly killed, but put in a clay pot or jar and deserted outside the front door or on the roadway. In ancient Greek religion, this practice took the responsibility away from the parents because the child would die of natural causes, for example hunger, asphyxiation or exposure to the elements.

In some periods of Roman history it was traditional for a newborn to be brought to the pater familias, the family patriarch, who would then decide whether the child was to be kept and raised, or left to die by exposure. The Twelve Tables of Roman law obliged him to put to death a child that was visibly deformed. The concurrent practices of slavery and infanticide contributed to the "background noise" of the crises during the Republic.

In the High Middle Ages, abandoning unwanted children finally eclipsed infanticide. Unwanted children were left at the door of church or abbey, and the clergy was assumed to take care of their upbringing. This practice also gave rise to the first orphanages.

In Kamchatka, babies were killed and thrown to the dogs. American explorer George Kennan noted that among the Koryaks, a Mongoloid people of north-eastern Siberia, infanticide was still common in the 19th century. One of the twins was always sacrificed.

Since feudal Japan the common slang for infanticide was "mabiki" (間引き) which means to pull plants from an overcrowded garden. A typical method in Japan was smothering through wet paper on the baby's mouth and nose. Mabiki persisted in the 19th century and early 20th century.

I can fully understand you not wanting to put your kid to death, it's a severe cultural taboo nowadays. Obviously part of a brave new world means we will have different cultural practices and it sounds to me like we won't be capable of supporting defectives until the world is far less populated.

The biggest voices against infanticide in the past were Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I'm under the impression that most can agree that none of those viewpoints lead to a healthy society in the long term.

Re: Bury it, bury it!
April 23, 2012, 10:28:15 AM
People get fanatical when they're afraid.


They've given you a variety of answers, and then you evade these by pretending that they really mean something other than what they're saying. Every time someone says "No, because it's unrealistic" or "No, because it would have unforeseen consequences" or "No, because these people aren't actually a problem", you fail to address the content of their answer.

This thread is going to produce the exact same responses you've already had elsewhere - what are you trying to accomplish here?

Iron is right. Conservationist, why to keep opening up new threads just for calling people that disagree with you emotional, afraid, fanatical, or having trouble with commitment, when you have quite reasonable arguments unanswered?

The Tard Holocaust (and the sympathy for sociopaths) it's a tremendous plummet for some people here,  that otherwise, could gain influence as sensate paleoconservatives without the need of hiding onder a nickname. Don't misunderstand me: sometimes you can simply remain the sewers, not for having too hard ideas to grasp, or because you are a committed agent of truth, but simply because these ideas are defective.

Re: Complaints
April 23, 2012, 10:33:46 AM
Ie. Is ANUS for nihilists anymore?

This is now a death metal forum.

It is for nihilists; however, nihilist tends to mean something other than what most people seem to want it to mean.

What we have here are many people who are lost: humanists, materialists, consumerists, socialists, progressives, dualists, etc. All of those beliefs are not compatible with nihilism.

Re: Complaints
April 23, 2012, 10:41:45 AM
Ie. Is ANUS for nihilists anymore?

This is now a death metal forum.

It is for nihilists; however, nihilist tends to mean something other than what most people seem to want it to mean.

What we have here are many people who are lost: humanists, materialists, consumerists, socialists, progressives, dualists, etc. All of those beliefs are not compatible with nihilism.

Moving posts in order to ignore them? You can keep doing and doing this, but you have too much working pending in order to answer the objections to your question. Nothing personal, not a complaint, really, but it's neccesary to point that you aren't answering as you should.