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

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 - Nimbostratus

1 [2] 3 ... 36
16
Interzone / Re: Educators
« on: April 22, 2012, 12:05:12 PM »

When proposing a plan, that isn't so. You either accept it or you don't.


"Wood-chipping" and "Disappeared" are different. Ok, "Disappeared" is not a false dilemma, but is useless. How's "disappeared" a plan? You convinced me, what's next? In order to avoid the false dillema you need to make a question that leave us in the place we started. I mean, rapture is not an option we can work on.


I think if all under-120s died tomorrow, we'd have a very fortunate population bottleneck.

Hehe, that doesn't respond the question about the different outcomes.

This may be misconstrued as ad hominem, but I think the ANUS figureheads harbor an unconscious bitterness and resentment towards the human race, which manifests in their insane plot to save the world. They try to save face, saying they really don't like the idea of genocide but it's the only way, and then turn around and gleefully make woodchipper jokes. Sociopathy, anyone?

Not an ANUS complaint. Some users find wood-chipping "funny" while denying their psychopathic impulses. No surprise that some think that this piece of shit Anders Breivik is actually cool.

17
Interzone / Re: Educators
« on: April 21, 2012, 06:24:31 PM »
FFS. They're variants of the two major directions. (I have no idea what ordoliberalism is.)

Anyway, you can choose alternatives that were not contemplated in your A or B proposition.

What do you think about the different outcomes of the Tard Question?

18
Interzone / Re: Educators
« on: April 21, 2012, 04:43:23 PM »
It's a false dilemma, you can have an answer to a false dilemma, and it stills being a false dilemma. The method, the time (tomorrow or 100 years) give much more possibilities.

No, it's not. It's a choice that determines the direction in which your society is heading.

"You can be Communist or Capitalist, but not both."

Directions, plural. How do you explain social democracy, keynesianism, or ordoliberalism, through such affirmation?

Please, answer my question in the previous post about the different outcomes.


19
Interzone / Re: This guy is a 'traditionalist' and he is a wanker...
« on: April 21, 2012, 01:06:34 AM »

I was referring to this article, it answers both questions.  Keep in mind that I find that this article already makes too many concessions to modern science, my view is closer to the one expressed here.

The first article doesn't really address evolutionary biology, but rather gives a comparative view of darwinian change, and change from a disembodied point of view. It may tell something about the spiritual interpretation of darwinism (I would need to give it a more detailed read on this in order to discuss this aspect) but not about evolutionary biology itself.

The second article.

Quote
...evolution has never been proved by anybody whatsoever, and with good reason; transformist evolution is accepted as a useful and provisional postulate, as one will accept no matter what, provided no obligation is felt to accept the primacy of the Immaterial since the latter escapes the control of our senses. `

There are many proofs of evolution. A strong one: genetic commonalities. There's continuum among the species. We can know, that we are closely related to the apes. We can go in detail if you have objections about this...

Schuon talks about emanation. I ask you, how emanation could explain genetic commonalities?

20
Interzone / Re: Educators
« on: April 21, 2012, 12:20:12 AM »

No, it's not.

Ask yourself:

If all the under-120s disappeared tomorrow, would life be better?

Then rephrase it so you can see what it is descended from:

If all the pedophiles disappeared tomorrow, would life be better?

Woodchipper, exile, or other forms of removal/disappearance: doesn't matter.

YES. So what? It's a false dilemma, you can have an answer to a false dilemma, and it stills being a false dilemma. The method, the time (tomorrow or 100 years) give much more possibilities.

Ok, just answer this please. Let's suppose: YES, you are right, we would be better if all the <120 IQ disappeared tomorrow. What would come next then? Would we sit there in self-congratulatory despise for most humankind, or, would we discuss the methods and their different outcomes? "Disappear" and "Wood-Chipper" and any other method would reveal their big differences.

Trends change.

Or don't.

21
Interzone / Re: Educators
« on: April 20, 2012, 04:28:33 PM »

No. Solutions become available as people change their minds, so it's better not to censor yourself in advance if what you're saying is logically correct.

The "fantasists" are the ones who think repeating a failing behavior pattern will lead to something else. Generally, egomania and burnout have intervened. I would rather pay attention to the ones who speak to pure logic.

Such as: would society be better off, or worse off, if all under-120s "disappeared" tomorrow?

The more people think about this, the more the idea grows acceptable to them. Then that removes some inhibitions. Finally, it becomes positive advocacy. This is how all change happens; it never happens to those who censor themselves out of some mistaken maturity.

No. It's not logically correct, the question (which you keep changing from "woodchipper" to "disappeared") is logically defective. Tard Holocaust, it's not pragmatic either. You can't even convince most of the users who have the anonymity of a nickname in the ANUS forum, and then, how are you talking about censuring ourselves?

It's a real shame to see smart people defending that nonsense.

22
Interzone / Re: Educators
« on: April 18, 2012, 06:55:03 PM »
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.

Thinks Tard Holocaust is a bad idea -> liberal / neocon.

I see the more central conflict as being between "fantasists," who want to solve problems by applying imaginary power that they do not and never will possess in a manner whose practical consequences they haven't thought through and/or simply refuse to acknowledge, and "realists," who see many of the same problems, but are interested in actual solutions that can actually be implemented with the actual means available to us.

Agree. Some members of this board have clearly grown-up. The  "leadership" types are stuck in Nihililand.

23
Interzone / Re: Emo realism
« on: April 17, 2012, 08:22:11 PM »
We can translate the literal sentiments expressed in this forum into a socially-acceptable form so that it won't offend the morality you've been taught your whole life:

1. Send the under-120s to Africa. Why Africa? It's big and has low population density. We'll give each one the cash equivalent of 40 acres and a mule, and package them away. The US population will plunge to 80 million. However, over half of the federal budget obligations will disappear, pollution will be reduced, land use will be reduced, nature can recover, etc.

2. Don't end democracy; just make sure votes are "recommendations" to a ruling elite of brainiacs. Things are as normal. Everyone votes as usual, then our select committee of wise elders looks over the decisions and throws out the insane ones and replaces them with better ones.

3. Liberalism isn't insane; it's just the right philosophy for California and nowhere else. Set up a massive tax deduction for liberals moving to California. If the great liberal theory is correct, California will become paradise.We don't need to tell these people their beliefs are delusional this way.

4. Diversity? Let it run in parallel. Make Chinatowns for every group. They can do their thing there. The rest of us can live out in the suburbs and wonder what it's all like.

5. Dangerous stuff like fast food, alcohol, drugs, etc. Let's go all Ron Paul -- everyone loves this answer. Government accepting these things will mean they become a permanent part of the landscape, but maybe we can send a lot of educational pamphlets to the population.

Reading this should make everyone feel warm and happy inside. Hope, love, change. Isn't it grand?

Would have been great if it weren't  encrypted in passive-agressive language.

24
Interzone / Re: This guy is a 'traditionalist' and he is a wanker...
« on: April 17, 2012, 04:57:04 PM »
The question is not reducible to theistic propositions.  Traditionalists fully support an a-theistic religion like Buddhism but reject evolution.  This has more to do the the traditionalist understanding of the metaphysical origins of man.  Traditionalists believe that the world is simply an outward expression of permanent spiritual realities, not a quasi-absolute domain which was created at a particular time by a limited theistic God and subsequently left to its own devices.  Traditionalists reject deism entirely.

Stills, God (the Trascendental Absolute) doesn't have to be, logically, a limited theistic reality for evolution to occur. It is not logically contradictory.

Quote
On the second point I was careful to note that the idea of progress was not the cause of evolutionary theory, but aided its popularity and its takeover of the intellectual life of the West.  The primary reason is still that as soon as a plausible theory was put forward to explain the origins of life purely in terms of material processes it was instantly accepted as the traditional account of the origins of creatures had been reduced to a dogmatic formulation, the inner meaning of which had been lost at that time.

Related to my previous assertion: evolutionary theory can't tell if the purely material processes are actually purely material. Contemporary science (I don't say modern, because modern is a misleading term for this purspose) looks what it can look for, the material, if there's something behind the material, evolutionary theory is unable to see it. Contemporary science is OK with that limit, being unable to see the immaterial is not a problem for evolutionary biology . Now, if you know which and specially, how, non-material processes affect the variety of material life, let me know.

Quote
It has been suggested by some traditionalists, that evolutionary biology may not be entirely inaccurate, purely as an outward description of the process of the materialization of creatures.

Great. Which traditionalists? and how evolutionary biology would be just partially inaccurate?

25
Interzone / Re: This guy is a 'traditionalist' and he is a wanker...
« on: April 16, 2012, 08:42:52 PM »

Although it is evident that these two are related, the traditionalist position rests on the assertion that the modern theory of evolution exists for two reasons...

1.  To explain the origins of man in the absence of metaphysical knowledge which had been lost in the West, due to the world view described by Nasr in the video.
2.  It was popularized and became dogmatically enforced because it helped to support the doctrine of progress which in turn helps to justify the errors of modern man.

[...]

I would rather not discuss this matter further in this thread, there has already been a discussion regarding the traditionalist position on evolution in this forum and little progress was made.  If you would like to continue this part of the discussion I will begin a new thread.

1.- The possibility of God is not logically incompatible with evolution.
2.- The cause of the theory of evolution was not to support progress, that's teleology, and teleology is dismissed in evolutionary biology.

As you shouldn't confuse fundamentalism with Intelligent Design, you shouldn't confuse evolutionary biology with humanism.

If there was little progress in that thread, it was because of the withdrawal of traditionalists, I must say.


26
Interzone / Re: Divorce and abortion
« on: April 16, 2012, 05:32:31 PM »
http://blog.al.com/wire/2012/04/covenant_marriage_would_make_d.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/09/us-usa-personhood-oklahoma-idUSBRE8380XG20120409

I'm really divided, I know that divorce ruins familiies and abortion is like extended birth control that makes women more slutty, but I'm not suere it should be illegal?

An "analrapist" pondering if divorce and abortion are acceptable for social order. Love it :)

By the way, broken families are broken without divorce. It's true that divorce is stressful for the children, but it's even more stressful to endure domestic conflict.

Abortion, well, I could say many things in favor, but following what you said, I will say something that many here would agree with: birth control and abortion keep slutty women out of the genetic pool.

27
Interzone / Re: Culling the under-120s
« on: April 12, 2012, 09:59:01 AM »
For people who claim to be "nihilists," some people on this forum have a lot of hang-ups.

Would life be better or worse if all people under 120 IQ points died tomorrow?

This could be rephrased:

Do you want a smarter humanity, or a dumber one?


Thanks for rephrasing. Instead of what some people think is a sharp, nihilist question, it's actually defective. I can't understand how people with certain knowledge on philosophy and logic would commit that mistake.

YES. I want a smarter humanity. Everyone does, even leftists who are optimistic about the Flynn effect and the role of nurture in IQ.

I would support the idea if someone could come up with a realistic idea to make it happen.  If it's not literal I don't know why people are getting so worked up about it.

Run for President as an Obama-style candidate, seize power with a military coup, initiate secret program to test the population and remove all people who fail. Then crush other countries with new brainpower, and as you roll into each one, cull and re-constitute.

In all seriousness, sounds cool for a movie. But that's all.

This <120 IQ Holocaust is ridicule, pathetic. But hey, it's a safe clubhouse for the nihilist... you may find support here.

Enjoy the ghetto, bro...

28
Interzone / Lower-IQ societies
« on: April 11, 2012, 02:09:23 AM »
I don't understand why people is answering this.

What do you prefer, a sandwich of dirt, or a sandwich of mucus, piss and shit.

Mmmh, dirt sandwich is delicious.

 

29
Interzone / Under 120s: our friends
« on: April 09, 2012, 07:53:38 PM »
Beware the false dichotomy.

I ask. Would you be better without that infected leg that will kill you if it's not amputed? YES or NO

YES

But, what if there's a way to fight the infection (antibiotics) while keeping the leg?

Quote
Would human civilization be better or worse if we fed all the under-120s into a woodchipper?

Let's supose that IQ is the most important innate human measure in regards to development, let's suppose that cultural bias doesn't play a significant role in the tests. Even though, it's not a good question. There are variations to this dilemma, and explanations to why the "woodchipper" method is childish.


30
Metal / Re: Godspeed you black emperor!
« on: April 07, 2012, 01:01:33 AM »
Quote
author=ChapelOfTorment link=topic=15778.msg73905#msg73905 date=1333735723]
I used to really like these guys back when I was fifteen, until I figured out their basic trick of crescendo/decrescendo and manipulating the listener via sentimentality. Most of their songs are fairly similar, both in terms in of how they're written, and often in terms of the actual melodies they use. The layering of sounds is also pretty simple: it might be dense, but its more like a movie soundtrack, with different pitches simply bolstering the immediately recognizable main melody, rather than doing much of interest. This seems to be the major problem with most post rock bands that aren't Neurosis.

Not to defend my statement about this band, but to actually  defend what can be heard. I would like black metal to be so rich in emotions as GYBE, and I'm not talking about "intense" emo-tional riffing on minor chords (like some cliché black metal and hipster post-rock), but actually what is is usually presupposed here to be good music: a variety of colors. GYBE don't care about being sad or dark as bad black metal tries with its puny harmonic parallelism. I'm not trying to compare the worst of black metal to make GYBE look good, but in order to evidence its qualities within the realm of neoclassical music.

For the case of GYBE, dynamics is not used in order to hide the lack of an actual development. You shouldn't confuse consistency with dishonesty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vRrGCVlMHk
"

1 [2] 3 ... 36