Mccain Picks hott slut as running mate
[views:72866][posts:259]__________________________________________
[Aug 30,2008 12:43pm - Conservationist ""]
pam said:
Conservationist said:
pam said:Creationist, Anti-Roe v Wade, anti gay marriage, NRA member, and the wife of a fucking oil man (great for that whole "wean ourselves off oil platform)...has been quoted to saying she doesn't pay much attention to the war in Iraq- the one that dingbat is about to ship off a son to fight in mind you...are you shittin me?
"She's not a libbity lib progressive like me, so she should be gassed and thrown into an oven."
I'm actually not that liberal. I have pretty conservative views on immigration, I'm anti- affimative action, think welfare should be available but strictly regulated so no one can cheat it, and have down-the-middle views on some other shit. I just happen to believe that *GASP* the government shouldn't dictate what I do with my fucking body, nor should it dictate who can marry who.
You cannot logically tell me you are for less government (like you Ron Paul people) and tell me it's OK for the big brother to control a woman's uterus or lord over civil unions and marriage with a big brick bible. That's hypocritical and fucking stupid. That's not smaller government, that's you hiding a personal vendetta under the guise of family fucking values bullshit.
Human rights, even for people that aren't straight, white, and male...what a hippy I am. Lick my ass, cunts.
Idiots.
I'm for less delusional government.
Yes, I don't like creationism either, nor would I ever ban abortion (it's dysgenic), but I'm not clueless enough to run to the opposite party because of those SMALL issues relative to the BIGGER issue of direction.
My feeling has always been that the Confederacy was right: states should decide these issues, not the federal gov't, because states are going to vary in political outlook... in general, the places I want to live are the conservative places, because there are FEWER PARASITES.
Of course, you'd rather call me an idiot than read what I've written on this topic. Awesome. Internet++
[Aug 30,2008 12:44pm - dreadkill ""]
everyone acts like obama is the twin brother of wesley snipes. has anyone actually looked at the guy? he looks way more like his white mother than his black father.
[Aug 30,2008 12:46pm - Conservationist ""]
Conservationist said:
pam said:Creationist, Anti-Roe v Wade, anti gay marriage, NRA member, and the wife of a fucking oil man (great for that whole "wean ourselves off oil platform)...has been quoted to saying she doesn't pay much attention to the war in Iraq- the one that dingbat is about to ship off a son to fight in mind you...are you shittin me?
"She's not a libbity lib progressive like me, so she should be gassed and thrown into an oven."
Let's look at Pam's full rant here:
* Creationist
* Anti-Abortion
* NRA member
* Wife of an oil man
* Doesn't pay attention to the war in Iraq
The rest was incoherent so we'll skip it.
Creationist: if people have religious freedom, they may want the right to this belief and who are we to say it's ignorant?
Anti-Abortion: not my issue. In fact, I think it's a flagship issue of little consequence. Racists should note: most abortions performed in USA are on black women.
NRA member: I support the right to keep and bear arms, so I can kill ghetto dwellers and delusional Crowdists alike.
Wife of an oil man: lots of good people earn money from the oil industry, because they're trying to feed their families. Do you want us all to take safe careers so we can starve? Awesome libbityness.
Doesn't pay attention to the war in Iraq: neither does most of the USA, because they realize it's a war to establish middle eastern hegemony.
[Aug 30,2008 1:23pm - zyklon ""]
rbass said:Hoser - I have never responded to your bullshit on this forum before, mainly because it is a huge waste of time, but goddamnit you are obnoxious. Fuck your racist bullshit. I hope Bo-Vice from Dorchester comes to your house and night-rapes and then bukkake-s you and your woman.
Ok I have shit to do all day, bye. Dumbass.
Hoser is a stupid, ignorant red neck that's living among educated people. You're embarrassing the white race
[Aug 30,2008 1:59pm - mortalis ""]
rotivore said:[img]
DP in the oval office. best moment in american history? i think so.
[Aug 30,2008 4:16pm - Conservationist ""]
zyklon said:Hoser is a stupid, ignorant red neck that's living among educated people.
Oh, for fuck's sake...
If we're all such enlightened and tolerant people, let him have his opinion and speak it.
What could we all be afraid of?
[Aug 30,2008 4:58pm - zyklon ""]
Speak for yourself buddy
[Aug 30,2008 5:17pm - Murph ""]
Conservationist said:
pam said:
Conservationist said:
pam said:
I'm for less delusional government.
Yes, I don't like creationism either, nor would I ever ban abortion (it's dysgenic), but I'm not clueless enough to run to the opposite party because of those SMALL issues relative to the BIGGER issue of direction.
My feeling has always been that the Confederacy was right: states should decide these issues, not the federal gov't, because states are going to vary in political outlook... in general, the places I want to live are the conservative places, because there are FEWER PARASITES.
Of course, you'd rather call me an idiot than read what I've written on this topic. Awesome. Internet++
The fact that you ascribe any value at all to ethnonationalism blows my mind. The only single factor in ethnic progression is food production, which has more to do with latitudes than it does the color of one's skin or the race someone is identified with.
Calling a particular group of people or person a PARASITE(S) is subjective and means nothing.
The Confederacy was not right, especially as American legislation has progressed. No matter what you say it is impossible to maintain a healthy, economically sound, and domestically-fluid nation allowing States to supercede Federal law. Allowing citizens to disperse in different states based on some legislative grab-bag is divisive and would eventually invalidate the Constitution (which I do not deny should be more flexible). Trying to maintain equitable trade between states whose laws are different would prove difficult and in some cases impossible.
Trying to base a state on political tenets is unbelievable. Even though political analysts who couldn't have a single constructive nor original thought in a lifetime babble on about blue states and red state, to actually denominate a state as having to adhere to a political faction at this point would really create about 3-4 different types of states, ie. three or four different small countries which will most likely not border each other and require separate, non-unified policing based on individual policy.
Your bullshit amounts to one principle: you want division because you pigeonhole people and their ideologies, which is rigid and non-realistic. People exist, and the only way to synthesize is to have as many minds working toward goals as possible, and I don't see how anything you've brought forth is at all constructive.
[Aug 30,2008 5:21pm - Murph ""]
I do admit though, this Conservationist fellow is eloquent enough that he could probably sell many people in this country a piece of dog shit and convince them it's gold.
[Aug 30,2008 7:21pm - Conservationist ""]
Your bullshit amounts to one principle: you want division because you pigeonhole people and their ideologies, which is rigid and non-realistic. People exist, and the only way to synthesize is to have as many minds working toward goals as possible, and I don't see how anything you've brought forth is at all constructive.
So we've gone from POLITICAL analysis to POP PSYCHOLOGY?
Minds are mostly deterministic; see THE BLANK SLATE by STEVEN PINKER. You are your abilities, and those determine most of your outlook.
Further, I'm aware that for most situations, there is one good approach with some variations; anything else is pretense.
For this reason, I see that people are inherently divided by their degree of realism and that for the most part, it is inherent.
I don't necessarily like this division, in a moral or preferential sense, but it exists and I think we should deal with it and move on. It comes down to the same psychology of "I wish I looked like Brad Pitt" or "I wish I had Marg Helgenberg's mammaries." We are different but we live in the same world, although this knowledge is not commonly known.
Now on to the political part:
No matter what you say it is impossible to maintain a healthy, economically sound, and domestically-fluid nation allowing States to supercede Federal law.
I am not speaking of states superceding Federal law, as one might have to do in order to secede from the nation.
I am speaking of states' rights applying in scope, so that certain laws (abortion, gun control, drugs, etc) could be seen as within the realm of the state and not the federation.
This was how America was originally designed, 1776-1789, and it works best when there is no consensus and there's unlikely to be one.
(Not to split hairs, but this is actually a separate issue from ethnonationalism. The reasons for ethnonationalism are many; I'm talking here about the divisions within the electorate as a whole, and I believe it would also apply to an all-white or all-black electorate in America, and so on. The word PARASITE is not used to refer to a specific genetic group, just people who behave like parasites. I think we all know them and realize they are not limited to any one ethnic group, although some will argue they occur in different percentages in different ethnic groups; my argument is that PARASITISM occurs as a psychology and that nations are healthier without much of it.)
Here's some interesting genetic determination evidence:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...tsview/2008/07/political-parti.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/science/21gene.html
I do admit though, this Conservationist fellow is eloquent enough that he could probably sell many people in this country a piece of dog shit and convince them it's gold.
Thank you for the kind words. I love this stuff. Parents, don't let your kids be debaters. And if they do become debaters, don't let them study philosophy. After that, keep them from writing on politics. Drug addiction is better than being obsessed with the structure of logical argument.
[Aug 30,2008 8:38pm - Murph ""]
Conservationist said:
Minds are mostly deterministic; see THE BLANK SLATE by STEVEN PINKER. You are your abilities, and those determine most of your outlook.
Further, I'm aware that for most situations, there is one good approach with some variations; anything else is pretense.
For this reason, I see that people are inherently divided by their degree of realism and that for the most part, it is inherent.
I am not speaking of states superceding Federal law, as one might have to do in order to secede from the nation.
I am speaking of states' rights applying in scope, so that certain laws (abortion, gun control, drugs, etc) could be seen as within the realm of the state and not the federation.
This was how America was originally designed, 1776-1789, and it works best when there is no consensus and there's unlikely to be one.
(Not to split hairs, but this is actually a separate issue from ethnonationalism. The reasons for ethnonationalism are many; I'm talking here about the divisions within the electorate as a whole, and I believe it would also apply to an all-white or all-black electorate in America, and so on. The word PARASITE is not used to refer to a specific genetic group, just people who behave like parasites. I think we all know them and realize they are not limited to any one ethnic group, although some will argue they occur in different percentages in different ethnic groups; my argument is that PARASITISM occurs as a psychology and that nations are healthier without much of it.)
I will look into the book by Pinker, but to say 'You are your abilities' is not fact, but thesis, as ranging someone's abilities is a matter of outside perspective, not introspection. My point was not against the realm of causation, but rather that the combination of more possible outlooks serves to allow the construction of ideas, and the synthesis of those ideas (such as the formulas we are using to create this argument, and the materials used to create opinions).
Determinism is a doctrine, not some infallible principle. I think it is safe to say anomalies exist, as you open up to by stating that one's abilities determine MOST of a person's outlook. Another part of a person's outlook is their rearing, another instance in life where a certain type of childhood does not always produce the expected product. Perhaps here I could inject a bit of breadth and social responsibility into your point of there being usually 'one good approach' with some variations' when confronting an issue. Even if your point is true, those making the decisions, along with their consideration of those the decisions affect are the basic tenets of human interaction and responsibility. Here is where the theory of determinism holds ground, as the causes to all human issues does in some way affect all humans, no matter how miniscule it might be.
I agree people are divided by their different sense of what is real, however, Zilboorg points out 'The sense of reality is not the static result of a certain psychological developmental process but is fluid and changeable.' If it was not, people would not have a sense of idealism, which affects one's choices (in my case, one might say a sense of 'nostalgic escapism.') Differing senses of realism in society push forward new ideas, new modes, and drive forms of expression. Even if our sense of reality is inherent, isn't it possible the admiration or condemnation of someone else's might affect our own?
To put it flatly, our sense of the 'state' is not the same as it was when the country was formed. These states were instrumental in serving one goal (albeit somewhat sub-conciously) which was to bring forth differing ideals, and through the interaction of this multinational congregation, we formed a federation to serve each person equally. The state is a conduit of the federation, not an undermining body. The United States is an experiment in breaking the barriers that you for some reason feel so akin to, which are band/tribal in theme.
America lived from 1776-1787 under the Articles of Confederation. Let's be realistic, they were too weak. The reason? Their divisiveness.
To say parasites are found less in conservative areas is to state that conservatism usually isn't a parasite itself. It is subjective. We are all dregs in our own way. As you stated before, people are divided due to their sense of realism, which here would place the function of parasite to mean something to you, and something else to another. If we are surrounding ourselves with only those akin to us, WE WILL DIE OUT. It is the ability to see our opposite and live with it that strengthens our own perceptions.
Satre pined to create his Existentialist credo as the answer to many of the 'extreme issues' Marxism, through its tenets of materialism and determinism, could not. Yet, as we progress through the works, we see that Existenialism at its reduction was a 'parasite' of Marxism. Interesting.
sprinkle some fries on those CUPCAKES.
[Aug 30,2008 8:57pm - The Revealer ""]
http://vpilf.com
[Aug 31,2008 12:11am - shannon ""]
READ said:Dude this lady is a joke. Mccain will die in office and this bitch will be running our country. This is why the world ends in 2012. She opened her speech talking about her husband and hes a champion snow machine rider. Screw this country i want to puke all over myself.
You just took the words right out of my mouth-
[Aug 31,2008 2:11am - the_reverend ""]
the daily show said that she looked like basically 1/2 the girls on tv. all they need is glasses.
[Aug 31,2008 2:23am - the_reverend ""]
[img]
[Aug 31,2008 2:26am - the_reverend ""]
http://images.google.com/images?q=Sarah%20...l&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi
[Aug 31,2008 9:21pm - the_reverend ""]
[img]
[Aug 31,2008 9:54pm - archaeon ""]
[img]
thx 4chan
[Aug 31,2008 10:46pm - Conservationist ""]
Murph said:
Conservationist said:
Minds are mostly deterministic; see THE BLANK SLATE by STEVEN PINKER. You are your abilities, and those determine most of your outlook.
Further, I'm aware that for most situations, there is one good approach with some variations; anything else is pretense.
For this reason, I see that people are inherently divided by their degree of realism and that for the most part, it is inherent.
I am not speaking of states superceding Federal law, as one might have to do in order to secede from the nation.
I am speaking of states' rights applying in scope, so that certain laws (abortion, gun control, drugs, etc) could be seen as within the realm of the state and not the federation.
This was how America was originally designed, 1776-1789, and it works best when there is no consensus and there's unlikely to be one.
(Not to split hairs, but this is actually a separate issue from ethnonationalism. The reasons for ethnonationalism are many; I'm talking here about the divisions within the electorate as a whole, and I believe it would also apply to an all-white or all-black electorate in America, and so on. The word PARASITE is not used to refer to a specific genetic group, just people who behave like parasites. I think we all know them and realize they are not limited to any one ethnic group, although some will argue they occur in different percentages in different ethnic groups; my argument is that PARASITISM occurs as a psychology and that nations are healthier without much of it.)
I will look into the book by Pinker, but to say 'You are your abilities' is not fact, but thesis, as ranging someone's abilities is a matter of outside perspective, not introspection. My point was not against the realm of causation, but rather that the combination of more possible outlooks serves to allow the construction of ideas, and the synthesis of those ideas (such as the formulas we are using to create this argument, and the materials used to create opinions).
Determinism is a doctrine, not some infallible principle. I think it is safe to say anomalies exist, as you open up to by stating that one's abilities determine MOST of a person's outlook. Another part of a person's outlook is their rearing, another instance in life where a certain type of childhood does not always produce the expected product. Perhaps here I could inject a bit of breadth and social responsibility into your point of there being usually 'one good approach' with some variations' when confronting an issue. Even if your point is true, those making the decisions, along with their consideration of those the decisions affect are the basic tenets of human interaction and responsibility. Here is where the theory of determinism holds ground, as the causes to all human issues does in some way affect all humans, no matter how miniscule it might be.
I agree people are divided by their different sense of what is real, however, Zilboorg points out 'The sense of reality is not the static result of a certain psychological developmental process but is fluid and changeable.' If it was not, people would not have a sense of idealism, which affects one's choices (in my case, one might say a sense of 'nostalgic escapism.') Differing senses of realism in society push forward new ideas, new modes, and drive forms of expression. Even if our sense of reality is inherent, isn't it possible the admiration or condemnation of someone else's might affect our own?
To put it flatly, our sense of the 'state' is not the same as it was when the country was formed. These states were instrumental in serving one goal (albeit somewhat sub-conciously) which was to bring forth differing ideals, and through the interaction of this multinational congregation, we formed a federation to serve each person equally. The state is a conduit of the federation, not an undermining body. The United States is an experiment in breaking the barriers that you for some reason feel so akin to, which are band/tribal in theme.
America lived from 1776-1787 under the Articles of Confederation. Let's be realistic, they were too weak. The reason? Their divisiveness.
To say parasites are found less in conservative areas is to state that conservatism usually isn't a parasite itself. It is subjective. We are all dregs in our own way. As you stated before, people are divided due to their sense of realism, which here would place the function of parasite to mean something to you, and something else to another. If we are surrounding ourselves with only those akin to us, WE WILL DIE OUT. It is the ability to see our opposite and live with it that strengthens our own perceptions.
Satre pined to create his Existentialist credo as the answer to many of the 'extreme issues' Marxism, through its tenets of materialism and determinism, could not. Yet, as we progress through the works, we see that Existenialism at its reduction was a 'parasite' of Marxism. Interesting.
sprinkle some fries on those CUPCAKES.
All facts are theses, by this definition, because undiscovered correlative facts could change their meanings
" the combination of more possible outlooks serves to allow the construction of ideas" -- yet you assume each of those are distinct ideas, and that they are not self-serving. Are humans not on the whole self-serving? And of 10,000 men, do you not find four or five ideas repeated in different form?
Determinism is a doctrine, but so is its opposite. And if we admit that both predetermined capabilities (nature) and learned capabilities (nurture) influence a person, cannot we reverse your argument and say that there is no proof anomalies are only anomalies, and that if most people follow the pattern of nature being MORE IMPORTANT THAN nurture, that it is the guiding principle here?
Name exceptions, if you would, otherwise... I sense fantasy on the wing, and recommend you read Pinker. First, intelligence is wholly heritable, barring negative events. It cannot be improved. With education it can be guided, but a 105 never outpaces a 125 on the IQ scale. So we can see the trend goes in one way but not the other.
"Zilboorg points out 'The sense of reality is not the static result of a certain psychological developmental process but is fluid and changeable.' If it was not, people would not have a sense of idealism" -- no agreement here whatsoever, as it does not account for people being hardwired toward that idealism, or that idealism being a compensative factor (cognitive dissonance). Differing senses of realism -- but there is one reality -- so you are saying that people being in error contributes somehow to discourse? Really? Only if one does not ever want to arrive at an answer, an event feared only by those who are afraid of what that answer means FOR THEM PERSONALLY.
As to your points about the division of states, consider this: right now, the country is vastly divided. No one side wins for long. Who loses? The people, as they have inconsistent leadership that spends more time infighting than addressing actual issues. A sign of a declining civilization... the original ideas of confederation, based on the 13 colonies, would free successful areas from obligation to other areas, and vice versa. It would be no more divisive than now because the opinions of individuals would remain the same, so would the division in society.
"To say parasites are found less in conservative areas is to state that conservatism usually isn't a parasite itself. It is subjective. We are all dregs in our own way. As you stated before, people are divided due to their sense of realism, which here would place the function of parasite to mean something to you, and something else to another. " -- ah, a semantic argument! To say the word parasite means one thing to someone, and another to something else, does not change the DEFINITION OF PARASITE, only the term used to refer to it. We can play word games all day long.
Why do conservative areas have fewer parasites? Because they are less concerned with inequality, and so do not support as many parasites. Compare the midwest to the coasts.
"If we are surrounding ourselves with only those akin to us, WE WILL DIE OUT. It is the ability to see our opposite and live with it that strengthens our own perceptions." -- this doesn't follow. If we are surrounded by those near us, AND WE ARE REALISTIC, we have no need for these partially realistic delusional perspectives you speak so highly of.
Marxism is a distillation of Hegelianism, or the idea that through conflict we arrive at a higher form of socialization. Well, let's see... planet in ruins, still constant conflict, nuclear proliferation, pollution, less literacy and more people... I think Hegelianism has failed. Other than our technology, are we better off or worse off than in the past?
We will die out, I'd argue, if we cannot find reality and agree on it, which does not mean that every perspective can be considered equally.
[Sep 1,2008 2:01am - zyklon ""]
[img]
[Sep 1,2008 2:03am - zyklon ""]
...
[Sep 1,2008 3:12am - Murph ""]
Conservationist said:
Murph said:
Conservationist said:
Minds are mostly deterministic; see THE BLANK SLATE by STEVEN PINKER. You are your abilities, and those determine most of your outlook.
Further, I'm aware that for most situations, there is one good approach with some variations; anything else is pretense.
For this reason, I see that people are inherently divided by their degree of realism and that for the most part, it is inherent.
I am not speaking of states superceding Federal law, as one might have to do in order to secede from the nation.
I am speaking of states' rights applying in scope, so that certain laws (abortion, gun control, drugs, etc) could be seen as within the realm of the state and not the federation.
This was how America was originally designed, 1776-1789, and it works best when there is no consensus and there's unlikely to be one.
(Not to split hairs, but this is actually a separate issue from ethnonationalism. The reasons for ethnonationalism are many; I'm talking here about the divisions within the electorate as a whole, and I believe it would also apply to an all-white or all-black electorate in America, and so on. The word PARASITE is not used to refer to a specific genetic group, just people who behave like parasites. I think we all know them and realize they are not limited to any one ethnic group, although some will argue they occur in different percentages in different ethnic groups; my argument is that PARASITISM occurs as a psychology and that nations are healthier without much of it.)
I will look into the book by Pinker, but to say 'You are your abilities' is not fact, but thesis, as ranging someone's abilities is a matter of outside perspective, not introspection. My point was not against the realm of causation, but rather that the combination of more possible outlooks serves to allow the construction of ideas, and the synthesis of those ideas (such as the formulas we are using to create this argument, and the materials used to create opinions).
Determinism is a doctrine, not some infallible principle. I think it is safe to say anomalies exist, as you open up to by stating that one's abilities determine MOST of a person's outlook. Another part of a person's outlook is their rearing, another instance in life where a certain type of childhood does not always produce the expected product. Perhaps here I could inject a bit of breadth and social responsibility into your point of there being usually 'one good approach' with some variations' when confronting an issue. Even if your point is true, those making the decisions, along with their consideration of those the decisions affect are the basic tenets of human interaction and responsibility. Here is where the theory of determinism holds ground, as the causes to all human issues does in some way affect all humans, no matter how miniscule it might be.
I agree people are divided by their different sense of what is real, however, Zilboorg points out 'The sense of reality is not the static result of a certain psychological developmental process but is fluid and changeable.' If it was not, people would not have a sense of idealism, which affects one's choices (in my case, one might say a sense of 'nostalgic escapism.') Differing senses of realism in society push forward new ideas, new modes, and drive forms of expression. Even if our sense of reality is inherent, isn't it possible the admiration or condemnation of someone else's might affect our own?
To put it flatly, our sense of the 'state' is not the same as it was when the country was formed. These states were instrumental in serving one goal (albeit somewhat sub-conciously) which was to bring forth differing ideals, and through the interaction of this multinational congregation, we formed a federation to serve each person equally. The state is a conduit of the federation, not an undermining body. The United States is an experiment in breaking the barriers that you for some reason feel so akin to, which are band/tribal in theme.
America lived from 1776-1787 under the Articles of Confederation. Let's be realistic, they were too weak. The reason? Their divisiveness.
To say parasites are found less in conservative areas is to state that conservatism usually isn't a parasite itself. It is subjective. We are all dregs in our own way. As you stated before, people are divided due to their sense of realism, which here would place the function of parasite to mean something to you, and something else to another. If we are surrounding ourselves with only those akin to us, WE WILL DIE OUT. It is the ability to see our opposite and live with it that strengthens our own perceptions.
Satre pined to create his Existentialist credo as the answer to many of the 'extreme issues' Marxism, through its tenets of materialism and determinism, could not. Yet, as we progress through the works, we see that Existenialism at its reduction was a 'parasite' of Marxism. Interesting.
sprinkle some fries on those CUPCAKES.
All facts are theses, by this definition, because undiscovered correlative facts could change their meanings
" the combination of more possible outlooks serves to allow the construction of ideas" -- yet you assume each of those are distinct ideas, and that they are not self-serving. Are humans not on the whole self-serving? And of 10,000 men, do you not find four or five ideas repeated in different form?
Determinism is a doctrine, but so is its opposite. And if we admit that both predetermined capabilities (nature) and learned capabilities (nurture) influence a person, cannot we reverse your argument and say that there is no proof anomalies are only anomalies, and that if most people follow the pattern of nature being MORE IMPORTANT THAN nurture, that it is the guiding principle here?
Name exceptions, if you would, otherwise... I sense fantasy on the wing, and recommend you read Pinker. First, intelligence is wholly heritable, barring negative events. It cannot be improved. With education it can be guided, but a 105 never outpaces a 125 on the IQ scale. So we can see the trend goes in one way but not the other.
"Zilboorg points out 'The sense of reality is not the static result of a certain psychological developmental process but is fluid and changeable.' If it was not, people would not have a sense of idealism" -- no agreement here whatsoever, as it does not account for people being hardwired toward that idealism, or that idealism being a compensative factor (cognitive dissonance). Differing senses of realism -- but there is one reality -- so you are saying that people being in error contributes somehow to discourse? Really? Only if one does not ever want to arrive at an answer, an event feared only by those who are afraid of what that answer means FOR THEM PERSONALLY.
As to your points about the division of states, consider this: right now, the country is vastly divided. No one side wins for long. Who loses? The people, as they have inconsistent leadership that spends more time infighting than addressing actual issues. A sign of a declining civilization... the original ideas of confederation, based on the 13 colonies, would free successful areas from obligation to other areas, and vice versa. It would be no more divisive than now because the opinions of individuals would remain the same, so would the division in society.
"To say parasites are found less in conservative areas is to state that conservatism usually isn't a parasite itself. It is subjective. We are all dregs in our own way. As you stated before, people are divided due to their sense of realism, which here would place the function of parasite to mean something to you, and something else to another. " -- ah, a semantic argument! To say the word parasite means one thing to someone, and another to something else, does not change the DEFINITION OF PARASITE, only the term used to refer to it. We can play word games all day long.
Why do conservative areas have fewer parasites? Because they are less concerned with inequality, and so do not support as many parasites. Compare the midwest to the coasts.
"If we are surrounding ourselves with only those akin to us, WE WILL DIE OUT. It is the ability to see our opposite and live with it that strengthens our own perceptions." -- this doesn't follow. If we are surrounded by those near us, AND WE ARE REALISTIC, we have no need for these partially realistic delusional perspectives you speak so highly of.
Marxism is a distillation of Hegelianism, or the idea that through conflict we arrive at a higher form of socialization. Well, let's see... planet in ruins, still constant conflict, nuclear proliferation, pollution, less literacy and more people... I think Hegelianism has failed. Other than our technology, are we better off or worse off than in the past?
We will die out, I'd argue, if we cannot find reality and agree on it, which does not mean that every perspective can be considered equally.
This has been your most forced post yet.
Intelligence may be inheritable, but to strip away the potential for advancement for a single mind at any time is a waste of what it is to be human, which, barring INJURY OR DISEASE is a constant POTENTIAL for growth. It might seem fitting to be cynical, but it is in no way close to reality. Some people born into considerably low-functioning, low-stimulus environments go on to live lives of incredible intellect and cognitive function. Your NATURE vs. NURTURE argument follows trend in situations most often when the standard of living in a particular area matches the education provided to those in the area ie. the ability to 'move up' correlates to the position deemed at birth or through economic status during the formative years. It is impossible to deem 'anomalies' just 'anomalies' because those anomalies produce the results that move the margins and shift perceived life expectancies past perceived limits. They are useful to actuaries, perhaps, but in real life, your hunches are just that: hunches.
I never consider that all ideas are constructive, yet it is impossible to be exacting when dealing with influence in the structure of the human mind and its ingenuity. Why play safe and categorically say that within a certain group of people, only this permutation of ideas can be created, deemed to be of only so much worth? Why is it that 4-5 ideas so similar mean less? Perhaps that is an indication of an idea holding more weight that 4-5 answers of vastly different properties? WHY BE SO EXACTING?
A 105 never outpaces a 125 on the scale? So the higher an IQ score the better quality of life someone can have? There is no need for an intelligent answer here because no matter how a person scores on a HUMAN test administered to measure PERCEIVED intelligence, to negate free choice in the destiny of any individual is to deny what is essentially human: some may be provided with a natural advantage, but it is to the individual to use that in a way that prospers. A 105 could lead a much more fulfilling life than a 125 if the 125 makes choices that do not fit with the normative being of society.
Someone being in error does account to discourse. While perhaps a bit cheeky for argumentative purposes, it is impossible to grasp the most normative behaviors without studying their most deviant possibilities. No single person's mind is able to comprehend all things in the most sound of ways, as the mathematics just weigh too heavy in the favor of error.
Your points about confederation are simply personal taste, and favor nothing of reality. Your point of inconsistent leadership is laughable, as having 13 states within a single nation with as much power as you propose would lead to 13 individual voices of (hopefully) equal power and might? Oh, that's right, some states who 'have it right' should not have to worry about those 'in the wrong.' There is no textbook that can solve the issues we have, which is why, as a united nation we use the platofrms of states to present problems which, as a whole, can be used to advance each state in its own way. WHERE'S THE FLEXIBILITY? And to be so wry as to say my parasitic point was a semantic argument means you've never studied a language outside of your native tongue: a perceived 'universal' definition of a word does not exist! In some biological cases a parasite can be something wholly negative or wholly necessary (japanese beetle vs. caituru fish). The definition of parasite is an arbitrary title: to place so much upon a perceived meaning is too rigid.
Also, I'm am neither a Marxist or neo-Marxist, so there is no need to fret. Your incredulous attitude toward my want for differing views is just too shortsighted: of course not every point-of-view holds the same weight, but that's not what I'm proposing. The fact is, there is not much we can do to affect the fact that no matter how streamlined and uniform our education system could possibly be, some people will believe and act just how the feel necessary, even in some cases completely in the face of convention and rationality. But we cannot cut those people off from ourselves. Discourse, now as much as ever before, keeps ourselves relevant. Every aspect of life, from humor to politics deals with cultural relevance. I just do not see how your ideas of separatism could at all benefit our way of life: you must realize no matter how we try only a fraction of the population could even participate in the argument we're having. There are only so many biological factors one can process in order to understand people until we being to realize that some people just choose to function at a certain level.
[Sep 1,2008 7:52am - Conservationist ""]
Forced post? Only if we accept what you say your arguments prove, instead of looking at your arguments. What you're trying to do here is rush us to "agree to disagree" without admitting the FACTS do not back up your point at all.
"Intelligence may be inheritable, but to strip away the potential for advancement for a single mind at any time is a waste of what it is to be human, which, barring INJURY OR DISEASE is a constant POTENTIAL for growth. " -- No, it's not. Intelligence does not grow. A person of IQ 105 never becomes a person of IQ 125. Potential for growth occurs through natural selection, or depressing the 105s and ensuring the 125s breed.
"t it is in no way close to reality. Some people born into considerably low-functioning, low-stimulus environments go on to live lives of incredible intellect and cognitive function. Your NATURE vs. NURTURE argument follows trend in situations most often when the standard of living in a particular area matches the education provided to those in the area ie. the ability to 'move up' correlates to the position deemed at birth or through economic status during the formative years." You're arguing backward here. In most areas where education is good, the parents of the children were successful or sacrificed to move them there, so the raw material -- the children -- already have the genetic ability to move up.
"I never consider that all ideas are constructive, yet it is impossible to be exacting when dealing with influence in the structure of the human mind and its ingenuity. Why play safe and categorically say that within a certain group of people, only this permutation of ideas can be created, deemed to be of only so much worth? Why is it that 4-5 ideas so similar mean less? Perhaps that is an indication of an idea holding more weight that 4-5 answers of vastly different properties? WHY BE SO EXACTING?"
"So the higher an IQ score the better quality of life someone can have?"
You're asking the wrong question here. The question is not worth, or quality of life, but ability to do things, including logical analysis and action.
"There is no need for an intelligent answer here because no matter how a person scores on a HUMAN test administered to measure PERCEIVED intelligence, to negate free choice in the destiny of any individual is to deny what is essentially human: some may be provided with a natural advantage, but it is to the individual to use that in a way that prospers. A 105 could lead a much more fulfilling life than a 125 if the 125 makes choices that do not fit with the normative being of society."
The classic individualist argument reveals itself to be the cornerstone of your belief.
An IQ test doesn't measure intelligence, but intelligence potential -- the physical wiring necessary to have intelligent perceptions.
"Fulfilling" sounds to me like something I'd hear on Rachel Ray. I'm not interested in the emo view of the world, but how practical things are, because if you analyze life, practicality leads to ability which leads to better life -- and life of a better nature.
Most people do what, exactly that's so great? Yes, and they think that's fulfilling, too. Fulfilling is a subjective assessment, so a moron eating poo will think his life is fulfilling also.
"Someone being in error does account to discourse. While perhaps a bit cheeky for argumentative purposes, it is impossible to grasp the most normative behaviors without studying their most deviant possibilities. "
One can study them in theory without having to have a model present. I don't need to actually see a man fjucking a horse to know his anus will become dislocated and he'll die at a Seattle-area hospital.
"Your points about confederation are simply personal taste, and favor nothing of reality. Your point of inconsistent leadership is laughable, as having 13 states within a single nation with as much power as you propose would lead to 13 individual voices of (hopefully) equal power and might?"
I don't think we're communicating effectively on the nature of confederations. Confederations include a federation, but not all powers are distributed to it; for example, it might decide war and commerce, but not whether drugs are legal in an individual state.
If you want to know something interesting on this front, it's that in the 1980s, when Texas was quite conservative, it was actually one of the few places legal drugs might have occurred. Reasoning: honest, rural conservatives tend to view drugs as an insoluble problem and not throw money after it, figuring that if people make the choice and live, nature has blessed them, and if not, well, we leave weak calves closest to the rain for natural selection.
"a perceived 'universal' definition of a word does not exist! " -- yes, that was my point; you don't need to define the WORD but the PATTERN in REALITY.
"Your incredulous attitude toward my want for differing views is just too shortsighted:" -- It's a practical response to awareness of the fact that those different views (a) aren't different, falling into general categories and offering nothing new and (b) don't amount to much. Society's best efforts come from individuals and small groups laboring with purpose, where "support all different arguments" doesn't reward this. For analytical purposes, it's dysgenic.
" I just do not see how your ideas of separatism could at all benefit our way of life: you must realize no matter how we try only a fraction of the population could even participate in the argument we're having." -- only a fraction of the population can be brain surgeons, but we need those too.
For the record, I don't care who is a Marxist or neo-Marxist or neo-Nazi: logic trumps all political allegiances. However, the flaw of Marxism is its Hegelian emphasis on "Progress."
I think if you want "unforced posts" you will need to look at what is being said above and address it. I do not think we are communicating on some of the more crucial issues.
[Sep 1,2008 9:32am - Josh_Martin ""]
Conservationist said:NRA member: I support the right to keep and bear arms, so I can kill ghetto dwellers and delusional Crowdists alike.
Anyone else think if this dude actually saw a real nigger he'd run screaming back to his parents basement with shit running down his pant leg?
Yeah, I'm sure you kill lots and lots of people.
[Sep 1,2008 9:32am - Josh_Martin ""]
.
[Sep 1,2008 9:32am - Josh_Martin ""]
.
[Sep 1,2008 11:26am - Conservationist ""]
Josh_Martin said:Anyone else think if this dude actually saw a real nigger he'd run screaming back to his parents basement with shit running down his pant leg?
Yeah, I'm sure you kill lots and lots of people.
Didn't claim that I do kill lots and lots of people.
However, we have a hurricane coming today.
This city has never had riots like NOLA (I wonder why) but were there an anarchic situation, I would defend my family.
I like having the ability to do that. Don't you?
[Sep 1,2008 11:37am - MASlayer ""]
Amazing how many look a like pics of her people were able to find
[Sep 1,2008 11:45am - the_reverend ""]
she's an attention whore... duh...
I bet someone scrubbed her myspace too.
[Sep 1,2008 11:51am - zyklon ""]
Conservationist said:
Josh_Martin said:Anyone else think if this dude actually saw a real nigger he'd run screaming back to his parents basement with shit running down his pant leg?
Yeah, I'm sure you kill lots and lots of people.
Didn't claim that I do kill lots and lots of people.
However, we have a hurricane coming today.
This city has never had riots like NOLA (I wonder why) but were there an anarchic situation, I would defend my family.
I like having the ability to do that. Don't you?
You mean New Orleans has a hurricane coming not US. Dude you're too fucking paranoid. don't worry there won't be any riots if that's what you hoping for.......
[Sep 1,2008 12:03pm - DomesticTerror ""]
no, he means "we" as in Alabama, where he lives.
[Sep 1,2008 12:10pm - zyklon ""]
Alabama huh, fuck i had no idea
[Sep 1,2008 12:11pm - the_reverend ""]
[img]
alabama? he's from texas.
[Sep 1,2008 12:21pm - DomesticTerror ""]
that's what i thought, but his myspace says AL.
[Sep 1,2008 12:22pm - MASlayer ""]
the_reverend said:she's an attention whore... duh...
I bet someone scrubbed her myspace too.
What does this have to do with the look a likes of her on the board??
[Sep 1,2008 12:25pm - the_reverend ""]
oh the look-a-likes... um.. all white people look the same
[Sep 1,2008 12:36pm - Josh_Martin ""]
Conservationist said:NRA member: I support the right to keep and bear arms, so I can kill ghetto dwellers and delusional Crowdists alike.
Conservationist said:Didn't claim that I do kill lots and lots of people.
ok
[Sep 1,2008 12:36pm - Josh_Martin ""]
.
[Sep 1,2008 12:38pm - SkinSandwich ""]
I guess this VP whores daughter who is 17, is prego.
[Sep 1,2008 12:53pm - Josh_Martin ""]
SkinSandwich said:I guess this VP whores daughter who is 17, is prego.
The fact she's a christian wacko makes this all the more funny.
[Sep 1,2008 12:53pm - Josh_Martin ""]
.
[Sep 1,2008 12:53pm - Josh_Martin ""]
.
[Sep 1,2008 2:21pm - pam ""]
nevermind!
[Sep 1,2008 2:23pm - pam ""]
She being touted as experienced in foreign policy because "Alaska is next to Russia", too by Faux News and Cindy McCain. Hilarious.
[Sep 1,2008 2:24pm - the_reverend ""]
way to verbatim quote the img i posted above pam
[img]
[Sep 1,2008 2:26pm - pam ""]
Sorry, I keep my images off. My bad.
[Sep 1,2008 2:31pm - pam ""]
Ooooh I just saw that the daughter is knocked now...lol. Hilarious.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/01/po...litics/horserace/entry4404184.shtml
[Sep 1,2008 3:20pm - n0debliwith ""]
Josh_Martin said:
Conservationist said:NRA member: I support the right to keep and bear arms, so I can kill ghetto dwellers and delusional Crowdists alike.
Conservationist said:Didn't claim that I do kill lots and lots of people.
ok
He said "so I can" - not that he does.
[Sep 1,2008 3:21pm - the_reverend ""]
[img]
[img]
[Sep 1,2008 3:27pm - Josh_Martin ""]
n0debliwith said:
Josh_Martin said:
Conservationist said:NRA member: I support the right to keep and bear arms, so I can kill ghetto dwellers and delusional Crowdists alike.
Conservationist said:Didn't claim that I do kill lots and lots of people.
ok
He said "so I can" - not that he does.
Semantics aside, the impression given was that if some nignog came onto his property he would blast it. I think the reality would be of a more run and hide variety.