How many do I have to take seriously??

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:57 pm

How many pathetic retards do I have to take seriously??

Democrasy-Demo-Crazy

We live in a world where people pick the 2 most hated people in america to be president...When there are 150 million other options...

Democrasy...What the fuck....What does it ammount to? It amounts of a tyranny of 51% of the population tyrannizing the 49%...Half of the population is subjugated by the other half and you call this "Freedom"? What insanity...You allow a breeding pack of retards to control the nations major decisions?? What insanity...Civil war, brutality and world wide panic and chaos will be the only result of your insane follies!

Fucking Neo-nazis support and elected a Zionist jew for president...What the fuck is wrong with the world and society??

Everyone is supposed to praise a fucking Jew and not make a criticism of Zionists jews because its politically incorrect. Because of their stupid fictixous Bible. What insanity, the world is completely batshit insane. I am the only sane motherfucker on the entire planet.

Tiger Woods says an intelligent person would not hate someone for their religion...Why would an intelligent person not hate someone for their religion? It shows that they are a stupid, brainwashed buffoon who believes in fictional religious texts. Why would an intelligent person not hate them when they are the precise reason the world is a pile of shit?

Tiger Woods is feminized with all the rest. Wont stand and fight, but cowers and assimilates into the horde of morons and fuckstains who are driving our world to the ground. For how long do we have to sit back and say its okay for the Jews to bomb Palestine?? How long do we have to say its okay for Doctors to butcher baby genitals?? How long do we submit to their insanity and tyranny like stupid females respecting all religions even Islamic terrorists? What fucking insanity. How fucking insane. For how long are we going to sit back and let insane parents brainwash their kids with lies about a stork and bible and not tell them basic facts of our existence?

I wish John Titor was real. I wish John Titor sent Hitler back into the days of Abraham. No genocide, no political incorrectness. All Hitler had to do was kill one Jew, that's it, just one fucking Jew, and it would have ended this insane tyranny of all the Abrahamic religions. Imagine a world with no Christianity, Islam, or Jewry...A world with only Buddhist and Hindu bullshit religions and a couple of Pagan and Native American spiritual religions. That would be a so much better world, people could actually be sane in that world...But now we are stuck with this global shitshow...we have to take the Catholic Church seriously, when it should be burnt to the ground, just like Catholics burnt witches and scientists back in their day...the Catholics should be banned and their church demolished and burnt to the ground, they should recieve justice for their tyranny and supression of science and higher minds...
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:13 am

Hating someone for what they think is such a waste of mental energy so I agree with the Tiger on this
The world would be better without a single manifestation of religious fundamentalism in all its forms
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby Gamer » Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:47 am

The reason I can't bring myself to hate anyone is that I have kids and I now have a deeper understanding of what people are.
People are whiny babies and if they live long enough get to wear big boy pants. They might use big words but deep down
they and we are all insecure scared babies.

You can't hate people. You can hate certain habits. Like the habit of bullying, the habit of stealing, the habit of denial or willful stupidity that causes self-harm and harm of others, and there's the fact of the limits of one's ability. These habits and cases are all adaptations. To try to thwart or change these habits is also an adaptation. All disagreement comes down to two competing adaptations butting against each other. Knowing this, it's hard to hate people, anyone, for simply being the machines they are; and yet we find a way to hate. That, too, is an adaptation.

You can rail and reason and cajole and punish to break these habits or beliefs down. That's something you have to do at times, you don't have a choice.
It makes no sense to whine about hating, or complain about the way a person or group is, although that, too, is an adaptation. You're complaining about human nature itself and it's a waste of time. Wasting time in this way is an adaptation.

well-meaning people with certain values get busy chopping through the foliage of fallacy with various machetes. There are two and only two conversations. One with reason, the other, with ideology. Issues of reason are annoying because you have to untangle a thicket of fallacies, and work to make sure you're on the same page, and you never are, for reasons both intentional and not.

Issues of ideology are interesting to discuss because they are not just obvious logic problems or issues of soundness and validity. They are mysterious. Sometimes an ideology isn't informed by a fallacy. It's simply a reflection of a value, which is an extension of the nature of the organism. If you unpack the ideology and it's internally consistent and ultimately based on opinion or taste/value that is subjective, you must accept the ideology and co-exist, or set about to convince or inspire one to find a "taste" for a different ideology. Developing taste in alternate ideology is like developing a taste for certain foods. Before you can learn to love wasabi you have to try it, you are indoctrinated by a loving expert who shows you the moves. Getting a conservative to develop a taste for liberalism is as hard as getting a kid who likes only hamburgers and fries to develop a taste for subtle Indian or Korean spices. Not so easy. No amount of logic will do. Either you "like" it or not. Often, people simply like liberal policies b/c of their emotional, psychological, even physical makeup. And upbringing and community play a part, too. None of us are immune to even Isis if we were raised and abused in certain ways, and born without the requisite neurons to make us immune from the baser ways to exorcize our anger.

So when a liberal and conservative tries to pretend it's all a logical disagreement, and that the opponent through their weakness or stupidity or ignorance REFUSES to acknowledge that 2+2=4, they miss the point and prolong the inevitable. Even if all logic was untwisted from its prisons, even if we can prove on a petri dish which things actually work to achieve our so-called shared goals, even if everyone was honest, accountable, and responsible, we'd STILL have fundamental disagreements on what to do and why, because in the end our goals are not and can never be equal.

We are indeed under a tyranny of the plurality in the USA, but the far worse tyranny is in thinking you alone hold the clear light of reason. Thinking your side has a special relationship with honesty and reason and SANITY ITSELF and that your opponent's side doesn't. Next time you debate policy don't get mired in a logical debate or focus on facts since all systems built with facts by humans bear the stench of confirmation bias. It's an impossible job, at least today, to piece together a logical philosophy, political or otherwise, that is universally normative. Walk with humility, and see your opponent as the brother or sister they are, we are all children in pajamas arguing over cave shadows. In light of this, the first order of business should be, if not love, at the very least, compassion, and forgiveness, even as the enemy's dagger slips into our own hearts. Perhaps with this notion in mind, there will one day be less daggers, more hearts. It's not a perfect solution but it's the only one.
User avatar
Gamer
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 2113
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:24 pm

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:20 am

Gamer wrote
well-meaning people with certain values get busy chopping through the foliage of fallacy with various machetes. There are two and only two conversations. One with reason, the other, with ideology. Issues of reason are annoying because you have to untangle a thicket of fallacies, and work to make sure you're on the same page, and you never are, for reasons both intentional and not.

Issues of ideology are interesting to discuss because they are not just obvious logic problems or issues of soundness and validity. They are mysterious. Sometimes an ideology isn't informed by a fallacy. It's simply a reflection of a value, which is an extension of the nature of the organism. If you unpack the ideology and it's internally consistent and ultimately based on opinion or taste/value that is subjective, you must accept the ideology and co-exist, or set about to convince or inspire one to find a "taste" for a different ideology.


Only two conversations?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4115
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:36 am


Only two conversations but they cover absolutely everything so no more are required
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:43 am

That's not how people connect and narrow the divide between them.

Some conversations don't involve words.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4115
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:05 am


No but people still either connect logically or emotionally as there is nothing else
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:25 pm

Gamer wrote:The reason I can't bring myself to hate anyone is that I have kids and I now have a deeper understanding of what people are.
People are whiny babies and if they live long enough get to wear big boy pants. They might use big words but deep down
they and we are all insecure scared babies.

You can't hate people. You can hate certain habits. Like the habit of bullying, the habit of stealing, the habit of denial or willful stupidity that causes self-harm and harm of others, and there's the fact of the limits of one's ability. These habits and cases are all adaptations. To try to thwart or change these habits is also an adaptation. All disagreement comes down to two competing adaptations butting against each other. Knowing this, it's hard to hate people, anyone, for simply being the machines they are; and yet we find a way to hate. That, too, is an adaptation.

You can rail and reason and cajole and punish to break these habits or beliefs down. That's something you have to do at times, you don't have a choice.
It makes no sense to whine about hating, or complain about the way a person or group is, although that, too, is an adaptation. You're complaining about human nature itself and it's a waste of time. Wasting time in this way is an adaptation.

well-meaning people with certain values get busy chopping through the foliage of fallacy with various machetes. There are two and only two conversations. One with reason, the other, with ideology. Issues of reason are annoying because you have to untangle a thicket of fallacies, and work to make sure you're on the same page, and you never are, for reasons both intentional and not.

Issues of ideology are interesting to discuss because they are not just obvious logic problems or issues of soundness and validity. They are mysterious. Sometimes an ideology isn't informed by a fallacy. It's simply a reflection of a value, which is an extension of the nature of the organism. If you unpack the ideology and it's internally consistent and ultimately based on opinion or taste/value that is subjective, you must accept the ideology and co-exist, or set about to convince or inspire one to find a "taste" for a different ideology. Developing taste in alternate ideology is like developing a taste for certain foods. Before you can learn to love wasabi you have to try it, you are indoctrinated by a loving expert who shows you the moves. Getting a conservative to develop a taste for liberalism is as hard as getting a kid who likes only hamburgers and fries to develop a taste for subtle Indian or Korean spices. Not so easy. No amount of logic will do. Either you "like" it or not. Often, people simply like liberal policies b/c of their emotional, psychological, even physical makeup. And upbringing and community play a part, too. None of us are immune to even Isis if we were raised and abused in certain ways, and born without the requisite neurons to make us immune from the baser ways to exorcize our anger.

So when a liberal and conservative tries to pretend it's all a logical disagreement, and that the opponent through their weakness or stupidity or ignorance REFUSES to acknowledge that 2+2=4, they miss the point and prolong the inevitable. Even if all logic was untwisted from its prisons, even if we can prove on a petri dish which things actually work to achieve our so-called shared goals, even if everyone was honest, accountable, and responsible, we'd STILL have fundamental disagreements on what to do and why, because in the end our goals are not and can never be equal.

We are indeed under a tyranny of the plurality in the USA, but the far worse tyranny is in thinking you alone hold the clear light of reason. Thinking your side has a special relationship with honesty and reason and SANITY ITSELF and that your opponent's side doesn't. Next time you debate policy don't get mired in a logical debate or focus on facts since all systems built with facts by humans bear the stench of confirmation bias. It's an impossible job, at least today, to piece together a logical philosophy, political or otherwise, that is universally normative. Walk with humility, and see your opponent as the brother or sister they are, we are all children in pajamas arguing over cave shadows. In light of this, the first order of business should be, if not love, at the very least, compassion, and forgiveness, even as the enemy's dagger slips into our own hearts. Perhaps with this notion in mind, there will one day be less daggers, more hearts. It's not a perfect solution but it's the only one.


I don't hate people either. But believe it or not I am wiser than you, or Bill Nye even.

Bill Nye declares utopia as riding bicycles, I declare that as lame-osity to the extreme.
I don't hate meat-eaters but I hate their evil. I only hate the chinese because they abuse animals.
I don't even hate the jews, I just hate the evil of the Jews. As emperor of earth I would sit on my throne feeling sad all the time for doing what I had to do. I would gaze into space hoping for the DNA machine and better days. But I would have to do what I had to do. I would have to cut off the balls of every jew because to do otherwise would be an injustice. The jews go around butchering baby penises and continually evade justice, it's a grave injustice. Justice demands retributions.

I would also ban all abrahamic religions, I would ban judiasm christianity and muslimism too. I would cut off the balls of every christian doctor who ever authorized or sanctioned baby genital mutilation.

Deep down, I am a nice person. But I can't let evil people roam earth and do evil things freely without any kind of punishment. Cutting off their balls is two birds with one stone, it is direct justice and also prevents their insane religious beliefs from spreading or infecting their offspring and brainwashing more children into their insanity and evil.

You might say you are more enlightened than me by advocating pacifism and letting go and letting evil people run around and butcher baby genitals freely with no punishment, but I know that pacifism leads to only more evil running rampant.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:43 pm

Emotions are the basis of all communication, all thoughts, without their impetus you would fail to qualify as a sentient being. However, there are more than two types of conversations, hence we have the fine arts, non-verbal communication, extra-sensory perceptions, etc.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4115
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:44 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Emotions are the basis of all communication, all thoughts, without their impetus you would fail to qualify as a sentient being. However, there are more than two types of conversations, hence we have the fine arts, non-verbal communication, extra-sensory perceptions, etc.


meat eaters have no emotions, thus by your own definition they are not sentient. hitler had lots of emotions so by your definition he is highly sentient thus proving arc wrong.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:00 pm

Trixiebelle,

Human beings, our animal bodies, require meat for a balanced diet and sustained physical activity. In three months, Merlin and I will be eating the catfish we catch.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4115
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby surreptitious57 » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:50 pm


Artistic expression and non verbal communication are emotional
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:42 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Trixiebelle,

Human beings, our animal bodies, require meat for a balanced diet and sustained physical activity. In three months, Merlin and I will be eating the catfish we catch.


Thats fine. As president of america i would not ban hunting.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby surreptitious57 » Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:45 am


But why would you do that when you think that eating meat is evil
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby surreptitious57 » Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:51 am

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
Deep down I am a nice person

This is the reason why I like you so much

You may appear tough on the outside but inside you are a gentle soul
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:32 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
But why would you do that when you think that eating meat is evil


Because i dont ban animal instincts.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby Gamer » Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:46 am

And what of Jewish women? They don't have balls last time I checked. And what about Jewish people who were victimized by circumcision themselves but never actually was involved in anything to do with curcumcising another. Perhaps a kid or teenager, or a man who didn't believe in circumcision?

You're what we call in above 130-iq land parlance a common numskull.
User avatar
Gamer
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 2113
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:24 pm

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby Uccisore » Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:04 am

Today I learned 'numskull' is not a misspelling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13172
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby James S Saint » Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:07 am

Gamer wrote:And what of Jewish women? They don't have balls last time I checked.

And precisely when was that? :-s
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24670
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby incorrect » Sun Feb 12, 2017 7:09 pm

How many pathetic retards do I have to take seriously??


14
Image
User avatar
incorrect
Thinker
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:27 am

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:24 pm

Gamer wrote:And what of Jewish women? They don't have balls last time I checked. And what about Jewish people who were victimized by circumcision themselves but never actually was involved in anything to do with curcumcising another. Perhaps a kid or teenager, or a man who didn't believe in circumcision?

You're what we call in above 130-iq land parlance a common numskull.


My IQ is higher than 130 you fucking pathetic retard.

You're a common pacifist numskull who wont stop circumcision. When dealing with numskulls, extremes are needed to drive a point across.
With people like you, we'd just sit on our asses and get raped and circumcized for all eternity like a bunch of sheep.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby Gamer » Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:49 am

There is no way your iq is anywhere near 130. It's not that your ideas are merely sociopathic, they are also riddled with dimestore fallacies. I place you at 118 and that's generous.
User avatar
Gamer
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 2113
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:24 pm

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby unlz » Sun Feb 19, 2017 3:53 am

hi guys, nice read. also very interesting, think of all this text as a essay and you need to analyze all the participants and make a profile. underline keywords. take a closer look. :))) you dont need anything more than common sense and some basic psychology understanding
unlz
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:54 am

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby unlz » Sun Feb 19, 2017 3:58 am

iq is irrelevant. that number is only viable in a controlled scenario. if you got iq 210 there's still a good chance you're not hot stuff..iq only brings stigma of like, you are so smart you need to make something...it doesnt work that way. you can be a genious and not be the smartest guy in the room... 20-50 difference is laughable. whole mensa thing is a joke, insult to true intelligence.
unlz
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:54 am

Re: How many do I have to take seriously??

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:19 pm

Gamer wrote:There is no way your iq is anywhere near 130. It's not that your ideas are merely sociopathic, they are also riddled with dimestore fallacies. I place you at 118 and that's generous.


Fallacies are they themselves fallacies, someone reliant on exposing fallacies is he himself committing a fallacy. My high iq is probably higher than yours, psychiatrist thought I cheated the test by saying I was too smart for him to think I didn't cheat. My IQ is much higher than a measly peasant 118!

You have a prepodensy to lie, you say my IQ is 118, that is a bold faced lie, you are a liar and I can't stand liars, it grinds my very gears. You disgust me to my very bones. I wonder if you made the IQ charts of the presidents...totally bogus...how the hell would you know the IQ of abe lincoln or george washington anyway?

You use the term "sociopath" as some kind of insult, it shows that you are a bold faced socially-programmed idiot, I bet you take the DSM 5 as your bible don't you.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm


Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users