Complaints

[scourge]

Asking "wood-chipping" (as an allegory of genocide) and then asking for a YES/NO. False dichotomy.

No the question is if we dump the under 120s: are we better off or worse off? That's an end result.

The question is not the means to the result which is what all of those who are gay for Jesus home in on. Yes, we can see the difference between people.

[Nimbostratus]

Asking "wood-chipping" (as an allegory of genocide) and then asking for a YES/NO. False dichotomy.

No the question is if we dump the under 120s: are we better off or worse off? That's an end result.

The question is not the means to the result which is what all of those who are gay for Jesus home in on. Yes, we can see the difference between people.

You didn't address anything I said, you regurgitated the same question with a consequentialist twist that is irrelevant to what I said.

Not ad hominem, but I'm starting to question your logical skills.

[scourge]

If in your view I cannot be correct because you feel I have a logical problem, that is an ad hominem.

My goal is not to contravene any irrelevancy you raise but to correct it in the overall discussion context, thereby keeping us all on track. The question is about the results. Not about the methods. Dodging this error on your part is not going to fly with me again.

[analrapist]

It's so the internet, spend all your time talking, do nothing. Scourge is right though if we don't do something different we fail.

[Cargést]

ITTs: people are willfully misinterpreting a very simple point.  I suggest that all posts on woodchipping etc. be moved to one thread, and that thread be deleted: anybody who matters has already learnt what must be learnt from the question; the rest of these douchebags are quibblers looking in the wrong direction (no names, but you know who you are, you twats XD).

Perhaps this disclaimer should be used: WE ARE NOT TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO REMOVE ALL PEOPLE OF AN IQ UNDER 120; RATHER, WE ARE ASSERTING THE BENEFICE OF HIGHER AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE AND LOWER POPULATION.

[Nimbostratus]

ITTs: people are willfully misinterpreting a very simple point.  

You just know it in you heart? Or can you elaborate?

RATHER, WE ARE ASSERTING THE BENEFICE OF HIGHER AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE AND LOWER POPULATION.

Oh thanks! No one was already aware of this! Thank you woodchipping dilemma!

Leftists agree with your final assertion: higher intelligence and lower populations are beneficial. Nice, uh? Here is where the methods and the possibilities show themselves to be important, while this überconsequentialism of the magical rapture/the binary piranha question shows its idiocy.

[Cargést]

My apologies: you all seem so fundamentally confused that I felt I should apply a small dose of intelligence to you all.  That way, you won't get woodchipped!

Can we declare this troll successful, and move on, please?  The bleeding hearts are fucking annoying.

[crow]

It's interesting to see how you all get along with each other.
You know, it might be a worthwhile exercise, here, to actively try to cultivate some kind of community spirit, just to see if it can be done.
You know: goodwill, benefit of the doubt, tolerance, friendliness, etc.
I realize these are alien concepts, to almost everyone, these days, in all but appearance-of, but you never know.
If you can manage it, maybe you'll have something nobody else has.
I mean, you've done 'intelligence' now, for what it was worth.
What else have you got?

[scourge]

It's so the internet, spend all your time talking, do nothing. Scourge is right though if we don't do something different we fail.

That's our liberal democracy. A bunch of bureaucrat personality types delberating not over whether but upon how and not because of any supposed technical hurdles but secretly because they are each motivated by avoiding culpability. While delay continues indefinitely, nobody is responsible for any results exactly because all actions are paralyzed as quietly agreed upon.

We've seen this variously with a range of matters from the economy/depression to minority civil rights to radical Islam and so on. There has to be a massive crisis that causes historic destruction before the liberal democratic psychology stops avoiding responsibility by demanding citations, references, and proofs even after a mountain of same has piled up before him per request.

[Cargést]

It's interesting to see how you all get along with each other.
You know, it might be a worthwhile exercise, here, to actively try to cultivate some kind of community spirit, just to see if it can be done.
You know: goodwill, benefit of the doubt, tolerance, friendliness, etc.
I realize these are alien concepts, to almost everyone, these days, in all but appearance-of, but you never know.
If you can manage it, maybe you'll have something nobody else has.
I mean, you've done 'intelligence' now, for what it was worth.
What else have you got?

People come here from other forums, where they've already learnt bad behaviours (e.g. "I have something to say, so I'm going to say it").  Unfortunately, most of them can't think of anything (useful) to say, BUT THEY'LL FUCKIN' SAY IT ANYWAY!  NO FEELINGS, NO ID... Wait a minute...

[Iron]

It's so the internet, spend all your time talking, do nothing. Scourge is right though if we don't do something different we fail.

That's our liberal democracy. A bunch of bureaucrat personality types delberating not over whether but upon how and not because of any supposed technical hurdles but secretly because they are each motivated by avoiding culpability.

Nice psychoanalysis - "people only disagree with me because they are cowardly and ethically bankrupt". What an elegant way to sidestep the content of someone's argument.

Even if you really believe it, you should be able to recognize that effective people are capable of addressing criticisms even when they suspect ulterior motives on the part of their critics. Aren't you and Conservationist both always repeating that line about paying attention to ideas, and not the individuals who issue them? This is the way you lead and build consensus - not by falling back on passive aggressive prophecies of doom.

[Conservationist]

Even if you really believe it, you should be able to recognize that effective people are capable of addressing criticisms even when they suspect ulterior motives on the part of their critics. Aren't you and Conservationist both always repeating that line about paying attention to ideas, and not the individuals who issue them? This is the way you lead and build consensus - not by falling back on passive aggressive prophecies of doom.

No, that's not a mark of a higher individual. It's the mark of an idiot. People of your nature temporarily outnumber him; why would he waste time addressing your repetitive arguments? Do it once, then move on. Move on to say something important instead.

[crow]

It's not even the mark of an idiot.
It's the mark of someone who learned 'debating' in high-school, and doesn't yet know the world is not like high-school.
It's also depressingly 'normal', especially on internet forums.

[Nimbostratus]

No, that's not a mark of a higher individual. It's the mark of an idiot. People of your nature temporarily outnumber him; why would he waste time addressing your repetitive arguments? Do it once, then move on. Move on to say something important instead.

Sometimes, it happens, sometimes it's like that, it may be the case Conservationist, but this is not the case. You both failed even when you tried to respond. I won't blame you at all, tardocaust it's sooo stupid that is hard to defend. You won't see discussions about it in any respectable place: not in the (real) conservatism or in the academic new right, because the idea is simply retarded, not that it is 'uncomfortable for the modern meekness' or some shit like that, it's retarded before being controversial. It is a petty fantasy that only could sound sensible in a crack-smoking session in the depths of a sewer.

I know that there are good persons here. Move on to paleoconservatism, leave the sewer.

[Cargést]

The only people discussing the "tardocaust" are the naysayers, for fuck's sake.  Will none of you people listen to me?  We've ALL moved on from this.  It was an amusing aside to a real point which was made to ensure that everyone was on the same page, but, as it turns out, a population of users here seem to be hellbent on getting a realistic response out of an amusing hypothesis.  What the fuck is wrong with you all?

This is the first time ANUS users have caused me any ire in years.  Thank God I barely know who any of you are, so I don't have to feel ashamed for having spoken with you before.  This kind of idiocy is disgraceful, especially in a place like this.