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 - Umbrage

[1] 2 ... 47
Interzone / Re: Is Capitalism bad?
« on: April 08, 2013, 04:15:03 AM »
I think we need a different kind of change to stop systems from failing. Blaming a system for being corrupt is like blaming MS Windows for having a virus. It's the user's behavior that caused the virus.

Start by reclaiming society, then government, then adjust the system to suit the new demands of this society. Either that or drop out and grow your own vegetables or burn out in frustration and defiance.

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 08, 2013, 02:02:09 AM »
The nature of trade is surplus goods. What you are describing is the nature of con men.
The nature of trade is getting something you want for something you don't, or at least for something you want less.

The nature of trade is surplus goods.

Quote from: dictionary
1. something that remains above what is used or needed.
2. an amount, quantity, etc., greater than needed.
3. agricultural produce or a quantity of food grown by a nation or area in excess of its needs, especially such a quantity of food purchased and stored by a governmental program of guaranteeing farmers a specific price for certain crops.

That is not the nature of con men - although believing in something like rights would certainly lead you to think such a way. It's the nature of men. No "con" necessary.

Quote from: dictionary
con (adjective)
1. involving abuse of confidence: a con trick.
verb (used with object)
2. to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings.
3. to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.
4. a confidence game or swindle.
5. a lie, exaggeration, or glib self-serving talk: He had a dozen different cons for getting out of paying traffic tickets.


White men traded worthless beads to red men in order to fleece them of their valuables.
Red men eagerly scooped up the priceless beads in return for their own worthless junk.
Each assigned value to what the other considered worthless.
This is the nature of trade.

The nature of trade is surplus goods. What you are describing is the nature of con men.

Quote from: dictionary
1. the act or process of buying, selling, or exchanging commodities, at either wholesale or retail, within a country or between countries: domestic trade; foreign trade.
2. a purchase or sale; business deal or transaction.
3. an exchange of items, usually without payment of money.
4. any occupation pursued as a business or livelihood.
5. some line of skilled manual or mechanical work; craft: the trade of a carpenter; printer's trade.


Quote from: dictionary
con (adjective)
1. involving abuse of confidence: a con trick.
verb (used with object)
2. to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings.
3. to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.
4. a confidence game or swindle.
5. a lie, exaggeration, or glib self-serving talk: He had a dozen different cons for getting out of paying traffic tickets.


There is nothing inherently wrong about giving up something you dislike in favor of something you do; your body does it every time it takes a dump or processes protein.

Talk about straw man! Let's just compare economy with taking a shit! Enlighten us, oh wise one!

If both parties in the trade end up giving away nothing in exchange for something, what's the problem? Who got conned? They're both satisfied.

Except they don't give away nothing for something. You're oversimplifying this. Even the meeting and the transport of goods costs time and gold. And unless you're some isolated tribe you'll have plenty of other trading partners to choose from. And sometimes it's better for business to let products rot away or to even destroy your own stock, you don't see supermarkets handing out food because "otherwise they'd have to throw it away" do you?

But, because you have this idea that value is more than a human invention

I don't. Go back a few posts and read what I wrote. A sense of justice is a human trait. Logic is a human invention.

, you find evil within said exchange; not because any suffering has occurred, but because it goes against what you believe.

Bullshit. What do my beliefs have to do with other people's sense of fairness? You're confusing me for a white knight. My personal beliefs are unimportant in this matter and we're talking about a 2 dimensional example that crow provided.

All I'm saying is [paraphrase]"gosh guys did you know that everybody has a sense of fairness? That means that rights do exist because in our hearts we believe in them! Awww, isn't that cute?"[/paraphrase]

Why are you being so defensive about that? Rights are part of our aesthetics: "oh wow that's beautiful, oh wow that's powerful, oh wow that's unfair." So to argue that rights don't exist is foolish. So you believe in the right to trick others during trade? Then you still believe in rights! You're just having a difference of aesthetics. As a result you're like one side of a coin telling the other side it doesn't exist.

And fallot did not say rights are OWNED, he said they are OWED.

I misread something but that doesn't make the argument I made here or there any less true. At least I only misread a word and not entire posts. :'( mfw someone does that.

Quote from: Umbrage
There's this logical flaw about the "no rights" argument that irks me. If there are no rights then what gives you the right to tell people they have no rights? We're just talking about different values here.
Logical flaw? Where? If there are no rights, nothing I tell people is subject to the concept. It's only a logical flaw so long as there are rights.

Check out these monkeys and tell me again that rights don't exist and that a sense of fairness has no place in the natural order:

I don't need the right to do anything I do - I am a man. I will do as I do, and there will be consequences deriving from those actions, which will inspire others to act in turn, leading to more consequences still, etc., etc. At no point does any of this need to be justified - it just is. It can be explained, but that's about it.

And how exactly do those consequences occur? Can you argue that those consequences have absolutely nothing to do with a sense of justice? Someone hurts you and you won't fight back? If you fight back then why? Because you don't want to be injured? So you believe you have the right not be injured? If you believe you don't have the right not to be injured then why are you fighting back? Because it hurts? So what if it hurts? So what if you die? Yet your natural instinct compels you to fight or flee for survival, or your instincts abandon you and you succumb to your fears and become the plaything of your oppressor. It's all possible and it's all shaped by our sense of justice on which our discipline and moral codes are based.

The only logical flaw is thinking that rights exist "just because."

Another straw man. Nobody said rights exist "just because" Rights exist by extension of the sense of fairness which is a part of human nature. I've been saying this the whole time.

And although your attempt to prove their existence based on an innate human sense of fairness was noble, it does not at all reflect the general view of rights and you know it. Aside from that, it was also fruitless, because humans are innately wrong about all sorts of things; you describe nothing more than a failure of perception, one along the lines of thinking the world is flat because it that's how it looks to the naked eye.

So much paradox it hurts. How can humans be considered wrong if there is no right? Stick to your story: humans just are and everything is a consequence completely unrelated to our sense of fairness. That's what you were saying earlier anyway. You just contradicted yourself.

You are literally trying to tell me that "because we feel something is real, it is." I find you to be one of the better posters here, and more often than not I agree with you. Even when I don't, I never have a problem respecting you. In fact, I respect you too much to give this argument any sort of serious consideration. Get real.

We don't just feel justice, it motivates us. I explained this a few posts ago. It is part of human nature and it is part of our aesthetics. It binds people in agreement or it drives them apart.

If you were claiming that rights were God-given, I would still have to disagree but at least your position would be logically sound. Saying that "they only exist in our mind" cannot be rationally followed by "they still exist." THAT is a logical flaw; you know what another term is for something that exists only in the mind? Imaginary. Yes, this affects human behavior - nobody ever said otherwise. No, it is not real - mostly because humans cannot create things telekinetically. As far as I know.

Our sense of fairness exists because it serves a function. It's a cognitive ability, something that helps humans reason. I've explained it all before by now.

Up next...

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 07, 2013, 12:28:39 PM »
I'd sooner pay for sex than read this thread.

Well now we all know why it took you so long to post in it.

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 07, 2013, 12:27:27 PM »
These are not rights, and I do not accept the assumptions you make about trading.
Fairness has - or had - nothing to do with trading.
White men traded worthless beads to red men in order to fleece them of their valuables.
Red men eagerly scooped up the priceless beads in return for their own worthless junk.
Each assigned value to what the other considered worthless.
This is the nature of trade.

Fairness, of any kind, is illusion, and only exists at all because it is taught to the young.
It is, to be sure, a useful concept, if civilization is the goal.
In the absence of civilization, it is only a burden that costs more than it returns.

Overdo fairness, and civilization suffers, thus it is a double-edged sword.
A little serves, while a lot destroys.

The nature of trade is surplus goods. What you are describing is the nature of con men.

I wouldn't call fairness an illusion either since illusions means being deceived by something or someone. Even if you think society is based on an illusion then at most you could argue that society is an illusion made real. Once it is real it is no longer an illusion, you can't argue that society doesn't exist.

Our sense of fairness is a motivation, that's all it is. And yes it is affected by upbringing and propaganda of course. It would be interesting to debate how much of that sense is natural (I'd say that's based on genetics) but most of that debate would be hypothesis since genetic studies aren't even fully accepted in the mostly politically correct world of science.

Rights and beliefs are double-edged sword but not in the way you put it. The double edge is that what you think is fair might not correspond with what someone else thinks is fair. Someone might think "hey food just grows on trees so we have a right to get free food from the supermarket!" We can see the flaw in his reasoning but who are we to say there are no rights when trying to debunk his argument? Why not instead just tell him to grow his own food or explain the basics of economics? (if he remains willfully ignorant then I believe in the right to restrain him to protect society from deteriorating)

There's this logical flaw about the "no rights" argument that irks me. If there are no rights then what gives you the right to tell people they have no rights? We're just talking about different values here.

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 07, 2013, 11:17:06 AM »
That suggests rights do not exist beyond the societal level, which was what was stated. Umbrage, is this certain sense of fairness then the same or similar across the spectrum of humanity? Does it average out into a plurality of standards (which may still be somewhat similar) or just one, or none? Something being a right implies that it is owed, and by nothing less than society (which for most people means literal reality) itself. This isn't what we get out of your breakdown, so I think its reasonable to say rights don't exist.

Yes not everybody has the same idea about what is fair but over the whole many people share the same values (don't eat your babies is a pretty decent one, don't beat your wife sometimes leads to disagreement, etc)

Rights are not owned. Rights are a belief. You can't physically own beliefs. We don't own laws either. Laws are created and then people are subjected to them. Even the creator of the laws and the people who enforce them can't be above those laws. If they are then it's called corruption. Dictators require the support of the people, the military and the industry just as much as any leader does. It will be the inherent sense of justice in the people that will cause them to embrace a new, less corrupt leader when he takes over. Whether it's through overthrowing the government or foreign intervention doesn't even matter at that point, so you can imagine the deep impact this sense of justice has. Would you tell that angry crowd that rights don't exist?

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 07, 2013, 10:58:22 AM »
How does that suggest that rights exist?
Rights do not exist.
I may be fair, but nobody has a right to my fairness.

Our sense of justice exists and is necessary for our progress as a species. How else could homo-sapiens and neanderthal have engaged in trade? They were two different species who were limited in their communication yet they could find agreement on what is fair when they were trading in a time without written law.

The rights only exist in the mind but nevertheless they still exist and they serve a function. That's all I'm saying. It's part of our thought process and reflects our character.

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 07, 2013, 10:25:14 AM »
Rights do not exist

Sorry for picking out a single line here but I'm getting kinda tired of reading this false argument (here and on other forums) Here's how it works: you are born, you grow up and you have a certain sense of fairness. This feeling of fairness is a human trait and necessary for our survival, without it we wouldn't even be able to reason let alone do things like trading with other humans or have any sense of discipline.

This is where the notion that "rights exist" comes from. These unwritten rights are merely a reflection of our sense of fairness (which of course can be completely distorted for whatever reason) We are free to disagree with others about whether something is a proverbial "god given" right but to deny such a thing exists is to deny humanity. Rights don't exist in Somalia, look what good it's doing for them.

As far as feminism and the destruction of society goes:

Feminism is fine with me. Good for women that they get to have rights, oh wow we sophisticated now. But the feminists and their handlers should have never torn down the traditional values that led to big families. The west is dying out as a result of this smear campaign and our grovelling politicians (all over the west) can only offer us the short-term solution of importing more workers instead of setting up decent breeding programs and re-focusing their propaganda tools on creating larger families.

We can all be equal to the law but the natural order is based on our inequality. So just do what you're good at whether that's being a good leader, a good doctor or being a good mother. Some women are better at being a leader than being a mother but they are the exception and not the rule. It's better to take pride in this: every good leader, every good doctor, every good person was raised by a good mother (and if they weren't they were lucky they didn't turn out psychopathic) The world needs more good people and men can't provide them, we're counting on you ladies.

Motherhead - Cradle to the Grave

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 06, 2013, 01:23:33 PM »
Somewhere, even as we write, there is probably a forum for pimps that are saying the exact same things about deathmetalubermen.

Go here for that:

Interzone / Re: Buying whores
« on: April 06, 2013, 01:02:16 PM »
Wow, this thread is turning into crack whore confessions.

Legalize prostitution but keep it out of the cities (build entertainment centers on desolate spots next to high ways, think Las Vegas but much smaller) Regulate it, tax it and meanwhile ban the shit out of street prostitution to keep cities clean. Execute pimps who also dabble in drugs and execute human traffickers.

TV is dumb, but I remember fondly watching historical and nature programs with my siblings and other family when I was younger, usually on the History channel or Discovery.



Interzone / Re: The Netherlands opens "School of Metal"
« on: April 04, 2013, 06:16:59 AM »
There's nothing that a school like this can teach to a musician unless they are inexperienced/talentless musicians.

So Timmy the wannabe rockstar goes to their school. After their "education" and if he meets all the requirements for being a dumb rockstar he will be put in contact with the right agencies. A record deal follows complete with a deal about publicity in the form of TV appearances, video clips, kids movies, etc. Kinda like the people who win those "talent contests" on TV.

All the other kids are screwed of course, wasting their money on washed up B- and C-celebrities teaching them what they could have learned over the internet and by simply practicing. Classical musicians can hire themselves out to orchestras if they have the proper training but what is a random metal band gonna do with this education? You still end up following the same path as any other artist who's looking for big fame.

I could see a benefit for having formally educated producers of course, particularly in death metal. But there's a danger of having too polished production too, especially when producers are used to making a commercial product.

Comparing this to "Black Metal Symposia" I'm wondering why it's so hard to create a middle ground, something that focuses on both the art form and the commercial aspects. But then it would be "half commercial garbage, half pseudo-intellectual dreck" I guess. Makes me wonder if metal even belongs in schools other than in contemporary art history since atm metal's only hope is small local bands creating a new scene instead of new celebrities leeching on a bigger scene that's dead anyway.

Interzone / The Netherlands opens "School of Metal"
« on: April 03, 2013, 08:54:09 AM »
Google translation:

Rock City Institute's first coming school music education in the Netherlands started with 'Metal Factory, a specialized metal discipline. Since its inception in 2009, this vocational training Summa College (formerly ROC Eindhoven) successful in training young talent. Acts as Rochelle, Dirty Denims and Black Bone have known nationwide venues already know how to find. With the 'Metal Factory initiators believe Thijs Louis and Ivo Severijns a gap in the national music to fill.

"There is a large group of musicians in the Netherlands, which is purely on the music genre Metal and subsequent subgenres targets and because of the style bound playing techniques and musical ideas hardly find a place within the current pop music education. In addition, there is a clear demand from the professional market for this particular type of musicians. Indeed, the cash flows from the Metal scene are highly relevant to both the national and international music industry. "

Eindhoven ("Rock City") has historically been a cradle of the metal scene.
Thus, for example Dynamo years an internationally known festival.
Rock City Institute sees it as a unique opportunity to be the first and only training in the Netherlands, calculated in Dynamo, that as an organization 'talent of young people high on its agenda, this specific target group facilitation with MBO music.

The Metal Factory will serve as a new specialization for the three-year vocational training Artist Music start. The study his vocals, drums, guitar, bass and keyboards. The teaching team will consist of experienced professionals from the metal scene, such as Floor Jansen (ReVamp, Nightwish},
Stef Broks (Textures), Ruud Jolie (Within Temptation) and Johan van Stratum (Stream Of Passion).

On Saturday 20 April from 11:00 to 15:00 a special open day at Metal Factory in Dynamo, Catharinaplein 21, 5611 THE Eindhoven. Then then begins at 16.00 the second edition of the Courts Grind metal festival in the great hall.


At least the name Metal Factory is fitting since they will be teaching kids how to make money creating a cheap commercial product and calling it metal. It's not the "Metal Art Academy" you may have hoped it would be. It's not hipster central either, it's more like the Disney channel of cheesy goth rock and metalcore.

I've posted some weird news in the past but this was my attempt at an april fools joke. This news was not real, har har har. Have a nice month!

Also feel free to post about how you weren't fooled at all and saw through it from the start. I'll believe you :-*

History Channel presents a new series about classical composers.

These composers forever left their mark on our cultural heritage. They defined European traditions through their music. But how European were they really?

It has long been a theory that Beethoven had Moorish ancestry. And last year researchers discovered that Mozart had African relatives just a few generations before he was born. For hundreds of years these men were seen as the cultural ambassadors of a highly traditional era. But how much could their African roots have shaped their musical genius? This is what CLASSICAL COMPOSERS AND THEIR ROOTS will examine. Shot on location in Europe and Africa this series will explore the long lost connection between European classical music and African culture. Emmy® Award-winning documentarian Hanz Wilderberg will take you from the peaceful savanna steppes of Africa to the wild nightlife of urban Germany to present you with conclusive in-depth interviews with historians, musicians, activists and other experts.

Episode one: Beethoven
Episode two: Mozart
Episode three: Vivaldi
Episode four: Schubert


Interzone / Re: So nobody's making any poop comments?
« on: March 27, 2013, 03:09:11 AM »
Well, first the cardinals considered an African pope but in the end they elected a South American one. This suggests that they want to focus more on the third world after losing many members in Europe because of the child abuse scandals.

I don't trust the media narrative...

Good, because that isn't the media narrative.

The poop is Italian in origin. It is only Argentinian in consistency.

Most Argentinians identify as white. Their ruling class is white. On Argentina's TV all the presenters are white (and as an aside their TV programs seem a lot like Italian TV) If pope Francis was black and Argentine he'd have more trouble being accepted by them than he has as an Italian living in Argentina. Over half of Argentinians is of Italian descent (which probably explains why their TV is similar)

[1] 2 ... 47