Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Straker

[1] 2
Interzone / Re: Nootropics
« on: September 26, 2011, 01:32:28 PM »
Fuck this shit. Piracetam just turns you into a crazy faggot. If you're gonna take it, which you shouldn't, don't take it for extended periods of time.

Aniracetam was more effective but I never used it more than sparingly. It will most likely do the same to you if used long-term.

Racetams are not to be trusted.

Interzone / Re: Metal to get your fat dick sucked to
« on: September 26, 2011, 01:24:55 PM »
^ That is why dead chicks are preferable.

Interzone / Re: Best nu-metal songs
« on: February 03, 2011, 10:55:15 AM »

Interzone / Re: The eternal recurrence of turgid holywood films.
« on: January 20, 2011, 08:59:46 PM »

Think your family wasn't normal enough? This film will put things in perspective for you.
Which one are you referring to? There's many movies by that title.
The happiness I'm talking about is the1998 film about a New Jersey family and their "everyday life experiences" -- but things get preeeettyyyy wacky!

Think Larry Clark but not fucking gay, ie shock value for the sake of shock value

Interzone / Re: The eternal recurrence of turgid holywood films.
« on: January 20, 2011, 08:29:28 PM »

Think your family wasn't normal enough? This film will put things in perspective for you.

Mary Shelley knew how to use this tool.
Now hold on just a second there, tex.

This is a classic example of confirmation bias.

You are of the opinion that Social Darwinism exists. Thus, you misinterpret the passage in question as an affirmation of your own beliefs while glazing over all of the evidence to the contrary.

Do you have a citation from a peer-reviewed academic journal or a quotation from a reputable literary professor to support your claim? Or was this just a "feeling" you had? The fact that Mary Shelley was a part of the Romanticist movement does not mean her principles are in accordance with ANUS' principles! When I read Frankenstein, humility and compassion for human life is what I sense in Shelley, not the notion that some humans are inherently better than others! How absurd!

Metal / Re: Definition of Power Metal,Prog and Sam Dunn
« on: January 16, 2011, 01:18:15 PM »
when my mommy and daddy are away sometimes i sqeeze into my red power ranger costume from when i was a kid and paly dragonforce REAL LOUD adn eata buncha sourpatchkids and run aruond my house as fast as i can mastrbating as fast as i can and then during the solo i CUM and then my pup comes to lick it up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Interzone / Re: A little thought experiment for y'all.
« on: January 10, 2011, 09:04:47 PM »
I'll devote my life to shitting, then.  I mean, it'll certainly get shit done, and it's a necessary task.  Shame about being unable to do all of the other things which are necessary merely to keep myself alive
Cute turn of phrase. But a task/goal-oriented person's raison d'être should be the foci from which all of his or her actions spring forth. If one's actions do not yield results that further his or her purpose, then those actions are frivolous.

Your perspective is backwards, being firmly rooted in what the situation of our society is at this moment.
On the contrary, I'm looking into the (hypothetical) future and the situation I foresee is every bit as grim as contemporary society... if not moreso!

 If the human population was reduced by 90%, does it not occur to you how easily our species could be eradicated!? A single natural disaster could cut the already dwindling population in half! What happens if an airborn strain of the Ebola virus is introduced into the society, via natural means or by a malicious individual within said society? The chances of there being persons with inherent immunity would be much slimmer. There is strength in numbers, whether you like it or not!

Interzone / Re: A little thought experiment for y'all.
« on: January 10, 2011, 09:18:20 AM »
Why on earth should one devote one's life to any one task?
So that shit can get done.

I can't imagine in our Crystal Palace Ubermensch society that one would have much of a choice as to their occupation.  Those who just barely made the cutoff would be stuck doing the menial labor, and would revolt, because like aquarius pointed out, intelligent people feel the need to contribute to a more complex purpose.

I don't think society's legs are gangrenous. Maybe just corpulant, celulose-y and pustulous. Amputation is overkill! This isn't the American Civil War! We've made so much progress since then. With some liposuction and antibiotics, that leg will be good as new.

Those Hindus didn't kill off the Vaishias or Sudras. Maybe because they realized THEY NEEDED LEGS!

Interzone / Re: A little thought experiment for y'all.
« on: January 09, 2011, 07:13:43 PM »
You and I are young, though.

I have also experienced manual labour, including but not limited to experience as a farmhand and as a cart pusher.

I like manual labour. It gives one time to daydream. BUT, if I had to push carts for the rest of my life... I would quite willingly sacrifice my life waging war against The Establishment, knowing myself to be capable of so much more than pushing carts.

Ask Yourself: Would you be content with a life of manual labor? And please do not try to feign selflessness.

Remind yourself of the Transcendentalist communes....

Quote from: Hawthorne
We had pleased ourselves with the delectable visions of the spiritualization of labor....Each stroke of the hoe was to uncover some aromatic root of wisdom....But...the clods of earth, which we constantly belabored and turned over and over, were never etherealized into thought. Our thoughts, on the contrary, were fast becoming cloddish. Our labor symbolized nothing and left us mentally sluggish in the dusk of the evening.

Interzone / Re: A little thought experiment for y'all.
« on: January 09, 2011, 05:53:04 PM »
How could one possibly believe that just because someone has an IQ of +120 that their Emotional Intelligence is correspondingly high?! Individuals with high IQs are more prone to selfishness than most. Why else would they promote hierarchies as being the ideal societal structure? Because they know they would be at the top! A society of individuals who all have an innate desire to be "at the top" would inevitably fail.

Without a work ethic rooted in blood and sweat, an Alpha society would simply be a mini 21st century America. But with a work ethic rooted in blood and sweat, dissidence would most certainly arise!


Interzone / Re: A little thought experiment for y'all.
« on: January 09, 2011, 03:58:59 PM »
As a good biologist, I like to note that eliminating that 90% of chaff would create a society of true equality through approximately equal ability, and it would be aristocratic by its very nature.
Key word here is "approximately". Even if such a society were to come into existence, human nature would still rear his or her ugly mug.

The Dunning-Krueger effect still applies to those with >120 IQ. In fact, the effect is probably more pronounced in such individuals.

Everyone would think themselves too good for menial labor in such a society. So who would do the menial labor? Machines/Robots? Then who would perform the menial task of maintaining these Machines/Robots? Could such a society produce Machines/Robots capable of maintaining themselves? Then how long before they became sentient and enslaved humanity??

Or let's say robots never come into the picture. The "least Alpha" members of this Alpha society might be able to content themselves with manual labor by pursuing art and spirituality in their free time. However, individuals whose will to power could not possibly be constrained by a peasant's lifestyle would inevitably be born into this society. These malcontents could coagulate into a distinct faction from the rest of society and incite civil war. With only ~ 350,000,000 - 700,000,000 human beings on the planet, extinction of the human race would be a distinct possibility.

Interzone / Nootropics
« on: January 03, 2011, 11:41:09 AM »
What is this community's opinion on Nootropics, or "smart drugs"? There are a variety of legal drugs available through the internet that purport to enhance perception and/or cognition. Such drugs include Piracetam, DMAE, hydergine, and others. Note that what distinguishes Nootropics from other drugs that supposedly enhance cognitive performance (ie Amphetamines, which only cause a momentary surge in norepinephrine and dopamine levels) is that they do not act in short-term boosts, but actually aid in the formation of new memories, facilitate communication between cerebral hemispheres, and possibly stimulate neuronal growth. These benefits are long-term and will not immediately dissipate if one stops taking the Nootropic.  Solid case studies of these drugs are not plentiful, despite the fact that they've been around since the 1960s, but there is enough evidence to suggest that they do indeed acheive the desired effect with negligible side effects. Piracetam, probably the most common Nootropic, is a prescription medicine in Mexico and some European countries. The FDA has not passed judgement on the drug yet, so it is possible for an American to legally order the drug from overseas.

Nootropics seem almost too good to be true. They are hardly existent in mainstream medicine's conciousness, despite their tremendous potential. Which leads one to ask: What are the ethical consequences of Nootropics? Is it "fair" to enhance one's mind without doing so through REAL life experiences and actively disciplining one's mind through one's own will? Are Nootropics modern man's forbidden fruit? What could the consequences of accessing forbidden knowlledge be?

Interzone / Self
« on: December 15, 2010, 10:27:11 AM »
Whaddya guys think about the notion of "self"? Is it real? If so, what is it?

Does the mere action of thinking substantiate the thinker as a distinct and real entity, à la Descartes? From a materialist point of view, "I think, therefore I am" makes sense. However, more spiritually-inclined folk would contend that its just that gosh darn ego of ours, jus' tryin' to keep us sane and make sure we pass on our genes.

Folk like that Buddha, I mean. That gook would probly argyew that "self" implies something that remains constant and unchangin' in our dynamic and ever-changin' world -- but thar ain't nuthin' 'bout us that stays tha same fer two consecyuhtive moments -- includin' our own thoughts! Makes sense, don't it?

So where does this idear of self s'posed ta come from, you ask *hyuck*? Well, it comes from desire, the root of all sufferin' in this world... Hwhen ya realize that there ain't no self, and thus no reason ta want nuthin', yur sufferin' ends.  Er So Sais Booduh, a'least. 

Now, you're probly thinkin' "How the fuck would the human species even exist without desires? Isn't desire an innate aspect of the human condition? Isn't it rather solipsistic to want to free yourself from desire, ie disconnect from the world?" Well, I dunno. Why dontcha shoot the ol' Chinaman an email. What, have you been living under a rock? OF COURSE EMAILS CAN BE SENT THROUGH TIME! Hm? I dunno, somethin' to do with tachyons. Uh-huh. Yes, very expensive. Can we talk about this later?

Ahem... And then the Hindus think there's a little piece of 'God' in all of us which is our "true self" -- the ego is just our "small self". Sounds pretty reasonable. But then again, those people smell.

So. What is your take on 'self' and how does it influence your life?

[1] 2