294 Forum Posts by "Locke666"
The increasing domination of the female gender is certainly a problem. In the long term though it is going to be a problem for the women who buy into it as well. It is inevitable that eventually the male half of society will backlash against the role they have been placed in just as women did against theirs. That is going to cause a lot of pain and conflict in the future.
It would be so much easier if we could just accept that men and women are different and try to emphasize our strengths without killing equality, rather than some of the stupid things we've done so far: putting men above women, putting women above men. Telling them both that they are exactly the same. Unfortunatley I really doubt that human nature will allow that.
ahahahaha
well it isn't actually that suprising C.S. Lewis who originally wrote the book was a devout christian and the whole thing is supposed to be some sort of christ metaphor. But dont you have good luck eh :)
Anyway thanks for the laugh, and I hope you hit the guy hard... I dont like people trying to impose their religion
hehehe
Arrr all a ye laddies hafta have faith in our noodly lord. For only once ye have yer faith in 'em can ya see his works all aroun' ya. To see proof you must first believe, to believe ya must ignore da' proof. Its easy really.. just look inta ya 'eart and u'll see da mark of 'is noodly appendage. All yer fancy science and religion is just a test that our noodly lord has created to get ya true believers to come to da piratey side despite all the fancy proof and logic, that the landlubbers try and use on ya. Arrrrrrr.
we'll show all of ye sooner or later... when we all 'ead to davey jones locker all of ye nonbelievers will wallow in yer non piratey-ness while all of us true believers get eternal booty and such in the great beer volcano in 'da sky. ARRRRRR!
Pastafarianism
become a pirate and stop global warming.
You're treating celebrities like a seperate group here. Celebrities are not members of some foreign country that are trying to press their views on us. A celebrity is merely some person who for some reason everyone likes seeing on tv and in magazines. These people have political and religous views like everyone else. Many of them choose to use their fame to help further various causes or positions, thats their right. If any of you were celebrities you would probably do the same thing.
You can dislike celebrities as much as you want, you can even stop watching their movies and put your fingers in your ears and go la la la la la whenever you hear anything about them. What you can't do is try and make them stop. Celebrities are people. People have views. People express their views and theres not a damn thing you can do about it.
I'm really fed up with people who hate celebrities because they express their views. If you hate Tom Cruise because he's a scientoligist dont say you hate Tom Cruise. Say you hate scientoligists and Tom happens to be one of them. If you hate Michael Moore because hes a radical liberal, say you hate radical liberals and Michael is one of them.
If people continue addressing celebrity figureheads for issues rather than the issues themselves, then all we have done is ignore the issue. By saying celebrities shouldn't express their own views, all your doing is taking a certain group of well known people and treating them diffrently from everyone else. And I'll be damned if the definition of celebrities isn't a certain well known group of people treated diffrently from everyone else. The entire issue of celebrities is stupid and engaging in it just demeans everyone.
At 12/15/05 10:48 PM, altanese_mistress wrote:
Evolution HAS made us very bad monkies; we're less agile, fatter, have weaker sences, etc. But this causes people to focus more on the mind, and mental ability defeats physical ability every time (when used properly) All you need to do is give incentive; not by throwing people to bears, but by abolishing welfare and such.
Actually modern society in no way causes people to focus more on the mind. A neolithic person would have performed a far greater feat of intellect by figuring out on his own to make and use fire, than a middle school student learning algebra. The one requires creativity and mental quickness while the other is merely rote memorization. We may be better educated but we are in no way smarter than we were a thousand years ago. By forcing people into life and death situations with bears you can eliminate many of those who cant think on their feet, or those who cannot formulate a proper theory on dealing with bears in sufficent time. While this may not be entirely succesful in filtering out genius, at the very least we will rid our society of the most mentally deficent. While not perfect it will over time start a positive trend. Ending welfare might cause some of the same results. At the very least it would also kill all the hoboes.
At 12/15/05 09:42 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: Oh yes, this would work. No, really; no sarcasm. But guess what else works? Man-made nuclear chain reactions, slavery, mustard gas, and all those advances in medical technology that have allowed the unfit to survive. They all work, but are they all right? Decide on your own.
Besides, technology will one day more then make up for our shortcomings, especially if we perfect DNA restructuring. With DNA restructuring, stupid could become smart, weak could be come strong, people could grow wings; hell, it'd even be possible to allow people to use photosynthesis instead of eating. All it takes is a tweaked gene here, an introduced gene there, and there ya go!
Yes from a purely moral standpoint sicing bears on everyone to kill off all the sick, the cripples, the retarded and the fatties might be a wee bit extremist. However when morality conflicts with practicality, practicality really ought to win. I dont see many practical applications for mustard gas and slavery was only practical for those who weren't slaves, man made nuclear reactions are good for all kinds of things.
But you are right if we ever perfect genetic engineering or even full scale cyborgization (think ghost in the shell) the issue would be moot. Instead of creating better people we could simply create a race of genius super bears, or genius super robot bears.
However I'm a firm believer in doing what you can with what you have, not depending on a future that may never come. In the 60's they believed they would have flying cars in twenty years, that didn't stop them from developing better ground cars, and a good thing it didnt. Its imperative that we start killing the weak and crippled with bears even if it may be rendered futile later.
At 12/15/05 09:45 PM, Gamo08 wrote: So we take olympic gold medalists and make them breed?
No, no that is more along the line of the original eugenics program. My Idea would be applied to the entire population and weed out bad traits using a predator much as evolution used to ocurr in natural circumstances.
Mankind has advanced very far in the last millenium in terms of technology and societal structure. We now have medicine and machinery that can let even the sickliest child live to 80. People who in ages past would have been left to die are no protected and taken care of by our society.
All these things may seem good but there is a hidden price to this advancment. Because of human technological acheivments no longer do we need to contend with the natural forces of evolution. Predators and sicknesses that plauged early humans are now wiped out whenever they are perceived a threat on any significant level. Due to this physical evolution of the human race has stagnated. Increasingly genetic traits and disorders that would have lead to the death of the person who would have passed them on to their offspring are allowed to persist. You can see the statistical rise of such common disorders as asthma and autism even within the brief period of human history during which we have recorded it. Even mental fitness is no longer an evolutionary advantage. A smarter person may be more fit to be in a modern society than a stupider one but as anyone who attended highschool knows this is not always considered a desirable trait. And with those who do reproduce it is a well recorded fact that the poorest and often least mentally fit are often those with the most children. Though this in no way exempts the rich and well educated from mental unfitness, the point is that those who are mentally fit are in no way shape or form breeding sufficently to cause any sort of positive evolutionary trend.
This has become a great problem in our society today and will begin affecting us more and more in the coming centuries as technology can compensate more and more for our genetic shortcomings.
So to halt and hopefully turn around the downward spiral our genetic stock is taking I would like to modestly propose a solution. Earlier attempts at eugenics failed due to their lack of any knowledge of genetics, as well as their heartfelt but somewhat misguided belief that there was in fact a "Jew gene" Though well intentioned these early attempts have given many people an aversion to a necessary and promising field.
In order to continue the active evolution of mankind without introducing racism, prejudice and other bad influences it will be necessary to introduce a "neutral party" if you will, to continue the process of evolution without confounding it with human sympathies and prejudices. Who better for this role than one of mans oldest enemies. Bears.
To this end I propose a monthly event to encourage mankinds evolution. A "running of the bears" type event. Participation would of course be mandatory. All persons would be required to attend the only exceptions being the elderly, and the very young. All modern technology, especially weaponry would be prohibited as they would provide an unfair disadvantage to the Bears.
Such an event would be extremely benefical as it would immediatley begin weeding out those who are disposed to be physically or mentally unfit. Over time this will provide our country with an immense advantage in the intelligence and physical abilities of our people. Though it would be unethical to force other countries to adapt this policy they will soon do so voluntarily to prevent being left in the evolutionary dust. A bit of friendly rivalry among countries could even be benefical, encouraging each country to speed the evolution of their own people by giving greater weaponry and numbers to each countries chosen evolutionary precipitator, be it bears or some other suitable creature.
Though the long term benefits would, as you can undoubtedly see, be inumerable. There would also be several immediate benefits of such a course of action. The physical fitness of the nation would immediatley increase as those obese or out of shape would have a very good incentive indeed to lose those extra pounds. Illegal immigration would also halt as mandatory participation would be required not just for citizens but for all residents. Limited diplomatic immunity might be given but I would advise putting it on a lottery system, this would give us a powerful political tool and encourage all foreign nations to conclude negotiations rapidly.
So I humbly propose this to you as a solution to all our evolutionary woes, as it would be of huge benefit to the species as a whole the only objections I can forsee are of those who may feel themselves to be evolutionarily unfit and thus do not wish to take part :)
The problem isnt that its ok to insult some ethnic groups not others.
The problem is that it isnt ok to insult some groups and is for others.
With no racism the world wont completely lack all steryotypes and offensive racist things. It will be equally full of them for all ethnicities.
Most of the time the people who try and kill themselves don't actually want to kill themselves, they're just f'd up in the head and don't know what to do. If a person wants to die for legitimate reasons like say they have brain cancer and always wanted to try freefalling then by all means let them.
But most of them are just poor bastards that need a good smack in the face a lot more than death.
Not exactly but if you throw macadamia nuts at me I'll run in circles screaming. Everybody has something, spiders, kryptonite etc.
For me its macadamia nuts, flamethrowers and the word pffffft.
Don't ask me why I'm not completely sure.
Well I dont know about asshole, but I make one hell of a bastard.
We'll soon see.
and stop saying pffft that sound/phrase/thingy has odd connotations for me. Makes me jump every time somebody does it.
Thats not actually a bad idea is the problem.
Its very New Deal, get all the hobos building damns and bridges. Worked damn well last time we did it and if its voluntary you really cant say its hobo coercion or anything. Ya want people to rebutt you you're going to have to say stupider or more controversial things.
Technically all the former colony nations are the responsibilty of their previous occupiers by your logic. The question is would they have been better off had we not interfeared at all. Most of Africa was a stone age society when Europeans began conquering it. Africa has problems now but if they had been left completely alone they would still have problems, just different ones.
We cant very well go in and fix everything while still leaving them independent. I'm all for relieving African debt and helping them get potable water and AIDS under control, but after a certain point they need to learn to do things for themselves.
We really should take care of our own issues with the native population here before pointing fingers at the Europeans. The Indians may be getting goverment help, but letting them stagnate on reservations off of a goverment stipend and casino money is no solution.
Modern presidents have tended to be more figurehead than anything. All they really do is announce the policies of the administration. What you really need is someone who gives the desired persona to the administration. Clinton was very good at this, he was very popular among foreign leaders and had a friendly open feel to him that made him very popular until the whole sex thing. Bush by contrast has the same friendly open type persona and is the son of a former president, but still manages to be unpopular among everyone except Republicans because of his administrations policies.
The moral of this is that the president is nice to have but isnt really terribly important when compared to the administration backing him.
It's the Dick that matters not the Bush.
At 12/8/05 10:39 PM, Imperator wrote: Locke:
As far as I can tell, you have no experience in Psychology, Psychiatry, or anything along those lines. But you gave a very sloppy theory largely revolving around a psychological disorder (white guilt). Assuming it WAS a joke thread, point is moot, but if it wasn't (my thoughts at the time), saying something like that without any sort of evidence and then refuting everyone else doesn't qualify as an opinion, as you are refuting people you are trying to "prove" it, leaving the realm of a personal opinion and venturing into scientific theory.....
This is why everyone should state, "IMO" right before whatever they start typing. It will cut down on the flaming and idiotic theories rampant in the thread.
The point wasn't really to have a theory on anything, the point was that people especially white ones are excessively sensitive on issues of race, almost to the point where it would seem a psychological problem on the part of the whole race. I gave a theory on why that might be, several people disagreed rather strongly, I disagreed with their disagreement, they disagreed with my disagreament with their disagreaments. Eventually we were disagreaing on issues of one anothers personal traits that really weren't terribley relevant.
We agreed to stop posting in that thread.
There have actually been many incidents of death resulting from tasering by police, usually involving the elderly or persons with pacemakers.
The issue with tasers actually stems from the polices excessive use of the weapon. The wide deployment of tasers is a fairly recent phenomena, tasers are often viewed as something of a "miracle weapon" because of their ability to instantly disable a person with no lasting damage. You could taser a healthy young man until the batteries ran out and he would be physically fine, he'd be rather annoyed but he would recover the next day.
Because they cause no damage police have become rather trigger happy with them, tasering people who they even suspect of intending any sort of violence. Tasers are an extremely useful weapon in situations such as these where without them they'd have to choose between doing nothing and shooting. Unfortunatley many cops use them even when they shouldn't like with the granny.
I cant confirm this but I believe there were 35 taser caused deaths in the united states last year. In some states they are instituting regulations for the use of tasers but as the deaths caused are still significantly less than the deaths prevented through their use as non lethal weapons, there are no plans to recall or slow their deployal.
There was actually a news special on tasers about a year ago, which is where I got most of this information, but I'm afraid I can't refrence it.
At 12/8/05 08:24 PM, fenrus1989 wrote:
:: For example users like Marching Tyrants and Locke
Well never met that fellow but I'd be interested to know how I got on that list
This is a political FORUM that means its a debate open to anyone. That includes people you disagree with or think are dumbasses. Many of these people may in fact have nothing to contribute, but at the very least it can give you an accurate picture of the views of different people.
You can't very well go around trying to limit who can or cant post their own opinion, because the people who do the limiting tend to have opinions themselves, which leads to a rather one sided debate.
Oh hell, why not
Flaggs right.
Well if this thread has taught me anything its that I really ought to start out more clearly and not digress into satire and mockery no matter how deserved it may be. Well I got some kicks out of that at least.
Eh well as is shown by the last few posts, my own included, rational debate has pretty much ceased in here. Seems most people have become attached to their own perceptions and furthering this would be a bit pointless. I think several people still think I'm calling all white people racists. Well I am still in no way wrong but I'm afraid I based this too much upon other things which while also true, people did not agree on. The idea of universal self intrest for example. So while I'm still not wrong, I probably ought not to have stated it in this way and then expected everyone to know what I meant.
But at this point its sort of degenerated into a flame fest, everyone no doubt thinks that their own flames had just cause but its all gotten rather silly.
So as far as I'm concerned this thread is offically dead, no more posts for me, you can all say things if you want but I wont even be looking at this anymore. This has gone beyond the point of any sort of good debate. I fully intend to bring this up later when everyone has forgotten this but for now, this is pointless.
Oh and I should prolly say sorry to bob and all the other people I actually called racists, that was purely intended to see how people would react and I never actually believed that or even meant it seriously. I think thats how a lot of the stupid got started.
So to sum it up, I'm still not wrong, but everyones right about one thing. This is getting dumb, so goodbye for good.
At 12/7/05 02:12 AM, RedScorpion wrote: Alas, another flame war...
You all need to chill the fuck out and not take things so personally.
Good sir, surely you must realize that these dear gentlemen are doing their very best to initiate what they no doubt view as a logical exchange of opinions. Now I may be nothing more than a poor bitter soul who has given up all hope of converting these poor heathens and has thus taken to satirizing the poor oblivious fools but that gives you no right to call it flaming.
Why even to imply that their unfortunate race of evil panda people is capable of such a thing is the utmost racism. Gah! look what you've done now I'm doing absurdism, what do pandas even have to do with this, well everything, but thats beside the point.
Eh, I really ought to get some sleep, I'm still right but I've given up convincing anyone with the tangled morass of flaming death that this thread has become. I suppose I'll just continue mocking everyone in the hopes that at least one of them will get a hemorage and die.
Oh woe is me, besieged on all sides by the implacable forces of logic, whatever shall I do against such terrible foes. Not only am I assailed from all points but my meager protestations in a form uncommon, go unheeded. Woe, woe, for in mine own attempts following in such great works of logic as that swiftest fellows treatise upon the consumption of Irish infants, unwitingly have I doomed myself for while I was saying one thing whilst meaning another, I unwitingly said that thing which I did not mean. And now that word is taken for truth, for from my own mouth it didst spring.
Now with mine own theory dearest to my heart ripped bodily from the manhood of mine soul, I am left bereft. But wait. One weapon yet posess I. For in my repetoire is a formidable and yet vastly misunderstood force. By taking on the aspect of mine foes I shall confound their views, and mock their lofty thrones. Bow before my obsequiousness pitiful mortals for thou canst not hope to match the self depredation that I shall throw upon myself as I leap into thy shoes. What need logic, for I have the power which thou wouldst deny even the existence of. For I am you. And thus I am assured in totality, what need have I to consider the views of others, for they are not mine, and thus how can they posess merit? What sayst thou pitiful man to this fancy
paper that I hold up to thee as the standard for all. Cans't thou deny that you posess no such thing and as such have nothing worth saying? For all persons of worth have such a document, but there I see your hands lie empty. But hark for I being you shall in my imperital majesty dain to return onto you being myself thine manhood.
Now that I have returned what I have berefted myself of in mine own manuverings I shall adress your misgivings dear sir.
It seems to me, being myself in this instance rather than thee, that thy doubts center mainly about the oh so complicated idea of the egotism of mankind. Thou turnst those most foul wretches oxford, and webster upon me in this instance dear sir. For I had the hubris to use an idea which a word mayst not fit in its exactitude. Indeed what need hospitals if one is concerned solely with oneself, why what need has the individual of a hospital or any other of the trappings of civilization that take so many to create. Why as you can no doubt attest men have not the intelligence to conceive that it might be to the benefit of one to secure the aid of others. Why if that fellow breaks his leg it would not be in his own intrests to have a medical facility nearby. You are no doubt right sir. Self intrest plays no role at all in the human mind, what selfishness for me to think so.
And Flagg well done sir, you have seen through my thin veil of sarcasm and parody and come to the truth that I do in fact mean what I have been leading you to believe that I do in a humorous manner believe while truly not. You must be a man among men to see in mine own words what I did not. Truly you are great second only to that divine codpiece of the lord himself, Imperator.
Well congratulations sir. you just completely owned me there. Why I would be completely mortified that I could dare post such generalized drivel. In fact the only exscuse for making such an ill backed up and supported post would be if the stated intent was in fact to make a clear succinct statment of logic without any backup whatsoever. But wait, that was my stated intent, In fact I deliberatley generalized and left out any facts, examples or support. Oh my, I suppose you wasted your fancy degree then, must seem rather silly in retrospect. "owning" a post for its generalizations and lack of any support..... when it was supposed to be generalized and lacking any support. Then that part where you made several generalizations about my background, why you must be positively mortified. Im sure your fancy college degree has given you a sense of Irony sufficent to inform you how silly you must look. Poor Imperator.
Oh and you must not have noticed yet but I have in recent years noted that this is in fact a non-reputable internet forum. Its horrifying I know but people here do not require that you state your name age or any other personal information. These poor deluded people seem to have gotten the idea that ideas should be judged by their own merit, how sad. And even worse people here are free to discuss ideas without the use of extensive studies or factual backup, its this silly idea that people should be free to discuss ideas without people judging them just by the authors again.
As to the huge gaping generalizations that you have found in my deliberatley generalized logic, I must say Im all a twitter. I mean its true that I posted my reasons before but obviously you were far to busy making the internet a better place to read them. I mean how dare I state that people are all essentially egotistical, what a conceit on my part. I mean all humans are driven by the urge to preserve themselves and obviously each person would rather be themself than anyone else (except for you imperator, we all wish we could be you) but egotism, pah, how selfish of me to call a persons natural urge to value themselves over all others egotism. You yourself are a shining example of the selflesness of mankind.
And what a glaring error for me to make statments about white people. Do I have a degree in white people? Have I had any higher education in white people? Hell I haven't even taken the white persons permit exam. I'm not even a liscenced white person. A lifetime among then, pah, what good is that without studies.
So Imperator I humbly beg of you to return unto me at least some of my "owned" body parts. Though I deserve not my balls, for any spawn of mine would be a disgrace unto this earth. It would be a great boon if you would return the other part of mine crotch so I might have some pleasure to support me as I take up penance for this grave misdeed I have had the hubris to commit.
You should talk with wolvenbear or redbob I daresay they agree with you, though I must say you put it far more kindly than they.
Your going to have to be more specific though It's hard to answer general charges such as half bakedness and unclarity. It would be much easier if you were to call me an evil satan worshiping racist bastard who uses insults rather than logic. But hey thats just me. :)
Psychosis is defined on the first page, first line, dictionary definition not yours. I later admitted that though psychosis describes the general effects it is usually too strong a word for my meaning.
B: You obviously just read the title of this thread so pfffft
